RIM Loses NTP Case, To Pay $53 Million

theodp writes "A judge has ruled in favor of holding company NTP in its patent-infringement case against BlackBerry maker Research In Motion, awarding monetary damages and fees of $53.7 million and granting an injunction preventing RIM from making, using, or offering to sell handhelds, services or software in the U.S. until the date of expiration of NTP's patents, the latest of which is May 20, 2012. The court then stayed that injunction, pending an appeal by the Canadian company."

Comments

HOLY FUCK

[Anonymous Coward]

This means RIM is out of business. And I love my blackberry :(

Re:HOLY FUCK

[Microsofts slave]

Fortunantly no, this does not mean that RIM is out of business, and your beloved black berry will stay alive.

What this really means is that RIM will become a slave to NTP because they will put execcive licencing reqs. on RIM, and RIM will simply be bought out by an AMERICAN conglomerate.

I pity the fact that this amazing little canadian company that could is going to be kicked out of a major market, especially since it was offering a service that was unique. Despite the fact there were patents, no one was ever putting out a service based on those patents... exept RIM.

poor little canadian company.

Re:HOLY FUCK

[Anonymous Coward]

I pity the fact that this amazing little canadian company

Considering how crappy RIM has treated others with their patents, I have little sympanthy for them.

Re:HOLY FUCK

[jimbrewer]

I hope that RIM loses the appeal and that it does bury the company, though I have no personal grudge against it.

Then I hope that all of the corporations that have invested heavily in RIM's services will have to sit back and watch while their investment goes dark.

Then I would like to see them create a fake grassroots movement or a political action committee that aims to reform the patent processes before it happens to them.

Though I'm wary of large companies deciding the future of intellectual property law, I hope that they see that no-one wins in a nuclear arms race like this one where any yahoo with an idea can build the bomb that ... ahh, screw the metaphors.

Re:HOLY FUCK

[Anonymous Coward]

Next time you need a tinfoil hat, please consider buying one from me. You sound like you need a lot of them.

Re:HOLY FUCK

[Grishnakh]

Damn... I was hoping that, at the least, I wouldn't have to use this stupid Blackberry that I'm forced to wear for work, and which doesn't help me with my work at all.

So

[Anonymous Coward]

If you became employed by Research In Motion, would that be a RIM Job?

Re:So

[bigbadwlf]

Actually, a friend of mine (and former co-worker) did become employed by them, and is moving to Waterloo, ON.

Needless to say I've sent him the link to this story.
I hope he doesn't come back and tell me he's been laid off already.

Re:So

[oo7tushar]

...ha ha ha...we've been making this joke for 3 years...

Re:So

[CaptCanuk]

Actually, their recruitment literature is very specific in stating that they don't offer RIM Jobs. The free pen they gave out said it all: "RIM Careers". It's good to see marketing accounting for sexual innuendo.

Re:So

[kcbrown]

If you became employed by Research In Motion, would that be a RIM Job?

Erm, shouldn't there be a *RIM shot* somewhere in there?

Ahem, anyway, back to reading Slashdot...

Re:So

[lightsaber1]

yes, that's the big joke around university of waterloo (right beside RIM headquarters, they hire a good number of coop students).

I say this is garbage. If you actually read the patents that they're "infringing" on, they're very vague and simplistic. It would be impossible NOT to infringe on these patents with any sort of digital text messaging system.

Also, NTP has no intention of implementing any of this technology, after all, it's not what they do. Sure, a fine makes sense I suppose, NTP did get there first and perhaps they deserve to make some $$$ out of the deal, but an injunction??? Seems to me that the tech sector has been having enough trouble as it is lately, and any innovation that is actually useful would be welcomed. Or perhaps it's because it's a Canadian product...I dare not speculate that the U.S. would unfairly block a Canadian product *ahem* beef *ahem* soft-wood lumber *ahem*

It's companies like NTP that are keeping us from going places. Who was it that patented the conversation? Seems to me the patent laws need some serious review, not only in the U.S., but everywhere.

Re:So

[poot_rootbeer]

If you take a job at RIM after this ruling, there's no doubt that at the very least you're going to get bent over...

Re:So

[Anonymous Coward]

If you actually read the patents that they're "infringing" on, they're very vague and simplistic.

If they are vague then RIM's requested re-examination should invalidate the patents due to "indefiniteness"

If they are simplistic then re-examination should invalidate the patents due to obviousness or anticipation (anticipation in the sense that if the idea is so simple then someone had done it before)

It would be impossible NOT to infringe on these patents with any sort of digital text messaging system.

Ubiquity does not preclude patentability. Someone with a patent on a widespread technology should not be denied a patent just because their idea was very practical. (Again, if obvious or anticipated, which is the inherently possible in a patent covering a "widespread" technology then patent could very well be invalidated during re-examination)

Also, NTP has no intention of implementing any of this technology, after all, it's not what they do. Sure, a fine makes sense I suppose, NTP did get there first and perhaps they deserve to make some $$$ out of the deal, but an injunction???


Implementation is not a requirement of patent law. If it were then Microsoft, IBM or Exxon could drive the upstarts out of business and then infringe the upstarts' patents because the smaller companies were out of business and not making product.

If injunction occurs, then NTP gets no future royalties. Both sides will settle before injunction occurs (Judge almost always stays injunction pending appeal, so injunction was not going to happen now, issue is pushed back so no settlement on issue now).

Seems to me the patent laws need some serious review, not only in the U.S., but everywhere.

True, they could use some review (US federal court of appeals could do us all a favor by invalidating a few obvious business process patents if a case involving one of those ever reaches their door). But if legitimate patent rights are weakened then we will all be back in the 70's when US business was not investing in R&D at the rate that they have since then and you would see a lot more engineers unemployed than currently are.

Re:So

[Jucius Maximus]

"If you became employed by Research In Motion, would that be a RIM Job?"

Not too long ago, RIM had a big info/recruitment session at my university. They booked one of the nicer halls on campus and had a big talk with all kinds of food, refreshments, demos, etc. I even got a look at one of their in-development PDA devices.

I did apply for a couple of the jobs they posted, and shortly thereafter they cancelled all job postings. Something about company finances being tight. Go figure...

Re:So

[Jucius Maximus]

"yes, that's the big joke around university of waterloo (right beside RIM headquarters, they hire a good number of coop students)."

This is not surprising since RIM was founded by Waterloo students. One CS guy from my university (which competes heavily with Waterloo) got one of the first coop jobs ever at RIM where a non-waterloo student was hired. It wasn't surprising that he was mistaken for a waterloo student all the time.

Re:So

[lightsaber1]

I'm sure lots of companies are started by waterloo grads, not all of which hire coops...fortunately Mike Lazaridis decided to give quite a lot back to the university...that plus it's cheap labour what with the gov't paying half the salary :-)

Re:So

[Jucius Maximus]

" I'm sure lots of companies are started by waterloo grads, not all of which hire coops...fortunately Mike Lazaridis decided to give quite a lot back to the university...that plus it's cheap labour what with the gov't paying half the salary :-)"

I wasn't complaining or anything ;-) But the government does not pay half the salary. It's only 10%. But still if the student makes $16/h, the government pays $1.60 per hour and for a 4 month placement at 40h/week, that $1024 into RIM's pockets per student which ain't exactly chump change.

Re:So

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad somebody said it!

Back when they first came out I always had a problem with their products. I couldn't shake my perverted association of the word "rim", and when they named their portable device the "blackberry" it put me over the edge.

After all, the blacker the berries the sweeter the juice (as any fan of BET's ComicView will tell you)!

Re:So

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, most employers in the Waterloo region cash in on the Undergraduate Research awards, a grant from the Federal government which pays ~$4500. Spread aross 16 weeks at 35 hours/week is $8/hour. The employer essentially pays minimum wage for top quality labour (HAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHAAAAAA sorry I'm writing this from my coop job. Top quality labour, my ass. coop students are the laziest bastards, ever. Hahahahha. I love getting paid to Slashot. Thanks Canada!)

Re:So

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you referring to a Black Man's testicles, you raging homosexual nigger?

More info:

[westyvw]

http://www.workopolis.com/servlet/Content/fasttrac k/20030301/RNEWS-3?section=Technology

http://www.dieselnet.com/news/0106litex.html

http://washington.bizjournals.com/washington/sto ri es/2003/03/31/newscolumn7.html

http://www.nordicwirelesswatch.com/wireless/stor y. html?story_id=2654

Re:More info:

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, I wonder if people don't know how to use Google News?

Re:More info:

[the-build-chicken]

lmao...mod 4...fantastic

Lots of info...but nothing we couldn't figure out.

[James A. A. Joyce]

RIM said in a statement that it was gratified that the judge did not make the injunction take effect immediately. ...

"It doesn't do NTP any good to shut RIM down, because its business is based on licensing...we believe that RIM will settle at some nominal licensing rate and while we view this as a short-term negative...the long-term effects will be minimal."

In its earnings reports, RIM has been stating two sets of results, depending on the outcome of the infringement case. A negative ruling would bite into RIM's financial results."

It really does seem to me that the article is stating the obvious quite a bit here. Of course a ruling against a company's practice is going to reduce its financial results. Of course reasonable licensing will keep a company in business, and of course slight fluctuations in it will only have short-term effects. The only way this article would give you new information is if you were completely unfamiliar with the case. Is it just me or are the articles on "news.com.com" becoming more and more like fluff?

Lawsuit anyone?

[SoTuA]

This guys should get together with SCO... quite a showing of lawsuits going on!

I wonder how much of the suit was genuine infringement and how much SCO-like "derivative works" and "magical IP that gives me property over everything that touches it" whinning.

Buy existing stock!?

[__aatskl8715]

Would it be legal for a wireless company to sell their existing stock of blackberries? Either way, there's about to be an insane black(berry) market on eBay. Max

Re:Buy existing stock!?

[Vorgo]

and that would be useful how?

As a PDA and depending on the model, maybe a cellphone.

If the injuction goes through then you won't be able to wirelessly connect a blackberry to the network because there won't be the essential key to their operation... RIM.

Re:Buy existing stock!?

[shepd]

IANAL, but I'd say yes, CompUSA, etc can sell whatever they have on hand. The only company named in the injunction, afaik, is RIM. Which means RIM can't sell them to the US legally. I suppose if you aren't RIM, you could...

But, I might be wrong on that.

