Stallman: Nokia Patent Announcement Means Nothing

Last week, Nokia announced that it would allow its current patents to be freely used in the Linux kernel.

Today, Richard Stallman, founder of the GNU Project and Free Software Foundation, writes that the Nokia Patent Announcement Means Nothing:

Nokia most likely intends to use this announcement as a way to put us in more danger. . . .

Nokia, along with IBM and Microsoft, is lobbying hard for software patents in Europe. Nokia will surely point to its own small gesture as "proof" that software patents will not be devastating to free software.

Prior post: Nokia Allows Use of Patents in Linux and Introduces Linux-based Tablet PC (May 26, 2005).

GameTech Says Cleared in Patent Infringement Suit Over Electronic Bingo Technology

Yahoo! Finance reports (AP):

GameTech International Inc., a supplier of electronic bingo equipment, said Tuesday that a federal judge cleared the company of patent infringement charges levied by rival Planet Bingo.

The company said a federal district court in Las Vegas ruled that GameTech's progressive color-screen bingo game devices did not violate Planet Bingo's patents. Planet Bingo sued GameTech for patent infringement in 2001.

More: GameTech press release.

Feds Announce Operation D-Elite, Bring First Criminal Action Against BitTorrent Users

Wired News reports:

Acting on detailed information provided by the motion picture industry, federal agents descended on administrators and users of a popular pirate-friendly file-sharing site Wednesday in what the government is calling the first criminal law enforcement action against BitTorrent users.

FBI and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, agents executed 10 search warrants in nine states in a strike on Elitetorrents.org, a free, members-only BitTorrent aggregator hosted in the Netherlands.

JRockNYC thinks the Feds getting involved had more to do with theft of a workprint than file sharing.

More: Slyck News ("EliteTorrents.org Hacked").

More: DOJ press release ("Federal Law Enforcement Announces Operation D-Elite, Crackdown on P2P Piracy Network").

French Judges Pressure Legislature to Decriminalize P2P File Sharing

Wired News reports:

Judicial activism is roiling the entertainment industry here, as judges release convicted fileswappers with suspended sentences associated with otherwise draconian penalties stipulated by copyright law.

Now, in a widening rift, the powerful president of the French magistrates union has begun to openly advocate decriminalizing online trading in copyrighted works for personal use.

More: Slashdot.

Microsoft Gets XML Patent

Silicon.com reports:

Software developers are angry that Microsoft has been granted a patent for the conversion of objects into XML files.

The patent, which was granted by the US patent office on Tuesday, is for XML serialisation and deserialisation - the conversion of a programming object into an XML file and vice versa.

ZDNet UK adds:

Microsoft denied that any of its patents are of low quality and claimed that its patents have been praised in research studies.

"As a result of our industry leading commitment to research and development, Microsoft maintains thousands of patents," said the spokesperson. "Studies routinely rank our innovations among the most significant across any industry. A study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2003, which provided an overall assessment of Microsoft’s intellectual property, found that Microsoft continues to develop relevant patents and gave us one of the highest scores on the list of technology companies in that category."

More: U.S. Patent No. 6,898,604.

Prior post: Adam Gifford: Gates Up to Old Tricks Over Intellectual Property Rights (Mar. 15, 2005 - discussing XML patent issued by New Zealand patent office).

Is Patent Warfare Killing Wi-Fi?

Ed Sutherland at Mobile Pipeline asks that question in a report on Wi-Fi patent litigation and licensing.

Prior post: Computer Companies Take Action Against CSIRO Wireless LAN Patent (May 17, 2005).

Nokia Allows Use of Patents in Linux and Introduces Linux-based Tablet PC

ZDNet reports:

Nokia said Wednesday its patented technology may be freely used in the Linux kernel, making the Finnish mobile phone giant the newest computing company to begin offering intellectual-property protections to open source programmers. . . .

Nokia said in its statement that it won't assert legal claims against Linux involving its current patents, but reserved the right to exclude future patents from the agreement.

More: Nokia statement.

More: BetaNews ("Nokia Yields Patents to Linux Kernel").

In more Nokia-Linux news, eWeek reports:

Nokia officials on Wednesday used the LinuxWorld Summit here to not only launch the Nokia 770 Internet Tablet and the Nokia Internet Tablet 2005 software edition, but also to explain why they decided to develop an open source device.

Ari Jaaksi, of Nokia's open-source software operations, told attendees that this was the first true Linux and open-source device from Nokia, and they were already working on the next version of the software that would introduce VOIP (voice over IP).

Broadcast Flag Debate: Glickman vs. Burger

Dan Glickman, CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), and media attorney Jim Burger both write columns at CNet News today debating the broadcast flag.

