dslreports logo
 story category
Patent Firm Attacks Cable and Digital TV
Claims rights to DOCSIS and digital TV transmission technologies
Rembrandt IP Management is a Philadelphia-based company that is in the business of buying up technology patents and suing others who use them. While this kind of patent troll isn’t uncommon, the breadth of Rembrandt’s lawsuits is aimed at significantly altering the cable television market by going after both cable companies and major television broadcasters.
quote:
"It is attacking two key technology standards used by the cable and broadcast industries, CableLabs’ DOCSIS and the Advanced Television Systems Committee’s digital-TV spec. ‘If they’re successful, this could affect everything from the cost of cable service to the price of TVs,’ said an attorney close to the litigation, who spoke only on condition of anonymity."
Cable companies including Cox, Comcast, Charter and Time Warner face allegations of patent infringement for both cable modem and digital TV transmission patents. Networks including ABC, NBC and FOX face lawsuits for their digital TV transmission. Many companies have made efforts to demonstrate that they don’t violate the patents but also that Rembrandt doesn’t have a legal right to such broad patents to begin with. The bulk of this legal action is pending in Delaware.
view:
topics flat nest 

Chiyo
Save Me Konata-Chan
Premium Member
join:2003-02-20
Salisbury, NC

Chiyo

Premium Member

waste of time

What a waste of time get a real job.. On the other hand I always find it funny that patent holders always find out about "their" patents being used years later after ti's become mainstream.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88

Member

Re: waste of time

What happened to the "if you don't defend your trademark/copyright/patent it becomes 'diluted' and genericized and you loose all rights to it"?

TechyDad
Premium Member
join:2001-07-13
USA

TechyDad

Premium Member

Re: waste of time

That only applies to a trademark. Not to copyright or patent issues.

I do think, however, that there should be a law that if you sit on your patent without either enforcing it or developing a product based on it for too long, you should lose the right to sue over someone else's use of it.

Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium Member
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL

Maxo

Premium Member

Re: waste of time

said by TechyDad:

That only applies to a trademark. Not to copyright or patent issues.

I do think, however, that there should be a law that if you sit on your patent without either enforcing it or developing a product based on it for too long, you should lose the right to sue over someone else's use of it.
Very true. We need anti-patent troll laws to prevent this. Use it or lose it.

maartena
Elmo
Premium Member
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA

maartena

Premium Member

This is what's wrong with America.

The legal system in this country needs a major overhaul.

Buy the rights to something and then sue everyone who uses it? Such a lawsuit is not a problem if there were actual rights breached and a company is just trying to get the justice they worked for.... but the business this company is in is just abusing the legal system because they know the cable companies can pay up millions.

And who gets shafted in the end? The customer.
SD6
join:2005-03-26
Pittsburgh, PA

SD6

Member

Re: This is what's wrong with America.

said by maartena:

Buy the rights to something and then sue everyone who uses it? Such a lawsuit is not a problem if there were actual rights breached and a company is just trying to get the justice they worked for.... but the business this company is in is just abusing the legal system because they know the cable companies can pay up millions.

And who gets shafted in the end? The customer.
Not true. Many small companies go out of business. Why shouldn't they be allowed to gain at least from the technology they developed?

The CATV companies do NOT innovate. They generally utilize technology that others develop.

The VoIP lawsuits that Verizon have brought are more dubious, and are more for competitive reasons than "meritorious" reasons, than these.

The customer is more often hurt by the abuse of monopoly or dominating company than by some little guy suing.

Noah Vail
Oh God please no.
Premium Member
join:2004-12-10
SouthAmerica

Noah Vail

Premium Member

Re: This is what's wrong with America.

said by SD6:

The CATV companies do NOT innovate. They generally utilize technology that others develop.
That's correct, they do not innovate.
They simply pay the bills of the people who do innovate by buying the innovated product.

It's not cost effective for the CableCos to operate their own R&D departments, but if there were no product development, they would have to. The output would be klunky and the consumer would pay for failure and success alike. So the independent guys are good to have around.

