brighthand: "Company Claims Patent on Wireless Roaming"

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://brighthand.com/article/Company_Claims_Patent_on_Wireless_Roaming' target='_blank'>http://brighthand.com/article/Compa...ireless_Roaming</a><br /><br /></div>"For a long time, a Holy Grail of the mobile world was a way of allowing devices to roam seamlessly between different types of wireless networks. For example, a user could be driving in his car connected to a GSM/GPRS network for voice and data and, when he arrives at his office, be instantly handed off to a local Wi-Fi network, where his call is no longer counted against his mobile phone service and data access is much faster. A number of companies have been working on ways to make this happen for years and one of them, Calypso Wireless, came up with a method and obtained a patent on it..."<br /><br />Patent here, patent there, stopping innovation without a care...

[twntaipan]

Calypso Wireless is to wireless what SCO is to Linux.

[that_kid]

Calypso Wireless is to wireless what SCO is to Linux.

How true. Maybe I should patent driving a car, that way I can sue all the drivers everywhere.

[T-Will]

So many patents
We drown in a flood of them
Where's our common sense???!!!

:lol:

[Jason Dunn]

So many patents
We drown in the flood of them
Where's our common sense???!!!

Nice! You just won yourself a Pocket PC Thoughts Micro Light (the NEW design) - email me your full name and shipping address. :D

[Mitch D]

:frusty:

It never seems to fail, everytime something useful happens in this industry someone comes along and says "hey I have a patent on that, pay me". I am not against protecting a legit patent but it would seem that the U.S. Patent Office is really run by untrained primates (as alluded too in another posting by our leader).

Do they not research patents before issuing them? And should a patent not be very specific in what it covers? I thought vagueness was a Legal area, but I guess it extends to other areas of govermental operation.

:frusty:

[Mitch D]

So many patents
We drown in a flood of them
Where's our common sense???!!!

:lol:

LOL... Very good... But as one forum member has in his signature. "The only problem with common sense is that it's not common!"

[Christian]

So many patents
We drown in a flood of them
Where's our common sense???!!!

:lol:

LOL... Very good... But as one forum member has in his signature. "The only problem with common sense is that it's not common!"
Alas it's not nearly as common as people trying to profit from ludicrous patents. :roll:

[PPCMD]

What I don't understand is companies (and people) get a patent on an idea, and then never make anything. Maybe they have a good idea thats just too early for the world to use yet.

Lets see DaVinci created teh airplane, the helicopter and many other things we have today but his ancestors aren't getting a fortune for them.

Its simple if you patent the product make the darn thing. If you can't sell it maybe it wasn't worth it to begin with.

Hey maybe I can get a patent for thinking ya know the first one to have an idea. 8O

[darrylb]

What I don't understand is companies (and people) get a patent on an idea, and then never make anything. Maybe they have a good idea thats just too early for the world to use yet.

Lets see DaVinci created teh airplane, the helicopter and many other things we have today but his ancestors aren't getting a fortune for them.

Yes, but even IF he had patented them, they only last 20 years anyway.

I agree that if there is no value to be had, why bother? However, if you had just invented something that could make you a tonne of cash, would you want to protect it? That is exactly what these guys are doing.

The problem is when companies (try to) protect stupid things - like the bloke in Australia who last year managed to patent a spherical transportation enabling mechanism (a wheel). What is even more stupid, is when the patent offices manage to somehow decide that there is something unique and new about these things (two of the criteria).

This particular patent (unless I'm mistaken) will be about protecting a certain method of doing this handover. It will not prohibit any other organizations from coming up with their own method, nor does it mean these guys will monopolize this particular technology space or inhibit innovation (in fact it should drive more innovation when others try to work around it). They still need to get the thing to the mass market - which is tremendously expensive. Not to mention that to get a worldwide patent they would have had to fork out more than $70k

We dont slam Jason for trying to make money out of what he has built up here, why should we slam these guys for building some cool technology and trying to protect it? Especially when we would want to do the same.

I say good on them and I look forward to buying a handset that will do nice handovers to wifi.

[Ed@Brighthand]

This particular patent (unless I'm mistaken) will be about protecting a certain method of doing this handover. It will not prohibit any other organizations from coming up with their own method, nor does it mean these guys will monopolize this particular technology space or inhibit innovation (in fact it should drive more innovation when others try to work around it).
I'm afraid it's much worse than this. The patent office has (quite rightly) given this company a patent on a method for roaming between networks and the company is claiming this means that it has a patent on the very concept of roaming.

