Manufacturers: Get Paying or Get Sued - Avigilon Patent Licensing Program

Not just another patent troll... THE patent troll...

Bryan discusses avo patent enforcement strategy with Alex...

Mobotix was able to fight agains similar patent enforcement, there's still hope.

If the majority of the Integrators were to put Avigilon at the top of their "Blackball List" and held firm to not represent, sell or play ball with them, perhaps they would consider playing fairly among their industry neighbors.

I remember a real stupid decision made once by the head of Ultrak which turned integrators against them, which by the way, ultimately was a factor leading to their demise.

Berserk - That's a stretch. All I've read from the many detractors of Avigilon are words of hatred, malice, unsupported allegations, and personal attacks on management, all from the comfort of "UNDISCLOSED."

In the world of business and ideas, I defend there right to do business as they see fit, just as Exacq has chosen to target Avigilon Cameras for Exclusion from their OPEN VMS platform claims.

Perhaps the investment and consolidation of many Patents into a single repository will do the industry good, and put everyone on an even playing field when in comes to potential patent enfringments.

So looks like probablity is high Avigilon stock is going to go either sharply up in the coming year or two or sharply down. Up if people pay up and/or patents are validated, or down if they start losing challenges.

For what its worth, Geutebruck analytics are self-developed so it offers a great "non-Avigilon" option. And Geutebruck is one of the few truly independent VMS manufacturers still out there. Worth taking a look at.

I’m not an attorney (to my mother’s eternal disappointment) but I’d like to take a contrarian position on this. There is nothing evil about patents. And thank goodness we have them. Inventors and companies must be incentivized to invest in innovation, knowing that if the fruits of their labor meets the PTO criteria, they may eventually rely on the full backing of the U.S. government to protect their IP rights, and the rights of their customers.

In the meantime, holding out hopes that the IP will be deemed “invalid” is no defense against liability. On May 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Commil v. Cisco, No. 13-896, that a good faith belief that a patent is invalid is not a defense to induced infringement claims under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).

So what can we do? Invent! Yes Avigilon holds a commanding IP portfolio. This should energize manufacturers to patent their own technology, and put themselves in a position to cross license with other partners including Avigilon.

Patents may seem like drag on our industry, but I think not having IP protection would be far worse.

"I am not sure many argue to abolish patents entirely. The bigger question is what can be patented, how broadly those patents can be applied"

That IS the real question..

Does the broad blanket protection of some patents and their subsequent agressive enforcement, stiffle innovation by manufacturers' who refrain from investing heavily in R&D of the better technology, particularly in areas covered by such blanket patents?

Buying a patent troll does not make you a patent troll.

No one would deny Avigilon sells and is interested in selling more analytics. And cameras.

This IS an important consideration. IMHO, the OV patents are far less dangerous in the hands of Avigilon than OV. Why?

Because there was no way to counter-attack OV for infringement. They were (at the end) only a licensing company. Avigilon is different.

Avigilon manufacturers and sells technology. Between Sony, Samsung and Panasonic they certainly have patents that they could assert against Avigilon, if they were sued.

But they didn't have this option with OV.

Maybe they will just go after the minor players, but this is a lot more work with a lot less profit.

I think that they will pursue enforcement to the degree that it doesn't jeopordize their core business by opening themselves up to claims of counter-infringement.

Avigilon's CEO opened up about their patent revenue plans on the call and the rolling out of the licensing program, noting that "we are very excited about revenue we plan to get in the coming years."

When a company spends 35% of their total 2014 revenue on patents and their CEO states he is "very excited" about the patent revenue from "targets"... as opposed to being excited about the new product development and sales of those products, that self-appoints and qualifies them as a "Patent Troll", like it or not!

He said Avigilon was already in negotiation with "several targets" but that the targets would "grow exponentially" as they ramped up.

Surely he wasnt talking about ramping up production and shipping... but rather the quantity of files on the lawyer's desk!

Does this not cause more harm than good to our industry when the costs of these litigations and licensing agreements are passed along and added to everyone's cost?

Who wins here? Is it the Chinese who really don't care about patents, are essentially immune to litigation and laugh all the way to the bank while everyone fights each other?

Could this recent case between Microsoft and Google have some bearing?

Google loses bid to overturn low-cost patent licenses to Microsoft

I think maybe. Avigilon may not make as much as it had hoped, and manufacturers may not have to pay as much as they thought, if some judge determines the technology is in wide enough use that an overly large (subjective) royalty should not have to be paid. And that's IF patent claims are validated to begin with.

I assume this is just a coincidence but today's announcement: SIA Supports Legislation to Crack Down on Patent Trolls

1. I'm not sure what SIA can do, though happy they are making a statement.

2. I know that the Linux community formed an organization where participating companies all donated their patents to a non-profit called the Open Invention Network, to allow all the other participating companies to use them. http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/

This was several years ago, so I don't know the current situation, but at the time, the goal was to level the playing field for smaller companies to be able to achieve the same 'cold war' status of non-suing that the larger companies with rich patent portfolios enjoy.

