Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoarder Strategy: Sue Everyone All At Once
from the this-is-innovation? dept
Three and a half years ago, I wrote an article about the coming WiFi patent problem, focusing on the Canadian company Wi-LAN who claimed a bunch of patents related to WiFi technology. The company started off by suing Cisco. That lawsuit was eventually settled, but Wi-LAN clearly wasn’t done yet. The company has now sued 22 different companies for violating its patents. This strategy seems to be the new strategy of patent holders: sue a ton of high profile companies all at once. It’s what Sandisk did for example. Why is it becoming more popular? Because these patent holders are afraid that one of the potential targets might sue them first, seeking a declaratory judgment saying they don’t infringe, and do so in a court other than the patent friendly court in Marshall, Texas. Oh yeah, Wi-LAN also notes that it’s more economical to sue everyone at once. How nice of them.
Of course, Wi-LAN is hardly the only company that claims patents having to do with WiFi. It’s a true patent thicket. If all these patents were actually valid and needed to be licensed no one could afford WiFi and it would be worthless. It’s also worth noting that Wi-LAN’s target list is somewhat ridiculous as well. It appears to be suing up and down the supply chain from chip suppliers like Broadcom and Intel to computer makers like Apple, Dell, Lenovo and Sony all the way to retailers like Best Buy and Circuit City. Assuming that all are somehow responsible for paying Wi-LAN the company could conceivably get license fees three or four times for the same computer. It’s not hard to start adding up the questionable things going on here: (1) broad patents that are claimed to be important for a standard long after that standard has become widespread (2) these patents are one of many, many patents that claim to cover WiFi technology (3) filing the lawsuit against many companies at once (4) filing the lawsuit in east Texas and (5) filing the patents up and down the supply chain. This isn’t what the patent system was designed to do and patent attorneys know it.
Filed Under: patents, wifi
Companies: acer, apple, best buy, broadcom, circuit city, dell, intel, lenovo, sony, texas instruments, wi-lan
Comments on “Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoarder Strategy: Sue Everyone All At Once”
Ignorance is no excuse!
Looks like you need an education about Wi-LAN… Start reading pal… don’t play so dumb! LOL
Re: Ignorance is no excuse!
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.
Re: Re: Ignorance is no excuse!
DT must be Canadian, everything you said is true mike, I’m sure DT is just trying to defend his beloved home land. LOL
Re: Re: Ignorance is no excuse!
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.
Re: Re: Re: Ignorance is no excuse!
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…
No end in sight in the near future.
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.
Re: No end in sight in the near future.
Extortion, Since when getting paid what you are worth extortion?? YOu are a sicko commie of the first order. Maybe we should all work for nothing and just give the world to Bill Gates and others of his steamroller clan.
Re: No end in sight in the near future.
It always amazes me when people call those protecting their patents as “trolls” or “extortionists”. The undeniable reality can be described with one simple question:
If you develop a new type of lawn mower in your backyard, and the owner of the local hardware store, driving around one Sunday happens to see you using it, and then decides to make it and sells a million, would you cry foul, or just drop by with flowers to say how happy you are you were able to make HIM rich?
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.
Re: Re:
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.
Re: Re: Re:Rambus
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
Re: Re: Re:Wi-Lan
Since when is defending the little guy’s innovation an abuse.
It is an abuse when MS sues the Chinese infringers?? Is it an abuse when someone steals your hard earned and well researched patents?? Is it an abuse when someone takes advantage of years of innovative thinking and refuses to pay for it??
If it is, our civilization which is based on constant innovation and something called good honest business practice which the courts take for granted is a basic building stone of our System may as well be flushed down the toilet. The little guys will have no one to turn to to market their ideas other than the MS’s of this world who will give them small per centage of what their invention is worth and make billions from it.
i.e. no incentive–no innovation.
Re: Re:
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.
Re: Re: Re:
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
Re: Re: Re: angry dude
“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.
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
Re: Overcast do some DD
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.
Re: Re: Overcast do some DD
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!
Re: Re: Re: Overcast do some DD
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.
Re: Re: Re:2 Overcast do some DD
Because No implementer wants their crappy products. Only way to make money was to sue. Maybe because Canadian Technology sucks. One example would be RIM and the Blackberry. The iPhone is so much more advanced and developed in the good ole USA.
techidiots
“…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 !!!
This is just the start for Wi-LAN
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.
Re: This is just the start for Wi-LAN
Sue Wi-Lan??? For what??? Defending their property rights. I trust that this also means that someone will sue you for locking your door at night and not allowing them into take your TV, loot your liquor cabinet and steal your stash!!!
Its the same thing.
And in other news
Greed prevails. Let them kill WiFi – who cares. Could it be that the telcos are behind this ?
Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoarder Strategy: Sue Ev
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
Re: Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoarder Strategy: Su
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.
Re: Re: Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoarder Strategy
“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
Re: Re: Re: Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoarder Stra
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.
Re: Re: Re: Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoarder Stra
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
Re: Re: Re:2 Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoarder
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?
Re: Re: Re:3 Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoar
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
Re: Re: Re:4 Wi-LAN Follows New Patent
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.
Re: Re: Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoarder Strategy
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!!
Re: Re: Re: Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoarder Stra
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.
Re: Re: Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoarder Strategy
The fact that a patent is granted to someone who either invented a concept and/or produced something on the basis of that concept does not mean that they do not have the right to capitalize the patent by selling to a pure play like WiLan. When some company uses a patented concept in the process of becoming successful it is entirely fair that they should compensate the inventor PARTICULARLY if the inventor was unable to succeed in the market himself. The failure to bring a concept to market in no way detracts from the value of the patent except that a consequent lack of resources typically keeps the little guy from litigating against the successful company. Theft of intellectual property cannot be justified on the basis that the thieve was able to bring the idea to market while the inventor was not.
Re: Re: Re: THX Parser
comment from FF in regards to Chandler (CISCO) quote:
=================================
“More than 500 percent as many companies sued for patent infringement
in recent years compared to 15 years ago.”
An alternative explanation … the piratical morphing of the
business-model for certain large high tech corporations creates more
willful or quasi-willful infringement, and has increased litigation
exposure in ways the markets haven’t learned to appreciate yet.
Now some of these behemoths are trying to ram through changes to
reduce their business risks. Kind of like criminals taking out
“conviction insurance”… or better yet, changing the criminal codes
before their crimes are detected.
Re: Re: Re:2 THX Parser
An alternative explanation … the piratical morphing of the
business-model for certain large high tech corporations creates more
willful or quasi-willful infringement, and has increased litigation
exposure in ways the markets haven’t learned to appreciate yet.
That’s a ridiculous statement to anyone who’s spent any time in the industry. Take a look at the research of Lerner and Jaffe if you want a *factual* *research-based* explanation for the increase in patent infringement claims over the past 15 years. They did the research, and making broad guess statements without referencing their research (or someone else’s to disprove their research) is meaningless.
Now some of these behemoths are trying to ram through changes to
reduce their business risks. Kind of like criminals taking out
“conviction insurance”… or better yet, changing the criminal codes
before their crimes are detected.
Again, a ridiculous statement that is easily disproved when you look at what the patent infringement lawsuits typically involve. It’s rarely a case where a concept is “stolen,” but usually one where independent invention takes place. In such cases, it should be clear that a patent should never have been granted (if multiple people are coming up with the same idea, then it’s clearly an “obvious” progression).
Re: Re: Re:3 THX Parser
Mark Chandler is Cisco’s senior vice president and general counsel.
OR
Mikey. LOL
Whats ridiculous is that people pay for this? WOW!
Once again, what happened to all those na sayers on this board?
Anyone still on the fense with this, I suggest that you scroll back up and read some of Jim Kayne’s responses.
Jim is as honest as they come. And Free!
Re: Re: Re:4 THX Parser
Fresca, Now this guy has got something refreshing to say.
Fresca , Suprisingly complex.
A distinctively crisp, moderately smooth, , totally refreshing…. Ahhh Just like the soda.
Re: Re: Re:4 THX Parser
Once again, what happened to all those na sayers on this board?
Er. This is not a “board.” It is a “blog.” As such, stories scroll of the front page and tend not to get much attention… unless, of course, they’re sent around to investors in a company who clearly only want to hear that that company is doing something good.
So, I come back to check in once in a while, hoping that maybe I’ll help educate one of you on the problems of the patent system.
“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
Re: Jim & Mike
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.
Re: Re: Jim & Mike
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.
Re: Re:
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.
Re: Re: Re:
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
Jim
Well done. Always respect your view on Wi-lan
Re: Jim
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.
WOW
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
Mike v Jim
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
Re: Mike v Jim
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.
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
Re: Re:
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.
Who says Patents were created to promote innovatio
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…?
Monopoly Rights or Property Rights?
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.
.
Re: Monopoly Rights or Property Rights?
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.
Re: Re: Monopoly Rights or Property Rights?
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!
“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.
Re: Re:
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.
Furthermore...
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.
.
Re: Furthermore...
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.
Re: Re: Furthermore...
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!
Your Mission
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.
Re: Your Mission
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.
Why are all the critics Canadian? Hmm....
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…
Re: Bullshit, I am in New Jersey
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….
Re: Re: Bullshit, I am in New Jersey
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?
Re: Why are all the critics Canadian? Hmm....
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.
Re: Re: Why are all the critics Canadian? Hmm....
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?
Re: Re: Re: Why are all the critics Canadian? Hmm
Mike i request FULL DISCLOSURE.
Not “i have no insight into who is advertizing with us.”
“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.”
So do you or don’t you???
Taking money is taking money. Period.
“advertising is a miniscule part of our business anyway.”
M.Grier Graham is VP of your companies Sales and business development. Perhaps he is not doing his job properly.
“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.”
Gee Mike , who’s minding your business. For a CEO not to know its customers ….Hmmm.( especially for such a small company)
“Mike is the visionary behind Techdirt, building up the core idea into reality and recruiting the management team. In addition to providing the strategic direction for the company, Mike oversees all editorial aspects of the Techdirt’s public and customer sites”
Seems like you know more than you
admit to.
