5 ms·
They should be suing the manufacturers in the first place. Even if we were to assume for a moment that this patent has any validity whatsoever, it would not be
by tjr 15y ago
They should be suing the manufacturers in the first place. Even if we were to assume for a moment that this patent has any validity whatsoever, it would not be the users of the wireless router than owe them a royalty payment, but the router manufacturers. And I seriously doubt that a fair royalty on a single router (such as what you might find in one of these small coffeeshops that they are suing) is in the thousands of dollars.
- felipemnoa 15y agoI know, you know, the manufactures know, the lawyers know, but unfortunately the lawyers do not care. They just want to make easy money. This might be a good way to shift the pain to the manufactures.
- caf 15y agoWhy? It's not just the implementation of a patented idea that's protected; it's also the use.
- danssig 15y agoDon't consumers have some protection here? I mean, they probably bought the wifi at a common store. You don't normally walk out of Walmart with a box containing a product you expect to not legally be able to use.
- caf 15y agoLegally I believe that's an issue between the consumer and the merchant and/or manufacturer.
- tjr 15y agoLegally, it depends. A bit of web searching did turn up (so far) one LinkSys router that explicitly disclaims implied warranty of non-infrigement. If that is disclaimed, then yes, it falls to the consumer to deal with it.