And yes, the market would be insane. As in, price drop from $500 to $5...

Re:Buy existing stock!?

[diersing]

I think the point is, your RIM mobile device, talking with your company's BlackBerry server is useless since the service (and underlying network) that takes the message from your mailbox to your Crackberry ain't gonna be there. Making the device nothing more then a cool, but useless belt accessory, even if its only $5.

Re:Buy existing stock!?

[johnny0101]

Making the device nothing more then a cool, but useless belt accessory, even if its only $5.

Useless until 2012 when RIM can legally operate again (because everyone will still be using blackberries in 2012 ;) )

Well

[Shaklee39]

This verdict is quite a blow to Research In Motion, but an injunction against RIM to stop selling the BlackBerry would be devastating. I have to agree with Balsillie in his assessment that an injunction of that magnitude would be unlikely. The US$23.1 million dollar settlement could also be overturned in February. After all, anything can happen in a jury trial, and it is really not until an appellate court gets the case that the legality of NTP's claim is truly measured.

I am sure that Handspring and Good Technology, companies that have felt RIM's legal wrath in the past, are happy to see RIM get a little taste of its own medicine. An interesting thing to note about NTP is that it has no commercial operations at all. It is simply a holding company that has the patents. Needless to say, owning and defending patents could easily be a source of revenue for a company. As it relates to this case it seems that type of business structure may be profitable.

Re:Well

[qoquaq]

I don't want to make toys ... I want to be a patent lawyer!

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

"Needless to say, owning and defending patents could easily be a source of revenue for a company."

I remember my father, who reads Fortune and Forbes, telling me of companies that do just that. I think there was also some coverage on /. earlier this year.

The one company (I forget names; I suck at names; hell, it took me 3 years to put fiber optics and lasers with JDS Uniphase) he was tellng me about--all they did was examine existing patents for loopholes, ways around the current patent, or something naturally extensible. They then patented that extension.

No lab. No research. It's all paper pushers. Mostly lawyers in the company, but also a fair number of tech/sci experts.

Re:Well

[mckeever]

NTP used to be fairly large and provided a number of lightweight computers to the educational market. A few years back, a friend of mine worked there when they had offices outside of Vancouver, BC near where MoLicell opened the first rechargeable lithium battery plant. At the time, I was living just down the road. Then they transferred him to Ireland and shortly afterwards closed up operations. (Hi Kaari - I know you're reading this...)

I don't know the extent of their claims or of their patent portfolio, but I do remember that they held quite an extensive patent collection in the handheld market. I agree that a judgment of that magnitude against RIM would be devastating for the Blackberry, but it might be warranted - who knows? Not you or I (small assumption about the reader, but probably not far off). Please also try to remember that both companies are canadian and that canadian patent laws likely differ greatly in key areas than their american counterparts.

Sucks that it's one canadian company suing another canadian company. This could be another case of the all-too-typical SCO-style litigation. Only time will tell.

Re:Well

[CyrusSukhia]

That's kind of interesting. If they're a holding company that doesn't actually do anything with there patents, then exactly what damages are being awarded?

Re:Well

[1010011010]

A whole company of parasites... yuck.

Re:Well

[TheBaker]

pricline.com related company Walker Digital for one....

Re:Well

[lightsaber1]

I am sure that Handspring and Good Technology, companies that have felt RIM's legal wrath in the past, are happy to see RIM get a little taste of its own medicine.

Except that RIM actually DEVELOPS their products...there's a difference imho, so it's not a taste of their own medicine...it's a whole new and not-so-flavourful medicine

Re:Well

[Lionel Hutts]

There are a few possibilities, but typically, a "fair" royalty rate on past sales and an injunction against new ones. You can, of course, then license the patent (and injunction) to the defendant for as much as you can agree on.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

interesting. how is that helping progress? patents like this should all be revoked. Makes you wonder why they lock up the guy from Raise the Fist and not these people. Who is really doing more harm to society?

Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd sure love to get a tossed salad in the employee cafeteria

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope that doesn't come with a Blackberry

Sweet!

[shepd]

RIM finally reaps what they sowed.

Re:Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. Its about time RIM got RIMmed.

Re:Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

should be a rim-job joke in here somewhere

Re:We have a patent on liberty

[Anonymous Coward]

You can always leave....

So, anyone got details on the patent involved?

[Burnon]

This sounds wild. The broad definition in the article seems like it could apply to pretty much any wireless technology these days, including cell phones and wi-fi systems. Why did Blackberry get singled out? Are most companies already licensing this patent or something like that?

Re:So, anyone got details on the patent involved?

[eyegone]

I'm wondering that myself. Wouldn't radio telegrams, like the ones sent from the Titanic in 1912, constitute prior art?

Re:So, anyone got details on the patent involved?

[Rares Marian]

Probably because they pulled the same stunt.

Re:So, anyone got details on the patent involved?

[Anonymous Coward]

Juicier target.

Re:So, anyone got details on the patent involved?

[JaredOfEuropa]

You seem to misunderstand how the patent system works (in the US especially). I am not too sure myself...

1) Almost any patent might be granted, even those to which prior art applies, or those that offer little or no innovative ideas. The only reason why you cannot patent, for instance, swinging sideways on a swing, is the fact that someone has beaten you to it (I kid you not).

2) Almost any patent, however bollocksy, can be profitably enforced if you can find a victim who does not have sufficiently deep pockets to defend themselves. Just aim for an out-of-court settlement

3) You can apparently enforce and profit from patents even if the defendant plans on actually fighting you in court, if it is clear that they violate the patent. The patent itself might be crap (as in this case), but it seems that the courts only assess the alledged violation of the patent, not the validity of the patent itself. Please correct me if I am wrong, but that is the impression I get, and it seems a big flaw in the system. If I am charged with patent violation, I should be able to challenge the patent itself. So... how does this actually work in the US?

Re:So, anyone got details on the patent involved?

[lairdb]

This is actually very cleanly structured, via a process called "reexamination". There's some info on the USPTO site about this, but the best in-context explanation I found (in a quick google) is here, where they discuss reexamination in the context of a complete challenge-and-response cycle.

Surprised

[PktLoss]

I think that recent conversations about patents and such talk about how foolish patents like this are: infringed on its patents covering the use of radio frequency wireless communications in e-mail systems.

I really dont think logical next steps should be patentable. I would like to patent using nano technology to make monitors as easy to read as print, or, using light below the visible spectrum to read optical information at even smaller wavelengths, or...

Besides, I think that RIM has really done a lot to immprove the state of communications in large corporations

Re:Surprised

[The Revolutionary]

Yes, but don't think for a minute that RIM is any less litigous or abusive of the patent and copyright systems than NTP; check out some of the links in the article.

However, I agree that this should not have been awarded a patent.

Given that we transmit data over wire, given that ability to transfer wirelessly what we previously transmitted over wire, given that email is data, and given that computer devices can be made small enough to fit in your hand, this is absolutely obvious.

Given all of these things, which NTP had nothing to do with the creation, development, or advanvement of, this extension is so blatantly obvious that it makes me sick.

It must be their karma coming back to haunt them

[Anonymous Coward]

Research in Motion's company nickname is "Lawsuits in Motion". Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Good luck on your appeal RIM, because you are really going to need it given your karma deficit. ....

top level??

[Anonymous Coward]

I have patented the process of setting up and running a company in the us. Now all must bow down before me.

Re:top level??

[Anonymous Coward]

I patented filing patents last week. You are all my bitchez now.

ALOHA

[Anonymous Coward]

So what's the difference between what is patented and the origial ALOHA radio network?

Re:ALOHA

[gagy]

The original aloha network is quite different actually.
The way the original ALOHA in hawaii worked was that clients with unidirectional antennas would talk to the "Menahune" or omnidirectional antenna in teh middle. The antenna in the middle was the hub. All the antennae around the middle could send signals at any time they pleased, but if two sent a signal at the same time, the hub wouldn't acknowledge which would mean they would need to resend (sort of like modern colissions with ethernet) This meant the packet sizes had to be made really small to minimize colissions. ALOHA also used DDCMP encoding, due to the mandatory header, so that each client could be identified at the HUB.

There was something called "slotted ALOHA" as well, this minimized colissions by having the antenna in the center send out a pulses. The clients could send only between the pulses. THis minimized colissions because one client couldn't interrupt another just as it was nearing the completion of a packet. You could still get colissions but they would be minimal. The slotted aloha system is still used to some degree with sattelite internet connections and seems to work fairly well. The reason this has to be used is that there is no way for one client antenna to know what another client is doing, unlike your run of the mill ethernet which can 'sense' all other carriers on the line, and therefore knows when to shut up so it doesn't interrupt someone elses signal.

ALOHA was the predecessor to WiFi and any other wireless technology back in the grandfather era.

Hope you enjoyed the history lesson :)

Re:ALOHA

[Anonymous Coward]

Stick the freaking antenna up your jacksy big Kahuna!

Re:ALOHA

[pavera]

Right,
but I think the patent basically is on "sending electronic messages wirelessly"
It is so hideously broad that it covers me sitting in my living room checking my email on WiFi on my laptop, and it would cover ALOHA if anyone ever used it to send messages (or in this case ALOHA would be prior art)

Ouch...

[l33t-gu3lph1t3]

+1 for irony here. Lawsuits-in-Motion gets bitten by the litigation bug themselves, with potentially business-crippling consequences. I fear for the contracts that RIM has with the US Federal Government...doesn't it have business relations with the Department of Defence?

Re:Ouch...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they do.

I have been working a patent for 3 years now

[wukie]

But my patent actually does something.

Email over wireless sounds WAY too broad to me. I hope RIM finds markets outside of the US where approval of patents on the grounds of "non-obvious" and "inventiveness" is much stricter.

While I consider RIM a competitor to what I'm doing, I wish them all the best, as they have some very fine products.

Okay, nice article.

[vidstudent]

Personally, to make it relevant to myself:

1. I have to get a handheld;
2. I would need to appreciate the coolness factor of uploading/downloading to and from a PDA with a wireless connection, when the computer's right there.

Yes, it's nice to investigate the technology, and there may be benefits if you're talking about downloading stuff from two or three different comptuers in the room. For the moment, though, this technology isn't useful enough to warrant my time, so the lawyers involved have my personal permission to haggle as long as their paychecks permit.

Re:Okay, nice article.

