Search

This concluding Part 4 of this series considers distribution of the more general economic value that standardization creates, how rival claimants vie to capture that value, and how the various stakeholders regard (and support or resist) the 2015 IEEE Patent Policys efforts to make an appropriate distribution of that value. Part 4 comments on the arguments stake holders make to justify their claims. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article, the third in a multipart series, describes and comments on the relief that the courts award in cases involving standard-essential patents (SEPs)—the law that courts have established on how to determine a reasonable royalty—in particular, a royalty on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms (RAND royalty) for a SEP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article, the second in a multipart series, discusses Apple’s complaint against Qualcomm—namely, that Qualcomm breached its contract to pay Apple a billion dollars in rebates, and engaged in anticompetitive practices injuring Apple. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This column, the first in a multipart series, discusses the FTC's accusations of standardization skullduggery against Qualcomm. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This column discusses IEEE's recent update to its reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) policy on the licensing of standard-essential patents (SEPs), as well as the Justice Department's announcement that it will not challenge the IEEE proposal. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This column discusses a recent Federal Circuit decision on determining royalties on patents embodied in a standard and subject to a reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) obligation. It also considers possible new approaches to standard-essential patents and standard setting. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This column, the first in a two-part series, looks at the recent Supreme Court case of Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd v. CLS Bank International to examine whether, and in what circumstances, patents can be issued on computer-related innovations and, more broadly, on business methods and software. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article focuses on a court case between two companies, NTP Inc. and Research in Motion Ltd. (RIM), regarding patent infringement. The U.S. Court of Appeals for all patent cases took a look at whether operators of transnational electronic systems with some components in the U.S. and some in other countries can be held liable for patent infringement. A transnational system can consist of subsystems, some of which can of necessity be located in one place or at least in one country. It is often possible to obtain patent claims to a subsystem of a given system, where the subsystem is adapted to cooperate or co-act with the system. In NTP Inc.'s case, the defendant was RIM's BlackBerry electronic mail system, which has customers in the U.S. and important parts of the system in Canada. The patentee NTP Inc. had to face a problem that U.S. patent law ordinarily applies only to patent infringement committed within the U.S. NTP Inc. had claims to Internet communication processes, some of whose steps RIM Ltd. carried out in Canada. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office just recently issued patentability guidelines stating that henceforth no patents should issue on electronic signals, because they are intangible. INSET: Claiming subsystems: What the courts allow..

The article provides information about a lawsuit between two chipset manufacturing companies regarding the patent essentials of Universal Mobile Telephone System (UMTS) standard. Broadcom Corp., a manufacturer of semiconductor chipsets for communications applications, has sued Qualcomm Inc., another chipset manufacturer and the owner of patents essential to complying with the standard. Broadcom charges that Qualcomm deceived the U.S. and international standard-setting organizations into incorporating Qualcomm's patented technology into the UMTS standard by making intentionally false representations that it would license its patents on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms. But once these organizations adopted a standard embodying Qualcomm's patented technology, Broadcom alleges, Qualcomm proceeded to demand unfair, unreasonable, and discriminatory terms for patent licenses. The purpose, Broadcom says, was to give Qualcomm monopoly power over the sale of chipsets for mobile telephones conforming to the standard. The UMTS standard has come to dominate the mobile telephone market.

This article presents information regarding vicarious liability for infringement in the context of manufacturers and disseminators of innovative products. The problem of this demand for the imposition of vicarious or indirect liability is by no means unique to copyright infringement. It is just one instance of the old and general legal problem of how to decide whether one person is justly accountable for the wrongs that another person commits or the so-called accidents that harm another. If the patent has a process claim, say, one for fastening buttons to cloth by means of a novel sewing device, the steps could- and likely would-mention the buttons and cloth as well as the device. So, although the patent is not on the ink, stencil, or button as such, those items are important to carrying out the claimed invention, and the patent can implicate them. The main criterion for active inducement of patent infringement and of contributory patent infringement under existing patent law is intent and purpose to cause infringement. This requires evidence that the bad actor held liable for the actual infringement by someone else, say the user, urged the latter to commit the infringement. INSET: Direct and Indirect Copyright Infringement..

