Blackberry In Court Again Over Patents

uqbar writes "Looks like Research in Motion (RIM), the Canadian makers of the portable Blackberry email device, are back in court again. If patent holding company NTP wins their case, then RIM would be barred from selling Blackberry pagers in the US and would owe $54 million. Is this yet another case of overreaching patents gone amok?" We previously covered the original ruling in this case in August 2003.

Comments

overreaching?

[Mz6]

"Is this yet another case of overreaching patents gone amok?"

Nah, it's not like Microsoft has patented double-clicking or something... oh wait...

Re:overreaching?

[Kyouryuu]

It's purely conflict of interest. The U.S. Patent Office makes money with each patent it grants. Even the application fee alone is substantial. Therefore, there is no economic incentive for the Patent Office to deny patents, no matter how dubious they are. That's why they seem to pass through the system like diarrhea.

The irony is that now both parties and the judicial branch of the government will likely spend more money just sorting out the dilemma created by the greedy Patent Office's apathy. Not that the Patent Office cares. They already have their cash.

Re:overreaching?

[Mz6]

Wait a minute...

I have never filed for a patent before, so I am unsure of the exact process. However, I thought that fees associated with filing a patent were non-refunadable. Meaning that the USPTO will get their money whether or not the application is approved. Am I correct in this?

Re:overreaching?

[CharlieHedlin]

Ah, but if they have a reputation for granting, people will file more junk patents.

If they start rejectiong patents it would not take long for people to wise up and only file legitimate (define that how you would like) patents. Their income would fall rapidly.

Its amazing. Government is just like every company, species, etc. It grows as fast as it can given the enviroment. We need Libertarian pricipals so that we can check this, cutting fat inefficient agencies. This is just as predators check the rabit population.

Re:overreaching?

[TheGavster]

What we really need is massive fines for failed patent applications. If you had to sink say 10K into every frivolous attempt that you tried, I think there'd be a lot less of it.

Re:overreaching?

[Short Circuit]

I disagree. I think you should encourage people of heavy academic and practical training to become patent clerks.

I know it's a job I'd be interested in. Imagine seeing new ideas constantly flowing across your desk.

Re:overreaching?

[angle_slam]

Partially correct. There is a filing fee that is non-refundable, even if the application is rejected. However, there is also something called an Issue Fee, which is only charged once a patent is granted. In addition, there are Maintenance Fees, which are charged at 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years, in order to keep the patent from expiring.

Here is the full fee schedule. Fees of note: filing fee is $770. Issue fee is $1,330. Maintenance fees are $990, $2,090, and $3,220. There are also fees for publication ($300), filing an assignment ($40), for filing excess claims (more than 20), filing late responses to the patent office, and many more. In general, "small entities" pay half of the amount listed above, though there are exceptions.

Re:overreaching?

[Artifakt]

I don't usually nit-pick spelling, but this case was seriously funny. If we have to wait until a whole generation goes through school with libertarian principals to fix this, we're doomed. How about principles?

Re:overreaching?

[Anonymous Coward]

"people of heavy academic and practical training"

what the hell have you been smokin?

Re:overreaching?

[Anonymous Coward]

The CEO of NTP had this to say: "We're really going to lick rim in this case".

Re:overreaching?

[Sebby]

"Therefore, there is no economic incentive for the Patent Office to deny patents, no matter how dubious they are."

That's why I've been saying that the PTO should be sued everytime an invalid patent is found that caused financial loss to a defendant having to prove it invalid.

Re:overreaching?

[Short Circuit]

Hell. No.

That would keep me from ever applying for a patent. I've come up with a lot of neat ideas. When I tell someone who's been working in the field about them, I find out that, yeah, they've been doing that for years.

For example, at ten or eleven years old, I thought of storing video as only the differences between each frame. I'd never heard of it before, but it sounded like a good idea to me. Then I came to find out they've been doing that for a long time.

Or another example...I recently posted a journal entry about a roleplaying tool I want to write. Someone mentioned that that tool was pretty much a stripped-down MUD with some side features. I've never used a MUD before, and I'm not familiar with their features.

I'd also given thought about using interference between two inaudible waveforms to produce an audible signal. Well, we've seen that one posted on Slashdot.

I've about given up trying to come up with original ideas...someone else has already had them. And if you fine me for trying to patent something I think is original, it becomes completely uneconomical for me to try to come up with ideas for money.

Re:overreaching?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm looking through that, and have one question I can't quite figure out -- what's the definition of a "small entity"? Does that just mean (effectively) a company/person with less than $x revenues? Or am I way off base?

Re:overreaching?

[angle_slam]

The definition is at MPEP section 509.02. It includes, individuals, non-profits, and small businesses. And I believe the definition is dependent on the number of employees rather than revenue.

Re:overreaching?

[titzandkunt]

"That's why I've been saying that the PTO should be sued everytime an invalid patent is found that caused financial loss to a defendant having to prove it invalid."

And who's going to be funding the payouts which will result from such lawsuits?

Ker-ching! The American taxpayer, of course!

High five, genius.

T&K,

Re:overreaching?

[Sebby]

How about the money the PTO has been stealing from the tax payers by not doing their job in the first place.

Besides, I doubt after one or two they would keep granting bogus patents and maybe even start reviewing old ones once they realize they are a liability....

Re:overreaching?

[TheGavster]

The idea isn't to fine you for trying to patent something you think is original; the idea is to make you ask around to see if people already do it. Is it really that big a deal to make a two-second check to see if your idea is actually original?

Re:overreaching?

[johnny_sas]

That money's already being wasted in having to hold trials for bogus patents, Troll.

Re:overreaching?

[titzandkunt]

No troll, but I hadn't condidered the deterrent effect of being dragged into court and losing.

At the moment, the PTO can spew patents like it's going out of fashion, and the result is that some other guy gets to go to court to challenge the obviously dubious specimens.

If the situation were switched, so that the PTO stood a chance of being the one in court, it might be better. I still don't think it's a great idea, but right now I'm damned if I can think of a better one.

T&K.

Re:overreaching?

[CelloJake]

Exactly.

You could even have a collected database of unpatented prior art and existing patents that is available for searching.

Then upon submission, a computer could compare the information in the patent to existing patents and return a list of possible prior art or patents.

Once you receive the list, you would need to re-assert that your patent does not duplicate any of the items listed.

If after that, the human reviewer deems otherwise, it would be a strike against you. Fines would be appropriate after a significant amount of abuse, or possible just on steep slope of increasing fees for rejected patents which duplicate prior art or patents of which you were undeniably _informed_.

-Jacob

Re:overreaching?

[IWannaBeAnAC]

I think the problem you have is that serious inventors actually research the field beforehand. It avoids the embarrasment of thinking that no one else has thought of some basic idea you woke up with in the middle of the night.

Re:overreaching?

[vmircea]

I agree with this, if you don't grant patents to any random thing, then they will actually have to give patents for (hopefully) more valid products, and keep people from patenting things that should not be patented... but they are at an incentive to not do this...

Re:overreaching?

[Anonymous Coward]

You could even have a collected database of unpatented prior art and existing patents that is available for searching.

This would be the database of granted patents. The USPTO already searches this database. The problem is that such a search misses all the other prior art, particularly that which wasn't patented, for whatever reason.

There are also commercial companies that specialize in such databases and searchs. One example here.

a computer could compare the information in the patent to existing patents and return a list of possible prior art or patents

This is very difficult without full-blown natural language processing, computer vision (for the diagrams) and technical AI to understand the context. There are many, many, ways to describe the same idea in ways that seem different, even without a deliberate attempt at obfuscation. Everyone invents their own jargon. I'm afraid you're stuck with human beings for this task at the moment. (They're called patent examiners.)

Re:overreaching?