Dan Glickman: Why the Broadcast Flag Should Go Forward:

Broadcast flag technology protects the content of our shows from redistribution over the Internet. The sole purpose and effect of the broadcast flag is to assure a continued supply of high-value programming to off-air digital television consumers.

Jim Burger: Why the Broadcast Flag Won't Work.

Imposing the broadcast flag scheme would have been a substantial and increasing burden with little return; moreover, it would have imposed government's heavy regulatory hand on heretofore largely unregulated devices, thus slowing progress, increasing cost and adding unnecessary complexity to consumer products.

Prior posts: Broadcast Flag Was Never Popular Anyways (May 6, 2005), Round Up: Broadcast Flag Decision (May 6, 2005), and FCC Broadcast Flag News and Commentary Roundup (Feb. 22, 2005).

Patent Reform and Partisan Politics

or the lack thereof (Patently-O).

Grokster Readings

Here are a couple of writings on Grokster to enjoy while waiting for the opinion, which should be coming out next month:

Moore's Lore writes:

Find Grokster liable based on the specifics of its business model. Technology should never be enjoined. Business models can be.

And Ernest Miller highlights a column by William Patry at the Patry Copyright Blog on a Grokster debate that Patry moderated last week at a joint annual meeting of the San Francisco and Los Angeles IP Associations. Patry writes:

[A] reversal is unlikely (in my opinion), so the spin will be over the nature of the affirmance (if that is what happens).

I say this under the assumption that the inducement part of the case is in large part not (and maybe not at all) before the Court as a discrete ground. That is, if it is true that had the Court not granted certiorari there would still be a proceeding before the trial court on past alleged inducement conduct ("use our software and please commit copyright infringement") then the Court can't "reverse" on inducement grounds, and that was the most likely ground for reversal, in my opinion.

Check out the rest.

Chief US IP Official Asks For Utah Schoolchildren’s Help in Fighting Piracy and Counterfeiting

the USPTO announces.

House Passes Two Anti-Spyware Bills

The Register reports:

The House of Representatives approved two anti-spyware bills on Monday. The bills take markedly different approaches to fighting the growing problem of invasive programs that snoop on user's online activities, effectively leaving it up to the Senate to thrash out a solution.

The Internet Spyware (I-SPY) Prevention Act of 2005 makes the unauthorised access of computers using spyware a criminal offence punishable by up to five years in prison. The second bill - called the SPY Act - requires firms to get the informed consent of users before installing programs on their PCs.

More: Reuters.

Prior post: More on Spyware Legislation (May 2, 2005).

Technet Strongly Supports CAFTA

Technet writes in a letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert:

We write as the leaders of some of the nation's largest employers in the technology industry, to urge your support for enactment of the U.S.-Central America and Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement. Implementation of the CAFTA-DR is a high priority of TechNet and the entire technology industry. Enactment of the CAFTA-DR will expand markets and export opportunities for U.S. technology products and services. The agreement is critical to the technology industries because it will eliminate information technology tariffs, open key information technology services including telecommunications, promote e-commerce and establish stronger intellectual property protections.

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Robert B. Zoellick writes in the Washington Post that CAFTA is a win-win, and Froma Harrop writes in the Seattle Times that CAFTA is the answer to China's growing power. The American Farm Bureau supports it.

Not all support the measure.

Washington Post reports:

[The New Democrats Coalition has] announced plans to vote against the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement, a stance putting at risk support from the rapidly growing high-tech community, one of the few major industries that continue to give substantial backing to Democratic candidates.

Sugar growers also have a problem with CAFTA.

More: Technet.

More: International Trade Administration's CAFTA website.

Update (June 7, 2005): BSA expresses its support for CAFTA.

Mock: Add Resources to the Patent Office, Then Worry About the Patent Squatters, Trolls, and Terrorists

Dave Mock at CNet News writes an editorial on the current state of patent reform.

Mock argues that the core problem today is not the patent "squatters, trolls, and terrorists," but rather the lack of resources at Patent Office:

I'd contend that the increased activity and new practices in the market for intellectual rights are concerns and should be examined. However, the more immediate and pressing issue for lawmakers lies with patents themselves and the function of the Patent Office. In this, there is a majority concurrence: The United States Patent and Trademark Office needs more resources to keep up.

FTC to Add Documents in Rambus Antitrust Case

Yahoo! News reports (AP):

Rambus Inc., a designer of computer memory technology, said Monday that regulators will reopen the record on an antitrust case against the company to include information suggesting Rambus destroyed documents ahead of a recently settled patent trial.