Mike as the company CEO , you even have access to where these emails come from.( and you’ve got the time to look it up.) Yet you say your unsure if any of the infringers (past and present) are advertizers with you company.
FULL DISCLOSURE. By having this site for all to see on the internet , you have a responsibility to provide accurate information to your readers.
Not just to the hands that feeds you.
Re: Re: Re:2 Why are all the critics Canadian?
Mike i request FULL DISCLOSURE.
I have disclosed everything I know.
So do you or don’t you???
We have outsourced our advertising to FM Publishing and Google. They provide the ads on this site. We do not have a relationship with any of the advertisers. Advertising is not our business, none of our sales people have anything to do with the advertising relationships. Honestly, the ad revenue is not important to us.
M.Grier Graham is VP of your companies Sales and business development. Perhaps he is not doing his job properly.
He’s doing a great job: selling our analyst business. The ad part of our business is simply something we handed off to FM and Google, as it’s not our focus.
Gee Mike , who’s minding your business. For a CEO not to know its customers ….Hmmm.( especially for such a small company)
I know our customers, for our business. The advertising part of our business is not particularly important to us, so I do not know who advertises on the site. I’m not sure how much more transparent you want me to be.
Seems like you know more than you
admit to.
Nope. I don’t know how many times you want me to repeat this. I do oversee the editorial side of things as well as our corporate analysis. But that has nothing to do with the advertising, which we have outsourced. FM and Google handle the ad relationships, and they pay us each month. That’s it. Our relationships are with those two companies.
And, I know for a fact that some of what I’ve written has pissed off advertisers, but I honestly don’t care. Overall, advertising is a tiny part of our revenue, and any individual advertiser is a fraction of that, so why would I care if I piss off an advertiser. As I said, I do not know who advertises on the site. I don’t manage the relationship with either Google or FM since that could create conflict of interests with our editorial position, as you are trying to claim here. Yet, since I have no visibility into that side of the business, there is no conflict. Period.
FULL DISCLOSURE. By having this site for all to see on the internet , you have a responsibility to provide accurate information to your readers.
And I have provided full disclosure.
Re: Re: Re:3 Why are all the critics Canadi
” I don’t know how many times you want me to repeat this. I do oversee the editorial side of things as well as our corporate analysis. But that has nothing to do with the advertising, which we have outsourced.”
Nice excuse, mike. My question was a simple one. Are any of your advertizers included in the lawsuit?
You have gone to the extent to look up posters IP addresses . Surely you can look up your advertizers.
Have you ever solicited Cisco ? Oo you have any relationship with them?
Re: Re: Re:4 Why are all the critics Ca
Nice excuse, mike. My question was a simple one. Are any of your advertizers included in the lawsuit?
My answer was and remains the same: not that I know of. I am only aware of advertising relationships with two companies: Google and FM. Even then, we’ve been critical of both Google and FM at times. I honestly have no idea who Google or FM sells our ad space to.
You have gone to the extent to look up posters IP addresses . Surely you can look up your advertizers.
Your IP address is easily displayed for me to see within our comment admin. There’s no “looking up”. Thanks to my account, I just see it.
That’s not the case with our advertisers.
Have you ever solicited Cisco ? Oo you have any relationship with them?
No and no.
If you want full disclosure, I once had a roommate who worked for Cisco, but that was about 5 years ago. Let’s see… last time I moved I sold my washing machine to a Cisco employee. Must be a conspiracy on my part.
Keep digging. You’re not going to find much. My position has nothing to do with companies paying us. It has nothing to do with how it impacts my personal wealth. I have held this position for many, many years and has nothing to do with any of the companies present and has everything to do with what’s actually right.
Whoa
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.
Re: Whoa
Who let the shills out ? Mike i gotta admit when it come to shills you are the shilliest.
“How come stealing from one book is plagiarism, but stealing from many is research?”
How come it’s OK to steal from Wi-lan, Oh wait Mike , believes it’s OF to steal from everybody.
I always believed nothing was impossible…. now after reading all these posts….
“Who says nothing is impossible? Mike
does it every day!”
Whoa , can you believe he gets paid for this trash…
Most of the folks I know with this kinda trash have to get it hauled away from the curb.
This Mike guys one Egomaniac.
Re: Re: Whoa
Who let the shills out ? Mike i gotta admit when it come to shills you are the shilliest.
Huh? Who am I shilling for? We don’t do public policy work. We don’t do any patent work at all. My position is actually at odds with most of our clients. Our clients pay us to tell them (internally, not externally) what they need to hear, not what they want to hear. This blog has little to do with our business, other than showing people how we think.
If you are going to claim I’m a shill, it would help if you actually could back it up. Of course, you cannot.
How come it’s OK to steal from Wi-lan, Oh wait Mike , believes it’s OF to steal from everybody.
Please. If you are going to lie about my arguments at least make sure you understand them. If you cannot bother to learn the difference between infringement and theft then you aren’t adding anything to this debate.
Go learn the difference and then maybe someone will take you seriously.
Whoa , can you believe he gets paid for this trash…
Who gets paid for what? I don’t get paid for writing the blog.
Sick
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.
Re: Sick
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?
Re: Re: Sick
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.
Ad Hominem
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.
Re: Ad Hominem
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
What about Copywrites?
Mr. Mike! So we hear your absurd opinions about IP loud and clear. What are your thought about copywrite? Books, papers, music, art… should the world be free to copy and use these without pay?
Ah sorry I forgot… music is not scarce… it’s all over the radios, tv, etc.. space? (That’s where we should send you! LOL)
Re: What about Copywrites?
Dude, you must be new here..
Mike’s favorite theory is that all artists should give away their music for free, and make money on selling T-shirts instead…
Lovely, isn’t it ?
Re: Re: What about Copywrites?
Sounds to me like Mike has lost its mind… oh wait, maybe he never had one!
P.S. Mike please do not respond to this with your pathetic usual way…
Re: What about Copywrites?
kingofkings,
You have responded with yet another insult, rather than anything substantive again — despite me asking you to actually back up your statements. I’d also suggest that in trying to insult me on intellectual monopoly issues you learn that the word is “copyright” not “copywrite.” It might make you look at least a little knowledgeable.
However, if you read what I’ve written (here’s a starting point: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070503/012939.shtml ) you’ll see that what I am discussing, which has been backed up by numerous studies, research and well known economists, is that intellectual monopolies are damaging. They’re protectionism of ideas when you can expand a market by allowing them to go free. I am not saying that everything must be free. I’m actually saying the opposite. I’m saying that if you recognize what should be free and what you should charge for, you can often create a market where you can make much more money.
I would think for someone who wants to anonymously fling around insults, it would help if you first read and understood what the person you were insulting had to say.
Or do you not do that kind of thing?
Re: Re: What about Copywrites?
Hogwash! I say, Hogwash!
Re: Re: Re: What about Copywrites?
Hogwash! I say, Hogwash!
Sent from the identical IP address as kingofkings.
Yup, that makes you look so much more credible. Again, I have responded to your insults and asked you to make a real argument, and you respond with statements like this one under a different name.
It doesn’t make you look particularly credible.
Re: Re: Re:2 What about Copywrites?
That’s because whe I replied using my KoK id, you blocked it… so as you can see I posted the exact same post under a new one – Tiger.
yes I read your article you submitted… and I found it totally insane and HOGWASH. You guys are extremist anarchists!
Re: Re: Re:3 What about Copywrites?
That’s because whe I replied using my KoK id, you blocked it… so as you can see I posted the exact same post under a new one – Tiger.
I’m afraid that’s a lie. We have not blocked your id at all. We don’t block IDs. But if that’s the story you want to tell…
yes I read your article you submitted… and I found it totally insane and HOGWASH. You guys are extremist anarchists!
Once again, big statements, no support. How is it either hogwash or anarchy to suggest that free markets work better than controlled ones, and to point to plenty of research and evidence to support it? I’d love to hear the details of why you think it’s hogwash. But, it seems that you don’t do details. You just insult and run.
Stupid Matsushita doesn't agree with you Mike
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, Nov 07, 2007 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX News Network) —
Wi-LAN Inc. (TSX: WIN) (“Wi-LAN”) today announced that it has signed a five year licensing agreement with Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. (“Matsushita”) of Osaka, Japan relating to Wi-LAN’s CDMA and Wi-Fi patents.
Under the terms of the agreement, the consideration from Matsushita will include a per unit amount on all Panasonic notebook computers utilizing Wi-Fi or CDMA technologies which are sold in North America while the relevant patents are in effect.
Matsushita, best known for its Panasonic brand, is a worldwide leader in the development and manufacture of electronics and digital communications products for a wide range of consumer, business, and industrial needs.
“We are pleased to have licensed Matsushita for the use of Wi-LAN’s intellectual property within its highly acclaimed Panasonic computers,” said Jim Skippen, President & CEO for Wi-LAN. “Matsushita and Fujitsu, which are two of the top ten notebook vendors in the U.S., have now licensed our technology for use in their notebook computers. We look forward to licensing the remaining notebook vendors to our wireless technologies.”
Re: Stupid Matsushita doesn't agree with you Mike
It’s not that they don’t agree (though, they probably don’t agree). But the decision to license a patent is hardly an endorsement of the patent. All it means is that the company looked at the cost of a lawsuit vs. the cost of the patent and decided it’s cheaper to just license then go through the trouble of a lawsuit.
It’s like saying “you can pay me $100 now, or I can burn down your house.” Many people will pay the $100, but it doesn’t mean they support the gangster threatening them. That’s normally called extortion, but… you know… only in the civilized world.
Re: Re: Stupid Matsushita doesn't agree with you M
To use your approach to discussion, you would have to back up that statment with substantial proof. I think you’re quite wrong in stating “All it means……”. You do not know that.
To me, this is quite telling. It is, if one looks closer, your most commonly used approach. You assume that everything you argue is correct.
