Feeds

Broadcom, Bluetooth and that patent lawsuit

Who do you think you are fooling?

The Essential Guide to IT Transformation

Few of the engineers I've spoken to believe that either Broadcom, or CSR, had not done work covering those technologies, by the mid-90s. The consensus is that "prior art" exists which would invalidate Suominen's patent - if published. "It's clever stuff, but the basic IP is old, and only the details would be patentable; and everybody has their own way of doing that," said one Bluetooth designer who once worked with Cambridge Consultants in the 90s.

If this is right, there's an interesting sub-question, because nobody can see how WRF might know anything about how the CSR chip handles this implementation stuff. And indeed, nobody I spoke to believes they do. "They're throwing a lawsuit at CSR, in the hope they'll be a soft touch," was what most said.

But of course, WRF isn't suing CSR. It's picking on people who sell Bluetooth-based phones and headsets, who happen to be CSR's customers. Why, exactly?

Local paper, Seattle Times cited John Reagh, WRF's manager of business development and legal affairs: Instead of suing CSR, he said the organisation decided to act against the handset makers because the chipset manufacturer may not know which chips are headed to the United States, where the patent is enforceable, but the device-maker would.

The US laws of patent are weird enough that the argument makes "sense" in that strange context. But it's hard to avoid the obvious implication: that WRF does not think the patent would stand up anywhere else. And I have to say that it's an argument few people in the UK believe.

What engineers do believe, is rather startling. I don't have any evidence that their opinions are based on any data of any sort, but I can tell you what they're saying to each other in Cambridge:

"It's far more likely that when they approached Broadcom, someone smart inside Broadcom saw an opportunity to scare those big buyers of CSR equipment by claiming a patent advantage," said an engineer. "If I were inside Broadcom right now, trying to get a foot inside the Bluetooth door with those people, the most effective threat I could think of would be 'Buy from us, or you will have your US sales blocked by the Courts while the lawsuit drags on...' and that could be very, very profitable."

Nobody at the Bluetooth SIG is saying anything like that, and nobody at CSR is saying anything other than "the suit is without merit" and "we will defend it robustly" and so on; but it's interesting to discover what the "wireless grass roots" feeling on this is, however accurate or inaccurate it might be.

Much of this grass roots opinion may be pure prejudice, of course. There's a lot of hostility towards patent vampires, especially after the Blackberry case, and even a genuine technology developer like Qualcomm, which actually spent money on R&D to create many of its patents, is experiencing huge hostility from other electronics companies because of its approach to intellectual property.

The Bluetooth SIG approach was to get all the relevant patents needed, and pull all the people who owned them into a sort of commonwealth. Everybody who provided patents could share everybody else's patents - and it's worked rather well, so far.

This approach to intellectual property isn't open to a simple IP owner like Washington Research. Rights to use Bluetooth IP for no charge are only of value for those who are in a position to exploit them technically. If I need to build a headset, then free IP is worth diamonds. If I need to charge royalties on headset patents, however, the last thing I need is free IP.

Washington doesn't generate IP itself. "Our mission is to capture and enhance the value of intellectual property arising from Washington State research institutions to support research and scholarship," it admits frankly. It does incubation; it funds startups using R&D discoveries made in Washington, and it pours revenues back into Washington academic institutions.

Build a business case: developing custom apps

More from The Register

next story
Scotland's BIG question: Will independence cost me my broadband?
They can take our lives, but they'll never take our SPECTRUM
Bring back error correction, say Danish 'net boffins
We don't need no steenkin' TCP/IP retransmission and the congestion it causes
Auntie remains MYSTIFIED by that weekend BBC iPlayer and website outage
Still doing 'forensics' on the caching layer – Beeb digi wonk
NBN Co adds apartments to FTTP rollout
Commercial trial locations to go live in September
Samsung Z Tizen OS mobe is post-phoned – this time for good?
Russian launch for Sammy's non-droid knocked back
Telstra to KILL 2G network by end of 2016
GSM now stands for Grave-Seeking-Mobile network
Seeking LTE expert to insert small cells into BT customers' places
Is this the first step to a FON-a-like 4G network?
What FTC lawsuit? T-Mobile US touts 10GB, $100 family-of-4 plan
Folks 'could use that money for more important things' says CEO Legere
prev story

Whitepapers

Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
The Essential Guide to IT Transformation
ServiceNow discusses three IT transformations that can help CIO's automate IT services to transform IT and the enterprise.
Consolidation: The Foundation for IT Business Transformation
In this whitepaper learn how effective consolidation of IT and business resources can enable multiple, meaningful business benefits.
How modern custom applications can spur business growth
Learn how to create, deploy and manage custom applications without consuming or expanding the need for scarce, expensive IT resources.
Build a business case: developing custom apps
Learn how to maximize the value of custom applications by accelerating and simplifying their development.