This article focuses on Kelly v. Arriba Soft, a legal case in the U.S. Court of Appeals on the West Coast, which challenged search engines and pop-ups under copyright laws. The opinion condemned as illegal what it called "framing" and seemingly condemned as well all hyperlinking to which the linked site did not consent. The losing party, a company operating an image search engine, then called Arriba Soft Corp., seconded by numerous amici curiae, immediately filed papers asking the court to reconsider and refrain from destroying the Internet.

Focuses on unresolved legal questions about patents and standard setting. Purpose of standard setting; Information about patents covered by the standard setting policy of a firm.

Presents information on an antitrust lawsuit filed by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against Rambus. Facts of the case; Details on the investigation on Rambus conducted by the U.S. Justice Department; Discussion on the defense of Rambus against the FTC.

Reports that a jury in Richmond, Virginia discovered that Rambus defrauded the Joint Electronic Devices Engineering Council (JEDEC) and the random access memory industry. Details on the patent infringement lawsuit filed by Rambus against Infineon; Why Rambus had no duty to disclose its pending patents; Details on the jury's verdict.

Offers solutions to preventing abuse of IEEE standards policy. Guidelines for IEEE patent policy. INSETS: IEEE patent policy;ASME antitrust case;Secret Squirrel and more alleged standards skullduggery.

Explores legal theories surrounding a manufacturer's refusal to sell patented parts or to license its intellectual property rights to a rival. Presumption of legitimacy; Description of the proposed intermediate theory; Problem with the absolute-right theory; Exceptions to the privilege of refusing to grant licenses; Theory of leverage; Structure of the copyright laws.

Discusses the issue regarding the dispute in the Mumblety Peg Standard, which embodies patented technology, as the original standard setters intended. Reason behind the disputes; How are users affected by the standard; Recourse the hypothetical newcomer to mumblety peg have.

Part II. Analyzes the differences between the American National Standards Institute's (ANSI) policy on intellectual property embodied in standards and the proposed Micro Law policy for the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and other standardization bodies. Patent sanctions disclosed by ANSI; Missing links in the chain of reasoning; How the proposed Micro Law policy works. INSETS: The Web Standards Project position;ANSI position.

Focuses on how the Year 2000 date conversion problems would affect systems around the world. Opinion of Senator Bob Bennett of Utah, chair of a congressional subcommittee regarding the year 2000 problem; Scenario illustrating the effects of the year 2000 problem; How engineers and manufacturers may encounter intellectual property law problems. INSET: Update.

Focuses on restraints in computer technology advances, referencing the United States government's cases against the Microsoft Corporation and the Intel Corporation. Description of the cases; Listing of other cases in which Microsoft and Intel used their positions in the industry to influence the growth of technology. INSET: Technology as a relevant market.

Reports that Bill Gates has received a Win 95 contract with Compaq. Stipulations of the contract; Information on Internet Explorer 3; Concerns associated with Microsoft's use of Win 95; Contention that Microsoft committed a violation when it licensed Win 95; Details on Compaq's removal of the Internet Explorer from the desktop. INSETS: The Compaq episode.;The government's tilt against Gates' windmill..

Deals with the shrink-wrap licenses on software publishing. How to agree to a shrink-wrap license; Advantages of shrink-wrap licenses to software publisher; Previous federal cases on this licensing; Why Matt Zeidenberg was accuse on ProCD case; Investigation of ProCD ruling.

Talks about the ambitious schemes to patent computerized methods of doing business. Development of the body of law on patenting methods; Parallel legal principle developed for computer algorithm; State Street Bank case; Legal analysis issues; Reappraising the policy argument.

Presents information on E-Data Corporation, which sells the patents it buys. Public response to E-Data's Freeny patent; Reference to the lawsuits filed by the company against some software and video game vendors; Details on the Freeny patent; Objections to the Freeny patent.

The article discusses a series of court cases alleging deception in the adoption of the Joint Electronic Device Engineering Council (JEDEC) standard for synchronous dynamic random access memory (SDRAM) technology. The filing of a certiorari petition with the U.S. Supreme Court by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) with regard to the case against Rambus is noted.

