Receive new posts as email.
RSS 0.91 | RSS 2.0
RDF | Atom
Podcast only feed (RSS 2.0 format)
Get an RSS reader
Get a Podcast receiver
| Sun | Mon | Tues | Wed | Thurs | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
This site operates as an independent editorial operation. Advertising, sponsorships, and other non-editorial materials represent the opinions and messages of their respective origins, and not of the site operator or JiWire, Inc.
Entire site and all contents except otherwise noted © Copyright 2001-2006 by Glenn Fleishman. Some images ©2006 Jupiterimages Corporation. All rights reserved. Please contact us for reprint rights. Linking is, of course, free and encouraged.
Powered by
Movable Type
This child-porn-over-Wi-Fi story baffles me from two fronts: From Minnesota, a person (I use the term lightly) in a town north of Saint Paul and east of Minneapolis decided to use free Wi-Fi at a Dunn Brothers coffeeshop to view child pornography. He apparently sat or crouched in an alley or hallway between the cafe and another business.
Here’s what mystifies me. First, someone from the business he’s crouching near spots him viewing the porn, and instead of calling 911, reports him to the cafe’s manager. Then, the cafe manager shoos the guy away instead of calling the police. Only when the man returns three weeks later does the manager call police.
If you ever see someone viewing images of clearly underage individuals engaged in sexual acts or having those acts performed on them, you call the police. There are times when it’s unclear whether the images are against the rules of an orderly society in which we protect its weakest members, but I believe with most of this category of pornography, there is a bright line. There’s not much subtle child porn, from the reports issued by the police.
The broader issue of whether one should ever look at images of consenting, legal age participants in naked gymnastics in public places is also pretty clear (no).
Posted by Glennf at 9:36 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
The House overwhelmingly passed a bill that puts a huge onus on individuals and ISPs to report a broad range of images or face $150,000 or $300,000 fines: The bill, if passed, would require anyone offering network access (under a broad definition) to report any images they come across that covers a broad range of potential depictions of abuse of minors or their exploitation. Declan McCullagh notes in his post at Cnet that it’s so broad as to include photographs, drawings, and cartoons that require interpretation as to whether they would meet the test. Sounds like viewing an Abercrombie and Fitch catalog could qualify.
From McCullagh’s report, it’s clear that if you operate, for instance, an open Wi-Fi network from your home, you’re not obliged to monitor other people’s uses of it. However, if you were in any fashion to become aware of behavior circumscribed in this law, you could be fined $150,000 on a first offense and $300,000 on a subsequent one—unless you preemptively report, in which case you’re immune to lawsuits and prosecution. Which means people are going to report a lot more or shut down otherwise free hotspots.
Reporting requires that you provide the images that you saw, which obviously opens people up to charges themselves unless everything is handled extremely carefully as possession of child pornography is a de facto crime that allows for no explanation in much of the U.S.
The most typical scenario as I can see it is a single-location coffeeshop that provides free Wi-Fi. A barista is walking through the shop and catches a glimpse of an image they think is problematic before the user shuts their laptop or navigates to another page. They aren’t sure, so they tell the manager. The manager then, if he or she doesn’t immediately report and attempt to ascertain as much information as possible, could face the fine (or perhaps the store’s owner), if I suppose the FBI or a local crime unit tracks back a person’s usage to the store. But how to track that usage back and prove someone saw something and didn’t report it?
This is all sort of a pisser, to be frank, because there’s practically nothing more appalling than child abuse and child pornography. And, thus, I hate to be in a position to explain why a law to protect children erodes individuals’ sense of security in not facing massive fines or arrest when they may not be in a position to act precisely how a law demands. Surely, people who see bad stuff should report it, and many do.
The bill, as written, was rushed into session using an expedited procedure that avoided the usual review. Declan McCullagh writes at Cnet that the legislation also changed substantially before being brought to a vote. So reasonable opposition didn’t form before its passage. The Senate could approve a similar view, but it’s hard to know how enforceable it will be.
