This kind of stuff will go on, all the way down the slippery slope of craziness, until Congress acts and does the only logical thing - ban software/methodology/business process patents in their entirety. Meanwhile the patent trolls will continue to enrich themselves to the tune of billions of dollars. (Around $20B in 2012 by the way - that last comment isn't hyperbole).
As an interesting thought experiment, I wonder how lawyers would feel if legal "processes" could be patented and the practice of law itself was subject to claims of infringement? Particularly if relatively basic uses of basic legal principles were being patented and individual lawyers, rather than their firms, could be held liable.<p>Because that's the sort of nonsense being inflicted upon computer scientists.
Patent trolling is exactly that - protection racket. It's a shame that the judicial / legal system is so broken that it can't apply the existing laws to smash these racketeers for good.
Many manufacturers claim to have licensed the relevant patents from Broadcom, in which case their customers are not infringing by "exhaustion". Presumably there are some manufacturers that didn't license, so parties who purchased equipment from those would not have that defense. Does the troll in this case have any reason to think that the hotels it's targeting have unlicensed and thus infringing equipment? Or is this just an RIAA-style dragnet, in which you're guilty until you prove all your equipment is licensed? Is there really no means by which courts can rein in this type of abuse?
In my country, if I remember correctly, you need to pay 5% up front to court for the money you want. Meaning If I want to sue McDonalds for 1 mil, I have to pay 5k. This keeps away nonsense cases.
If I lose, court keeps money. If I win, I can add this sum to the total amount.<p>This keeps cases real and amounts realistic.
Can anyone offer advice on the best response from a small business that is sent a letter from a troll like this? Particularly since in this case it sounds like the patents themselves are valid, but have been licensed by the tech provider - how should end users protect themselves?<p>I realize there are plenty of rants against these practices available to read in many forums, but given the progression of this case, what options are available to the defendants?
How is it that the end consumers are being hit with a lawsuit that resulted from their equipment manufacture not being properly licensed? Is it my responsibility to vet that every piece of consumer electronics was properly licensed for the technologies that they use?
This sort of stuff makes me feel approximately pure despair. I'm no lawyer, but I would think that the prevalence of patent trolls would be enough of an indicator to a judge to shut this sort of thing down hard.
Startup opportunity: patent troll insurance.<p>This is a disgusting abuse of the legal system and current patent laws. It puts innovation in jeopardy by way of stagnation - small businesses won't offer WiFi as much if they know they can be sued by a company that has no practical connection to the technology. And if it isn't used as much by as many entities, how will it improve?<p>I think it's a joke that Innovatio bluffed not attacking home Wi-Fi as if it's an intentional "strategic position" like that. As if a single obscure company with flimsy title deeds on technology could really take away something so integrated from the public. They would have a reaction akin to SOPA.
The real problem with patent trolls is that this entire spectacle is completely out of the public's eye. Outside of business/startup circles, the concept of a patent troll is completely foreign. It would be amazing if Vice or someone of the like did a documentary on this modern day mafia to educate the public on this new form of crime.<p>Once the public is actually conscious that this issue exists, congress would be pressured to act in order to keep their voters happy.
Does anyone know the identification numbers of the patents that Innovatio IP are using, or even the specific claims that are being used? I'm interested to compare with some prior art that I am aware of.