SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the nothing-escapes-the-grasp-of-the-marketers dept.
It looks like the PHBs are trying to figure out how to monetize a low latency car-car (and car-highway) data network before it is even deployed. Here's a cutting from a recent editorial in Automotive Engineering (Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE), discussing 5.9-GHz dedicated short range communications (DSRC).
Some observers feel that advertising may be sent to vehicles to help offset some of the cost. That's especially true for vehicle-to-infrastructure communications, which will require roadside beacons. DSRC data may also be sent to data-processing centers. Ads could help pay for these installations.
"Many models rely on some form of advertising," said Joe Averkamp, Senior Director, Technology, Policy & Strategy, at Xerox. "You need to make sure it's subtle and not distracting."
DSRC has multiple channels, so it's possible that one could be used to send localized ads or other information. That will depend on how bands are allocated.
"Advertising questions are still unresolved," said Mike Shulman, Ford's Global Driver Assistance and Active Safety Manager. "Seven DSRC channels have been allocated. Safety messages will go on one channel, things like traffic-light communications could go on another. An ad message channel has not been defined."
Some managers feel that advertisers will build an alternative infrastructure in the years before regulators mandate V2X and automakers start shipping equipped vehicles.
And GM appears to have already patented V2V and V2X adverts.
Knowing GM, this is probably a defensive patent, to plant a stake in the ground in case a patent troll comes along.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by MrGuy on Monday December 14 2015, @12:44PM
That's not how defensive patents work for large firms. And it's one of the many thorny problems posed by "patent trolls" (which, for the sake of this conversation, I'll restrict to Non-Practicing Entities [techtarget.com])
Here's how the concept of "defensive patents" work. Several large corporations see a new area of technology emerging. Those corporations rush to patent as many aspects of the emerging technologies as they can. They do this for three reasons. It can be for licensing revenue down the road. But it can also be to avoid getting "shut out" of the industry, which is where the concept of "defensive patents" comes about. If you own a patent, certainly, you can use that patent, so you've staked out a claim. But that's not the real defensive value. Because technology is complicated. And while you might implement technology that does implement your patent, you run a strong risk of that implementation running afoul of someone else's patent. See Apple v Samsung [wikipedia.org] for some great examples (Apple once had 4 patents they called "the four horsemen of the apocalypse" because they thought they could basically cover any competitor's smart phone tech).
Which is where the defensive nature of patents come in. Large companies will typically cross-license their patent portfolios with competitors - agree not to sue each other (possibly with the company with the less valuable patent portfolio paying some fees). This means both companies can implement the tech without working over their shoulders for lawsuits. As long as you have enough valuable patents, you're in the game - no competitor can try to shut you out without you (likely) stomping on them. You need to have valuable patents less because you want to own that specific piece of tech, and more because it forces competitors to cross-license with you (on favorable terms). "Defensive Patents" aren't necessarily patents that cover every aspect of a technology. They're patents that anyone in the industry will need access to.
This has a lot of ramifications on the business world for good and ill. A "good" is that cross-licensing lets technology actually get developed without (usually) winding up in court for years as everyone tries to encumber everyone else's tech - cross licensing keeps the industry from imploding before it really gets started. A "bad" is it effectively sets up an oligopoly with massive barriers to entry - a new entrant in the industry has no patents to threaten others into a cross-licensing agreement, and consequently anything they do can be shut down by costly patent litigation before it gets off the ground. But it's been "how things work" for awhile.
Patent Trolls are problematic to this system because they don't play by the same rules. There's no "mutually assured destruction" threat of counter-lawsuits, because Patent Trolls don't practice. They have nothing to shut down. A troll doesn't need to cross-license, because they don't need YOUR patents. You need theirs. They have no incentive to avoid litigation, but you do. The threat of litigation is their business.
You can have the strongest patent portfolio in the industry, with strong patents on every aspect of a given technology. No competitor can practically enter the industry without licensing your patents. And you are STILL not safe from a troll with a patent that arguably applies to your area of business. Your patent portfolio has ZERO "defensive" value against a troll, because they don't need anything from you. They'll sue you to force you to license their patent, however dubious the value, because they have no incentive not to.
(Score: 2) by lentilla on Monday December 14 2015, @03:39PM
In other words, the best possible hope we have of overhauling the patent system is through the efforts of patent trolls. The patent system must be annoying for large companies but they can probably live with it - they can absorb the "costs of doing business" and it does prevent upstarts challenging the status-quo. Trolls causing trouble might be the needed incentive to overhaul the system.