Patent Troll Sues Dell, HP, 10 Others Over 3G, 4G CDMA Tech

[Guest]

Golden Bridge Technologies (GBT), an intellectual property company focused on CDMA technologies, has launched a lawsuit claiming rights to an CDMA enhancement technology that is used in 3G and 4G networks.

Patent Troll Sues Dell, HP, 10 Others Over 3G, 4G CDMA Tech : Read more

 

[Murissokah]

Patent troll is trolling companies for its patents... big surprise here.

 

[alhanelem]

the patent system is like the rules toddlers use for the possession of toys.
THATS MINE, MINE and MINE!

 

[Gundam288]

I think the fun part is going to be motorola as they split the company in 2011. (one is now phones (mobility, which is now owned by google.), the other is radios (soultions, which currently uses the old corp. HQ and still makes radios there, shocking i know....))

Dunno how that is going to work out, but it should be intresting how it plays out if the court DOES find GBT is right. (doubt it tho)

 

[eddieroolz]

How messed up.

 

[subaru41]

LOL. When I read "Patent troll sues...." the first thing that popped in my head was that this article was about Apple Inc.

 

[TheZander]

"...but it does not actively manufacture any products."

This is the line they should focus on right here. What good is a patent if you're not making and selling anything with it? You're not using it to further your business. You're not even manufacturing and selling goods to the public that are related to the patent. Its purpose is simply to troll and sue.

 

[wesleywatson]

[citation][nom]TheZander[/nom]"...but it does not actively manufacture any products."This is the line they should focus on right here. What good is a patent if you're not making and selling anything with it? You're not using it to further your business. You're not even manufacturing and selling goods to the public that are related to the patent. Its purpose is simply to troll and sue.[/citation]
Some companies make money by doing research and development, and the ability to hold a patent allows them to do the work that they do. They create new technologies, and then license them to companies to manufacture. It's a prime example of division of labor. What if these are real scientists and engineers protecting their work from being taken by all these companies?

 

[freggo]

Getting soooo tired of this patent crap :-(

 

[walter87]

LOL file a lawsuit to the actual phone/device manufacturers and not Qualcomm...
Qualcomm designed CDMA and holds most patents for that form of spread-spectrum modulation.

Qualcomm should release a statement to back up their suppliers and make this troll go away.

 

[KNO3]

"...but it does not actively manufacture any products."This is the line they should focus on right here. What good is a patent if you're not making and selling anything with it? You're not using it to further your business. You're not even manufacturing and selling goods to the public that are related to the patent. Its purpose is simply to troll and sue.

This is like saying that if my neighbor doesn't ever drive his truck and it just sits in is driveway I should be able to drive it to work everyday without permission.

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]KNO3[/nom]This is like saying that if my neighbor doesn't ever drive his truck and it just sits in is driveway I should be able to drive it to work everyday without permission.[/citation]

That's actually a bad example. Because a patent isn't a product, it's an idea. For example, when you stake your claim for mineral rights, you have to prove that you're actively exploiting those minerals within a three years period or you'll lose your claim. You never pay for the land (unless it's already owned, most land up north isn't). And you don't pay for the minerals either.

You just pay for the right to have that exclusivity if you can show that you're using that opportunity within a reasonable time (to obtain financing, for example). Patent laws should be the same. Lest companies just start filing patents they will never use just to prevent their competitors from selling said product (cough..Apple, cough).

Your example should be more like: your neighbor doesn't drive his truck, but because he owns it, you're never going to be able to build or buy your own truck, because he own the idea of a truck.

 

[Guest]

Use it or loose it.

If a "company" doesn't produce a product that uses a "patent" in it's "portfolio" it should be void after a period of time.

 

[wildkitten]

[citation][nom]dane1234[/nom]Use it or loose it.If a "company" doesn't produce a product that uses a "patent" in it's "portfolio" it should be void after a period of time.[/citation]
I disagree with this. While I hate patent trolls as much as anyone, we have to be careful not to lump those who do genuine work and come up with ideas and then, instead of trying to invest the money to manufacture a product themselves, insteads comes up with a licencing agreement with a company or companies to produce products based on those inventions.

Now the article really doesn't make it clear if this company was the one who filed the patents to begin with. Since the company was formed in 1995 and the patents were filed later than that they may be the original holders and developers of the technology. If so, they aren't neccessarily patent trolls.

