FTC May Get Involved In Patent Dispute Over Digital TV

from the monopoly-corrupts dept

Back in February we wrote about a patent holding firm called Rembrandt (a nod, I'm sure, to the book "Rembrandts in the Attic," which many say kicked off this decade's patent problems) that was suing basically everyone in the TV business, claiming to hold patents on digital television. This was problematic for a few reasons. First, since the FCC is mandating that everyone switch to fully digital TV systems by next year, broadcasters have little choice but to offer digital TV. Second, Rembrandt bought the patent from AT&T who had already promised to license it under RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms which Rembrandt is ignoring. Since the FTC recently smacked down another patent holder for doing the same thing, an advocacy group is now appealing to the FTC to smack down Rembrandt as well, claiming that the company is "violating antitrust and fair competition laws by abusing the monopoly provided by its patent" in order to collect "a massive tax... on the transition to digital TV." Indeed.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: digital tv, ftc, licensing, patents, rand
Companies: rembrandt


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    eleete, 17 Apr 2008 @ 6:56pm

    Seems to be harming their innovation

    Wish others could do something like that.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    mark, 18 Apr 2008 @ 1:07am

    Obviously too many lawyers over at Rembrandt.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2008 @ 6:15am

    What law?

    Since the FTC recently smacked down another patent holder for doing the same thing, an advocacy group is now appealing to the FTC to smack down Rembrandt as well, claiming that the company is "violating antitrust and fair competition laws by abusing the monopoly provided by its patent" in order to collect "a massive tax... on the transition to digital TV."
    And from the earlier case: N-Data violated federal law by engaging in unfair methods of competition, the FTC said. Now my question is this: Can anyone point out exactly which law is being violated? I would really like to read it for myself. And can someone please explain to me how it applies in this case but not other patent cases? Does it boil down to political correctness and selective enforcement?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      eleete, 18 Apr 2008 @ 8:15am

      Re: What law?

      I believe the law would be patent law, because of the RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms. If I'm not mistaking, companies can sell technology under the term that it be available for widespread industrial use, at nominal (reasonable) fees. But then again, IANAL.

      e

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2008 @ 10:27am

        Re: Re: What law?

        I believe the law would be patent law, because of the RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms. If I'm not mistaking, companies can sell technology under the term that it be available for widespread industrial use, at nominal (reasonable) fees. But then again, IANAL.
        I don't think RAND is part of US patent laws. Nor do I think that US patent laws regulate the fees that a patent holder may charge.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2008 @ 5:42am

      Re: What law?

      "Does it boil down to political correctness and selective enforcement?"

      Basically, yes.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    MLS, 18 Apr 2008 @ 12:06pm

    Mr. Masnik gives far too much creedence to the view that "Rembrants in the Attic" was a possible catalyst for what is happening in patent law litigation. The book in large measure was trite and way off base in positing the value of patents sitting on the shelves of companies and gathering dust. In fact, the book was published long after TI had embarked on a litigation crusade to squeeze value out of its patent portfolio, a portfolio covering much of the technology that TI was actually using in its product offerings.

    The truth be told, much of what now exists actually started in the early 80's when all of a sudden IP became the law of choice for many embarking on their legal careers. Couple this with the merger of what had been relatively small botique IP firms into some of the mega-law law firms, and the die was cast. The end result was only too predictable; litigation practitioners in such large firms quickly displaced IP practitioners who were generally prone to work out business deals rather than file lawsuits demanding extravagant amounts of $$$.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike (profile), 18 Apr 2008 @ 12:21pm

      Re:

      Mr. Masnik gives far too much creedence

      Um. MLS, I didn't give it any credence. I simply explained where the name of the patent holding firm most likely came from, saying that "some say...".

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        MLS, 18 Apr 2008 @ 3:49pm

        Re: Re:

        You are correct that "some say" is not what you necessarily think and that you can correctly spell "credence", as I apparently can not.

        BTW, I am troubled that some hedge funds are getting into the business of funding litigation. While not illegal in the least, it does give "patents" a bad name.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.