It seems silly to conclude that Matsushita is avoiding the trouble of a lawsuit. Especially when you know next to nothing about the origin of wi-fi standards. For someone who expends so much effort in telling others to dive into a long list of your recommended research before you will accept that they are able to argue their point, it seems unusual and contradictory that you would not bother to understand the basics of this lawsuit.
It is far too easy to throw around the word extortion. It’s eye-roll inducing.
The IEEE standards are BASED ON the Wi-Lan patents. That’s just fact. To suggest that Matsushita’s licensing deal over 5 years would be LESS than the “”trouble of a lawsuit” is just ignorant. Not to mention that it also suggests an unprincipled approach to business on their part.
Re: Re: Re: Stupid Matsushita doesn't agree with y
To use your approach to discussion, you would have to back up that statment with substantial proof. I think you’re quite wrong in stating “All it means……”. You do not know that.
Are you suggesting that the company did not take that cost-benefit approach? If so, it would be one of the first companies that has done so.
Especially when you know next to nothing about the origin of wi-fi standards.
Don’t make bad assumptions.
Re: Re: Re:2 Stupid Matsushita doesn't agree wi
No, that is not what I am suggesting, but you already know that. I am suggesting that you do not know that they did, but you are stating that they are.
I am not making bad assumptions. To use your own language, until you prove otherwise, it would appear that you don’t know the origins of IEEE wi-fi standards. If you did you would know Wi-Lan’s role.
Re: Re: Re:3 Stupid Matsushita doesn't agre
No, that is not what I am suggesting, but you already know that. I am suggesting that you do not know that they did, but you are stating that they are.
I am pretty damn sure that they did take a cost benefit approach to it. That’s what almost every company out there does. Please read what I wrote. I don’t take this to be a negative thing. It’s simply a natural part of the decision making process.
My point was not that Matsushita is somehow wrong for doing so. Not at all. My point, and I stand by this 100%, was that the fact that someone licenses a patent is in NO WAY proof that the patent is valid or makes sense. If you think it is then you are mistaken. The calculus that goes into licensing a patent has very little to do with the importance or validity of a patent.
I am not making bad assumptions. To use your own language, until you prove otherwise, it would appear that you don’t know the origins of IEEE wi-fi standards. If you did you would know Wi-Lan’s role.
When did I say such a thing? I haven’t denied Wi-LAN’s earlier role in what they’ve done. In fact, I pointed out that Wi-LAN has been involved in the space for many years — which I warned was a threat years ago. I have simply stated that these lawsuits are bad for the industry and are symptomatic of the problems of the patent system.
To be clear on this: Wi-LAN could have been THE sole creator of the Wi-Fi standard. They could have been the only company who could have possibly come up with this technology (which you and I both know isn’t even remotely true) and it wouldn’t change my position. In other words, it doesn’t matter how involved Wi-LAN was in the original IEEE process. It doesn’t change the problems with this lawsuit. My problem is not with Wi-LAN specifically. My problem is with the patent system and how it’s used to protect those who failed in the market to sue those who succeeded. It’s the opposite of capitalism and if you know any economics, you’d know that such things are bad for any market. A protectionist policy that rewards losers at the expense of winners harms everyone.
The board is quite
Looks like most people here that were trashing Wi-lan with your false info that you were providing, have realized that Wi-lan is a honorable Company.
Hopefully in the future when you are evaluating Companies
you will do a much better job in your DD.
Good luck
Re: The board is quite
Looks like most people here that were trashing Wi-lan with your false info that you were providing, have realized that Wi-lan is a honorable Company.
Huh? Are you just making stuff up or did you actually read any of the above. I’ve asked repeated for what “false info” was provided and none was given. People just took what I said and said it was “humbug” but never made a single point to explain why it was wrong.
My posts were the lasts ones there and no one responded (because, really, there is no response).
In other words, no one gave a credible answer, and your response is to just declare victory. That’s hilarious.
Hopefully in the future when you are evaluating Companies
you will do a much better job in your DD.
In fact, the very post above this shows that I did all the due diligence necessary. No one has explained why my original statements were wrong.
And the idea that it’s “honorable” for the company that failed in the marketplace to hold back everyone else’s innovation is ridiculous.
Re: Re: The board is quite
In your mind you are right. Like I said most people that were up in arms from your mis info about Wi-lan have had a chance to see the truth. But really its about the small guy getting srewed.
Here is a good piece.
Dug out by OG
Beware patent reform
Dan Leckrone
Monday, November 5, 2007
Main Opinion Page
Chronicle Sunday Insight
Chronicle Campaigns
SF Chronicle Submissions
Letters to the Editor
Open Forum
Sunday Insight
High-tech Goliaths who routinely flaunt the law by abusing their
market power are consistently rebuked for regarding themselves as
being “above the law” – and justifiably so. The Patent Reform Act
now up for vote in the U.S. Senate is but the latest blatant example
of how Goliaths are wielding their power to smother innovation.
Indeed, the Goliaths seek a major overhaul of our patent system that
would pave the way for them to roll over competitors by
misappropriating their intellectual property.
The Goliaths are using their economic power to induce persons and
organizations with political clout to force changes to the laws of
the land so that Goliaths no longer need to operate “beyond the
law” – but within it, out of reach and free from sanction.
Thoughtful examination reveals that this proposed legislation would
change the calculations of damages imposed on patent infringers in a
way that would drastically limit the amounts they must pay patent
owners; create a new post-grant, quasi-judicial review process that
would provide infringers new opportunities to challenge patents that
have already been issued; and change the rules on venue – where a
patent holder can sue an infringer – in a way that would favor
infringers over patent owners.
More evidence of the monopolistic power wielded by the Goliaths was
unmasked and checked recently, thanks to the European Union’s top
anti-trust regulator. In a series of recent charges leveled by the
EU anti-trust body, first against Intel in July 2007 and then
against Microsoft two months later, both global giants were cited
for monopolistic practices aimed at stifling competition. The cited
abuses were not new as both Intel and Microsoft were sanctioned
earlier for similar practices by the governments of Korea and Japan,
and have faced, and continue to face U.S. government scrutiny and
sanctions.
Now, these high-tech Goliaths have slipped the Patent Reform Act of
2007 through committees in both the House and the Senate. This bill,
if enacted, will be the coup de grace for the U.S. Patent System as
well as for the inventors and innovation it protects. The self-
styled Coalition for Patent Fairness ( http://www.patentfairness.org)
continues to be well funded by high-tech Goliaths seeking to force
passage of this act. Financial information for Apple, Cisco, Dell,
HP, Intel, Micron and Oracle, reveal that these Goliaths are not as
burdened with patent litigation costs/awards as the coalition
claims. In fact, the seven Goliaths paid out 1/19th of 1 percent
(0.11 percent) of their revenues in patent awards during the 11
years between 1996 and 2006, according to Pat Choate, an economist
and author on manufacturing policy.
In a recent policy paper, Choate reported that the coalition
founders collectively invested more than $131 billion on R&D for at
period. He noted that disclosed patent settlements equaled 1.5
percent of their total R&D investment, which suggests that patent
litigation has had no significant impact on their research and
development activities. When one considers the fact that the ratio
of lawsuits to patents issued has remained less than 1.5 percent for
many years, it is clear that the case being made for the Patent
Reform Act now before the Senate is false. In the 11-year period of
1996-2006, the seven coalition founders disclosed a total of $1.9
billion in patent settlement payments, an average of $173 million
per year. During that same time, these seven corporations had
collective revenues of more than $1.7 trillion.
It is ironic that these companies now seek to weaken the very patent
system that enabled them to achieve their growth and stature by
protecting their intellectual property from infringement. Clearly,
innovation from smaller companies represents real competition to the
Goliaths, and our patent system has proved effective in leveling the
playing field. Our legendary patent system has been instrumental in
making America the cradle of innovation. Indeed, it has spawned the
world’s most effective start-up culture with Silicon Valley as its
poster child. It has also fueled the development of the world’s most
effective venture-capital infrastructure, which in turn has driven
economic and job growth.
Protecting U.S. innovation directly translates to preventing the
exportation of U.S. jobs. The American patent system does not need
the major changes that the Goliaths are seeking to impose. Rather
than this so called reform, we need to help the U.S. Patent Office
continuously improve the quality of the examination so that only
worthy patents are issued. Any legislation regarding our patent
system should rehabilitate, not debilitate.
Dan Leckrone is chairman of the TPL Group in Cupertino. The TPL
Group develops and commercializes intellectual property assets. E-
mail him at chairman@…. For more information, go to
http://www.tplgroup.net/legislation.
Re: Re: Re: The board is quite
In your mind you are right. Like I said most people that were up in arms from your mis info about Wi-lan have had a chance to see the truth. But really its about the small guy getting srewed.
Funny, but you still don’t point out a single thing that I supposedly got wrong. I wonder why…
As for that article, a few things you should know:
I have stated repeatedly that I am against the current patent reform legislation. So pointing me to another article saying it’s wrong is pretty pointless.
However, that article gets so much wrong it’s not even funny.
Thoughtful examination reveals that this proposed legislation would
change the calculations of damages imposed on patent infringers in a
way that would drastically limit the amounts they must pay patent
owners;
That doesn’t take “thoughtful examination.” It’s right out in the open as a key part of the bill. However, this writeup takes the purpose of that clause totally out of context to make it look a lot worse than it really is. It’s not about “drastically limiting” the amounts paid to patent holders: it’s about making sure that damages are calculated based on the patent’s importance to the product — not the overall product itself. It’s hard to see how anyone could possibly find that unreasonable… unless you want MORE than your fair share of the monopoly rents.
create a new post-grant, quasi-judicial review process that
would provide infringers new opportunities to challenge patents that
have already been issued;
Again, totally taken out of context. It’s not a “quasi-judicial review process.” It’s a review process that is clearly needed based on the number of problematic, bogus, overly broad and obvious patents that were issued by an overworked patent office, with bad incentives. It’s hard to see why anyone would complain about a system to help catch and weed out the bad patents.
and change the rules on venue – where a
patent holder can sue an infringer – in a way that would favor
infringers over patent owners.
