The lawsuit that Cisco has been served by Network-1 Security Solutions clearly illustrates Cisco's argument that the United States' patent laws are desperately in need of reform. Network-1 
is suing Cisco, and others including Linksys, Foundry Networks, Extreme Networks and 3com, for infringement of a remote power patent. But the technology was not developed by Network-1. Instead, Network-1 acquires and licenses intellectual property "to maximize its value for the benefit of our investors and inventors."
According to Network-1's Web site: "We promote the continued flow of invention by enabling small firms and inventors, who may retain an interest in the intellectual property, to realize a return on their research and development investments."
Cisco in the past has been very vocal in its fight for patent reform. According to a statement about patent reform on its Web site, Cisco states: "The current patent system has created opportunities and incentives for abuses. The patent litigation system today is unbalanced and patent speculators are exploiting the system??s unfairness to coerce high settlements from productive companies. The patent litigation rules function less and less as a neutral system for resolving disputes, and instead encourage winner-take-all, jackpot-like strategies. These lawsuits rob our economy of billions of dollars that would otherwise be invested in jobs, innovation, consumer savings and shareholder value."
Is Network-1 doing good to stick up for the little guy or just out to make cash for its shareholders?
More from Cisco Subnet:
* Nexus 7000 brings some exciting hardware to the DC LAN
* Back to basics with routers and packet handling
* Cisco vs. Juniper Episode II: Enterprise switching
* What's new in Cisco's newest NAC appliance version?
* What's there to love about Cisco's TelePresence?
* Cisco security admin pay could soar 48% in 2008
* Building your own CCNA lab series
Go to Cisco Subnet for more Cisco news, blogs, discussion forums, security alerts, book giveaways, and more.
Network World's IT Buyer's Guide: Cisco products
Subscribe to Network World's Cisco Alert, which includes a weekly digest of all Cisco Subnet items
The Cisco Subnet blog is the official blog of the Network World Cisco Subnet community, managed by Editor Linda Leung. Cisco Subnet is the independent voice of Cisco customers and is your gateway to daily Cisco news, blogs, opinion, books, prize giveaways and more. Visit the Cisco Subnet home page daily and while you are there, subscribe to the Cisco Alert e-mail newsletter, which includes news and views generated by the Cisco Subnet community as well as Cisco-related stories on Network World and elsewhere on the Web.
(WAN community)
|
|
patent "deform"
All this talk of a need for patent “deform” is but a red herring fabricated by a handful of large tech firms as a diversion away from the real issue...that they have no valid defense against charges they are using other parties' technologies without permission. It’s not about reforming the system. It’s about legalizing theft!
The objective of these large firms is not to fix the patent system, but to destroy it or pervert it so only they may obtain and defend patents; to make it a sport of kings. Patents are a threat against their market dominance. They would rather use their size alone to secure their market position. Patents of others, especially small entities, jeopardize that. For example, the proposed change to eliminate the use of injunctions would only further encourage blatant infringement. Any large company would merely force you to make them take a license. They would have little to lose. Everything would be litigated to death -if a small entity can come up with the cash to pursue. That's what these large multinationals are betting against. This legislation in regressive, not progressive.
Sadly, some legislators and other parties have been duped by these slick firms and their well greased lawyers, lobbyists (some disguised as trade or public interest groups), and stealth PR firms (the author of this article to which I respond). Don't be surprised to find the Washington lobbyist scandal spreading into the patent deform proceedings. These companies are simply buying legislation.
When corporate America agrees to not use our inventions without consent, American inventors and small entities will agree to stop suing them.
Rebuttal to patent "deform"
Nice cut-and-paste from your talking points, patent troll. Of course, much of what you posted is nonsense designed to obfuscate the truth. Some points I want to bring up:
1. Yes, the large corporations that you excoriate are so against the patent system, each of them owns thousands and thousands to their names with applications for tens of thousands more.
