5 Responses

  1. BradR
    BradR at |

    Most patent owners will happily license their technology. Just because a competitor owns a patent doesn’t mean another party can’t practice it. It’s a rare case that a company will decide not to release a product unless they can’t get a license… (if they know they need the license and don’t get it, the risk is literally 3X). IP has value, it would be failing gogo’s fiduciary responsibility to their inventors and shareholders to not account for it.

  2. BradR
    BradR at |

    fair questions –
    re why gogo would license that – using the example of microsoft / andriod, every android phone sold results in something around $20 paid to MS. they make a ton every time their competitor sells a product (possibly equivalent to the fully loaded margin on /their/ products). i’m sure gogo could get to a place where they’re happy… and odds are there are patents the row44 folks own that gogo would need to have access to, so it’s not a one way street in most cases.
    re prior art, that’s a much trickier thing given that there is legal meaning to the term and the claims are what matters – if the phrasing is that ‘app downloaded over wireless network to access subscription or pay as you go service’ yea there’s probably an att/starbucks example one could point to – but if the claim continues and says ‘…service is tied to sattelite or cellular communication’ then that’s different. just using that as an example, i have no idea what the landscape looks like.

  3. Alan
    Alan at |

    The USPO are atrocious – they grant a patent for anything and are nowhere near as rigorous at vetting applications as patent offices elsewhere – sadly this just means years of litigation with stifling of innovation by companies that don’t actually make any products but just exploit patents. Nice work for the lawyers I guess 😉