Nokia has failed to get the US Supreme Court to rule that the International Trade Commission shouldn't hear cases involving companies whose business only involves patents, despite supporting evidence from Amazon, Red Hat, and HP – and to the delight of InterDigital. Nokia recently lost an appeal in an ongoing court case against …
Microkia is a US business now as well, for the price of two sturdy chairs Ballmer can get this sorted out by the end of the week.
@ Dan 55 - Re: No problem
Very true from my point of view. Also:
> . . .
pursuing an ITC case related to the use some of its standards-essential 3G patents in Nokia products
. . . <
If it's standards-essential, why is there a case at all? Either Nokia had to pay for the use, in a FRAND way, and they did: End of story. If they didn't, they should have. Send a bill. Solved.
Maybe it would be best to make a 40km high wall around the United States of America to stop all bad things from going into it. That would keep the Americans safe and the rest of the world could just get on with it's anarchistic methods of trading and manufacturing.
Re: @ Dan 55 - No problem
But if they can't sue everybody outside of the USA how will they make any money? Litigation is the biggest boost America has to its economy.
@ wowfood - Re: @ Dan 55 - No problem
> . . .
But if they can't sue everybody outside of the USA how will they make any money?
. . . <
If we had the proposed wall, who'd care?
Aww, I was hoping to see legions Apple fanbois descending on this forum to defend Microsoft^WNokia failing to negotiate a license for standard essential patents, just like they did with the Samsung vs Apple case.
They didn't, the ITC slapped Apple down but Obama overruled it (over SEP's iirc) so, to remain consistent, Obama will now have to reject this ITC ruling as it relates to SEP's?
True Obama will likely overrule it but it won't be because of SEPs it will be because the company facing the ban is Microsoft, a U.S. company that
owns lots of politicians makes considerable political contributions contributes mightily to the U.S. economy, politically speaking of course.
The funny thing is that Nokia can now laugh all the way to bank. The patent trolls are now a problem for Microsoft.
If it still were Nokia
I'd be saddened by this. But it is now Microsoft who will bear the load on this, so screw 'em. They themselves are patent trolls on other issues, like the ransom they charge against Linux distros and Android.
"...as the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided a US business based on patent ownership is still a US business and can be protected by the ITC.
This is like having the FBI protecting Mafia's business. Oh, wait...
Nokia stinks as much as this headline.
I love the Reg, but kicking the guy in teeth on the headline to someone who actually did the hard work to get a patent doesn't deserve this.
Title of article:"'Patent trolling' InterDigital"
Seven paragraphs down: "InterDigital does its own research and development rather than simply buying, selling and defending patents in court."
I have a friend who has long term invested in this company. Nokia and other large firms have just put up a wall to their hard work. None the less, just because someone says "it ain't true" doesn't mean it isn't, no matter how much money they have.
See http://electronicdesign.com/components/gordon-gould-long-battle-laser-patent for the reason why.
Re: Nokia stinks as much as this headline.
I have to agree. While there is some sense in which InterDigital is the exception that proves the rule that all non-manufacturers who sue for patent infringement are trolls, they are precisely the exception I and others like me have noted when expressing skepticism about forcing patent holders to manufacture devices as a way of eliminating patent trolls.
I am concerned that the patents are once again FRAND patents. We need a new model for handling standards essential patents because the current one is making a mess of the manufacturing and trade process. I think the best way forward is that if a company advocates for the adoption of a technique covered by a patent it must sign licensing authority over to the committee that establishes the standard and it then gets paid from the money the committee collects. If necessary the committee spins off an agency whose sole purpose is to handle collecting the fees and paying the original rights holders. The company originating the patent should be able to negotiate the fee with the standards committee before the standard is adopted. If the patent isn't revealed before the standard is adopted, the company forfeits their patent rights. That way the company can't pull a RIMM job.
they are precisely the exception I and others like me have noted when expressing skepticism about forcing patent holders to manufacture devices as a way of eliminating patent trolls
Amen. While I know this doesn't go down well with the bulk of the Reg readership, particularly with certain manifesto-posting ideologues who insist on seeing the world in the most reductive terms possible, applied research is productive activity just as much as cranking out widgets is.
The same applies more broadly to the right to sell intellectual property, which is a critical economic channel for rewarding useful research.
Clearly there are patent trolls engaged in bad behavior that is counterproductive and impedes real research and development. But bumper-sticker solutions like "only manufacturers can hold patents" and "get rid of patents entirely" are typical sophomorisms, worse than the condition they propose to remedy.