2. The issue is not, as you say, getting around the threat of other patent owners. The issue is that cost of patent suits by entities who have no other purpose but to buy up patents and sue other companies is rising exponentially. This is hurting the "little guy" you purport to defend more than the big companies, who are better able to weather the costs. Even so, it's clear that high tech companies of all sizes are diverting resources from other parts of their business to pay for the costs of defending themselves in court.
Any objective examination of this issue would reveal how blatantly unfair the system has become. Not that you care.
I am that "little guy" from
I am that "little guy" from whom you purport to defend the large corporations. Don't worry, they can do it perfectly by themselves, even if it takes to buy the whole Congress.
The issue of rising cost of patent suits would be long gone if the corporations themselves, rather than those patent trolls (actually, defenders of a "little guy"), buy up patents of the little guys, instead of spending billions on lobbying of a conning legislation providing them with full immunity for theft.
This legislation, not the rising cost, is going to hurt, rather kill the "little guy" who would never go to so-called patent trolls if he had any other remedy against powerful thiefs.
rebuttal to the defender of "big guys"
I am that "little guy" from whom you purport to defend the large corporations. Don't worry, they can do it perfectly by themselves, even if it takes to buy the whole Congress.
The issue of rising cost of patent suits would be long gone if the corporations themselves, rather than those patent trolls (actually, defenders of a "little guy"), buy up patents of the little guys, instead of spending billions on lobbying of a conning legislation providing them with full immunity for theft.
This legislation, not the rising cost, is going to hurt, rather kill the "little guy" who would never go to so-called patent trolls if he had any other remedy against powerful thiefs.
Pure Cut and Paste
It's interesting as patent deform's remarks are a complete cut and paste job of a posting by "Steve Wren" on September 5, 2007.
http://www.xconomy.com/2007/09/04/two-patent-related-scourges-addressed/
If you're going to offer up comments make sure they're original. At worst it's plagiarism and at best the comments are unimaginative and lazy.
With an issue this important, you can do better.
D-Link in cahoots with Network-1
Last year the Supreme Court limited the ability of small outfits in patent cases to get injunctions against large companies.
The Supreme Court's ruling has severely limited non-operating entities like Network-1 from attaining injunctions in court.
Expect D-Link to work in cahoots with Network-1.
D-Link will act as the operating entity for the purpose of attaining injunctions in court.
D-Link will then split the proceeds generated from any injunction with Network-1.
My personal opinion?
Boycott the purchase of ANY product from D-Link.
Sincerely,
Brad Reese
http://www.BradReese.Com
Get your facts straight about D-Link
D-Link in cahoots with Network-1?? Yeah right. D-Link was already sued by Network-1 for the same patent, and settled, so why exactly would D-Link now want to act as a front for Network-1? I understand from your website that you're very pro-Cisco, but at least compete fairly with D-Link instead of defaming them by making up complete garbage.
Brad Reese is a Fraud
Brad,
Are you paid by Cisco to be a comment troll?
It's quite evident that you have a clear vested interest in Cisco's success in looking at your web site. Your failure to disclose that reduces your credibility to near zero.
Further, D Link has zero, repeat zero, ownership or other economic interest in the Network-1 patent so there is NO POSSIBILITY that they could act as an operating entity. The only direction that money will be moving between Network 1 and D-Link is from D-Link to Network 1. You cite no evidence whatsoever of the arrangement that you claim exists, because there is none. This removes all doubt about your credibility - clearly zero.
Please take your uniformed, self serving propaganda to some other venue. It is quite clear you have no idea what you are talking about. Do you bring this level of integrity to all your business affairs?
Until such time as the law is changed, Network 1 will pursue its right to license its intellectual property.
Disclosure: I am a Network 1 shareholder.
Boycott the products of companies that settle with Network-1
A very efficient way of making the worthless penny stock of Network-1 even more worthless is to actively promote the boycott of any products manufactured by a vendor who settles with Network-1.
Boycott D-Link products!
Sincerely,
Brad Reese
http://www.BradReese.Com