However, the Federal Trade Commission also rejected the inclusion of other documents requested by prosecutors, the company said.

More: Rambus press release.

Prior posts: Developments in the Rambus Litigation (Apr. 25, 2005), Infineon and Rambus Settle All Litigation and Enter IP Licensing Agreement (Mar. 21, 2005), and Rambus Infineon Patent Suit Update (Mar. 2, 2005).

DVForge Cancels Launch of PodBuddy Due to Threat of Patent Suit

DVForge announces:

This note is to apologize to our customers. You see, we are not going to be able to launch and sell our PodBuddy product, because of a disagreement with Netalog, Inc. D/B/A/ DLO (Digital Lifestyle Outfitters) over a patent that they hold for their TransPod iPod car holder/transmitter.

We have been informed by DLO that they consider our PodBuddy to be an infringement of their company's U.S. patent #6,591,085, and, that they will file suit against us, if we launch the PodBuddy.

Interestingly, Jack Campbell, CEO of DVForge, goes on to write that, in effort to get the product launched, he offered rights to the product for $23,000, the amount DVForge invested in the hard injection mold tooling, and that DLO rejected the offer.

Campbell is also encouraging interested customers to email DLO directly to express their desire to see the product launched.

More: U.S. Patent No. 6,591,085.

More: DVForge and DLO.

Update: More at Jackwhispers.

Canadian Court Rules in P2P File Sharing Case: Choose Your Spin

PC Pro reports ("Record Industry Scores Canadian Legal Victory Over Music Filesharers"):

The record industry has scored yet another victory over illegal file sharers, forcing Canadian ISPs to hand over details of alleged P2P uploaders.

Canada's Federal Court of Appeal overturned an earlier decision, paving the way for the country's first file sharing lawsuits. The decision brings Canada into line with the US and European countries, including the UK, where ISP records have been used to identify sharers who have subsequently been successfully sued.

ITWorldCanada writes of the same ruling ("Court Rejects Appeal on Tune Swap Suit"):

The Federal Appeals Court's refusal yesterday to order the disclosure of the identities of 29 suspected music file swappers over the Internet was one lost battle in the Canadian Recording Industry Association's (CRIA) war against illegal music file sharing.

Upholding a previous decision by Federal Court Justice Konrad von Finckenstein, the Appeals Court dismissed CRIA's motion, citing "hearsay" evidence.

More: Michael Geist digests the opinion and predicts thousands of lawsuits against individuals in the months ahead.

More: The Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) welcomes the decision.

EU Expects Deal in Antitrust Case with Microsoft in May

CNet News writes (Reuters):

Microsoft and the European Commission will resolve their differences before the end of May over the remedies imposed on the software giant for violating antitrust laws, the European Union's competition chief said Monday. . . .

The Commission, which polices competition in the 25-nation European Union, fined the U.S. software giant a record 497 million euros ($624 million) on March 24, 2004, and ordered it to change the way it does business.

Prior posts: Five Tech Companies Support EU Over Microsoft (Apr. 6, 2005), Microsoft Having No European Vacation (Mar. 23, 2005), and European Commission Dismisses Microsoft's Plans to Implement Last Year's EU Antitrust Ruling (Mar. 17, 2005).

Freedom Wireless Wins Jury Trial in Cellular Patent Suit

Yahoo! News reports (AP):

A jury on Friday ordered a prepaid cellular phone service company and four wireless carriers to pay $128 million in damages to a firm that patented technology and systems to provide prepaid service.

After a 12-week trial and four days of deliberations, a U.S. District Court jury ruled in favor of Phoenix-based Freedom Wireless Inc.

More: Press release.

Update: For the investor-minded, Marketwatch has more:

Shares of Boston Communications plunged Monday after the provider of billing software for wireless phone companies announced that it had lost a patent infringement lawsuit.

Update (June 1, 2005): Freedom Wireless homepage.

More: RCR Wireless News reports (May 27, 2005):

Cingular filed documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission indicating BCGI will indemnify Cingular and its AWS unit regarding the lawsuit. But BCGI has indicated it may need to seek bankruptcy protection in the wake of the ruling, which may leave Cingular liable for the judgment.

