标签: pATENT

The IEEE’s decision to approve a bitterly contested change to its patent policy, has, perhaps unsurprisingly, caused bitter divisions among its members. The revised rules would see the royalty fees large vendors have to pay reduced significantly, particularly in the wireless sector.   Compensation for a company’s IPR would now be based on a percentage of component price rather than the whole device, as is generally the norm.   Another consequence of the revised approach to royalties is a more realistic definition of what represents Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) when it comes to valuing a company’s standards-essential patents (SEP) such that the inventors get a fair return on sometimes huge investments into developing innovations, while at the same time not building barriers to entry for new products and new suppliers.   The IEEE-SA (Standards Association) also anticipates fewer high profile patent disputes as under the new rules, companies contributing patents to industry standards bodies would have to limit the types of demands that can be put on licensees, and to not seek court orders to block sales by recalcitrant companies.   Now that would represent a seismic shift.   The two opposing camps were quick to get in their retaliation or approval for the decision by the IEEE board of governors.   Chip supplier Qualcomm, representing the status-quo — and one of the companies most likely to suffer the financial consequences — threatened to reconsider its participation in the IEEE’s standardization efforts and said it would “not make licensing commitments under the new policy.”   Its hard line follows a letter to the IEEE by Irwin Jacobs , the company’s founding chairman and CEO Emeritus (and the recipient in 2013 of the Institute’s Medal of Honour) when the lobbying reached the bitterest stage, warning that “the proposed changes, and the process that has been followed, threaten the reputation and future of the IEEE as a developer of advanced technology standards.”   Jacobs said the revised rules would provide short term commercial benefits to their backers, but by lowering the fees, could in the longer term reduce the incentive for RD, and suggested the changes were "pushed through despite the absence of any evidence of actual real-world problems with the existing patents policy" that he considers to be working "rather well."   Jacobs went on to query the way in which the decision was reached, suggesting the changes were “created by a close, ad-hoc group that consistently rejected the repeated and detailed objections, alternate suggestions, letters of complaint and appeals of some thirteen respected global technology companies.”   These companies are thought to include companies such as Ericsson, Nokia and InterDigital.   One of those in the ‘ad hoc ‘group, Cisco. Mark Chandler, general counsel of the networking gear giant, said the decision “is a significant victory for consumers and for those who want a reasonable and stable patent system that supports innovation,” and congratulated the IEEE-SA for “resisting pressure from the few who wanted to use the patent system to force unreasonable costs on makers and users of everyday products like smartphones and wireless routers.”   Others in the group are HP, Apple, Microsoft, and Intel.   The IEEE took exception to Jacobs’s stand, stressing in its note last week   that the update is “designed to provide greater clarity and predictability for patent holders and implementer”, and that the changes resulted from a “rigorous process over the past two years that included extensive input from a broad range of stakeholders who may choose to develop standards within the IEEE-SA framework.”   Not surprisingly, US lawmakers from across the political divide, pressure groups, academics and patent law experts have waded in on both sides of the argument. The Innovation Alliance, for instance, has called on all its members to reverse the ‘misguided’ policy , a tough call since the IEEE said it would come into effect during the first quarter of the year.   The Alliance’s scathing commentary suggests the new policy would “arbitrarily reduce the level of protection given to Wi-Fi related patents, impose unconstitutional limits on patent rights, and end the traditional market-based negotiation process for these patents by imposing what amounts to de facto compulsory licensing.”   The note warns that the main impact of the new rules could encourage companies to refocus research to other wireless standards bodies when it comes to the development of technologies beyond Wi-Fi.   Indeed the European Commission may have spotted an opportunity, noting that the changes could have a ‘significant impact’ on the industry and, quietly adding it is running a public consultation on SEPs “to gather information and views on the interplay between standardisation and intellectual property rights (IPR).”   While by far the biggest majority of members of the IEEE are US companies, there is clearly an international dimension to all this. And it has not gone unnoticed that some of the proposed changes bear similarities to China’s anti-monopoly laws that are being increasingly used to lock out foreign competitors. Qualcomm knows about this more than others through its recently settled bruising spat in China — it too has been seeking royalties from smartphone makers based on a percentage of the whole sale price.   And while the IEEE is not directly involved in setting standards for cellular technology, there is more than likely to be a ripple effect into that closely protected and also increasingly litigious 3GPP IPR environment, where calls for injunctions have become widespread.   So, we are unlikely to see a seismic shift, but the IEEE’s ruling certainly adds another level of uncertainty in an area already complex and confusing enough.   John Walko blogs about the semiconductor industry for EE Times.