[ottawanker]

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't need the type of technology you mention either..

So, maybe that's why that isn't the technology that they offer. From their website:

Through the development of integrated hardware, software and services that support multiple wireless network standards, RIM provides platforms and solutions for seamless access to time-sensitive information including email, phone, SMS messaging, Internet and intranet-based applications. RIM technology also enables a broad array of third party developers and manufacturers to enhance their products and services with wireless connectivity. RIM's portfolio of award-winning products, services and embedded technologies are used by thousands of organizations around the world and include the BlackBerry(TM) wireless platform, the RIM Wireless Handheld(TM) product line, software development tools, radio-modems and software/hardware licensing agreements.

Re:Okay, nice article.

[Anonymous Coward]

As an example, my housemate has an iPaq, with bluetooth. He attaches the cradle to his work PC, and has it sitting next to him all the time there, synching and charging.

At home, he has a USB bluetooth dongle for synching wirelessly. Therefore he doesn't have to unplug and cart the cradle and cable home all the time (battery life is enough that daily charging at work covers him all the time).

Maybe he's just lazy though :)

Re:Okay, nice article.

[Anonymous Coward]

No one NEEDS any technology. But once you start using a blackberry you will be hopelessy addicted to it. You get your email from anywhere (quite helpful as a consultant on-site) and you can view wap-enabled web pages. Some of the higher end models even have a speaker built in for a cell phone which is damn good quality. They also work internationally if you get the gsm enabled model.

Re:Okay, nice article.

[lightsaber1]

1. You have no idea what a BlackBerry is, do you? 2. Just because YOU don't need it, doesn't mean it's useless. 3. That was an incredibly selfish thing to say.

USPTO: Asleep again.

[Tokerat]

I know, let's take another two innovative inventions and put them together in an obvious way, then we can all be rich!

I think I'll patent wireless car audio. Less messy hookup, easily swap your system out when it breaks/gets old, etc. Aside from some probable technical difficulties, once this comes out I'll be rich. I'll just sue.

Seriously, could this mean that I can't get mail on my cel phone anymore? Or is this specifically limited to devices designed to provide such a feature exclusively? (And wouldn't SMS pagers infringe, since that is a form of wireless electronic mesaging?)

Re:USPTO: Asleep again.

[evil9000]

true, but you dont even have to go that far. All you have to do is write down your idea, write some really abstract verses of how those 2 ideas will work, and thats a patent. Watchout world: you owe Tokerat money for that idea now.

Re:USPTO: Asleep again.

[willjohnson]

I think you've been beat to wireliss car audio. It's called radio.

Re:USPTO: Asleep again.

[Tokerat]

LOL. +1 Virtual Funny for you :-)

I'm talking about each of the components in the car, for example each speaker and the 100 disc changer in the trunk having a wireless (802.11/BlueTooth/Whatever) connection from the reciever. It'll never work, how will you power each component? AAs? Although...

<BRAINSTORM>

What a pain.

[ratfynk]

Innovation by litigation things are getting rediculous and the only people to profit from this nonsense are Lawyers.

Re:What a pain.

[scottj]

There is no innovation. It's purely litigation.

Re:Patent violations? Monetary damages?

[wukie]

Copyright is different.

in html

[SHEENmaster]

http://www.workopolis.com/servlet/Content/fasttrac k/20030301/RNEWS-3?section=Technology

http://www.dieselnet.com/news/0106litex.html

http://washington.bizjournals.com/washington/stori es/2003/03/31/newscolumn7.html

http://www.nordicwirelesswatch.com/wireless/story. html?story_id=2654

Oh Noooo I'm screwed...

[outofpaper]

I hope that my WiFi router dosn't get taken away. I use it for e-mail all the time and I realy, realy am scared by this patent. Will they be coming after all of us who use WiFi to check e-mail.

Re:Oh Noooo I'm screwed...

[canajin56]

Oh, don't worry, they also have patents on connecting a wireless receiver and a wireless transmitters to a computer bus of some sort, so as long as you have a WiFi card, you violate, regardless of what you use it for. They also have patents on transmitting and receiving WiFi signals, and on FM encoding. :D

Glad NTP won

[sharkey]

I was afraid my clocks would drift hopelessly.

Re:Glad NTP won

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you - I laughed out loud.

Someone mod parent up. (As funny you clods!)

Re:Glad NTP won

[Rhonwyn]

I'm glad you said that, because never in the article or in any of these comments do they say who NTP is. I still don't know if its Network Time Protocol, or someone else. You'd think a news site would know, both /. and news.com would know better.

Re:Glad NTP won

[sharkey]

You'd think a news site would know, both /. and news.com would know better.

I'm sorry, but the first part of your sentence and the last part are not related.

This is bogus.

[Vip]

Look at the patents at http://www.uspto.gov

None of them are anything beyond taking what is commonly done via hardware and adding the word "RF" in there.

They also own the patent on frequency modulation to send data.

NTP Inc btw readily admits that this is it's business model.

Vip

Re:This is bogus.

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus Christ, who mods this shit up?

Yeah dumbass, I'm looking at the patents on www.uspto.gov. And I see lots of them refer to things other than RF. Which of the millions of patents listed are you refering to?

Re:This is bogus.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.uspto.gov

Can't find the offending patents here? Maybe thats becuase the companies in question are Canadian... dumbass...

sure, they violated the patent

[73939133]

If the jury was asked whether RIM violated the patent, they probably made the right decision in saying that they did.

But that's because NTP's patent is ridiculous. Who are they going to go after next? TabletPC users who happen to use a wireless connection? People who read E-mail through a handheld connected to their cell phone?

RIM is right in having this patent re-examined. Now, I think RIM itself is a thoroughly disgusting company when it comes to stupid patents and that if this infringement claim holds up it would be poetic justice. But that is little satisfaction in the long term: if these kinds of patents hold up in court, it is bad for the industry.

Re:sure, they violated the patent

[Anonymous Coward]

" If the jury was asked whether RIM violated the patent, they probably made the right decision in saying that they did."

The whole point of having a jury trial is that THEY ARE NOT BOUND BY THE LAW! If they want to ignore the law they can. If they want to let a murderer go free beacause he killed the man who molested his child, they can. If they want to let a pot smoker go free because they think sending him to prison is pointless, they can. If they want to find against NTP for being ridiculous, they can.

Re:sure, they violated the patent

[RobinH]

Now, I think RIM itself is a thoroughly disgusting company when it comes to stupid patents and that if this infringement claim holds up it would be poetic justice.

There is a fundamental difference between RIM and NTP: RIM makes a product, NTP doesn't. Patents are supposed to give companies that make innovative products a short term monopoly because that encourages companies to innovate. I would say that RIM is doing what was intended, and NTP is not.

Re:sure, they violated the patent

[voop]

But that's because NTP's patent is ridiculous. Who are they going to go after next? TabletPC users who happen to use a wireless connection? People who read E-mail through a handheld connected to their cell phone?

I say they (NTP) should take on Sony-Ericsson next. My latest phone from them (a T68i, in case anyone is interrested) comes with tcp/ip, pop3 and smtp support. It can automatically check my email every some timeinterval and notify me if anything new arrived (as if it was an incomming SMS). Also, I can read and send emails directly from it, connecting to my regular ISP.

I would be surprised if other cell phone manufacturers did not do something similar? Is this not the same as what NTP is suing RIM over? And if not, where's the fine line between what the "Blackberry" does and what this phone does with respect to the email stuff?

As far as I can gather, if the patent is not "ridiculous" as suggested by the parent poster (but I do not have the qualifications to see if it is, in any legan sense, ridiculous), then there would be a lot of money to be made from suing/licensing to cell-phone-manufacturers....

Re:sure, they violated the patent

[73939133]

RIM makes a product, NTP doesn't.

The rewards of the patent should go to the people who invented the technology, not the people who happen to make a product. That is the intent of the patent system, and it is what is needed in order to encourage innovation. It is nice when inventor and manufacturer coincide, but they don't have to.

For example, a generic drug maker could make a patented drug tomorrow if they liked, but it's the original patent holder that paid the cost of developing the drug in the first place.

Unfortunately, in the public's mind, the manufacturer is often confused with the inventor: Microsoft, Apple, Palm, and other companies are getting far more credit for innovation than they actually deserve.

There are many things wrong with the patent system, and there are many things wrong with this particular patent. But there is nothing wrong with rewarding the inventors over the manufacturers.

Re:sure, they violated the patent

[Anonymous Coward]

The rewards of the patent should go to the people who invented the technology, not the people who happen to make a product

While that sounds nice. What happens when the person who invented it is not even the same company that holds it? They just bought it with a few hundred others. With only one intention, extortion. The orig company may have even MADE product with that stuff. But the new shell company just fires everyone and keeps the 'assests'. No this is not the way patents are ment to 'promote science'. This is just a way for someone to steal money.

When company X makes something. Then company Y steals the idea and starts making something about the same as comapny X. I say let X eat them alive. But when X is just some company that doesnt even make anything. But just sits on patents. I always root for Y...

Where I work we have thousands of these things. But we use them to tie people up in such legal muck they do not want to mess with us. Then we make THEM pay us ;)

Had one company swipe one of our products then 'patent' it. Luckly we a) had TONS of prior art, and b) they had NO clue what they were doing. We tore their claim apart line by line. Being software dudes we read things VERY carefully. They thought they were patenting the way we did something. They did not have enough brains to figure out how we had done something. But even that, their patent was a much more complex way to boot.

Re:sure, they violated the patent

[73939133]

What happens when the person who invented it is not even the same company that holds it? [...] But the new shell company just fires everyone and keeps the 'assests'. No this is not the way patents are ment to 'promote science'.

Sure it is: without the ability to buy and sell patents, and without the ability to hold patents without manufacturing something, patents would be worthless. In fact, they would be worse than worthless because then really only a few big companies could have them and could use them to exclude everybody else.

I mean, if I invent something and patent it and GM or Microsoft just start using my patent without paying, what do you want me to do? Devote my time to legal issues for the next decade? It makes sense in that case to sell the patent to an intellectual property company that is capable of actually pursuing GM or Microsoft.

Now, I don't particular like patents, and I like software patents even less. I think the patent system should be reformed to exclude software patents and to shorten the duration of many other patents. But the ability to trade in patents and the option of not making a product are essential; without them, the patent system would be even more broken than it already is.

