Techdirt: Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoarder Strategy: Sue Everyone All At Once

Ignorance is no excuse! by D T on Nov 2nd, 2007 @ 12:17am

Looks like you need an education about Wi-LAN... Start reading pal... don't play so dumb! LOL

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

No end in sight in the near future. by Max Powers at http://ConsumerFight.com on Nov 2nd, 2007 @ 12:18am

This is definitely an issue that the Patent Office and Congress needs to Address. This seems like extortion to make some quick money if the cases are settled, which I'm sure many are.

And what about the Judges in these cases? What are they basing their decisions on? These type of lawsuits seem to be such a new issue how can they rule from past cases?

I'm not familiar with all the past rulings but this trend could jam the court system for years if companies continue this onslaught of "multiple" lawsuits.

Patent Attorney's must be elated at the good fortune that has brought them more business than ever before.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Ignorance is no excuse! by Mike on Nov 2nd, 2007 @ 12:28am

Looks like you need an education about Wi-LAN... Start reading pal... don't play so dumb! LOL

Why is it that the people who always insist we don't know what we're talking about refuse to point out any errors? They just claim we don't know what we're talking about, insult us, and leave.

If I got something factually wrong, please do let me know so I can correct it.

Thanks.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Re: Ignorance is no excuse! by Deeznuts on Nov 2nd, 2007 @ 5:06am

DT must be Canadian, everything you said is true mike, I'm sure DT is just trying to defend his beloved home land. LOL

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

by Phil on Nov 2nd, 2007 @ 5:19am

Property rights are fundamental to a civilized society. Patents and the protection afforded therein is an extension of that. In no small part, that protection has given us the affluence that western civilization has enjoyed for say, the last 150 years. Of course we can't patent the basics but new ideas can be. That and contract law is what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. If you wish to use someone elses idea or product, licence it. No one is happy with the Chinese and their huge pirated s/w industry. Same applies here. There is no free lunch. Get used to it.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: by DCX2 on Nov 2nd, 2007 @ 5:43am

I agree that property rights are important. However, are you really so naive that you believe this case is not a prime example of abusing the system?

It reminds me of when Rambus went to JEDEC meetings, made sure that SDRAM was going incorporate some of its patents, didn't tell any of the JEDEC members about these patents, and then proceeded to sue all the manufacturers of SDRAM. At least Rambus didn't go up and down the supply chain, though.

Such corporate abuse should be punishable with jail and fines.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

by Overcast on Nov 2nd, 2007 @ 6:07am

Looks like you need an education about Wi-LAN... Start reading pal... don't play so dumb! LOL

Yeah, go to their page.. It's like the first things on their menu are 'Patents' and Then 'Litigation'..

LOL

So what - were they formed with the intention of squatting patents and then suing people?

Do they actually invent anything, manufacture anything, or market anything? Or just sue people?

lol

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

techidiots by angry dude on Nov 2nd, 2007 @ 6:30am

"...corporate abuse should be punishable with jail and fines."

Exactly dude !!!

Let's punish the biggest corporate abusers of the patent system:
MShit, Cisco, Intel, IBM, Dell, Apple etc. etc. etc.

Jail all those dishonest and sleazy CEO bastards and their greedy lawyer pals !!!

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

This is just the start for Wi-LAN by Alaric on Nov 2nd, 2007 @ 6:56am

They'll be suing everyone regarding WiMAX and LTE next (anything to do with OFDM).

I know several individuals involved in WiMAX and LTE who have looked at WiMAX's patent claim and questioned their legitimacy. It'll ultimately be determined by a court but I'm very skeptical.

Last i looked their main OFDM related patent was related to the spacing of OFDM subcarriers. They claimed they figured out the optimum spacing. I'm not a patent attorney but that sounds kind of weak to me and lacking in innovation.

WiLAN has been on the attack but i suspect someone with far greater resources is going to figure out a way to sue them especially if the start threatening LTE.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Overcast do some DD by Fair Game on Nov 2nd, 2007 @ 8:36am

Wi-lan actually did make products based on their invented proprietary patents.

ALVR , CISCO(LYNKSYS) and the rest of the whole massive market copied their products and patents and have profitted immensely.

Wi-lan could not compete with the huge budgets and reach of the big guys on the equipment end.

From the beginning they have notified infringers. Anyone who "trespassed" on their patents knew before they built their products that they would be infringing on Wi-lans patents.

From the content of your post , you may claim ignorance.
The infringers however cannot.

Property rights must be upheld , or ther will be no innovation. It is sad everyone wants everything for free . We are a capitalist society , perhaps you belong in a Communist one.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Re: Overcast do some DD by Matthew on Nov 2nd, 2007 @ 9:33am

What products? Their web page starts:

Wi-LAN (TSX: WIN) is a leading technology licensing company

Doesn't seem like much more than a troll-house to me, but if they have products out there lets see 'em!

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: by Mike on Nov 2nd, 2007 @ 11:03am

Property rights are fundamental to a civilized society. Patents and the protection afforded therein is an extension of that.

Don't confuse patents with property. Patents are a monopoly right, not a property right.

In no small part, that protection has given us the affluence that western civilization has enjoyed for say, the last 150 years.

Don't confuse correlation with causation. Look at the research that suggests that patents are *not* the cause of industrialization, but because of it. i.e., patents became a big deal only after new technologies were successful and wanted to be protected -- not to create the incentives for creating new products.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Re: Re: Overcast do some DD by star on Nov 2nd, 2007 @ 11:13am

Their products were sold to Eion Wireless:

http://www.eionwireless.com/about_us/EION_News0032.php

They couldn't compete with the big guys, who stole Wi-LAN's invented technology.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Re: by angry dude on Nov 2nd, 2007 @ 11:31am

Mike wrote:
"Don't confuse patents with property. Patents are a monopoly right, not a property right"

Mikey, it is you who are confused here...

Patents ARE PROPERTY, they can be sold and bought

Patents are NOT MONOPOLY rights to make a product, because product might include more than one patented invention so permission from other patent holders might be needed.
This is especially true in high-tech area where every product is a combination of many distinct inventions.
Doesn't mean that the largest company with the most manyfactoring resources can just copy all the components for free to make billions while leaving the true inventors uncompensated.
Well, according to Mike of techdirt, "might makes right"
yeah,
Maybe you should consider moving to Cuba or Venezuela , Mikey ?
I can tell you that you would feel much better if you are raped by your own loving government rather than some sleazy corporate scumbag

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Re: Re: angry dude by dorpass on Nov 2nd, 2007 @ 4:00pm

"Patents are NOT MONOPOLY rights to make a product, because product might include more than one patented invention so permission from other patent holders might be needed."

Ummm... Monopoly right means that the patent holder has the right to exclude others from using patented innovation. It has nothing to do with other patents that are created before or on top of it. In fact, when you claim that "permission from other patent holders might be needed" you are proving that this is a monopoly right.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

And in other news by Alfred E. Neuman on Nov 2nd, 2007 @ 7:16pm

Greed prevails. Let them kill WiFi - who cares. Could it be that the telcos are behind this ?

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoarder Strategy: Sue Ev by Jim Kayne on Nov 4th, 2007 @ 3:13pm

Mike, I'd like to discuss this, but there's more heat than light on the subject. It seems clear (even from your older posts) that you objected to Wi-LAN's IP position, even when they were making radios (which were as good as anything on the market) with their patented process. OK: historically, there has always been opposition to Wi-LAN's groundbreaking efforts. Maybe you're sympathetic to interests opposed to Wi-LAN. If you're prepared to make a reasoned argument, I'd like to explore this question. If not, if it's just going to be a flame war, there's no point. To start, I would ask the following questions: 1 - Are you opposed to the patent system as it is, and as it's supposed to work, or are you just opposed to Wi-LAN? 2 - Wi-LAN has been - and is - in negotiations with companies who voluntarily paid licensing fees to Wi-LAN after negotiation. That is, without coercion they recognized Wi-LAN's IP (albeit, later rather than from the get-go). Do you believe that these companies have wrongly recognized and validated Wi-LAN's IP? 3 - If you believe that companies like Nokia are capable of assessing Wi-LAN's IP and making the right decision, what is to be said of those companies who have refused to do so? What alternative course would you suggest that Wi-LAN take? Should they just "give away" their IP? If so, how is that fair to those who have paid for it? 4 - Do you understand that many large companies, with considerable legal muscle, extract enormous revenues from the IP? Companies such as IBM and TI? Why is it "right" for them to be paid, and not for Wi-LAN? I look forward to your response. Thanks, Jim

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoarder Strategy: Su by Mike on Nov 4th, 2007 @ 4:52pm

Hi Jim,

1 - Are you opposed to the patent system as it is, and as it's supposed to work, or are you just opposed to Wi-LAN?