I recently had to deal with a work-related ethics issue. I am going to leave out the details, but I thought it was worth sharing the general case with you and to see what other types of issues you have to go through as part of your modern-day work environment. As background, I have done quite a lot of work in the area of patents over the past 15 years, as an author and as an assessor, I have worked with legal teams to both prosecute and defend patents, I have helped create patent strategies, and I have been an expert witness. So I do get asked to do various patent-related things as part of my consulting business. A couple of months ago I was approached by a lawyer representing a non-practicing entity (NPE)—something that is sometimes labelled a patent troll. These companies buy patents with the intention of suing other companies. In some cases these companies are less than ethical in that they will go after innocent companies and propose a settlement that is less than it would cost the targeted company to hire a lawyer and defend its position. It is cheaper to pay than to fight even if they are not guilty of infringement. Anyway, what these NPEs are willing to pay for patents depends on what they think is the likelihood of a pay-out and its size, and so a lawyer commissioned me to assess the validity of a couple of patents and the likelihood that the company he represented would be able to sue certain specified companies on the grounds of patent infringement. The patents were originally granted to very respectable companies, and I am sure the originating companies were just trying to monetise the intellectual property portfolios they had—especially those patents that were no longer in their primary areas of business. In this respect, the sale of those patents would be helping one set of companies. But what about the companies the NPE wished to sue? The NPE would not do this unless it thought it could extract more from them than they were paying for the patents. It had clearly defined large companies as targets and products that it believed might infringe, so this was, dare I say it, an ethical troll. A number of questions crossed my mind. First, do I want to do business with anyone I do not have the highest moral regard for? Second, if I do accept the assignment, do I give an honest opinion? I could stick it to the lawyer by saying the patents have lots of value and thus cause the NPE to lose money. Or, I could go the other way and tell the lawyer they have no value and thus stop the NPE from buying the patents in the first place. Of course, if it was ever discovered that I had done either of these things it would destroy my credibility. I did take the job, and it turned out to be an easy assignment because it was very easy to show how the patents would have no validity against the products the NPE wanted to target, therefore placing a low value on the patents in general. I felt I had done my job well, but I still wonder if I did the job for an ethical company. When I had completed my assessment I offered to send in a report. The lawyer declined. He only wanted to hear my findings verbally so that there was less evidence or paper trail. I am still not sure if I made the right choice. Interestingly enough, we never established a rate for my services before I started this work. I sent in an invoice and it got paid. What ethical issues do you face in your jobs as engineers today? No specifics necessary, and if you want to send stuff to me for anonymous responses that is fine. Brian Bailey EE Times

OK, it's time to make fun of a patent and I have one with an unassuming name: "Heated eyewear". Yup, you heard that right. In the abstract, the first reason given is to provide heat that may be sufficient to provide warmth to a wearer of the eyewear. Huh – so the double speak starts. Now just in case you are wondering, this is patent 7,410,254 issued in August 2008 – so actually quite recent. I would like to concentrate on description for figure 2 of the patent. It reads: In the embodiment shown, the power source 24 is electrically connected to a voltage protection element 26, such as a fuse. The voltage protection element 26 is in turn electrically connected to an output amplifier 28. The output amplifier 28 is in turn connected to a thermistor 30. The thermistor 30 may function to regulate the amount of heat generated by the heating element 16. The thermistor 30 is electrically connected to the heating element 16 in the frame 14 by a connecting wire 32. According to one embodiment, the connecting wire 32 is permanently connected to the heating element 16 in the frame, while in an alternative embodiment, the hinge 22 is configured to selectively connect the connecting wire 32 to the heating element 16. For instance, in one such embodiment, the connecting wire 32 may be connected to the heating element 16 when the ear-piece 20 is moved to the open position, e.g., the position at which the eyeglasses 10 are worn, while the connecting wire 32 may be disconnected from the heating element 16 when the ear-piece 20 is moved to the closed position, e.g., the position at which the eye glass are stored. So, how is this meant to work? We feed a power source into the input of an amplifier and somehow it magnifies the power. Then a thermistor is meant to control to temperature source but it is positioned so that it will only respond to ambient temperature. The switch (don't you love that description of a switch) is positioned such that power would continue to be consumed and would expose a live connection that is clearly so shocking that it needs a fuse. Oh, and in case you are wondering what 36 and 38 are- well that would be a GPS and a light detector and 40 is your built in memory and 25 is your backup power source just in case you run out of juice. Brian Bailey EE Times