As a company spokesperson said, "For any mobile device, cellular phone, PDA or laptop that's able to roam between any current or future mobile network and Wi-Fi or Bluetooth or any other wireless LAN network, they will have to pay a licensing fee to us."

[darrylb]

I'm afraid it's much worse than this. The patent office has (quite rightly) given this company a patent on a method for roaming between networks and the company is claiming this means that it has a patent on the very concept of roaming.

As a company spokesperson said, "For any mobile device, cellular phone, PDA or laptop that's able to roam between any current or future mobile network and Wi-Fi or Bluetooth or any other wireless LAN network, they will have to pay a licensing fee to us."

OK. Point taken. This is dumb, and I concur with the gentleman(?) who indicated that the patent office is populated with beings somewhat more hairy than the average human.....

[JonnoB]

I believe in the intention of the patent system... protecting an idea or solution to a problem. It is meant to protect the investment from being hijacked by another.

That said, the problem today is that patents are too broad and contain so much legal mumbo jumbo that it does nothing to protect a solution... it is just a means of creating something to be licensed, even if that something is nothing more than a few broadly written words that could apply to almost anything remotely similar.

[Gremmie]

Don't forget economies of scale: Calypso is a stock on the pink sheets. It has less than $300,000 in cash and limited liquidity. What happens when they try to sue Cingular, Verizon, DoCoMo, or T-Mobile? What happens when other vertical markets come into play? Motorola, LG, or Samsung are going to defend the cellular providers so they can protect their cellular sales. It will be hard for Calypso to finance a task to take on a strong international industry.

[Duncan]

This company may be able to (attempt) to enforce their patent widely in the US but it will not be enforceable in Europe or much of Asia. Surely, as this kind of thing continues to stifle US market development, big companies will be forced to work together to get the law changed?

[safelder]

A few points in defense of patents and the PTO:

1. There may be a very good reason that these companies sit on their patents: it may not be possible for them to do anything with their patents. A patent is a NEGATIVE right--it gives the patent holder the ability to stop others from making, using, selling, or importing the patented invention. It doesn't PERMIT the patent holder to make, use, sell, or import it himself.

2. A patent is NOT a monopoly. That word implies market power...which you don't have unless (a) you can use your patent (see above) and (b) it's impossible to design around to reach a viable alternative. That almost never happens. In fact, it's this very aspect that causes patents to PROMOTE, rather than HINDER innovation--people without patents try to invent around existing patents to get patents of their own, and patentees try to build on their patents to get more patents, and we end up with new and better stuff.

3. The US patent system is set up to protect the little guy, not the big corporation. We have a first to invent system. EVERYWHERE else in the world uses a first to file system. Thus, if you're a small-time inventor in the US, you can take some time (not forever, of course) to get the funds to file an application. That said, anybody who thinks major corporations are going to band together to get the patent laws changed is dreaming.

4. Finally, on the subject of the Patent Office...yes, they do inspect each and every patent application for utility, novelty, and non-obviousness. They reject those patents that fail these standards. EVERY application that I have ever written has resulted in AT LEAST one rejection, and I don't recall ever having seen an application that issued as originally written. However, since a patent is a legal document, it takes a judge to authoritatively decide what the claims mean. In addition to the plain meaning of the words, you have to look at the prosecution history of the application (the things the applicant said to the PTO while getting the patent). Sometimes the PTO misses things...that's why litigation often ends up finding patents invalid and why people file reexaminations. But you should understand that the Examiners at the PTO are, by and large, overburdened--there's a HUGE backlog of applications, and the PTO puts a premium on moving paper F-A-S-T.

[AMR]

What happens when other vertical markets come into play? Motorola, LG, or Samsung are going to defend the cellular providers so they can protect their cellular sales. It will be hard for Calypso to finance a task to take on a strong international industry.

I'm afraid this is where the equivalent of the ambulance-chasing crowd comes into play. Many lawyers will take this on contingency. Often, if not whether you win, but how big the check is to make these companies "go away." :evil:




(Still can't get that quote thing to work out right.) :oops:

[Duncan]

A few points in defense of patents and the PTO:

3. The US patent system is set up to protect the little guy, not the big corporation. We have a first to invent system. EVERYWHERE else in the world uses a first to file system. Thus, if you're a small-time inventor in the US, you can take some time (not forever, of course) to get the funds to file an application. That said, anybody who thinks major corporations are going to band together to get the patent laws changed is dreaming.

