Log in

View Full Version : Symbol Patent Threatens Wi-Fi


Ed Hansberry
09-29-2004, 03:00 AM
<a href="http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/09/23/HNsymbolpatent_1.html">http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/09/23/HNsymbolpatent_1.html</a><br /><br /><i>"Wireless vendor Symbol Technologies (Profile, Products, Articles) Inc. has told us it will be seeking a big license fee from all Wi-Fi equipment vendors for an infringed patent. And according to one manufacturer, Proxim (Profile, Products, Articles) Corp., it stands a good chance of getting it. Last week, Proxim gritted its teeth and paid $23 million damages awarded by a jury to Symbol in 2003. Patents owned by Symbol could affect any 802.11 access point, said both companies."</i><br /><br />They are seeking a 6% royalties from all WiFi vendors. Now, you and I know companies don't pay these fees. <i><b>You and I</b></i> will be paying these fees. :evil: Symbol has yet to tackle the Cisco empire, which includes the popular Linksys products many of us own and use in our house. I have a feeling Cisco has a pretty big legal defense fund and a team of sharks... er, I mean lawyers that will not just cave to Symbol's demands for money.

Brad Adrian
09-29-2004, 03:39 AM
It's going to be very interesting to watch this play out. On the one hand, if they take on Cisco and win, Symbol stockholders will be sipping champaign and eating caviar. On the other hand, if they take on Cisco and lose -- a real possibility due to Cisco's ability to field a huge legal defense -- Symbol might as well forget any claims whatsoever.

I suspect there will eventually be some middle ground, but not until Symbol has taken on and beaten some of the smaller fish in the market. A direct Cisco confrontation will likely be avoided, but any and all future development will require strict licensing.

Paragon
09-29-2004, 03:51 AM
lawyers that will not just cave to Symbol's demands for money.

Not until they have rung up a very sizable bill of their own at least. ;)

If Symbol are so concerned about their well being from others using what they feel is their property, why didn't they act before this....obviously because their main concern here is to gain the highest profit possible. Not to protect themselves. It's unfortunate that our courts have become a place for businesses and lawyers to go to make a profit, not for protection under the law. :(

I think if Symbol wanted to make money by licensing what they feel is their property they should have done so from the beginning. They should have gone out and worked for it. Instead they take the easy way. They wait for the market to mature, then send out the lawyers.....sad....
Dave

sundown
09-29-2004, 04:54 AM
Screeeeeeeeeeeeech! - the sound of progress slowing down for yet another patent-infringement suit. Acacia is doing the same thing, trying to sue everyone who creates software for video streaming or uses video streaming for business (http://www.acaciaresearch.com/) claiming they came up with the video streaming idea.

So golly, why don't these companies surface when a technology that "infringes on their patent" is first introduced? Simple - they wait for the technology to take off and then sue everyone. Nice, fellas.

msdawe
09-29-2004, 05:01 AM
The big radio guys at Telxon created most of the 802.11 spec back in the day. Telxon spun Aironet off to handle the wireless part of the business. Then Aironet sold out to Cisco, Symbol bought Telxon. That's where we stand today. I would assume that Telxon held the intellectual property when the spun off Aironet. That would be the only real way that Symbol would have the patents. It will be interesting though.

wshwe
09-29-2004, 05:34 AM
Another example of a patent system gone beserk! Those that can't innovate sue. :evil:

Jonathan1
09-29-2004, 06:36 AM
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/09/23/HNsymbolpatent_1.html

"Wireless vendor Symbol Technologies (Profile, Products, Articles) Inc. has told us it will be seeking a big license fee from all Wi-Fi equipment vendors for an infringed patent. And according to one manufacturer, Proxim (Profile, Products, Articles) Corp., it stands a good chance of getting it. Last week, Proxim gritted its teeth and paid $23 million damages awarded by a jury to Symbol in 2003. Patents owned by Symbol could affect any 802.11 access point, said both companies."

They are seeking a 6% royalties from all WiFi vendors. Now, you and I know companies don't pay these fees. You and I will be paying these fees. :evil: Symbol has yet to tackle the Cisco empire, which includes the popular Linksys products many of us own and use in our house. I have a feeling Cisco has a pretty big legal defense fund and a team of sharks... er, I mean lawyers that will not just cave to Symbol's demands for money.

Guys. Just a small note. It wasn't Symbol who started this dirty little war. Quote from an arstechnica article:

The legal fight started in 2001 when Proxim sued Symbol in a bid to enforce its own patents. Symbol countersued, and subsequently won both suits. Proxim originally planned an appeal, but has instead decided to pay US$23 million in damages and hand over some of its own patents.

http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/20040923-4228.html

T-Will
09-29-2004, 06:46 AM
This gets a big OMG from me! I'll make sure not to by any Symbol products (not that I would anyways...)