This one is just a blatant half-truth. It would change the rules on venue… but not to “favor infringers over patent holders” but to set up the system the way it should be. Right now, the system HIGHLY favors patent holders over anyone because it allows for jurisdiction shopping (if I have to explain why jurisdiction shopping is a bad thing, then you’re way too far gone). The problem right now is that patent hoarders always file in eastern texas, because that court almost always sides with the patent holder. This is even if the company is not even close to Texas.
A perfectly good example of this is the Wi-LAN case we’re discussing. Why file it in Texas? Only because of the way the Texas courts work. That’s jurisdiction shopping, and that should be seen as anyone with a sense of fairness as a huge problem.
Anyway, see how that works? I point out what’s actually wrong with what someone else said and explain the reasons why. If you think I said something incorrect, rather than just repeating it, why not point out what I actually said that was wrong. It would be a big step forward in this ridiculous debate.
Stop playing it safe.
The problem is that your original article is actually quite vague. You rely on your past rants about patent reform, which aren’t very strong arguments, then “back up” your pov with a list of debatable “research”.
You want people to PINPOINT your errors. The problem is that you write a vague article, with a very strong subtext that seems to say that Wi-Lan is just another company who should have just folded when larger, richer companies stole from them and they could no longer afford to market their product. This suggests a total unfamiliarity with not only the history of Wi-Lan, but the origins of Wi-fi and the development of the wireless communication that we all take for granted today.
Wi-Lan’s formulas for the whitening of OFDM are 15 years old. They were first. They patented their inventions in order to protect themselves. They were too far ahead of the game to fully implement most of what they developed. Of course you patent in that situation. Of course you defend your patent when you see others stealing from you.
Your patent reform wishes are really clouding your common sense. So is your unfamiliarity with the facts of this case. The two are mutually exclusive, but they combine to make an interestingly uninformed viewpoint.
Re: Stop playing it safe.
You rely on your past rants about patent reform, which aren’t very strong arguments
Which points aren’t strong? That’s what I keep asking and that’s what people keep refusing to point out.
then “back up” your pov with a list of debatable “research”.
Wow. Which research is debatable? Almost all of it is peer reviewed research by some of the most respected economists in the field. I mean, someone can always debate research, but you’re suggesting that it’s been written up by quacks, which is hardly the case. Hell, some of the research we’ve pointed to was written by the guy who just won the Nobel Prize for economics. Are you saying all of these respected economists are wrong? If so, it might help if you provided a little more to back it up.
You accuse me of being vague and not substantiating stuff, but I have been quite specific and willing to back up my points with real research. You, on the other hand, won’t even say who you are and make very questionable claims about the quality of research from some of the most respected economists in the field.
The problem is that you write a vague article, with a very strong subtext that seems to say that Wi-Lan is just another company who should have just folded when larger, richer companies stole from them and they could no longer afford to market their product.
Not so at all. I have been quite specific about the problems of the patent system. And I never said that Wi-LAN should have folded when larger companies came along. Quite the opposite. I have said that, as innovation is a process, they should have continued to innovate to beat the competition. Smaller, more nimble companies have a long history of out innovating larger bureaucratic dumb companies.
Yet, if they do fail in the marketplace, as companies both big and small do, they should not the hold up the innovation of others by claiming ownership of an idea.
I point you to Thomas Jefferson’s words on the matter (I assume you believe he, the creator of our patent system, is another quack?):
“If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
“That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.”
This suggests a total unfamiliarity with not only the history of Wi-Lan, but the origins of Wi-fi and the development of the wireless communication that we all take for granted today.
As I have pointed out repeatedly, though you repeatedly ignore (for unknown reasons) this makes no difference. This is not about who was first. It’s about who got it right in being able to bring successful products to market that people wanted. It’s about driving the market forward. This isn’t kindergarten where we want to make sure that people get credit for things. This is about our economy and how to best drive it forward.
Wi-Lan’s formulas for the whitening of OFDM are 15 years old. They were first.
Again, that doesn’t matter.
They were too far ahead of the game to fully implement most of what they developed. Of course you patent in that situation. Of course you defend your patent when you see others stealing from you.
And here’s the problem. No, it’s not “of course.” It can be “of course” from their standpoint since they FAILED in the marketplace, but that’s not the purpose of the patent system. The purpose is clearly defined: to promote the *progress* of science and the useful arts. If the actions of Wi-LAN instead serve to hold that back, then it’s a problem.
Your patent reform wishes are really clouding your common sense. So is your unfamiliarity with the facts of this case. The two are mutually exclusive, but they combine to make an interestingly uninformed viewpoint.
And again, you have failed to point out what “common sense” is missing. I have supported all of my statements pretty clearly, and as you have not pointed out a single false statement it’s hard for me to figure out how my common sense is incorrect.
Secondly, I am not unfamiliar with the facts at all. I am quite familiar with the facts. However, as I stated (and which you ignored), those facts do not matter here. What happened in the past is meaningless. This is about what’s happening now — and, right now, Wi-LAN is working to hold back innovation in the field, and that is a major problem.
Re: Re: Stop playing it safe.
Your “What?…Who me?…Nuh-uh!” approach is tiring and your logic is wonky.
We’ll see what happens for the future of the patent system. I seriously doubt that the reform you seek will ever take place.
Re: Re: Re: Stop playing it safe.
Your “What?…Who me?…Nuh-uh!” approach is tiring and your logic is wonky.
Once again, you fail to point out a single incorrect thing in what I said.
You also fail to explain why the research I pointed to was questionable.
Do you ever back up any of your statements? If anyone is arguing with a “nuh-uh!” manner, it’s you. I am clearly explaining my position, explaining sentence by sentence where you are wrong, and back it up with detailed explanations. Your response is always “you don’t understand.” Yet you fail to explain why or how what I’m saying is wrong.
We’ll see what happens for the future of the patent system. I seriously doubt that the reform you seek will ever take place.
I’m not sure what that would mean. I agree that the patent reform I’m pushing for is unlikely to occur any time soon (eventually I’m pretty sure it will happen, but it’s a long, long way off). But that doesn’t mean I’m wrong. I’m not vindicated by how the patent system is reformed. I’m vindicated by actually being right, and showing how time and time again, more and better innovation can and does occur in the absence of a bad patent system.
Your argument that it depends on how reform occurs is like saying “well, slavery is okay, because it’s the law.” That’s not the argument I’m making. I’m saying slavery is bad, no matter what the law says.
Do people know the real scoop?
It seems a lot of people have jumped on the band wagon of attacking Wi-lan without looking at the company’s history. Wi-lan was responsible for developing ground breaking technology in respect to Wifi. Their company flourished briefly as a result of this but was soon overshadowed by other companies who chose to use the technology Wilan had invented without paying licencing costs.
One of the co-founders of Wilan wanted to continue working to develop the technology but the board decided it was not in the best interest of share holders to do so. They would be going in circles, developing a product or technology only for another company to infringe on patents. Subsecuently, the founder resigned and thus is no longer part of the company.
They had two directions they could go. The first, favored by Hatim Zaghloul, the co-founder previously mentioned was to work to developing, producing, and selling its own products and second was to focus on licencing existing patents. (http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2006/02/15/wilan-060215.html)
As I am sure most of you are aware, a company must act in the best interest of its shareholders. Now consider yourself a shareholder. What would you want to see? Increasing debt due to the lack of reciprocation of funds between r & d and production & distribution? Or would you prefer to have the company pursue reimbursement for the technology they have already spent so much to develop?
Furthermore, if the issue is to promote innovation I feel many of you are mistaken in your arguments. Without the protection of Intellectual Property, who is going to innovate? What would be the point? So someone could come steal the technology and make more money than the small-market inventor could have imagined?
This will hopefully send a big message. The message that should have been sent in the Research in Motion/Blackberry case. It is plagarizing inventions. Sure they may only be using a small item as part of a much larger innovation, but without giving due credit (and reimbursement) they are acting unjustly (as the courts, I trust, will decide).
If I took the ideas of another and put it into a much larger and broader paper but failed to cite references or give credit, I would risk expulsion from my University. Why should corporate giants get away with it?
Innovation
You keep talking about paying for other people’s ideas will impact or hinder innovation. It is so absurd!
Everything has a cost. There is no such thing as a free lunch (“TINSTAAFL” Theory).
Researchers and innovators still have to pay salaries and wages for their staff. Why don’t their staff work for free too for the sake of promoting more innovation?
Better yet. Why are grocery stores charging for food? There as so many hangry and homeless people in the world – even in wealthy cities like Calgary here in Canada. Why don’t they just give it all away… it would feed everyone and everyone will be happy, just like your logic suggests not charging for IP/ideas will help them use that money to spend more for more innovation.
It just doesn’t work like that!
You see, money makes the world go around. Everyone has to eat… Nothing is free. If I spend my life/time innovating, then I need to get paid for it. JUST PAY AND SHUT UP!
Let’s not confuse business with charity. If you want to do charity, first make some cash, then you can give it all away if you want… But you can’t do charity if your pockets are empty.
Fair pay for fair work!
Re: Innovation
You keep talking about paying for other people’s ideas will impact or hinder innovation. It is so absurd!
Yes, so absurd that folks like Thomas Jefferson and a recent Nobel Prize winning economist agree with me. Totally absurd.
Researchers and innovators still have to pay salaries and wages for their staff. Why don’t their staff work for free too for the sake of promoting more innovation?
Because they (unlike you, apparently) understand the difference between scarcity and abundance. Scarcity involves prices for the sake of efficient allocation. Abundance does not require efficient allocation, since it’s so widely available.
