Motorola suing Hytera for patent infringement

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

That statement directly contradicts "Motorola Solutions declares the patent to ETSI and DMR licensees automatically gain access to these patents without additional cost or administrative burden."

Hytera is a licensee of Motorola's DMR IP.

https://www.motorolasolutions.com/c...rview/technology-leadership/dmr_licensees.pdf

 

[JRayfield]

Not necessarily.

Motorola must 'declare the patent to ETSI', for that technology to be accepted as part of the 'standard'. Once they do that, then access to those patents falls under the 'rules' according to ETSI, such as Motorola Solutions not being able to deny a competitive manufacturer access to that technology.

At that point, anyone who has already licensed previous DMR technology (covered by Motorola Solutions' patents, and licensed from Motorola Solutions) would receive access to these new patents at no additional cost.

The language on the website could explain this scenario, too.

But, this does raise a good question as to which one of us is correct. You many be and I'm wrong. I can see it being either way, based on the language on the website.

I'm going to contact ETSI and find out. Now you've really got me curious.

And if I'm wrong, I'll be sure and let you know.

John Rayfield, Jr.

That statement directly contradicts "Motorola Solutions declares the patent to ETSI and DMR licensees automatically gain access to these patents without additional cost or administrative burden."

 

[JRayfield]

Nope.

Here's a quote from ETSI's website:

===========================================================================
Licensing

Licensing is a permission granted by the IPR owner to another to use the protected rights conferred by an IPR on agreed terms and conditions, while the IPR owner continues to retain ownership of the IPR.

Specific licensing terms and negotiations are commercial issues between the companies and are never addressed within ETSI. However, ex ante disclosure of licensing terms is allowed in ETSI.

Ex ante disclosure of licensing terms is a mechanism by which essential IPR holders disclose their licensing terms (e.g. royalty rates) before the patented technology is selected as part of a standard.
===========================================================================

This is from this page:

ETSI - Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs)

So, if a person/company tries to uses technology that is covered by an ETSI standard (such as DMR), but does not make proper licensing arrangements with the patent holder (such as paying for use of the Intellectual Property), then that person/company has illegally used that Intellectual Property.

The term "DMR licensees" on Motorola Solutions' website is, thus, referring to licensees of Motorola Solutions, not ETSI.

John Rayfield, Jr.

That statement directly contradicts "Motorola Solutions declares the patent to ETSI and DMR licensees automatically gain access to these patents without additional cost or administrative burden."

 

[jonwienke]

That seems to defeat the whole point of having a standards consortium to act as a centralized clearinghouse for licensing and standards matters. If you have to go to every individual patent holder and negotiate licenses on dozens of patents with multiple companies before you can "legally" manufacture a DMR radio, then what exactly is the point of ETSI's existence???

 

[W3AWF]

I just looked on eBay and it looks as if Hytera has stopped selling certain models. Maybe I didn't look hard enough but it looks as if they have maybe already pulled some off of the market


"Interoperability is not a luxury, it is a necessity!"

 

[Raccon]

Exactly. Those patents shouldn't even exist.

Why not?

It doesn't matter if the idea is novel, basic, simple, necessary etc. or not - if it's covered by a patent then the patent holder should have the right to protect his patent(s), else it defeats the purpose of a patent.

That seems to defeat the whole point of having a standards consortium to act as a centralized clearinghouse for licensing and standards matters. If you have to go to every individual patent holder and negotiate licenses on dozens of patents with multiple companies before you can "legally" manufacture a DMR radio, then what exactly is the point of ETSI's existence???

ETSI writes technical standards, like DMR and TETRA for example, they don't manage patents and their standards don't supersede patents.
Since such standards are usually based on input from manufacturers they will likely include patented items, without which the standard could not be created.

 

[slicerwizard]

It doesn't matter if the idea is novel, basic, simple, necessary etc. or not

Of course it matters. Patents on simple, basic, obvious stuff shouldn't exist.

- if it's covered by a patent then the patent holder should have the right to protect his patent(s), else it defeats the purpose of a patent.