[pseudochaotic]

No, that was this guy.

Re:overreaching?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop patents altogether? Patents are, by definition, 20 year monopoly grants. They are so incompatible with free market ideals our glorious leader pay perennial lip service to, it's not funny anymore.

Re:overreaching?

[BeBoxer]

It's purely conflict of interest. The U.S. Patent Office makes money with each patent it grants. Even the application fee alone is substantial. Therefore, there is no economic incentive for the Patent Office to deny patents, no matter how dubious they are.

While I enjoy blaming the gubment as much as anybody, in this case I think you need to look at the lawyers. Who approves all the bogus and conflicting patents which lead to costly lawsuits? The USPTO. Who is the largest employer of intellectual property lawyers, according to the ABA? The USPTO. And who gets rich from the lawsuits? The lawyers. Coincidence? I don't think so.

The IP lawyers have basically managed to install themselves like little royalty who you have to tithe to in order to work in the software field. Because the sad fact is that software patents have basically made it illegal to write software without paying a lawyer to approve it, at least in the US. Hopefully we can keep getting away with it (until the lawyers get too greedy.)

Re:overreaching?

[Kyouryuu]

Yet they are present for a reason - as incentive for inventors to come up with new ideas and be able to make some money based on them. Or, at least that's what the original premise was. The problem today is that the big companies are using the system to patent every idea out there, thereby shooing the "little guy" out of the system.

And it is, as another poster said, also the effect of lawyers becoming so heavily involved. Like it or not, our world is increasingly run by lawyers and economists, who have formed a vast array of confusing jargon and rules only they can interpret. Much like the economists who play the stock market on emotional impulse and force it to become more erratic than it should be, IP lawyers have created a system so perplexing and so confusing that their role is necessary. They manufactured a niche for themselves. And guess who can afford them? Not the individiual inventors patents were supposed to prevent - rather, the big companies. And who can afford to pay the lawyer fees to interpret patents and defend patents? The big companies.

My friend, the patent system itself is not the problem. Its abuse is the problem. That why we need some seriously hardline people at the USPO to put a stop to frivilous patents and pay special attention to companies who try to get rich on patent portfolios and patenting everything under the sun. Alas, this simply won't happen because as I said before, the USPO is a profit-minded entity. To deny big corporations would be to deny their primary source of income. It's a very blatant conflict of interest, and if it weren't for the minor fact that virtually all members of the government sleep with the big corporations, something would have changed by now.

Re:overreaching?

[AaronGTurner]

" We need Libertarian pricipals so that we can check this, cutting fat inefficient agencies."

Or get them to do their job properly? Just because an agency is doing its job badly means you need to get rid of the agency, but it does mean you need to at least reform it. Replacing the USPTO with one or more private institutions might lead to less democratic control of the process and even more incentive to licence junk patents to ensure revenue. Government is neither uniquely efficient or inefficient, the same for private business. They are just different in character but subject to many of the same flaws.

Ideally I'd like to see the government intrude less and be smaller, but the alternative is sometimes a series of competing institutions with less individual credibility. Also a system of smaller institutions might be individually more efficient, but the overall system could be less efficient. (An analogy would be people moving a pile of rocks. Each person might be the most efficient an individual could be at moving a rock, but a cooperative system or monopoly might be more efficient as a whole. On the other hand with bad management of a rock moving gang it could also be dreadfully inefficient).

There's no ideal solution. It is a case of where you pitch the compromise.

Re:overreaching?

[AaronGTurner]

"You could even have a collected database of unpatented prior art and existing patents that is available for searching.

This would be the database of granted patents."

Quite how a database of granted patents can be a collection of unpatented prior art is beyond me...

Re:overreaching?

[AaronGTurner]

"a computer could compare the information in the patent to existing patents and return a list of possible prior art or patents

This is very difficult without full-blown natural language processing,"

This is true, but you can at least build a search engine based on the way words are used in context in patent literature to allow searches to be more effective than simple plain text searches. See papers by V. Hodge et. al.

Re:overreaching?

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose, but you might see a lot more new ideas that resemble: not having a clue othewise while using three lawyers, one or more cowed inventors, and two translators or a neural-net text editor, for rendering one examiner into textual oblivion.

Exiting models?

[MalaclypseTheYounger]

If BlackBerry loses this case, does that mean I can give back my BlackBerry that my job makes me carry around with me 24/7?

FreeEEEDOM!!!

Or better yet, maybe my Blackberry will have to meet a certain 'accidental' demise, and they will be unable to give me a new one due to this patent hearing.

Re:Exiting models?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you beleive that I once worked on a team where the members kicked and screamed to get a BlackBerry. Fences cause strange behaviors.

Re:Exiting models?

[gl4ss]

what does blackberry devices do?
just receive text messages or what? and what's the patent about

Haven't seen a real 'pager' in years(replaced by gsm phones)...

Re:Exiting models?

[servognome]

Reading the patents, they refer to a RF mobile device with a processor that sends/receives e-mail.

Re:Exiting models?

[afidel]

The blackberry is basically a limited PDA environment with build in cellular data service (and voice too on a couple of the really expensive models). How they ever got to be so popular I have no clue. We used them at IBM for dispatching calls to us field techs but the coverage was really poor and any PDA with a cellular addon would have been tons more usefull (like say for accessing map sites since we were driving to new locations every day). My only guess is that RIM/Cingular is able to make private networks for large customers that make them feel more secure then a general IP solution would.

Re:Exiting models?

[Stitch_626]

BlackBerrys are pretty much a combination of pager, cell phone, and a client that you can receive your email on. I don't know if you can browse the web or not.

They have a few of them at some of our other offices and I sure am glad they don't have them here.

Re:Exiting models?

[Anonymous Coward]

SMS isn't quite as reliable as regular pagers. I worked on an SMSC (SMS Computer) and there was once a delay in the system. The system ran on $12 million dollar computer and it couldn't keep up with the logrithmic increase in usage. The system just couldn't handle the load so started dropping the messages. Mind you it was running Oracle and you could query the database to determine the faults. The alogrithms were designed to drop messages based on some critria which I didn't understand. The system was only a year old and the vendor was called back to replace with a newer system costing about $14 million but was about 400% faster. It was only desinged to be a temporary repalcment for a year (this give you an indication of the popularity of SMS). SMS is just a newer technology not quit ready to replace the old pager -
1) currently you cant SMS somone across carriers
2) SMS can be dropped
3) SMS in no way private
4) SMS is in it's infancy - time will heal bad alogrithms.
5) SMS dosn't have one univerisal email address. Its @.com not something like @sms.org
6) SMS will not be the future. Web capable phones can already get Email without the hickups of the SMSC

AC

Re:Exiting models?

[Entropius]

I have a friend who's a clerk for a law firm in town. They make her carry one of those beasties around 24/7, and leave it on 24/7. If she turns it off, the Masters know about it.

They can even do GPS tracking with the things.

Incidentally, I can't think there's anything about this device that's patent-worthy. The use of a new networking technology (in this case DPMS or whatever the IP-over-cell-phone protocol is) to do the same old networking stuff isn't patentable, since it's such an obvious application.

The development of practical electrical generation and tramsmission methods is worthy of a patent.

So is running that electricity through a tungsten filament to produce light.

The subsequent development of the alkaline battery is, perhaps, patentable.

The combination of those alkaline batteries with an incandescant bulb to make a flashlight should not be patentable.

Re:Exiting models?

[jjjefff]

Yeah, and then they'll give you a handheld running Windows CE... Might wanna rethink this plan.

Re:Exiting models?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) currently you cant SMS somone across carriers

For most operators, yes indeed you can. You can even do it internationally. T-Mobile's been doing this for years, AT&T and Verizon have both recently announced international messaging. I routinely SMS people on Verizon and Cingular from my AT&T and T-Mobile phones, as well as people in the UK (Orange and O2.)