Update (June 6, 2005): BCGI press release (May 20, 2005):

Before a final judgment can be rendered, the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts (the Court) is expected to act on additional post-trial motions and will hear a separate, non-jury trial regarding an unenforceability defense by bcgi and the other co-defendants. These additional motions and the trial are expected to begin on June 7, 2005 and to last approximately one to two weeks after they commence. If the Court rules in favor of bcgi and its co- defendants in the non-jury trial, the patents held by Freedom Wireless would become unenforceable, a decision that Freedom Wireless, Inc. may choose to appeal.

bcgi continues to believe that it does not infringe on the Freedom Wireless patents and that the patents are invalid in light of prior art. Therefore, if the Court rules against bcgi and the co-defendants in the non- jury trial, the Company expects to appeal the Court's decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Update (June 8, 2005): More at Forbes (AP - discussing the possibility of bankruptcy for Boston Communications).

EU Patents a Death Warrant for Open Source?

Reuters reports on the latest in the EU patent debate.

Macworld UK runs with its own sensational headline on the story: Apple, Microsoft Sign Death Warrant for Open-Source.

Update: The Linux Gazette highlights the portion of the Reuters article that points out that Microsoft and Apple both argue for broader patent protection and responds:

While it's not often that Apple Computer, Inc and Microsoft Corporation agree on anything, it appears from the article that the push is one and the same. Is it?

The Linux Gazette goes on to answer that question.

BitTorrent Goes Trackerless, Presents New Problem for Anti-piracy Crowd

CNet News reports:

Antipiracy operatives have lost an edge over illegal downloaders of movies and software thanks to a new feature in BitTorrent.

BitTorrent creator Bram Cohen has eliminated the need for Web site hosting of centralized files, known as "trackers," in the latest beta of the peer-to-peer software. These easily located files have been a key resource for antipiracy units in identifying people downloading and sharing copyrighted material.

More: BitTorrent (with brief explanation of trackerless technology).

More: Slashdot (on new BitTorrent) and Slashdot (on BSA response to new BitTorrent).

Microsoft, Toshiba Sign Cross-Licensing Deal

Reuters reports:

Microsoft Corp. . . . and Toshiba Corp. . . . said on Friday they had reached a cross-licensing agreement, the latest move among global technology companies to expedite product development and avoid patent disputes.

The pact allows Microsoft, the world's biggest software maker, and Toshiba, the world's third-largest notebook computer manufacturer, to use each other's patents on computer and digital electronics technologies, a Microsoft spokesman in Japan said.

NewsFactor adds:

The cross-licensing deal was the first for Microsoft with a major Japanese electronics maker, according to a spokesman for Microsoft in Tokyo.

TechNewsWorld reports on the deal and adds that Microsoft may be seeking a similar deal with Hitachi.

Trading Technologies Brings Patent Suit Against Patsystems, Parties Settle

Finextra reports:

Electronic screen dealing firm Patsystems has agreed to settle a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Chicago rival Trading Technologies.

The suit was filed yesterday in the United States District Court by TT, alleging that Patsystems has infringed certain of TT's patents.

More: Trading Technologies and Patsystems.

Prior post: Software Company Files Patent Suit Against Funds Firm (Apr. 19, 2005 - regarding earlier suit filed by TT).

Storage Technology Loses Bid for Injunction Against Quantum in Patent Suit

The Denver Post reports:

Louisville's Storage Technology Corp. lost an initial court battle this week in a multimillion-dollar patent-infringement dispute with a rival.

San Jose, Calif.-based Quantum Corp. can continue to sell a new generation of data-storage tapes and tape drives based on technology StorageTek says it patented, a federal judge in Denver ruled.

Storage Technology was seeking a preliminary injunction.

TechWeb has some background information in an April 2003 report from when the suit was first filed:

Quantum shot first with a patent-infringement complaint in the Northern District of California accusing StorageTek of being "engaged in the unlawful manufacture and sale within the United States of tape and tape drive products that infringe two separate Quantum patents," company officials said in a statement.

Shortly thereafter, StorageTek lobbed back a similar suit in the U.S. District Court in Denver, according to StorageTek officials.

More: Storage Supersite (April 2003 - "Quantum, StorageTek in Legal Shove Match").

More: U.S. Patent No. 6,236,529 and U.S. Patent No. 6,549,363.

NetRatings Files Patent Infringement Suit Against Coremetrics And Omniture

NetRatings announces [pdf]:

NetRatings, . . . a global leader in Internet media and market research, today announced that it has filed patent infringement lawsuits against Coremetrics, Inc. and Omniture, Inc. The complaints, filed today in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, allege that both Coremetrics and Omniture infringe four patents owned or controlled by NetRatings. The NetRatings patent portfolio, which relates generally to the collection, analysis and reporting of information concerning computer usage activity, includes United States Patents No. 5,675,510; 5,796,952; 6,108,637; 6,115,680; 6,138,115; 6,643,696 and 6,763,386. Four of these patents were asserted in the lawsuits against Coremetrics and Omniture.

More: NetRatings.