 

[shqtth]

Something fishy. Why they taking this long to sue? Also CDMA technology has been out for a very long time. So its not a new thing. So why Sue now?

 

[Guest]

Patents are getting out of hand. If you have no real interest in producing said product a patent should always be denied. We are talking about innovation here and to remove a technology just from the market just because you own a patent on it is stupidity. Ideas should not be owned. Ideas should be contributed to further the life of all others. When I see behavior like this its obvious that some companies don't care. Where do we draw the line? What if the cure for cancer is found but never used because of a patent? Things like this could have serious implications.. This is why we need to rethink and change patent laws.

 

[wildkitten]

[citation][nom]Andy Chow[/nom]That's actually a bad example. Because a patent isn't a product, it's an idea. For example, when you stake your claim for mineral rights, you have to prove that you're actively exploiting those minerals within a three years period or you'll lose your claim. You never pay for the land (unless it's already owned, most land up north isn't). And you don't pay for the minerals either.You just pay for the right to have that exclusivity if you can show that you're using that opportunity within a reasonable time (to obtain financing, for example). Patent laws should be the same. Lest companies just start filing patents they will never use just to prevent their competitors from selling said product (cough..Apple, cough).Your example should be more like: your neighbor doesn't drive his truck, but because he owns it, you're never going to be able to build or buy your own truck, because he own the idea of a truck.[/citation]
Except here is the problem with your analogy. If someone who comes up with an idea needs to then turn around and put in start up capital to create a product based on the invention, then you create a lot more financial burden thus less incentive for people to do research. You also have the potential to get a glut of manufacturing that just isn't needed and can't be supported. Imagine where we would be technology wise if people actually were required to make the physical product on their own idea? We may still be using punch cards. We almost certainly would not be discussing it on an internet comment board such as this because I can't see how it would exist.

Now agreed, people need to at least come up with licencing agreements, but at the same time, people who come up with ideas do so to make money off of it. I can see some companies coming up with ideas in R&D and if there is no current market that can support it, they may need to sit on it for some time. What do you do in that case? You just can't strip the rights from someone just because there may not be a market for a product at the time it's come up with. Your mine analogy doesn't hold up with this because the miner only went to get the minerals because there was already market demand.

Now that being said, yes, we have to do something about companies whose sole purpose is just to sue other people. We need very serious patent and tort reform in the US. The problem is in this case the article is sort of murky. The company was founded in 1995, but the patents weren't filed until post 2000. Did they come up with these ideas themselves? Well, the article says the company was founded not just by lawyers, but by scientists as well, that suggests the possibility this isn't a company that exists to buy obscure patents just to sue someone else.

Let's just not throw swing the pendulum to far to the other side where we stifle innovation while correcting this problem.

 

[wildkitten]

[citation][nom]wartech0[/nom]Patents are getting out of hand. If you have no real interest in producing said product a patent should always be denied. We are talking about innovation here and to remove a technology just from the market just because you own a patent on it is stupidity. Ideas should not be owned. Ideas should be contributed to further the life of all others. When I see behavior like this its obvious that some companies don't care. Where do we draw the line? What if the cure for cancer is found but never used because of a patent? Things like this could have serious implications.. This is why we need to rethink and change patent laws.[/citation]

I'm sorry, but did you even think of what you were typing? If someone were to find a cure for cancer, there is no reason they wouldn't do something with it. They would likely be one of the richest people in the world.

Conversely, if you denied the ability to patent things like medicine, guess what, people stop trying to come up with it.

Patents being violated in the pharmaceutical industry is actually hurting R&D into new drugs. These companies have to put in literally tens of millions of dollars, not to mention many years, into research and testing before they can even make a single penny. If they didn't have a patent on there idea, a competitor could come in and immediately create the product with no investment into coming up with it.

I think it's rather obvious you aren't in a field where you try to come up with ideas and you have a financial stake with what you come up with.

 

[dreadlokz]

$_$
I love patent trolls! Is the only kind of trolls I love ;p

 

[kuaimanganeu]

You're not using it to further your business. You're not even manufacturing and selling goods to the public that are related to the patent. Its purpose is simply to troll and sue.

