Supreme Court Says Patent Holders Can't Shake Down Entire Supply Chain

Wed, May 14th 2008 8:38am

Filed Under:
counterfeit, espionage, government procurement, military, routers, security, supply chain

Companies:
cisco

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Should We Be Concerned That The Military Will Use Counterfeit Routers Bought Off eBay?

from the it's-not-pretty dept

There was a story last week that got a lot of press about how the FBI discovered that the military was using a ton of counterfeit technology equipment, including thousands of fake Cisco routers. Dan Wallach has an excellent writeup looking at the security implications of what happened. From the description, it certainly doesn't sound like any of the equipment was found to include any kind of questionable technology for spying, but the point is that it would have been easy enough if someone had wanted to do so. Basically, the background is that while the government only buys equipment from approved vendors, those vendors can subcontract out the actual tech purchases to anyone. That leads to situations where (no joke) one subcontractor purchased a bunch of fake routers off of eBay and then resold them to the government via an authorized vendor. Or, try to follow the details of the case of the US Navy contracting with Lockheed Martin for equipment. Lockheed outsourced the deal to an unauthorized Cisco reseller as a subcontractor. That subcontractor turned to its own subcontractor who (yup, you guessed it) hired another subcontractor who shipped the equipment straight to the Navy. If you lost count, that's five layers deep, with most of those layers having no real oversight on what they did. You would think the government (and especially the military) would be a bit more careful in where it sourced its products from, but it certainly doesn't seem as though that's the case at all. Given all that, it's almost difficult to believe that compromised equipment hasn't been sold to the government at some point.

Legal Issues

Fri, Mar 21st 2008 5:12pm

Filed Under:
guitar hero, lawsuits, patents, retailers, supply chain

Companies:
activision, amazon, gamestop, gibson, kmart, target, toys r us, wal-mart

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Gibson Sues More Than Just Activision Over Virtual Music Concert Patent

from the who-else-can-we-sue dept

Remember how Activision had preemptively sued Gibson for a declaratory judgment that it didn't infringe on a really questionable patent concerning a computerized guitar for a "virtual" concert? Well, Gibson has now struck back, and it's not just suing Activision, but almost all the retailers who sell it as well, including Wal-Mart, Target, Kmart, Amazon.com, Toys 'R' Us and GameStop. The idea, clearly, is to have those retailers put pressure on Activision. Update: Wired reports that the lawsuit also covers a bunch of other companies. Basically, Gibson is suing anyone even remotely connected to video games that involve fake guitars.

Of course, there are all sorts of questionable things about this lawsuit. As we pointed out when Activision first sued, Gibson's patent doesn't seem similar to "Guitar Hero" at all. It talks about playing a real concert, with a real guitar (with strings) attached to a head mounted display. Also, as Activision points out, Gibson didn't care about the patent as long as Activision and Gibson had a marketing agreement. They only started calling for patent infringement after the marketing agreement ended. Finally, suing retailers for selling the game is quite sketchy. In fact, the Supreme Court just heard a case looking at whether or not that was legit, and the Justices sounded quite skeptical. Gibson is clearly posturing to try to push for a settlement -- and in the process, showing yet another way to abuse the patent system.

Legal Issues

Thu, Jan 17th 2008 5:41pm

Filed Under:
patents, supply chain, supreme court

Companies:
lg, quanta

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Supreme Court Sounds Skeptical About Suing Up And Down The Supply Chain For Patent Infringement

from the fingers-crossed dept

Last fall, we mentioned that the Supreme Court had agreed to hear yet another interesting patent case, looking at whether companies could sue up and down the supply chain for patent infringement. If you're familiar with the concept of the "first sale doctrine" in copyright law, this case looks at whether or not the same concept applies to patents as well. Basically, if Company A legitimately licenses a patent from Company B and then sells a product based on that product to Company C, who turns around and resells it (perhaps as a component of a larger product), can Company B sue Company C for patent infringement? Or, did Company B "exhaust" the right to control Company A's products once it licensed the patent? That's what happened in the case. LG licensed a patent to Intel, who used the patent to make some chips. Intel turned around and sold those chips to computer makers, such as Quanta, who put them in laptops, which they then sold. LG claims that all those laptop makers also need to license the patents, even though they bought the chips from someone who had already licensed them. Basically, it's LG trying to get paid multiple times for the same patent.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court actually heard the case, and most of the mainstream press coverage suggests that the Justices were extremely skeptical of LG's position, though others note that Supreme Court Justice tea leaves aren't so easy to read. It does sound like the Justices did focus in on the key issues, though, and were concerned about the absurdity of a situation where a company is still controlling the sale of a product after it's been sold. While we wait for a decision, expect to see a few more patent hoarders try to rush through infringement lawsuits where they sue up and down the supply chain. In the meantime, we're still curious to know why Yahoo sided with LG, while most tech firms sided with Quanta on the other side.

Surprises

Fri, Dec 14th 2007 3:55pm

Filed Under:
patent reform, patents, supply chain, supreme court

Companies:
lg, yahoo

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Is Yahoo Siding With Patent Hoarders?

from the something-yahoo-wants-to-share-with-us? dept

Back in September, we noted that the Supreme Court was going to hear a rather important case concerning patents, determining whether or not it's possible for a patent holder to "double dip" and get license fees up and down the supply chain. The anonymous Patent Troll Tracker alerts us to the fact that a ton of organizations and companies have now filed amicus briefs in support of one side or the other (or neither, in a few cases). While the Troll Tracker's post focuses on the fact that most of the briefs filed in support of LG's position appear to come from patent hoarding firms (and their attorneys), at the end he does mention in passing that Yahoo! sided with LG as well. While he doesn't name them, the Troll Tracker notes that most of the firms filing against LG's position come from the tech industry. This is the usual breakdown. Companies that rely on patents to make a living tend to want stronger patents (no surprise there). Companies that tend to focus on business models that don't require intellectual monopolies tend to favor weaker patent laws. That said, it seems quite odd that Yahoo! falls in with the former, rather than the latter. While it has been involved with some patent lawsuits (most notably, the dispute with Google over paid search patents), Yahoo tends to be more focused on providing useful services rather than focusing on its patent portfolio. Hopefully, this isn't a sign of things to come. We've certainly seen other formerly successful companies turn to patent lawsuits after they failed in the marketplace. Perhaps Yahoo is signaling to the world where its future lies.

Legal Issues

Wed, Sep 26th 2007 5:12am

Filed Under:
patent reform, supply chain, supreme court