HTK
09-29-2004, 09:26 AM
I don't wanna see Jason's reaction to this! :worried:

Thinkingmandavid
09-29-2004, 09:47 AM
So the world goes round....

In essence it is not surprising to me. I do not know why they are just now coming out with this suit. Could it be it just occured to them one day it was their technology being used? Maybe all of this time there has been negotiations in the shadows and no one has been aware of it. If the negotiations did not go well or as planned for Symbol, then they felt inclined for legal battle.

Anyone of us in their shoes may have done the same thing, sooner or later. When it is your business it is always a different story than those who are looking at it from the outside as we are.

geosta
09-29-2004, 10:26 AM
This is exactly why some of us sharks...er, lawyers, have been arguing for:

a) enforcing the original limits placed on the patentability of software (not particularly relevant here) and

b) placing a limitation on the amount of time allowed to lapse between when the infringement was first noticed (or constructively noticed) and when the claim for infringement is filed.

Exactly as sundown said, it is now a very common strategy in the technology sector to 'let it ride'. That is, when they become aware of (alleged) patent infringement, they wait and see whether the technology will take off. Now that milllions of companies and consumers have invested in WiFi infrastructure, it isn't going away, and the scale of infringement is massive => the damages award is commensurately larger and more cost effective to engage large numbers of highly paid sharks..dammit, lawyers, who in a lot of these types of cases are working on a fees agreement ie. we take 20% of what we win for you.

Nasty little industry, unfortunately it is only going to get worse unless some politicians take the industry's money out of their campaign fund and get the balls to fix it (likelihood rapidly approaching zero).

G

farnold
09-29-2004, 10:58 AM
I find it amazing how many very established companies don't even give it the slightest thought (not even a PocketPCThought you could say :wink: ) that they may be developing and selling products based on patents they don't hold. In times where illegal downloads of music and videos are a given, where even governments recommend use of software that violates intellectual property... what are we expecting?

I think we're at a point where we have to look at ourselves and our very own understanding of rights. We understand that stealing in a shop is a crime but the majority still thinks it becomes an acceptable act when it happens in relation with computers.

Sorry mates, that is a dead end street and we have to learn again.

Another example of a patent system gone beserk! Those that can't innovate sue.wshwe, maybe it's that those who invented something in the first place got ripped off by others using their intellectual property to generate big profits. Or are you saying that progress justifies stealing? Interesting position... I'll come over and get your TV, mate :wink:

Yesterdays story on PocketPCThoughts about Mr. Pa(r)kman or however its been called was a good example for this as well, by the way...

daS
09-29-2004, 06:07 PM
I find it amazing how many very established companies don't even give it the slightest thought (not even a PocketPCThought you could say :wink: ) that they may be developing and selling products based on patents they don't hold.
Your point would be valid if patients where not being given for stupid things that are in no way in the spirit of what the patent system was meant for. Big companies (such as IBM and Microsoft) get tens of thousands of patents each year - many for minor details and "business methods" that are neither innovative nor non-obvious. But the patent office simply issues patents little to no effort to check the claims and simply expect the courts to sort them out. :roll:

This leads to the "extortion" of smaller companies who can't afford to fight the expensive court battles, or payments just small enough that they are cheaper to pay than to fight. While the larger companies play games cross-licensing their bogus patents with each other. This avoids the legal costs and also helps justify the claim of validity since some big company licensed the "technology". :evil:

As you can tell, this is a major sore point with me. I'm absolutely for protecting the rights of people and companies that innovate so that they can profit from their work. But the current patent system is broken and is almost exclusively serving the lawyers and companies such as SCO, and now Symbol, that buy a portfolio of patents and then sue the people that "violate" patents that they didn't even know existed when they developed (i.e., didn't steal) their own technology.

There was a time when getting a patent for something meant that you developed something new and innovative. Now a patent just means that you had a patent lawyer fill out some paperwork and you now have an opportunity to "shake down" someone else for some "protection money." Sure there are legitimate patents still being issued, but sadly, they are in the noise level at this point. :cry:

By the way, I hope that you or your kid never swings sideways on a playground swing, because there is a young kid (son of a patent lawyer - big surprise) who's patent for this method of swinging you'd be violating. :wink:

ADBrown
09-29-2004, 07:23 PM
I find it amazing how many very established companies don't even give it the slightest thought (Snip)

Oh, bulls--t. If I filed a patent on breathing, does that mean everyone else has to stop? In 99% of cases, the corps who hold the patents did not invent anything. Take Symbol--they didn't do anything, they just bought another company which had happened to have a hand in creating 802.11. Symbol themselves had nothing to do with it, and they didn't lay out one dollar or one minute of effort in exchange for those patents. Moreover, most of the time these patents are either so broad--like the one for a 'multifunction card' that the company claimed covered all handheld computers--or so tangentially related to what they're suing over that it passes lunacy into the realm of sheer self-parody.