Better yet. Why are grocery stores charging for food? There as so many hangry and homeless people in the world – even in wealthy cities like Calgary here in Canada. Why don’t they just give it all away… it would feed everyone and everyone will be happy, just like your logic suggests not charging for IP/ideas will help them use that money to spend more for more innovation.
Try again when you understand the difference between scarce goods and infinite goods. You charge for food because it’s a scarce good.
It just doesn’t work like that!
For scarce goods. Ideas, however, are not scarce goods.
You see, money makes the world go around. Everyone has to eat… Nothing is free. If I spend my life/time innovating, then I need to get paid for it. JUST PAY AND SHUT UP!
Ah, knew there had to be an insult in there somewhere.
Yes, money makes the world go ’round, but there are things for free: abundant things. You don’t pay for the air you breathe, do you?
Let’s not confuse business with charity. If you want to do charity, first make some cash, then you can give it all away if you want… But you can’t do charity if your pockets are empty.
I have never once suggested that I’m talking about charity. I’m not sure how you could possibly read my writings and assume I’m pushing for charity. I am not. I am pushing for better business models that encourage greater innovation and greater ways to make more money.
Fair pay for fair work!
Sure thing. But, the problem is this isn’t fair. This is about stopping people from using an idea — an idea that is infinitely available. That’s not fair at all, and doesn’t deserve payment.
Punitive Damages
Wi-LAN has always been asking for fair pay! Their ideas were always for SALE at a fair price… if someone steels the idea with NO PAY, then they should be punished.
Consider this fact. My car is parked ouside my house with a sign in the window that says FOR SALE – $1,000!
Last night, someone broke into my car and drove off. I called the police and the thief was caught the next morning. The fellow who STOLE my car then claimed he wants to buy it and proceeded to hand the police $1,000.
Should he be allowed to buy my car now for $1,000? Or should he go to JAIL?
He should have offered to pay before he was caught! JUSTICE requires that he goes to jail (i.e PENALTY!).
Re: Punitive Damages
Wi-LAN has always been asking for fair pay! Their ideas were always for SALE at a fair price… if someone steels the idea with NO PAY, then they should be punished.
The intersection of supply and demand set the price, not the seller. In this case, with an infinitely available idea, the market clearing price would be zero. Thus, Wi-Lan’s price is hardly fair. It’s asking for a monopoly rent, which is not an efficient outcome.
Last night, someone broke into my car and drove off. I called the police and the thief was caught the next morning. The fellow who STOLE my car then claimed he wants to buy it and proceeded to hand the police $1,000.
Should he be allowed to buy my car now for $1,000? Or should he go to JAIL?
Again, it might help this discussion if you bothered to read what I wrote, and then bothered to understand the difference between scarce goods and infinite goods. Otherwise your arguments are pretty pointless. A car is a scarce good.
No one “stole” an idea here. You cannot “steal” an idea like you steal a car. When someone steals your car, they took it and you no longer have it. When someone copies an idea, you still have it — and, in fact, you probably are even better off because others are helping you do more with the idea you had.
Let me ask you this: your car is parked outside your house with a sign that says “FOR SALE – $1000.” The guy next door has a replicator machine, and is able to instantly build an identical car. Did he steal your car?
He should have offered to pay before he was caught! JUSTICE requires that he goes to jail (i.e PENALTY!).
Yes, because a scarce good was stolen. An infinite good being copied is an entirely different situation.
“Sure thing. But, the problem is this isn’t fair. This is about stopping people from using an idea — an idea that is infinitely available. That’s not fair at all, and doesn’t deserve payment.”
Mike your entire business (techdirt) is based on ideas. Why do you charge your customers a fee to access. It should be free. You charge your customers for ideas that are infinitely available. That’s not fair at all, and doesn’t deserve payment.
By charging for these infinately availible ideas, you are holding back innovation.
These customers could be using this money on more innovation, not money to add to your back pocket.
Mike face it you are a same as a patent troll, you charge for your Infinately availible ideas.
Its like the pot calling the kettle black.
Re: Re:
Mike your entire business (techdirt) is based on ideas. Why do you charge your customers a fee to access. It should be free. You charge your customers for ideas that are infinitely available. That’s not fair at all, and doesn’t deserve payment.
Ah, but we don’t charge for ideas, so you’re wrong. We charge for connecting companies to experts so they can then *create* ideas. Once they’re created, the company can do what they want with it.
It’s a big and important distinction. Ideas that have not yet been created *are* scarce. However, once they’re created they’re abundant. So what we do is charge people to generate the creation of ideas. But we don’t then lock up those ideas and try to charge others over and over again to use them.
Since you don’t seem to understand this basic difference, the rest of your comment is equally meaningless. As I’ve said, there’s nothing wrong to charge for the creation of ideas — because that’s scarce. If we did try to charge over and over again for ideas that were already created and tried to stop anyone from sharing those ideas, then you would have a point. But we don’t, so your point is basically that you don’t understand what Techdirt does.
No real surprise there.
But, do you really think I’d be here talking about this if our own business model didn’t live up to the ideals I discuss here?
Mike face it you are a same as a patent troll, you charge for your Infinately availible ideas.
We don’t. Not at all. Once the idea is created, we don’t try to repackage it and sell it again. That’s not our business. Any company who gets ideas from us is free to do what they want with those ideas.
Our business model is based on the understanding that the ongoing creation of ideas is what’s important. Not the one idea we had 10 years ago. We would never sue someone for using an old idea. We know that if they use one of our old or publicly discussed ideas, they’ll recognize to come back to use when they need further insight in the future.
That’s not Wi-LAN’s business, though. They’re suing for an idea they had years ago.
Quite different.
Re: Re: Re:
Why would anybody want to pay so you can make a connection and together create an idea that it will be immediately copied? Patents were created so you can recover and enjoy the benefits of your creation. and remember… patents have a shelf life, they expire, and they don’t prevent others from using it in the meantime.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why would anybody want to pay so you can make a connection and together create an idea that it will be immediately copied?
Who said they would it be immediately copied? The insight that companies are asking for are usually specific to them, so there’s no reason for them to be immediately copied.
Besides, you (again) seem utterly confused by the fact that an “idea” is a tiny part of any business. Being able to actually implement an idea and bring something to market goes well beyond the idea. On top of that companies recognize that being successful in business means going well beyond one idea and living off its legacy. It means continually generating new ideas and implementing new offerings.
In other words, smart companies are HAPPY when others copy their ideas. It helps push the entire market forward. And, what that means is our customers keep coming back for MORE. Because they know what the community helped them with before will give them the next advantage they need to continue to beat anyone who copies them.
Who cares if anyone copies? Good companies know how to continue to lead the pack.
Patents were created so you can recover and enjoy the benefits of your creation.
Um. No. That’s your problem right there. That’s why you think patents were created, but that’s not true at all. Go learn some history and try again.
Mike,
So basically you broker information, pretty original.
You continue to say that abundant goods , should be free and scarce goods should be paid for.
You say that Singers shouldn’t get paid royalties, but should make their money by selling T-shirts.
Funny how you charge for your services, if your articles are anything like your services you offer your clients are getting ripped off. Your services and ideas are just recycled information. Perhaps you should sell techdirt t-shirts and make a buck that way.
By not offering your services for free you are preventing innovation. Your greed is bad for society.
Thomas Jefferson , would be appauld by this business you have unleashed on our society.
You create nothing, just abundant recycled ideas that you charge an exorbant fee for.
Shame on you Mike. Padding your pockets on other peoples work.
Re: Re:
So basically you broker information, pretty original.
You really don’t want to understand, do you? You just want to insult. We broker *connections* between experts and companies that need them. And yes, our customers find it quite original, which is why we do quite well.
You continue to say that abundant goods , should be free and scarce goods should be paid for.
No. It’s not about “should,” it’s about “will.” It’s about economics. Supply and demand. If supply is infinite, price *WILL* get pushed to zero. It’s a matter of economics, whether or not you or I like it.
You say that Singers shouldn’t get paid royalties, but should make their money by selling T-shirts.
No. I say that singers should make money selling scarce goods. T-shirts are a scarce good, but hardly the only one. Access, creating new songs, concerts, fan clubs… are all scarce goods where they can make money. Selling CDs is good too, since they’re scarce as well.
Funny how you charge for your services, if your articles are anything like your services you offer your clients are getting ripped off.
Our customers are quite happy. If they weren’t, we wouldn’t be in business. I see that, once again, you don’t bother to criticize what’s wrong with my ideas or our business model, you just insult.
You’d get much further if you could actually back up your statements.
Your services and ideas are just recycled information.
Actually, they’re not “recycled” information. What gives you that idea? We bring together a group of experts who provide all different kinds of information specific to what a company wants. That’s not recycled at all. It’s the opposite of recycled. But, apparently, again, you just want to insult rather than understand.
Clearly you’re just trying to mock me, but it really doesn’t make you look very intelligent. If you could actually, say, back up your arguments with some evidence, might help me take you seriously. Though, I guess you’ve made it clear that you have no desire to be taken seriously. So be it.
Mike,
“No. It’s not about “should,” it’s about “will.” It’s about economics. Supply and demand. If supply is infinite, price *WILL* get pushed to zero. It’s a matter of economics, whether or not you or I like it.”
My point exactly. Wi-lan created scarce ideas. Wi-fi wimax , obviously has a demand. Supplying that demand has a price has a price.
“Our customers are quite happy. If they weren’t, we wouldn’t be in business. I see that, once again, you don’t bother to criticize what’s wrong with my ideas or our business model, you just insult”
Wi-lans liceneced customers are quite happy also. They signed under FRANDly terms. They are reaping the benifits of leapfrogging over their competion. When wi-lan years first started down the path of wofdm/wifi/ wimax they openly shared their patented ideas with the wireless industry. By doing so they accelerated innovation, and are entitled to benifit from contributing to our society.
Patents do not last forever, they have a time limitation. If their patents weren’t in demand no one would copy them , thus they would expire worthless.
“It’s a matter of economics, whether or not you or I like it”
Exactly! Mike. Its economics , its business , its Capitalism!