The article presents information about Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers' standards for patented technologies. It informs that it is the policy of the IEEE and many other standard-setting organizations to request that any patented technology incorporated into a technical standard be made available to all users of the standard on reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) terms. By the same token, such organizations typically require that participants engaged in formulating a standard disclose whether the proposed standard's use would infringe patents that their companies own. They must also disclose whether such patents will be subject to RAND licensing. If it appears that a necessary patent exists and will not be available on a RAND basis, the organization requires that the technical committee change or abandon the standard to prevent a patent from blocking its use. Consequently, the technology needed to practice and/or most standards is in principle, subject to RAND licensing.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has overturned a decision by one of its administrative law judges, which held that the agency Packed power to stop patent owners from deceptively inducing state regulatory agencies to adopt standards subject to patent protection. The charge in controversy was that the Union Oil Co. of California (Unocal) violated antitrust laws by deceiving the California Air Resources Board. This alleged misconduct occurred in regulatory proceedings for setting a gasoline content standard to lessen air pollution. Unocal eventually won a judgment for more than $90 million and a requirement that about six cents per gallon was a proper royalty. Unocal has announced that it expects to collect up to $150 million a year from license fees. Unocal persuaded the administrative law judge to dismiss the case on several grounds. First, Unocal's conduct was protected First Amendment activity, under that amendment's clause making inviolate the right to petition to the government for redress of grievances. Second, the FTC has no authority or jurisdiction to consider the case because it involves determination of issues of patent law.

Reports on the business review clearance granted by the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Justice Department to the American Welding Society (AWS), approving the practice of a standards setting organization securing a waiver of intellectual property rights before standardizing on some patented technology. Explanation of the department's business review procedure; Background on the robotic welding cell technology of AWS; Factors considered by the agency before granting the approval.

Presents an update on the infringement suits filed by Rambus concerning the Joint Electronic Devices Engineering Council standards on single-data-rate and double-data rate synchronous dynamic random access memory chips. Details on the fraud verdict faced by Infineon; Information on a case won by Rambus that allowed it for a judgment as a matter of law; Factor in assessing the propriety of a permanent injunction. INSET: Unocal charged with standards skullduggery.

Focuses on the lawsuit filed against Prodigy Communications Corp. by British Telecom PLC (BT) for infringing the patent on hyperlinks of BT. Background on the case; Discussion on laches; Details on the claims of the BT patent; How the accused infringer can invalidate a patent. INSET: Claim 1.

Details the case filed by Bristol Technology against Microsoft Corp. Charges against Microsoft; Importance of the application interfaces on Microsoft; Information on the district court ruling.

Discusses standard setting in business enterprises in the United States. What happened before standards where introduced; What would happen if a patent or copyright license is not granted; Why standardization-protection conditions are placed on licenses.

Presents information on patents on signals which was proposed by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). Devices the PTO is allowing patents on; Problems associated with signal patents; Advantages of signal patents.

Provides information about the anti-knockoff intellectual property protection proposal submitted by the Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers-USA to the US Congress. Reasons why there exists a need for such legislation; Details of the proposal; Articles to be protected under the proposal.

The article reports that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently sued an Internet marketing organization to make it stop infecting consumers' personal computers (PC) with spyware. According to the FTC, Seismic Entertainment Productions developed a scheme that seized control of PC nationwide, infected them with spyware and other malicious software, bombarded them with a barrage of pop-up advertising for Seismic's clients, exposed the PC to security risks, and caused them to malfunction, slow down, and, at times, crash. Seismic then offered to sell the victims an "anti-spyware" program to fix the computers, and stop the popups and other problems that Seismic had caused. The FTC explained that Seismic bought banner advertising on other companies' Web sites. Seismic used a security vulnerability in Internet Explorer to download spyware onto the users' computers. Once installed, the spyware replaced the user's home page setting with that for a Seismic Web site. The final touch is that Seismic is an "affiliate" of, or has a client relationship with, Spy Wiper. Consequently, several of the popups that the spyware generates attempt to steer consumers to that company to buy anti-spyware software.

