[opendtv] Re: ATSC Patent Suit Threaten Nets, Transition
- From: "johnwillkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 22:56:04 -0700
Well, first one needs to ask "what is Lucent?"
After being spun off by AT&T, it crashed a few times, and parts were sold
and spun off. Part went to France Telecom. Part became Aastra, and part
became Avanda or some such (phone terminals.)
Harris bought a good chunk of Aastra (if not all of it) about a year ago.
One wonders if they knew that didn't include what would appear to be the
rights to use technology that is essential to (then) Aastra encoders, and
just when this IP was siphoned off.
I think that Harris 'might' have an angle with the Aastra purchase, assuming
the lack of the IP was not disclosed. (I don't think that Harris bought the
entire enterprise; if they did, they own all disclosed and undisclosed
issues.)
I was wondering if the way AT&T/Lucent sold the IP to Rembrandt on a FRAND
basis, and Rembrandt isn't an ATSC member.
I don't think that what remains of Lucent can be sued by Harris, since they
own most or all of that part of Lucent, at least in respect to IP licensing.
Unfortunately, there's the possibility of collateral action at the ITC, but
that would only affect products made or assembled off-shore.
The foolishness here is getting the 8000-pound gorilla (Harris) on the case.
They're engaged, and they have an incentive (their customers want to sue
them) to invalidate the patent.
John Willkie
P.S. I note that Qualcomm once thought they could be maximally arrogant in
IP issues. Now that they've lost patents in court and lost the ability to
import the next generation of phone chips, they are hoping for a
"presidential veto" of the action. I think the problem is internal to
Qualcomm.
-----Mensaje original-----
De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
nombre de Allen Le Roy Limberg
Enviado el: Saturday, June 30, 2007 7:56 PM
Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [opendtv] Re: ATSC Patent Suit Threaten Nets, Transition
One wonders if an ATSC member has standing to sue Lucent for indemnification
if Rembrandt succeeds in keeping the patent from being invalidated. What if
Harris sought to join Lucent in the suit based on some sort of civil
conspiracy theory? It could open up Lucent files on what was done during
prosecution before the USPTO.
If it could be proven that Bell knew about the Tanner patent, the fraud
against the PTO in not citing it would make the Betts et al. patent
unenforceable.
Al
----- Original Message -----
From: "johnwillkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 1:48 PM
Subject: [opendtv] Re: ATSC Patent Suit Threaten Nets, Transition
> So, Lucent valued them lowly, and Rembrandt values them highly, and hopes
> that the Lucent FRAND language doesn't apply to them.
>
> Now, I'm thinking that Rembrandt has a go-for-broke strategy: demand large
> license fees for a patent that they think is not particularly valuable.
>
> If so, I believe they made a bad mistake targeting Harris. And, it seems
> like Harris feels the Rembrandt position is weak, since Harris sued
quickly,
> and didn't wait for Rembrandt to do so.
>
> I'm thinking that this action will result in the patent being invalidated
by
> the courts, or Rembrandt will lose the patent because they NEVER event
> contemplated licensing under FRAND terms.
>
> This is a "U.S." issue as opposed to an 'ATSC' (versus MPEG) issue.
>
> John Willkie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