Synopsis: There would be reduced innovation without independent developers.
There would be no innovation with the CableCos.

NV

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5 to SD6

Premium Member

to SD6
said by SD6:

Not true. Many small companies go out of business. Why shouldn't they be allowed to gain at least from the technology they developed?

The CATV companies do NOT innovate. They generally utilize technology that others develop.

The VoIP lawsuits that Verizon have brought are more dubious, and are more for competitive reasons than "meritorious" reasons, than these.

The customer is more often hurt by the abuse of monopoly or dominating company than by some little guy suing.
I agree that some patents are legitimate and they deserve to win. But many of these patents are not specific enough to be enforced and these lawsuit firms try to get money thru blackmail rather than thru any legitimate claims.
The 1/2 of 1% that they want is less money than legal fees would be for many of the smaller firms they sue.

These particular lawsuits are news because of who they are suing this time. Against these foes the patent troll lawsuit firm may just lose. But they clean up on all the small and mid-size firms that can't fight back.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2 to SD6

Premium Member

to SD6
You have a pretty strange view on innovation.
jgegner
join:2007-12-17
Bowling Green, KY

2 edits

jgegner to maartena

Member

to maartena
said by maartena:

The legal system in this country needs a major overhaul.

Buy the rights to something and then sue everyone who uses it? Such a lawsuit is not a problem if there were actual rights breached and a company is just trying to get the justice they worked for.... but the business this company is in is just abusing the legal system because they know the cable companies can pay up millions.

And who gets shafted in the end? The customer.
This would be like either Intel or AMD receiving patents for new processor designs and then suing Dell, Gateway, HP, Sony and other computer manufacturers who choose to use them.

What a bunch of morons.
BigVe
join:2005-07-15
Gulliver, MI

BigVe to maartena

Member

to maartena
How get you get a legal system overhaul when this country is controlled by lawyers etc.?

Titus
Mr Gradenko
join:2004-06-26

Titus to maartena

Member

to maartena
said by maartena:

The legal system in this country needs a major overhaul.
You got that right. And I know which nine jackasses I'd start with . . .
--

Dogfather
Premium Member
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

1 edit

1 recommendation

Dogfather

Premium Member

Need loser pays system

We need penalties for people who bring these suits and lose other than just lawyer fees.

When it becomes a significant liability to lose one of these patent troll cases, they'll largely go away.

Force these patent trolls to pay not only lawyers fees to the defendants but also significant punitive damages in some sort of abuse of process counter award would mean the death of the patent troll.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd

Premium Member

Re: Need loser pays system

well with the list of companies this group is suing they better have the absolute best lawyers and lots of money to burn. especially going after the TV networks which are all owned by some rather large corps. ABC, Say hello to the disney legal team. NBC: prepair to meet General Electric, who im sure knows a few things about patent suits.

PhoenixDown
FIOS is Awesome
Premium Member
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY

PhoenixDown

Premium Member

Re: Need loser pays system

Your right... If they are going after these companies at once, they better have a ton of money because they will be going up against a combined legal team with more people than some small cities.
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

1 edit

1 recommendation

Sammer to Dogfather

Member

to Dogfather
What we really need is a statute of limitations on bringing patent lawsuits against technology that has already been vastly commercialized. If these patents have any value whatsoever these suits should have been filed over a decade ago.

PolarBear03
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium Member
join:2005-01-03

PolarBear03

Premium Member

Re: Need loser pays system

said by Sammer:

What we really need is a statute of limitations on bringing patent lawsuits against technology that has already been vastly commercialized. If these patents have any value whatsoever these suits should have been filed years ago.
INDEED! That would solve most of the patent lawsuits in this country. Why was it Vonage was in business for over 5 years before Verizon and whoever-else decided to sue them? What, they didn't mind that their patent was being used for the first 5 years? Well then they shouldn't have minded if Vonage CONTINUED to use their patent.

