Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Governments Take Sides In Blackberry Patent Suit

Posted by timothy on from the please-don't-call-it-a-free-market dept.

geekboy_x writes "The recent court decision giving NTP a big chunk of Research In Motion's Blackberry profits has attracted an unusal participant - the government of Canada. The original ruling, where RIM was judged to have violated 5 of NTP's patents, has now been stayed pending appeal, and the Canadian government has filed a motion in the U.S. court to request a full re-hearing. At stake is not only money, but the rights to sell and service any Blackberry-like product."

39 of 311 comments (clear)

  1. Canadian Government... by Caydel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Obviously the Canadian government has an interest in this, as it is one of the leading canadian technologies; however, this seems to be quite a large step for them. They usually seem to pussyfoot around such issues, especially when dealing with the US...

    1. Re:Canadian Government... by rborek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The issue isn't with RIM per se, but the fact that the US courts are trying to apply US patent laws to systems physically located in Canada - which should fall under Canadian patent law. If the US courts uphold this, it will present a huge barrier to Canadian (or for that matter, any other countries) companies entering the US in any way (including sales and support to US companies from Canada), as a US company that holds a patent will be able to sue the Canadian company for using their patent in Canada to supply technology, services, etc. to US entities.

    2. Re:Canadian Government... by srw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We usually pussyfoot around, but there are more and more of us at many levels that are getting quite pissed off with the US government's economic policies towards Canada. Read about softwood lumber, cattle (please don't say it's about BSE. It's incredibly clear by now it has nothing to do with BSE.), fishing issues (google for Jesse Ventura's comments on this), "offshoring" of jobs to Canada, and on and on.

      Free trade my ass.

    3. Re:Canadian Government... by chris_mahan · · Score: 2, Funny

      Beware, I hear they will also be killing those who make half-jokes about National Security Policy.

      read my sig.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    4. Re:Canadian Government... by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The US strongarming the rest of the world banks on it's economic influence to get everyone to cave in eventually. However, things are changing and the rise of Asian consumer markets not dominated by US businesses will likely seriously reduce the US's ability to control the business world. We may even see the US's level of market influence shift to China or India's control...now wouldn't that be interesting...

      --
      The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
    5. Re:Canadian Government... by jbr439 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Canadian Government pussyfoots when dealing with the BC softwood lumber issue, for example. However, RIM is based in Ontario, hence the non-pussyfooting.

      It is indeed good to be based in Central Canada.

    6. Re:Canadian Government... by mzwaterski · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I don't see how you could have this fall any other way. Lets assume for the sake of discussion that NTP does own these patents and that the Blackberry does infringe them. Why should a company from Canada be able to come to the US and start selling a product that is infringing a US patent. The minute their products crossed the border, they became subject to US laws. Of course, they are free to make and sell what they want in Canada, and this lawsuit does not interfere with that. In fact, as the article points out "In August 2003, a U.S. court awarded NTP $53.7 million in damages and an 8.6 per cent royalty on all the revenue from U.S. BlackBerry sales." I.E. none of the sales in Canada are at issue.

      I guess I don't see how this could fall any other way. Think about what would happen if international companies were allowed to make an infringing product then ship it across the border and start selling it. Why should I invent something if I could just move to Canada, wait for someone else to invent it and perfect it, then copy their idea and start selling it myself. Heck, while I'm at it I will even use their name and logo.

    7. Re:Canadian Government... by kaladorn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Get pissed off all you want. The U.S. does what it does because it can.

      Not to draw an exact comparison, merely to lampoon the sense of that particular statement, but I'm reasonably sure that was also why Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia did what they did too.

      I'm not sure the ability to do a thing makes it a good idea. And this has nothing to do with attempting to eradicate socialism, despite the fact that is a personally significant (to you) issue, it is a red herring as far as the current US copyright actions go.

      This has more to do with protecting the likes of the MPAA and RIAA and the big corps than it does with insuring innovation. And attempting to break the historical assumptions about IP sovereignty and who gets which laws applied to them isn't necessarily a wise precedent to set. If the reverse was done, the US would be screaming bloody murder...

      --
      -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
    8. Re:Canadian Government... by renehollan · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Fair enough. Let's trade: your citizenship for mine.

      I have no objection to people who voluntarily chose to participate in a communal wealth-redistribution system.