You actually believe that don't you? The US patent system favours the opportunist and the wealthy - not the little guy. More to the point - any patent system that can allow absurdly wide-ranging patents on concepts and ideas is seriously flawed and doomed to break down. At some point there will *have* to be a reaction. How many times are major companies going tolerate such things as the Amazon `one-click` patent (not legally enforceable in Europe) or the current attempt re. wireless roaming? C`mon - a number of powerful groups banded together to buy changes to US copyright laws - doing the same for patent law is entirely within the bounds of possibility.

[igreen]

So many patents
We drown in a flood of them
Where's our common sense???!!!

:lol:

I own the patent on common sense...if you want to use it....or even claim to have it...you'll have to pay me.

[Jonathan1]

Calypso Wireless is to wireless what SCO is to Linux.

How true. Maybe I should patent driving a car, that way I can sue all the drivers everywhere.

No no NO! You are thinking to narrow a patent. Patent an device that allows you to manipulate a vehicle via an attached controlling stick, rod, wheel, or string. That way you can go after everyone from those pesky military aircraft contractors, to car manufacturers, to kite manufacturers.

Then again maybe I'll patent the act of sex and get royalties every time...

Oh and if you didn't pick up the tone of my post…
THIS IS GETTING )@$*&#!G INSANE!!!! :evil: :evil:

No more excuses. No more reasoning. This kind of outright crap is killing true innovation!!!

[safelder]

A few points in defense of patents and the PTO:

3. The US patent system is set up to protect the little guy, not the big corporation. We have a first to invent system. EVERYWHERE else in the world uses a first to file system. Thus, if you're a small-time inventor in the US, you can take some time (not forever, of course) to get the funds to file an application. That said, anybody who thinks major corporations are going to band together to get the patent laws changed is dreaming.

You actually believe that don't you? The US patent system favours the opportunist and the wealthy - not the little guy. More to the point - any patent system that can allow absurdly wide-ranging patents on concepts and ideas is seriously flawed and doomed to break down. At some point there will *have* to be a reaction. How many times are major companies going tolerate such things as the Amazon `one-click` patent (not legally enforceable in Europe) or the current attempt re. wireless roaming? C`mon - a number of powerful groups banded together to buy changes to US copyright laws - doing the same for patent law is entirely within the bounds of possibility.

Interesting theory. It flies in the face of the way the laws are written, but interesting nonetheless.

1) Pure concepts, algorithms per se, laws of nature, etc. are not eligible for patent protection. If a patent gets through (and I admit that some do), it's invalid.

2) How does a "first to invent" system favor the wealthy? First to file clearly does--you see somebody else's invention, but he's poor and your rich. Too bad...you get the patent, and the real inventor's left in the cold.

3) On top of that, the United States requires inventors to apply for patents and presumes that the inventors own the patent.

It's not the patent law that favors the wealthy. It's capitalism! What you see is the market at work. If I'm a little inventor, the patent law will let me get a patent and sit on it until it expires. But I don't want to do that. I want to sell the patent to the highest bidder so I can get rich too.

I still maintain that major corporations are not going to band together to get the patent laws changed--patents are FAR to valuable for them to want to make the laws any more restrictive. If anything, they'd press to make them more liberal. However, it is possible that Congress will step in and threaten to legislate away certain patents if the patent owners refuse to "play nice."

[Gremmie]

2. A patent is NOT a monopoly. That word implies market power...which you don't have unless (a) you can use your patent (see above) and (b) it's impossible to design around to reach a viable alternative. That almost never happens. In fact, it's this very aspect that causes patents to PROMOTE, rather than HINDER innovation--people without patents try to invent around existing patents to get patents of their own, and patentees try to build on their patents to get more patents, and we end up with new and better stuff.

Actually, a patent does give monopoly power. Since that is the only company to use it, unless it's licensed, they hold the same power as a monopolist company. There is no doubt though that patent spur innovation, because you compete to try to obtain a monopoly power before the next guy. When you hold monopoly power, a company is able to have "above normal" profit margins.