Fed up of playing Whac-A-Mole with network of SoftBank-owned patent holders, Intel hits court Intel is taking legal action against a spider's web of patent holders from SoftBank-owned Fortress Investment Group and its network of subsidiaries. The Japanese megacorp bought the group for $3.3bn in late 2017, and Chipzilla claims Fortress has become more aggressive in an effort to justify its sales price to its new owners …
Intel produce products - I'm sure there are some cases where they've gone after competitors for patent infringement, probably some of them unfair or anti-competitive, but at least they're using the patents they have in things people buy.
That's fundamentally different to a firm which has never produced anything, has no intention of ever producing anything or setting up a reasonable licensing scheme (e.g. like ARM does), and doesn't even benefit the original patent author.
I have no problem with Intel asserting patent rights for patents they use in their own products. It is companies that sue over patents they own when they make nothing (i.e. patent trolls) that are the problem.
Not that patents should be worthless if you don't make products using them, but it throws the normal back and forth of patent assertion off if the other company isn't using any patents AT ALL. This is where you get stuff like that VirnetX suing everyone under the sun for hundreds of millions over patents that probably should have never been granted. If they were making any products that used other company's IP those patents would just be something they could leverage to get a better deal, rather than being the sole business model for a lawyer only company.
It seems like Softbank is trying to have it both ways - they own AMD who has many patents Intel uses, and uses many of Intel's patents, so they have a cross licensing agreement. They also own this apparent troll, who they apparent bought to operate as a patent troll. Bet we don't see it suing AMD the way it is suing Intel!
... but companies that dont actually produce anything (either produts or research) really shouldnt be allowed to own patents.
the case mentioned where VLSI just kept shutting down cases and opening them in new jurisdictions really should see there lawyers disbarred, but of course that will never happen.
United States of America - the Land of the (legal) Fee, and Home of the Ambulance Chaser...
>.. but companies that dont actually produce anything (either produts or research) really shouldnt be allowed to own patents.
A little tough on the lone inventor.
Invent something
Show it to possible investors/customers
Have them steal it
Get money to build product yourself
Patent protection
Profit?
Not really. In that scenario you are producer (of research). It should be pretty easy to show that a) you had a meeting with the investors/customers, b) they signed an NDA (you did have them sign an NDA, right?), and c) that they are now producing your product.
That's a straight up case for patent protection and there's nothing stopping you bringing that case.
It should be pretty easy to show that a) you had a meeting with the investors/customers, b) they signed an NDA (you did have them sign an NDA, right?), and c) that they are now producing your product. That's a straight up case for patent protection
What are you talking about? Patents are the polar opposite of NDAs (trade secrets). People can implement your patented technologies even if you've never had a meeting with them.
1, patents (or at least provisional filings) can be a very good way of proving priority before a meeting - compared to having to argue a bunch of unsigned lab notebooks in court
2, NDAs offer no protection if you are up against a MEGACORP with more lawyers. Neither are patents but they are a little better.
3, Global MEGACORP won't sign an NDA. Simply there is no way that Mr X at an IBM/Samsung/Google can know if there isn't a Mr Y in another office working internally on the same thing you are going to talk about. So signing an NDA before a meeting puts them into a world of conflict.
#3 is not true - large corps sign NDAs all the time, even with small players - we have several NDAs with F10 (yes ten) companies, no issues.
Now, whether we can enforce these or not is another question, although we have gone to court in the past to get contracts enforced....
I don't think the patent system protects lone inventors anyway.
I've never filed a patent but I did once have a chat with a lone inventor who had filed patents, produced a product based on those patents and then sued someone for infringing on those patents. He said it basically works like this:
1) Invent something
2) Patent it
3) Build it yourself
4) Have someone "steal" the idea and produce a clone product
5) You sue the for patent infringement
6) If you win they just disappear and pop up again with a new name
Repeat 5 & 6 until you are bankrupt.
It probably used to work when the products were manufactured in the countries where the products were used as loosing the patent infringement case would mean your factory with all its expensive tooling would get lost.
These days though the only person you can sue is the importer who could be a teenager with a cheap laptop and Amazon seller account so it's a lot cheaper for them to setup again than it is for you to sue them.
I don't think the patent system protects lone inventors anyway.
Which is a rather good reason to SELL your patents to a big mega-corp (like SoftBank) for a pile of cash up-front. Of course if they can't use it, they won't be willing to spend a dollar to buy it.
Of course if they're abusing the court system, that's another matter entirely, and should be pursued irrelevant of the patents they own.
Like "can't own patents unless you make products that use them" or "can't sell patents", it would have been implemented long ago. I don't think anyone has figured out how to a craft a law that prevents obvious patent trolling like this, but doesn't screw over small time inventors, or companies that invent something novel and try to develop it into a product, but go bankrupt before they get there.
"Patents shouldn't be transferable...."
Let's do a thought experiment.
You invent something.
You patent it.
You find you really don't have the money to build and sell it.
Do you
(a) Hock your house, children & right arm (assuming that allows you enough credit) to borrow money from the bank to set up a factory and marketing organisation, not of which you have experience of or
(b) Go to a VC who requires the above and 95% of the profits to set up the factory & marketing organisation or
(c) Sell the patent to someone who already has the business in place to develop it and cash out not?
Suddenly we see there's a good reason to be able to transfer patents.
Suddenly we see there's a good reason to be able to transfer patents.
Why transfer instead of license?
Surely the patent can be held by the individual and also be licensed for manufacture?
If it works for DRMed copyrighted products (licensed not sold) why not other IP like patents?
Oh. That's right. It doesn't help the few filthy rich owners of this planet.
Why transfer instead of license?
Because it's still some little guy who will be responsible for pursuing the lawsuits against any and all infringers, which could be a mega-corp with deep pockets. If he ever opts not to bother, those who licensed the patent are at quite a disadvantage to those who stole it.
...it’s the mice who get squashed.
Are patent trolls out of control? Yes.
Does this battle help the small company/inventor? Probably not.
Patent enforcement by the issuing authorities needs a serious overhaul, re-emphasizing the ‘reasonable fees’ licensing assumption that justifies the monopoly position they grant.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