2) SMS can be dropped

This is true. Pagers, of course, suffer the same issues. You can lose pages simply by being out of range.

3) SMS in no way private

This is true. This is also true of pagers. Of course, the technology to snoop SMS messages isn't exactly readily available.

4) SMS is in it's infancy - time will heal bad alogrithms.

Right. Infancy. Sure. I don't know about you, but I was suffering from thumb cramps back in 1997, when I got my first ever mobile phone (from Britain's "one2one", since renamed T-Mobile, apparently.) I know a lot of US operators had one way paging for a long time, largely because US PCS/cellular operators are, for the most part, a bunch of backward hicks ("SIM cards? SIM cards? What's wrong with having to use one phone all the time?" - amazing how Verizon and Sprint PCS still insist on this despite having upgraded to a version of IS-95 that supports personal mobility. Whatever)

But SMS is not in its infancy. In many countries, people send more SMS messages than spend minutes on the phone. I've seen talk plans in Britain that are SMS-only!

5) SMS dosn't have one univerisal email address. Its @.com not something like @sms.org

This is a rather specific objection. SMS messages are tied to the PSTN phone network, so you'd expect them to have phone numbers rather than email addresses.

6) SMS will not be the future. Web capable phones can already get Email without the hickups of the SMSC

SMS is still the easiest and quickest way of sending a text message from a phone, and I suspect that'll remain the case for a while. It's zero-configuration, fairly reliable, uses the same addresses you use to talk to people on the same equipment they'd use to receive the messages, which is why it's taken off and all the email to SMS and vice versa gateways are, for the most part, under-used. email, in any case, would be wrong for an instant messaging system (which is what SMS is) given your phone would have to constantly poll an IMAP or POP3 server to receive messages in a timely manner.

No, SMS isn't the future. Neither will faxes, IPv4 addresses, oil, or HDTV. SMS is the present. Like all technologies, it'll be superceded, but right now there's nothing in place that will do that.

I know SMS has its faults. The 160 character limit probably being the chief offendor. But it's not as bad as you're suggesting, it's pretty mature (well, on GSM anyway), and it's extremely popular, far more popular than paging ever was. It's right there in your pocket, is usually instant (well, 2-5 seconds in my experience)

Welcome to 2004!

Re:Exiting models?

[mccrew]

How they ever got to be so popular I have no clue.

Simple, really. They do one thing, e-mail, and do it well. Very well. Better than anyone else. It is easy to use. They have the common use case down cold.

E-mail is the golden nugget. PDAs, even wirelessly enabled PDAs, are a dime a dozen. Heck, even cell phones are a commodity - cell providers have to give away the product in order to get people to buy the service.

Having a Blackberry will save you an hour a day. The competion is clunkier and harder to use. They don't call 'em "Crackberry" for nothing.

Re:Exiting models?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting comments coming from a RIM employee. Not exactly unbiased, are you?

Re:Exiting models?

[GreyPoopon]

I don't know if you can browse the web or not.

Yes, you can. But the blackberry has only limited functionality on the client device. The device has a browser, but the more complex things (like cookies) are implemented on a middleware server. Custom applications may also be implemented on the middleware server. No retail consumer would ever be interested in this device, but its ease of use and customization-capability makes it somewhat attractive to corporations.

Re:Exiting models?

[Anonymous Coward]

If she turns it off, the Masters know about it.

It just looks like she's out of range.

They can even do GPS tracking with the things.

No they can't.

Re:Exiting models?

[Techguy666]

Not entirely. Here's another link to the story (from the Toronto Star's business section):

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?p ag ename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1 086559808952&call_pageid=968350072197&col=96904886 3851

The most interesting quote is this:

"My guess is that rather than an injunction, NTP would rather have ongoing royalties," said Marc Kaufman, a patent lawyer with Nixon Peabody in Washington. "The time you really want an injunction is when you have a competing business.''

That means you not only keep your Blackberry, but RIM's gonna charge your company more for it to pay royalties to NTP... Which is going to increase your company's demand for a "Return On Investment" on these products... Which means you'll be called more often!

Re:Exiting models?

[Dr. Evil]

Yeah, RIM's product is the integration with the back end. A secure corporate email solution? There's only one out there. Nobody seems to be able to figure this out... it's so f*ing obvious. I thought RIM would have died years ago when Motorola started doing RIM-like devices and Palms began incorporating wireless. But both of them stuck to a fancy-email and text messaging cell-phone kind of business model rather than a "interfaces with your corporate mail server" business model.

RIM's R&D is moving at a snail's pace, I still expect they'll be scooped any day with better technology.

Re:Exiting models?

[Anonymous Coward]

I take it that you're with Cingular as a carrier (from the tail end of your comment)? The coverage issue should be taken up with them, as the blackberry phone is just that: a cell phone. If there's coverage it works great...if there's no coverage it sucks.

And newer models have a fairly robust http browser that can handle map sites.

Re:Exiting models?

[n6mod]

How they ever got to be so popular I have no clue.

New York City employees had some.
They kept working in Manhattan on 9/11.
Instant bulletproof reputation.

Really ticked off the palm.net guys, who are on the same network, but didn't benefit from the war stories.

Re:Exiting models?

[afidel]

We started with RIM's provider then moved to Cingular, both sucked. And this was for data network, we didn't have the luxury of phone service. Also it may be true that newer units can handle map sites but with the horrible speeds I was getting downloading text only sites before they wiped out the browser to make room for our corporate code I can't imagine what trying to grab a map would be like!

Re:Exiting models?

[Anonymous Coward]

what does blackberry devices do?

In short, it is your wireless connection to your corporate email. You recieve email on the device at the same time you would if you were in your office. You send mail from the device and it interfaces with your corporate mail. Other then the default signature attached to email sent from the device, no one knows you were using a wireless device, it is that seemlessly integrated into your existing email structure via a backend server. It also updates your calender and tasks in real time, meaning your secretary schedules you in for a phone conference tommorrow at noon using Outlook, seconds later, you get the appointment in your calender on your Blackberry. Delete an email on the Blackberry? It gets deleted in Outlook in real time (if you configure it that way). They also have the ability to open attachments included in email (xls, doc, pdf and some others)
A Blackberry can also browse the web and some models come with built in cellular phone and even a PTT function from the Nextel models. In fact our IT dept just got 5 new Nextel Blackberry's that include everything including the PTT. A gift from above for some, a nightmare to carry for others. I guess it depends on if you are salary or hourly. I've been using various models for some time now. I could go without it but it is convienent to have. We currently use TMobile for service so the coverage varies.
As odd as it seems, we still carry a pager when on call, plus we normally have a Nextel, and a Blackberry, couple that with my own cell phone and the Bat belt is full.

Re:Exiting models?

[dekeji]

Simple, really. They do one thing, e-mail, and do it well. Very well. Better than anyone else.

Danger's Hiptop also does e-mail really well, and it also does web browsing really well, and instant messaging, and it has a flat fee.

Smartphones like those from Palm also do e-mail really well.

The competion is clunkier and harder to use.

That's a matter of opinion, not fact. One thing that is not a matter of opinion, however, is that the competition is cheaper. And, unlike RIM, the competition hasn't sued other people over bogus patents either.

Re:Exiting models?

[bjb]

Agreed. I used to have a RIM 950 (the black C++ based pager type device) which I thought was great for E-mail. Not good for the PDA functionality, but good for email (though only in continental USA). Recently got upgraded to a 6280 (larger, gsm/gprs/triband) and it seems that the PDA functionality has been GREATLY improved. One nice thing is that if I make a change to my calendar either on the device or on Outlook at work, it updates the other end within a matter of seconds.

