Patent Troll Says Anyone Using WiFi Infringes; Won't Sue Individuals 'At This Stage'
from the a-well-thought-out-shakedown dept
Just as some in the copyright trolling business are lowering their settlement fees, but making it up in volume, it appears there’s a similar effort under way on the patent trolling side of the world. The Patent Examiner blog has the incredible story of Innovatio IP, a patent troll that recently acquired a portfolio of patents that its lawyers (what, you think there are any employees?) appear to believe cover pretty much any WiFi implementation. They’ve been suing coffee shops, grocery stores, restaurants and hotels first — including Caribou Coffee, Cosi, Panera Bread Co, certain Marriotts, Best Westerns, Comfort Inns and more.
There are various interesting things in the article worth commenting on. First is the smaller settlements/making it up in volume technique. While its initial lawsuits against coffee shops and restaurants did focus on the central corporations, with the hotels, Innovatio appears to be focusing on individual franchisees. Yes, the small businesses who own individual hotels and probably have no idea how to deal with a patent infringement lawsuit — all because they dared to offer WiFi somewhere in their hotels. To make it “easy” of course, Innovatio’s lawyers will let them settle for between $2,300 and $5,000. In almost every case, that’s going to be cheaper than hiring a lawyer to just get started dealing with this — which I’m sure is exactly what Innovatio intends.
The company is represented by the infamous law firm of Niro, Haller & Niro, which is the firm that originally inspired the term “patent troll.” The lawyer representing the company, Matthew McAndrews, seems to imply that the company believes the patents cover everyone who has a home WiFi setup, but they don’t plan to go after such folks right now, for “strategic” reasons:
“Innovatio has made a strategic and business judgment at this stage that it doesn?t intend to pursue [lawsuits on the basis of] residential use of WiFi,” McAndrews said during a phone conversation last week.
And while that certainly could change, you may be relieved (or probably not) to learn that McAndrews does not “perceive” such a “strategic” decision will change. However, later in the article, he seems to indicate otherwise:
Ultimately, he said, Innovatio?s “plan is to license this portfolio to the fullest extent possible. That would include anyone who’s wireless networking.”
And then there’s this:
“We want you to continue to use this technology, we just want our client to get his due share,? McAndrews said. ?This is not a seat-of-the-pants, fly-by-night shakedown.”
I guess he means this is a well-planned, well-financed shakedown that’s going to stick around for a while. Lovely.
At least there is some firepower arguing against Innovatio. After its first round of lawsuits, Motorola and Cisco went to court, asking for a declaratory judgment that its WiFi products do not infringe… and that Innovatio’s patents are invalid. Hopefully that comes to pass or WiFi may get a hell of a lot more expensive.
Comments on “Patent Troll Says Anyone Using WiFi Infringes; Won't Sue Individuals 'At This Stage'”
one reason only.
“for the encouragement of innovatio….”
the trailing n along with the rest of the reasons are of no regard.
“a patent troll that recently acquired a portfolio of patents that its lawyers (what, you think there are any engineers?)”
There, fixed that for you.
The WiFi Alliance
Doesn’t the WiFi Alliance have cause to go after NH&N for some kind of misrepresentation? Or at least copyright infringement for its use of “WiFi”? Something?
Will somebody please patent the process of patent trolling and sue anyone who patent trolls?
Re: Re:
Will somebody please patent the process of patent trolling and sue anyone who patent trolls?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081107/0118162765.shtml
Re: Re: Re:
that does it, I give up. Next stop, Mars.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You need to at least get top Omicron Persiei 8 before patent trolls can get you…again.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
the estate of Douglas Adams owns that
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Omicron Persiei 8 or bust.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why Mars? Just get out of USA!
Re: Re: Re:2
Every day, this seems like a more and more attractive option. Sigh.
Re: Re:
What about prior art? 😛
Re: Re:
What about prior art? 😛
Re: Re: Re:
What about the lawyers!
Re: Response to: Rex Mitchell on Oct 3rd, 2011 @ 11:49am
Wouldn’t they then sue themselves, too?
Re: Re:
IBM and some other company tried and failed.
crazy system
It has always struck me as crazy that they can go around useing users, rather then producers of the tech and even more crazy that they can sue after the patent has been challenged. Seems like that should be a show stopper until cleared up.
Re: crazy system
Yeah. There should be some law that indemnifies customers from such threats. Even if a device does actually violate a patent, the violation was in the creation of the device, not it the usage. It’s just another stupid scenario like SCO or Microsoft collecting licensing rents on Linux-based systems.