And when they try, plenty of those obvious patents get invalidated.

 

[JRayfield]

As their website states, they are not a 'central clearing house for licensing'. That's not their purpose. Their purpose to oversee 'standards'. There's more information on ETSI's website about their 'purpose in life'.

When a company allows their patented Intellectual Property to be included as part of that 'standard', then that company agrees to license access to that Intellectual Property to any other company (including competitors) according to 'fair and reasonable' agreements. Basically, they can't 'play favorites'.

If a company doesn't allow their patented Intellectual Property to be included as part of a 'standard', then that company can license that Intellectual Property to whomever they wish, on whatever terms they set. Or they can refuse to license that Intellectual Property to whomever they wish. And they can pretty much set different terms for different customers, at their discretion. Within certain legal guidelines, they can pretty much do whatever they want to do.

John Rayfield, Jr.

That seems to defeat the whole point of having a standards consortium to act as a centralized clearinghouse for licensing and standards matters. If you have to go to every individual patent holder and negotiate licenses on dozens of patents with multiple companies before you can "legally" manufacture a DMR radio, then what exactly is the point of ETSI's existence???

 

[JRayfield]

I would say that these are good points.

One problem, though, is determining what is "simple, basic, obvious". Something that is "simple, basic, obvious" to some people, may not be so "simple, basic, obvious" to others.

This sure is good business for the patent attorneys.

It will be interesting to see how Motorola Solutions vs. Hytera proceeds.

John Rayfield, Jr.

Of course it matters. Patents on simple, basic, obvious stuff shouldn't exist.


And when they try, plenty of those obvious patents get invalidated.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

I would say that these are good points.

One problem, though, is determining what is "simple, basic, obvious". Something that is "simple, basic, obvious" to some people, may not be so "simple, basic, obvious" to others.

This sure is good business for the patent attorneys.

It will be interesting to see how Motorola Solutions vs. Hytera proceeds.

John Rayfield, Jr.

When a major player in a standards body withholds information required to make the device actually work and then patents that information it is abusive.

Lets take a fictitious clock for example, the Clock standard defines every element of the clock except a missing 21 tooth gear.

Nobody can make the clock work without the 21 tooth gear. Company B figures out through experimentation that a 21 tooth gear is needed , no other combination of gears will work and so builds clocks accordingly.

Now Company A that was a major contributor to the standard has secretly patented 21 tooth gears. Is it fair for them to force Company B to cease and desist?

I bring this up, because one of Motorola's patents has to do with resynching the subscriber uplink during the repeater drop out delay. The solution is stuffing some bits to make up for the absent subscriber data.

 

[slicerwizard]

One problem, though, is determining what is "simple, basic, obvious". Something that is "simple, basic, obvious" to some people, may not be so "simple, basic, obvious" to others.

The complaint points at Hytera's XPT "pseudo trunking", which operates in a manner similar to LTR. At this stage of the game, LTR-style "distributed control channel" trunking is prior art / patented, but expired, yes? It's not something that Motorola should have a strangehold on, hell, they didn't even have a patent on LTR back in the day, wasn't it E. F. Johnson that came up with LTR? So Moto has a (probably bogus) patent on something, either the logic in their DMR radio and/or the OTA messages that direct subscribers to available channels (or in use channels for late entry purposes) and now a competitor can't implement DMR trunking other than TIII-style with a dedicated control channel? I don't think so.

 

[JRayfield]

Motorola did not "withhold information to make the device actually work and then patent that information". They developed and patented technolgy for DMR and then submitted it to the standards body (ETSI).

Motorola was instrumental in developing the standard. It was not developed by ETSI (ETSI is a standards organization, not an engineering company).

John Rayfield, Jr.

When a major player in a standards body withholds information required to make the device actually work and then patents that information it is abusive.

Lets take a fictitious clock for example, the Clock standard defines every element of the clock except a missing 21 tooth gear.

Nobody can make the clock work without the 21 tooth gear. Company B figures out through experimentation that a 21 tooth gear is needed , no other combination of gears will work and so builds clocks accordingly.