I'm guessing you're new around here. I am very much opposed to the way the patent system is. The system was designed for a specific purpose: to encourage innovation where none would occur without it (or where it would occur at a much smaller pace). There is a ridiculous amount of evidence at this point that it does not succeed in doing so. In fact, it's been shown time and time again that the patent system tends to slow down and restrict innovation, harming our economy.

So, no, it has nothing to with Wi-LAN specifically. It has everything to do with the patent system.

2 - Wi-LAN has been - and is - in negotiations with companies who voluntarily paid licensing fees to Wi-LAN after negotiation. That is, without coercion they recognized Wi-LAN's IP (albeit, later rather than from the get-go). Do you believe that these companies have wrongly recognized and validated Wi-LAN's IP?

Every patent negotiation consists of a few different components. Certainly, one of them is the validity of the patent. However, an even more important one is the cost of licensing vs. the cost of a lawsuit. Many companies choose to license a patent not because they believe the IP is valid, but because they want to avoid the cost (and not just monetary, but time and attention) of a lawsuit. Given Wi-LAN's history and posturing, I'd say this played heavily into the decisions of those who licensed.

3 - If you believe that companies like Nokia are capable of assessing Wi-LAN's IP and making the right decision, what is to be said of those companies who have refused to do so? What alternative course would you suggest that Wi-LAN take? Should they just "give away" their IP? If so, how is that fair to those who have paid for it?

As I've made abundantly clear in the past (again, I'm guessing you're new here if you're asking this question), I believe that companies should make their money by bringing products to market. I know that Wi-LAN has done this in the past, but they failed to build up a strong enough business in doing so. That doesn't then give them the right to sue companies who were successful.

This is one of the big problems with patents. Time and time again we see companies who failed in the marketplace get to sue the companies who succeeded in the marketplace. That's not capitalism.

4 - Do you understand that many large companies, with considerable legal muscle, extract enormous revenues from the IP? Companies such as IBM and TI? Why is it "right" for them to be paid, and not for Wi-LAN?

I'm just as equally opposed to those companies abusing the patent system as I am to Wi-LAN. Again, if you look over my writings you'll see a pretty consistent position on this.

Thanks.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Re: Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoarder Strategy by Jim Kayne on Nov 4th, 2007 @ 6:01pm

"I'm just as equally opposed to those companies abusing the patent system as I am to Wi-LAN. Again, if you look over my writings you'll see a pretty consistent position on this." OK; you've evaded the questions by not answering, and come out against "abuse" of the patent system. So much for rational debate. So, by your own words you're: (A) - opposed to Wi-LAN and (B) opposed to "abuse" of the patent system. Would you call holding up, or delaying patent litigation unnecessarily (after years of non-payment) an "abuse" or do you think it's fair? How well do you understand patent litigation? Are you aware that big companies who are infringers seek to postpone the day of judgement over years, racking up millions of dollars in litigation costs they can easily afford, while small patent holders are driven to ruin? So if a small company seeks to avoid this, it's an "abuse"? But if a big company can drive the small one to ruin, never paying a penny for using someone else's IP, that's "fair ball"? Plaintiffs with valid patents want their day in court, without being driven to years of delay, and financial ruin. In your eyes, that's an "abuse". I respectfully suggest you research the subject of patent litigation. Let's not confuse having "an attitude", with rational discussion. Jim

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Re: Re: Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoarder Stra by Mike on Nov 4th, 2007 @ 7:04pm

OK; you've evaded the questions by not answering, and come out against "abuse" of the patent system. So much for rational debate.

Jim, what did I say that wasn't rational?

Also, which part of the question did I not answer? I tried to answer it.

So, by your own words you're: (A) - opposed to Wi-LAN and (B) opposed to "abuse" of the patent system.

No, by my own words I'm opposed to any use of the patent system that holds back innovation -- which is what I consider abuse of the system. I have nothing against Wi-LAN as a company at all. I'm not sure why you think I said I did.

Would you call holding up, or delaying patent litigation unnecessarily (after years of non-payment) an "abuse" or do you think it's fair?

As I said, and as I've discussed in great detail over and over again, I believe that using the patent system to hold back innovation is an abuse of the system. Getting into the specifics of patent litigation or when someone decided to sue seems mostly meaningless to this discussion.

How well do you understand patent litigation?

All too well.

Are you aware that big companies who are infringers seek to postpone the day of judgement over years, racking up millions of dollars in litigation costs they can easily afford, while small patent holders are driven to ruin?

Yup. Very aware. Though that has nothing to do with the discussion here.

So if a small company seeks to avoid this, it's an "abuse"?

Ah, I see the point of confusion. I'm not saying that Wi-LAN's abuse is in suing first, specifically. I'm saying that their abuse is to use these patent lawsuits to stop innovation from moving forward.

If there is any abuse in Wi-LAN suing first, it's in doing so in East Texas, which was clearly stated in the original article, which you read, right?

But if a big company can drive the small one to ruin, never paying a penny for using someone else's IP, that's "fair ball"?

You do realize that you've made a whole bunch of assumptions there, including (a) that the big company is using someone else's IP (b) that normal competition isn't the way to solve this, such as in every other market and that (c) the big company is the one that drives the small company to ruin -- whereas it could just as equally be the small company's inability to execute well.

Plaintiffs with valid patents want their day in court, without being driven to years of delay, and financial ruin. In your eyes, that's an "abuse". I respectfully suggest you research the subject of patent litigation.

It is abuse if it's using overly broad patents to stop the companies that are actually innovating by delivering a needed product to the market -- and the lawsuits are being filed in bulk in the eastern district of texas. Absolutely.

Let's not confuse having "an attitude", with rational discussion.

Jim. I responded to you sincerely and honestly. I did not take an attitude with you and I don't know why you are accusing me of doing so. I believe I have been entirely rational here and in the past. I have written about this topic in detail for over a decade, and continually write about and speak on the topic, and support my position with numerous studies and research. I believe I am quite rational in my position.

I feel that it is unfair for you to show up and accuse me otherwise, when the only person who appears to be copping an attitude is you.

So, let's try again. You have a problem with my position, but you don't explain why. You just get emotional. If you want to have a rational debate, why not start by stating your case, rather than calling me irrational.

Thanks.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Re: Re: Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoarder Stra by Jim Kayne on Nov 4th, 2007 @ 7:26pm

Mike, I don't know what happened here, but the response I see now is much more reasoned than the one I responded to. Thanks for your reply to the questions. "As I've made abundantly clear in the past (again, I'm guessing you're new here if you're asking this question), I believe that companies should make their money by bringing products to market. I know that Wi-LAN has done this in the past, but they failed to build up a strong enough business in doing so. That doesn't then give them the right to sue companies who were successful." IP: Intellectual Property. You either have it, or you don't. If you don't have it, then you must pay the owner for its use. That's the law. WiFi and WiMax (not to mention CDMA) wouldn't exist as they are without Wi-LAN's IP. What you're saying is that if somebody builds a Better Mousetrap, but can't afford to beat global giants in building and marketing it, then the giants get to use the IP for free. That's exactly what you're proposing. Wrong. The giants have to pay the inventor for the Better Mousetrap, until the patent expires. What you call capitalism, I call theft, and the law agrees. The question of commercial success has nothing to do with the legal question of whether a new and innovative product, process, or device has been created, and infringed upon. (BTW, I've been reading Techdirt for years.) Regards Jim

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoarder by Mike on Nov 4th, 2007 @ 8:42pm

Jim,

Clearly, you are new around here, despite your claim otherwise. I'd suggest you go back and read what I've written in the past, and the research I've pointed to. You want a rational debate, yet you clearly haven't done the research to have such a debate.

Otherwise, I'm simply repeating myself and that doesn't do either of us any good.