Still, I prefer my Palm T3 for general PDA functions, but I can't argue with a freebie from work ;-)

Re:Exiting models?

[Guppy06]

"Or better yet, maybe my Blackberry will have to meet a certain 'accidental' demise,"

Take they Mystery Men approach to accidental demises: "It fell down an elevator shaft... onto some bullets..."

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Same case, this is the appeal.

[JasonUCF]

The headline is a bit misleading. Today is RIM's day in court for hearing on its appeal to the August 2003 decision where they were effectively slapped around.

The Register and a few other newsies reported that RIM and NTP have tried to come to a royalty agreement, but so far have not budged.

You can bet as soon as RIM loses this appeal (likely), they will very quickly come up with a royalty agreement for NTP, and life will go on.

IANAL. I play one on slashdot.

Re:Same case, this is the appeal.

[happyfrogcow]

headline: "Blackberry In Court Again Over Patents"

lets analyze.

First word: Blackberry
Who is this article about? Blackberry.

Second+Third word: In Court
Where is Blackberry? In Court

Fourth word: Again
So they have been there before? Is this a continuation of the previous dispute? Yes and yes.

Fifth+Sixth word: Over Patents
Why was Blackberry in court again? Over Patents

Now, why was this misleading?

Re:Same case, this is the appeal.

[JasonUCF]

statement: "Now, why was this misleading?"

lets analyze.

Note I prefaced the term "misleading" with "a bit"

"a bit"
Defined as : A small portion, degree, or amount.

So if we were to rework your statement to reflect the original context in which I used it:

"Now, why was this a bit misleading?"

I would say because "In Court Again" implies that they left court the first time. The phrase "In Court Again" implies there is a new reason for them to be in court. The reality is they never left, this is a continuation of the original case. Not wholely misleading, but "A bit" just the same.

Thank you, drive thru please.

Re:Same case, this is the appeal.

[happyfrogcow]

I would say because "In Court Again" implies that they left court the first time.

They did. They are now in an appeals court. Sure, it's more or less the same topic, but a decision was made the first time they were in court. It's not like they are still waiting for that initial decision.

Re:Same case, this is the appeal.

[Anonymous Coward]

There a type of Slashdot poster that when caught making a mistake tries hard to redefine reality to eliminate the mistake. These people sounds pretty crazy after a few follow ups and would be better off saying they aren't perfect.

The phrase "In Court Again" implies there is a new reason for them to be in court. The reality is they never left, this is a continuation of the original case.

No. The phrase "in court" has a simple meaning. You've made up your own meaning, but that doesn't change the rest of the world. They are in court again. It's not a bit misleading. You say they have been in court for almost a year now. I've never heard anyone use "in court" that way.

You'll often hear that so and so was in court today. Does that mean the case only lasted one day?

It's a new business model...

[acariquara]

...suing your enemies into oblivion.

Wait, I think Microsoft got that patented, scratch that.

Re:It's a new business model...

[s4m7]

Wait, I think Microsoft got that patented, scratch that.

Microsoft may have the patent, but I thought they sold an exclusive license to SCO for this new "sue them into oblivion" technology.

In other news, MS has announced a fatal flaw in their "sue them into oblivion" technology, and will be releasing a service pack sometime in the next 90 days. seems in the current version you actuallly have to have a case.

Re:It's a new business model...

[jonbryce]

To be fair, I don't think Microsoft generally sue people over stupid things, with the possible exception of Lindows/Linspire.

Re:It's a new business model...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that and MikeRoweSoft.com.

Re:It's a new business model...

[Psymunn]

Oh that sounds like a case for prior art if i've ever heard one
"Ahem, microsoft, we, large corporate entity X, have been suing people into oblivion for years. Frankly, you stole our idea, and we're going to sue you over it"

Re:It's a new business model...

[Aumaden]

Ahem, MikeRoweSoft

Re:It's a new business model...

[owlstead]

That's normally the case when you are the vilain.

Re:It's a new business model...

[Grizzlysmit]

Wait, I think Microsoft got that patented, scratch that.

Microsoft may have the patent, but I thought they sold an exclusive license to SCO for this new "sue them into oblivion" technology.

In other news, MS has announced a fatal flaw in their "sue them into oblivion" technology, and will be releasing a service pack sometime in the next 90 days. seems in the current version you actuallly have to have a case.

nah SCO are using the other version, the sue you're self into oblivion version, just wait a little longer and you'll see. I believe the M$ code word for this product is suicide. :-P

Re:It's a new business model...

[dekeji]

For all the annoying and illegal business practices Microsoft engages in, to my knowledge, Microsoft hasn't had any big cases where Microsoft sued other people over stupid patents. After so long being on the receiving end of such lawsuits, they may start, but you really can't use them as a poster boy for a broken patent system.

Prior Art

[PktLoss]

It seems like the court case should have waited pending an end to the resolution of the US Patent Offices' re-examination of the patents in question. The whole thing becomes a non-issue if the patents are thrown out.

CEO's response

[Anonymous Coward]

The CEO of NTP had this to say: "We're really going to lick rim in this case".

Operation Hammertime

Re:CEO's response

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Waterloo graduate, I know many people who applied for "RIM jobs" upon graduation.

Re:CEO's response

[Anonymous Coward]

... just as a recent grad toured the RIM facility and gushed over the potential of working there ...

"Man, I'd love a rim job."

Re:CEO's response

[Anonymous Coward]

WATER WATER WATER

Re:CEO's response

[Anonymous Coward]

LOO LOO LOO

Re:CEO's response

[endx7]

CEO of Network Time Protocol?....what?

Re:CEO's response

[IWannaBeAnAC]

Ok, for the benefit of the people who have never heard that slang usage of "rim", can you explain what it means? Is it a blowjob?

Re:CEO's response

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not a blowjob. You don't want to know what it is. Trust me. Once you do, you'll hope that RIM will go out of business just to get that disgusting image out of the headlines.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Does anyone

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I do- does this cover my use of my private pager to keep track of network outages at my house? (pager is numeric only- usage is a self-written monitoring program that checks LAN and WAN pings, incoming e-mail, and caller ID and sends numerically coded messages through dialup of a standard Winmodem). I kind of doubt it- but the article doesn't seem to include ANY hint of what the patents do and do not cover.

blackberry whine

[DoctorDeath]

The article I read stated that the US govt. issued blackberries to key employees after 9/11. The idea was that since the cell phones were tied up then key people could communicate by email over the blackberry. Only it seems most of them were being used for online dating. Hmmm, sounds like maybe they are needed after all.

hmm..

[Anonymous Coward]

All your blackberry are belong to us!!

buhahahahah

China is where its at

[Anonymous Coward]

but with 3year old tech, Blackberry would have a tough time competing against S.Korea/Japan

Freedom...

[hitech69]

Didn't someone once say that "freedom is just another word for having nothing else to lose". Hmmm... don't think America is very free anymore, and the patent system is not only wasting the industries time, it's wasting the justice system's time dealing with all these bogus court cases. What really scares me if one of these looney judges rules in favor of upholding these vague patent claims.

Re:Freedom...

[DoctorDeath]

NTP is a company that makes nothing. It only exists to hold patents.

Re:Freedom...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

By that standard, America hasn't been free since we all bought homes during the 1990s boom and are now tied to things like mortgage payments, for which we need work, and work ties us to our blackberries; that's got to be the most convoluted link back to the original topic that I've ever posted.

Re:Freedom...

[picklepuss]

Actually those are lyrics from "Me and Bobby McGee" by Kris Kristopherson. It was first popularized by Roger Miller in 1969 (#12 Country hit) and later appeared on the 1971 album "Pearl" by Janis Joplin

lyrics and info

Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose
Nothin' don't mean nothin' hon' if it ain't free, no no

Re:Freedom...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortify your home, arm yourself, and stop paying your mortgage. The first few hundred to do this might have trouble, granted, but if everyone does it, buh-bye banks!