Posted by Glennf at 9:34 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Sophos certainly did a great PR job: Dozens of articles have appeared in the last few days trumpeting Sophos’s survey conducted for The Times of London. They found that 54 percent of those asked admitted that they’ve used someone else’s Wi-Fi connection without their permission. What’s strange about this is two things: The Times characterizes the question asked incorrectly and doesn’t note the sample size. On Sophos’s site, they provide both the precise question asked and the sample size, which was a meager 560 people.
The Times wrote, “It discovered that 54 per cent of computer users have secretly used someone else’s wireless broadband connection without paying for it.” But the question asked according to Sophos was, “Have you ever used someone else’s Wi-Fi connection without their permission?”
There’s a vast difference, as I have written about for years. The question doesn’t encompass whether someone hacked a network to use it—unlikely that very many people would do that at all—so we’re talking about people accessing networks that aren’t protected with some form of encryption. Some of these networks are open on purpose; many not. It’s a very imprecise question, and worse in the Times’s inaccurate restatement. We don’t know that anyone stole access who answered this question; the Times assumes they did.
With this small a survey size, and no information provided on demographics, this reveals essentially nothing about people’s behaviors. In the UK, accessing a network without permission is illegal; the Times notes just 11 people have been arrested for such actions. I’d like to see a sample size of 20,000 regular users of the Internet outside their homes. I expect the number is much higher than 54 percent. But it still doesn’t really tell us much except that it’s easy to use Wi-Fi when a network is intentionally or unintentionally left unprotected against access.
A Sophos manager has this rather specious soundbite, too: “Stealing Wi-Fi internet access may feel like a victimless crime, but it deprives ISPs of revenue.”
Posted by Glennf at 1:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
After Verizon’s recent settlement with New York State over its BroadbandAccess service’s limits, I’ve been watching its terms of service (TOS) change: I’ve written about Verizon Wireless’s TOS for cell data for a few years, because it’s the most restrictive and most ridiculous in the industry. No longer. Partly as a result of the settlement with Andrew Cuomo’s office in New York, and I think partly due to the competitive nature of services that don’t impose the same limits, the TOS has morphed into something that offers relatively decent disclosure and full limits.
I used the Wayback Machine at the Internet Archive to examine previous TOS’s to compare. Back in January, the TOS had the terms I have poked fun at for years: unlimited service can only be used for Internet browser, email, and intranet access. Explicitly prohibited uses include running servers; continuous uploading or streaming of audio, video, or game content; and using the service in place of a dedicated line, like a DSL connection. Peer-to-peer uses were banned, too.
This TOS has the incorrect example that someone would use “more than 5 GBs in a month” if they used the service continuously for 10 hours a day, seven days a week. Actually, that would be more like 50 GB. Using the service at full capacity for an hour a day would hit 5 GB, so it’s a very low limit. This TOS had the egregiously offensive line, “Anyone using more than 5 GB per line in a given month is presumed to be using the service in a manner prohibited above,” which is part of what got them in trouble in New York.
(I had thought that Verizon barred VoIP, but a check with the company confirmed that that restriction was dropped by 2006.)
These TOS terms didn’t change through August, when the Wayback Machine loses track, but they did change after the New York settlement. When I wrote about the New York settlement on 23-Oct-2007, the bad calculation was still in place. Two weeks late, on 05-Nov-2007, language about throttling appeared. When I checked a few days ago, it had changed even further: the bad calculation was gone as was a threat of cancellation. Gone, too, is the restriction about streaming, uploading, or downloading. They still treat the line as not a fixed broadband replacement, and they added descriptions of disruptive network activities that aren’t allowed, even though one would expect that those would already be a problem.
In terms of excessive use, they simply state now that using more 5 GB per billing period (which lasts a month) could result in them throttling your maximum download speed to 200 Kbps. They also provide reporting of your current usage, so you can see where you’re at.
Now, as a consumer, you can read this and decided whether paying $60 to $80 per month for unlimited service is what you need. Sprint Nextel and AT&T both have less restrictive language, and apparently a lower level of enforcement. T-Mobile, with its 2.5G EDGE network, has generated no complaints I’m aware of from customers accused of misuse of the 100 to 200 Kbps unlimited service.
Part of my interest with mobile WiMax is whether restrictions are lifted on even more categories of use. Clearwire intends their service to be used as a wired broadband replacement—that’s been their model all along. If WiMax costs the same, has faster speeds (as I found in my testing this last week with the Clearwire PC Card), and fewer restrictions than cell data, there’s an audience that might make an informed decision about which network to choose.