However, I will make one suggestion: if you want to have a rational debate, you should not start with what is "right" and then jump to what the law says and assume that since the laws says it, it must be right. I have expressed on multiple occasions detailed explanations for why our patent law is not right, why it goes against its original purpose and why it's now being used to hold back innovation. If your response is "you're wrong -- the law says this..." then you're not making much of a point. I'm well aware of what the law says. My point is that the law is bad for innovation and that's a problem.

Finally, your conjecture that wifi and wimax wouldn't exist without wi-lan is beyond laughable.

Can I ask what your relationship to the company is?

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoar by Jim Kayne on Nov 4th, 2007 @ 10:55pm

Hi Mike - I've been reading your comments about the patent system for years. The problem with your "cure" is that it's worse than the disease. I agree that there are problems, but they're not with the law, they're with the system: and the state of Texas has gone a long way to solving some of the problems. Especially speeding up litigation, and eliminating defendant foot-dragging. You mis-state, again: "Finally, your conjecture that wifi and wimax wouldn't exist without wi-lan is beyond laughable." NOT what was said: read it again "WiFi and WiMax (not to mention CDMA) wouldn't exist as they are without Wi-LAN's IP." They would necessarily have different IP. I accept that you will not entertain any deviation from your point of view, and discussion is pointless. Fine with me... the matter will be decided in a wiser court. "Can I ask what your relationship to the company is?" My relationship? An investment in the technology and the IP, made eight years ago: as Wi-LAN founded the OFDM Forum, attempted the first true broadand wireless network in North America (4GNT), was rebuffed and defeated by the FCC, who subsequebtly did a complete about-face, took part in the WiFi dustup at 802.11g, shepherded W-OFDM through the IEEE, made agreements to license on a FRANDly basis, almost went broke, reformed as an IP company, openly offered discounted terms to the whole world, and finally, after years of watching multinationals use their IP without even a response to notifications, sued the infringers. Regards, Jim

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wi-LAN Follows New Patent by Mike on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 1:22am

I've been reading your comments about the patent system for years.

Then I don't understand your statements above which seem to stem from ignorance.

The problem with your "cure" is that it's worse than the disease.

Funny that patent system supporters keep claiming this without a single shred of evidence to back it up. Do you want me to trot out the usual research that shows you're wrong?

I agree that there are problems, but they're not with the law, they're with the system: and the state of Texas has gone a long way to solving some of the problems.

I don't know where to start with this other than to have my mouth drop open in shock. I've heard all sorts of ridiculous statements, but to state that the eastern district of Texas (and, you're wrong, it's not "the state of Texas" as this is a federal court issue that has nothing to do with state issues... but alas, I'm the ignorant one...) is helping the situation has to be the most ridiculous statement of all.

The eastern district has become a haven for patent holders not because it's fast, but because it almost universally sides with the patent holders, no matter how ridiculous the claim. The fact that there is even jurisdiction shopping (and you ADMIT that there's jurisdiction shopping) should highlight the problem.

You clearly have been blinded by the fact that you have money riding on the outcome of this case. I have nothing riding on it other than a desire to innovation work the way it's supposed to -- without tollbooths slowing it down.

NOT what was said: read it again

My apologies, I did read it wrong. However, if we go back to your original statement, I'm still at a loss for how that supports your argument. It would appear to support mine. All you're saying is that Wi-LAN played a very minor roll in WiFi and WiMax and now looks to hold up the progress of both after failing in the marketplace. That would seem to support my position, not yours.

My relationship? An investment in the technology and the IP, made eight years ago: as Wi-LAN founded the OFDM Forum, attempted the first true broadand wireless network in North America (4GNT), was rebuffed and defeated by the FCC, who subsequebtly did a complete about-face, took part in the WiFi dustup at 802.11g, shepherded W-OFDM through the IEEE, made agreements to license on a FRANDly basis, almost went broke, reformed as an IP company, openly offered discounted terms to the whole world, and finally, after years of watching multinationals use their IP without even a response to notifications, sued the infringers.

Right. So you are clearly an exceptionally biased party, for whom this lawsuit means quite a lot. Thus, it's hard to see how you can stake a position on the overall merits of the patent system as seen in this case. Your position is inevitably distorted by your involvement in the situation and anything that suggests Wi-Lan doesn't deserve to get paid is going to be seen as problematic.

No offense, but I come off as a more objective observer here, seeing as I have no stake whatsoever in this direct battle, but am simply speaking as someone who wants to see innovation not be held up. It's no surprise that those who have failed in the marketplace, but hold some patents want to believe the patent system makes sense. That doesn't mean it's true, however.

Again, my stance which you claim to have read, though offered no point of actual criticism, is that I'm sick of seeing companies that lost in the marketplace holding up the innovation of those who have succeeded. Competition is what drives innovation, not monopolies and lawsuits. I'm sorry that things didn't work out for you for whatever reason. I really am -- especially if it's partly the FCC's fault, as I think they tend to do a lot of things badly. However, to then go out and restrict and hold back actual progress for ransom is simply sour grapes.

As you well know, there have been plenty of wireless technologies attempted over the past decade with many more failures than successes. Patent holders who didn't make it then holding up the companies that did doesn't help innovation at all. It slows it down and diverts resources towards those who were unable to succeed in the marketplace. It's unfortunate for those who made the wrong bet, but you shouldn't take it out on everyone else. That's not what the patent system was designed for.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

by Jim Kayne on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 3:19am

"That's not what the patent system was designed for." Patents confer on the owner the right to determine who shall make, use or sell the invention. "Competition is what drives innovation, not monopolies and lawsuits." Ah, yes. Tell that to Microsoft. Wait, the government already did. Competition among equals drives invention. Do heavyweights compete against featherweights? According to you, they do. Competition among unequal competitors needs rules, and the only place there are rules for IP is in court. That's only place where giant multinationals and small companies are on equal footing. "No offense, but I come off as a more objective observer here, seeing as I have no stake whatsoever in this direct battle, but am simply speaking as someone who wants to see innovation not be held up." So, you are saying that Wi-LAN's innovations have "held up" the wireless industry? Funny, many say just the opposite - by using their IP without paying, to increase their profits. If their product was as good, or better than product using Wi-LAN's IP - THAT would be competition. But no, you don't want them to develop their own IP - that's too "competitive" by your logic. You don't want competition, you want theft. You don't want companies to develop their own IP "Patent holders who didn't make it then holding up the companies that did doesn't help innovation at all. It slows it down and diverts resources towards those who were unable to succeed in the marketplace." Property, Mike. You can't "hold up" someone else for your own property! You are arguing a non sequitur, and you haven't made your case. You haven't proven that paying for IP hurts anyone. You haven't proven that it discourages invention. You have an argument, but no evidence. Whereas patents have a proven history of rewarding invention, stimulating innovation, and then expiring to leave their benefits free and unencumbered, for the world to use. Mike, I appreciate your point of view. There is room for change, but not in the law, rather, in how we conduct patent litigation. There are literally thousands of inventions where the inventor did not manufacture or use his or her invention - that right was sold to others. You'll find that Wi-LAN will be successful, and that many companies will willingly pay to use their valuable IP - without going to court. Why? Because they can make better products, and make more profit, by paying a reasonable and non-discriminatory rate. They're not being "held up" - they're paying a fair rate for the best technology, and they're still making a profit. Because if the patent holders were truly "holding them up" then they'd refuse to use the technology, and the patent holder would get nothing. But that isn't what's happening, is it? They're not saying "NO" to using the technology, they're saying "NO" to paying for its use. Because they can't compete with the invention. They haven't been able to develop something better! They will pay. That's what will happen. And that is what drives innovation. Our whole society is based on the concept of property: its ownership, and legal protection. Laws protect peoples' property - laws that have existed for centuries. Without property there would be no insurance - or (please note) indemnification. The concept of property is fundamental to our society, and you would change that. Thanks, Mike. We'll agree to disagree. I appreciate the chance to speak with you, despite a complete divergence of views. Regards, Jim

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Re: Ignorance is no excuse! by mkam on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 4:00am

Don't feed the troll Mike. Wi-LAN produces no products and I believe their slogan is 'a leader in licensing innovation' or some BS like that. This is exactly what is wrong with the patent system.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Re: Re: Ignorance is no excuse! by angry dude on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 6:27am

Another corporate stooge or just an ordinary clueless techdirt reader ?