Had one company swipe one of our products then 'patent' it. Luckly we a) had TONS of prior art, and b) they had NO clue what they were doing.

Well, and what they did might even have been justified: if you manufacture something and keep the process secret, you get no protection from the patent system, and you shouldn't. The whole point of patents is to get companies to disclose what they are doing publicy. If you don't disclose (through patenting or publication), you are at risk that someone else patents what you have already been doing. That, again, is the way a consistent patent system has to work.

Re:Surprised-Hindsight is 40/20

[Anonymous Coward]

"I really dont think logical next steps should be patentable."

Well was it obvious before all of this, or was it obvious in retrospect?

People sometimes confuse the two.

Acronymn Overloading = Bad!

[Raul654]

I can't stand it when people overload acronymns. It's a bad situation in a field when there are literally books of acronyms, but when you use NTP, I would surmise that the vast majority of people think the Network Time Protocol (which my advisor invented) as opposed to Non-Thermal Plasma. It's not acronymns I have anything against, it's just using the obscure ones that conflict with much better known ones.

Re:Acronymn Overloading = Bad!

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Back in the MacOS 7 days ATM for me could mean:
Automated Teller Machine
Asynch Transfer Mode
Adobe Type Manager

Now, pretty much the only ATM I need is the one that gives me cash. Much simpler.

Re:Lots of info...but nothing we couldn't figure o

[glwtta]

I was completely unfamiliar with the case... and I don't really want to know more about it than what was in the article.

originality

[SHEENmaster]

The whole idea behind the patent system was that you'd have a monopoly on your idea UNTIL someone improved it significantly. It seems to be ignored in technical patents where a portion of something is patented, and improvements are ignored.

Re:Surprised-Hindsight is 40/20

[Anonymous Coward]

Obvious beforehand.
Like short-wavelength scanning for greater accuracy, or even faster-than-light detection mechansims using quantum superposition. They're obvious applications of technology that's currently emerging.

Re:Patent violations? Monetary damages?

[Sloppy]

That's why it's 53.7 million, as opposed to $53700699.

(Sorry, folks. Just trying to help wear out the joke so it will die sooner.) (Actually, that tactic almost never works.)

The Result

[Anonymous Coward]

With RIM's pricing models in chaos, it means more money for NTP and less money for Blackberry's new features, service, and patches.

It was one of the only two phones that has a full keyboard, web browsing, and gets e-mail via server push (new mail wakes the phone instead of you manually checking). From various message boards, one could even say these two phones were the most robust, with the palm phones prone to frequent bugs, crashes, and data loss.

I'm glad I got the other one.. the Sidekick.

Prior art?

[xtal]

X.25 based ham radio bulletin boards have been in existance for a long, long time - including e-mail and text messaging in addition to binary file transfers. The patent issues seem pretty thin here.. does anyone have more information on their claim?

Re:Surprised-Hindsight is 40/20

[psxndc]

Isn't part of the patenting process determining its non-obvious-ness?

psxndc

You can't patent that.

[MickLinux]

You cannot patent that, because the price of a patent and the price of enforcing a patent has been set way above the assets that a normal person will be able to afford.

Nor can the company you work for patent it; if they do, they won't profit from it, because they will simply be sued for some cross-licensing issue.

Sorry, but patent barratry is a privilege reserved for the nobility: the pure legal attack firms.

I need not say it again, but I will: Patent law is inherently broken.

Lets drag this on even longer...

[Kremit]

While the remaining re-examination and appeal processes may take several years to complete...

Several years? Great. So in about 5 years there'll be a post on Slashdot with the title "Suit against RIMjob company some old Internet protocol is finally over"
[that is, if Slashdot becomes overrun with immature pre-teens in the next five years.... oh wait, what am I saying]

Re:Lets drag this on even longer...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and in the meantime, the lawyers continue to feed...

ridiculous

Patent Law

[Mark_MF-WN]

Patent law is thorny enough, but how bad must internation patent law be?

Incidentally, does anyone know if the US and Canada have automatic patents between them? Are patents in the US enforceable in Canada, and vice versa? You'd think so, what with the close trade ties and all.

Re:Patent Law

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Canada grants far fewer patents per 1000 applications than we do. Maybe they actually review them or something, but that would be silly.

Re:Patent Law

[toofanx]

Not just the U.S. and Canada, but virtually the whole wide world is governed by the Patent Cooperation Treaty . I know there are other treaties also, but I forgot their names.

Re:Patent Law

[WoTG]

I was under the impression that the patent treaties granted an automatic "reservation" for a patent, but no patent itself. This allows one to get "patent pending" type status in many countries at once without too much trouble. But before you can enforce any rights, you have to file all the paperwork (and pay the fees!) of each coutry in which you want to get a "real" patent.

I looked into this a few years ago, and there's a very good chance that I'm flat out wrong. Someone please correct me if I am.

I've got a direct link to the Patent Cooperation Treaty that someone else mentioned here. Unfortunately, it's in legalese and there's no FAQ. =)

Re:Patent Law

[Anonymous Coward]

You will note that it is a _treaty_. This means that countries are willing to honour a patent as long as it is patentable under their own patent system.

This is stop everyone from patenting the same invention in every single country.

However it does also mean that some treaties are not honoured in certain countries. eg: LZW.

This is because most countries say that you must apply for the patent before publishing the idea. Wheras the US allows applying for a patent some time after publishing it. These patents may not be honoured elsewhere.

This is why you will still find some inventions patented in several countries seperately by the same inventor.

Unfortunately it also encourages lax standards for search through prior art. As the least diligent patent office will attract more overseas patents. As those patents will most likely be honoured in other countries anyway.

Re:Patent Law

[angle_slam]

Incidentally, does anyone know if the US and Canada have automatic patents between them?

They don't.

Re:Patent Law

[angle_slam]

I was under the impression that the patent treaties granted an automatic "reservation" for a patent, but no patent itself.

When you file under the PCT, you don't get a patent in every country, you merely reserve a date and allow the patent to be brought into various other countries. Here is a PCT FAQ from a Canadian law firm. Here is another FAQ. And here is the WIPO FAQ about PCT.

oh no!

[twitter]

The whole idea behind the patent system was that you'd have a monopoly on your idea UNTIL someone improved it significantly

In Corporate America, patents improve you!

OK, I promise not to do that ever again.

NTP not obscure. NTP=No True Products.

[MickLinux]

Get with the times, man... it's going to be popping up more and more, because with our current set of laws (now to be enforced on a WTO level), there is free,legal theft, without risk available.

The only problem is that the thieves, if successful, will destroy the economy, resulting in feudalism and some level of starvation. But for them, if it occurs to them at all, I suspect that seems okay, since they're figuring that they'll have more assets and be able to buy the food.

Just be aware: they are wrong. It can't stop there. That is an instability cusp, if you will.

I don't want to portray these guys as all evil -- I'm sure that they have some good in them. And I am 100% sure that grace will prevail in one way or another. But by all means, don't go into this business, and encourage others to get out of it. This stuff is getting obvious. We've had things pretty good because there was honor in our business (God bless the sweat we bear); but if we choose theft and murder for whatever reason, then everything can and will come crashing down.

Compulsory licensing

[gad_zuki!]

This country is badly in need of compulsory patent licensing like they have in Europe. This isn't just important in the tech industry but in pharmecutical industry as well.

What really gets me about the RIM patents (and other wireless patents) is that there's nothing there. Any wired technology can be made wireless, its no biggie. Running out and getting a patent on "wireless email" is the equivalant of getting a patent out on progress.

In the end, this patent nonsense hurts the consumer and hurts business. I hope more cases like this keep happening to show the public, patent lawyers, and politicians that the "patent everything" mentality just doesn't work.

Re:Compulsory licensing

[harriet nyborg]

What really gets me about the RIM patents (and other wireless patents) is that there's nothing there.

well, if you don't read the patent it makes sense that you would conclude there's "nothing there."

here's a novel idea: let's take a look at the patent in question (US 5,625,670) and see what is actually says...

first, look at the filing history (on the first page of the patent)

This application is a Continuation application of U.S. Ser. No. 07/702,939, filed May 20, 1991, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,436,960; Ser. No. 07/702,938, filed May 20, 1991, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,479,472, and Ser. No. 08/247,466, filed May 23, 1994, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,938,611; which is a Continuation of U.S. Ser. No. 07/702,319, filed May 20, 1991 (now abandoned).

without having the text of the correspondence in front of me, it seems that this patent is the progeny of a series of patents filed earlier. more likely, what happened was that NTP realized their original claims were not being infringed and they needed to modify the patent in order to obtain claims which were being infringed.

this is the "trick" used to great success by lemmelson. file a fat application, watch what other people do, and then file a continuation application with some new claims covering this use. as long as there is support in the original application, this is perfectly legal under US law.

note that under current US law, the patent will expire 20 years after the earliest claimed date of priority - or may 20th 2011. (the application filed in 1994 might have an impact on this, but it's hard to say.)

next look at the amount of prior art which was cited. 14 prior art patents and 9 non-patent references. not much... which suggests there wasn't much prior art. Curis Kuntz, the primary examiner at the USPTO for this case, is no pushover - patents with his name on them usually are pretty solid - so let's give him the benefit of the doubt.

now, let's take a quick look at the claims.... of which there are 276.... the poor examiners... this is really abusive. a multiple warhead nuclear bomb... really hard to shoot down all of them. try reading 100 of them, and then try reading 100 more, and then try reading the last 76 and see if your head doesn't explode. remember that examiners don't get paid in 6 minute increments of an hour (as do attorneys) and have a limited amount of time to do their job...

i don't know which of these 276 claims were at issue in the case, but one can certainly feel sorry for RIM... it's hard to avoid a patent claim when new ones are being shot at you all the time... this may have had something to do with the judge not issuing an injunction.

it would probably be a fair assumption that the claim at issue - probabaly only one of the 276 - is valid and infringed.... NTP had all the information they needed from discovery to know what they needed to say... and they probably scoured the earth for prior art during the process... and they had unlimited time to craft just the claims they needed.

what stinks is that an applicant for patent can do this.

while there is no such thing as compulsory licensing in Europe - where on earth did you read this? - there are far stricter limits on the tricks you can play with adding new claims, or filing continutation applications.

a sensible reform of the US patent system would be to make the applicant stick to the original claims as filed... limit the number of claims to give the examiners a chance to properly do their jobs... and not to allow ex post facto modifications like this. if the applicant didn't claim it at the time of filing, then he or she shouldn't be able to claim it later.

congress - once again - is the problem. not the USPTO.

one thing is for certain, we americans do indeed have the best politicians money can buy!