Jonathon Watkins
09-29-2004, 10:34 PM
This is exactly why some of us sharks...er, lawyers, have been arguing for:.....

b) placing a limitation on the amount of time allowed to lapse between when the infringement was first noticed (or constructively noticed) and when the claim for infringement is filed.


Welcome Geosta. Good to see you join us. Always good to have a viewpoint from the other side of the water...er, courtroom. :wink:

Not a happy conclusion though. :?

hollis_f
09-30-2004, 07:51 AM
Take Symbol--they didn't do anything, they just bought another company which had happened to have a hand in creating 802.11.

So, the 'nothing' that Symbol did was to reward the patent holder (the one who did the innovation) with large piles of cash. Presumably you see that as a 'good thing'? Nobody forced the inventor to sell - they must have thought they were being adequately rewarded for their work.

ADBrown
09-30-2004, 08:17 AM
Take Symbol--they didn't do anything, they just bought another company which had happened to have a hand in creating 802.11.

So, the 'nothing' that Symbol did was to reward the patent holder (the one who did the innovation)

If you had been paying attention earlier in the thread, you would have seen that Aironet (where the patents came from), the wireless division of Telxon, was bought out by Cisco. However, the parent company legally owned the patents, and they were bought out by Symbol. It has nothing to do with anyone 'innovating.' It's little pieces of paper moving around. And, if you want to squack about companies being 'fairly compensated' for their 'innovation' then why aren't you all over Symbol, who in addition to the $23 million they got, forced Proxim to turn over several of their patents?

Innovation really has nothing whatsoever to do with patents. If you did a little research, you'd notice that companies file myriad patents for anything and everything because they know the system is broken and they might be able to later use a patent for leverage like Symbol is doing. Almost all of them have no genuine new technology or ideas behind them.

I wasn't kidding about that company with the patent for a 'multi-function card.' There's another company that patented 'a handheld computer as part of a system.' Microsoft has a patent on the use of human skin as an electrical conduit. They don't have an actual technique or technology for it, but they've claimed all rights to any future use of the idea. If somebody actually went ahead and designed some brilliant skin-charger, MS could come along and say "Oh, we own that. Give us everything." That's the patent system. It's not protection, it's a cheap way to land-grab, and it does a hundred times more damage to REAL innovation than it prevents.

Paragon
09-30-2004, 01:27 PM
That's the patent system. It's not protection, it's a cheap way to land-grab, and it does a hundred times more damage to REAL innovation than it prevents.

Here! Here!

I think that statement warrants repeating.

It's unfortunate that the present legal patent system has become imbedded in they way business is conducted in such a twisted way and perverse way. It now has an effect on almost everything we buy today.

Dave

KimVette
09-30-2004, 11:10 PM
[quote=farnold]By the way, I hope that you or your kid never swings sideways on a playground swing, because there is a young kid (son of a patent lawyer - big surprise) who's patent for this method of swinging you'd be violating. :wink:

However such patents are often thrown out of court. Patents cannot cover "obvious uses" for existing products. Considering I swung sideways on a swing probably 10-20 years before that kid was born, I could sue the punk and take over the patent and then release that method of swinging under the GPL! ;)

daS
10-01-2004, 05:23 PM
By the way, I hope that you or your kid never swings sideways on a playground swing, because there is a young kid (son of a patent lawyer - big surprise) who's patent for this method of swinging you'd be violating. :wink:

However such patents are often thrown out of court. Patents cannot cover "obvious uses" for existing products. Considering I swung sideways on a swing probably 10-20 years before that kid was born, I could sue the punk and take over the patent and then release that method of swinging under the GPL! ;)
Except that the problem is that it would cost you at least 1/4 million dollars to prove that the patent is bogus. Instead, most companies agree to pay the "protection money" for either a blanket license for say $100K (a savings of $150K+) or a per use license, such as $0.10 per swinging session. Unless you are very rich and are willing to waste money just to deal with this kid's scumbag father, the patent will never get to court to be challenged.

This is the problem with the system as it is being used now. The Patent Office isn't doing its job - instead, they expect the courts to work out the mess, but too many of these bogus patents don't end up in court, companies just pay off the patent holder to make them go away (or trade a license to their own bogus patents.)