I guess this means...

[Anonymous Coward]

No more RIM jobs. * SIGH *

Re:I guess this means...

[Anonymous Coward]

oh that was fucking brilliant! never heard that one before....twit

Re:I guess this means...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear it every day during the fun, fun co-op time.

Re:I guess this means...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it was brilliant because I was the first one to say it (3:33PM check the time I posted). I guess it was funny enough to be repeated twice already so lighten up. If you didn't think it was funny try posting something that is and let the moderators decide.

Re:I guess this means...

[Anonymous Coward]

if you follow the link to the previous /. coverage of the NTP vs. RIM case, you'll see the same comments, so no you were not the first and it was not brilliant. Obviously you work for the patent office.

Re:I guess this means...

[Anonymous Coward]

New story, new thread. Not everyone reads every comment of every article posted everyday. I'm sure the recycled stories that appear on slashdot were new to the people posting them. Like I said, if you didn't find it amusing why don't you post something that is?

Should be a time limitation!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this kind of delayed lawsuits even permitted? If someone is infringing on your patent(s) it should be your right and DUTY to enforce your patent immediately. These guys instead wait, let the infringer spend money and make money, and THEN they sue for larger amounts than would otherwise have been sensible.

Are we to believe they hadn't heard of the Blackberry until recently? Ludicrous!

Re:Should be a time limitation!

[millahtime]

Why is this kind of delayed lawsuits even permitted?

It's simple. They are allowed because they make lawyers and the court system a lot of money.

Re:Should be a time limitation!

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, there is limit to when a patent can no longer be enforced. Therefore, they very well could have waited until they developed, released, and profited from this device to sue for more money. This is the USA of course.

Re:Should be a time limitation!

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of times the little guy could spend years trying to persuade others to back costly litigation against a giant for patent infringement.

A lot of times the backers are not interested until the infringing activity constitutes a significant market.

Its not like an individual or small company can wake up one day and decide "Oh, I'll go down to the federal courthouse today and sue MegaCorp".

Re:Should be a time limitation!

[angle_slam]

There is a limit. 35 U.S.C. 286 sets a time limit on damages such that "no recovery shall be had for any infringement committed more than six years prior to the filing of the complaint or counterclaim for infringement in the action."

Re:Should be a time limitation!

[Artifakt]

There ARE certain limits to the time fileing an action can be delayed in the US (Note: I Am Not A Lawyer). However these times are long for the present situation. Normally, it is possible to dismiss a claim if the filer waited over six years from when they knew about the infringment. Even that rule is limited by other factors, such as whether there is also criminal and not just civil misconduct involved. I'ts not automatic either, a judge still has to decide it applies.
A lot of the precidents in cases such as this go back to a time when the fastest means of notifying someone was horse and rider. Six years doesn't sound so long when messages might take six weeks each way. It was once routine for attempts to settle out of court to take over a year on correspondance alone, regardless of the time spent actually negotiating.

Re:Should be a time limitation!

[Anonymous Coward]

in other words, US intellectual property laws need updating to address rapidly changing industries

Re:Should be a time limitation!

[Anonymous Coward]

They tried to contact RIM once they realized there was an infringement. RIM never replied to their letter. Takes a little while to get your lawyers prepared for an upcoming big fight with someone who obviously is going to resist greatly instead of saying, "yeah, you're right we have accidently infringed upon your patent...what do you want to license?"

Re:Should be a time limitation!

[introverted]

Why is this kind of delayed lawsuits even permitted?...Are we to believe they hadn't heard of the Blackberry until recently?

This is not a delayed lawsuit. This is the hearing on an appeal.

According to the article, the original infringment suit was filed in 2001. At that time, Blackberry was only beginning to see widespread use.

Re:Should be a time limitation!

[HuevosGrandes]

Ludicrous Ludicrous Ludicrous Ludicrous Ludicrous Ludicrous.. say it five times fast.. bet you can't.. thank god for command-c/v or writing it would be hard too...

What goes around comes around

[augustz]

RIM has sued tons of companies on patent infrigment (they patented every little thing they could). For example.

Research In Motion, makers of the RIM Blackberry smart pager, has filed suit against Handspring alleging that Handspring's Treo communicators violate one of their patents. Specifically, RIM claims to have a patent on the curved keyboard layout used by three of the four Treo devices (the Treo 180g uses Graffiti character recognition instead) as well as on the rounded buttons. No information is available regarding what damages RIM is seeking.

So I have a bit less sympathy for them. What goes around comes around.

Re:What goes around comes around

[javatips]

I feel the same way... I'm canadian and I like it when canadian companies are successful. However, when the company is abusing the patent system, then I will not drop a single tear if they become the abused party.

I also do not care very much for a company that sell product that are overpriced and who did not innovate very much since the launch of their first product.

Re:What goes around comes around

[happyfrogcow]

curved keyboard layout?! how innnnnovative!

[the above should be read with a heavy english accent, to visions of a co-worker being humorously pummeled over the head with such a keyboard]

i can only imagine what this specific lawsuit is about. Displaying "emoticons" on a limited resource computing device? Brilliant!

fscking fsckers.

Re:What goes around comes around

[shepd]

>RIM has sued tons of companies on patent infrigment (they patented every little thing they could).

Yup. That's how they got the nickname, "Lawsuits in Motion". Let's not forget about RIM Park, which they managed to weasel their name on to despite the city's population having to pay an additional $35.26 tax (5.47% of taxes overall) just to cover the city's funding of the park. Can someone explain to me how you can get your name on a park without either paying for the whole thing, or being a dead celebrity?

Re:What goes around comes around

[djeaux]

Live by the sword, die by the sword. I guess PalmOne needs to countersue RIM for the form factor itself. IIRC, the original PalmPilot was pitched based entirely on a wooden mock-up of the form factor...

Re:What goes around comes around

[Anonymous Coward]

At least handspring made a product. Does NTP have a product? Can you find NTP on the Internet? Didn't think so.

Re:What goes around comes around

[Anonymous Coward]

For it be there nickname, other people have to use it not just you.

Re:What goes around comes around

[Anonymous Coward]

RIM Park has nothing to do to RIM. The city of Waterloo got screwed over by the same contractors that screwed over Windsor and Toronto around the same time. Bidding super low on big municipal projects and billing 5-10x the amount. Why the cities don't communicate and let the same company screw everybody over no one knows. Oh, maybe Mike Harris knows...

Re:What goes around comes around

[Anonymous Coward]

The CEO of NTP had this to say: "We're really going to lick rim in this case."

Re:What goes around comes around

[lightsaber1]

In defence of RIM, there are differences here: 1) RIM actually produced the thing...NTP produces nothing. 2) RIM's patent isn't nearly as broad as NTP's.

RIM (specifically Mike Lazaridis) put a lot of effort into perfecting that keyboard for thumb typing and it is what the blackberry was built around. So yes, there was a lot of innovation there. It seems simple now, but at the time, it was a novel idea.

Of course, I may be biased here because RIM was founded and is based right beside where I go to school (U of Waterloo), and they contribute a lot to and hire a lot of students from said school.

Re:What goes around comes around

[shepd]

>RIM Park has nothing to do to RIM.

Yes, it most certainly does. RIM offered to donate money to the city in exchange for the city building a park in their name. Not all that complex, really.

>The city of Waterloo got screwed over by the same contractors that screwed over Windsor and Toronto around the same time. Bidding super low on big municipal projects and billing 5-10x the amount. Why the cities don't communicate and let the same company screw everybody over no one knows.

I'm not mentioning the scandal. Two wrongs don't make a right.