Posted by Glennf at 10:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Buffalo Technology was enjoined starting Oct. 1 from selling 802.11a and g gear in the U.S.: The Australian technology research agency CSIRO has a broad patent in the U.S. that’s being widely fought. A Texas court, in a jurisdiction which patentholders attempt to get their cases remanded to, found Buffalo infringed CSIRO’s rights. Buffalo has appealed. Buffalo’s posting on their wireless products page notes, “Recently, Microsoft, 3COM Corporation, SMC Networks, Accton Technology Corporation, Intel, Atheros Communications, Belkin International, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Nortel Networks, Nvidia Corporation, Oracle Corporation, SAP AG, Yahoo, Nokia, and the Consumer Electronics Association filed briefs in support of Buffalo’s position that injunctive relief is inappropriate in this case.” Buffalo can sell existing inventories and has permission to replace products under warranty.
Although Buffalo mentions 802.11a and g, Draft N products are apparently under the import ban, too, perhaps because they incorporate 802.11a and g.
The Register notes that the Microsoft-led group that includes 3Com, SMC Networks, and Accton are pushing the eBay v MercExchange argument, which prevents injunctions in most cases in which a patentholder isn’t actively involved in making a product that uses the patent.
CSIRO’s actions don’t threaten 802.11n so much as impose a fee on it. If CSIRO can prevail, then every piece of 802.11a, g, and n (but not b) gear would have a small licensing fee attached to it. This would increase the cost of products by a tiny amount. Companies would also potentially either be liable (if they lost a lawsuit) or able (if they negotiated) to pay back fees in that case, too.
If CSIRO can’t prevail in U.S. courts, then it’s business as usual. [link via The Register]
Posted by Glennf at 1:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Haw haw: Verizon Wireless agrees that advertising what I have called its “unmetered” cell data plans as “unlimited” is not the right term, and will change it due to action by the New York State Attorney General’s office. The company will refund $1m to customers and pay $150,000 in penalties and costs to the state. They didn’t admit any wrongdoing. The investigation found that 13,000 people nationally had their accounts canceled between 2004 and April 2007 for excessive use. In April, Verizon agreed to stop canceling accounts, and allow “common Internet uses.”
I’ve been writing about this issue for years and years. Read this BoingBoing post in which I chimed in back Nov. 2005, for one instance. A service advertised as unlimited, but which is actually limited, is not unlimited. NY AG Andrew Cuomo said in the press release, “When consumers are promised an ‘unlimited’ service, they do not expect the promise to be broken by hidden limitations.”
Their revised terms of service spell more out about what a reasonable limit is, including actual numbers, as well as providing examples of what they allow and don’t allow. The word unlimited has disappeared.
But they do the math wrong, as I’ve noted before. They note, “A person engaged in prohibited uses continuously for one hour could typically use 100 to 200 MB, or, if engaged in prohibited uses for 10 hours a day, 7 days a week, could use more than 5 GB in a month.” No. That’s one hour a day, seven days a week—not 10 hours a day—to reach 5 GB. 10 hours a day would hit 50 GB. Technically, “more than 5 GB” is accurate, but it’s about as accurate “unlimited” was in the past.
Update, 05-Nov-07: Verizon updated its TOS again to note that if you exceed 5 GB per month, they could throttle you to 200 Kbps. They could still cancel your account but at least they’re spelling out penalties, and providing the potential of continuous service even if they have a bone to pick with you.
Getting closer to actually serving the customer. They better watch out: they might actually do something in our best interests.
Posted by Glennf at 10:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
ZDNet reports that the Australian government research body CSIRO will continue to press its Wi-Fi patent claims: CSIRO has a patent on certain aspect of networking that relate to OFDM, and have won a few court victories against Buffalo. They are being sued and suing a variety of firms over patent licensing fees. The IEEE wanted an assurance about CSIRO’s intent as part of the process in moving forward with 802.11n. The IEEE doesn’t like to move forward on patents in which there’s intellectual property in dispute, depending on what the risk is in approving a standard that wouldn’t be able to be built.