Funny, btu when it comes to IP and patents, crooked wealthy CEOs of large multinationals and poor clueless advocates of "intellectual freedom" are on the same side of the fence
On the other side of the fence are all true innovators, people who really contribute to progress: small start-ups, research universities, independent inventors.. (I am talking about high-tech here, not pharma)

Of course, an ordinary clueless techdirt reader understands innovation and progress as a company's ability to sell a billion copies of China-made IPods or other shitty consumer devices
Sad, realy sad...

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Jim & Mike by Qcom_N on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 10:15am

Jim you presented your case beautifully. The point mike ,
doesnt get is that this is the law. Without Patents there would be no
driving force behind innovation.

Mike just doesn't get it. He continuously posts he has been a
long time poster, that is irrevelant, just proves he is a long time
oblivious poster.

To say that Wi-lan played no critical fundamental role in WI-MAX and WI-FI is a blatant lie. Call up the Ieee standards board, or wimax forum. Perhaps a bit more DD on Mikes part is in order.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Jim by Fresca on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 10:17am

Well done. Always respect your view on Wi-lan

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Re: Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoarder Strategy by George D on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 10:30am

Mike says: "I believe that companies should make their money by bringing products to market. I know that Wi-LAN has done this in the past, but they failed to build up a strong enough business in doing so. That doesn't then give them the right to sue companies who were successful."

Ok, so all IP should then be given away, even if you own it but cannot bring products to the market because you are a relatively small, under-resourced company (like old Wi-Lan)? So the inventor who doesn't have enough money to bring product to market has to give it away for free? Two of the three patents at issue in recent litigation were invented by Wi-Lan!! They built products using that IP, only to find an industry flooded by the giants with product built on their IP.

Wi-Lan had to fight even the IEEE to consider W-OFDM as a possible candidate for high speed wireless communication (most engineers didn't think it was possible). Wi-Lan had to fight the FCC to open up wireless spectrum, now the basis for a huge industry. Yes, yes, but it away for free. That's thievery!

Maybe the equipment / hardware industry needs the equivalent of the OSS model to move forward to deal with the complexity of IP ownership etc., but that'll be their call to decide. Until then, rules are the rules: if it's good enough for Intel, IBM, & CISCO to licence their IP, then it's good enough for the little guy.

Way too much propaganda out there, making it look like companies like Wi-Lan are the only ones who licence IP. Talk to any legal at a big company and they'll tell you: nothing personal, but we don't pay for IP until we're threatened with a lawsuit or worse!!

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

WOW by D T on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 11:02am

WOW, I didn' realize my first post will cause so much debate. When I first read this article, I realized the writer had no idea about Wi-LAN and its valuable contribution to WiFi (and WiMAX). I can write volumes as I have been very close to the founders and been following the story for years... that's why I thought, hey the writer should perhapse start doing his own DD before spewing poison (Just Google "Wi-LAN"). Funny also that he geot upset that Jim hadn't read all his past articles on the IP subject. Fair enough, no one could be UP on everything, but I get upset when I see people make quick judgments, and why should I educate the world?

I am here to make money. The less you know, the more I make LOL!

Perhapse, if I

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Mike v Jim by rrb on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 11:04am

I'm on Jim's side on this.

To be converted, Mike would have to explain to me how an inventor of something fundamentally new is expected to bring their invention to market against the existing industry(s) stranded capital in old technology in today's world?

In the wi-lan case I will not accept the notion that the invention is just an incremental change on old stuff. The words "fundamentally new" do apply here to the w-ofdm patents.

If Mike has done some dd he will realize that the 280+ patents that wi-lan now has was obtained by horse trading those fundamental patents for money and more patents over the past year in order to get the company to the point where it can bring this law suit with reasonable chance of success. Why would any one trade anything if they were just trolls?

Mike decries Jim for having a personal investment in it. I suggest Mike, if he is so sure of his opinion, take a short position against Wi-Lan. I'm sure a broker will happily take his money for him to arrange this. The market will then transfer Mikes money to Jim, or vice versa in due course.

THAT, my friends, IS capitalism.

..rrb

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: by Mike on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 11:39am

Patents confer on the owner the right to determine who shall make, use or sell the invention.

You are confusing the features of the patent system with the purpose. Yes, what you describe is how the patent system works. But the PURPOSE of the patent system is to promote innovation. If the patent system is being used to hinder innovation, than it's a problem.

Ah, yes. Tell that to Microsoft. Wait, the government already did. Competition among equals drives invention. Do heavyweights compete against featherweights? According to you, they do. Competition among unequal competitors needs rules, and the only place there are rules for IP is in court. That's only place where giant multinationals and small companies are on equal footing.

Ok, let's tell that to Microsoft, who has had their hat handed to them by a small startup called Google.

You're wrong. Competition among equals does not drive innovation. In fact, great innovation tends to come from small companies who are forced to out innovate the goliaths in the field.

So, you are saying that Wi-LAN's innovations have "held up" the wireless industry? Funny, many say just the opposite - by using their IP without paying, to increase their profits. If their product was as good, or better than product using Wi-LAN's IP - THAT would be competition. But no, you don't want them to develop their own IP - that's too "competitive" by your logic. You don't want competition, you want theft. You don't want companies to develop their own IP

First of all, this isn't worth discussing with you if you think that infringement is theft. You were the one who demanded a rational debate, but then use loaded incorrect language like theft.

And, yes, I've made it very clear and supported with research that innovation is better served when companies can leverage what others have done. You dislike it because you're one who failed in the marketplace, but it serves the economy much better in the long run. There's plenty of research to support that.

Property, Mike. You can't "hold up" someone else for your own property!

Patents are NOT property. I don't know why I need to repeat this so many times. Patents are a MONOPOLY. They are a monopoly granted for the SOLE PURPOSE of increasing the rate of innovation. When they are used to retard the rate of innovation, then they are going against the purpose of the patent system.

You haven't proven that paying for IP hurts anyone. You haven't proven that it discourages invention. You have an argument, but no evidence.

I've pointed to a tremendous amount of research and evidence in the past. I didn't realize that I needed to do so again just because you are unable to do your own research.

But since you are unable (or unwilling?) to do so, how about you go look up the research of David Levine and Michele Boldrin. Then Eric Schiff's research. Next up: Lerner and Jaffee. And Samson Vermont. Then look at the research by Michael Heller and Rebecca Eisenberg. Then look at the research by Petra Moser. Then the research by Mariko Sakakibara and Lee Branstetter. Then there's the research of Robert Hunt. And Fritz Machlup. The list goes on.

However, they all point to the same basic fact. Patents are all too often used to slow down the pace of innovation and rarely do anything to speed it up. There's plenty of evidence there.

Because if the patent holders were truly "holding them up" then they'd refuse to use the technology, and the patent holder would get nothing. But that isn't what's happening, is it? They're not saying "NO" to using the technology, they're saying "NO" to paying for its use.

What they're saying "NO" to is having to pay for what they consider to be an overly broad and obvious idea that no one should be a toll collector on. You are mistaken if you believe that it's reasonable for anyone to own an idea and be able to charge anyone for using it. Go read what Thomas Jefferson had to say about the dangers of such thinking.

Our whole society is based on the concept of property: its ownership, and legal protection. Laws protect peoples' property - laws that have existed for centuries. Without property there would be no insurance - or (please note) indemnification. The concept of property is fundamental to our society, and you would change that.

I am also a HUGE believer in the importance of property rights. But the problem is that patents are NOT property. They are a monopoly right over an idea. It's an important distinction and you need to understand if you want to sound credible (or, as you claim, rational) in this debate.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Re: Jim & Mike by Mike on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 11:44am

The point mike ,
doesnt get is that this is the law. Without Patents there would be no
driving force behind innovation.

No, I'm quite well versed in what the law is. But that doesn't mean I think it's right. In fact, I believe that the current patent law is unconstitutional -- as it goes against the expressed purpose of the clause in the constitution "to promote the progress...". When patents are used to slow down innovation, they are not promoting progress.

As for your claim that without patents there is no driving force for innovation, you are sadly ill-informed. I just pointed Jim to a bunch of research. I'd suggest you read some of it to show you how wrong you are. Historically patents have had almost no causal impact on innovation. Instead, research has shown the opposite. The greatest bursts of innovation are often right *before* patents are put in place, and then patents come in to help keep the original innovators fat and happy and away from having to continually innovate.