The fact is that RIM donated money to the city to get a park built in their name, and now the city's residents are having to pay for it.

Perhaps I'm bitter, but in my world you don't get to pay next to nothing for something, make others pay for most of it, and then get your name on it.

>Oh, maybe Mike Harris knows...

No, that'd be Dalton McGuinty, since he's the one holding the cards now. You know, the guy who makes 100 promises and breaks every single one of them? Yeah. That guy.

Re:What goes around comes around

[Anonymous Coward]

Typically, at least in the US, government jobs are required by law to go to the lowest bidder, no matter what.

Of course there were good intentions behind these laws preventing politicians from giving friends kick backs.

In reality though, you just end up with crooked companies bidding way too low, getting the job, and then going way over budget. And the city/state/whatever has to make up the difference.

Sure, sooner or later the company will get sued, at which case they just file for bankruptcy (who cares, I paid myself $250,000 for the last 3 years!) and likely start another company.

Re:What goes around comes around

[Anonymous Coward]

>For it be there nickname, other people have to use it not just you.

Exactly. You see, that's why we have these things called "search engines". You type things in and they magically return 168 other people that agree, including an entire popular online magazine! Isn't that amazing? Wow! I hope I helped educate you today. Now beat it.

Re:What goes around comes around

[GPool]

>RIM Park has nothing to do to RIM. Yes, it most certainly does. RIM offered to donate money to the city in exchange for the city building a park in their name. Not all that complex, really.

That's not what happened. The park had already long been under construction. The city ran a sponsorship drive and made renaming the park after the largest sponsor part of the incentive. RIM *employees* donated money, and they happened to donate more than any of the other companies that gave.

It's not RIM's fault -- it's the city's fault for offering to name the park after the largest single sponsor.

The park was the city's initiative -- so RIM had nothing to do with the taxpayers getting screwed over.

Re:What goes around comes around

[shepd]

If what you are saying is true, I'm even more deeply depressed with this city and RIM than before (The employees paid the donation? Ugh.) Oh well...

Re:What goes around comes around

[stor]

RIM (specifically Mike Lazaridis) put a lot of effort into perfecting that keyboard for thumb typing and it is what the blackberry was built around. So yes, there was a lot of innovation there. It seems simple now, but at the time, it was a novel idea.

Ohh! A novel implementation of a keyboard. Wowie zowie! Heard of the "twiddler"?

Just because you've invested a lot of time reasearching something you don't have an automatic monopoly on it.

Can you imagine if Fender had patented the Stratocaster guitar shape? Or Microsoft with the mouse scroll wheel?

The problem here is greedy people with delusions of their own self-importance.

Cheers
Stor

Re:What goes around comes around

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the cities don't communicate and let the same company screw everybody over no one knows.

They only have Blackberry devices and are waiting for the result of this case?

Re:What goes around comes around

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that you mention guitars search for Gibson and the Les Paul shape....

Again, I refer to two organizations..

[the_rajah]

who are working to make our patent system a bit more fair and help with reducing the current abuses we are seeing. Pubpat Electronic Frontier Foundation

"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain

Re:So just

[Stitch_626]

My suggestion is Raspberry!!!

Thbbbbtttttt!!!!!

Re:hahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, all the agriculture and manufacturing jobs got shipped elsewhere so we have nothing to do but sit around and prattle on all day anyways

Re:So just

[Entropius]

That would work if the issue was trademark violation.

But it's not.

Trademarks are what you call something; patents are what it does.

Re:Patents gone wild!

[jchristo]

I have thought it would be beneficial for the court to rule that the Blackberry service be terminated immediately, with no recourse. Since legislators are primary users of the Blackberries, they might forcibly have their attention drawn to the issue of IP abuse.

Not quite

[igrp]

Around here, there's still two groups of people who still carry pagers: doctors and law enforcement officers. The pager system is still way more robust than GSM and serves as a fallback system for a lot of law enforcement agencies.

Doctors still carry them for two reasons: first of all, they're safe. Pagers have been in use for decades and are known to generally not interfere with hospital equipment (unlike GSM phones, which can cause really weird behaviour in some monitoring equipment). And secondly, they're reliable. In an emergency situation, when everybody grabs their cell to check on their loved ones cell coverage usually drops to 0% in a jiffie (yes, I know that GSM networks can be configured to prioritize certain SIMs through the HLR but I can tell you from experience that that doesn't really work reliably). Pagers, on the other hand, don't need a lot of bandwidth and work reliably.

Having said that, Blackberrys were a nice idea when they were first introduced. These days, though they're useless without effective filtering. I am subscribed to a bunch of mailing lists and I don't particularly like the idea of staring at a small b/w device for long periods of time to find that one important email I happen to be looking for. That's especially true if I have instant access to my IMAP account using my PDA (using WiFi, which tends to drain the battery, or my cell phone). Plus, around here, there's usually a computer nearby no matter where I go.

Re:Not quite

[ryanwright]

I don't particularly like the idea of staring at a small b/w device for long periods of time

Good, since Blackberrys have color screens, you shouldn't have a problem. ;)

Re:Not quite

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing to note: The older BlackBerrys (95x/85x - non voice-enabled) use the the pager networks (Mobitex and DataTAC respectively).

So if you can safely use a pager in a hospital, then the older BlackBerrys will be safe too. That way a doctor can quickly scan the full email (and respond appropriately) rather than call someone back first!

What a silly patent.

[Entropius]

NTP in November 2001 filed a complaint contending that RIM's products and services infringe on at least five NTP patents (numbers 5,625,670; 5,631,946; 5,819,172; 6,067,451 and 6,317,592) granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) covering the use of radio-frequency wireless communications in e-mail systems.

Does this mean that every time I use wlan0 instead of eth0 to check my mail I'm infringing on their patent?

More generally, I would think the Amateur Packet Radio people would have some prior art on this. APR has been around for a while, I think... and certainly someone has used it to check mail.

Re:What a silly patent.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Note to lawyers- always read slashdot for prior art *before* filing lawsuit.

Re:What a silly patent.

[ironring]

Frankly, it looks like it does infringe.

Patent 5,625,670 has 276 claims! Most have 30 or less. My summary of claim 1 would be "any computer system with Email that transmits Email to another computer system using RF." Unfortunately whoever wrote this patent made all the other claims dependent on claim 1. Thus, if claim 1 is poorly written, it can blow the whole patent. As far as I can tell claim 1 was botched.

If I was RIM, I would argue the that claim 1 only says RF (Radio Frequency). It does not say "wireless" RF. Clearly RF on wires sending Email was existing prior art long before the application.

End of case.

curved keyboard?

[twitter]

how innovative.

Who'd have thunk it?

That's never been patented, has it? Not while people had sense, that is. It's so surprising that people find new keyboards.

Prior Art

[igrp]

APR has been around for a while, I think... and certainly someone has used it to check mail.

Well it's at least been used for that purpose since 1987. I think that's the first time I saw two BBSes being connected using amateur radio equipment. Must have been two Fidonet boxes. The connection wasn't quite stable but it worked.

Courtesy

[planckscale]

I for one, welcome our Canadian overlords!

Re:Courtesy

[Anonymous Meoward]

You live near Tampa Bay, don't you?

Re:Courtesy

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks to blind officials, they aren't Canadian overlords. At least not yet.

I was rooting for Tampa, but the Flames got ripped off. Now I am hoping Calgary wins tonight.

Re:Courtesy

[Ravenrage]

what is wrong with tampa bay??????

Re:Courtesy

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing with Tampa Bay, per se. There should be no hockey teams in places that don't get at least six inches of snow per year, however.

Source of the quote

[addie]

"Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose"
- Kris Kristofferson and Fred Foster
from "Me and Bobby McGee"
(popularized by the late, great Janis Joplin)

How about spherical?