Re: Re: crazy system
The Uniform Commercial Code (the UCC) does say that manufacturers of goods have an obligation to indemnify the customer. (UCC 2-312).
But, not all scenarios are well suited for the UCC, which deals mostly with goods. IN most cases, software and services are out the window.
More importantly, though, users often agree to waive an indemnification obligation. This is usually part of the sales contract or license agreement. When pressed, many vendors will agree to accept indemnification obligations.
However, the real reason most end users are not sued for patent infringement is because their individual infringement is incredibly small so the damages are very limited. That does always stop a patent holder who might be seeking some leverage over a deeper pocket.
Re: Re: Re: crazy system
Services yes, but software is very much covered by UCC.
Re: Re: Re:2 crazy system
There is a totally separate uniform code (UCITA) that would like to have a word with you.
More seriously, that’s not really case in most jurisdictions that don’t see the sale of a software license as the sale of a “good.” This issue is all but alleviated when you realize that most software licenses negate any protective features of the UCC even in those jurisdictions that would offer UCC protection.
Re: Re: crazy system
Completely agree. There ought to be a single point in the chain where patents can be enforced. Some of the newer H.264 based video cameras come with a note claiming that the codec needs to be licensed if the footage is used for commercial purposes. Rubbish! There was no such stipulation when I bought the camera and it creates the video files not me. The manufacturer should be solely responsible for paying any patent fees.
Suing wrong people
Unless they patented the process of taking a router out of the box and hooking it up, it seems that they should be suing the manufacturers, and not the establishments using the equipment.
Re: Suing wrong people
[Unless they patented the process of taking a router out of the box and hooking it up,]
Given the situation…them holding that patent too wouldn’t surprise me.
Some things in the world apparently get a little more ridiculous every day.
Re: Re: Suing wrong people
Only some?
Re: Suing wrong people
SHHHHHHHHHH!!!! Don’t feed to patent trolls ideas, damn ye!
I don't understand
How can the end user be liable? I thought that the manufacturer of the equipment would be the party liable?
As bad as patent law is… it would be 1000x worse if end users were somehow liable… imagine there’s a patent dispute over a car and then everyone who has that car is now liable? That can’t be right
Re: I don't understand
I think several lawyers now need to excuse themselves from their desks and go clean up in the lavatory.
Re: I don't understand
It’s a common misunderstanding of patent law that you can’t be sued if you buy a product that violates the patent. This is not the case: anybody who “practices” the technique described in the patent is liable, unless they have a license.
So if the company that sold you the WiFi box paid for a license on your behalf, you’re in the clear. If they didn’t, you’re not. In principle, the patent holder can sue both you and the company who sold you the WiFi router.
Given that these patents hadn’t been enforced in the past, it’s unlikely that your WiFi vendor purchased a license for you. So yes, you are probably liable, if the patents are upheld.
Re: Re: I don't understand
regardless there really should be a statue of limitations on this sort of thing. how long has wifi been in use? 10-15 years now and with as prevalent as it is i would think the holders could have reasonable expected to have started to bring suits a number of years ago.
Re: Re: I don't understand
The reason it’s a common misunderstanding is because the general public being sued and losing for patent infringment has never happened anywhere in the history of the world. It has never occurred, anywhere, that the public was sold an object and then later sued because the IP for said object was not owned by or licensed to the seller.
The reason it has never happened is because it’s easy to make the case that the IP owner forfeited their right by failing to license the technology or sell it themselves, or file a case of IP infringement, for so many years.
Also, I Am Not A Lawyer.
Re: Re: I don't understand
It’s a common misunderstanding of patent law that you can’t be sued if you buy a product that violates the patent. This is not the case: anybody who “practices” the technique described in the patent is liable, unless they have a license.
I think the doctrine of patent exhaustion says otherwise. Unless you have corrections (with references of course) to the Wikipedia article.
Re: I don't understand
Why do think everyone here is so pissed off?
The theory is that if processes are patentable, and you patent the process of sending wireless IP packets, an end user is using that process in the course of their business, hence they need a license. I disagree but I can see how one could come to that conclusion. I disagree because in this scenario, each use of the patented process gets paid for multiple times. What if a businessman stays at the hotel. Is he liable for his usage of that wifi device because he used it to generate revenue? I still don’t see how non-commercial users could possible be liable.
Hold on...
These guys have the patent to radio signals? Better tell the universe to get their lawyers warmed up.
So if roughly 2 million wireless routers are sold per year that would make their client’s “due share” between $5,000,000,000 and $10,000,000,000 annually. Sounds totally fair.