Otherwise, a strategy becomes patent what you can in the hope that you can indeed use it defensively. Or buy your own patents to cross-sue. Again, takes cash.

3. Just because you sell product doesn't mean you don't have a double roll as patent troll. IBM is well known for profiting from collecting patent royalties on products it doesn't make.

4. It's understandable that most of us who see most patent suits as anti-competitive are remaining anonymous here. If a company has shown they are willing to sue - why would we set ourselves or our companies on their radar in some way?

5. As to the commentor that defended Avigilon as prefering not to sue - of course. It's simply faster and less expensive for them to just collect royalties without the court battle, ie higher profits.

6. A patent being upheld previously does not make it valid. Companies make mistakes in their legal strategy, or choose a poor one. Nor does the fact that some companies find it cheaper and farless distracting to just pay the royalty.

7. Yes, typically the patent-holding companies go after the companies with significant enough revenues to earn them $$. But they must then weigh that against the odds of successful cross-suits. So much strategy involved even in target selection.

8. Patents have a place, but unfortunately they are heavily abused. I assume folks know that you cannot patent the combo of common technology A + common technology B. But the patent office is overwhelmed and these get through.

9. Avigilon can be expected to proceed as long as this is profitable for them.

10. I know of a situation years ago where the general community came forward en masse to help uncover 'prior art' to disallow the patent in the suit. Further, the community did call a boycott on the products of the suing company (which did sell a product in their area they were suing on). I don't know if the boycott took hold directly, but hurt the company image for sure. Prior to that the companies being sued got a bad rep. After that the same suing company was a pariah.

Never underestimate the pressure of maintaining a positive company image.

The worse situations I see is when the suing company sues the users of the technologies as well as the vendor suing them.

Manufacturers just need to simply do one thing- make it so their cameras recognize an avigilon system and refuse to operate with the avigilon system...in other words be uncooperative. If customers want to pay out the butt using avigilon software, they can pay out the butt for the cameras.

It can have serveral effects, but we know customers arent going to want to pay $$$$$$$ for avigilon cameras....so it could very well bite avigilon in the rear.

I must say, I am surprised by the asperity directed at Avigilon by many of these comments. IP assets have a defensive and offensive dimension. Both are legitimate. Innovation costs money. Patents protect that investment. Don’t like the way it works? Tell it to the PTO. They make the rules, not Avigilon.

In the meantime, Avigilon is doing what they think they must to drive their business. Which is not without risk, their decision to spend so much capital on IP assets may prove to not be a good one.

It strikes me as a tiny bit off base to call them trolls (they’re not), predicting they won’t be able to attract talent and making them the industry bad guy because they rolled up some IP and intend to monetize it.

I thought the comments on potential blowback showed good insight. Alleged infringers have options and in many cases leverage of their own to respond with. It’s up to Avigilon to strike the right balance with their customers. I don’t necessarily look forward to paying royalties to Avigilon either, but it’s all within the framework defined by the way business and government works.

There are ways for Avigilon to captalize on their patents without coming off like a rabid troll.

Forget about claims which are based on technologies already common place, e.g. motion detection, cross line and general meta-data capture.

Push to be the first to commercially implement new video analytic features.

Keep abreast of where competitors are in terms of their development.

Notify competitors, when appropriate, that their technology may be infringing on Avigilon's, preferably BEFORE roll-out.

Work with those competitors to insure licensing or non-infringement.

Done this way their revenue will slowly but surely begin to grow without excessive legal fees or negative repercussions.

It's the right way to do it.

Should Avigilon go after Nest/Dropcam/Google for infringement?

No one will prosper for very long with this kind of business model. Avigilon deserves what is rightfully theirs according to the law, but the industry as a whole will suffer from this approach to making money. Avigilon will be part of the disaster that has overtaken our country. The disaster that makes it possible to sue McDonalds because the coffee is hot. I thought Avigilon was trying to make a better camera system, to make it easier to use than any other system, to make it more affordable than any other system. Well, someone will do that while Avigilon is in court getting paid.

“Avigilon Patent Crisis”

Our VMS company, has maintained the highest standards in support of interoperability between camera manufactures and our software solutions. Within the past week, unmistakable evidence has established the fact that offensive actions are being taken by Avigilon in preparation for nefarious activities. The purpose of these actions can be none other than to place a legal noose around the security industry.

Upon receiving the first preliminary hard information of this nature last Wednesday, I directed our engineering team to remove all support for Avigilon cameras. And having now confirmed and completed our evaluation of the evidence and our decision on a course of action, this VMS company feels obliged to report this new crisis to you.

Update: Avigilon CFO at an investor's conference today mentioned details on rolling out the patent licensing / enforcement campaign. Said they were 'targeting' 5-7 companies at first, mainly smaller targets but perhaps one or 2 larger companies. Also, emphasized that people with licenses already (via OV) are still potential targets for other patents that Avigilon owns but that the existing licenser has not licensed.