In this case, CSIRO has offered terms—you take your pick at whether tens of cents to dollars per device is reasonable or not; I don’t have the context. But the lawsuits overshadow their terms. I’ve read their patents and other documents, and it’s now in the realm of specialists, as their description might cover aspects of OFDM—part of 802.11a, g, and n, as well as mobile WiMax or 802.16e-2005—but within the niceties of patent law, only litigation will tell.
This articles provides a timeline of events. However, the first entry that “CSIRO lodges US patent for the invention of a wireless LAN” is vastly overstated. Their patent covers multipath issues in wireless networks, an important subset, but still a subset, of wireless LAN protocols.
Posted by Glennf at 1:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A judge in Texas may have overstepped his limits: The East Texas court that found Buffalo Technologies in violation of a patent held by Australian technology agency CSIRO is well known by venue shoppers as a place to get a favorable hearing on any technology patent. CSIRO asked for Buffalo to be prevented from selling any equipment with Wi-Fi in it. The judge agreed and issued an injunction June 15. Buffalo was found in violation of the patent last November.
Now, this is sort of odd because CSIRO’s lawyers state in several reports today that they didn’t expect the judge to go along in light of the Supreme Court decision—one of several recent ones that limit patent protection and patentability—that states pretty bluntly that injunctions in patent cases shouldn’t be issued even when a patentholder has had their claims upheld. The exception is if the patentholder is competing in the marketplace with the company that was found to violate their patents. That’s not the case here, despite CSIRO arguments.
The Supreme Court’s decision should prevent patentholders from using the threat of an injunction as a tool for settlement. The Research in Motion (Blackberry) settlement would likely not have been so large or happened in such a way after the highest court’s ruling.
There’s a four-part test in the S.C. ruling, and clearly none apply to CSIRO. I expect the injunction to be quickly vacated by a higher court.
(Update: Two commenters point out that I’m interpreted the Court’s decision incorrectly. One notes that the decision specifically exempts research organizations from having to have commercially exploited their product. That stands in contrast to patent trolls that purchase patents for the sole purpose of extracting fees.)
Interesting fact in the Canberra Times article on the topic, which frankly crows about CSIRO’s victory: Cisco already pays a royalty to CSIRO, and is thus unaffected, because of an agreement as part of their acquisition of Radiata, a venture based Down Under.
Posted by Glennf at 4:43 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
The U.S. International Trade Commission bars imports of newer handsets containing Qualcomm 3G cell data chips: This ban stems from a patent dispute with Broadcom, in which the commission found that Qualcomm infringed on Broadcom patents. Handset models previously imported may continue to be brought into the country from overseas manufacture. However, no chips or modules containing these chips, nor any device released after June 7 that contains Qualcomm chips may be imported. Qualcomm also must halt some domestic activities, too.
This should not affect Apple’s iPhone, which uses so-called 2.5G EDGE technology that doesn’t appear to be affected by this decision. Apple may have, in retrospect, had a stroke of luck by not including UMTS or HSDPA, GSM flavors of third-generation (3G) cellular data networks that might have wound up using Qualcomm chips. (W-CDMA, while a GSM standard, contains technology patented by Qualcomm; Qualcomm also makes UMTS and HSDPA chips.)
While Qualcomm has little impact currently on the Wi-Fi market, they have patents and technology that cover all major third-generation (3G) cell phones data networks and handsets. Disputes have arisen in the US and Europe over Qualcomm’s extent of claims of what technology they control through patents, and their licensing fees. Broadcom and a number of handset makers have a variety of lawsuits against Qualcomm and Qualcomm against them.
Qualcomm purchased Wi-Fi chipmaker Airgo, the earliest mass developer of multiple-in, multiple-out (MIMO) antenna technology to supplement 802.11 specifications; and has staked out contrary positions around mobile WiMax, initially completely opposed to it and waging a propaganda war against it, and later purchasing a firm that had WiMax equipment in its portfolio.
President Bush can overturn this order.
Posted by Glennf at 1:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A very strange story out of Alaska: A police officer seized the laptop of a 21-year-old who was using free Wi-Fi from a library after it was closed parked in his car. The police had warned him off parking in private neighborhoods and using unsecured networks, and had told him to leave the area outside the library the day before they seized his computer.