Someone needs to patent, patent trolling.
Re: Patenting Patent trolling
Actually, IBM does have that patent! I’m serious!
See US Patent application 20070244837, October 18, 2007 (filed April 3, 2007)
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR EXTRACTING VALUE FROM A PORTFOLIO OF ASSETS
http://j.mp/mRmPQg [uspto.gov]
Thoughts....
It seems to me that a class of persons, say WIFI users, could mount a defense and a counter-claim in this matter. I suspect these trolls will not end up going after individuals.
A legal system that permits this type of predatory/parasitic behavior is way overdue for a make-over!
What about the courts?
I bet the courts that are deciding the case use wireless networks? Are they next on the list to get sued? Do you think they would use a court in Texas to sue the courts in Texas?
Great. First we get sued by a company that claims they own ethernet. Next we get sued by a company that claims they own wifi.
That’s it. Time to switch back to token ring.
IP laws in this country suck.
Re: IP laws suck
Yeah, but the TCP/IP laws are even worse.
Wouldn't Hold...
I would imagine that this would crumble for similar reasons that the Wal-Mart discrimination case did – there’s way too many people for any cause of infringement to be adequately served.
Not just that, but this may also be the wake-up call that senators need to get some actual patent reform through. But only after they’re dragged through this crappy process.
Re: Wouldn't Hold...
The problem with the Wal-Mart case was not that there were too many people, but that they were too diverse, and didn’t all experience the same harm. If you had 10 million people who all got the same shakedown letter for claimed infringement of the same patent for using the same sort of equipment in the same way, I don’t see why they couldn’t form a class. IANAL though, so there could be some problem I’m not aware of.
Might be the perfect wakeup call
I usually stay out of the IP debates, but this one is too good to pass up. If you are looking for a cause that impacts so many people that citizens/government might become aware of how far patent abuse can go, this seems to be it.
Re: Might be the perfect wakeup call
Here’s a plan, instead of fighting this in court, how about all those coffee shop chains that got sued get together and have a no WiFi Wednesday. Every cup of coffee they serve should come with a label that explains the situation. Shed some light on this situation. Do this every week until Congress gets its act together. That would make national news and end this whole debaucle in no time.
Paying off patent trolls
As for the abandoned idea of suing individual WiFi owners, I’m going to do this if any lawyer comes after me with a lawsuit for infringement:
Send them a blank check. Tell them to make it out to themselves and I’ll sign it.
Won’t tell them the account’s been closed for 10 years.
That’ll teach ’em!
Re: Paying off patent trolls
That seems like it would be against some kind of law. Possibly fraud/etc.
Misread
I misread the law firm as Nero, Hitler and Nero….
Re: Misread
you didn’t actually, Mike did
But this is the savior for our entire economy, suing each other for huge amounts of money none of us actually have.
Like that fable about a rich man staying at the hotel in the village, he pays the clerk. The clerk goes and pays the maid, the maid goes and pays the grocer, the grocer pays the delivery boy, the delivery boy pays the repairman, the repairman pays the clerk. The rich man then decides he won’t be staying and takes his money back. Everyone was paid back, but the net change was nothing.
And some people still wonder why some of us keep calling it Imaginary Property.
They should sue the courthouses
I’m pretty sure all courthouses have wireless networks nowadays. It would be interesting if they sued them as well.
Re: They should sue the courthouses
They’d have to agree to be sued first. That’s right, they get a choice. It’s good to be the government.
POLL: Should this patent owner be rewarded?
Vote: http://www.wepolls.com/p/3363896
Tomorrows headlines
….Suing people who use the Internet.
….innovatio ip sues apple and amazon for wifi enabled devices.
….Small African village sued for for having wifi
This is just priceless.
It seems to me those “people” (I use the term loosely) are connection to wireless networks in order to identify infringers. That sounds like an unauthorized access to a computer system to me. Toss the pinheads in jail and throw away the key.
Dog gone it!
Makes me wish I used wi-fi just so they would come after me. I’d enjoy meeting them in court.
$699 ?
"Patent Troll Says Anyone Using WiFi Infringes"
It would be like telling everyone that uses a microwave oven, infringes. Or stupidly paying licensing fees to micro$0ft for using or distributing linux. It’s another Keystone Cops episode, in the style of SCO. Funny in the beginning. Boring, predictable, and annoying in the end. I doubt inn0vatio will know when to pull its head out of its butt before the gods of Chapter-11 reign fire and brimstone down on their scrawny pencil-necks. So, continue to use wifi and linux and whatever else makes your life easier through technology. Same old song and dance… };P
Re: "Patent Troll Says Anyone Using WiFi Infringes"
So in a nutshell your telling them to kneel before ZOGG?