Re:Compulsory licensing

[BobTheLawyer]

"there is no such thing as compulsory licensing in Europe - where on earth did you read this?"

you are wrong.

English law provides for compulsory licensing if certain (fairly wide) conditions are met after 3 years from the date a patent is granted. This has been the case for at least a hundred years. Most other EU member States have similar laws, and there is some limited EC law on the subject as well.

Re:Compulsory licensing

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish I could have read your post.

HOWEVER, WRITING ENTIRELY IN ONE CASE IS EXTREMELY ANNOYING, AND MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT TO BREAK UP SENTENCES WHEN READING!

Bah.

Why don't you leave off the punctuation as well?

Why not ignore spacing and paragraph breaks?

You don't, do you? The reason you don't is because you believe text should be READABLE. You want people to be able to concentrate on your content, and not deciphering presentation. Unfortunately, you think that capitalization has no bearing in readability. It does, however.

Re:Compulsory licensing

[Anonymous Coward]

moron

Re:Compulsory licensing

[harriet nyborg]

WHY DO YOU HATE WOMEN?

RIM is no better than NTP

[The Revolutionary]

Slashdot readers should understand that RIM is in no way less guilty of abusing the patent and copyright systems than is NTP. As seen in a link from the article, RIM has pursued similar measures against Good Technology, who, so far as I can tell, appear to be writing software for RIM's platforms which allows users to use the devices with Good Technology's competing services.

However, that doesn't mean that RIM, if they ultimately lose the appeal, will get what they deserve. Patenting a system of using wireless radio to transmit and receive email from a handheld device is a blatant abuse of the patent system.

Yes, perhaps 15-20 years ago it may not have been obvious.

However, given the introduction of small scale radio transmitters/receivers (er, which isn't exactly new), and powerful small scale electronics, it is absolutely obvious.

This is analogous to being awarded a patent for "a car which uses a 'gravity shield' to hover and propel itself along several feet above the surface", and then at some point in the future when a large scale and low power 'gravity shield' is invented (hah!), trying to enforce that patent.

A wireless network of handheld devices for email is an absolutely obvious application of existing technology. It was not even an "adaptation" of existing technology. It was just a matter of doing the obvious: 1) we transmit data which is email, 2) we wirelessly transmit data, 3) we have powerful electronic devices that can fit in the palm of one's hand, and it is obvious that 4) we can wirelessly transmit email to handheld devices.

5) be awarded patent on obvious combination of existing technology but fail to develop or implement it yourself
6) ???
7) Profit!

Re:RIM is no better than NTP

[rossjudson]

Read any number of scifi novels from the 60s, and you'll find instances of characters having messages waiting for them, in their space computers, sent to them from distant space-places.

Lots of good thinking in all of that space opera.

Screw Them

[cmacb]

I have no use for RIM. However a group of my friends convinced me to get the RIM pagers when they were bundled with Yahoo Instant Messaging a couple years ago. The pagers themselves were still outrageously expensive considering what they did. The service itself was spotty at best I spent more time twisting and turning and moving from one spot to another to actually receive a signal and about 1 message in 3 that I sent actually got anywhere. Since the monthly price for the service was better with the Yahoo version than with the standard RIM service (about a third I think) we all put up with the shoddy service.

But after only 6 months, RIM pre-announced that they would not be continuing their deal with Yahoo, and that our only option would be to discontinue the service or convert to the much more expensive RIM service (which actually didn't even have instant messaging at all!) This was a pure bait and switch deal as far as I was concerned.

The combination of 802.11 devices coming down in price as well as initiatives such as Verizon's putting wireless hot-spots at all the phone booths will obsolete this technology real fast.

If this puts them out of business, good riddance!

(Who ever said I don't hold a grudge?)

Re:Screw Them

[neillewis]

My local second hand shop always has a few Blackberries piled in the window, I can't believe businesses still fall for RIM's sales pitch.

Don't patents have to be original?

[aaaurgh]

Perhaps it's different in the U.S. but I recall a case maaaaany years ago in the U.K. where a patent was refused because the idea had previously been seen in a children's comic.

The idea was for an automatic cat flap that opened when the trained cat pressed on a pad. Apparently the patent office clerk either saw a similar design on his son's comic (The Beano or The Dandy, U.K. comics for the under ten) or spoke of it and the son brought the comic to his attention.

Either way, the patent was knocked back for not being an original work - the idea had been presented before, albeit as an act of fiction in a comic. I'm fairly sure this is genuine, it made the headlines (mumble) years ago "when ah were just a nippa".

Surely the same approach is used today in that, if an idea is already in general use, then it can't be an original work and therefore cannot be patented!?

Re:Don't patents have to be original?

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah. they have to be orignal, but i cannot remember the specific term for that. like if i wanted to patent sticking my dick up your ass, i couldn't since the british have a ton of prior art on that. oh, that's the term: prior art.

Re:Don't patents have to be original?

[BobTheLawyer]

in theory this is the approach in the US and most other countries.

In practice, the US patent office is totally out of control and accepts almost all the applications it receives. This, together with jury trials and the absence of a "loser pays" rule, rewards abusive patent applications and speculative litigation.

If the US doesn't get control of its patent system soon it's going to seriously affect the US's innovation and competitiveness.

Re:Don't patents have to be original?

[Anonymous Coward]

shame being a dick isnt original or youd be able to patent yourself, sounds like you already have your head up there anyway

Re:Don't patents have to be original?

[Artagel]

A reference has to enable a person of ordinary skill in the field to use the invention. Therefore, 20000 Leagues Under The Sea by Jules Verne is not enabling of nuclear powered submarines, and does not prevent patenting such. This is a case where the idea "it would be cool if..." doesn't have a solution in the field.

Not that patents are limited to that. Lifting one end of a widely used printing press used for printing large city newspapers sped up the process by a factor of 3. The invention was in figuring out that this simple action effectively transformed the machine.

Are the NTP patents in the third category, that is, once some bumpkin says "oh, it would be cool..." any old person working in the field could solve the problem? Ah, that's the 53+ million dollar question.

Re:Don't patents have to be original?

[Gallowglass]

I also remember reading years ago of a patent that was refused. (Sorry, I don't remember the jurisdiction.) The 'invention' was to deliver chemicals that form plastic foam when mixed together to the interior of sunken ships. When the chemicals mixed in the hold of the ship, the plastic foam would then lighten the ship (by pushing out the denser water) and allow the ship to float to the surface.

The patent was refused due to prior description. This was a Donald Duck comic book where Donald and his nephews pushed ping pong balls down long tubes into the hold of a sunken ship to float it to the top.

Like the parent of this, I wonder about the current patent system. I reely do!

Re:Don't patents have to be original?

[pacman on prozac]

Because the UK patent office has the sensible rule that you can only patent something that is novel in that its not obvious to a person well versed in the "state of the art".

Unfortunately I'm not sure how well this will play together with the upcoming EU laws on software patents, since there is no software function that is not obvious to a person who knows about IT, everything has been done or discussed before.

I hope the Eurocrats dont break our patent system, its one of the rare things that does work well in this country.

Re:Don't patents have to be original?

[God! Awful 2]

The idea was for an automatic cat flap that opened when the trained cat pressed on a pad. Apparently the patent office clerk either saw a similar design on his son's comic (The Beano or The Dandy, U.K. comics for the under ten) or spoke of it and the son brought the comic to his attention.

Damn... so much for my idea of patenting a Rube Goldberg device.

-a

Re:Don't patents have to be original?

[God! Awful 2]

If that's not an urban legend, I'll eat my mouse.

-a

Re:Don't patents have to be original?

[Anonymous Coward]

If that's not an urban legend, I'll eat my mouse.

Bon appetit.

http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/priorart/

Re:Don't patents have to be original?

[Gallowglass]

Don't think so. Today I went and Googled:

In this article on patents, it reads:

A famous example is the case of a method to recover sunken ships by filling them with buoyant bodies fed through a tube. This method was used in 1964 to recover the freighter Al-Kuwait from the bottom of the Persian Gulf. The Danish inventor Karl Kroeyer tried to get a patent for this method, but his patent application (amongst others, in the UK GB 1070600 and in the Netherlands NL 6514306) was rejected for lack of novelty. The prior art? In 1949 the Donald Duck story The Sunken Yacht (by Carl Barks) shows Donald and the nephews raising a ship by filling it with ping pong balls shoved through a tube. Since ping pong balls are buoyant bodies, and they were fed to the yacht through a tube, the Donald Duck episode was considered novelty-destroying prior art.

Re:Don't patents have to be original?

[God! Awful 2]

Alright. Fortunately, my mouse is of the mini-trackball variety and will go down in a single gulp.

-a

not patent infringement

[Anonymous Coward]

Hasn't the RIAA/MPAA/Government taught us ANYTHING?

It is NOT patent *infringement*. It is patent/intellectual property *THEFT*. It's no better than PIRATING..

To call this "patent infringement" is to not do honor to the hard work of patent attorneys and offices around the world!

Broad patents screw over innovation

[gotr00t]

Holding companies do nothing more than brainstorm very general ideas and then patent them, but the consumers get no benefit from an idea without a product. This is another example of how broad patents really don't benefit consumers.

I agree that a company that has designed and created a working implementaion of a product would be entitled to sue another company that has created the same product. However, in this partictular case, it seems that the company that is being sued is the one that has created a successful working implementation, and the only reason why NTP actually gets anything is the simple fact that they got to the very general idea first. The patenting of the very concept of wireless e-mail is just whacked.

This lawsuit is good only for one company: NTP, and terrible for RIM and the consumers. NTP is merely a holding company that creates no innovation, just hogs ideas before other companies who have intention to make a working implementation and create a functional product. The consumer market would be held back from a good product if RIM goes out of business, and the Blackberry may very well rise in price if they don't.

Patent holding companies

[Ogerman]

This particular use of patent holding companies should be outlawed. If someone wants to patent something, they should be required to actually make innovative use of the patent within a short amount of time. Otherwise, holding companies just become minefields for industry and encourage bogus patents such as this one -- where some unethical weasel files for hundreds of patents on obvious technologies and then just waits for someone to come along and bump into them. Absolutely disgusting.