[twitter]

1867. Ahhhhhh!

Foil

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrap the damn thing in aluminum foil.

Or get a condo with aluminum siding, like mine.

makes money too when it rejects

[ProfBooty]

almost every time the applicant replies they pay money too, every time they add new claims they pay money, add an information disclosure statment, or make an appeal.

the PTO gets paid almost every time.

examiners don't get paid more for rejecting, any more than they do for allowances.

Live by the patent, die by the patent

[marderj]

It wasn't too long ago that RIM managed to crawl out of a hole by filing frivolous lawsuits for patent infringement. Remember when they filed suit against Handspring over the elliptical shape of the buttons on the keyboard? They justified it by saying they 'invested substantial research and development and marketing effort' into the design and it wasn't fair that Handspring should be able to reap the rewards of their hard work. A fucking keyboard. I hate to see another stupid patent lawsuit, but I have a hard time being sympathetic to their cause. As far as I'm concerned this is poetic justice.

Re:Live by the patent, die by the patent

[Anonymous Coward]

"They justified it by saying they 'invested substantial research and development and marketing effort' into the design and it wasn't fair that Handspring should be able to reap the rewards of their hard work. A fucking keyboard."

In fairness, user interface is not trivial, and can constitute a major investment. Look at TiVo - they spent millions on the design of their UI, and it shows. If someone came along and produced a DVR with an identical remote, TiVo would be rightly angered.

How would I know?

[poot_rootbeer]

"Is this yet another case of overreaching patents gone amok?"

Being that I'm not a patent lawyer, nor can I be considered an expert on patent law, I think I'm speaking for all of Slashdot when I say "I don't know. Can you give me more information about it?"

Just sit back and wait.

[Spudley]

I don't know the story behind this particular patent case, but in the broader argument about patents, I've given up.

I've decided that the best thing now would be for the whole computer industry just to stop and wait for twenty years. When all these stupid patents finally expire, then the rest of us can start actually doing stuff with our computers. Until then, we may as well all just go home, because as I see it, just about anything I do is going to tread on someone's intellecual property. (and I use the word 'intellectual' in it's loosest possible sense)

Just a thought.

[Saggi]

If this goes on for much longer the US will become a low-tech country. It will not be possible to invent or put new technology out on the market there, just because of the risk of getting to court. The market will move elsewhere and only old and tested devices (that have certain "prior art") will remain in the US.

Luckily I live in Europe...

But will the European Union adopt the same madness as the US? If this becomes the case we will see new technology evolve in Asia... (did anyone mention China?)

Just a thought.

Re:Just a thought.

[Anonymous Coward]

It IS evolving in Asia... ever care to take a look at the cell phones and computers they carry around?

Translation

[saddino]

Is this yet another case of overreaching patents gone amok? = "Is this yet another chance to stir your typical /. reader into a frenzy?"

Really folks, the very mention of the word patent here results in typical anti-IP diatribes; often neglecting what is actually actually debatable and interesting: the merits of the patent in question, its defensibiblty and its consequences.

The poster's asking himself the aforequoted question betrays he didn't even bother to read the patent.

Is it time to add "-1 RTFP" as a moderation type?

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, don't keep us waiting. Is it a good patent or a lame (a+b=c) patent. Or did you just post about how wrong we all are without even reading the patent yourself?

The way I see it, you haven't read anything.

Re:Translation

[bit01]

actually debatable and interesting: the merits of the patent in question, its defensibiblty and its consequences.

What is debatable and interesting is the merit of software patents in general, not this particular patent. Not on us to "prove" this patent is valueless. This patent is almost certainly garbage and not worth talking about. The onus is on the patent holder to prove they are entitled to monopolise some piece of technology.

I really hate the way that the patent office, lawyers and some big business types are trying to parasitise the intellectual property I, and other intellectual property creators, are making. Such people are scum.

---

It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

Re:Translation

[saddino]

I really hate the way that the patent office, lawyers and some big business types are trying to parasitise the intellectual property I, and other intellectual property creators, are making. Such people are scum.

The irony here is incredible. NTP is not owned by "big business types" (everyone here seems to assume this). NTP is a holding company for the intellectual property creator, Thomas Campana and his partners. FYI, he is a retired electrical engineer with 50 patents to his name. You, as a intellectual property creator, should be on his side.

Re:Translation

[bit01]

Bullshit. I've just scanned the patents. (numbers 5,625,670; 5,631,946; 5,819,172; 6,067,451 and 6,317,592). They're trash and completely uninnovative. Whether you like it or not the use of the radio spectrum to transmit email with addressing is obvious and should never have been monopolised in this way.

Also, like many patent office boosters you appear to be confusing the creation of intellectual property with the granting of a patent. Without getting into the semantics (I don't care whether it's called IP or something else) the former is a good thing. The later is usually parasites in action, particularly for software patents.

Software patents should be protecting true innovation and hard research/development work. Unfortunately, that is so rarely the case in software that software patents are doing far more harm than good and should never have been allowed.

---

It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

All Patents Baaaaaad!

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Of course, this being Slashdot, all patents are baaaaad! But if you put that aside, none of the information here is particularly specific about what exactly these patents are for. For example the article says these patents cover using radio frequencies in handheld devices to send and receive information. Well, that's a very vague, and obviously there is more to the patent than that. It's very likely that this is a silly patent, but it's hard to tell with nothing but pro and con sound bites. Most of the people here sputtering and spewing and frothing probably have no clue (just as I have no clue) what the real issues in this patent case are.

Re:All Patents Baaaaaad!

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks to me like they patented the idea of a cellphone and e-mail by describing both systems. To me such a patent is too obvious to deserve any protection. Why don't you read them and tell us who's right.

Try these: 5,625,670 5,631,946 5,819,172 6,067,451 6,317,592

Or you can just keep frothing about things that you have no clue about.

Re:All Patents Baaaaaad!

[bit01]

all patents are baaaaad!

By default, yes. They are interference by the government in the citizen's business. The onus is on the patent holder to show why they have a god-given right to monopolise some piece of technology. The vast majority software patents I've seen are nothing more than a means for lawyers and the patent office to make money on. Parasites trying to make money my, and other intellectual property creators', hard work. They are scum.

---

It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

MikeRoweSoft.com

[acariquara]

Yeah, that and MikeRoweSoft.com

Re:MikeRoweSoft.com

[jonbryce]

True, that one as well.

Both of them are trademark cases, and while they can be a bit of a nuisance, they aren't anything like as bad as patent cases. It's usually possible to work round a trademark violation - you can change the name. Can cost a bit of money, and is a pain if you have built up brand recognition under the old name, but it can be done.

Patents, on the other hand usually can't be worked around without making your product inferior to the competition.

first come, first serve thinking

[mabhatter654]

The problem with the PTO is the first come, first served thinking that permeates the office. Software was forbidden for nearly 30 years before the first patents including any software were granted. the problem with that is that very much of the industry was already out there. The PTO's burden of proof is only "that it hasn't been patented before" not that it's a truly original work or being done 100 other places.

Re:first come, first serve thinking

[AaronGTurner]

" The PTO's burden of proof is only "that it hasn't been patented before" not that it's a truly original work or being done 100 other places."

The requirement for granting a patent is exactly that it should be novel and not obvious to someone skilled in the art.

Re:first come, first serve thinking

[mabhatter654]

But in practice "novel" means not patented before...and "non-obvious" has turned in to a joke.

Actually, the problem is that "normal" meatspace patents are fairly straight forward in inplementation. You can break out the blueprints [often included in the patent!] and compare your new idea to theirs. Much of the "innovation" the patent office claims is because your new hack around the current patent holder is ALSO patentable!! But with software, the author cites the results and locks the code up as "trade secret". so even proving that you're not infringing is impossible without going to court to sue for it.

second verse of the SAME case

[werdna]

Blackberry attacked on both noninfringement and invalidity on summary judgment, and lost. They went to trial on both issue, and lost. They argued against injunctive relief, and lost.