Patents make sense if innovation really is a one off burst of inspiration, but that's rarely the case. It's a process, involving a lot of different ideas, freely mixed together and experimented with over time. When you lock up each piece of the puzzle you make that actual innovation nearly impossible.

Mike just doesn't get it. He continuously posts he has been a
long time poster, that is irrevelant, just proves he is a long time
oblivious poster.

If you would point to a factual thing I got wrong, I'd appreciate it. But to simply claim I'm wrong without being able to back it up doesn't support your point. It just makes you look like you're arguing from an emotional standpoint.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Jim by Mike on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 11:47am

Well done. Always respect your view on Wi-lan

Fascinating. I'm guessing Jim emailed or posted this thread here? Why else would we suddenly get a bunch of Jim's dittoheads days after this post went up?

Jim: just because you can find a bunch of equally confused people (are they all Wi-LAN investors too?) doesn't lend you support on your argument.

For someone who was so insistent on having a rational debate, trying to flood the board with mindless supporters who offer no additional value suggests you have a very different agenda in mind.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Re: Re: Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoarder Stra by Mike on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 11:54am

Ok, so all IP should then be given away, even if you own it but cannot bring products to the market because you are a relatively small, under-resourced company (like old Wi-Lan)? So the inventor who doesn't have enough money to bring product to market has to give it away for free? Two of the three patents at issue in recent litigation were invented by Wi-Lan!! They built products using that IP, only to find an industry flooded by the giants with product built on their IP.

That's a rather biased way of putting it. Read up on how ideas and innovation work, George. You'll discover that it's a process. It's a process that involves putting together lots of different pieces over time, and that the real challenge is in executing, not in inventing.

In the meantime, based on your argument, every loser should be protected from competition. If I open up a small Italian restaurant and then an Olive Garden moves in next door, based on your reasoning, I should be able to sue the Olive Garden for "thievery"? Sorry, it's called competition. It should spur me to make my restaurant better than the Olive Garden -- even if it's much bigger and better funded than me.

Time and time again we've seen small innovative players out innovate bigger, more well funded competitors. So don't give me the "woe is me, big company is stealing my idea" crap. Go out and innovate.

Until then, rules are the rules: if it's good enough for Intel, IBM, & CISCO to licence their IP, then it's good enough for the little guy.

And I'm equally as critical of the big guys doing this. Do NOT make this out to be me supporting the big guys over the little guys. I tend to think that the little guys out innovate the big guys pretty consistently by being a lot more flexible and having a lot fewer legacy issues. That doesn't mean they all succeed... but when they fail they shouldn't hold up the other players for ransom.

Way too much propaganda out there, making it look like companies like Wi-Lan are the only ones who licence IP. Talk to any legal at a big company and they'll tell you: nothing personal, but we don't pay for IP until we're threatened with a lawsuit or worse!!

I understand that, but that has nothing to do with my point.

People keep trying to make this out as a big company vs. small company thing. But it's not. It's about innovation and what's the best thing for encouraging the progress of science and the useful arts, as per the constitution.

People who say "well that's the law" and "that's how other's do things" are missing the point.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Mike v Jim by Mike on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 11:59am

To be converted, Mike would have to explain to me how an inventor of something fundamentally new is expected to bring their invention to market against the existing industry(s) stranded capital in old technology in today's world?

The same way they always have: by being better at bringing the product to market. It's a struggle, to be sure, but companies do it all the time. Again, look at the research I've pointed to. Patent protection tends to slow down the introduction of new and innovative products, not speed it up. That's because without such monopoly rights, companies have to KEEP on innovating, speeding up the process and continually pushing the competition to drive forward.

If Mike has done some dd he will realize that the 280+ patents that wi-lan now has was obtained by horse trading those fundamental patents for money and more patents over the past year in order to get the company to the point where it can bring this law suit with reasonable chance of success. Why would any one trade anything if they were just trolls?

I have not said that Wi-LAN was a troll. I have said that they're using the patent system to hold back others, and I stand by that point and have supported it in great detail.

Mike decries Jim for having a personal investment in it. I suggest Mike, if he is so sure of his opinion, take a short position against Wi-Lan. I'm sure a broker will happily take his money for him to arrange this. The market will then transfer Mikes money to Jim, or vice versa in due course.

Again, you seem to be missing the point. Whether or not Wi-LAN wins in court is meaningless here. The point still stands that what they're doing is holding back others from innovating. I am not taking a position on Wi-LAN as per the law -- I am stating the fact that Wi-LAN is impeding innovation in this space. While our current laws may support this, it is bad for everyone.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

by Jim Kayne on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 12:11pm

Mike, your evidence is incomplete, and insubstantial when viewed against the backdrop of centuries of success for patent law. No system is perfect, and I have agreed with you that change is needed. Where we disagree is how that change should be enacted. You want to throw the baby out with the bathwater: change the law; you haven't even mentioned the downsides to what you propose. I suggest that change should come in the execution of the law, not the law itself. "Fascinating. I'm guessing Jim emailed or posted this thread here? Why else would we suddenly get a bunch of Jim's dittoheads days after this post went up? Jim: just because you can find a bunch of equally confused people (are they all Wi-LAN investors too?) doesn't lend you support on your argument. For someone who was so insistent on having a rational debate, trying to flood the board with mindless supporters who offer no additional value suggests you have a very different agenda in mind." You continue to make assumptions with no basis in fact. I have comminicated with NO ONE about our discussion. Any traffic you're getting has nothing to do with me - despite your accusations. You appear to be quite hostile, using "loaded" language, making unsupported allegations, and illogical arguments. I repeat: thank you for the discussion. I appreciate it, but will look elsewhere for intelligent and informed debate. Have a nice day, Jim

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Re: by angry dude on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 12:16pm

Mie wrote:
"Ok, let's tell that to Microsoft, who has had their hat handed to them by a small startup called Google.

You're wrong. Competition among equals does not drive innovation. In fact, great innovation tends to come from small companies who are forced to out innovate the goliaths in the field."

Mikey, I call BS on you

The ONLY reason Google was so successfull (apart from having some really smart people on board from the very beginning) is that their technology was exclusively on the SERVER side, completely hidden from bullies like MShit and alike.
Tell your story to the founders of Netscape, you do remember this name ?
How bout Borland ? Borland had a MUCH superior technology compared to MShit suite of tools, until MShit stole all the features and hired all the key developers from Borland
(the story has it that Mshit recruters would come straight to Borland campus to do their recruting)
Now Google is big enough to fight MShit so they are kicking their fat corporate ass... Hiring key Mshit developers, undercurrint money-making Mshit products like Office...
Like I told you before dude
it's a dog-eat-dog world out there by corporate design
Gotta love it dude or move the f*** out of this great country

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Who says Patents were created to promote innovatio by kingofkings on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 12:36pm

Mike, you keep claiming that patents are NOT properties. Who sez? Then why do they call it Intellectual PROPERTY RIGHTS? The whole purpose of the system was to make sure this is so... otherwise we wouldn't have capitalism, instead we would have communism.

Most third world coundtries don't give strong rights for people to own LAND or other property... where are they now...?

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: by Mike on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 12:38pm

Mike, your evidence is incomplete, and insubstantial when viewed against the backdrop of centuries of success for patent law.

Wait. Jim, I'm the one who pointed you to a ton of research saying otherwise, and you say "sorry, that's incomplete and insubstantial" but don't provide a single bit of evidence to the contrary?

Your claim of "centuries of success for patent law" are easily ripped apart by reading the studies I pointed you to. In most cases, innovation has been in spite of the patent system, not because of it. I encourage you specifically to look at the Levine/Boldrin research to understand this.

You appear to be quite hostile, using "loaded" language, making unsupported allegations, and illogical arguments.

Jim, I'm not the one who came here demanding a debate and calling me irrational. I have responded to each and every point you raised, and backed it up with evidence. Which part is unsubstantiated? Which part is illogical? I have responded to every point you've made, so I find it odd that you would make such accusations.

I have not used loaded language at all. However, I have pointed out where you have.

Everything you seem to accuse me of actually appears to apply to you.

I am all for a rational debate -- which is why I keep responding to you and pointing out where you're wrong while substantiating my own position.