Re:Patent holding companies

[werdna]

Otherwise, holding companies just become minefields for industry and encourage bogus patents such as this one

And your evidence of bogosity is what? Was the judge hoodwinked? Did RIM not have an opportunity (and awesome incentive) to make every argument available to them as to non-infringement and invalidity? Looks like all evidence, at least, of the claim being "bogus," is to the contrary.

-- where some unethical weasel files for hundreds of patents on obvious technologies and then just waits for someone to come along and bump into them. Absolutely disgusting.

Is it possible that someone just didn't want to pay a reasonable royalty for legitimately patented technology, on the theory that they were generating kazillions of dollars from their exploitation of it -- far more than the inventor had -- and could better survive the lawsuit?

What, exactly, is an individual inventor to do if he cannot partner with monied persons to state his claims? In this case, RIM was FAR from defensesless -- indeed they threw their weight around to make this case difficult as possible for the plaintiffs, and lost.

Sounds more like someone lost a bet than someone got taken for a ride. No doubt, there is a fair chance on appeal, plaintiffs win most trials, and about half of patent cases can be reversed on appeal (although that seems to have dropped off significantly of late).

But bogosity? Nonsense. A trial was held, for gosh sakes. RIM couldn't invalidate this patent, and couldn't engineer around it.

Re:Patent holding companies

[drakewyrm]

And we all know the US Judicial System never makes errors in judgement. (pun intended)

Re:Patent holding companies

[blastedtokyo]

In other words, if you're a small inventor and can't afford the legal fees to search out infringements and sue over it, you should just bend over.

Re:Patent holding companies

[werdna]

And we all know the US Judicial System never makes errors in judgement. (pun intended)

Certainly, they do. This is, after all, what the appellate courts are for. My observation is simply this: as between the findings of fact and law after an extensive trial at which both sides have , and your still unsupported and general claims that the lawsuit was bogus, all evidence indicates that it is the claim of bogosity that lacks substance.

As to the error in judgment you suggest by your link, it is significant to note that there was no judgment at all, no substantive determination on the merits in that case: the defendant pled guilty to the lesser charges.

Not quite

[Montreal Geek]

But their earnings just took a RIM shot. (Ack! I should be ashamed of myself). -- MA

Re:Lots of info...but nothing we couldn't figure o

[HunterCat]

I agree that the quality of the articles appears to be suffering in the race to get them out. On the merits of this case, did you notice that RIM's stock fell 3.16 or over 11% of its value. If the company does not right its ship, and quickly, they will not be around when the appeal is heard. MMORPG Fan? Click Here to try the new, Free, Everwars

I think the patent

[davidm25]

is a bit more focused that most people here think. I thought that it covered the idea of using store and forward technology and the like which is a bit more complex than just using IP to talk to a server wirelessly. And it should be noted that the inventor is an individual. He just hired a law firm (proobably on contigency) to enforce his patents.

Live by the sword, die by the sword...

[JohnA]

Don't forget that RIM is the same company that received a U.S. patent for "A hand-held electronic device with a keyboard optimized for use with the thumbs"

Just ask Adobe and Macromedia for a real world view of how ludicrous software patents have become.

Re:Live by the sword, die by the sword...

[BobTheLawyer]

to be fair, this may be an example of "defensive patenting" where companies protect themselves against future litigation by patenting absolutely everything they can. Criticise them if they start trying to enforce this, but not for applying for it.

Re:Live by the sword, die by the sword...

[RobinH]

Don't forget that RIM is the same company that received a U.S. patent for "A hand-held electronic device with a keyboard optimized for use with the thumbs"

Yes, but remember 2 things:

1) The keyboard was innovative, particularly for the time it was used.

2) RIM actually MAKES the darned thing, so at least they're using the patent system as intended.

Re:Live by the sword, die by the sword...

[Anonymous Coward]

Criticise them if they start trying to enforce this

They already did start enforcing it, they laid the smack down on Handspring for using a small, thumb-friendly keyboard.

New business plan, no joke

[Armbrust84]

This seems to be an emerging business plan, sue a company on shkay grounds, demand a licensing fee les than a strung out court case would cost, and... PROFIT!

It seems to be a new legal version of the old fight club formula, you know, cost of a reacall/lawsuit...

The patent isn't wireless email

[davidm25]

http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US05625670__ A very convoluted system for doing email over a page network. The best part is that all these patents are almost obsolete. Wireless IP is the only way to go for email these days IMNHO. I am sure Nokia, Qualcom, and the like have all the good patents on that:)

Oh, come on. Put up or shut up.

[werdna]

Please identify one claim of one of the patents-in-suit that you feel fits that category.

Re:when will the moderators learn...

[Mengoxon]

grow up! rim jobs can be given to the other sex.

Re:when will the moderators learn...

[HarryCallahan]

Yeah right, and when people make jokes about hairdressers giving head jobs that discriminates against hetrosexuals (or hairdressers?). And then you've got nail "technicians" giving hand jobs, discriminating against every teenage boy. Someone should mod you idiot.

Bad news for waterloo

[xRelisH]

Hopefully RIM can recover from this. U of Waterloo relies on quite a few donations from RIM, and a lot of students get co-op jobs ( and very good jobs at that ) at the company.
Hopefully this doesn't bring another round of layoffs.

Re:Bad news for waterloo

[xRelisH]

I'd have to disagree with co-op jobs. These days jobs are harder to come by. I know a lot of my friends have had great trouble getting jobs, and RIM has roughly 50 co-ops there at any given time. On top of that, a great percent of full-timers are Waterloo students.
The relationship between these two organizations ( RIM and U of Waterloo ) is symbiotic, and could seriously damage U of W.

If there is need for a prove...

[iamacat]

That the patent system is broken, one needs go no further. NTP, which never did any significant research itself (I think), trying to shut down the company that spent a tons of money making wireless e-mail practical. Hopefully it will attract attention of some Canandian politicians and induce them to put some strict limits on patents.

Re:If there is need for a prove...

[ottawanker]

Hopefully it will attract attention of some Canandian politicians and induce them to put some strict limits on patents.

I don't see how Canadian politicians could be induced to put strict limits on patents that are in effect in the USA. They might be able to put pressure on American politicians to do the same, but will it make a difference? Canadian politicians are busy pressuring American politicians about beef at the moment.

new T-shirt concept

[Anonymous Coward]

T-shirt with big bold letters "LEGALIZE IT" and in the back a picture of a blackberry.

Patent squatting

[xixax]

An interesting thing to note about NTP is that it has no commercial operations at all. It is simply a holding company that has the patents. Needless to say, owning and defending patents could easily be a source of revenue for a company. As it relates to this case it seems that type of business structure may be profitable.

The rise of these sorts of companies demonstrate that the current patent system no-longer meets the constitution's stated objective of encouraging innovation (which is why patents are supposed to exist). What we are getting now is a legislated monopoly.

Xix.

Re:Patent squatting

[blastedtokyo]

I'm no fan of overbroad patents, but it's a bit of blanket statment to say that it's halting innovation. If a skeleton company acquires patents and and tries to profit from it, it's just time shifting the intent of the original inventors. The fact that the original business couldn't stay alive is incidental. If the engineers didn't have the promise of patent protection, they might have never developed it in the first place.

Re:Patent squatting

[mekkab]

Thank you for tempering one of those overarching "this is whats wrong with the world today!" comments.

Re:Patent squatting

[Qzukk]

What do you want to bet that nobody had heard of these patents until RIM was sued? If the patents expire in 2012 (and that was the most recent one!) then they must have had some of these patents for almost a decade. Patents on handhelds? Is Palm next now that they got the little guy?

Patents may be a necessary evil, but using "lets hide until Company X has a thriving market then sue them for zillions" as a moneymaking plan is more evil than necessary.

Re:Patent squatting

[Eccles]

Perhaps it's bad as a blanket statement, but let's face it, 99% of the time the person being sued came up with the (not particularly original) idea with no knowledge of the original group and their patent. If you come up with a great, innovative idea and I like it and see how to market it, then licensing a patent makes sense. But anyone who just adds "on the internet" to patent a well-known and understood solution is just a leech and should get no reward.

Re:Patent squatting

[Anonymous Coward]

lets hide until Company X has a thriving market then sue them for zillions

Its not always lets hide.

Sometimes its: Lets spend $200,000 on an infringement activity investigation, prior art analysis, claim analysis etc. in order to get a comprehensive picture to present to investor's and contingent fee attorneys in order for them to make a determination whether its worth several million to pursue a lawsuit (forget about contacting any potential infringers about a negotiated license before you sue them, declaratory judgment provisions dictate that this is not commonly done).

If it is not worth it now to file suit then maybe changes in infringing activities or infringement case law precedents would make it worthwhile at a later date to file suit.

So its mostly an economically driven decision to sue and not really based upon "hiding" until Company A falls into the trap.

Company A could search patent classifications related to their industry in order to determine what lies in the patent landscape but rarely wishes to do so because of wilfull infringment exposure.

Re:Patent squatting

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. We live in an era where we can probably all wallpaper our houses with the number of "cease and desist" letters that companies send out. It costs them essentially nothing to state their claim to some particular IP.

"Gathering their case" and "studying their options" are just bullshit euphamisms for hiding out until the hook is good and deeply set before yanking the line tight and reeling them in.

If their intentions were other than to sue for damages, then we and RIM *would* have heard of this company in the past. Sure we might have done the typical slashdot patent dismissal thing, but at least we would have heard about it before it went to trial.

No matter how you cut it, companies that operate like NTP are all a bunch of cock-jockeys.

Re:Patent squatting

[kylemonger]

... but let's face it, 99% of the time the person being sued came up with the (not particularly original) idea with no knowledge of the original group and their patent.

Probably 100% of the time. Try reading a patent application sometime and see if you can understand what the $#?%! they're describing. If there is anything that fulfills Videodrome's promise of inducing a brain tumor in the viewer, it is patent applications.

Re:Patent squatting

[xixax]

I said the *rise* of these sorts of companies. Once is an accident, twice is a concidence, three times is enemy action. I do not see how companies such as NTP (who acquire patent portfolios at fire sales) can encourage innovation, and regard their viability as a serious concern.

