Nokia Getting Killed In The Smartphone Market... So Of Course It Sues For Patent Infringement

from the if-you-can't-innovate,-litigate dept

Funny how this works, right? Just a week or so after it's first ever quarterly loss and an admission that it totally screwed up in the smartphone market, Nokia suddenly sues Apple for patent infringement over the iPhone. It looks like the old adage is true again: if you can't innovate, litigate! It's the same story all over again. A company that was a leader in the market but got complacent and lazy, suddenly finds that it lost its lead to a more innovative upstart. Since it's so far behind, even scrambling around doesn't help it to catch up, so it just starts suing over patents.

This story nicely highlights a few other points as well. We keep hearing from patent system supporters how the patent system is necessary because, without it, the market leader would always just immediately copy the upstart and "steal" their idea. Of course, Nokia has had two plus years to "steal" Apple's idea, and where is it in the smartphone market? It's not so easy to just copy someone else's idea -- especially if you're a huge player like Nokia, who will often view the disruptive innovator as not being worthy of paying attention to (which basically was Nokia's reaction to the iPhone).

Separately, remember how confused we were when Steve Jobs proudly hyped up the fact that Apple had over 200 patents on the iPhone concept? We've pointed out that it's hardly done anything to stop lawsuits. Apple has been sued over and over and over and over and over and over again for patent infringement. Welcome to the tragedy of the anti-commons, where it becomes impossible to do pretty much anything innovative without facing massive legal costs. Basically, if you build anything even remotely innovative these days, you're going to get sued for patent infringement, probably multiple times. It's become a massive tax on innovation, rather than a lever for innovation.

37 Comments | Leave a Comment..

RIM Pays Out Again Over Patents

from the how-dare-you-try-to-do-wireless-email dept

The patent battle between RIM and NTP is considered something of landmark in alerting politicians and the general public to just how ridiculous the patent situation is these days. There was, however, an interesting sidenote on this. As part of its attempt to show that its own patents were valid, NTP convinced a couple other companies to "license" the patents -- except the details showed that NTP "invested" in each of these companies at the same time. That certainly looks like NTP paying a company to license its patents, just to make it looks like there were some legitimate licensees. Two of the companies that NTP did this with were Visto and Good Technology. Having licensed NTP's patents, Visto, at least, took a lesson from NTP and became an aggressive player in the patent lawsuit game, trying to mimic NTP's success by suing RIM as well.

There is no way to describe this other than sour grapes. Visto tried to play in the market and was a pretty big (and massively expensive) failure. RIM, on the other hand, was able to create a product that people wanted and build a good business on it. This wasn't by copying Visto's (or NTP's) ideas, but better understanding the actual market and creating a good product itself. Visto failed to do that. So, in turn, it just sued and demanded cash from the company that was able to innovate. Recently, Visto also purchased Good Technology (another NTP licensee) from Motorola (who had purchased it earlier), likely adding more patents to the portfolio.

Either way, it looks like RIM has finally grown tired of the game and has agreed to pay Visto $267.5 million. It's less than the amount NTP got, but it's still a hefty chunk of change. And, for what? For being the loser in the market place. This is a tax on innovation. The loser in the marketplace forces the winner to hand over a nice chunk of profits. It's bad for everyone (except some lawyers and Visto shareholders).

31 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Patent Dispute Blocks iPhone Skype In Canada

from the progress? dept

There's been a lot of buzz this week over a version of Skype finally being released for the iPhone (though, the fact that it's limited to only WiFi connections, rather than cellular ones is annoying, if expected). However, it turns out that Canadian iPhone users are discovering that their iPhones are blocked from using the new iPhone Skype, apparently due to some sort of "patent-licensing issue" related to the codec that Skype uses. The company isn't revealing much (and the link above includes a workaround for Canadians desperate to use Skype on their iPhones), but that's what you get when you end up using patented technology in your products. It makes it that much more difficult to actually offer your product in a variety of markets.