I may have been wrong about you alerting people to this thread, but it does seem mighty odd that there's sudden interest in this thread days later and it all involves people supporting your side without a single shred of evidence. However I'm willing to admit that I was wrong on that account and move on.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Monopoly Rights or Property Rights? by kingofkings on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 12:44pm

Mike, innovation wouldn't happen if innovators weren't given the right to that innovation. It doesn't say Monopoly Rights.. it says Property Rights.

Condsider this: I own a nice piece of land that my grandfather left it to me, right in the middle of a prime downtown area. right now I don't have the resources nor the desire to develop it yet. It has been sitting vacant for years. Does that give some big developer to build an office tower on it just because I haven't decided to use it?

And you don't think they would do a title search first, before they go ahead and spend any money to build the tower?

As far as preventing innovation. look at RIM vs NTP. Before RIM paid $600Million to NTP, their stock was worth $70.00 CDN... less than 18 months later, they are over $360.00 and they have kept innovating all along.

.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

by Qcom_N on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 12:45pm

"Again, you seem to be missing the point. Whether or not Wi-LAN wins in court is meaningless here. The point still stands that what they're doing is holding back others from innovating. I am not taking a position on Wi-LAN as per the law -- I am stating the fact that Wi-LAN is impeding innovation in this space. While our current laws may support this, it is bad for everyone."

How do you figure Mike.

How are they holding innovation back? Wi-lan developed products based on their patents years ago. They shared their Intelectual properties with , Phillips, Fujitsu, Ericcsons, Samsung , all participating companies in the Wimax forum... The list goes on and on.

Using those Fundamental Patents , WI-Fi, and Wimax are a reality today. Those infringing companies have made "quantum leaps" in their technologies , and billions of dollars from Wi-lans Intelectual property.

The honorable companies (Fujitsu, and recently Nokia)paid ridiculously discounted licencing fees without much opposition. Why, because Wi-lans Patents have and will continue to make them millions of dollars.

This is CAPITALISM.

MONEY brings innovation, If it is not profitable , no companies would take on risk, without reward there is no innovation.

Silicon Valley was started by a man named Perkins ( one of the founders of Genentech). They owned patents, they took a initial investment of $250,000 and turned it into $250M. This is the main reason Silicon valley exploded to what is today.

"While our current laws may support this, it is bad for everyone."

Without these laws there would be no Venture Capitalists, and definately no Silicon Valley. The last time i checked , there was plenty of innovation coming out of that Valley.

I as a consumer, have no problem paying a small percentage for WI-fi / Wimax products , especially to those who invented it. Look at the benefits it brings to my quality of life.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Furthermore... by kingofkings on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 12:55pm

Mike, also as far as innovation and ignoring other people's inventions (Patents), yours argument is exactly the kind of attitude that says: it’s not important to compensate or acknowledge them.

The added benefit is that finding out that someone else did it before you can also lead you to better ways of doing it. In fact in some cases it could lead you away from bad ideas or even allow you to implement an improvement on an existing idea that would either make it work, or make it work better.

You would not advocate that engineers (or innovators) not search existing textbooks, technical papers and handbooks for solutions, would you now? So why shut out the patent data base?

Finally, I am currently involved in a project with new patentable ideas and my team and I have been searching and analysing patents. It is nowhere near as much work as people are describing. In most cases, it would be much less expensive to approach an innovator and offer a small compensation up-front rather than be tangled in big expensive lawsuits later.

Remember also that NTP had asked Research in Motion $2Million Licensing Fee initially... RIM laughed at them... At the end they ended up paying $600 million.

.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Re:Rambus by kingofkings on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 1:18pm

Well, this is not Rambus. It's Wi-LAN we are talking about. They went out of their way to give notice to EVERYONE in 1999. They founded the OFDM Forum, the Wi-MAX Forum, they educated people about the methods they invented and promoted the use of the invention, all along helping the the Standards bodies like IEEE in uS and Europe to pass the proper standard based on their inventions; and gave Letter of Assurances of RAND to license their technlogy on a fair and non-discriminatory basis.

Then they fought the fight of their life (with their own dime) with FCC to allow OFDM in the free 2.4GHz. Finally everyone in the US is happily benefited and are using the fruits of their work.

In the meantime, where is Wi-LAN? Many in the industry recognize their great contribution (e.g. see 1999 Dell White paper), but most don't want to pay for it. In fact, INTEL has even told Wi-LAN officials, the only way they would entertain licensing talks is if Wi-LAN sues them.

Isn't that a shame?

Well, Wi-LAN heard them loud and clear. They went back to the drawing board, raised a serious warchest to the tune of $100 Million+ and re-organized to do just that. The moment of truth has come! It is now time to pay the piper!

*DELL's 1999 White Paper
http://web.archive.org/web/20000831235541/http://www.dell.com/us/en/hied/topics/vectors_1999- wireless.htm

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Your Mission by Qcom_N on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 2:03pm

Mike your Company's Mission statement is
"Techdirt’s core mission is to help people make better business decisions consistently, by getting the right information to the right people at the right time. We do this by combining the power of human experts, with the latest technologies, to turn raw data into valuable, relevant, accurate, reliable and (most importantly) useful information."

This article " Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoarder Strategy: Sue Everyone All At Once" doesn't provide the right information to help anyone make a better business decision.

"Techdirt employs a team of top-notch analysts with a broad range of experience. They work in a variety of sectors including technology, communications, media, biotechnology, financial services, retail, automotive and government. They come from diverse backgrounds from some of the best media and technology companies around the world. Techdirt analysts have worked at such places as Intel, The Wall Street Journal, Sun Microsystems, McGraw-Hill, SK Telecom, ABC/Disney, Nano-Tex and CNET, to name just a few. All our analysts are highly trained in the Techdirt Corporate Intelligence Process which has been refined and perfected over the years."

You pride yourselves , for having highly trained top-notch analysts, that have been refined and perfected in the techdirt Corporate Intellegence Process.

Well, perhaps your "top notch analysts" should do some more DD , and look deeper into Wi-lans patents and their claims.

Once you have done that, then you could post your findings.

That in depth analysis would help people make better business decisions.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Monopoly Rights or Property Rights? by Mike on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 3:01pm

Mike, innovation wouldn't happen if innovators weren't given the right to that innovation

Please go read the research I pointed you to.

It doesn't say Monopoly Rights.. it says Property Rights.

Where are you talking about? The fact is that they are NOT property rights, but they are monopoly rights. That's the terms that were used by Jefferson and Madison when the system was created and that's the terms that are most accurate. Property rights was used by those who want to pretend that ideas are tangible like physical goods. This is a mistake that is harming innovation.

Condsider this: I own a nice piece of land that my grandfather left it to me, right in the middle of a prime downtown area. right now I don't have the resources nor the desire to develop it yet. It has been sitting vacant for years. Does that give some big developer to build an office tower on it just because I haven't decided to use it?

Nope, not at all, but you need to understand the difference between scarce goods and infinite goods. The land is scarce. An idea is not. It's an important distinction. Please go read some of the research on this topic, otherwise we're treading over ground that's been well trampled by others before.

As far as preventing innovation. look at RIM vs NTP. Before RIM paid $600Million to NTP, their stock was worth $70.00 CDN... less than 18 months later, they are over $360.00 and they have kept innovating all along.

I'm not sure what the stock price has to do with anything. It's a fact that RIM had to throw away over half a billion dollars to a company that did no real innovation, who had overly broad and obvious patents that the USPTO has rejected.

I'm not sure why you want to compare Wi-LAN to NTP, unless you're an investor trying to get rich off of some real innovator's work.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: by Mike on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 3:10pm

How are they holding innovation back? Wi-lan developed products based on their patents years ago. They shared their Intelectual properties with , Phillips, Fujitsu, Ericcsons, Samsung , all participating companies in the Wimax forum... The list goes on and on. Using those Fundamental Patents , WI-Fi, and Wimax are a reality today. Those infringing companies have made "quantum leaps" in their technologies , and billions of dollars from Wi-lans Intelectual property. The honorable companies (Fujitsu, and recently Nokia)paid ridiculously discounted licencing fees without much opposition. Why, because Wi-lans Patents have and will continue to make them millions of dollars.

And yet now they're suing 22 companies, forcing them to waste time, money and resources just so they can continue to innovate. That's my problem with it. That's money that should go towards additional innovation, not arguing over who came up with some idea.

If you understand how growth economics work, you'd realize that patents are slowing down economic growth. They're protectionism, in the exact same way that mercantilist tariffs were protectionism for trade and slowed down economic growth in Europe 250 years ago. You get rid of protectionism because it slows growth. That's what Adam Smith taught in 1776 and it's still true today.