The article is short on details. He wasn’t arrested, but his computer was seized. The basis of that seizure aren’t disclosed—what crime was actually committed? Trespassing, perhaps, as he was parked in a place he had already been told to leave? The computer isn’t being examined by police; rather, the library’s director will be looking into the matter. The fellow in question seems only mildly irritated, and neither he nor the police are sure whether he’ll be taken to court over the matter.
The hilarious librarian Jessamyn West notes on her blog that there are a number of other unanswered questions, such as why the library needed a professional to install a “timer,” when they could just hit the off switch if they didn’t want it used after hours.
This reminds me quite a bit of the quite (not Very) Rev. AKMA (A.K.M. Adam) being asked back in Aug. 2004 to not use the Nantucket (Mass.) Athaneum’s Wi-FI while he was sitting outside the facility by a police officer with a sketchy idea of what actual law might be involved.
I read through the Alaska State Troopers’ recent watch reports, and found no mention of this. Anchorage police don’t publish a blotter, more’s the pity.
Posted by Glennf at 11:25 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
First Wi-Fi, now Bluetooth: On the heels of Australian technology agency CSIRO winning a key patent suit against Buffalo Technology over the use of very specific elements of newer Wi-Fi standards, the University of Washington’s patent-licensing arm has sued four electronics makers that incorporate Bluetooth chips made by CSR into their products: Nokia, Samsung, and both Matsushita and its subsidiary Panasonic of North America. The Washington Research Foundation has patents created by an undergraduate and assigned to the school that the WRF claims are infringed by CSR chips. WRF has a licensing agreement in place with CSR’s competitor, Broadcom.
CSR stated today that the claims are without merit. One article says that WRF sued customers because CSR sells chips worldwide, but the customers deliver products specific to the US market that incorporate CSR chips.
The patents were apparently developed in the mid-1990s, according to The Seattle Times, but one of the patents in dispute was not filed until 2003; it was granted in Oct. 2006. The Bluetooth SIG’s members agreed to cross-license technology, but WRF is outside that process.
Posted by Glennf at 9:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
In a country without chewing gum, can one be free? With Singapore poised to offer Wi-Fi nationwide, and with a free, low-speed versions being offered for a long initial period, it’s somewhat interesting that a youth was charged with (and admitted to) “wireless mooching.” He picked a bad time and place to get bored. The Straits Times reports that 17-year-old Garyl Tan Jia Luo said he was locked out of Internet access by his mother—who thought he was spending too much time online—and accessed an unsecured network while outside at 3 am. The mooched-from neighbor confronted Tan, and, after an argument, called the police.
The judge appears to have shown lenience given possible penalties—three years in jail and a $10,000 fine. The judge turned down an offer to impose a small fine, an offer made by Tan’s attorney. The judge suggested that the youth might avoid a criminal record by enlisting in national service earlier than is normally the case. Tan may receive probation if he agrees.
Posted by Glennf at 1:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Age in Australia reports that the country’s tech research agency has won a lawsuit over Wi-Fi patents against Buffalo Technology in a US court: The Age says that CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) prevailed in a suit over patent 5,487,069 filed Nov. 23, 1993, and awarded Jan. 23, 1996, that covers fundamental aspects of WLAN communications. The patent describes multipath transmission of data at frequencies higher than 10 GHz, but the agency says a court in the eastern district of Texas found for CSIRO. They were asking for royalties from Buffalo; the case was filed in Feb. 2005. I’ve uploaded the court opinion and memorandum released Monday.
CSIRO intends to pursue royalties from all companies making Wi-Fi and other products, which could easily include WiMax and Bluetooth devices.
Intel, Dell, Microsoft, HP, and NetGear are engaged in two lawsuits to get the patent invalidated. CSIRO says that as a foreign government body, it cannot be sued. But, apparently, it can sue and collect patent royalties. Fascinating.
Posted by Glennf at 4:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The CIO of Philadelphia left the city to join a consulting firm that had previously provided services to the city and the Wireless Philadelphia project: Those consulting jobs were long over when Neff took the job, but ethics concerned were raised about past and future business. Neff had pledged, as is required, to not solicit business from Phila. for some period following her departure; she’ll be heading up Civitium’s international work, in any case.
