5 ms·

So what these guys are doing is sitting on their chairs, and trying to get money from people/companies that produce something? Not that I am a fan of Samsung o

So what these guys are doing is sitting on their chairs, and trying to get money from people/companies that produce something? Not that I am a fan of Samsung or anything, but this feels really wrong. Can't this be stopped? I would understand if these guys had their patent before bluetooth, this is just plain stupid that they can earn money from it, isn't it ?

strttn 12y ago
You could argue that companies like Rembrandt are the only way that indie patent holders can hope to compete with the likes of Samsung. Unfortunately the patent game appears to usually be one that is won by whoever has the largest legal budget. It costs huge amounts to create, file and protect patents and any errors will mean that a patent is worthless once the opposition's lawyers get stuck into it. Large companies in patent heavy fields all have teams of lawyers filing patents as quickly as they can and then defending them and attacking others as hard as they can. The little guy doesn't stand a chance. Perhaps a solution could be to have government take the place of a company like Rembrandt so that independent patent filers can get the heft behind them required to support their patent.
- Kliment 12y ago
  Or how about we kill the parasitic patent industry once and for all? Declare all patents invalid, like the debt amnesties that were common thousands of years ago, and refuse to issue any new ones.
- pizza234 12y ago
  > You could argue that companies like Rembrandt are the only way that indie patent holders can hope to compete with the likes of Samsung. That's not correct, specifically, it's not realistic for two reasons. First, patents, when related to indie developers, are beneficial only for a small subset - specifically, the google-like ones, who build a product on a single, very specific, idea. Second, an indie developer is not in the same market as Samsung. > Perhaps a solution could be to have government take the place of a company like Rembrandt When it comes to patents/trolling, there are a few "shocking 1-little-tricks" ;-) which are actually simple and effective - it's just that the administration is in bed with the industry, and obviously doesn't want to hurt the interests of the latter. Reducing the term of the patent to a reasoned amount would be one; limiting the amount of allowed applications would be another. One thing that I'm actually wondering (because I haven't seen it discussed) is what would happen if the USPTO would be accountable for the patents it grants, that is, if it could be sued for giving patents which are later proved invalid.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
SixSigma 12y ago
Taken at face value : Bluetooth 2 is infringing - this version of the Bluetooth Core Specification was released in 2004. > The patents relate to compatibility between different types of modems, and connect to a string of applications going back to 1997 ergo > these guys had their patent before bluetooth [2]
- easytiger 12y ago
  From reading some of US8023580 (utter horrid thing to read). They have basically laid claim to the mechanism of any electronic device that communicates in any way. Indeed I've read a lot of patents but this one is so inscrutable one could prob use it to claim against rocket technology and a jury wouldn't blink. Getting a jury of people to understand this stuff is ridiculous. > He said he appreciates the fact that Rembrandt has made the effort to get the patents enforced. >“I never could do that,” he said. Because the old fool is being paid to shut up and do as he's told. > Over the course of nine years consulting for Rembrandt, Bremer said he's been paid $670,000. He gets 2.5 percent of all settlements extracted using his patents. Yea. Its a patent troll of the highest order.
  - throwawaykf05 12y ago
    > They have basically laid claim to the mechanism of any electronic device that communicates in any way. Just so we know, could you point out the relevant portions claiming that?
    - xgbi 12y ago
      Well, just read the synopsis: >A device may be capable of communicating using at least two type types of modulation methods. The device may include a transceiver capable of acting as a master according to a master/slave relationship in which communication from a slave to a master occurs in response to communication from the master to the slave. The master transceiver may send transmissions discrete transmissions structured with a first portion and a payload portion. Information in the first portion may be modulated according to a first modulation method and indicate an impending change to a second modulation method, which is used for transmitting the payload portion. This could be valid for any form of communication with more than one modulation system (Wifi, BT, DVB television, any recent communication system). I'm pretty sure that the modulation of the monitoring systems in a rocket will switch between transmission modes when the rocket reaches some upper layers of the atmosphere.
GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
"So what these guys are doing is sitting on their chairs, and trying to get money from people/companies that produce something?" How's this different than any other sort of capitalist?
- pdonis 12y ago
  > How's this different than any other sort of capitalist? Other sorts of capitalists founded companies that produce something.