PFF: Need New Test for Obviousness in Patents

PFF writes:

Jim DeLong and Solveig Singleton[, both PFF senior fellows,] have filed an amicus curiae [pdf] in support of a petition for a writ of certiorari [pdf] by the plaintiffs in KSR v. Teleflex. . . .

A district court ruled against the patent, finding that anyone with an undergraduate degree or modest industry experience "would have found it obvious" to connect the two devices. A Federal Circuit Court of Appeals panel vacated that judgment because the petitioners hadn't found objective evidence that anyone suggested the combination before the respondents filed their patent.

PFF believes the Federal Circuit's test for obviousness "allows too many obvious patents through."

Lawrence Lessig writes that the Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) is correct in calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to review the standard for obviousness.

In response to Lessig's post, Techdirt writes:

The problem is often that many skilled practitioners in a field are all coming up with similar solutions independently, just by understanding the evolution of a technology or process. Is it really fair to lock up the solution to just the first person who gets there (or even just the first person who filed for the patent), even if the others achieved the same result independently?

Update: The IPCentral Weblog presents another view, quoting Lee Hollaar:

I expect that if we back off from the current Federal Circuit tests, what we'll see is first office actions that are nothing but hindsight reconstructions and a bald assertion that they can be combined, and only applicants that want a long battle with the examiner getting patents.

OMA DRM Patent Licensing: Putting a Price on Innovation

Susana Schwartz in Billing World and OSS Today writes an article titled Standards Watch: Putting a Price on Innovation.

The article looks at both sides of current negotiations between the GSM Association and the MPEG LA regarding the fair value of licensing the OMA DRM patents:

[T]here's a delicate balance to strike: trying to foster innovation while respecting digital rights and copyright issues. Echoes of the Napster royalty melee are hitting close to home, as the Open Mobile Alliance's (OMA) DRM standard spurs controversy about how to weigh the interests of the ultimate end users and the companies developing the technology. . . .

Perhaps the end result of the dispute will depend on whether the two sides can put a price on the value of the [innovation created by the OMA DRM standard].

Prior post: GSM Association to MPEG LA: New DRM Patent Licensing Proposal Still Not Acceptable (May 4, 2005).

Is Copyright an Aberration with a Limited Future?

Graeme Philipson thinks so:

The greatest writers, composers and artist of the classical era operated with no copyright protection at all. That never stopped Shakespeare writing, or Bach composing, or Michelangelo painting.

FCC and Congress Address VoIP 911 Calls

CNet News has the latest on 911 calls over VoIP, including

recent action by the FCC: FCC requires VoIP to clean up its 911 act

and recent action by Congress: Congress pushes 911 mandate on VoIP.

CNet also provides FAQ: Why the FCC is targeting VoIP 911 calls.

Update: Om Malik highlights an e911 deal that Vonage recently signed with SBC and BellSouth, which Malik views as an indication of the upcoming FCC crackdown.

Proposed Patent Act of 2005 Limits Certain Aggressive Patent Prosecution Strategies

writes the IP Law Observer.

Exclusivity in Technology Licensing

The Digitalyst writes on one of the key issues involved with licensing technology: exclusivity.

The Digitalyst takes a look at exclusivity in terms of time, territory, product and version, format/media, performance, and market.

Check it out.

Acacia Licenses Interactive TV Patents to Sony

Yahoo! Finance reports (AP):

Acacia Research Corp. said Thursday that its KY Data Systems unit licensed a portfolio of interactive television patents to Japanese electronics maker Sony Corp. . . .

The patents cover receivers such as set-top boxes and certain televisions used in digital satellite and digital cable systems that permit television viewers to access interactive television features supplied by their satellite and cable providers as part of their digital programming packages.

More: Acacia.

Broadcom Sues Qualcomm for Patent Infringement

Broadcom announces:

Broadcom . . . announced today that it has commenced federal litigation against Qualcomm . . . alleging that the San Diego-based company infringes 10 Broadcom patents related to wired and wireless communications and multimedia processing technologies. . . .

"We believe that Qualcomm's current and next generation cellular baseband and radio frequency (RF) product lines infringe a number of our patents[," said Scott McGregor, Broadcom's President and CEO]. . . .

Additionally, today Broadcom filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) alleging that Qualcomm has engaged in unfair trade practices by importing integrated circuits and other products that infringe five Broadcom patents.

Update: The EE Times characterizes the dispute as "what could be a titanic struggle between two communications heavyweights."

More: Yahoo! News (AP).

Update (May 20, 2005): More at EE Times (including background on other patent litigation that Broadcom and Qualcomm have been involved in).