Whether you like it or not, the infringers STOLE Wi-lans patents. For that they must pay, FRANDly terms.
I am not trying to insult you. Simply, I’m baffled that such an inteligent guy such as yourself , does not get it.
Re: Re:
My point exactly. Wi-lan created scarce ideas. Wi-fi wimax , obviously has a demand. Supplying that demand has a price has a price.
But an idea is not scarce once it’s created. It’s infinite. Infinite supply hits any demand at the zero price point.
Wi-lans liceneced customers are quite happy also. They signed under FRANDly terms. They are reaping the benifits of leapfrogging over their competion. When wi-lan years first started down the path of wofdm/wifi/ wimax they openly shared their patented ideas with the wireless industry. By doing so they accelerated innovation, and are entitled to benifit from contributing to our society.
But now Wi-LAN is suing companies for an idea they had years ago. Now they are holding back innovation. They may have helped kick off the innovation years ago, but no longer. Now they are merely holding it back by suing the companies who are innovating.
Patents do not last forever, they have a time limitation. If their patents weren’t in demand no one would copy them , thus they would expire worthless.
I’m not sure what that has to do with anything. Patents are artificial monopolies, which decrease efficient use of information. They naturally and undeniably slow down the innovation process.
You seem to be under the false impression that innovation is just about an initial idea. It is not. Innovation is about taking an idea, building something useful out of it, bringing it to market successfully, and then continuing to innovate on it. Taking what was learned, adding, modifying, changing things and continually improving.
Note that the initial idea is just a small part of this. Yet, if a company forces everyone to pay for that initial idea every time they do those other steps, those other steps (the important ones for economic activity) are made more expensive and the pace is decreased.
Exactly! Mike. Its economics , its business , its Capitalism!
I don’t understand how gov’t granted monopolies are capitalism. Sounds like the opposite to me. Capitalism is about taking away gov’t granted monopolies and protectionism and letting the market set the price.
Whether you like it or not, the infringers STOLE Wi-lans patents. For that they must pay, FRANDly terms.
Tragically, you are wrong. The stole nothing. They may have infringed on the patents, but infringement and stealing are quite different things.
“Capitalism is about taking away gov’t granted monopolies and protectionism and letting the market set the price.”
Are you for real Mike?
What do you think of China ? Do you find it’s right, or just that they just “infringe” on the worlds IP and have no recourse?
“Tragically, you are wrong. The stole nothing. They may have infringed on the patents, but infringement and stealing are quite different things.”
Infringe , steal, take without permission, profit from someone elses work… call it what you will .
The 22 Infringers will be found guilty , they will have to pay Wi-lan.
Re: Re:
What do you think of China ? Do you find it’s right, or just that they just “infringe” on the worlds IP and have no recourse?
I think China is acting just like the US did in the late 1800s. I expect that soon enough, they’ll follow the US’s path and start to put in stronger IP laws — not to encourage innovation, but to *protect* the innovation that was happening there thanks to the lack of IP enforcement.
Infringe , steal, take without permission, profit from someone elses work… call it what you will .
No. It makes a very big difference what you call it. This isn’t a small matter, and you’re offhand dismissal of the correct term is quite telling. It suggests you don’t even care about what’s important. You just want to make it sound bad. An idea cannot be “taken without permission.” It’s an idea. More than one person can have the same idea at the same time. Or people can share an idea and both be better off for it. An idea is infinite. It cannot be “taken.”
The 22 Infringers will be found guilty , they will have to pay Wi-lan.
That’s besides the point. They very well may. But if they are and if they do have to pay, that will be a travesty of the patent system. That’s because money that should be going into innovation won’t be. The patent system was NOT designed for that kind of result.
Is the reason you continue to post your propaganda,
because this is the most hits you’ve got on one of your blogs.
Tis is the first time ever you have such a large audience.
Gotcha.
Is the reason you continue to post your propaganda,
because this is the most hits you’ve got on one of your blogs.
Tis is the first time ever you have such a large audience.
Gotcha.
Re: Re:
Is the reason you continue to post your propaganda,
No propaganda at all. If it were propaganda you’d actually be able to disprove it. But since you don’t bother to respond to a single point or a single piece of evidence, we can assume that it is clearly not propaganda.
because this is the most hits you’ve got on one of your blogs.
Huh? Um… no. Not at all. If I look at the logs, I’d say this post has been rather on the low end of traffic this year. Traffic is fairly meaningless to us here at Techdirt. The reason I keep posting is because I’m hoping you’ll see the light.
Tis is the first time ever you have such a large audience.
Um. No. I’ve been written up in the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, Wired among many others. Just a few weeks ago, I was in the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/nov/01/blogging.interviews
So, I’m sorry, but I’ve had plenty of large audiences in the past, and as I said, the patent posts don’t tend to get much traffic. I write about it because it’s important for people to understand.
This is all interesting, but I wish someone with a little more familiarity than I have with ofdm would discuss the actual claims in the patents.
Re: Re:
Ptbarnum,
There are plenty of sites that discuss OFDM and Wi-lan. Start with their website, than go to Wimax forum, ofdm forum, Ieee site.
Whether Mikey, likes it or not , the infringing companies have stolen wi-lans Intelectual property.
Mike says they are infinite ideas, well WI-lan and many many tech industry players and anaylsts believe they have.
Guess we will wait and see what the East Texas judge has to say.
Re: Re: Re:
Whether Mikey, likes it or not , the infringing companies have stolen wi-lans Intelectual property.
Again, infringement and theft are two very different things. Saying that infringement is theft is to show you’re ignorance and bias on the topic. I’d point you to Justice Blackmun’s ruling in the Supreme Court on the topic (I know you hate it when I actually point you to factual info, but what can I do…):
“interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.”
I’m sorry that you are unable to see the distinction, but you’re inability to see it makes you not particularly credible on this subject.
Mike says they are infinite ideas, well WI-lan and many many tech industry players and anaylsts believe they have.
Guess we will wait and see what the East Texas judge has to say.
As I have pointed out many many times (and which you ignore each and every time) the point of my post (which I believe is quite clear) is the problems with the patent system — not this particular case. Even if Wi-LAN wins under the patent system, that’s just a demonstration of how the patent system is holding back innovation by making the actual innovators pay up to the company that failed in the marketplace. That’s anti-innovation.
Thanks for your comments.
Frankly, I don’t quite get the statement “Even if Wi-lan wins under the patent system, that’s just a demonstration of how the patent system is holding back innovation by making the actual innovators pay up to the company that failed in the marketplace.” It seems to me that if Wi-LAN “wins under the patent system”, then they are the actual innovators, and they should be paid to, instead of having to “pay up”, but maybe I am mistaken. Somehow, thie reminds me of the first time I saw a cyclical integral.
Also, thanks for the idea of going to the ofdm websites, but I have seen them, and people never get to the meat and potatoes of what is going on, which is interpreting the claims against the prior art and perhaps the “infringing products.” The other discussion of the philosophical basis of patent law is interesting and may make us feel better, but the patent system isn’t going anywhere, and it would maybe be more productive and interesting to talk about the actual patents, which I have found are not discussed a lot. I guess we’ll just have to leave it to John Dudas to do that.
It seems to me that if Wi-LAN “wins under the patent system”, then they are the actual innovators, and they should be paid to, instead of having to “pay up”,
Wi-LAN isn’t doing anything to promote the progress of wireless technologies any more. They failed in the market place and are now suing others who *ARE* promoting the progress of the technology. That’s what I mean by saying that they would be holding back innovation. The companies who actually are still innovating would have to pay the company that failed. That’s subsidizing a failed commercial effort by the successful commercial efforts. That’s just bad policy.
“Wi-LAN isn’t doing anything to promote the progress of wireless technologies any more. They failed in the market place and are now suing others who *ARE* promoting the progress of the technology. That’s what I mean by saying that they would be holding back innovation.”
Any business minded entreprenuer understands the Beginning phase (adoption stage) of any technology is the key to mass adoption.
Wi-lan spent 10’s of millions of dollars of investors money, starting their business on their patented ideas.
It was such good technology , that the big guys with deeper pockets wanted in on it. Tell me, how is a small Canadian company supposed to compete with the massive budgets of the larger multinational companies.
These companies have a massively different economies of scale, they introduce predatory policies against smaller competitors. They can operate at a loss for a lot longer to squeeze out the little guy.
If Mikes perceived “UTOPIC” business environment ever became reality. Only the large Multi-national Corporations would ever exist. Forget about the smalll to medium businesses. Which are the main drivers to every economy.
The position Mikes takes is very ignorant. Every system has it’s problems. Yet he thinks he has all the answers.
To every system there has to be “balance” . His proposed system favor the few multinational corporations that are out to crush the small to mid-size businesses.
Mike is just a corporate lackey, a yes- man . Always follow thew money , he just says things that will get him his paycheck.
Mike you want some evidence to back up my words….
Just re-read your posts.
Re: Re:
It was such good technology , that the big guys with deeper pockets wanted in on it. Tell me, how is a small Canadian company supposed to compete with the massive budgets of the larger multinational companies.
The same way a small Seattle company named Microsoft competed with the MASSIVE budget of a Armonk company named IBM.
The same way a small Mountain View company named Google competed with the MASSIVE budgets of Yahoo and Microsoft.
The same way a small San Francisco company named Craigslist competed with the MASSIVE budgets of the nation’s newspapers.
The same way a small Kansas City company named Sprint competed with the MASSIVE budgets of AT&T and MCI in the 80s.
The same way a small Los Gatos company named Netflix competed with the MASSIVE budgets of Blockbuster.
The same way a small San Mateo company named YouTube competed with the MASSIVE budgets of Google.
Need I go on? The way you compete is by continually out-innovating the large, slow incumbent player. It happens all the time. It’s fallacy to think that just because one company has a big budget that it automatically wins. Sure, it wins some of the time, but the smaller, nimble company who supposedly understands the technology and the market better can often out innovate. If they can’t, then, well, that’s what competition is all about.