      However, I greatly object to people forcing such participation on the non-willing, at the effective point of a gun, to the degree that hard-working Canadians can not save enough money to purchase surgery to save their lives and are abandoned by the Canadian health care system. When one pays more in taxes earmarked for "health care" over a working life than it would cost to fund private insurance that would cover life-saving surgery, and the government denies that surgery, I can only conclude the government is guilty of murder, literally taxing people to death. Those who support the system are, at the very least, accessories to the crime.

      As a libertarian forced to chose between the rise of the Christian right in the U.S. and the stench of the Socialist left in Canada (both admittedly odious), I find I can tolerate the right better: at least I can accumulate the funds necessary to escape if necessary, or seek "morally unacceptable" social and care situations outside the country.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    9. Re:Canadian Government... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, the Yankees are right spooked now about the removal of tarriffs (which is all but inevitable, though it will probably be at least a year). You see, while US government has allowed American sawmills to continue in their inefficient and outdated ways, the tarriffs basically culled all the weaker outfits in BC, leaving only the companies with the highest efficiency. Darwinian mechanics takes over now. If that tarriff is removed, those coddled American lumber companies are going to be deader than a doornail in a decade.

      This is why protectionism is ultimately detrimental to those industries that a government seeks to protect. Unfortunately the average voter in a lumber-producing region in the US is largely ignorant of this basic principle, and politicians and lumber company executives are quite happy to milk voter stupidity for short-term gain.

      The other side of this coin (as with Bush's protectionist steel policy towards the EU) is that the American consumer gets hit with higher prices on raw materials driving up commercial goods. Whether it's an automobile or a new house, it's all the poor joes at the manufacturing plants, distributors, sales outfits and the poor slob that's paying for the goods that get nailed. Of course, all these guys probably live in the wrong state, so that's okay.

      Don't worry American consumer, us Canucks will save you. When those tarriffs are lifted, those greedy short sighted goons in the Commerce Department and in the lumber companies are going to be run over by trucks bring BC 2x4s across the border.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:Canadian Government... by Kwil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, they're trying to apply US patent laws to items that are being sold in the US.

      As a Canadian, I think the Canadian government is wrong to step in here. NTP, as much as they're bad for the industry in general, have the legal point.

      What really needs to be looked at is the patent system itself. Submarine patents need to be abolished. Patents need to be granted on a pass/fail system. They either get through the first time, or they get rejected. If they get rejected, then a new application is required, with, naturally, a new date. This would prevent submarine patents that just float around for years, getting modified over the years in order to adjust for ways technology is going and making it look like it dates back to when the original patent was submitted.

      In addition, patents should go back to requiring a physical copy. Ideas are like assholes. Everybody has one, most of them stink. You require somebody submit a working product before approval of the final patent is granted and that'll help considerably.

      --

      That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

    11. Re:Canadian Government... by renehollan · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Now, do you have examples of these Canadians you speak of that have been denied life-saving surgery?

      I would not make the charge if I did not have evidence, though it comes from an admitedly biased source: my father was denied abdominal aortic aneurism repair surgery dispite paying into the Canadian health care system for decades (and carrying private insurance before its inception). If he had instead invested that portion of his taxes earmarked for health care in a fund, even at savings account rates, he could have paid for the US$30,000 to US$100,000 cost of that surgery many times over.

      Such surgery is not done in Canada for lack of qualified surgeons, AFAIK -- even then the survival rate is about 70%. The government refused to pay for it to be performed in the U.S., citing expense and arguing that the money could save more lives if spent elsewhere.

      Hogwash! That's the state playing at God. It is one thing to allocate charity where it might do the most good, but to forcibly impoverish one to death based on the argument that many lives warrant the taking of one is heinous. Might as well have a lottery to kill people for their organs to satisfy the demand -- after all, one can likely harvest sufficient organs from a person to save more lives than the one taken.

      It could be argued that it would be "unfair" for the "rich" to "get ahead" of the "poor" when it comes to medical treatment. As offensive as I find the idea that one does not deserve to spend one's legitimate earnings to save one's live, I will note that my father was not rich: He came to Canada as a WWII refugee, and took advantage of ecomonic opportunities to eventually work as an electronic engineer, contributing to many successful Canadian communications satellites (starting with the first), as well as the Shuttle Remote Manipulation System. Starting from nothing, capitalism enabled him to live a middle-class lifestyle.

