Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday October 29 2019, @10:20AM   Printer-friendly
from the unfortunate-name dept.

Intel is taking legal action against a spider's web of patent holders from SoftBank-owned Fortress Investment Group and its network of subsidiaries.

The Japanese megacorp bought the group for $3.3bn in late 2017, and Chipzilla claims Fortress has become more aggressive in an effort to justify its sales price to its new owners.

Intel is suing the company under the Sherman and Clayton antitrust acts to "prevent and restrain Defendants' anticompetitive conduct".

Intel argues in court documents (PDF) that Fortress is asserting patent rights that would not have been considered enforceable by their original owners.

The documents also claim that Fortress has no interest in licensing these patents in the normal way, but prefers to boost the value of its patent portfolio by linking worthless patents with valuable ones.

This war chest of aggregated patents, Intel alleges, allows Fortress to bring case after case against a company until it folds or pays well over the market value for the intellectual property held to stop the litigation.

This strategy, Intel claims, makes it more likely that weak or unenforceable patents are found to be valid in the courts because they are aggregated with patents that may have some merit. It also gives Fortress the opportunity to gain sets of patents that could provide alternatives to each other, which damages competition in the same way that a merger of competing companies can.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday October 29 2019, @03:30PM

    by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday October 29 2019, @03:30PM (#913291)

    Litigation-only patent holders should not be allowed imo. Either you use your patents to build and sell stuff

    If I take a look at one of Intel's products, then I have an epiphany of a novel way to make that product better, then my invention has merit. I should be able to sell/license that invention to Intel even though I am not in the business of building CPUs.

    Are you posting this to disagree? In your example, you aren't litigating, and parent explicitly said you should be able to sell your stuff.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2