December 12, 2007

19th century solution to 21st century patent problems?

Last weekend I read a fascinating article by Prof. Gerard Magliocca of the Indiana University School of Law entitled Blackberries and Barnyards: Patent Trolls and the Perils of Innovation, 82 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1809 (2007).

Prof. Magliocca compares 19th century problems with "patent sharks" to today's problems with "patent trolls" and suggests the only politically acceptable path out of today's problems may be the path taken out of the 19th century problems, i.e. elimination of the class of patents that triggered the problems. He provides tons of interesting context, but here's one of his proposals,

If the historical parallel between sharks and trolls rings true, then the obvious implication is that repeal is the only real answer to the troll problem. This is does not mean that we should wipe out all technology patents. A more discriminating approach would focus on the most problematic of these patents, which deal with software and business methods. Critics of the recent expansion of patent subject matter into these areas might describe this “experiment” as a disaster on a par with the design patent fiasco of the 1860s.

Among the background I found most interesting was the nature of the arguments in the 1880s.  Many put the blame on the "reckless methods of the patent office."  Sound familiar?

And, just as today's Biotech industry is opposed to any patent reform, the 19th century had powerful advocates for the status quo, including Thomas Edison, who argued that any revision of the patent statues would "strongly tend to discourage and prevent perfection of useful inventions by those most fitted for that purpose..."

Yes, it's sixty pages (double spaced) with tons of footnotes, but if you skip the footnotes and skim the text, there's plenty here to interest any engineer who's had occasion to learn the words "patent troll.".

August 22, 2007

Patent infringement defense just got a little easier

On Monday, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision that substantially eases the burden on defendants in patent cases. Patently-O has a brief posting here which has attracted numerous comments

For those who don't follow patent matters closely, the CAFC is the court that handle appeals in US patent cases and this was a rare unanimous en banc opinion, i.e. all ten circuit court judges participated and all agreed.  The opinion was on a procedural matter brought by Seagate Technologies but the key results were:

  1. A new "willfulness standard" which now requires clear and convincing evidence of "objectively reckless" conduct.  "Willfulness" determines whether a defendant can be liable for "enhanced damages" (more money than the patent holder's actual damages).  This new standard makes it easier for defendants to avoid being liable for "enhanced damages."
  2. If a defendant relies on a pre-litigation "opinion of counsel" as proof they were not "willfully reckless," the use of that pre-litigation opinion no longer constitutes a waiver of attorney-client privilege with their trial counsel.

Small steps perhaps, but encouraging none-the-less.  On the other hand, I really enjoyed Duncan Bucknell's comment to the Patently-O posting:

If the US routinely had the losing party liable for (at least some of) the winning party's attorney's fees, then I think this would have an equally punitary effect. The award in each case will (presumably? - sorry to take a shot at US litigation expense) be lower, but the overall award of $ would be much higher.

Would also clean up the 'patent troll' problem, ...

Well, we can dream...

June 18, 2007

Patents: KSR v. Teleflex summary that even a congressman might understand

In April, the US Supreme Court unanimously rejected a rigid test of "obviousness" in determining patent validity in the case KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.  As a result, it becomes somewhat easier to invalidate a patent on the basis of "obviousness."  Indeed, by early May the Supreme's decision was already impacting lower court decisions as the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a finding of obviousness in the case of  Leapfrog v. Fisher-Price.

A lot has been written about KSR v Teleflex in the legal press and in legal blogs, but yesterday I came across a good summary for the non-lawyer.  It's courtesy of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) which does research for congress.

Unfortunately, the CRS doesn't make their research available to the public in any convenient fashion.  Luckily, the Center for Democracy and Technology provides open access (and an RSS feed) for those CSR reports that are in the public domain.  It's quite a mix of, sometimes interesting, reports.

In this case, the CRS report is The Obviousness Standard in Patent Law:  KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. by Brian T. Yeh, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division.