      Today, he'd likely be accepted as a refugee, and have no change to escape the socialist welfare trap.

      Take heed: if one has a state-run health insurance program, it should never deliver less justifiable benefits at world market rates than paid for in premiums. To do otherwise is literally taxing one to death.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    12. Re:Canadian Government... by renehollan · · Score: 2, Insightful
      O.K. I'll feed the troll...

      Your father was probably denied surgery because it was a waste of time.

      And quite possibly in vain, certainly. But, what one does with one's earnings should be one's own business. Certainly spending them in an attempt to save one's live, even if futile, should not be forbidden. When the state intervenes to purportedly provide health care in the place of one's own resources, it should at least provide as much care as those resources could otherwise have provided.

      your dad came to canada because he was too weak to make a go of it in his former country

      Agreed. It would take a hell of a person to put Hitler in his place. As I recall, it took a heck of a lot of people who died to get the job done.

      However, whatever weakness this may imply is surely erased by the courage demonstrated by virtue of the countless Jews he hid for four years during WWII. I'd consider the balance even as far as moral traits are concerned, but then, I am biased. How many lives have you saved?

      He made a good life, enough to put you through school apparently. Or do you think that you paid for that schooling all on your own, you self rightous freeloader

      Ah! I was waiting for this retort. It is typical of the Communist. The argument goes something like this: You owe the state your life and your servitude because without the state's help, you would not have schooling, health care, etc. The fallacy lies in that the general reason one can not obtain these without the state's intervention, even if available on an open market, is that the state has taxed one so greatly, as to prevent them for caring for themselves. As for my post-secondary schooling, I paid for it myself. Whatever services I may have had no choice but to receive from the government were most certainly repaid many times over via the hundreds of thousands of dollars I paid in income taxes over the years I lived in Canada.

      But, no matter. The Comminist believes that accepting a "benefit" from the state that was originally stolen from one in the first place, indentures one in tax servitude until death.

      Sorry, I don't buy that argument.

      IT is because of punks and whiners like you that they do WAY to much ofthat.

      Another Communist tactic: arguing that objecting to the taking of one's earnings is "whining", with all those negative connotations.

      Gotta love all the cowards spouting off anon. Afraid to risk a bit of karma?

      --
      You could've hired me.
    13. Re:Canadian Government... by kaladorn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One thing that really bothers me about free health care is this attitude that any private hospitals will mean the immediate demise of our entire health care system.

      The funnier aspect is that we've *had* private medical clinics, MRI clinics, etc. for *years* and they've functioned just fine as an adjunct to the public system. I think the fear is that it is a 'thin edge of the wedge' scenario - let in a private hospital, let enough people start to use it, then they'll say 'why should we also fund the public one?' etc. I mean, it isn't entirely implausible that people might take up that attitude. At the same time, throwing money at our current health care system without accompanying internal reform will not necessarily resolve the issues either.

      --
      -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
  2. How close are Matrin and RIM? by spikexyz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I shook Paul Martin's (Prime Minster of Canada) hand outside the RIM headquaters in Waterloo this past summer during the election. I wonder how close of a relationship Mr. Martin has with RIM and how this played into the Canadian government's decision to get involved.

    1. Re:How close are Matrin and RIM? by kaladorn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think that's entirely wrongheaded. Take off your tinfoil hat for a minute. CBC had some good coverage of this issue last night.

      The issue here is that the US court is trying to apply an outrageous scope to their own IP law - well beyond their borders onto systems physically present and using technology developed in Canada. This violates a number of traditions in the legal area (perhaps even aggreements or laws, but I'm a bit vague her) that say essentially that if something resides in your country, your own IP law applies. The US judge has made a decision which extends US IP law into Canadian space.

      The Canadian government is thus getting involved as a matter of national sovereignty and to forestall a whole whack of these. And to protect Canadian business interests from this ridiculous decision - it would effectively open up a whack of Canadian businesses to suits under a vastly changed understanding of how IP law is supposed to work and it would infringe Canada's sovereignty to have its own laws that differ from those that operate within our southern neighbour.