The article presents few court cases on patent infringement where the U.S. Federal Circuit has made the policy decision to enforce the patentees' business model. It awards damages on the basis of what the patent owners would have gained under the chosen business model. The argument for having the courts recognize the propriety of this business model is that it promotes allocative efficiency. It directs money in the direction of desired products or services. It therefore follows, according to proponents of this business model, that the courts should enforce restrictions that facilitate the operation of the model and enter legal judgments that enforce or promote its successful operation. The patent system exists to promote the progress of technology, not business models, or even rewarding patent owners. The author feels that, in principle, rewarding patent owners by guaranteeing them profits on unpatented products that they could have sold, but for an infringer's improper activity, seems excessive and it is doubtful that it will benefit the general public.

Part I. Provides information on the opinion handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals on the West Coast on the case of Les Kelly versus Arriba Soft. Reason for the lawsuit filed by Web site operator Les Kelly against Arriba Soft; Function of the fair-use doctrine; Provisions under the section 106(5) of the U.S. Copyright Act.

Deals with three cases of misuse of the Web namely, spamming, meta tagging and keying advertising to searching. Court ruling on the lawsuit of America Online (AOL) against LGCM Inc.; Condemnation of meta tag use in HTML codes; Lawsuit filed by Estee Lauder and Playboy against Excite.

Examines the conflicts of interest pertaining to paradigms which dominates legal analysis in relation to the software industry. Reference to a conflicting paradigm featuring factory owners and surrounding property owners at loggerheads due to those factories emanating toxic fumes; Other examples mentioned; What can determine the Internet's viability, if its service providers (ISPs) became financially liable for harm caused due to information-content.

Comments on intellectual property infringement law, focusing on the case brought by six prominent content providers in the United States against Total News. Identification of these content providers; Outcome of the lawsuit; How underlying legal issues have been left unresolved.

Discusses whether the United States First Amendment and antitrust laws guarantee the right of marketers to provide junk e-mail by focusing on the Cyber Promotions Incorporated versus America Online (AOL) case. AOL's action on Cyber's junk e-mail which led to the filing of a court case; Cyber's argument on free speech rights and antitrust claims; Decision of the district court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. INSET: A new development..

This column is the conclusion to a two-part series on the recent Supreme Court case of Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd v. CLS Bank International and the question of whether patents can be issued on computer-related innovations and, more broadly, on business methods and software. This column describes the Supreme Court's Alice decision, the industry's reaction to the decision, and the apparent consequences for both software and business-method patents. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In February 2012, Apple sued Motorola to block the latter's alleged standardization skullduggery of the 3G/UMTS technology. This column examines the charges and explores the issues of patent rights; standards-essential patents; and what are fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms and conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This column examines how companies monetize their intellectual property by assigning patents with reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) usage to newly created divisions. It proposes a partial solution to this problem and offers input from the IEEE Micro community. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses the decision of the Washington D.C. Court of Appeals to reverse the order of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the Rambus case. The Supreme Court refused to review the DC Court's judgment after the FTC sought for an appeal. Richard A. Feinstein, director of the Bureau of Competition, explained that they respect the decision of the Court of Appeals and stated that the standard-setting issues of the case are important in terms of antitrust policy and protecting consumers.

The article discusses the issue of putting up a pop-up advertising window as a layer on top of web page screen display. But this involves the unlawful preparation of a derivative work without the consent of the owner. Section 106(2) of the Copyright Act makes it copyright infringement to prepare a derivative work without the authorization of the copyright holder who owns the underlying work. Something special about this provision of copyright law is that, unlike those provisions dealing with unauthorized reproduction and distribution, section 106(2) prohibits the preparation of derivative works, rather than the manufacture or distribution of copies of the derivative works. A copy is a physical object embodying a work in fixed form, for example, a book, painting, audiotape, programmed EPROM, or encoded hard disk. Section 106(2) is thus unique in making it a copyright infringement solely to bring into being without even committing it to paper, nonvolatile memory, or other fixed format a variation on a copyright protected work.