| |||||||||||
Cisco the target of wireless lawsuit (News.com)Cisco the target of wireless lawsuit (News.com)Posted Jun 24, 2004 13:52 UTC (Thu) by mmarsh (subscriber, #17029)In reply to: Cisco the target of wireless lawsuit (News.com) by verzonnen Parent article: Cisco the target of wireless lawsuit (News.com) 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.
(Log in to post comments)
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.
|
|||||||||||