Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
 ·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
| reply to USPTOsucks
Re: They've patented customer DBs too
If you've never been involved in patent litigation, let me tell you that these patents get read and analyzed a thousand times over from the moment a lawsuit seems to be looming on the horizon. Of course, during those countless readings and searches, new things come to light. Or old things being seen in a new light. |
|
USPTOsucks
@cgocable.net
| I hold four patents in the electrical engineering and manufacturing fields. Two are currently providing me with a very modest income. I have signed over another dozen or so to my various employers. Patent applications and documentation is second nature to me (the technical side, I leave the word games to weasels lawyers).
The majority of these Verizon patents, from a superficial technical review of their content, are outrageously generic descriptions of common business and engineering practices...before, during, and after application.
I fear the USPTO (and by extension, WIPO) more than the US Army, Navy, and Air Force combined. The level of arrogance coupled with exemplary stupidity and ineptitude boggles the mind (and destroys the wallet). |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
| said by USPTOsucks :
I hold four patents in the electrical engineering and manufacturing fields. Two are currently providing me with a very modest income. I have signed over another dozen or so to my various employers. Patent applications and documentation is second nature to me (the technical side, I leave the word games to weasels lawyers).
The majority of these Verizon patents, from a superficial technical review of their content, are outrageously generic descriptions of common business and engineering practices...before, during, and after application.
I fear the USPTO (and by extension, WIPO) more than the US Army, Navy, and Air Force combined. The level of arrogance coupled with exemplary stupidity and ineptitude boggles the mind (and destroys the wallet).
Well, I guess we'll have to see what happens. Verizon holds issued patents, so there is a presumption of validity. Doesn't mean they'll win though.
I've written and prosecuted several hundreds of patents and have dealt with dozens of Examiners in the last 12-13 years. I don't find the Examiners overall (or the USPTO) to be arrogant at all. Unfortunately, I have to agree that the Examiners typically aren't very good.
I think being afraid of the USPTO versus the military is a little bit silly of a statement. But hey, whatever. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to Goober
So what is your take on Verizon's claims? I don't expect you to rummage through the patents and all the details they hold, but looking at it from the outside what your thoughts? Are they trying to pull a fast one by sneaking by the open standards board like RAMBUS did a while back with their claim to SDRAM? |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
1 edit | Yours is a good point. While the RAMBUS case is a text-book example, I see this type of behavior still.
Unfortunately, I'd have to look more closely at the circumstances of this case, which I haven't done yet. So, I'm not very knowledgable.
One thing to note is that depending on the standards agreement, Verizon still may be in the clear. In certain cases, the standards group sets forth a specification, but it's up to the technology members to implement that in specific ways. So, the organization owns the spec, but each company owns its own patents on specific implementations.
Depending on how the agreement is written, the specific implementation by the patentee is subject to RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing to the other members. For non-members, the patent holder can go after them with guns ablazing.
So, the other members of the consortium may very well have some type of RAND agreement and will be safe from Verizon's lawsuits. Non-members, watch out. |
|
TechSponge
join:2001-05-14
Hillside, NJ
| reply to SRFireside
Dont EVEN TRY that one! Rambus Innovated. They continue to Innovate. NDA's were signed. The others Copied. The Truth is out there. Look at who is settling, who is being fined heavily and who is going to Jail. Just like it will be when the insane patents are overthrown and VoIP is allowed to proceed fairly without pressure from a Monopolistic ILEC. |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
1 edit | It's a matter of perspective. Rambus certainly did something that wasn't on the up and up in regards to the consortium relationship. It's not to say that they didn't/don't innovate.
I was a new engineer in Geoff Tate's organization at AMD back in 1989. He left briefly afterwards for what eventually became Rambus. But, I recall that he was an incredibly smart and savvy individual. The youngest EVP ever at AMD, if I recall correctly. So I agree that he and the organization are innovators. But, I also believe that Rambus got greedy and tried to freeze out the consortium members once Rambus realized that they had something good.
I'm involved and have been involved for many years in lots of standards based patenting activity and none of them have ever ended up the way Rambus did. I think that's very telling. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to TechSponge
They innovated with the RAMBUS memory technology. They were using bogus patent claims to sue companies for royalties involving SDRAM and possibly DDR RAM (I can't recall the latter). A company can be both an innovator and opportunistic con artists at the same time. |
|
TechSponge
join:2001-05-14
Hillside, NJ
| reply to Goober
I appreciate that, however, I find it more telling that The FTC is backpedaling and allowing them to collect Retro-Royalites from the few companies that have not been paying and are allowed to collect going forward on everything from SDRam forward. There is something wrong with having innovated, put everyone on notice that you intend to protect your innovations, watch those innovations merged into some industry standard via a consortium that you are invited to but denied the motion to present at, while everyone you have taught how to do what to do is incorporating your NDA protected Technology into an Industry standard.
That being said, I think this VoIP patent case is a bit different.
Thanks for the Comments Goober! Always nice to speak with someone that is familiar with what the issues and timeframes were. |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
| I agree. It certainly is interesting that Rambus has been vidicated to a certain extent. I'm still not sure, though, what may have happened in the consortium.
If nothing else, events like the Rambus matter only enforce the notion that agreements between the parties and members of a consortium need to be really well though out and air-tight.
Isn't it amazing, though, how repercussions from certain actions just ripple over such a long time. |
|
TechSponge
join:2001-05-14
Hillside, NJ
| Agreed. The Rules must be set out plain and clear beforehand. More than Amazing though.... Justice Delayed is Justice Denied. Justice will one day be served and I will be made whole and gain my sanity back. What a story indeed. Just like this VoIP patent story will be someday. |
|