June 10, 2007

Good Analysis of xG Technology's claims for xMax Modulation

In late 2005, there was a flurry in the technical press about a Florida company, xG Technology, which claimed to have a new wireless technology with performance far surpassing 3G or anyone else’s 4G roadmap.  I happened to run into a friend who actually knew something (unfortunately under NDA) about the subject, so I got interested, scanned several patent applications filed by the founder, Joe Bobier, and wrote a blog post, xG Technology — Physics or Snake Oil?

At the time, I concluded that Joe Bobier might be well intentioned, but had no clue about digital communications theory.  On the other hand, he might have accidently stumbled on a loop hole in FCC regulations that might allow someone to legally transmit a spread spectrum signal that spreads across the entire spectrum below 3 GHz.

A few weeks ago, Phil Karn, commented on my blog post and pointed me at two excellent papers he’s written on the subject.  In xG Technology’s xMax, Phil examines the published information on xG’s November 2005 demonstration, works out the link budget including antenna gains, and taking account of the specified transmitter power and likely receiver performance, concludes:

The xMax demo may impress those who haven’t done the calculations and are unaware of how little power it takes to transmit digital data over a benign line-of-sight path.  But the same demonstrated performance could have been easily achieved with just about any conventional digital modulation scheme…

In his second paper, Bobier’s TriState Integer Cycle Modulation, Phil examines one of xG’s recent patents, US 7,003,047 and concludes it’s just frequency shift keying.  But Phil goes far beyond the cursory glance I did last year and provides a detailed analysis of this specific patent.  Although the title says “Tri-state” what is described is continuous phase, frequency shift keying with biphase coding.  Phil’s conclusion is simple and dead on:

… the techniques described in this patent are not novel, having been around for decades.  They cannot provide the advantages claimed by the inventor.

What’s more, while I haven’t gone back to scan the other Bobier patent filings, this one has zero chance of spreading the spectrum in any useful fashion.  The principal energy is on either side of the chosen carrier frequency — the patent suggests choosing two tones 30 KHz apart — and the resulting spectrum is very, very conventional.  So the one thought I had last year, about something neat they might be doing, doesn’t apply.

May 18, 2007

Shakespeare's Remix

Under today’s copyright regime, it’s extremely difficult to to build upon prior artistic works.  It was different in Shakespeare’s day.

Recently my wife was browsing an antiquarian bookstore and came across a ten volume set, “The Best of the World’s Classics,” Henry Cabot Lodge, Editor-in-Chief, published by Funk & Wagnalls in 1909.  These are beautiful little hardcover books (sextodecimo or 16mo format), full of wonderful, well, classics! — texts that I would know better if I hadn’t coasted through much of my early education.

From volume 1, page 190, the editor’s footnote 2,

From “The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans Compared together by that Grave, Learned Philosopher and Historiographer Plutarch of Chaeronea,” translated by Sir Thomas North.  North was born about 1535, his translation being first published in 1579.  Written throughout in the best prose of the Elizabethan period, North’s version will always have another and very special interest as the storehouse from which Shakespeare obtained his knowledge of antiquity.  It has been asserted that to this book we really owe the existence of “Julius Caesar,” “Coriolanus,” and “Anthony and Cleopatra.”  In “Coriolanus” whole speeches have be taken bodily from North, while in “Anthony and Cleopatra” North’s diction has been closely followed.

These plays were likely written in 1599-1606, more than two decades after North (1535? - 1601?) published his translation.  In the US, Congress has continually extended copyright terms (eleven times in the past forty years) so, if current US law applied, North’s copyright would have lasted until 1671, long after Shakespeare’s death.  Luckily for Shakespeare, copyrights didn’t emerge until long after his death.

 

April 28, 2007

Ringback tone patents

Dave Farber's IP list delivered news of a patent suit filed on Wednesday in a post titled Mobile Companies Sued Over Ringback Tone Patents.  The suit was filed by Greenville Communications LLC and references two patents, US #5,321,740 & US #5,428,670.  I thought I recognized one of them (how sick is that?), so I looked them up on the USPTO website.  Sure enough, they were patents by Mark Gregorek that I had read some years ago.