If Mikes perceived “UTOPIC” business environment ever became reality. Only the large Multi-national Corporations would ever exist. Forget about the smalll to medium businesses. Which are the main drivers to every economy.
Actually, you are historically incorrect (by a wide margin). History shows that in places where patent protection is not allowed, there tend to be many more small to medium sized businesses and few large multi-nationals.
For evidence, go pick up the research by Eric Schiff. In it, he looks at the industrialization of the Netherlands, when the country specifically *got rid of* its patent system. He also looks at Switzerland during the period of time when they had no patent system (and also during the time they had a very weak patent system). In both cases, you see fewer large-multinationals than were found in surrounding countries, and instead, more competition from smaller and mid-sized players, generating increased innovation in specific industries.
Another good example is the research of David Levine about the Italian pharmaceutical industry. Italy only started allowing patents on pharma in 1978. By your assumption, prior to that, there should be either no pharma industry in Italy or it would be dominated by large multi-nationals. After the patent system came into play, you would expect that to switch.
Except, the exact opposite was true. Prior to patents on pharma being recognized there was widespread competition, with over 400 firms doing R&D in the pharma industry, developing new compounds. It was actually *because* of pressure from large multi-national pharma companies that patent protection was added in 1978.
What happened? Competition dried up. Many of those smaller firms went out of business and the large multi-nationals took over. How about innovation? Well, the thriving pharma industry in Italy pretty much dried up, with fewer discoveries coming from Italy after the change to the patent system.
In other words, what you’re claiming is just wrong. I can see why you’d believe otherwise, but you really ought to read the research on the matter. You can apologize for being wrong, or (as I expect) you can continue to insult me.
The position Mikes takes is very ignorant. Every system has it’s problems.
Really? I’m the one who has pointed to all the research and history. How does that make me ignorant? I have been researching, writing and talking about this space for well over a decade, and am often called on as an expert in the space. I have backed up my positions, pointed to research and explained in great detail why you are wrong. I have even pointed out where you are uninformed. Yet you call me ignorant? It’s hard to see how you’re credible here, as you have repeatedly displayed your own ignorance of both the history of the patent system and the research on the economic effects of the patent system.
Mike is just a corporate lackey, a yes- man . Always follow thew money , he just says things that will get him his paycheck.
That’s a bizarre statement. I’d ask that you back it up. How can I be a corporate lackey when I know of not a single company that supports my position on patents? In fact, it actively goes against the position of almost every client I have. My job is not to be a yes-man. It’s to be the opposite. To tell companies what they need to hear, rather than what they want to hear.
Again, you are proven wrong. Once again, I’ll ask for an apology and an admission that you were wrong — but somehow I doubt I’ll get it.
PT Barnum
You can also try sites such as Silicon Investor ,& yahoo groups, just do some serches for WI-lan. There is plenty of dicussion over patents.
Many of the posters can lead you to the Patent records to look up Prior art re Wi-lans Intelectual property.
Good hunting.
Re: Thanks
Thanks, I am writing a book about patent law as it relates to communications (ie, ofdm, etc), and even though I am familiar with the subject, this is a huge undertaking. One question I have – if these patents are all bogus – and believe me, I know they are better than most people – then why aren’t more people reexamining them?
Re: Re: Thanks
One question I have – if these patents are all bogus – and believe me, I know they are better than most people – then why aren’t more people reexamining them?
That’s a bigger question than can be answered simply here. But there are a few key things:
1. The patent office, thanks to CAFC, has gradually expanded the coverage of what is actually considered patentable over the past twenty-five years. There has FINALLY been a gradual pushback from the Supreme Court on this over the past two years, but we’re still living in an age where many more things are considered patentable than ever before — but not for a good reason.
2. The process of getting a patent invalidated is ridiculously and needlessly complex. It takes years and involves a series of appeals and somewhat silly, complex and arcane rules. In other words, it’s quite difficult and usually not worth someone’s time.
3. The tests used by the patent office to determine what’s valid or invalid are not good proxy’s for the actual purpose of the patent system (i.e., “promoting innovation”) but are used because they’re more defensible.
Thus, you see fewer patent re-examinations because it’s still an expensive process that has little chance of success — not because of the quality of the patents, but the way the system is designed.
Re: Re: Re: thanks for reply.
Thanks mike, but not quite sure I agree.
1. Just because there are more things patentable does not really mean we should not see more reexams – This just increases the number of patents, and if anything, should by itself lead to more reexams (more patents, more invalid patents, more reexams, absent other forces).
2. Filing a reexam is not hard at all. From the perspective of the person filing, they are essentially a patent examiner – These claims are invalid in view of this reference in view of that reference. It is a little harder from the perspective of the patent defender, because from the patent challengers point of view, he files his request and with one exception is then out of the picture – the rules preclude his involvement (unless it is a rarely filed interpartes reexam, or if the defender files a response, the challenge gets one chance to reply, I believe).
3. I do not understand your third reason. The reexamination statute promotes “the useful arts” by weeding out improperly granted patents. In a perfect world, we would not need it.
Thanks.
Re: Re: Re:2 thanks for reply.
1. Just because there are more things patentable does not really mean we should not see more reexams – This just increases the number of patents, and if anything, should by itself lead to more reexams (more patents, more invalid patents, more reexams, absent other forces).
The point being that *fewer* things are now *considered* bogus. Prior to the expansion in what was considered patentable you could get a patent thrown out for reasons that are no longer considered enough to invalidate a patent. Thus, fewer patent reexams.
2. Filing a reexam is not hard at all.
I didn’t say *filing* was hard. I said that actually getting a patent invalidated is quite difficult and *cumbersome*. That is, it’s not worth the trouble in most cases.
3. I do not understand your third reason. The reexamination statute promotes “the useful arts” by weeding out improperly granted patents. In a perfect world, we would not need it.
The question is why we’re not seeing more re-exams if so many patents are bogus. The point was that the USPTO’s standard for what is bogus does not match with the real world (or the Constitution’s).
re mike's remark in post 85
A perfectly good example of this is the Wi-LAN case we’re discussing. Why file it in Texas? Only because of the way the Texas courts work. That’s jurisdiction shopping, and that should be seen as anyone with a sense of fairness as a huge problem.
Anyway, see how that works? I point out what’s actually wrong with what someone else said and explain the reasons why. If you think I said something incorrect, rather than just repeating it, why not point out what I actually said that was wrong. It would be a big step forward in this ridiculous debate.
Wi-lan has sued three times in Canada, not the East texas jusrisdiction you have such antipathy for. There were 2 setlements before trial (Redline (who OEM’d for Alvarion at the time), and Cisco both settled with wi-lan) the third case also against Cisco was dismissed by the court because Cisco promised that it had never sold w-ofdm gear in Canada.
This fact exposes several aspects germane to your comment italicised above:
1) Their first court resorted to WAS NOT East texas. (there is that due diligence problem others pointed out to you again.)
2) There are jurisdictional differences on what an infringement is: A sale is needed to infringe in some jurisdictions, in others offering for sale is sufficient, in others simply making the device is sufficient particularly if revenue improvement follows from doing so. These jurisdictional differences make it a night mare for a patent holder to benefit from their idea. The evolution of a single jurisdiction “that matters” as East Texas seems to have become, actually facilitates the industry;by offering a single measure of “what matters” we get “progress”.
3) I’d have thought that the “sue everyone in sight” angle would have awoken your “antitrust” instincts. How can it possibly be that there are 22 defendants (i.e. organizations benefiting from Wi-lan’s patents).
Given that many of them belong to the same “clubs” ( ieee standards groups: 802.11a,g,n, wimax, industry bodies: ofdm-forum )with lots of opportunities for conversations that accidentally or intentionally are collusional, What do you think a patent court judge should do if in his/her opinion evidence came out that there were inappropriate communications of an antitrust nature? Should he/she refer it on to another court? Ignore it ( not a “patent” thing)? What is your stand on antitrust? Is it consistent with your stand on patents? This is an important question because it mirrors the patent questions, but is about markets.
Re: re mike's remark in post 85
Wi-lan has sued three times in Canada, not the East texas jusrisdiction you have such antipathy for. There were 2 setlements before trial (Redline (who OEM’d for Alvarion at the time), and Cisco both settled with wi-lan) the third case also against Cisco was dismissed by the court because Cisco promised that it had never sold w-ofdm gear in Canada.
Yes, if you click on the links, you’ll see that I covered those cases as well.
1) Their first court resorted to WAS NOT East texas. (there is that due diligence problem others pointed out to you again.)
I never said it was their *first* action. There’s no due diligence problem here. I was simply noting that the fact that the company now chose to file there indicates a problem — and it doesn’t change that earlier lawsuits were filed elsewhere. If you look at the history of the eastern texas court, you’ll see that it’s only a recent phenomenon that it’s become known for its patent rocket docket.
These jurisdictional differences make it a night mare for a patent holder to benefit from their idea. The evolution of a single jurisdiction “that matters” as East Texas seems to have become, actually facilitates the industry;by offering a single measure of “what matters” we get “progress
Spoken like a true patent attorney. However it’s also ignorant of the history of patents. What happens when you have a single “pro-patent” district is similar to what happened when we got a “pro-patent” CAFC. Patent laws become worse and worse over time limiting progress, not promoting it. Hence the recent Supreme Court smackdowns. Jurisdiction shopping should always be seen as a problem.
3) I’d have thought that the “sue everyone in sight” angle would have awoken your “antitrust” instincts. How can it possibly be that there are 22 defendants (i.e. organizations benefiting from Wi-lan’s patents).
Yeah, if we weren’t seeing every other new case in Eastern Texas involving a boatload of patent holders. It’s got nothing to do with collusion and everything to do with a fear over changes to patent law (both Congressional reform and Supreme Court rulings). Gotta get in now while the getting’s good.
