Nokia/Matsushita/Samsung Sued over Bluetooth

[neliz]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/1700ap_bluetooth_lawsuit.html

According to the lawsuit, Bluetooth-based computers, cell phones and headsets made by the three companies have violated four patents, including one that was issued for research done in the mid-1990s by Edwin Suominen when he was an undergraduate student at Washington. All four patents are now held by the foundation.

What's weird about this. an US university is sueing the inventors of Bluetooth (nokia) and other founder/members of the bluetooth SIG over bluetooth licenses.
The University of Washington is claiming it holds patents to bluetooth and all it's related technology.. and why the heck would they wait 13 years before they sue someone?

 

[Rainbow Man]

More importantly perhaps how can they own patents on a technology that wasn't invented 13 years ago?
Lawyers always have and probably will continue to confound me..

Peace.

 

[Dragon Puppy]

I remember ericsson as the inventor of bluetooth? (not SE)
Searching for an link.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/09/01/bluetooth/index.html

"Lund, Sweden, a vibrant college town near the southern tip of the country, is where the Swedish cell phone giant Ericsson started the Bluetooth movement in 1994. Ericsson's primary research facility is closely tied to the town's university."

So why arn't they suing ericsson? or any other SIG partner?

 

[neliz]

They're sueing manufacturers of bluetooth chips I guess (although I'm not quite sure nokia does.)

Bluetooth was invented by a swedish and dutch Ericsson engineers as a project in '94.
Washington U claims to have patented it "mid 90's" .. I'd like to know which patents because it sounds quite absurd to me in the end..

 

[Rolf N]

They're sueing manufacturers of bluetooth chips I guess (although I'm not quite sure nokia does.)

Always go after those unlikely to have a good defense :nod:

Bluetooth was invented by a swedish and dutch Ericsson engineers as a project in '94.
Washington U claims to have patented it "mid 90's" .. I'd like to know which patents because it sounds quite absurd to me in the end..

"Transmission of stuff not involving paper nor doves"?

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Patents are absurd.

 

[London Geezer]

But all these devices have a nice shiny "Bluetooth" logo on them, so it's not like they've stolen the tech. They licensed it and that's why they have to put the logo, and make it clear that it's "Bluetooth" and not something else which uses the same tech...

It's as if Dolby were to sue all DVD player manufacturers for "infringing patents", when all the DVD players make it very clear that they are paying licenses to have Dolby Digital. I don't get it...

These US law suits are so confusing...

 

[Fred]

Actually there is an extensive history of Academia getting screwed out of lucrative patent deals either b/c they don't recognize or take action, or b/c they simply didn't make appropriate claims when they were due.

Making a case in court is delicate, it requires knowing the inner workings of the machine in question (in essence often requiring reverse engineering to see if theres patent infraction or not). This costs a lot of money and time, which is why 13 years is not uncommon for cases like this.

I hate frivolous lawsuits as much as the next guy, but I wouldnt be surprised if there was something to this.