Subscribe to EDN

Patents, CDMA, trolls and standards

June 4, 2009

CDMA is also another interesting oddity from a patent point of view. Most patents are tiny pieces of incremental innovation that form the many little pieces you need to build complex technological products. You can’t build a semiconductor without violating thousands if not millions of patents. For example, Motorola (Freescale now, I suppose) owned a patent on the idea of filtering photoresist which surprisingly passed the non-obvious test. This used to be a minor annoyance since the patents were owned by other semiconductor companies, and the problem could be resolved with a manageable payment or royalty and a cross-license. After all, you don’t need to be in the business for long before they can’t build anything without your patents. Now that a huge number of patents are owned by so-called patent trolls, people who have purchased patents for the explicit purpose of trying to generate disproportionate licensing revenue, the cross-licensing approach won’t always work and, as a result, the patent system is effectively broken for technologies like semiconductor (and EDA for that matter) that stand on the shoulders of those who went before in ways too numerous to even take time to examine.

Patents were a problem for GSM phone manufacturers since companies like Philips and Motorola managed to design their own patents into the standard. GSM had the concept of essential and non-essential patents. An essential patent was one that you couldn’t avoid: if you were compliant with GSM you were violating the patent, something that "shouldn’t happen." However, the essential patent owners preferred to keep their heads down for political reasons (don’t want those European governments telling us off in public) and keep quiet about what patents they owned until businesses were rich enough to be worth suing. For example, Philips owned the patent on the specific vocoder (voice encoder) used in GSM. Not the general idea of a vocoder, or that type of vocoder, just the specific parameters used in GSM, for which they would like about $1/phone. It was as if Ford owned the patent on the order of the pedals in a car. Not the idea of an accelerator, clutch and brake but the specific configuration of the clutch to the left of the brake to the left of the accelerator. And then got some car standardization authority to mandate that order for all vehicles. Come to think of it, that’s pretty much what GM did when they got the US government to mandate catalytic converters for all cars, which required all car manufacturers to license catalytic converter patents from a certain car manufacturer beginning with G. And there was some of this with Qualcomm too, since "everybody" knew that the main US carriers would choose GSM, the almost world-wide standard, until someone from the President’s office apparently told them at the last minute that it really ought to be a US standard.

People are smarter these days about making sure that patents don’t get designed  into standards. Look at the fuss over Rambus. However, it is still a grey area. After all, nobody knows what even their own company’s patent portfolio really covers. If you’ve read a patent, you know how hard it is to tell what it really says. You can only read the word “plurality” a limited number of times before your eyes glaze over. And at the company level, nobody knows the whole portfolio. If you are the representative from, say, Nokia on some standardization committee, then you can’t really guarantee that any particular standard doesn’t violate any Nokia patents, and you are certainly not going to sign up for guaranteeing never to sue, say, Samsung over a patent violation. Especially as you are not the corporate counsel, you are some middle level engineer assigned to a standardization committee that may or may not turn out to be strategically important.

But CDMA was a complete patent-protected technology more like a blockbuster drug formula. You couldn’t do anything in CDMA without licensing a portfolio of patents from Qualcomm on whatever terms they felt like giving you. They invented the entire technology and patented it before anyone else really knew it was feasible. They sued Broadcom, they sued Ericsson, they sued everyone and pretty much established that there was no way around this no matter what. In 2G this wasn’t a big issue since GSM doesn’t depend in any way on CDMA. But W-CDMA and all the later technologies use various aspects of CDMA and so Qualcomm is in the happy position of having a tax on every cell phone.

Posted by Paul McLellan on June 4, 2009 | Comments (8)

June 27, 2009
In response to: Patents, CDMA, trolls and standards
Scunnerous commented:

To krylov_subspace: I have no knowledge of the mathematics of which you speak which is, of course, irrelevant to the subject of patent trolling. My comment was directed at people who use instruments, as you have confirmed, they don't understand to conjure imaginary profits which they invite average suckers to partake of. Superimposing their err, methods, on a patent system which is already badly broken and sagging under the burden of attempts by legal eagles to milk it to the max hardly seems a desirable direction.


June 12, 2009
In response to: Patents, CDMA, trolls and standards
krylov_subspace commented:

To Scunnerous There is nothing wrong or mathematically incorrect about defining derivatives on patents.Nor is there any law which prohibits defining a mathematical derivative on patent. Which book forbids defining derivatives on anything anyway. The reason why the whole banking system went crazy over the CDOs is that they did not understand that its difficult to assess the risk when you build derivatives of derivatives. In fact for CDOs the problem was there are certain terms in the Cupola functions which they used without unerstanding. It derivatives there is some work due to a person called David Li . It was Li's infamous equation that they followed.


June 10, 2009
In response to: Patents, CDMA, trolls and standards
Scunnerous commented:

Talking about trolls, I'm sure you've heard that the banks -- having lost credibility on a number of now disreputable ummh, instruments and observing how well the lawyers are doing with patent err, pools -- are now on a patent buying spree with a view to creating patent pools, from which they would like to create uhh, "derivatives". One can only imagine: "Submarine Guarantee Options", "Patent Abandonment Swaps", "Patent Divisional Options"? Here we go again! Will they never learn?


June 5, 2009
In response to: Patents, CDMA, trolls and standards
krylov_subspace commented:

The patent committees of most companies are a pathetic bunch of individuals whose primary purpose of existence is to finger others. I have seen this with my own inventions. Now that I am out of it I will continue to file more and more and see these managers struggle to come up with 2 disclosures in a year. Most of this patent committee members at least in EDA have the mathematical ability of high school grads


June 5, 2009
In response to: Patents, CDMA, trolls and standards
Allen commented:

It is funny that people in "Big Box" companies complain about patent trolls and such, but they end up charging others "on whatever terms they felt like giving you". So... what is the difference between company "Q" and the trolls!?


June 4, 2009
In response to: Patents, CDMA, trolls and standards
Don Sauer commented:

One usually associates the legal system as being there to discourage behavior. At least that is what the tort or criminal justice systems implies is the intention. Using the legal system to "promote" progress and innovation sounds like a technology promotion system that was written by lawyers. All we are trying to do is to have some type of incentive system in place which rewards both inventors and their employers whenever an invention actually benefits the whole world. If people in the technology fields can put a man on the moon, why can't people from those same professions create an incentive system which makes engineering sense?


June 4, 2009
In response to: Patents, CDMA, trolls and standards
Mike commented:

Good luck trying to draft a technically innovative, superior technical standard while "steering around" valid patents.


June 4, 2009
In response to: Patents, CDMA, trolls and standards
Mike Demler commented:

And the IP wars can be expected to go on and on from 3G to 4G as well. It's one advantage that WiMax has over LTE. Some companies are working to form an LTE patent pool, but QCOM prefers to license 1-on-1. -Mike the-world-is-analog.blogspot.com

POST A COMMENT
Display Name
captcha

Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above. Note the letters are case sensitive:

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
About EDN   |   Site Map   |   Contact Us   |   Subscription   |   RSS
© 2012 UBM Electronics. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Please visit these other UBM Canon sites

UBM Canon | Design News | Test & Measurement World | Packaging Digest | EDN | Qmed | Pharmalive | Appliance Magazine | Plastics Today | Powder Bulk Solids | Canon Trade Shows