KYW in Philadelphia reports that the ethics board found no violations because the consulting firm had no active contracts at the time Neff took the job. However, they suggested she should have consulted the board in advance to receive an all-clear before taking the job. KYW reports Neff’s written response as stating that given there was no requirement to consult the board first, there’s no reason to complain that she didn’t.
Posted by Glennf at 3:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A bill that’s composed as a consumer protection measure for Wi-Fi gateway buyers will likely become law in California: The bill has a vague set of requirements for manufacturers selling their Wi-Fi equipment in the Golden State to provide some documentation on securing their network. This law will likely only affect off-brand products; I haven’t tested a wireless adapter or gateway in a few years that hasn’t provided some form of warning and advice on this topic. Further, the Wi-Fi Alliance’s Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) will launch this fall for substantially simpler, no-password-invention-required WPA configuration. The law takes effect Oct. 2007.
This law is much better than Westchester County’s highly misguided attempt to control the public airwaves by requiring weird disclosure on Wi-Fi networks, while misunderstanding the difference between link-layer encryption and firewall protection—but encoding that mistaken idea in law, anyway.
Posted by Glennf at 8:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Wired News reports that Brian Salcedo will stay in jail until at least May 2011: The convicted network intruder received a nine-year sentence for his part in using a Wi-Fi connection to break in to home improvement chain Lowe’s computer system and alter software in an attempt to capture credit card numbers. A partner received 26 months, and has two months left in his sentence; he’s already in a halfway house.
Salcedo was sentence not based on success—he never even saw any of the six credit card numbers captured during the brief window in which their software was running before Lowe’s disabled it. Rather, he was given a sentence based on outcome, if their scheme had worked. Wired News reports that an appeals court uphold the judge, noting the lower court didn’t err in using intentions and potential to increase the sentence’s length.
Posted by Glennf at 3:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A Vancouver, Wash., coffeeshop finally called the cops: This is a frightening trend (of one story) where a cafe was pushed to the brink. As KATU in Portland reports, a 20-year-old man spent three months using Brewed Awakenings’s free Wi-Fi service from their parking lot for hours at a time. It doesn’t say that the staff asked him to stop; rather it says, “deputies told [the guy] to knock it off.” Police charged him with theft of services when he returned. It’s unclear whether that charge will stick. I’d think trespassing (the parking lot is likely private) or harassment is more likely. Oh, and the guy is a Level One Sex Offender, which makes the story prurient.
This is a tricky one because the cafe certainly could have chosen to take measures that would have either required a purchase or required someone to enter the store at the very least and get a code. They didn’t, so this guy ruined their idyllic situation.
As I wrote about more than a year ago when I covered a few scattered cafes and restaurants that turn off Wi-Fi at different points of the day or week, freeloaders can ruin it for everyone else, and it’s particularly galling to owners of small establishments trying to make a living. [link via TechDirt]
Posted by Glennf at 7:02 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
While it may seem tangential to this site, recall how many articles have been written about Wi-Fi and wireless data and their associated patents: The Supreme Court ruled today that automatic injunctions are not appropriate for patent lawsuits. Rather, injunctions must be granted only when four tests already used for more general injunctions are used. Each test favors patentholders actively engaged in producing products or operating services that involve the patent. An injunction prevents a party from doing something; in this case, eBay would have been preventing from using its Buy It Now service while litigation was underway.
In Oct. 2004, patent-buying firm Acacia notified what seemed to be thousands of hotspot operators—including a tiny bed and breakfast on the Oregon coast—that they infringed on a patent Acacia had obtained from LodgeNet that covered redirection when connecting to a hotspot. I haven’t heard boo since then, possibly because prior art emerged, even though Acacia vowed to follow up with those they’d sent paperwork to within 30 days. The patent stands, but it would have a hard time standing if re-examined, based on the information I’ve had described to me.
In many business-method patents, in which the method of accomplishing an activity is described, there is no operation in effect or the patent was sold or traded to a third-party that is pursuing legal remedies. The patents are used to obtain licensing fees from parties engaged in similar, identical, or unrelated activities as those described in the patent.
