| |||||||||||
Cisco the target of wireless lawsuit (News.com)Cisco the target of wireless lawsuit (News.com)Posted Jun 24, 2004 3:25 UTC (Thu) by smoogen (subscriber, #97)Parent article: Cisco the target of wireless lawsuit (News.com) Geez.. there needs to be a law that a company that does not defend its patents from the very first looses its patents and it immediately falls into the public domain. While it means that more lawsuits happen.. I think that mess would cause better IP reform in the long term. {IE get software patent process clearer, cleaner, or removed}
(Log in to post comments)
Cisco the target of wireless lawsuit (News.com) Posted Jun 24, 2004 4:59 UTC (Thu) by neoprene (guest, #8520) [Link] Once a Standard goes public, interested parties should be notified, public notices posted et cetera, then if no one objects the standard becomes open and official. Lurking with claims while the standard gets deployed is shallow, if anyone knew the stadard is tainted would they adopt it?Give a reasonable time for objections to raised, (three months?) then open it up. Qualcomm made a few bucks with CDMA but not all adopted it, technology is flexible. Helloooo TDMA! We all benefit from open standards. 802.11J coming soon?
Cisco the target of wireless lawsuit (News.com) Posted Jun 24, 2004 12:41 UTC (Thu) by verzonnen (guest, #9406) [Link] How do you know who to notify, there are so many patents out there. with thousands added each month....
Cisco the target of wireless lawsuit (News.com) Posted Jun 24, 2004 13:52 UTC (Thu) by mmarsh (subscriber, #17029) [Link] There are only so many standards organizations, though. The people to notify are probably the ones directly mentioned in a standard. For all others, a notification that a standard has been proposed should be sufficient. Due dilligence cuts both ways -- if you don't know where to look for notices related to your patents or couldn't be bothered to take the time, then your patents must not be worth enforcing.The attitude of "let's let people use our patent royalty-free to build up a technology base and then start charging them", unless agreed upon by all parties involved up front, strikes me as highly unethical, and the more serious issue. I whole-heartedly agree that companies and individuals should be given a fixed amount of time after a standard is approved to voice objections on patent or other grounds, and after that they're out of luck. WI-LAN's actions sound like extortion to me.
Cisco the target of wireless lawsuit (News.com) Posted Jun 24, 2004 15:34 UTC (Thu) by verzonnen (guest, #9406) [Link] Of course is it extortion and to make things worse, it is legalized extortion.
Cisco the target of wireless lawsuit (News.com) Posted Jun 24, 2004 16:54 UTC (Thu) by hathawsh (subscriber, #11289) [Link] On the bright side, if Cisco wins, the case may lead to patent reforms. Intent should be taken into consideration in patent enforcement suits. Anyone who says "...now that the technologies are firmly established, we feel we must protect our intellectual property" should lose their patent.
Cisco the target of wireless lawsuit (News.com) Posted Jun 24, 2004 15:46 UTC (Thu) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] Yes i agree... at least it would be much more ethical.What is happening with the western world ethical business atmosphere, is a identical phenomenon that happen with piracy in carabeans in the XVI and XVII centurys... Wait until a ship gets a cargo that can be robbed, for you to attack... The only difference is that with this new "patents systems", that is perfectly legal.
|
|||||||||||