Re: Re: "Patent Troll Says Anyone Using WiFi Infringes"
Daemon_ZOGG is about being free, open-minded, copyleft and highly vocal against copyright/patent abuse. Innovatio seems to be quite the extreme opposite. Of course, if they wish to kneel before Daemon_ZOGG, I’ll be happy to visit them in the unemployment line after their delusion fades. 😉
For those who have WiFi, and the company who are being sued by this patent troll should start a class action suit.
innovatio? is that when you suck on innovation?
More attorneys need to flat fee this
I do a good amount of flat fee work because I deal with clients who face these kinds of antics. The problem is, I don’t think I could even touch one of these cases for much less than what the rates appear to be.
Some attorneys (including myself) will represent folks in cases like this pro bono, and maybe that is what needs to happen. The problem is the attorney needs to be able to take the time to do it right. That can be hard to do.
The thing is, if an attorney can get in and play some defense and stall it until the big players, Cisco et cetera, get the patents invalidated (or at least narrowed) then it could save a lot of folks the settlement fees.
This is awesome news!
This is good, to the extent that I wonder if these ‘patent trolls’ aren’t actually anti-patent activists engaged in a false-flag exercise.
The more patents inconvenience the average Joe, the closer we move to reform (or even better, abolition) of the patent system.
CSIRO
I wonder how the CSIRO feel about this (http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/04/23/2550483.htm) – after all, they hold the patent on 802.11.
lol
They can get money from me for using wifi when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
well thats stupid US patent law, good luck with it
If I can perform AES encryption in my head and radiate the results as packets in the 5GHz band I guess they could sue me……
LOL that reminds me the case of a woman in Spain who patented The Sun and said that she would only claim rights to the electric power companies that made use of solar panels.
Sounds like a job for...
Anonymous!
A fortune in tiny settlements...
Sounds as if a troll can make a fortune in tiny settlements too small to justify hiring a lawyer to defend.
[According to Uncle John’s Bathroom Reader, The World’s Gone Crazy:] “To demonstrate flaws in the patent system, in 2001 an Australian lawyer patented the wheel.” There’s a *lot* of folks using the wheel. There’d be a lot of tiny settlements flowing from that, enough to make a troll incredibly wealthy.
Trolls give Lawyers a Bad Name
Seriously, we can’t earn money from our own efforts. We need to take advantage of legal loopholes and hold companies hostage. Another reason we need a overhaul of our legal system.
Thank you Sir Issac Newton
I am thankful to Sir Issac Newton for not patenting his discovery (Gravity).
loophole?
I would like to patent a temporal position change system device using articulated extensions from the central system to any surface surrounding the main device. Yeah!! all legged things will pay me fees or I sue them all!!
-99.9% of lawyers give the profession a bad name.
-How do you know if it’s cold watching a lawyer? It’s the only time when they keep their hands in their own pockets.
Thank you Sir Issac Newton
I am thankful to Sir Issac Newton for not patenting his discovery (Gravity).
HAHAHA
All I can say to you Patent Troll. Bring it BIATCHES. Bring your money, your lawyers, and all your moms and dads. Know what Ill do, Ill just flip the middle finger at you as I walk on out that court room.
Pay Me All Your Money Now
I have a patent on light. If you turn on a light then you owe me $; if not you will be sued for having any light emitting from you house.
I have a patent on breathing. If you do not have a license from me you must cease and desist from breathing. I have a court injunction.
I have a patent on intestinal absorbtion of water. You must stop drinking liquids immediately, unless you have a license.
I am God.
You should drag me from my house and kill me and all my heirs. Immediately. Problem solved.
Random Act of Stupidity
Those who can do, those who can’t sue
Can't even find words
I lolled so much I nearly chucked my own lunch. Can’t even find words to describe how brainless and ridicuolous these guys are. Deep shame for them.
Sounds similar to.....
Sounds like another Lemelson with his vision and auto-ID patents – sue the users in hopes of getting big bucks. He even tried and succeeded in extorting money from the Japanese auto makers because they were using vision systems to manufacture cars. If you use equipment that infringes on US patents to manufacture products they can be subject to US customs preventing their entry into the US. His empire was eventually brought down. These guys will also be brought down!