I propose a statute of limitations of no more than 5 years for patent suits. If someone is using your shit for 5 years, obviously a) you don't care, and b) it isn't hurting you. You snooze, you lose.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd

Premium Member

Re: Need loser pays system

said by PolarBear03:
said by Sammer:

What we really need is a statute of limitations on bringing patent lawsuits against technology that has already been vastly commercialized. If these patents have any value whatsoever these suits should have been filed years ago.
INDEED! That would solve most of the patent lawsuits in this country. Why was it Vonage was in business for over 5 years before Verizon and whoever-else decided to sue them? What, they didn't mind that their patent was being used for the first 5 years? Well then they shouldn't have minded if Vonage CONTINUED to use their patent.

I propose a statute of limitations of no more than 5 years for patent suits. If someone is using your shit for 5 years, obviously a) you don't care, and b) it isn't hurting you. You snooze, you lose.
because they sue for money, if you devlop something and patent it but dont really do much with it. i start using that and you know about it. now if you are smart you will hit me hard on day one. if you are greedy like patent holding firms you wait till there are millions or billions to be made.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2 to PolarBear03

Premium Member

to PolarBear03
Your statute of limitations would have applied anyway. When the company went public, it was only then that it was disclosed what they were doing.. it was at that time the suit was brought against them.

But, I do agree.. there should be a SOL.

Hmmm.. interesting.. SOL - Statute of Limitations.. or SOL = Sh*t out of Luck. I wonder if that was planned.
lawrence171
join:2001-12-24
Canada

lawrence171 to Dogfather

Member

to Dogfather
said by Dogfather:

We need penalties for people who bring these suits and lose other than just lawyer fees.
One of their nuts
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2 to Dogfather

Premium Member

to Dogfather
said by Dogfather:

We need penalties for people who bring these suits and lose other than just lawyer fees.
You're 100% correct... sadly, congress is too busy chasing baseball players on steroids right now.

.. aren't we fighting a war anymore?

PolarBear03
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium Member
join:2005-01-03

PolarBear03

Premium Member

Oh yeah!

I'd LOVE to see these guys sue every major cable internet provider and TV manufacturer. HA!

Shamayim
Premium Member
join:2002-09-23

Shamayim

Premium Member

This reminds me

somewhat of domain name squatters, those foresightful mercenaries in the early days of the web who registered domain names of successful companies before the companies knew what was happening. Then, like a ransom, they would sell the names of said companies back to the companies for a hefty price.
»library.findlaw.com/2000 ··· 775.html
grandpinaple8
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY

grandpinaple8

Member

Re: This reminds me

That is legitimate. It is no different than buying property that is underdeveloped and then all of a sudden the area becomes developed and it is worth big bux.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88

Member

Re: This reminds me

Wrong, it would be like someone going to another country where you don't do business, and set up a store with identical products and signage to your store, and then live off your ad campaigns for business. And then when you goto legally challenge them in their country, the judge says "they were here first, you loose".
grandpinaple8
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY

grandpinaple8

Member

Re: This reminds me

Ummmm, read the original comment. It made no mention of profiteering off of the name. It merely stated the names were held ransom for the company to buy back so they could use the web addresses.

Even if they were making ad revenue off of the name, the fact of the matter is they bought the rights to the name so they can do whatever they want with it.

Your analogy just doesn't make sense.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: This reminds me

I'm sorry to say, this was dealt with in a BIG wa back in the early 2000's... even registering a domain name with, say, 1 key stroke different than a well known name, those people were being sued and losing all the time.

Example, even registering eNay.com (where the N being next to the B was a common mistake) was frowned upon by the courts.. domain siphoning (using the like of another's established reputation or "like" name) has stood the test in court many time to be a big fat no.

As for simply registering a domain name, not using it, sitting on it, and not allowing someone to have "their" TM/SM/C name is also a big fat NO. The registrar, with the proper complaint, can remove the domain name from the registrant and ultimately turn it over to the mark owner.