The only difference is that things are worse today when the protectionism is on ideas rather than things. Ideas need to be free for innovation to work properly. That's because innovation is a process of building on top of other's ideas and previous innovations.

This is CAPITALISM.

Actually, it's not. It's quite the opposite. A gov't granted monopoly is not capitalism. It's a form of socialism -- giving full control over the market for an idea to one single company? That's not capitalism in any form.

Silicon Valley was started by a man named Perkins ( one of the founders of Genentech). They owned patents, they took a initial investment of $250,000 and turned it into $250M. This is the main reason Silicon valley exploded to what is today.

Heh. Well, first I'd suggest you do a little more research on this history of Silicon Valley -- while it has a few different versions, yours mixes up quite a lot.

However, even in your version, you fail to explain why Silicon Valley doesn't grow without patents just as much, if not more. Yes, turning $250k into $250M is nice, but you don't need patents to do that. In fact, you'd accelerate the pace of such things without them.

Without these laws there would be no Venture Capitalists, and definately no Silicon Valley. The last time i checked , there was plenty of innovation coming out of that Valley.

This is flat out incorrect. Again, go look at the research I've pointed you to that shows this is incorrect. Or better yet, go talk to some VCs today to find out how important patents are in SV. The answer is: not very. I'm on Sand Hill Road a few times a week talking to VCs and I can say with pretty good certainty that Silicon Valley would be quite strong without patents, despite your assertion.

I as a consumer, have no problem paying a small percentage for WI-fi / Wimax products , especially to those who invented it. Look at the benefits it brings to my quality of life.

You are assuming that the same innovation wouldn't have happened without the patents. That's incorrect. Even worse, you're assuming that we wouldn't be much further along without wasting time, money and resources squabbling over patents. If we didn't have to waste that time and money, innovation could proceed at a much faster rate -- and, in fact, it would need to because firms would need to crank up the pace of innovation to beat each other in the marketplace.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Furthermore... by Mike on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 3:18pm

Mike, also as far as innovation and ignoring other people's inventions (Patents), yours argument is exactly the kind of attitude that says: it’s not important to compensate or acknowledge them.

It's not important to acknowledge and compensate directly. This isn't about giving gold stars to those who came before you. This is about innovating in the marketplace. Of course, if a company is smart, it will often want to work with the originator of an important idea, so a partnership can be formed that involves acknowledging and compensating them -- but giving one person or firm a total monopoly on an idea is dangerous to the process of innovation. As I noted, you are locking up one piece in the process and that's never a good idea.

The added benefit is that finding out that someone else did it before you can also lead you to better ways of doing it. In fact in some cases it could lead you away from bad ideas or even allow you to implement an improvement on an existing idea that would either make it work, or make it work better.

Ah, the myth of disclosure. That's been proven not to be true. I've written about it in detail. Maybe search for it.

You would not advocate that engineers (or innovators) not search existing textbooks, technical papers and handbooks for solutions, would you now? So why shut out the patent data base?

Nice trick there. You've now twisted the conversation away from the actual purpose of patents (incentives for innovation) and defending it for disclosure purposes. But, as has been detailed in various research, the disclosure rationale for patents is bogus. Again, do a quick search for why.

Finally, I am currently involved in a project with new patentable ideas and my team and I have been searching and analysing patents. It is nowhere near as much work as people are describing. In most cases, it would be much less expensive to approach an innovator and offer a small compensation up-front rather than be tangled in big expensive lawsuits later.

You know, it would be a lot cheaper for me to pay the local mobster a few bucks a month, rather than rebuild my store after he burns it down, but we don't think that's right, do we?

Remember also that NTP had asked Research in Motion $2Million Licensing Fee initially... RIM laughed at them... At the end they ended up paying $600 million.

See my point above. Pointing to a case where the mobster's burnt down the house isn't proving your point. It's just showing how incredibly broken the system is. NTP had overly broad, ridiculously obvious patents and used them to extort money out of RIM. It was an awful waste of money, though it made a few lawyers rich, at the cost of research money that should have gone into making better products.

That's not innovation.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Your Mission by Mike on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 3:22pm

This article " Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoarder Strategy: Sue Everyone All At Once" doesn't provide the right information to help anyone make a better business decision.

That's your opinion. Many would disagree with you. We do quite well providing our analysis, thank you.

You pride yourselves , for having highly trained top-notch analysts, that have been refined and perfected in the techdirt Corporate Intellegence Process.

Well, perhaps your "top notch analysts" should do some more DD , and look deeper into Wi-lans patents and their claims.

It's funny that people keep saying we haven't done our due diligence, but then keep repeating the same incorrect claims. Just as I asked of Jim, could I ask what your relationship to Wi-LAN is? I am guessing that you are an investor too? If not, please correct me.

However, our analysis, which is backed up by research and analysis from plenty of well known business execs, economists (even nobel prize winners) and many others comes from a very rigorous analysis of the problems of the patent system.

Your desire to have Wi-LAN matter isn't important here. What's important is a clear abuse of the patent system to slow down innovation.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Why are all the critics Canadian? Hmm.... by Mike on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 4:31pm

Just went and glanced at where all the folks are coming from who are blasting me on this issue. Every single one of them is coming from Canada... which is where Wi-LAN is based. Funny, that...

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Re: Monopoly Rights or Property Rights? by D T on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 5:08pm

QUOTE: "The land is scarce. An idea is not. It's an important distinction."

Man, you've got to give your head a shake! That is the STUPIDEST statment I've ever heard in my life.

Remember, intelligence is finite/rare... stupidity is infinite! (Can't remember the source!)

Here's a challenge: You try and come up with a good idea... and we'll talk!

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Re: Furthermore... by D T on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 5:12pm

QUOTE: "RIM v NTP.... It was an awful waste of money, ...., at the cost of research money that should have gone into making better products."

This is coming from the same guy who said innovation should not be patented... WHY BOTHER spending time and money on research so others can get it for free!

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Bullshit, I am in New Jersey by angry dude on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 5:32pm

Mike, why don't you stop twisting the facts ?

all the critics Canadian?

BS

I am typing this comment for your shitty blog sitting in the comfort of my own home in New Jersey.
And I have no stake in Wi-LAN, but a great stake in the US patent system, as an engineer, inventor and simply a law-obeying American citizen.
You, on the other hand, are promoting some moneyed special interests....

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Whoa by Alfred E. Neuman on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 5:55pm

Who let the shills out ? This is very entertaining, but I wonder why they get so upset about someone's opinion. Perhaps it is an acknowledgement of the influence of this site.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Bullshit, I am in New Jersey by Mike on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 6:01pm

all the critics Canadian?

Sorry, angry dude. As the resident comment troll of the site, I forgot about you.

I meant everyone but you.

And I have no stake in Wi-LAN, but a great stake in the US patent system, as an engineer, inventor and simply a law-obeying American citizen.

Yes, we've asked you to support that with proof, after you were caught lying about your patents in the past. I'm wondering why you still refuse to even point us to your patent which, after all, is public info.

You, on the other hand, are promoting some moneyed special interests....

Angry Dude, two weeks ago you admitted that this was a false statement and said you would not state such lies again. We do not promote anyone's "moneyed special interests." I have told you not to make such false statements, and you have even admitted that you knowingly made false and defamatory statements concerning this point. Once again, I need to ask you to admit that this is a false statement.

We advise companies on all sorts of issues. We do not do any outbound promotions at all. That is not our business and never has been.

For you to keep lying doesn't help your credibility. You have lied about your own patents and you lie about us. If you wish anyone to believe you have even the slightest credibility, it might help to actually learn to be honest once in a while.

Or is that too difficult?

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Why are all the critics Canadian? Hmm.... by Qcom_N on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 6:07pm

What the heck does nationality got to do with it? By using that kind of logic, you could say most your employees and yourself come from the US . Since most of the infringing companies named in the lawsuit are from the US... Funny, that... Also note , many of your advertising revenue comes from many of the industry players that have the most to lose if Wi-lan succeeds. Hmmmmm.... Funny , that....coincidence.... Full disclosure, I am a shareholder of Wi-lan, but i also own many shares in over 15 of the 22 companies named in the lawsuit. Mike how many of the companies named in the suit are advertising customers, or have a relationship with your company. When all else fails follow the money trail.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Re: Why are all the critics Canadian? Hmm.... by Mike on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 7:45pm

What the heck does nationality got to do with it?

