Patent Bending - Ding-a-ling! The ITC blows up the cell-phone market.

OpinionJournal.com ^ | June 9, 2007 | Editorial Staff

[gpapa]

Paging U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab: Please call us on your cell phone. And better do it fast because cell phones may soon be harder to come by thanks to one of the dumber rulings ever by the U.S. International Trade Commission.

[Old Student]

“Patents are government-enforced theft. They should not exist.”

Tell that to Ben Franklin. Patents are a way of seeing that the inventor is able to profit by is or her invention for a reasonable amount of time.

If that isn’t the way it works anymore, then you need to tell it to Congress, as they are the ones responsible today.

[Lloyd227]

"Patents are government-enforced theft. They should not exist."

Brilliant idea.... if implemented, that would be the absolute LAST briliant idea ever brought to the market.....

Grow up

[null and void]

Barry Block?

[null and void]

It was an elaborate and probably expensive way to protect his idea but it worked for decades.

The formula for Coca Cola is not patented either. Trade secrets are yours as long as you can keep them a secret. Patents are only good for 20 years...

[null and void]

Dogs came from the stars!

Are you Sirius?

[null and void]

I’m not too sure you can patent an idea without a working plan or blueprint of that product.

I've done it. Or more accurately, I never had occasion to demonstrate that it works to the USPTO.

The general requirement for a working model was dropped in the 19^th century.

Although one still needs a working model to patent a perpetual motion device, should one figure out how to make one...

[ggekko60506]

The background to this story reveals this action by the ITC to be a transaparent ruse by European Cell Phone Providers to slow down the rapid adoption of Qualcomm’s new CDMA signalling standard for 3G cell phones and a blatant abuse of patent law to hamstring a competitor with a technologically superior product.

The Europen Plaintiff in this case, Broadcom, bought a tiny and obscure Cell Phone Power System Manufacturer about 6 months ago that had a patent portfolio that may or may not have slightly been infringed by by Qualcomm’s new chip.

The ITC rules for cases of this type should be set up in such a way as to not allow such an obviously commercial busniess strategy to be pursued through patent law. Qualcomm’s CDMA Standard is triumphing in the marketplace and like many maketplace losers Broadcom has responded with a litigation strategy rather than with product innovation.

[BuffaloJack]

“International patents trump US patents”.
Not true. A patent’s protection is only good in the country issued. If, however, someone from another country copies your invention, they call sell it anywhere you don’t have a patent. If they try and bring it here, you get an attorney and take them to court, because that is infringement.

I currently hold about 20 US patents and about 45 foreign patents covering the same inventions as the 20 US patents. Any intellectual property lawyer will tell you that a patent is only as good as your will to sue for infringement.

[ThreePuttinDude]

I was told by the patent lawyer that if I were to talk to
companies outside of the US, they could and probably would
take the design of my product and there wasn't anything I
could do about it.

It made me rather protective of giving out information about it.

[Spktyr]

Um... Broadcom isn’t European. They’re American.

Broadcom won a court case six months ago that proved that Qualcomm was infringing on three of their patents.

Nokia’s going to get screwed by this. Try again.

[MIT-Elephant]

“The ITC rules for cases of this type should be set up in such a way as to not allow such an obviously commercial busniess strategy to be pursued through patent law.”

Isn’t patent protection itself an ‘obviously commercial business strategy’?

Here’s the scene: “Hey boss, that other company is infringing.” Boss: “Let’s sue ‘em.” Lawsuit goes through. Competitor ceases and desists. Company’s revenues go up.

No one sues for infringement on principle.

Whether or not there is a strategy, the background to this story says to me Qualcomm is infringing on patents belonging to Broadcom by importing infringing products into the USA. That’s not legit - any other ruling by the ITC would promote importation-infringement anarchy.

[c-five]

U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8:

The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors their respective Writings and Discoveries..."

[eleni121]

I have not used a cell phone for years. I had one once and then realized I did not need it.
Now however I am thinking of getting one with all the bells and whistles...text messaging, video, email, international phone service, memory etc.
Any ideas? Or could you tell me where to post my query?

[ovrtaxt]

I take it you’re a programmer?

I have a good friend who’s an insanely talented programmer- he thinks patent laws are evil too!

[gpapa]

I am no expert, as I just got my first cell phone a month ago. Just start a vanity thread and ask the experts.

[eleni121]

Yup - you are right.