If the name wasn't protected in the first place, you do nothing with the domain, and you don't try to "stick it to the business you squatted it from" then you are ok.

There really is not a simple black and white answer to this situation.
fiberguy2

fiberguy2 to grandpinaple8

Premium Member

to grandpinaple8
No.. it's not legitimate. The laws protect TM holders or those with certain copyrights.

There are specific laws on the books when it comes to buying and selling the name of a company that owns the legitimate rights to it.

If you purchased, for example, Microsoft, and had only intention of selling the domain name back to the owner, Microsoft, for a hefty amount of money (more than what was a reasonable cost (ie, your expenses) then you can actually be liable for some pretty hefty damages.

If anyone REALLY wants to press this one, I'll dig up the laws on that.. but really don't care to, at this time.
grandpinaple8
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY

1 edit

grandpinaple8

Member

Re: This reminds me

You are missing the point. The question was whether it was legitimate or not. There is a difference between legality and legitimacy. Sometimes the presence of legality leads to legitimacy. This is just another example of unnecessary medling in the free market preventing wise investors from profiting. Seizing the domain name to give it to someone else is the equivalent of seizing physical property.

Sabre
Di relung hatiku bernyanyi bidadari
join:2005-05-17

Sabre

Member

My patent filing.

Since patent law allows processes to be patented as well as inventions, this is the filing I will be presenting to the US Patent Office.

A process, to allow for the inventors of new processes and/or objects, to be recognised by the sovereign government of the USA as the original creator of said process or object and to be protected against any later claims to same.

And then I'll sue the US government for violating my patent patent.

FreedomBuild
Well done is better than well said
Premium Member
join:2004-10-08
Rockford, IL

FreedomBuild

Premium Member

Collection Agency??

Are these guys like junk debt collector? Buy up patents that don't quite fly and manipulate it like it was an original idea.

**Hey....see our patented diagram has a line in here -> and we have that similar term there -> There fore they are infringing. Now let the harassing begin....

Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY

1 edit

1 recommendation

Transmaster

Member

If we had a Senate and House


Up Yours Senate and House.
who where less interested in investigating if baseball players lied about taking performance enhancing drugs, investigating the Bush administration's every move, sucking up to Moveon.org, etc etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.........x10 to the 33rd power. If they spent less time back stabbing, bitching, brown nosing, ass kissing, blaming every one else for problems they have caused. We have a Speaker of the House, and Senate Majority leader who bitches about the high price of oil, blames the Bush administration for it but yet will not let us drill for oil in the United States in order to do something about it. Because of all of this and more, stuff such as this patent racket is not addressed.

Now don't start moaning about, Bush this and Bush that, in this case the primary problem resides with the House and Senate.

•••
SunnyFL8
Premium Member
join:2001-02-08

SunnyFL8

Premium Member

Verizon " Can you hear me now " ?

I think its Verizon behind all of this. It's all part of there plan. HAHA
MrBentor
join:2003-02-18
Seattle, WA

MrBentor

Member

Refuse to pay AND stop using the tech.

I'd be interested to see what would happen if several of the these companies, combined or not just told the patent troll to buzz off.

Not only ignore them but absolutely refuse to pay, refuse to stop using the tech and operate as usual.

And I am even saying to go well beyond... ignoring any court judgment and suit against the defendant, I believe that that the combined size of and power of enough companies could do this. Yes the companies would be in default of the judgment and contempt of court, but what could the government really do?
gaforces (banned)
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA

gaforces (banned)

Member

Re: Refuse to pay AND stop using the tech.

Send in the posse, confiscate everything, freeze the bank accounts, APB on executive's of the company ...
Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL

Zoder

Member

ATSC related patent

It appears that Rembrandt is claiming patent No. 5,243,627 as the main patent being infringed in the ATSC digital tv spec. This patent was filed by Bell Labs in 1991 and was eventually acquired from one of their spinoffs, Paradyne. I wonder if a requirement of the ATSC standards body was that any patents filed in relation to the technology could not be used against other members.

••••