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apple Sued For Patent Infringement Because Others Have Turned iPhone Into Ebook Reader

from the how-does-that-make-sense dept

Despite Steve Jobs' proud promotion of the 200 patents Apple has around the iPhone, there's been no shortage of patent infringement lawsuits filed against the company. The latest (sent in by Jon) involves a company suing Apple for daring to promote the iPhone as an ebook reader, noting it holds a patent on An Electronic device, preferably an electronic book. So apparently the fact that others, by creating software to do the rather obvious thing of allowing people to read digital ebooks on their iPhones, Apple is now getting sued?

67 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Want To Create A Simple App To Tell You Where Someone Is Calling From? You Can't, It's Patented

from the promoting-the-progress-yet-again dept

Someone who prefers to remain anonymous, sent me a story that I hear all the time these days. He was getting annoyed with not knowing who was calling his Blackberry, so he figured he'd write a simple app to do a standard database lookup in order to pull up the info that would at least let you know where the caller was from, based on area code. It's the sort of thing that software programmers do all the time: see a need, write a simple program to solve it.

Except for the patents.

As he started to write the app, he figured he should take a quick look around to see if anyone else had done so... when he came across the fact that someone had written that app, but thanks to a patent threat, it had been shut down. In fact, the patent holder, Cequent, has sued a few others who dared to create such a simple database lookup app themselves. The patent itself describes an incredibly simple database lookup... yet, now no one else is allowed to create such an app.

The purpose of the patent system was to create the incentives for inventors to invent products that likely would not have been created otherwise, in order to help "promote the progress." Yet, when it's being used to prevent an engineer from writing a simple app that could have occurred to anyone, based on a simple database lookup, doesn't it seem like there's a pretty big problem?

74 Comments | Leave a Comment..

SMS Alerts Over Credit Card Transactions? Patented! Visa Sued

from the innovation-at-risk dept

Let's say you were an engineer at a major credit card company like Visa, and put in charge of watching over new technologies, and thinking about ways that you could make the credit card process better and more secure for card holders. It probably wouldn't take you all that long to come up with a variety of useful measures for checking to make sure certain transactions were legit -- such as alerting cardholders to transactions via SMS. That's nothing particular special or unique, but it's a nice obvious addition, thanks to the fact that SMS text messaging has now become popular. So, you go ahead and implement it... and promptly get sued by some small company that claims a patent on the "invention" of alerting cardholders of transactions by SMS. I'm sure the angry patent system defenders will be quick to show up in the comments claiming that Visa "stole" this "invention," but I'm having a really difficult time understanding how you can support innovation and allow this sort of result to happen.

41 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Nokia, Qualcomm Move Forward With Non-Patent-Fight-Based Relationship

from the wonders-never-cease dept

Qualcomm and Nokia have been involved in a long-running series of patent disputes over chips in mobile phones. The two companies settled the bulk of their disputes last summer, with Nokia throwing a chunk of change at Qualcomm and the two making nice. This week, the two companies announced they'd work together to put Qualcomm chips in Nokia devices. Nokia, the top global handset vendor, has never used Qualcomm chips, and the work will first be focused on devices for the US market, where Nokia's market share lags far behind its share in the rest of the world. So Qualcomm gets a big new chip customer, Nokia strengthens its offerings for the US markets, and consumers benefit from increased competition. Sounds good all around, and makes you wonder why the companies resisted such an approach in favor of the patent fight for so long.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Yet Another Patent Infringement Lawsuit Over The iPhone

from the keep-'em-coming dept

Remember back when the iPhone was launched, and Steve Jobs hyped up the 200 patents the company had filed around the concepts in the iPhone? We found that pretty odd, since most of the technology had been seen elsewhere before -- Apple just put it together in a consumer package. And, indeed, all of those patents certainly haven't stopped plenty of other companies from claiming that the iPhone was violating some other patent. And, now we've got another one, as two (related) Scottish companies, Picsel Research and Picsel Technologies, are claiming that Apple violates their patents, and (of course) are whining about the millions of dollars they invested in the technology.

Of course, if Apple had really "stolen" their ideas, don't you think they would have spoken up, say, two years ago when the iPhone was first announced? Now, one of the ridiculous aspects of patent law is that independent invention isn't a defense -- meaning that even though it's quite clear Apple developed its technology independent of Picsel, it doesn't really matter for the sake of the case. But, at the same time, that also means that it's equally meaningless how much Picsel invested in the technology. So, unless they want to allow Apple to point out how much it invested in the same tech (perhaps long before Picsel ever did), it might want to stop the whining about money spent.

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Did Google Leave Multi-Touch Out Of Android At Apple's Behest?

from the chilling dept

Apple's made a lot of noise lately about the strength of its patents covering the iPhone's multi-touch interface and the lengths to which it will go to defend them. Most recently its harsh talk was aimed at Palm, whose new Pre device also features multi-touch. VentureBeat is now reporting that Google left support for multi-touch out of its Android OS -- because Apple asked it to, and Google didn't want to jeopardize its relationship with the company. VentureBeat sources the claim to an anonymous "Android team member", while a recent multi-touch hack for the G1 device was made by uncommenting several lines of code. This would indicate the capability was in the OS, but later "commented out", meaning it was left in the code, but preceded with an instruction for it to be ignored by the device. If this is true, it's scary to think that companies would make these sorts of arrangements in which one competitor gets to determine the features of another's products. Competition benefits everyone: consumers get the benefit of innovative new products, while companies get spurred on to continue development and continue raising the bar. Setting up an environment in which people need permission to innovate really doesn't help anybody -- even Apple, who apparently now believes it's got more to gain by keeping competition out of the market, rather than by focusing on innovation of its own. Is multi-touch really so important that Apple needs to make all of these defensive moves? Or has the company run out of the sorts of ideas that have kept it a step ahead of its rivals?

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Analyst Says What We Already Knew: Apple's Multi-Touch Patent Fight Won't Help Its Business

from the in-case-you-didn't-get-it-yet dept

After Palm showed off its new Pre smartphone, including the device's multitouch interface, at the Consumer Electronics Show last month, Apple made some threatening noises about how it would go after anybody who "ripped off" its intellectual property. As always, we didn't see how this would benefit anybody in the marketplace, since competition pays benefits to consumers, and drives participants, even Apple, to continually innovate and improve their products. Now, a wireless industry analyst has called Apple's threats into question. He makes the point that a long, drawn out IP fight won't help Apple's business in the long run: "Building on the company's legacy as one of the greatest innovators in the technology industry may be a smarter business model than taking on the rest of the industry in a battle that may be impossible to win."

His reasoning is twofold: first and most obviously, Apple stands to gain more by competing in the market than competing in the courts. Second, he says that if Apple went ahead with patent suits, it may not be able to win them. He says that it appears that much of Apple's multitouch IP portfolio is based on work from a couple of its employees -- who also were granted a number of multitouch patents while they were employed by the University of Delaware. The University holds those patents, while the analyst also found a lot of potential prior art he says could threaten the Apple patents' validity if they're reviewed. So if Apple realizes the patents may not stand up to a review, it could explain the bluster; but once it's clear the threats are empty, they hold no value. The question now seems to be how long Apple will try to play out the show, and how many resources it will throw at it that would be better spent on developing its products.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Court Lifts Injunction On WiFi Devices In Patent Dispute

from the a-little-bit-of-good-news dept

We've been following the story of how CSIRO, an Australian gov't agency, has claimed a patent on WiFi for years. Last year, we were pretty surprised that a judge not only sided with CSIRO in a case against Buffalo Technology, but issued an injunction, barring the company from selling its WiFi equipment. This was despite the recent Supreme Court decision that said patent injunctions should only be issued in certain circumstances (in the past, it was quite common to issue injunctions). The case is now being reviewed, and the good news is that a court has at least temporarily lifted the injunction while the court reviews whether or not the patent is even valid. This case could have a huge impact on a series of other cases that CSIRO has filed against pretty much everyone offering WiFi equipment.

5 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Once Again, Apple's 200 iPhone Patents Don't Stop Others From Claiming Infringement

from the no-surprise dept

You may recall that Steve Jobs proudly hyped up the fact that Apple had filed over 200 patents on the technologies related to the iPhone, as if that showed how special it was. However, as we noted, those patents hardly stopped others from filing patent infringement lawsuits against Apple. In the latest case, we have a company named EMG Technology claiming the iPhone violates its recently issued patent on viewing a mobile website.

The patent appears to cover the process of reformatting a website so that it can be more easily viewed on a mobile browser -- something that's been done for ages, since well before this patent was originally filed in 2006. Of course, the priority date on this patent may actually go back to March of 2000, since it appears that various continuations were filed -- a common practice among patent holders to be able to later add changes to a patent's language to cover actual innovations that others came up with, but which the patent holder now wants credit, even if the original patent application wouldn't have covered that technology specifically.

Either way, even if you were to grant the (somewhat laughable) idea that this patent is valid, this case again shows why the patent system, as currently constructed, makes almost no sense. It's quite clear that Apple did not get it's idea for how the iPhone browser would work from EMG's patent. Instead, it came up with the concepts on its own, knowing that it would be a useful way of implementing a mobile browser. Yet, now, this third party who had nothing to do with Apple's innovations gets to demand money from Apple. That's not promoting the progress. It's promoting waste and inefficiency.

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

What A Shock: Another Wireless Standard Beset By Patent Problems

from the no-innovation-allowed dept

It's becoming such that news about another patent battle surrounding a new standard is barely newsworthy -- especially in the wireless space. Name the standard, and we can probably find someone claiming patents on it. There are still ongoing patent battles surrounding both WiFi and WiMax. The latest is apparently surrounding LTE, the choice of many mobile providers for their 4G next generation wireless. A company named ADC is claiming that LTE violates its patents and is now asking for royalties. As per usual, the company claiming patents over the technology just so happens to show up after a bunch of folks have committed to the technology. Funny how that works.

27 Comments | Leave a Comment..

RIM Sued Yet Again For Patent Infringement

from the maybe-you-shouldn't-have-kicked-up-all-that-dust dept

While most people think of just the NTP lawsuit when they hear about RIM and patent infringement troubles, what's often left out of the discussion is that prior to the NTP suit, RIM was one of the more aggressive companies in filing patent infringement lawsuits against everyone else. In fact, it was news articles about RIM's aggressive patent enforcement strategy that convinced the guys behind NTP to file their lawsuit in the first place. Since paying $612.5 million to NTP to settle that battle, other patent holders have been lining up to sue RIM as well.

Earlier this year, we wrote about another aggressive patent enforcer, Wi-LAN, which sued RIM for infringement. RIM, once again, settled -- indicating a bit of an open season. If you happen to have a patent that RIM might sorta possibly infringe on, why not sue?

The latest to step up to bat is Mformation, who has sued RIM for two separate patents which are both about remote management of a wireless device (Patent 1 and Patent 2). Whatever the merits of the case, all of this has to make you wonder if RIM regrets its decision to kick off the process of suing lots of companies for patent infringement. It seems that the blowback was a lot worse than any benefit.

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Patent Lawsuit Silly Season: TechCrunch Sued For Patent Infringement After Critical Blog Post

from the this-will-end-badly dept

There are different levels of ridiculousness when it comes to patent lawsuits, with the lowest of the low being patent lawsuits based more on spite than on any legitimate claim. For a while, it seemed like Ray Niro's use of the infamous JPG patent, to sue a bunch companies he just didn't like, was perhaps alone in that category. But, it appears that we now have a new entrant. Apparently, some company (who we won't even name, since there's a good chance it's doing this just to get press attention) sued a more well-known competitor for patent infringement, over a location-based services patent. Looking over the patent itself it's difficult to see how it was approved. People were talking about location-based profile matching a decade ago, let alone five years ago when this patent was filed.

TechCrunch wrote a post mocking the lawsuit as a weak attempt to get press coverage (it worked!), while noting that TechCrunch itself was partnered with the sued company to provide a "co-branded community." This apparently caused the patent holder to amend the lawsuit and include TechCrunch as a defendant. Apparently, there were no threats or notification (though, the guy claims he tried to call TechCrunch). This will likely get tossed out incredibly quickly, as any judge will recognize that TechCrunch is just licensing its brand, not supplying the technology (and also hopefully question the validity of the patent itself). Already, though, TechCrunch's Michael Arrington is planning to countersue, so this could get fun.

The patent holder claims that adding TechCrunch to the lawsuit had nothing to do with the original post, but that's rather difficult to believe. There's also this somewhat amusing quote from the patent holder:

"TechCrunch can say whatever they want, and I applaud them. But no one has the right to infringe on a patent that I worked very, very hard for many years to bring about -- not just on paper but in reality."

Yes, and thanks to a broken patent system, you now get to dump a totally frivolous lawsuit on a site that clearly did not infringe on your highly questionable patent. Just like Thomas Jefferson intended.

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

RIM Pays Off Wi-LAN To Get Rid Of Another Patent Suit

from the losers-litigate dept

Wi-LAN is a Canadian company that did some early work in the wireless field, but was unable to actually make much of a business out of its work, so it took the loser's route: it started suing lots of companies for patent infringement. It's the same old story: winners innovate, losers litigate -- and litigate seems to be about all that Wi-LAN does these days. Recently, Wi-LAN targeted RIM, another Canadian company, who famously was pressured to cough up hundreds of millions in another patent battle to NTP a few years ago. These days, RIM seems to have learned an unfortunate lesson: it's easier to just pay up whoever sues you for patent infringement, no matter how legit (or not) their claim is.

So, it should come as no surprise that RIM has agreed to pay off Wi-LAN to make the lawsuit go away. No details were released, but given that Wi-LAN put out a separate press release saying that its "earnings" (a misnomer if there ever were one) for the quarter should be between $24.5 million and $25.5 million from the previous guidance of $15 million to $20 million you can take a guess how much this cost RIM. Definitely cheaper than a lawsuit, though this will only encourage two bad results: Wi-LAN will keep suing companies that actually do something, and more companies with questionable patents on wireless technologies will line up to get some cash from RIM. This isn't encouraging innovation. It's encouraging extortion.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

When All Else Fails, Sue For Patent Infringement

from the this-again? dept

We've seen it all too often over the years. After a technology company has failed to get anywhere in the market with its products, it decides to sue everyone possible for patent infringement. As has been said: Those who can, innovate. Those who can't, litigate. The latest to join the bunch is a failed multimedia device company, e.Digital, who is suing a ton of companies, claiming to hold a patent on using removable flash drives in portable devices. Seriously. It's already sued Casio, LG Electronics, Olympus, Samsung, Sanyo, Vivitar, Avid and Nikon (all in Texas, of course) and says that's just the beginning.

The patents in question are as follows:

• US5491774: Handheld record and playback device with flash memory
• US5742737: Method for recording voice messages on flash memory in a hand held recorder
• US5787445: Operating system including improved file management for use in devices utilizing flash memory as main memory
• US5839108: Flash memory file system in a handheld record and playback device
• US5842170: Method for editing in hand held recorder

To think that others weren't thinking about removable solid state storage on devices seems rather ludicrous. The real innovation in the space may have been the creation of flash memory, but to claim that using removable flash memory is an innovation worth limiting with patents just doesn't make any sense. But, once again, this shows how the patent system is being used for the exact opposite of what it's supposed to do. The company that failed in the marketplace gets to hold up those who are succeeding because they made a better product.

For additional irony, by the way, it should be remember that one of e.Digital's failed media devices looked almost identical to the iPod, and was named the "Treo 10" -- quite similar to the Treo mobile phone device. I would think that charges of "copying" would apply a lot more to that device than anyone using the fairly obvious idea of using removable flash storage in a mobile device.

61 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Wi-LAN Sues RIM: Two Canadian Firms Duke Out Patent Fight... In East Texas, Of Course

from the ah,-east-texas dept

Turns out that Canadian patent holders love East Texas just as much as American companies. The news today covers how Canadian wireless patent holder Wi-LAN has now sued RIM in East Texas, concerning patents on mobile handheld devices. RIM is also a Canadian company (and also heavily involved in patent disputes). Isn't it great to see two Canadian firms choosing East Texas as the best place to fight over patents?

Wi-LAN is a company that we've discussed in the past. It worked on some technologies for wireless networks, but was unable to successfully market products commercially. In other words, it failed in the market. So, instead, it started focusing on aggressively enforcing its patent portfolio, suing a ton of companies who did anything wirelessly. As with so many public companies that turn into patent hoarders these days, it also has a very vocal and active set of day traders who will defend it to no end (see the comments on that link above).

RIM, of course, is also a well known company that we've written about many times. The maker of the super popular Blackberry wireless device, it became an aggressive filer of patent infringement lawsuits. That, in turn, led some patent holders from a non-practicing entity called NTP to sue RIM over some other patents -- eventually leading to a $612.5 million payout by RIM (despite the fact that NTP's patents were found to be invalid).

This latest case seems like it ties together so many different stories. You've got a failed business trying to use its patents to hold back the company that won; it's got Wi-LAN who has been aggressively trying to tax just about every wireless innovation with its patents; it's got RIM, who has been on both sides of a ton of questionable patent lawsuits; and it all takes place in East Texas. Who could ask for anything more?

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Microsoft Seeks Patent On Virtual Graffiti Years After The Idea Is In Use

from the a-little-late-to-the-party dept

theodp points us to a new patent application from Microsoft for the concept of "virtual graffiti" that someone could leave for mobile devices connected to a real geographic area. As theodp notes: "Here's what passes for inventive these days in Redmond: 'Mary, while at Tom's house, may create graffiti on her cell FVG-enabled phone that says, 'Party Here Friday Night!' and make the graffiti available to all her friends. Then any of Mary's friends (with their FVG-enabled devices) passing by Tom's house would become aware of the graffiti associated with the house and be able to view it, thus becoming aware of the planned party.' Microsoft proudly boasts that the technology can also be used to shout 'Subscriber!' to newspaper boys as they pass customers' houses and exclaim 'Great lunch joint!' to those passing by a restaurant."

If that doesn't sound particularly new or non-obvious that's because it's not. We wrote about nearly an identical system that was already in use at Cornell University in August of 2003, more than three years before this Microsoft patent application was filed. Even in writing about that story, we noted that there were a few similar systems already out there and that "people have been talking about such things for ages"). How this could possibly be considered new or non-obvious seems like a reasonable question. Hopefully the patent examiner agrees and rejects this application.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Forget DRM, Microsoft Looks To Build Digital Manners Management

from the mind-your-manners dept

If there's one thing companies should understand by now, it's the idea that restricting people from doing stuff that they want to do tends to backfire, badly. Just look at every attempt to create "DRM." Well, apparently Microsoft is trying to create a different sort of digital restrictions policy: one based on hard-coded "manners." A few folks sent in notice that Microsoft has applied for a patent on a system for "device manner policy" (DMP). Basically, such a DMP system would restrict the use of certain features in certain locations. So, for example, a mobile phone that has the DMP technology might not be able to ring in a movie theater, but would instead shift to vibrate. Or a digital camera or cameraphone would automatically disable the ability to take photos in a museum. Really, this is just another form of DRM, restricting what people can do with the technology they own. While it's nice to think that technology could somehow block out rude uses of devices, the opportunity for problems and abuse seems quite high. Wouldn't we be better off focusing on social norms to get people to learn when it is and is not appropriate to use certain technologies?

27 Comments | Leave a Comment..