I'm an engineer not a lawyer, and the interpretation of patent claims is an arcane field, even for lawyers.  But consider:

1.  Ringback tone services are structured so the called party pays to select what the calling party hears while they are waiting for the called party to answer.

2.  Each of the independent claims in these patents include the words  "said playing means determining the announcement to play based upon criteria established exclusively by the marketing system and independently of the identity of the called station".  <emphasis added by yours truely>

At a minimum, some lawyers will make a lot of money here...

September 06, 2006

Impressive new judge on US patent court

Perhaps a bit orthogonal to my usual interests, but yesterday, the US Senate unanimously confirmed the appointment of Professor Kimberly Moore as a judge on the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) – the court that hears appeals of patent cases.

The news clip caught my attention as I'd recently read an interesting paper she co-authored with Mark Lemley, Ending Abuse of Patent Continuations back in 2004.  Also, the fact that the vote was unanimous.  Of course, while a tribute to Professor Moore's qualifications, the vote may also reflect on how little politicians care about patents.

In any event, it's nice to see a Federal appeals judge with advanced engineering degrees, and from MIT no less :-).  Response among attorney bloggers I respect has also been positive, e.g. this from Dennis Crouch:

My two-cents — Professor Moore is an excellent nominee.  She is extremely intelligent, and has a complete understanding of the legal issues faced by the CAFC.  You will find that her decisions will be fair and quick, and, I believe that her vast knowledge of the CAFC and its history will help her to craft opinions that reconcile some of the internal cracks that have surfaced the past few years.

July 25, 2006

Amusing cartoon - rather obvious patent

Via Patently-O who got it from bLaugh.

060711_friendster_patent

Prompted by this Friendster press release about their US patent # 7,069,308 entitled "System, method and apparatus for connecting users in an online computer system based on their relationships within social networks"

June 25, 2006

Patents - First positive impact of the eBay decision

In US patent cases, patent owners have always gotten injunctions, no matter what the circumstances.  This threat of injunction is one of the levers that patent trolls have in pressing for settlements in otherwise questionable patent cases.  As I wrote at the time, the May 15th decision of the US Supreme Court in eBay Inc. v. Mercexchange LLC provided a glimmer of hope.

In that decision, the Supreme Court held that judges do have leeway to withhold injunctive relief in patent cases.  Now less than six weeks later, Patently-O points out this June 22nd decision in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (where patent appeals are heard) overturning a preliminary injunction in the patent case Abbott Labs v. Andrx Pharma.

It's just one incident, but it looks like a good sign to me – judges actually judging whether an injunction is justified.

May 30, 2006

Patents for "obvious" inventions

There's an interesting patent case, KSR International v. Teleflex, bubbling up through the US courts.  It's been reviewed by the Court of Appeals and KSR has petitioned (90 page PDF) the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, i.e. for the Supreme Court to consider the case.  The question at hand is one of obviousness.

I'm interested because I see a fair number of patents where the invention seems obvious to me.  Patents are only supposed to be granted for ideas which are not obvious "to one of ordinary skill in the art" so I could easily become quite conceited.  Indeed, when I discuss the obviousness test with potential inventors at NMS, I routinely tell them that they are not "ordinary" so, just because an idea seems obvious to them, doesn't mean it is not patentable.  I wish this wasn't the case, but that's the way the system works.

Last October, the Supreme Court invited the Office of the Solicitor General to file a brief in the case.  That's encouraging as it suggests they may grant certiorari.

For those who are interested, Tech Law Journal has links to the case's history and to various amicus briefs from Cisco, Microsoft and other interested parties.  Today, Patently O reports the Solicitor General has filed an Amicus brief (25 page PDF) recommending the Supreme Court grant certiorari.  Patently O also provides a bit more background on obviousness tests in the US and the European Patent processes.

Time will tell... At least it now appears likely, this case will be heard by the US Supreme Court.

My Photo

NMS Home

  • NMS Communications Logo

Search this Blog

Subscribe by Email

My Online Status

Copyright 2007 NMS Communications

July 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

Technorati


Site Meter

Upcoming Travel & Conferences


Links