After years of heated debate and lobbying, the Patent Reform Act of 2007, which passed in the U.S. House of Representatives and was scheduled for a Senate vote this session, has been taken off the Senate's calendar. It can be revived, but its momentum has effectively fizzled.
Apparently, the Senate has better things to do with its time.
At this point, I don't wish to rehash the issues of, or my viewpoint on, the Patent Reform Act. Besides, as I've said, both sides in the debate were after only their own self-interests. Such is life in a capitalist society. (I think that's a good thing.)
What does fascinate me, though, are the strange alliances the debate over patent reform created. The Coalition for Patent Fairness--a group of more than 150 high-tech and financial-services companies that included Adobe Systems, Apple, Cisco Systems, eBay, Google, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Lenovo, Microsoft, News Corp., Oracle, SAP, Time Warner, and virtually all the big banks--supported and lobbied heavily for the bill.
... Read more
(Credit:
Qualcomm Inc.)
Intellectual property (IP) companies are unique business entities. Theirs is a complex, controversial world characterized by huge capital investments, epic legal battles, rollercoaster stock rides, fanatical investors, and of course, lots of patents.
Why should you care? Because, their technology helps almost all your gadgets work the way they do. And for that privilege, their executives, employees and investors go through hell. ... Read more
The proposed Patent Reform Act of 2007 will be coming up for a vote in the Senate in a few months. A similar version of the bill has already passed in the House.
The bill has certain relatively benign provisions, but let's ignore them since they just cloud the argument and are of little interest to either side in the debate.
United States Senate
Let's instead just cut to the chase. In lay terms, the bill makes it easier to challenge issued patents and harder for patent holders to obtain compensation through the U.S. legal system.
Regardless of how that sounds to you, make no mistake - this debate is between two opposing sides with their own interests at heart. ... Read more
Have you ever, I mean ever, copied software, a CD, a DVD, or a video tape without permission or paying? How about downloading music, video, pictures, or art?
If you answered yes, congratulations, you're just like everybody else.
On the other hand, you probably also think U.S. screenwriters are being screwed by the studios. And that China and other countries shouldn't be illegally copying and selling material copyrighted in the U.S.
That, my friend, is called a double standard.
Something else to consider:
Did you read this post about Trend Micro suing Barracuda Networks for patent infringement. Do you agree with the blogger? Do you think companies like Qualcomm, Rambus, or Trend Micro are patent trolls that unjustly enrich their shareholders at the expense of consumers? ... Read more
I was working on this when I read this CNET News.com post. Apparently, Bill Gates believes that a strong technology sector will help keep America's economy healthy. I couldn't agree more. But I have a somewhat different take on the role tech has played in the U.S. economy.
Over the past few decades, the U.S. technology industry has had a number of "the sky is falling" moments, and every time we've managed to work through it and come out stronger than before.
For example, when I entered the job market in 1980, my employer--Texas Instruments--was the world's leading semiconductor maker. But in 1986, NEC and Fujitsu took the top two spots. By 1998, Japanese companies held the top 3 and 6 of the top 9 positions and TI had slipped to No. 5. Intel was the only bright spot, climbing the charts from 10th to 7th place.
Fast forward to 2006, when U.S. companies occupied 4 of the top 10 positions, including No. 1 (Intel) and No. 3 (TI). Rounding out the top 10 were two companies each from Japan, Korea, and Europe. That's certainly more balanced. What changed?
(Credit:
Microsoft)
Well, U.S. technology companies and their employees seem to have a knack for innovating. But we don't just invent technology; we also create and dominate markets. We don't just rise to the occasion when our economy is threatened; technology innovation and marketing seem to be innate strengths of our culture.
For example, Intel, Microsoft, and IBM together created the personal computer. Contributions from Apple, Compaq, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, and others helped to make personal computing the most important product category in tech history.
Nokia may be the dominant cell phone company, but U.S. companies like TI dominate the chips inside, and Qualcomm invented CDMA--the competitor of Europe's GSM standard.
U.S. companies invented and dominate networking and the Internet. American companies invented the Palm Pilot, Tivo, and of course the iPod and iPhone. Except for Vizio, we don't make TVs, but TI invented DLP technology--the core of a new generation of HDTVs and video projectors.
It's surprising that we occasionally manage to out-innovate and out-market Asian and European consumer electronics giants like Sony, Samsung, Panasonic, and Philips.
First manufacturing moved offshore, followed by outsourcing of data and call-centers and even software and hardware development. But our unemployment rate has averaged just below 5 percent for the past 10 years, and it's not expected to change anytime soon.
When we're confronted with a challenge, we retool, innovate, create, and market. As an industry and with the occasional help of the government we also protect our intellectual property rights--one of the biggest challenges we've faced, and continue to face, since the early '80s.
At the end of the day, it's imperative that we continue to develop, nurture, and protect our human capital, our intellectual capital, and our venture capital. And not just in traditional electronics, but in biotech, nanotech, green tech, and energy tech.
