Mega patent holder Huawei said to be putting licensing squeeze on SMEs Chinese telecoms giant Huawei may be looking to put the squeeze on small to medium companies for license fees on its sizeable patent portfolio as its bottom line continues to be hit by US sanctions and other restrictions. A report in Nikkei Asia claims that Huawei has approached about 30 small to midsize companies in Japan, …
If they try to go after the likes of Cisco, then it would be a long, protracted case in the US, with the US government claiming some crap if "National Security" (which in the US does cover financial risk to the state).
So they go after the clients.
It's like getting everyone off drugs to ruin the business model of the cartel.
If they try to go after the likes of Cisco, then it would be a long, protracted case in the US, with the US government claiming some crap if "National Security" (which in the US does cover financial risk to the state).So they go after the clients.
What happens in Texas, stays in Texas. See Qualcomm, Apple, even Cisco. Or just the US patent trolls who'll sue SMEs at the drop of a writ. It's pretty much BAU for IPR except maybe a different set of targets. Reasons are much the same, ie win cases against smaller players, then go after the bigger ones.
"Standards-essential patents" should simply not exist, full stop. If the only way to comply with a legal requirement is to pay money to a private individual or organisation, that amounts to privatisation of law.
Any patent which is essential for compliance with an enforced standard should be automatically annulled; or at worst, automatically licenced on a royalty-free basis.
The only reason I would consider making a patent application, as opposed to a Formal Declaration of Prior Art, would be if I thought of something really terrible that I really did not want anybody doing. Then I would consider patenting it, in the hope of stopping anyone from doing it. And because it would be nice to tell someone where to stick their money.
All patents that are needed for a standard go into a patent pool. Part of the standards process is for participants to declare their interest and patents. The patents then go into a pool which attracts a single licensing fee agreed by the participants with the proceeds divvied up amongst the patent holders. (The process used to be on an honor system but after it got gamed over a DRAM patent a couple of decades ago it became more formalized.)
(This is another example of where inserting politics into technology causes all sorts of unintended side effects. Huawei is reckoned to own a bit shy of two thirds of the patents needed to implement 5G. Trying to prevent them from participating in the 5G market.....)
It's not quite right to say that a patent involved in an industry standard should not be a patent.
Imagine that I have invented a new type of watch strap fastening that is safe and effective and sounds an alarm when it unfastens unintentionally, and it meets the needs of legally enforced electronic tagging of persons for curfew or not bothering their ex-partner purpose. I allow the electronic tag industry to adopt my fastening design in an industry standard, licensed on FRAND terms.
But at the same time, I still want to collect big on selling my patented fastening for common wristwatches and other wearable technology, and why shouldn't I?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