 

[pepe2907]

wildkitten ... well, if you plan to produce some medicine, you'll research it anyway, isn't that right? OK, it may, or may not higher the financial burden for some researchers, but we should actually think what cares more burden /as a complete, to the society as a whole if you like/ - a maybe little higher price of research or a wronged IP system. And do we need research to be made just to be made research? Or would we like research to be made so goods be made out of it?
Well, things are never simple, but it clarifies more and more some changes appear to be necessary.

 

[smleth]

IP companies should have to prove that they invented the actual tech (prior to its actual use). There should be an actual proto type built with-in a certain time after the idea is submitted for patent.

The analogy of the pharmaceutical is way off, in my opinion. In Pharmaceutical they are actually doing the R&D and spending the money and they are protecting their investment. In this case, the IP Company patented an Idea and waited for other companies to spend their money on actual R&D and actually creating a product and then they sue them.

It’s not fair that these companies or Qualcomm actually spent time and money developing the tech and making it work, and now they half to defend their right to use the tech they spent millions developing.

 

[wildkitten]

[citation][nom]pepe2907[/nom]wildkitten ... well, if you plan to produce some medicine, you'll research it anyway, isn't that right? OK, it may, or may not higher the financial burden for some researchers, but we should actually think what cares more burden /as a complete, to the society as a whole if you like/ - a maybe little higher price of research or a wronged IP system. And do we need research to be made just to be made research? Or would we like research to be made so goods be made out of it?Well, things are never simple, but it clarifies more and more some changes appear to be necessary.[/citation]

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying with some of your statements. Would you mind clearing that up some?

No, I don't have to do research to produce medicine. I could open up a company and just make generics of medicines whose patents have already run out.

Also, how do you plan on policing this research to be done so goods can be made? Do you intend to stick a gun in someone's face if they don't try to come up with new ideas?

Let's also say I am a microbiologist and I am doing some little research and I make a huge discovery. Why can I not patent my idea and then licence someone else to make it? Why do I have to be the one to make the means to manufacture the product, hire people to market it and such? If I didn't have the money to do that and it wasn't worth the financial risk to try, I merely shelve my idea and no one knows about it. Innovation has been stifled.

And sometimes in technology some things are invented, often by accident, that there is no current demand for. In that case the idea has to sit around until there is a demand for the type of product.

If you want ideas to be created for the benefit of society as a whole and the creator of the idea to have no personal benefit, then what do you propose to do when people stop coming up with ideas? Do you force them to come up with ideas? And who do you choose to try to force to come up with ideas?

 

[wildkitten]

[citation][nom]smleth[/nom]IP companies should have to prove that they invented the actual tech (prior to its actual use). There should be an actual proto type built with-in a certain time after the idea is submitted for patent.The analogy of the pharmaceutical is way off, in my opinion. In Pharmaceutical they are actually doing the R&D and spending the money and they are protecting their investment. In this case, the IP Company patented an Idea and waited for other companies to spend their money on actual R&D and actually creating a product and then they sue them.It’s not fair that these companies or Qualcomm actually spent time and money developing the tech and making it work, and now they half to defend their right to use the tech they spent millions developing.[/citation]

Here's the problem with that that I don't think you or others who demand that an inventor actually make a product to get an idea have thought of.

Let's say you have an engineer and they have come up with an idea for a new CPU and they write it down and such and they file for a patent. This engineer may not have the thousands of dollars needed to create a prototype but takes his idea around to various companies like Qualcomm or Intel or AMD. These companies reject a licencing agreement with the engineer to produce the new CPU but they turn around and make the identical product anyway.

Under your example, that engineer is screwed. He didn't make a prototype so he can't patent his idea, but someone else who he tried to get to make it for him took his idea and made the product and made a profit on that and it would be legal under your theory. Doing things that way screws over people.

What needs to happen is if someone who makes a product that is very similar to an already patented idea, but can show they didn't take the already existing idea, that they came up with the similar product based on their own research, then yes, that needs to be protected.

 

[jaquith]

Hey I don't know about you, but if I own a patent and someone steals my idea I kinda want to get paid.

It's like getting a winning Lottery ticket and someone else Forges your ticket to collect. What do you guys want rampant Larceny, Anarchy, or the way it is in China? Presumably NO.

My company owns a few patents and I'm not okie dokie with anyone ripping me off! IMO the folks stealing are the Trolls!