Weird choice of this site to mention their sources, but not linking them.<p>- Heise reported this originally: <a href="https://www.heise.de/hintergrund/Fritzboxen-AVM-verliert-Patentklage-durch-Huawei-in-erster-Instanz-9575693.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.heise.de/hintergrund/Fritzboxen-AVM-verliert-Pat...</a><p>- Golem basically summarized the Heise article: <a href="https://www.golem.de/news/patentklagen-avm-droht-vertriebsverbot-fuer-fritzboxen-2312-180388.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.golem.de/news/patentklagen-avm-droht-vertriebsve...</a>
Today I learned SEPs, standard essential patents, are a thing. How on earth adhering to a public standard can be considered an invention is beyond me, nor is how we got to the point that it is common enough to require its own special treatment.<p>Maybe someone can change my mind on why this is an invention worth monopolising, but I doubt it.
This reads like a stolen and automatically translated German article. The end suddenly talks as if the current website is PCGH.de, and contains the German sounding phrase "your opinion is asked". The mentioning of the sources doesn't provide any links and inexplicably says "those" instead of "source".
Decisions by regional courts are completely irrelevant. They often get reversed by the higher courts, especially in tech cases. Hamburg is more notorious for this, but it's the same for the one here in Munich. Until the higher regional court decides (and maybe the BGH after that) there's no chance that a sales ban will be enacted.
AVM recently announced that the business might be sold by the founders. This law suit somehow seems to me that the price for the company should be influenced artificially.<p>On the other hand China just saw protectionism by the US happening and now they are shifting gears. How long will it take until sanctions by the US will be useless?
AVM is notorious for GPL violations. I cannot say anything about these patents (aside from stating the fact that all software patents are bogus, because math cannot be patented), but I would not be surprised if they intentionally violated them.
What is wrong with the titles in this article?<p>"AVM threatens to ban the sale of Fritzbox routers"<p>No, AVM is the company producing them, they are not threatening themselves to ban selling their own product<p>And then one title has "regional court" in small caps, another has "Regional Court" with caps
Kind of rich Huawei is complaining about patent infringement after they syphoned off IP from Nortel and Nokia. Now that those companies are mostly dead they kick the ladder out to stop anyone from doing the same.
Correct me if I'm wrong. But is it not the case that governments have been pressured to not be allowed to use Huawei technology in 6G and the like? Not being an expert but I think I remember things like that.<p>If you then own patents relating to that or similar technology and someone says "No you may not participate" simply because we so say, nothing to do with law, we just don't want you to. That maybe this sort of response can be expected ? If you kick someone long enough it's not surprising to see retaliation once in a while.
I looked at the patent EP3337077B1... It is utter rent-seeking nonsense.<p>Patents are supposed to be for innovation, the patent literally just claims adding a field to a packet indicating if it's for a single user or multiple is a novel invention.