No. 1 Story

HP job cuts loom for Australian employees

A number of Australian employees of Hewlett-Packard are facing the loss of their jobs as the global computer giant looks to slash its worldwide workforce by up to 30,000.

read more

Related Articles

Adoption of cloud computing has reached a tipping point  - but don’t expect legacy...
In yet another blow to the Facebook IPO this week, following the withdrawal of...
Recruitment technology and social media have played a significant role in growing business in...
US researchers have found strong correlation between the increased incidence of sexually transmitted disease...
A new service pack for AVG's consumer security products adds and active Do Not...

Bluetooth suit drags in more defendants, including Apple

Your IT - Home IT

A patent infringement law suit involving UK-based chip manufacturer Cambridge Silicon Radio's (CSR's) Bluetooth implementation has spread to include Apple, Dell, Sony and other big names.

The Washington Research Foundation (WRF) previously filed suit against CSR customers Nokia, Samsung and Panasonic in December 2006. The case has now been expanded to include Apple, Dell, Logitech, Motorola, Plantronics, Sony, Sony Ericsson, and Toshiba, all of which sell products containing CSR chips.

Chip manufacturer Broadcom obtained a licence from WRF in 2005, so no products incorporating its Bluetooth chips infringe these patents.

WRF licences intellectual property created at research institutions in Washington state. The four patents involved in the case were issued to Edwin Suominen, based on research he conducted as a student at the University of Washington and relate to radio receiver technology and methods of tuning radio channels used to exchange data between electronic devices without the need for cables.

The foundation appears to have adopted a 'deep pockets' strategy by suing CSR's customers rather the company itself. It has also gone for a 'home court' advantage - CSR could not be sued in the US as it did not sell the chips containing the disputed technology in that country.

If the defendants lose, they would have to stop selling Bluetooth-enabled products, switch to using Broadcom chips, persuade CSR to licence the WRF patents, or licence the technology themselves.

For its part, CSR is countersuing WRF, claiming that the latter's case is without merit.