The constitution gives a limited monopoly on inventions in order to encourage innovation and get innovations out into the community. If some were too inept or unlucky to make the most of this privilege, why should we carry the can?

Xix.

Re:Patent squatting

[X_5mil3]

Granting a monopoly is exactly what a patent is supposed to do. If you knew anything about intellectual property rights you might not post such garb. Your post was nothing but an emotionalists' ranting, spreading typical copyleft propaganda, intending to revoke the current and future property rights of creators. The whole premise of your rant was that because intellectual property rights--as with all property rights--grant a monopoly, said rights are evil. It is your premise and ideas that are responsible for stifling innovation and competition, not 'monopolistic' property rights.

Total BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents are one of the few things that independant inventors can use as a prop. Every year there are thousands of patents given to small time people, and although the percentage of patents given to those operating as individuals is declining, that is more easily attributed to more patents going into corporation folders and more individuals deciding to work for corps.

These holding companies and other that help small time inventors are a good way to turn your first patent into cash by selling or licensing them to a larger body that can prosecute with a pocket full of cash.

they patented the PDA!

[drakewyrm]

Has anybody else actually read (well, browsed) this thing? It describes any PalmPilot or Handspring (they come with email software) that has a cellular modem! Or any pager that can receive text.

Re:they patented the PDA!

[LemonYellow]

Or any laptop receiving email over a cellular modem or wireless LAN card, does it not?

Way to fuck over small timers

[Anonymous Coward]

Wonderful idea, ass muncher. Holding companies are a great way for small time inventors to make money off their inventions. They can, and many do, exclusively license out their patents to holding companies so they do not have to pay for litigation fees.

If you want to make positive changes, without fucking over individual inventors, have examiners look more critically at patents and return to the idea that a working implementation of the patent-in-waiting needs to be demonstratable before grant.

Proprietary Pish

[Anonymous Coward]

RIM dont have anything. They rant about how brilliant push email is yet to do this your blackberry has to sustain a 24/7 GPRS connection - continually pinging a server so it knows where and who it is. How this is better that using a standard RFC protocol such as pop or imap and checking at regular intervals I don't know.
And then they launch their consumer version, which is strongly denied by RIM to be Pull and Push because their whole "uniqueness" is push (put it pulls froms your pop account and pushes to you).

Its all a load of crock - the whole business model is based on hype, CEO masturbation and obfuscation. Why the RIM server cannot do pop or imap collection is pure cynicism - its not like there are hard protocols. But, as one of RIM's sales people informed me, its all about upselling.

In the UK an exchange licence for 5 users is 1200UKP. The RIM server is 2500UKP. So for 3700UKP plus hardware costs you cant have this wonderful push pish across a 100% proprietary set of protocols. A Rim guy tried to convince me that it wasnt propietary because they used triple DES encryption - thats like saying its not proprietary because we use ASCII. But your email is secure? Whats the point of securing your email from your mail server to your client when it was plain and dandy when it travelled around the internet to get to your mail server.

No thanks, Ill take my linux mail server with unlimited email accounts and free, proven software and a load of Sony Ericsson P800s set to check for mail every minute. Then I will tell everyone that its push (they will never know the difference).

(btw the 7230 blackberries are currently more expensive than the P800)

Sorry about the rant - just been through 3 days of trying to find out about blackberries for some customers that have fallen for the hype. Oddly all are US owned companies trading in the UK. With a bit of luck blackberries wont get much further.

Re:Proprietary Pish

[xjosh]

I run 2000 user (half mobile) enterprise email system and have 20+ Blackberry users over 2 continents so I have a little experience with mobile messaging and Blackberrys in particular.

They're actually not bad in an enterprise environment. The push email is much faster than polling, be it over GPRS or Mobitex. Your example of POP/IMAP with a 1 minute poll interval? Blackberry with BES is faster. Not cheaper, but faster.

Is it proprietary? Yes, much like the Exchange or Notes systems that most enterprises use anyway, like it or not. And the point of securing your email is not neccesarily securing internet email - my internal company email is secure all the way from handheld to handheld. I'm not concerned that someone can casually intercept private communications from my CEO's handheld that were intended for internal delivery.

Also, the Blackberry system with a BES is not like a standard POP setup. It's closer to IMAP but that's not even exact. The BES tracks the state of messages for registered users and allows for things like the forwarding of attachments that were never even downloaded to the handheld.

Getting a n00b user going with a Blackberry is incredibly easy. I have no problem handing my execs a handheld and knowing that they can use it very easily. On the other hand, I'd be crucified if I handed my CEO a P800 or similar device and expected them to use it successfully. Solutions such as your P800/POP combo may be fine for us propeller-heads (I use a T610 w/ PocketPC myself), but Blackberry works well for the typical enterprise luser.

Re:Proprietary Pish

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you have missed the point for using a blackberries (as has RIM). The real value is using them for secure access to an internal Domino or Exchange system. Also, nothing else comes close to being as easy to roll out to (idiot) users.

Re:Proprietary Pish

[sneakcjj]

In an enterprise setting, your email is sent clear text only to your BES server which should be within your secured network. After that, it is encrypted on your BES server with a 128bit security key that only YOUR LOCAL BES server and your handheld know.

Once the email is encrypted it is sent from the BES server, to RIM, to the network provider then to your handheld. The only place the email can be decrypted is the handheld.

So, unless you are using encryption on your imap/pop/smtp server the Blackberry is far more secure.

In your case, you would also not be able to remotely lock or erase the device if it were lost which is a really nice thing to have. I wouldn't want to be the one to tell my boss that I couldn't keep company info secure because I couldn't lock the device from my desk.

What a load of rubish

[jotaeleemeese]

You are deciding that because a company provided bad service to you then it is OK if they are brought down by one of the IP protection rackets that are becomming the more profitable, less productive "businesses" in the history of mankind.

Bad service a by a company that actually implemented something is bad. Broken patent law, judges and juries without a clue, and goverments intent in making things even worse are patently an uglier option.

Re:What a load of rubish

[cmacb]

Bad service, bait and switch, high prices, and

THIS

which sounded at least as bad as what is happening to them.

Re:Lots of info...but nothing we couldn't figure o

[SerpentMage]

This does not bod well for RIM.

The courts have stated that RIM infringed on some patents of ANOTHER company. RIM's business is built on having an almost exclusivity in a market. Now that their "IP" is with another company RIM is going to see competition. This does not bode well.

I said it once and will say it again. Patents SUCK... Imagine how much further we would be if there was free competition?

Motrin, anybody?

[drakewyrm]

Innovation by litigation is a lot like security by obscurity. Oxymorons, both, and financially profitable.

NTP Patent Nos + Attack Weakest member of the Herd

[skeeve22]

Its usual in cases like this for the weakest member of the herd to be singled out - as long as its worth suing.

With a high-profile case like this NTP now have leverage against larger companies, who rather than litigate will end up settling for a fee ($53mill + lawyers fees is a lot of licenses).

In practise of course this is just another example of the US Patent system gone barmy.

As one of the next posters has said 'logical steps' should not be patentable.

In fact this is one of the tenets of acquiring patents "The patent should not be obvious to those familiar with the domain".

Of course using an alternate transport for emails should not be patentable (otherwise there'd be patents for Copper, Fibre, Horse and Cart etc). I suspect that the actual patent would be a little more specific than that.

e.g. Patent 6,452,588 (RIM patent on Handheld Email Device) isn't really a patent on a Handheld Email Device - its a patent on a portable device whose keyboard has been optimised for thumb usage. (I'm surprised Psion never challenged that one)

Patent Nos. 5,625,670; 5,631,946; 5,819,172; 6,067,451 and 6,317,592

All of these are basically the same patent, with subtle enhancements (so subtle is difficult to see what the differences are!)

5,625,670 - looks to be the original transport 'patent' and should be overturnable. 5,625,670

63127592 - a quick look at this suggests that the originality of the patent is that the message will contain a tag indicating origination or destination on a wireless device.

Packet Radio

[AndroidCat]

In Canada in 1980, amateur packet radio used a CDMA method with random delay after collision. It did suffer from hidden transmitter problems, but the protocol did muddle through. (Not sure how well under high load.) Also they usually routed through Digipeters in high central places. Montreal had Mont Royal, not sure what they did in Ottawa.

Some friends turned their hobby into a company (You might recognize the little Mars skate-board in the lower right.)

Not sure how this relates to what the patents claim, but I suspect it probably involves some quibble ("Lemon fresh improved email"). RIM hasn't been very nice with their patents, but I had to see anyone nailed with these things.

Re:sure, they violated the patent--but wait!

[AndroidCat]

In patent hissy-fights, don't the lower courts tend to judge on basis of facts? ie. Did RIM violate the patent? Yes. And isn't it usually the higher courts that ask "Is this a really stupid patent or what?"

That way they could settle the facts before using the higher court's time.

Isn't this a little delayed?

[morganjharvey]

When I first heard abou the RIM devices, they were already pretty well known. This was about two or three years ago. Since then I've seen them become fairly wide spread. (look at the federal government)
It seems that in order to "actively enforce" a patent or copyright, you just have to wait until a desirable amount of royalties or licensing fees have been accrued before you defend your IP in court. As far as I can tell -- from their claims, at least -- my transmitting this message through slashdot violates their IP claims. (I might be wrong -- argue with me)

Technology Looks Superfluous Anyway

[fuzzybunny]

I have never touched, or even seen a Blackberry, so humor this as an honest question.

Can someone please explain to me how this is in any way superior to using any old phone (or a Bluetooth phone/PDA or even Treo) to check and send mail via GSM/GPRS? As an added bonus, for small sized message, you get direct phone-to-phone SMS...

Re:Technology Looks Superfluous Anyway

[MKalus]

Can someone please explain to me how this is in any way superior to using any old phone (or a Bluetooth phone/PDA or even Treo) to check and send mail via GSM/GPRS? As an added bonus, for small sized message, you get direct phone-to-phone SMS...

Certainly.

The main difference is that:

1. It sits on your Exchange (or Notes) Server.
2. It not only forwards the emails that you receive but also stores all the emails you sent back.
3. It allows for wireless calendar: So if you're not in the office but someone sends you a meeting request you can reply (or even book them remotely).

In essence, you take your email box with you.

What makes Blackberry so "nice"? The fact that it was around 5 years ago, while GPRS is still spotty. The old Blackberrys ran on the Mobitex (pager) network and thus worked anywhere where your pager would.