Injunctions are used as the threat by which a patentholder extracts money without necessarily having a patent that covers the use of the business-method in question. Because an injunction could irreparably harm a business, or, in the case of a diversified firm, cost them millions or more dollars, settlements often happen where a defendant has the resources to fight in court, and may think themselves likely to win. It’s cheaper to settle than be barred from engaging in a particular use of technology or a way of doing business! This is why you see defensive patents filed that seem ridiculous; it’s to prevent not necessarily lawsuits but injunctions and to enable a company to continue doing whatever it is they were doing. Amazon.com holds several patents that it has rarely enforced. (Disclosure: I wrote a draft of, but did not invent one of those patents when working at Amazon in 96-97.)
With the threat of essentially automatic injunctions removed—pending how it’s interpreted by trial courts, of course—this means that fewer suits will be brought because there will be much less likelihood of the cases being settled beforehand to avoid injunctions. The bar is now higher, and teams of lawyers are likely at work now building briefs that they can whip out to explain why their particular business-method lawsuit meets the Supreme Court’s interpretation.
The four-part test for general equity court injunctions should be used for patent injunctions is what the Court wrote. It will potentially make it far less likely for a trial judge to issue an injunction at any stage of the proceedings, including if the patentholder wins the trial but the defendant plans to appeal. The test requires the plaintiff to show irreparable injury (hard when you’re not making or doing something), monetary or similar damages awarded at trial are insufficient (hard when you’re suing specifically for money), and that the public interest “would not be disserved” by an injunction (hard to argue when the defendants are engaged in an activity and not therefore being prevented from acting in the public interest). A fourth test requires balancing hardships between the parties, and it’s possible that that would swing towards a producer/provider rather than a patent-licensing house, too.
The Supreme Court immediately makes its opinions available as PDFs, which you can download here. The case is the eBay vs Mercexchange.
I’m sure this makes Research In Motion feel just wonderful tonight.
Posted by Glennf at 9:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Those working in the wireless and hotspot space are well aware of what damage and benefit patents have wrought: For every hard-won, hard-science patent that represents the unique result of expensive research and development that produces a non-obvious outcome beneficial for the market, there are piles of business-method patents that are just irritating. Until now, once a patent is issue, getting a review is a pain. The issuance assumes that overworked and underpaid patent examiners have discovered all prior art or evaluated the original and non-trivial nature of a patent. Often, not the case, as is found out after expensive litigation, as more of these patents fall into the hands of firms the objective of which isn’t innovation but extracting tolls.
You see where my sympathies lie.
The US Patent and Trademark Office thus wins kudos from me and all right-thinking people—all people who want patent examiners to have perfect knowledge of all prior art—through their pilot project called the Patent Peer Review Pilot Project. The notion is that scientific peers and later unaffiliated third parties will be able to contribute to the patent process by providing relevant, potentially overlooked prior art. They’ll have a briefing on May 12 in Alexandria, Virg., limited to the first 200 registrants.
Again, hard to see where opposition to this effort would produce a reasonable statement. For instance, this doesn’t fly, does it? “Patent examiners don’t have the right to see all prior art that’s well known to the scientific, business, or other communities for which this patent is relevant.” Nope.
IBM is one of the sponsors of The Community Patent Project, a New York Law School effort that helped produce this USPTO plan. More importantly, they’re putting their patents on the table for the beta test. [link via BoingBoing]
Posted by Glennf at 1:16 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Your faithful editor is part of a prospective jury pool: I’m sitting here in an undisclosed court location in my hometown (I don’t want to cross a line in terms of disclosure) waiting to see if I get a) called, b) screened, c) put on a jury. Since we live in the 21st century, there’s Wi-Fi and Ethernet connectivity in a work room in the jury area. Delightful. You’ll see possibly less news from this site over the next few days.
Update: Luckily or unluckily, I’ve been excused. I went through one voir dire, which was fascinating, wasn’t challenged on any basis, and then had a number higher than the number of jurors and alternates they enpaneled. And then they said, buh bye. It was a great look into one of democracy’s greatest gifts: public trials by jury.
Posted by Glennf at 8:54 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack