Old is Gold? Maybe. But Old Patents are a Goldmine.

Another blog post I read this week focuses on the trial between IPCom and Apple and specifically that the Germany Federal Patent Court declared that no infringement was found on the part of Apple. It is still unclear as to whether or not IPCom intends to appeal. But regardless of the final outcome of this non-sense we are seeing in courts across the world, I want to focus on something else. And that is about corporations buying old patents to pursue litigation for current technology.

This just so happens to also be what happened in this specific trial. IPCom "acquired the wireless patent portfolio of Bosch years after the latter had exited the car phone market and is now monetizing it." Did you catch that? Basically IPCom has bought old technology that resembles newer technology for the sole purpose of exploiting the system and monetizing their acquisition.

There is something wrong with that picture and the fact that a company like IPCom thinks that they can go to a federal court to pursue a trial. In this case, I am very happy with the verdict and definitely believe that IPCom was trying to troll to the nth degree.

Usually I like to sympathize with the trolls because I picture tiny corporations trying to make a dent in these giants. I appreciate that type of david vs goliath floweriness. But in this case, IPCom, like all trolls we've read about thus far has gone too far to make some money. At this point it's plain ridiculous. In fact, I feel it is so ridiculous that this is my last blog post or video log where I discuss anything related to a patent troll. From now on, I will stick to actually learning something about Patents.

You can reference the article below:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/ipcoms-22-billion-lawsuit-against-apple.html

Taking Sides

So this week I read two blog posts that were closely related. One was about IPCom's ongoing litigation with Apple and the other was Microsoft versus Google. Yes they are both patent litigations but the connection I want to focus on is that of the lawyers between the two trials. Specifically: Quinn Emanuel's Dr. Marcus Grosch. According to the author of Foss Patents "he's the undisputed number one among Mannheim-based patent litigators." So what we have here is an all-star patent attorney. And teams are recruiting him hard to play on their teams.

In the case of Apple versus IPCom, Dr. Marcus Grosch is being paid big bucks by the latter to milk as much money from Apple as possible. Unfortunately this time, he was on the losing side and the German courts defended Apple's usage of the debated technology. Turns out Dr. Marcus Grosch also took part in the Microsoft versus Google stand-off. For this trial he was working with Microsoft to pursue litigation against Google for infringing on map-based technologies employed in smartphones and applications.

What I find most interesting about this is that naturally I would assume that an entity like IPCom is mortal enemies with a giant like Microsoft. But we see here that there is one attorney for these two companies that stand is stark opposition to one another. For me, this is an example of how convaluted this patent "thing" has become.

I remember hearing in class that a lot of the time, small patent-holding corporations give a cut of potential settlement or judgement. I don't think either Microsoft or IPCom is giving this lawyer any percentage of the total awarded amount because these trials are on too large a scale. But I definitely believe that these lawyers go wherever the money is. Wherever the money is, that's the side to fight for.

You can reference both blog posts below:

http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/federal-patent-court-of-germany.html
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/ipcoms-22-billion-lawsuit-against-apple.html

An End to the Trolls?

Finally. In November 2013 the United States Senate held a hearing to contemplate possible ways of solving the problem of deceptive demand letters by patent trolls. So far there have been no break-throughs in this process but it is too early to tell. There was good news however in the Kentucky Senate where bill (SB116) sought "to establish a bad-faith assertion of patent infringement as a violation of Kentucky's consumer protection chapter and authorize the utilization of the remedies available for those violations in addition to private remedies established in the bill" was passed unanimously. The bill is similar to one that was passed by the Vermont Legislature last year.
 
 The way it will work is by setting guidelines of what a bad faith patent assertion vs a good faith patent assertion is. So which factor are evidence of bad faith?

• "The claim is meritless and the patent holder knew or should have known this."
• "The claim or assertion is "deceptive" (not defined).
• "The patent holder is a non-practicing entity."

And evidence of good faith?

•  "The patentee "engages in a good-faith effort to establish that the target has infringed the patent and to negotiate an appropriate remedy"."
• "Previous behavior can be helpful to a patentee if he previously demonstrated good-faith business practices in enforcement of the same patent or a substantially similar one, or successfully enforced the patent or a substantially similar patent through litigation."

 It is nice to finally see some effort in stopping this long and drawn out patent war that has no end in sight. We have yet to see if these efforts by the federal government will have any real impact on current or future litigations but it is exciting to finally see a glimmer of change in the patent framework. This is something I've been mentioning since week one of this class. The current system is inherently flawed. At least, now we can hope for some change.

The original blog post can be referenced below:

 http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/kentucky-senate-committee-approves.html

A Matter of Principle?

This week, I read an article about the acquisition of Skyhook Wireless by Liberty Media's TruePosition and its larger implications on the ongoing patent war. One thing is for certain, TruePosition made this deal happen because Skyhook Wireless holds patents and IP that have already been used to attack Google's technology. But why is this history important? Because it validates the assumption that Liberty Media will go after Google yet again in the courts.

What's refreshing about this battle is that the patents that are now owned by TruePosition do in fact help the company out. But we cannot say that Liberty Media is not just another patent troll. On the contrary, Liberty Media is just as big a troll as someone like IPCom.

We still cannot tell what the implications of this acquisition will be on the overall pending Google patent litigation. But one this is for certain. If Google decides to wage war it will face a worthy adversary and not just another small firm trying to make big bucks. There is always a chance that if this does proceed to court Google and Liberty Media will come to a settlement. But the intentions of Skyhook Wireless' new owners is not clear and Google has never been big on actually agreeing to pay licensing royalties.

It's also interesting to see how Liberty Media might have to enforce Skyhook's IP just to maintain credibility. In the words of the author:

"It wouldn't be logical for Liberty Media to acquire IP and tout it in a press release only to dismiss a case without getting royalties. In doing so it would devalue Skyhook's patent portfolio and call into question the rationale for the transaction."

Hey. At least they'll be sticking to their principle.

The original article can be referenced below.

 http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/liberty-medias-trueposition-acquires.html

Motorolla's Many Suitors

At this point, Motorola has been passed from company to company like a loose cheerleader amongst a football team. We all know the original buy. Google in a landmark purchase, spends upwards of twelve billion dollars to essentially secure the hundreds of patents in Motorola's portfolio. After purchase however, it is implied that Google was quick to realize that the patents were not as useful as they were originally thought to be.

Then news recently surfaced that Lenovo would pay just shy of three billion dollars to acquire the once titanic cellular giant.  But why the price discrepancy? Google decided that the patents were indeed useful to them and the sale is taking place without most of the patents that were originally consumed by Google. The patents in the first place were purchased by Google to protect them from rival companies and patent trolls. It is not clear however if this tactic ended up putting Google in the positive in the long term.

But was this sloppy seconds transaction a smart business decision by Lenovo? I think not. It is a sure fact that the reason for Lenovo's purchase was in fact to try and gain a footing in the competetive cellular device market in the states. However it is unclear if customers still hold the same brand loyalty to Motorola as they once did. Motorola as a brand is not the same as it once was. And simply applying a historical brand to a device does not make it any better. Motorola simply has too much mileage on it. In the past it was a thing of beauty. The beauty is long gone and what remains is a fraction of its former glory.


Full article can be accessed below:
http://bgr.com/2014/01/29/lenovo-motorola-3-billion-dollar-merger/

Another Patent Troll

We talked at length this week about these "patent-trolls" who are also known as patent-holding firms. What these firms do is purse litigation options against big companies that they feel infringed on their patents. What happens to these firms is usually the same, the come to an agreement with the larger corporation and the battle stops there. But every once in a while one causes a stir. So is the case between Apple and IPCom.

IPCom is a German patent-holding firm that only recently acquired their patents in 2007 from a private seller. Now Apple is being sued for upwards of two million dollars by the firm who claims that Apple infringed on their patents. To break down how much two million dollars is for a firm like Apple in Germany; the article cited a source to have said that that was approximately 51 percent of Apple's revenue in Germany. It suddenly makes sense why Apple would not handle his specific situation quietly like they do with most patent trolls.

In fact, Apple is so intent on winning this skirmish with the Bavarian firm that they are citing minute technicalities to swing the judgement in their favor. When you get down to the engineering level, the patent dispute is essentially over a mere bit of data. IPCom's Patent covers a single bit of data achieveing a task while Apple's technology employs three bits of data to achieve the same task.

Based off of technicalities alone, it seems that Apple is correct; and they should not in my opinion make any reparations to this patent-troll. But this whole situation just affirms on how petty this patent war has become.

You can reference the full article on the Wall Street Journal below:

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/02/11/bit-by-bit-apple-fights-patent-infringement-claim/

The Neverending Patent War

We are all familiar with the patent war that is raging on between the cell phone giants. This week I read an article about how this patent war is continual and ongoing. Mind you, this article was more than a year old. And the fact that it could pass for an article written just a few days ago stands as testament of how long and drawn out, similar to this sentence, this patent war has been. The current war revolves around a lot of fourth generation technology employed in our smartphones. But even this fourth generation tech like its third generation predecessor will fast become outdated and unpopular.

The eventual emergence of an even newer generation technology will dominate the market for the near future as this technology makes itself apparent. With that being said; there is bound to be an entirely new patent war with newer technology at its front and center. Get ready to see plenty of more news articles highlighting the ongoing clash of the titans between Apple and Samsung. It was 3G, now it's 4G, and will eventually move on.


You can reference the full article below:

 http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/smartphone-patent-wars-the-coming-sequel/

An End in Sight?

So is there an end to this patent war? It seems like some companies are finally taking initiative to stop these legal confrontations. In an article from the A Register, Iain Thomson writes about the agreement struck between Cisco and Google, two of the patent giants in the industry.

To avoid litigation and long trials in court, it seems that these companies are focusing on other methods to maintain IP while avoiding the judicial system. These companies are losing millions of dollars in legal fees; it's no wonder that they'd be eager to change their routine. None of this means however that these global giants will stop aggressively maintaining hold of their intellectual property. In fact, striking agreements would lead to an easy system of taxing royalties on willing parties.


Article can be referenced below:


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/02/04/google_and_cisco_sheath_swords_with_deal_in_patent_wars/