Now Company A that was a major contributor to the standard has secretly patented 21 tooth gears. Is it fair for them to force Company B to cease and desist?

I bring this up, because one of Motorola's patents has to do with resynching the subscriber uplink during the repeater drop out delay. The solution is stuffing some bits to make up for the absent subscriber data.

 

[JRayfield]

Their patent covers trunking the time slots, not trunking RF channels. LTR logic trunks RF channels.

But, it will be interesting to see what happens. It's not uncommon for some of the "Claims" in a patent to be upheld as valid while other "Claims" in the same patent are found to be 'invalid'.

John Rayfield, Jr.

The complaint points at Hytera's XPT "pseudo trunking", which operates in a manner similar to LTR. At this stage of the game, LTR-style "distributed control channel" trunking is prior art / patented, but expired, yes? It's not something that Motorola should have a strangehold on, hell, they didn't even have a patent on LTR back in the day, wasn't it E. F. Johnson that came up with LTR? So Moto has a (probably bogus) patent on something, either the logic in their DMR radio and/or the OTA messages that direct subscribers to available channels (or in use channels for late entry purposes) and now a competitor can't implement DMR trunking other than TIII-style with a dedicated control channel? I don't think so.

 

[AK9R]

One problem, though, is determining what is "simple, basic, obvious". Something that is "simple, basic, obvious" to some people, may not be so "simple, basic, obvious" to others.

In the 1880's, Thomas A. Edison of Menlo Park, New Jersey, was issued various patents for electrified carbon filaments inside a glass bulb. Pretty simple concept that was not so simple, basic, or obvious to inventors at the time.

 

[slicerwizard]

Their patent covers trunking the time slots, not trunking RF channels. LTR logic trunks RF channels.

With DMR, each timeslot is a voice path, conceptually no different than a single LTR RF channel. There is nothing non-obvious here. So Moto has patented "LTR on DMR" and is saying no-one else can do it? So everyone else has to waste a timeslot with a dedicated control channel? Smells like garbage to me.

 

[Raccon]

Of course it matters. Patents on simple, basic, obvious stuff shouldn't exist.

That's your opinion - besides who will decide what's basic and obvious?
You may think something is basic or obvious, but it might have been novel at the time the patent was filed.

And when they try, plenty of those obvious patents get invalidated.

Your point?

 

[slicerwizard]

That's your opinion - besides who will decide what's basic and obvious?
You may think something is basic or obvious, but it might have been novel at the time the patent was filed.

LTR style trunking wasn't novel when Motorola filed these DMR patents. Everyone here should know that.

Your point?

Simple - "if it's covered by a patent then the patent holder should have the right to protect his patent(s), else it defeats the purpose of a patent" ignores the fact that Motorola will use its patent on something obvious to unjustly attack a competitor. Many entities patent everything, valid or not, and use said patents to stifle competition and kill startups (who have no patent portfolios to fight back with). The system is broken. On purpose. By design.

 

[N4KVE]

I just looked on eBay and it looks as if Hytera has stopped selling certain models. Maybe I didn't look hard enough but it looks as if they have maybe already pulled some off of the market


"Interoperability is not a luxury, it is a necessity!"

To be a licensed Hytera dealer, part of the contract states you can not sell their products on E-Bay.

 

[Raccon]

Simple - "if it's covered by a patent then the patent holder should have the right to protect his patent(s), else it defeats the purpose of a patent" ignores the fact that Motorola will use its patent on something obvious to unjustly attack a competitor. Many entities patent everything, valid or not, and use said patents to stifle competition and kill startups (who have no patent portfolios to fight back with). The system is broken. On purpose. By design.

Maybe so, but as you said one can file a claim and possibly get it invalidated. Otherwise I don't see a solution to this since it is the patent office's responsibility to decide what can and what cannot be patented (based on certain criterias).

 

[N9IIT]

Update: https://www.businesswire.com/news/h...tion-ITC-Agrees-Review-Determination-Favoring

Hytera asking for a review of ruling that favored /\/\otorola with regards to DMR