RE: Wifi Troll
I thought that the Australian Governments research department, CSIRO, held patents in wifi, specifically 802.11g. I remember they won court cases against manufacturers a few years ago.
Maybe they should go after Innovatio IP, give them a taste of their own medicine.
Sounds like someone's trying to control how someone can use something
Seems to me, because of the lack of clarity in exactly what their patents cover, that they’re trying to control the use of something that they absolutely get no credential on. Will definitely be looking into this, and seeing just what ammo I can give the justice system to crush their little ego’s
another biased article
?Patent troll?
Call it what you will…patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, etc. It all means one thing: ?we?re using your invention and we?re not going to pay?. This is just dissembling by large infringers to kill any inventor support system. It is purely about legalizing theft.
Prior to eBay v Mercexchange, small entities had a viable chance at commercializing their inventions. If the defendant was found guilty, an injunction was most always issued. Then the inventor small entity could enjoy the exclusive use of his invention in commercializing it. Unfortunately, injunctions are often no longer available to small entity inventors because of the Supreme Court decision so we have no fair chance to compete with much larger entities who are now free to use our inventions. Essentially, large infringers now have your gun and all the bullets. Worse yet, inability to commercialize means those same small entities will not be hiring new employees to roll out their products and services. And now some of those same parties who killed injunctions for small entities and thus blocked their chance at commercializing now complain that small entity inventors are not commercializing. They created the problem and now they want to blame small entities for it. What dissembling! If you don?t like this state of affairs (your unemployment is running out), tell your Congress member. Then maybe we can get some sense back in the patent system with injunctions fully enforceable on all infringers by all inventors, large and small.
For the truth about trolls, please see http://truereform.piausa.org/default.html#pt.
Get rid of this guy Masnick
This guy Mike Masnick is a shill for big corporate America which doesn’t like to pay anybody anything they don’t have to. Matt McAndrews is highly professional. And the perjorative ‘patent troll’ is just a means to disparage investors who make high risk investments in new technology, thereby supplying small inventors with sorely needed capital. God knows that they won’t get money voluntarily from the likes of Microsoft (remember the world’s largest antitrust suit ever against Microsof which Bush dropped upon getting into office).
Re: Get rid of this guy Masnick
And the perjorative ‘patent troll’ is just a means to disparage investors who make high risk investments in new technology, thereby supplying small inventors with sorely needed capital.
A patent troll is someone who holds a patent and uses it to sue people, but doesn’t have any product based on that patent. If you’re trying to sell something based on the patent, you’re not a troll.
So what this guy is saying that just by using consumer technologies, bought and paid for from a high street store, consumers are infringing on patents? God help us if this is allowed to set a precedent. Can you imagine how many patents the average consumer could be accused of violating? How many patents are involved in PCs, cars, TVs, mobile phones, land line phones, cookers, microwave ovens, iPods, MP3 players, bues, power tools, toys, trains and planes and any other consumer device or object you care to name?
The Amish life is looking appealing. Although I’m pretty sure someone has a patent on the horse and cart.
Uh oh. I used a plug today. Uh oh I used a cup today. Uh oh I used a shower cap today. GTFO. Any individual or company who is trolled by these losers tell them to get lost. If they actually want you in court hire some 50 buck lawyer for an appearance, and when the judge throws it out, counter sue for damages. These trolls only want to settle. Never ever settle a frivolous lawsuit. Ever. All it does is encourage them to continue with their criminal behavior. A patent must be Non Obvious. Every patent troll suit that’s ever existed is based on the obvious. Patent trolls have never won a case in court and always want to settle. Always always always call these criminals bluffs. And once we have correct laws in place let the lawsuits against them begin. 🙂
Patent Trolls are costing the economy as much as $29 billion. Small businesses may be at the greatest risk of being targeted by these new companies who seek to generate profit in crooked ways. Find out more: http://www.hiretheworld.com/blog/employers/business-news/protecting-your-intellectual-property-from-patent-trolls#more-2753
Might be the perfect wakeup call
yeah. can work
kirana sop bahlaki
Ok that's funny
This is an older article, but that is still hilarious, especially today.
pos patent trolls
Ive heard stories about patent trolls in the past and work with a vendor that ended up having to pay the troll to utilize online ordering with a pos system. The troll, and i wont name names, but they claimed they had rights to all online ordering. Total shackdown and these kind of people are some of the worst.
Cloud Based POS Requires Wifi
How can someone say that they own WiFi? That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. There are hundreds of POS systems that require WiFi for connectivity. I bet they had a hard time finding a lawyer that would be willing to go after the planet.