A lot when it's out of the ordinary. We certainly get plenty of Canadian visitors, but when suddenly all the visitors sticking to a single point of view appear to be (a) not familiar with the site and (b) coming from nearby where the company we're criticizing is based...

Also note , many of your advertising revenue comes from many of the industry players that have the most to lose if Wi-lan succeeds.

Um. Not true, but nice try.

Full disclosure, I am a shareholder of Wi-lan, but i also own many shares in over 15 of the 22 companies named in the lawsuit.

The impact on Wi-LAN is a lot more tied up in this lawsuit than any of the other companies... but that's besides the point.

Mike how many of the companies named in the suit are advertising customers, or have a relationship with your company. When all else fails follow the money trail.

As far as I know, we currently have a relationship with none of the companies Wi-LAN is suing. So, go ahead and follow the money trail all you want it's not going to show you very much. Even if we had an advertising relationship with any of them, it wouldn't matter. We could replace any advertiser's dollars in an instance if they went away and advertising is a miniscule part of our business anyway.

I honestly have no insight into who's advertising on the site (I block the ads and have nothing to do with the ad relationships) and so I don't happen to know nor care who's advertising on the site. We use an outside company to handle all of our ads, and they certainly don't impact the viewpoints expressed on this site. If we lost all of our ad revenue overnight, we wouldn't much care, as advertising isn't the business we're in.

As for corporate clients, not one of the 22 companies is a client of ours.

So, what were you saying about the money trail?

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Sick by CaineDelWin on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 10:10pm

Mike Dude, there is something seriously wrong with your head... You're SICK man... You should be embarrased with this garbage you are writing. You are ignorant, and THICK! You just don't get it.... There is no sense anyone arguing about you... It's like arguing religion... Hopeless.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Sick by Mike on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 10:23pm

Mike Dude, there is something seriously wrong with your head... You're SICK man... You should be embarrased with this garbage you are writing. You are ignorant, and THICK! You just don't get it.... There is no sense anyone arguing about you... It's like arguing religion... Hopeless.

Once again, someone attacks me personally and says I'm wrong without providing a single actual point to counter what I've said. I've explained my position. I've pointed out all the evidence that supports it. I'm more than willing to discuss the facts... and what do I get? "there is something seriously wrong with your head."

And this from the folks who demanded a "rational" debate on the topic?

If there's something wrong with my head, then there's also something wrong with the heads of multiple nobel prize winners in economics who also have pointed out how the patent system damages innovation.

I am more than willing to back up my position in detail, and have done so repeatedly. If you find something wrong with my argument, I'd appreciate you make it clear, rather than just trying to insult me personally.

And, of course, it's worth pointing out that CaineDelWin is also posting from Canada... funny, that... Let me guess? You're also a Wi-LAN shareholder?

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Ad Hominem by Alfred E. Neuman on Nov 6th, 2007 @ 5:30am

Ad Hominem attacks are pathetic at best and typically signal the realization that the argument is lost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claims is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Re: Sick by CaineDelWIn on Nov 6th, 2007 @ 6:30am

Hell, I hate Wi-LAN! and Everybody knows that... LOL!

But going back to your debate, some things cannot be debated with people like you... because we can argue for years...

Tell me, is there a GOD? We can debate that forever eh? You'd like that, I know.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: Ad Hominem by angry dude on Nov 6th, 2007 @ 6:58am

Little alfred

why don't you do us all a favor and become a professional organ donor ?
That's bout the only use for you, dude

(reply to this comment) (

Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoarder Strategy: Sue Everyone All At Once

from the this-is-innovation? dept

Reader Comments (rss)

Ignorance is no excuse! by D T on Nov 2nd, 2007 @ 12:17am

No end in sight in the near future. by Max Powers at http://ConsumerFight.com on Nov 2nd, 2007 @ 12:18am

Re: Ignorance is no excuse! by Mike on Nov 2nd, 2007 @ 12:28am

Re: Re: Ignorance is no excuse! by Deeznuts on Nov 2nd, 2007 @ 5:06am

by Phil on Nov 2nd, 2007 @ 5:19am

Re: by DCX2 on Nov 2nd, 2007 @ 5:43am

by Overcast on Nov 2nd, 2007 @ 6:07am

techidiots by angry dude on Nov 2nd, 2007 @ 6:30am

This is just the start for Wi-LAN by Alaric on Nov 2nd, 2007 @ 6:56am

Re: Overcast do some DD by Fair Game on Nov 2nd, 2007 @ 8:36am

Re: Re: Overcast do some DD by Matthew on Nov 2nd, 2007 @ 9:33am

Re: by Mike on Nov 2nd, 2007 @ 11:03am

Re: Re: Re: Overcast do some DD by star on Nov 2nd, 2007 @ 11:13am

Re: Re: by angry dude on Nov 2nd, 2007 @ 11:31am

Re: Re: Re: angry dude by dorpass on Nov 2nd, 2007 @ 4:00pm

And in other news by Alfred E. Neuman on Nov 2nd, 2007 @ 7:16pm

Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoarder Strategy: Sue Ev by Jim Kayne on Nov 4th, 2007 @ 3:13pm

Re: Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoarder Strategy: Su by Mike on Nov 4th, 2007 @ 4:52pm

Re: Re: Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoarder Strategy by Jim Kayne on Nov 4th, 2007 @ 6:01pm

Re: Re: Re: Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoarder Stra by Mike on Nov 4th, 2007 @ 7:04pm

Re: Re: Re: Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoarder Stra by Jim Kayne on Nov 4th, 2007 @ 7:26pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoarder by Mike on Nov 4th, 2007 @ 8:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoar by Jim Kayne on Nov 4th, 2007 @ 10:55pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wi-LAN Follows New Patent by Mike on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 1:22am

by Jim Kayne on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 3:19am

Re: Re: Ignorance is no excuse! by mkam on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 4:00am

Re: Re: Re: Ignorance is no excuse! by angry dude on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 6:27am

Re: Jim & Mike by Qcom_N on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 10:15am

Jim by Fresca on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 10:17am

Re: Re: Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoarder Strategy by George D on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 10:30am

WOW by D T on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 11:02am

Mike v Jim by rrb on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 11:04am

Re: by Mike on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 11:39am

Re: Re: Jim & Mike by Mike on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 11:44am

Re: Jim by Mike on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 11:47am

Re: Re: Re: Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoarder Stra by Mike on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 11:54am

Re: Mike v Jim by Mike on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 11:59am

by Jim Kayne on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 12:11pm

Re: Re: by angry dude on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 12:16pm

Who says Patents were created to promote innovatio by kingofkings on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 12:36pm

Re: by Mike on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 12:38pm

Monopoly Rights or Property Rights? by kingofkings on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 12:44pm

by Qcom_N on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 12:45pm

Furthermore... by kingofkings on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 12:55pm

Re: Re:Rambus by kingofkings on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 1:18pm

Your Mission by Qcom_N on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 2:03pm

Re: Monopoly Rights or Property Rights? by Mike on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 3:01pm

Re: by Mike on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 3:10pm

Re: Furthermore... by Mike on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 3:18pm

Re: Your Mission by Mike on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 3:22pm

Why are all the critics Canadian? Hmm.... by Mike on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 4:31pm

Re: Re: Monopoly Rights or Property Rights? by D T on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 5:08pm

Re: Re: Furthermore... by D T on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 5:12pm

Bullshit, I am in New Jersey by angry dude on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 5:32pm

Whoa by Alfred E. Neuman on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 5:55pm

Re: Bullshit, I am in New Jersey by Mike on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 6:01pm

Re: Why are all the critics Canadian? Hmm.... by Qcom_N on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 6:07pm

Re: Re: Why are all the critics Canadian? Hmm.... by Mike on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 7:45pm

Sick by CaineDelWin on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 10:10pm

Re: Sick by Mike on Nov 5th, 2007 @ 10:23pm

Ad Hominem by Alfred E. Neuman on Nov 6th, 2007 @ 5:30am

Re: Re: Sick by CaineDelWIn on Nov 6th, 2007 @ 6:30am

Re: Ad Hominem by angry dude on Nov 6th, 2007 @ 6:58am