Now if that is good or bad is up to you to decide, but the one thing they do is offer a nice distraction in boring meetings.

Having said that: I currently live quite nicely without one, though I was told I am going to have to use one soon.

Re:Technology Looks Superfluous Anyway

[SuiteSisterMary]

Basically, it's because it's designed from the ground up to be a messaging device, rather than a phone with messaging bolted on.

Re:Technology Looks Superfluous Anyway

[Eustace Tilley]

Seeing one might make it obvious. Here's a picture. Note the screen size.

It's "always on." Mail is delivered to the handheld automatically, instead of check-retrieve. See the website for the list of benefits.

RIM is bloated.

[Anonymous Coward]

Good for the city or not, RIM is bloated and is due for another set of lay-offs.

Given the rumours of HP's desire to aquire RIM, there really doesn't seem to be any silver lining here--if RIM gets aquired by HP, there will be a blood-bath of layoffs (HP being the biggest Bangalore whore in North America--HP also has a history of leaving Canada flapping in the wind, they abandoned Waterloo years ago).

If RIM doesn't get acquired they just don't have the momentum to keep their bloated workforce. I work down the street from them and honestly I can't see why they have so many people.

And there are plenty of other co-op jobs in Waterloo, trust me. RIM isn't needed to keep that area alive and healthy.

Re:RIM is bloated.

[Anonymous Coward]

If HP buys RIM I would guess they buy what is known internally as BBOPS, I could also see IBM snatch up the manufacturing facility.

As for the research arm? I think they'll continue and probably become something like NTP.

As for another round of layoffs? I got caught in the round last year but people who are still there expect another one to follow sometime later this year, morale in this place has gone from sky high not two years ago to very very sour.

Too bad, RIM was a great company to work for at one point.

Re:We have a patent on liberty

[Anonymous Coward]

Or we could just bash in the skulls of miserable nazi pieces of shit like you.

Yes it is

[nuggz]

Yes it is, it's been an old joke since they were founded.
Also they're a good employer, people would graduate or be on coop, get a job from RIM, and joke how they just got a RIMjob.

Re:Lots of info...but nothing we couldn't figure o

[dnoyeb]

" I was completely unfamiliar with the case... and I don't really want to know more about it than what was in the article."

I think you mean

I was completely unfamiliar with the case... and I don't really want to know more about it than what was in the title of the article.

Re:NTP Patent Nos + Attack Weakest member of the H

[Ben Hutchings]

That patent is gobbledegook! At some point someone has gone through it and done a global search and replace of normal words into patentese:

• s/interface/one interface/g
• s/interfaces/at least one interface/g
• s/\(originating\|destination\) processor/one of the plurality of \1 processors/g
• s/\(originating\|destination\) processors/at least one of the plurality of \1 processors/g

The result is ungrammatical in many places ("...the at least one...". I think that should be reason enough to invalidate it. Can anyone submit such nonsense in good faith?

wprdddd

[Anonymous Coward]

Appeals are for if there was some vital piece of evidence which was not included in the original court case.

An appeal is there for miscarriages of justice, not just because you didn't like the result. Their appeal should be denied.

To you numbskulls out there...

[Anonymous Coward]

explain to me again how software patents help innovation again? I keep forgetting...

RIMs aren't only for email

[dstutz]

Some of you are saying these RIM devices are useless and who needs wireless email anyway, but you're missing the point that they can do a LOT more than that. RIM has (had?) an SDK available for free download on their website in the past so they obviously intended people to develop their own apps for these things. My company (IBM) is one of them. I don't use it as much now, but for at least a year I was depending on one of these things to support me as a technician in the field. Our whole service-call system runs on our RIMs and it saves soooo much time and headache. We receive, update and close calls with a few clicks/turns of the thumbwheel as well as filling out the form to send back to IBM detailing what happened (used for billing/parts tracking among other things). Without these, I would have to either call a human being or dial in with my laptop. Two things that aren't much fun when you're driving all over the place trying to get work done.

I was curious about what this settlement means to our use of these devices, but then I was reading through and saw how people think that RIM will most likely license the technology. Losing these things would suck for us techs.

Re:NTP Patent Nos + Attack Weakest member of the H

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean "Can anyone (at the PTO) ACCEPT this in good SANITY" ?

This is a pathetic excuse of patent abuse.
If you aren't even marketing your product when you patent it, I think it should be rejected out of hand.

Hmmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

> The rise of these sorts of companies [companies that do nothing but innovate] ... no longer encourages innovation? What a curious notion.

> What we are getting now is a legislated monopoly.
Ahem. That's exactly what the patent system was designed to do - give a limited, legislated monopoly to inventors.

Perhaps doing a little bit of research in the future would help you post more slightly informed rants.

Perhaps...

Now I understand...

[tigre]

Cases like this make me finally realize what is meant by "patently obvious". It means its as obvious and inevitable as patentable technology.

Bad Signal is not really RIMs fault...

[Vorgo]

If the signal sucked it was likely due to the wireless network, not the device. You have to realize that the RIM devices have their signal carried over standard pager or cellphone networks. So lack of signal would be largely be the fault of the quality of network in your area, not the device.

Through my company I've had the opportunity to use a couple different Blackberry models. Even in areas of fringe coverage (e.g. the middle of Lake Huron) I was still happily sending and recieving e-mail. I'll admit that in extreme fringe coverage sending and recieving is slow, but no messages were lost.

Injunction stayed

[Fjord]

RIm is still allowed to sell to the U.S. for now. The injunction has been stayed. I'd still sell my stock, tho.

Re:Lots of info...but nothing we couldn't figure o

[lightsaber1]

of course if you look at the last week or so it's gone UP over $9....what of a $3.16 loss? Actually, the gains have to do with rumours that they'll be bought out.

ba dum *ching*

[Heisenbug]

Uh, yeah, that was all ...

Re:Lots of info...but nothing we couldn't figure o

[lairdb]

Nope.

RIM's business is built on having a solution that works. The user doesn't have to "hotsync", "synchronize folders", "send outbox", "manage pending mail", "send and receive", blah blah blah user-actions-to-make-up-for-poor-design.

There's competition out the wazoo out there, from MS to Palm to Good to Danger -- they Just Don't Get It. (Or aren't willing to sweat the details, which amounts to the same thing when you come to market.) Imagine how much less far we'd be if well-designed solutions didn't win in the marketplace.

--Laird

(In any case, the NTP patents aren't on basic concepts, but (IIRC) on aspects of keyboard design. It would appear that the judge issues such a harsh injunction because of RIM's egregious violation and attitude.)

Re:NTP Patent Nos + Attack Weakest member of the H

[Aidtopia]

Not only are all of the patents substantially similar, but they have the same grammar and spelling errors in each patent. Perhaps Copy & Paste is the root problem with the patent system.

Re:Surprised-Hindsight is 40/20

[plalonde2]

Repeat after me: The patent office leaves this decision to the courts.

In the USA the little guy has *no* chance.

Re:Lots of info...but nothing we couldn't figure o

[Lionel Hutts]

It would appear that the judge issues such a harsh injunction because of RIM's egregious violation and attitude.

Don't be silly. You win a patent infringement suit on a still-alive patent, you get an injunction that says the defendant can't infringe that patent. Every single time.

Wireless Email Patent?

[Baron_Yam]

Without having RTFA, I gather the patent covers email sent via a wireless system.

I wonder if it's explicitly cellular, or if I am infringing on the patent when I recieve email over my WLAN?

The patents in question

[angle_slam]

According to this article, here are the patents in question:

• U.S. Patent 6,317,592
• U.S. Patent 6,067,451
• U.S. Patent 5,819,172
• U.S. Patent 5,631,946
• U.S. Patent 5,625,670

Each of the patent are very long with over 200 claims. One of them, in fact, has over 600 claims.

Don't blame the PTO

[angle_slam]

The court and the various attorneys looked at the patent very thoroughly and the jury still believed the patents were valid and infringed. If anything, a finding of patent validity validates the work of the PTO.

Re:sure, they violated the patent--but wait!

[angle_slam]

Actually the trial courts determine both validity and infringement.

this ruling will never stand

[voxlobster]

NTP's patent is for "wireless transmission of messages". There's way too much prior art for them to hold this patent. Eg. Radio, wireless telegraph...the entire electromagnetic spectrum essentially. The NTP patent effects almost every wireless communications device currently in use anywhere on the planet...

Re:this ruling will never stand

[angle_slam]

Why don't you try reading the patents first, before deciding that they cover merely the "wireless transmission of messages." You can find a link to the patents here.

Re:this ruling will never stand

[voxlobster]

done and done. "Electronic mail system with RF communications to mobile processors". Tell me how that's different from what I said. Wireless telegraph was considered an electronic messaging system, which traveled over RF, which could be send to multiple telegraph recievers...

Re:this ruling will never stand

[Anonymous Coward]

please read the claims, the title and/or abstract of a patent mean NOTHING legally

Re:NTP Patent Nos + Attack Weakest member of the H

[Jucius Maximus]

"The result is ungrammatical..."

I was about to take a cheap shot at you here, but my stupid spellchecker told me that 'ungrammatical' is actually a real word ... damn ungood spellcheckers ...

how crappy RIM has...

[qtp]

It should be an adverb.

Crappily, the word is crappily, as in

Although numerous patent infringement suits had quite crappily affected the market, the independent consultants, programmers and technology companies had no choice but to continue thier struggle.

or

The geeks at the pary danced quite crappily throughout the night.

Your explanation is Total BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Individual patent holders have no chance against a major corporation.

Money is king, because in a patent battle, you need money to defend, attack, and delay your opponent. Think 7 figures (That's US dollars, not Canadian).

Oops, so much for individual inventors.

Oh die already

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no response to the issue, so you attack the person.

"Dear Jesus, make him die..."

Re:sure, they violated the patent--but wait!

[AndroidCat]

So what do the higher courts do, just give them a second kick at the can?

Re:sure, they violated the patent--but wait!

[angle_slam]

They review the lower court's decision for errors.

Re:Lots of info...but nothing we couldn't figure o

[glwtta]

Not true, I had no idea who RIM are, but the fact that they make blackberries makes it mildly relevant for me.

Re:Lots of info...but nothing we couldn't figure o

[dnoyeb]

Well i though it rather strange that one should learn from an article more than the contents of an article...