What is your stand on antitrust? Is it consistent with your stand on patents? This is an important question because it mirrors the patent questions, but is about markets.
Yup. And just like with the patent system, I am a fan of letting the market decide in the absense of evidence of market failure. I think you *can* make a case for market failure when there’s a monopoly, but I think people rush into calling something a monopoly way too quickly. That is, I think most antitrust decisions are way too quick to call something a monopoly. So while I have nothing against antitrust law, I find that it’s often used not to break up monopolies, but simply to punish successful companies.
Monopolies tend to be bad things, but I find it’s rare to find monopolies forming naturally. Market effects are way too strong. The biggest problem with monopolies, honestly, are gov’t mandated ones… such as patents.
Can you say Conflict of interest.
Mike’s bashing of Wi-lan why?
He Is the founder and CEO of Techdirt, and some of his main sponsors are:
INTEL, Motorola, AT&T, SUN, want proof just scroll up and look on the right hand side of this screen. The ads change frequently from company to company.
Does Wi-lan adverize with Techdirt … NO. Do many of the infringers of Wi-lans fundamental patent portfolio advertize or sponsor techdirt? YES
All stock analysts and fund managers must disclose their relationship with Companies they have relationship with.
Intel sponsors part of Techdirt.
Coincidence that Techdirt backs Intels stance on Wi-fi / wimax?
Judge for yourself.
Re: Re:
Can you say Conflict of interest.
No, actually, you cannot.
Mike’s bashing of Wi-lan why?
Because they are acting in a way that hurts innovation.
He Is the founder and CEO of Techdirt, and some of his main sponsors are:
Techdirt is not a media property. Advertising is a miniscule part of our revenue and if it all went away it wouldn’t matter to us. We do NOT, as you imply, have an advertising relationship with any of the companies you listed. We have an advertising relationship with Federated Media and Google. They sell ads for us to whoever they want. Google, especially, as you know, will allow anyone, even Wi-LAN, to buy ads. Either way, it doesn’t make a difference to us one way or the other.
You’re really reaching here. You can’t respond to the actual points I’ve raised, so you pull out some ridiculous complaint saying that I’m purposely siding with Intel, Motorola, AT&T and Sun.
Unfortunately, it’s ridiculously easy to prove why you are wrong. I have written plenty of stuff that is highly critical of all of those companies. AT&T, for example, is one of the worst companies around these days. Yet, according to your reasoning, I would never say such a thing because I might lose ad revenue. Yet…
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071206/030232.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071203/025437.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071121/160426.shtml
Even better, you claim that “Intel sponsors Techdirt.” We have no direct relationship with Intel. And then you claim: “Coincidence that Techdirt backs Intels stance on Wi-fi / wimax?” suggesting you either are totally clueless or don’t know how to work a search engine. We absolutely DO NOT back Intel’s position on Wi-Fi/WiMax and have been quite critical of the company:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070921/001432.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20051110/178234.shtml
http://techdirt.com/articles/20060705/1852225.shtml
Judge for yourself.
Yes, please do.
Re: Re: Re:
“AT&T, for example, is one of the worst companies around these days. Yet, according to your reasoning, I would never say such a thing because I might lose ad revenue. Yet…”
Says a lot about you Mike, Take money from sponsors yet than you bash them. Nice…
It’s funny , along the right hand side of this window, it said SPONSORED BY INTEL, it strangely disappeared a day after i posted my comment about that.
For those that saw it, they know the truth.
Deny as you wish Mike, we have seen the truth.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Says a lot about you Mike, Take money from sponsors yet than you bash them. Nice…
Actually says a lot about you, who refuses to name who you are, that you would make up an entirely fake controversy that is completely incorrect — and when shown to be wrong, refuses to admit that he was wrong.
It’s doubly amusing that you would complain about conflicts of interest, and yet, then when we show that we have (like all good publications) a strict wall between editorial and advertising, you make fun of us for “bashing an advertiser.”
I’m afraid you can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim that we are on the take, and then make fun of us for bashing advertisers.
It’s funny , along the right hand side of this window, it said SPONSORED BY INTEL, it strangely disappeared a day after i posted my comment about that.
I already explained this (multiple times), so I’m not sure why you think you’ve “caught” us doing anything. We have an advertising relationship with Google and FM Publishing. That’s it. If they sold ads to Intel, then so they did. I have no knowledge of who they are selling ads to. We have no direct relationship with Intel. We have never received a check from Intel.
So I’m not sure what you think you’re proving here other than you continue to dig yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.
The more you try to manufacture a fake controversy that is easily proven false, the more ridiculous you look.
No wonder you’re too chicken to reveal who you actually are.
Mike say what you will, its obvious your gonna stick to your story.
The “ad” said this site is sponsored by Intel.
Your site had it posted, it has since been removed.
This next paragragh was copied directly from your “About Techdirt” section.
“About Techdirt.
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.”
The proposed patent reform bill is supported mainly by the big industry players. It is no suprise that your companies stance on the Patent Reform Bill is exactly the same as theirs.
Their mentalities and beliefs were/are moulded by the large corporations they used to be employed by. If they ever find themselves unemployed, more than likely will go back to them.
Mike , your opinion is your opinion. All the logical strong posts here are not going to change yoour opinion.
Afterall, it is your job.
Have a nice day.
Re: Re:
The proposed patent reform bill is supported mainly by the big industry players. It is no suprise that your companies stance on the Patent Reform Bill is exactly the same as theirs.
Again, you prove yourself to be wrong. You really should learn how to use a search engine.
You claim that our stance on patent reform is “exactly the same” as these big companies.
Then how come they support the patent reform bill and we do not?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070418/161925.shtml
Why is it every time you think you make a point, I have to prove you are wrong? It’s sad, really.
All the logical strong posts here are not going to change yoour opinion.
It would help if you actually made a logical point. So far, it’s been all me presenting evidence, research, making points… and all you do is accuse me of conspiracy theories that are easily proven false. And, when proven false, rather than admitting you were wrong, you come up with some new conspiracy theory.
“The more you try to manufacture a fake controversy that is easily proven false, the more ridiculous you look.
No wonder you’re too chicken to reveal who you actually are.”
Mike, just went and looked at dozens, and dozens of techdirts blogs and comments thrughout you website. I see about 98% of comments do not contain their real names.
If you want people to reveal all their information than make it a requirement on the site. After all you do own techdirt.
For you to ask only ask for Names of people that disagree with your point of view is truly ridiculous.
But you obviously don’t want that, it would reduce site traffic. Thus it would also reduce revenue.
“We have an advertising relationship with Google and FM Publishing. That’s it. If they sold ads to Intel, then so they did. I have no knowledge of who they are selling ads to. We have no direct relationship with Intel. We have never received a check from Intel.”
If your company truly believes in integrity , than only advertise companies that you agree with. Simple as that. Passing the responsibility off to Google and FM is the easy way out. Afterall you are the owner of techdirt. This entire site is a representaion of the company.
Merry Christmas & Happy holidays Mike.
Re: Re:
Mike, just went and looked at dozens, and dozens of techdirts blogs and comments thrughout you website. I see about 98% of comments do not contain their real names.
Yes, you are free to remain anonymous. I’m just saying it adds credibility if you say who you are, yet you choose not to. I’m not demanding it. I’m not requiring it. I’m just pointing out that it hurts your credibility.
But, no matter, your actual statements, proven false time and time again, do a better job destroying your credibility anyway.
But you obviously don’t want that, it would reduce site traffic. Thus it would also reduce revenue.
I don’t know how many times I need to repeat this. We make very little on ad revenue. We don’t care. We don’t care about site traffic. If it goes down, it goes down. If we wanted to increase site traffic we could — easily. We could write bullshit sensationalist stories. But we don’t. We write what we find interesting, and then we stand by what we write.
If your company truly believes in integrity , than only advertise companies that you agree with
Ah, yes, I’ll let you, someone who has so far gotten almost every factual point wrong, and who won’t admit who he is tell me what integrity is about. No thanks. Integrity means NOT being biased. It means NOT basing what you write on who pays you — and the way you do that is by having a wall between editorial and advertising. Funny thing is that’s exactly what you were saying above… until you realized that’s what we do. Then suddenly you changed your story.
Integrity? You clearly have shown you have none.
For those of you have come to this site to read about WI-LAN
Scroll up to post #17 and read Jim Kayne’s posts.
This guy knows what he is talking about.
Re: Re:
Qcom_N, why do you now pretend to be someone else? You are the same person who has been posting factually false statements above as repeatedly pointed out by me. To then pretend to be someone else says something about your “integrity.”
And for those who follow his recommendation to read Jim Kayne’s post, you might as well also read the followup where it is shown that Jim does not know what he’s talking about at all.
http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20071101/185058#c267
For Qcom/Anon to ignore that shows the sort of “integrity” he has.
” I don’t know how many times I need to repeat this. We make very little on ad revenue. We don’t care. We don’t care about site traffic.”
Mike than why do you do it? I just like you am providing an opinion.
If it is not important to you than don’t do it. It would speak volumes.
From Googles POV they get paid by amount of traffic. In turn you get paid more if more eyeballs see your site. To say you don’t care is not believable.
I’m just trying to offer you some advice. What you do with it is up to you.
Re: Re:
If it is not important to you than don’t do it. It would speak volumes.
I have explained why we have advertising elsewhere:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071101/100113.shtml
We resisted having advertising for quite some time.
You can also read this explanation for why it’s bogus to accuse us of trying to maximize ad revenue:
http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20071207/112527#c1056
Does anyone know the licensing costs?
Does anyone have any information on the licensing costs that are being received by Wi-Lan. Or the number of patents they are receiving license fees on and the number of companies they are receiving license fees from?
Wi-Lan Patents
Sounds like a short position here and by now April 2008 hopefully you have covered cause this stock is going to move up once the reporting Quarters show the rising income.
Next out should be around first part of June 2008
WiLan Lawyers are full of $H1T
What a bunch of losers. Lawyers are skum of the earth.