strttn 12y ago

You could argue that companies like Rembrandt are the only way that indie patent holders can hope to compete with the likes of Samsung. Unfortunately the patent game appears to usually be one that is won by whoever has the largest legal budget. It costs huge amounts to create, file and protect patents and any errors will mean that a patent is worthless once the opposition's lawyers get stuck into it. Large companies in patent heavy fields all have teams of lawyers filing patents as quickly as they can and then defending them and attacking others as hard as they can. The little guy doesn't stand a chance. Perhaps a solution could be to have government take the place of a company like Rembrandt so that independent patent filers can get the heft behind them required to support their patent.

Kliment 12y ago
Or how about we kill the parasitic patent industry once and for all? Declare all patents invalid, like the debt amnesties that were common thousands of years ago, and refuse to issue any new ones.
pizza234 12y ago
> You could argue that companies like Rembrandt are the only way that indie patent holders can hope to compete with the likes of Samsung. That's not correct, specifically, it's not realistic for two reasons. First, patents, when related to indie developers, are beneficial only for a small subset - specifically, the google-like ones, who build a product on a single, very specific, idea. Second, an indie developer is not in the same market as Samsung. > Perhaps a solution could be to have government take the place of a company like Rembrandt When it comes to patents/trolling, there are a few "shocking 1-little-tricks" ;-) which are actually simple and effective - it's just that the administration is in bed with the industry, and obviously doesn't want to hurt the interests of the latter. Reducing the term of the patent to a reasoned amount would be one; limiting the amount of allowed applications would be another. One thing that I'm actually wondering (because I haven't seen it discussed) is what would happen if the USPTO would be accountable for the patents it grants, that is, if it could be sued for giving patents which are later proved invalid.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

SixSigma 12y ago

Taken at face value : Bluetooth 2 is infringing - this version of the Bluetooth Core Specification was released in 2004. > The patents relate to compatibility between different types of modems, and connect to a string of applications going back to 1997 ergo > these guys had their patent before bluetooth [2]

easytiger 12y ago
From reading some of US8023580 (utter horrid thing to read). They have basically laid claim to the mechanism of any electronic device that communicates in any way. Indeed I've read a lot of patents but this one is so inscrutable one could prob use it to claim against rocket technology and a jury wouldn't blink. Getting a jury of people to understand this stuff is ridiculous. > He said he appreciates the fact that Rembrandt has made the effort to get the patents enforced. >“I never could do that,” he said. Because the old fool is being paid to shut up and do as he's told. > Over the course of nine years consulting for Rembrandt, Bremer said he's been paid $670,000. He gets 2.5 percent of all settlements extracted using his patents. Yea. Its a patent troll of the highest order.
- throwawaykf05 12y ago
  > They have basically laid claim to the mechanism of any electronic device that communicates in any way. Just so we know, could you point out the relevant portions claiming that?
  - xgbi 12y ago
    Well, just read the synopsis: >A device may be capable of communicating using at least two type types of modulation methods. The device may include a transceiver capable of acting as a master according to a master/slave relationship in which communication from a slave to a master occurs in response to communication from the master to the slave. The master transceiver may send transmissions discrete transmissions structured with a first portion and a payload portion. Information in the first portion may be modulated according to a first modulation method and indicate an impending change to a second modulation method, which is used for transmitting the payload portion. This could be valid for any form of communication with more than one modulation system (Wifi, BT, DVB television, any recent communication system). I'm pretty sure that the modulation of the monitoring systems in a rocket will switch between transmission modes when the rocket reaches some upper layers of the atmosphere.

GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago

"So what these guys are doing is sitting on their chairs, and trying to get money from people/companies that produce something?" How's this different than any other sort of capitalist?

pdonis 12y ago
> How's this different than any other sort of capitalist? Other sorts of capitalists founded companies that produce something.