Just as they say in the stock market, past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Technology is a treadmill that never stops or even slows; we can't either.
Note: a prior version listed Blackberry as an American invention. Research In Motion is a Canadian company. Thanks to Neal and sorry to all you Canadians out there.
Rambus needs more controversy and scandal like the Internet needs more bloggers and porn. As mired in legal trouble as this company is, you've really got to do something egregious to get noticed.
According to a story by The Recorder, a California legal paper, the wife of Rambus CEO Harold Hughes did just that. Nancy Hughes anonymously posted 170 messages on a popular investor message board over a 10-month period. In her posts, clarissamehitable--alias Nancy Hughes--vigorously defended her embattled husband, and criticized current and former members of the company's management team.
Nancy's posts were so obviously those of a Rambus insider that they aroused not only the suspicion of other posters on the board, but company officials, as well. Rambus brought in outside legal counsel to head up an investigation, which ultimately turned up none other than Hughes' wife.
According to a company spokeswoman, Rambus' board of directors concluded that there was no wrongdoing on the part of either Hughes.
What's troubling is that Nancy was pegged as an insider for good reason. If some of her posts were not inside information, they certainly appear to come razor close to crossing the line. And there's evidence that someone may have removed some of her posts from the message board.
Full disclosure:
I was an executive officer of Rambus from 2002 to 2003 and I am a shareholder. I have never posted on an investor message board and neither has my wife...as far as I know. ... Read more
Back in 1990, my wife and I went to Europe to explore the land of our forefathers (and foremothers) by car. The first thing I noticed when we got in our Audi rental was that it didn't have air conditioning. It was August; what were these people, barbarians?
Then I turned on the radio. The display had all this text information that identified songs and other stuff. Now that was cool. I was sure that, before long, American broadcasters would adopt similar technology.
Seventeen years later, I'm still waiting.
Last year I was asked to do a minuscule amount of consulting for iBiquity, the developer and exclusive licensor of digital radio technology in the U.S. I was dying to find out what had delayed my ability to identify a Jane's Addiction song on the radio, not to mention hear it in CD quality. Here's what I learned, but first, some background.
In 1991 CBS, Gannett (publisher of USA Today), and Westinghouse (which is now owned by Toshiba, in case you didn't know) formed USA Digital Radio Partners. I'm guessing it was some sort of joint venture. In 1998, a Westinghouse executive and former McKinsey consultant named Bob Struble led the company's spinoff with backing from a horde of broadcasting companies. Two years later, the company merged with Lucent Digital Radio and iBiquity Digital was born.
iBiquity calls its product "HD Radio." No, HD doesn't stand for high definition. It originally meant hybrid digital, but the company now claims that HD doesn't stand for anything. That's probably because it's easier to get a trade mark if the term is a name as opposed to a generic term. Intel did the same thing with MMX technology, which originally stood for multimedia extensions, although you couldn't get anyone at Intel to admit that now. ... Read more
Last week, Opti Technologies announced a patent infringement lawsuit against a bevy of chip companies: Advanced Micro Devices, Atmel, Broadcom, Renesas Technology, Silicon Storage Technology, SMSC, STMicroelectronics and Via Technologies. At issue are two patents for "Compact ISA-Bus" technology.
Opti had recently sued Apple and AMD over three patents for "Predictive Snooping" technology used in some computer chips. And, in August of last year, Opti settled with Nvidia for $11 million plus up to $9 million more if nVidia continues to use Opti's technology in its products. The nVidia action included all five of the above-mentioned patents.
Silicon Valley faithful will remember Opti as a once-respected chip company that fell on hard times. Is the company's recent patent litigation rampage the death-throws of a desperate company or a promising new business model? Let's go through it.
At present, Opti has but one full-time employee, CEO Bernard Marren. And, according to the company's 1995 proxy statement, Marren gets a cut of everything he brings in to shareholders on a sliding scale that starts at 5 percent and ramps down to 1 percent. Mike Mazzoni, the company's part-time CFO, appears to have the same deal.
Do the math; it's not bad work if you can get it.
I had lunch with Marren a few weeks ago. The 71-year-old industry veteran seemed excited about Opti's prospects and he may have reason to be. Marren isn't new to executive management. He's a former founder and president of electronic distributor Western Micro Technology and the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA). He sits on a number of boards, including Microtune, Infocus and Unipixel. Marren knows his way around the negotiating table.
For better or worse, patent infringement litigation is business as usual in the chip industry. If not for broad cross-license agreements, chip companies might spend more time suing each other than developing products. Nevertheless, some companies have carved out significant niches by developing and licensing technology. ARM, Qualcomm, Rambus, Tessera, even IBM and Texas Instruments, make a solid business of it. But, for the most part, these companies develop technology with that business model in mind. Believe me, they prefer to negotiate than to litigate. ... Read more
- prev
- 1
- next