So the patent is certainly sufficient to pass the smell-test.

They are now before the Federal Circuit to determine whether the court errred below, Blackberry's last gasp to survive.

time will tell whether the plaintiff will prevail at this point, but overreaching, after a full trial on the merits? you have got to be an ideologue even to ask the question.

Re:second verse of the SAME case

[dekeji]

What makes you think Blackberry won't survive? Leeches like NTP can only suck blood as long as the body they attach to lives and they know that. NTP will extract just the right amount of money from Blackberry and thenfocus their legal efforts on the next company and then the next and then the next. We are all going to pay for this in our legal bills.

time will tell whether the plaintiff will prevail at this point, but overreaching, after a full trial on the merits? you have got to be an ideologue even to ask the question.

Hopefully, the next company NTP picks on won't be quite as inept. NTP's patents have plenty of prior art and someone is going to show that sooner or later.

Right

[Safety Cap]

So you implement your workers' paradise *cough* Libertarian principals, and rein in the government.

Then the corporations (who are barely held in check by said govt that you've nuetered) will suddenly adhere to ethical standards, avoid polluting the environment, and cease exploiting workers. Everyone will be free and happy! Weeee!!!

Pass the crak pipe, bub. No sense in you getting all the hallucinations.

Re:Exiting models? -- Treo 600 kicks it's rear.

[StormyWeather]

So what. My Treo 600 with Eudora (free) does an absolutely beautiful job of handling email. Heck, my treo 600 will even be a wireless modem for my laptop where I can access webmail or whatever in a full browser from anywhere I can get a signal. I can also synch up my Evolution to it and carry my 500 person contact list with me everywhere with a very intuitive search function. I just wish the Treo 600 wasn't so expensive so more folks could get them and see how awesome they are.

what's the libertarian solution, then?

[dekeji]

Its amazing. Government is just like every company, species, etc. It grows as fast as it can given the enviroment. We need Libertarian pricipals so that we can check this, cutting fat inefficient agencies. This is just as predators check the rabit population.

So, please tell us, what would the "libertarian" response to patents be? According to libertarians, should patents be abolished entirely? What about copyrights? And if libertarians want to keep patents and copyrights but reduce government, who gets to enforce them and to mediate disputes over the validity and scope of patents?

It's easy to complain about the size and complexity of government, but if you do, you have to present a credible alternative. Please do so.

oh, the name

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the things I find most annoying about the company is the name. Do we really have to read about such a disgusting sexual practice every time people talk about wireless email? Let's hope they'll go out of business and we'll never have to put up with them again.

Palm isn't original either

[dekeji]

Since Palm copied the Palm form factor and most of the technology used in the Palm from others, it would be kind of tasteless for them to sue anybody over making Palm-like devices. Mind you, not unprecedented, just tasteless.

these patents

[dekeji]

People here know what these patents are about and have already come to the conclusion that they are bogus. They were bogus when the first lawsuit was filed, and they are still as bogus today. Perhaps you should look at the patents yourself some time. If you come to the conclusion that they are defensible, maybe you can make an argument, but that is not an issue most people feel the need to revisit on their own.

The consequences? If these patents stand, they potentially threaten a lot of mobile text-based messaging and give NTP, a company that has contributed nothing to the state of the art, an enormous financial windfall.

Clear enough?

Re:these patents

[saddino]

People here know what these patents are about and have already come to the conclusion that they are bogus. They were bogus when the first lawsuit was filed, and they are still as bogus today.

So, the conclusions of "people here" should outweigh the fact that the jury found RIM guilty of willful infringement? The opinions of "people here" should nullify the Appeals court upholding the ruling?

Perhaps you should look at the patents yourself some time. If you come to the conclusion that they are defensible, maybe you can make an argument, but that is not an issue most people feel the need to revisit on their own.

The fact that so many people here have made up their minds counter to the jury's and the court's decision strongly suggest that "most people" should definitely "feel the need" to revisit the issue. The only explanation I can deduce for their assumptions, is that "most people" here have the mindset that all patents are "bogus."

The consequences? If these patents stand, they potentially threaten a lot of mobile text-based messaging and give NTP, a company that has contributed nothing to the state of the art, an enormous financial windfall.

NTP, as the holding company for the inventor of the technologies, appears to have contributed everything to the "state of the art." RIM was found in willful infringement, so it follows they knew they were stealing Thomas Campana's ideas. Given the serious consequences --which you point out-- RIM should have quickly settled this matter for a large sum.

Clear enough?
Transparently so.

Re:these patents

[dekeji]

So, the conclusions of "people here" should outweigh the fact that the jury found RIM guilty of willful infringement? The opinions of "people here" should nullify the Appeals court upholding the ruling?

You seem to have trouble with the concepts of "debate" and "discourse" in a democratic society. People can debate legal opinions, and, over the course of years and decades, US courts will start to align with public opinion. That's, for example, how racial equality was achieved in the US: if it hadn't been for changes in public opinion as a result of debate over earlier legal decisions, the US would still be practicing apartheid today.

The fact that so many people here have made up their minds counter to the jury's and the court's decision strongly suggest that "most people" should definitely "feel the need" to revisit the issue.

Well, maybe if you had any kinds of new ideas or facts to contribute to the matter, people could revisit the issue. However, you just seem to take the authoritarian view that if the courts say it's so, they must be logically right. Sorry, but that's not the way things work in a democracy.

NTP, as the holding company for the inventor of the technologies, appears to have contributed everything to the "state of the art."

Maybe you haven't looked at the patents, but I have. Those patents are bogus. There is lots of prior art for them. The so-called "inventors" on those patents weren't the first to come up with these ideas and they weren't the first to disseminate them. They just happened to be the first to get a patent on them. However, prior-art challenges are very hard to get through, and obviousness challenges are essentially impossible to get through the courts, no matter whether a reasonable person who actually understand the technical matters would think the situation clear. It's a problem with our legal system.

Given the serious consequences --which you point out-- RIM should have quickly settled this matter for a large sum.

That might have been the prudent business decision, but that doesn't make it legally right, let alone logically correct. In any case, if RIM goes out of business over this, I'm happy: I think RIM is as sleazy as NTP.

The only explanation I can deduce for their assumptions, is that "most people" here have the mindset that all patents are "bogus."

Many people, and not just on Slashdot, believe that the US patent system is seriously broken. As someone who holds a number of patents myself and derives some financial benefit from them, I think the US patent system is seriously broken and that patents like the ones I got should not exist in a good patent system (however, unlike NTP's patents, I think my patents are actually in conformance with both the spirit and the letter of current patent law).

if it is halfway cool and enabling..

[samantha]

then the US Patent System and the courts will attempt to shut it down. Since we privatize spectrum at high price every player needs to recoup their costs. This generally means that you and I will get nickel and dimed to death for one little bitty service slice at a time. It is against the interest of all these players if anyone offers too much for too little or, in other words, actually begins to bring more of the full benefit of wireless connectivity to the users.

Patent Bologna

[groot]

Patents, prio art, bologna!

Has anybody ever considered that Ham radio has been using "wireless" radio frequency transmission of emails before any of the "RIM" or "NTP" engineers were born. Not only that, but ham radio prio art is very well documented and has even received government (at least US) approval for the its use of codes and ciphers (ok its only ASCII) but it still had to be approved by the FCC. Its approval moves it in what is known as "good operating procedures" as has become part of the testing system that all hams need to pass.

I would imagine that all "inventions" made by ham radio ops are part of the public domain and therefore un-patented-able.

--laz (K2LAZ)