Guess we have to do this the Huawei then: Verizon sued by Chinese giant for allegedly ripping off patented tech Huawei and Verizon are squaring off in America over allegations of patent infringement and failed licensing deals. On Thursday, Huawei sued Verizon in two plaintiff-friendly courts, accusing the cellular giant of ripping off patents it holds on voice and data mobile networks. The lawsuits were filed on the same day in the …
That said, this is a problem if you use IP law to stave off competition, at some point, someone is going to use that against you and it is evident that Huawei DOES have original developments. Logic dictates that if they copied from someone else they would not have the fastest 5G gear..
That whole "make China follow IP law" thing is hypocritical anyway, the whole US industrial revolution was built on stealing IP left, right and centre so for them to balk at another country doing the exact same stinks a bit IMHO.
Although you are correct it is a different world now than during the Industrial Revolution. The speed at which IP can be stolen and the ease of espionage over the Internet make IP theft so much faster and possibly easier than it ever was. Then there are differences in how IP is perceived in China versus the Western World as well how foreign companies are treated in each country.
What my above statement boils down to is that Governments should have never let greedy Corps move manufacturing to lower cost centers. That stupidity is coming back to bite us even harder than it already has.
"it is a different world now than during the Industrial Revolution. The speed at which IP can be stolen and the ease of espionage over the Internet make IP theft so much faster and possibly easier than it ever was."
--> But the speed with which technology is developed becomes obsolete also became faster so, if anything, the average (adjusted) value of a patent is probably lower now than during the industrial revolution.
"Governments should have never let greedy Corps move manufacturing to lower cost centers"
--> So you see no positives in the accelerated world economic growth of the past decades? How much of your own wealth would you give up to keep billions elsewhere in poverty? I know that humans' perceived wellbeing relies heavily on how they fare compared to others... But maybe the rational commenters in this forum might rise above such pettiness?
"What my above statement boils down to is that Governments should have never let greedy Corps move manufacturing to lower cost centers. That stupidity is coming back to bite us even harder than it already has."
So you agree with Trump and his stance on these matters? Careful there!
While both companies are less (a lot less, equally lessest?) than admirable it sounds like Verizon was willing to negotiate until something stopped them (probably cost, although Trump can't be ruled out).
Without knowing what Huawei was asking for in compensation it's hard to say who's the most unreasonable but the idea that Verizon should be able to ignore the licensing is absurd .
It would be as if Netflix decided to continue to stream Disney movies after Disney cut them off.
I have coauthored seven US patents in computing.
As far as I know only six were filed.
The USPTO are supposed to check for prior art.
As far as I can tell, this happened because they apparently awarded exactly the same patent twice, with two different patent numbers. Two of the patent texts look identical to me. Of course once it moves from engineering to the legal team, you never see it again.
However, I strongly suspect this proves that the checking for prior art isn't as strong as it could be.
I am named on a few: my employer at the time clearly hoped that the claims were novel and patentable, but they seemed pretty mundane to me. Lawyers went away, wrote up the patents, found what they thought was prior art (without reference to the "inventors") and we were then told to "sign here". I think in the end only a couple were granted, but the company expired before the patents did.
It did seem to be an extraordinarily expensive form of futility.
"Huawei’s real target is not Verizon; it is any country or company that defies it. The action lacks merit, and we look forward to vigorously defending ourselves."
"Defies" as in "refuses to come to an agreement about using Huaweis patents"? And "company" as in, I'm guessing, Verizon? So, Verizon's position is that Huawei aren't taking this action to stop Verizon using their IP for nothing, but they are doing it because they want to target Verizon for using their IP for nothing? Thanks, that statement really backs up your position Verizon, well done.
Forgive me, can someone with more knowledge than myself explain how Verizon could have violated these Huawei patents?
Verizon essentially doesn't make Telecom equipment, and are actively shifting to outsourced management and architecture of network infrastructure to REITs like American Tower and Crown Castle.
Since Verizon is essentially a spectrum license holder and billing company, how could they have possibly violated these patents, which are primarily focused on network efficiency and performance?
If the patents are referred to in an international standard, like 5G certainly is, then they should be licensed under FRAND policies of the standard -- not free, not unreasonable (terms), not discriminating, not refusable (*).
Possibly this is a proxy war against Nokia or Samsung or even Ericsson. Whoever built Verizon's kit.
(*)I am paraphrasing.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