      This is perfectly well a matter of Canadian government legal, political and economic interest. It has nothing to do with RIM particularly, they just happen to be the test case. This is about a US court that is letting itself exceed its domain and pass judgements with wide ranging ramifications that reach into other countries.

      I think the simple logic that the US should be applying here is this: If it would piss us off if someone did it, maybe we should think twice before we do it to someone else.

      The might makes right argument has been responsible for any number of horrors over the years. Last time I checked, the US is supposed to stand for liberalized trade, free enterprise, fairness, etc. This judgement is about trying to inflict the laws of nation A on nation B in contravention of the historical process and in an unfair manner.

      I'm not confident it will be struck down - IP laws which original protected and fostered innovation and artists now throttle them and quash innovation through prodigious if questionable litigations. The US court in question has been passing wide ranging decisions which seem to strengthen the IP laws rather than pruning them back to foster the innovation they were originally meant to foster. So it may well be that this (to my mind) ridiculous decision stands.

      But this, for once, is an example of the Canadian government standing up and doing something *where and when it should* though perhaps getting involved earlier might have been useful. Still, they may not have expected such a wide ranging ruling and the precedents it set, so perhaps that isn't even a fair criticism.

      --
      -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
    2. Re:How close are Matrin and RIM? by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 2, Informative

      Uh, no. This isn't about the product, per se, but the service. The infrastructure of the service is located in Canada, which should mean that Canadian patent law governs, not US patent law.

      What is at stake is the whole patent system since if a company in country B can sell products in country A and promote them in country A while infringing on patents in in country A then the patent system will collapse.

      Geneva notwithstanding, there is no truly international patent system yet in existence, and you are ignorant if you think that US patent protection automatically extends across the globe.

      Bottom line is that this is an interesting and complicated case, and not at all the simple issue that you have represented. My gut feeling is that because of the can of worms (in terms of international trade and diplomacy) this has opened, the companies involved will be pressured to settle, and the issue will be swept under the rug for now.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  3. Blackberry-like product by spiritraveller · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Um, how is the Blackberry different from any other PDA/mobile phone combination that accesses email? Pardon me, but I've never used one.

    1. Re:Blackberry-like product by youngerpants · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just beat me to the obvious point. Ever since mobile/ cell phones have had the abiolity to connect to POP3, I have had a "Blackberry-Like" product.

      Perhaps Nokia should get litigous on RIM?

    2. Re:Blackberry-like product by JWG · · Score: 5, Informative

      If I am not mistaken (and I frequently am) the patent at the centre of this is about how the Blackberry uses the cellphone network to access mail, etc. Although a Blackberry uses the cell phone system to check email constantly, it uses a different communication protocol than what a regular cell phone does, and accesses a different type of communication system from that point on. It is somewhere in between there where the patent at issue rests. Someone, somewhere, at some time dreamed this idea up in the States, got a patent for it (although they never actually made anything) and then formed a company whose sole purpose was litigate to generate revenue, meanwhile, in Canada at roughly a the same time, RIM developed this into a working idea first, then started patenting it.

    3. Re:Blackberry-like product by deadsquid · · Score: 4, Informative
      It's more about the proxy/relay services on the back end which allow the devices to synch up securely (I know, I know, don't berate me for the inclusion of that word) with corporate messaging systems (like Exchange) without the need for a TCP/IP stack on the device or relying on traditional protocols such as IMAP and/or POP.

      They also synch more than just email. Calendaring and contact info can by synchronized wirelessly using the BES (Blackberry Enterprise Server) software and Exchange. It's not just simple email, and the systems RIM uses to provide the services through carriers and corps is a little more involved than just mail access protocols.

      --
      Idiot, n. A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human affairs has always been dominant
    4. Re:Blackberry-like product by kaladorn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, I think this is the 'technical issue'. The reason the Canadian Government is involved has more to do with the fact that the servers and back end services that make this all work reside in Canada. So attempting to go after RIM in this particular means attempting to apply the associated patents etc. across the border into someone else's country. That's what has the Canadian government involving itself.

      --
      -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
  4. Re:l33t politian by doombob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't politicians in the US and elsewhere have some kind of council or committee that can educate them on technology issues? I mean one that isn't run by the big business lobby. Our representative in Washington have the House Science Committee. Our friends over the Atlantic have a Science and Tech committee, etc. How are they ever going to learn about what they are ruling over?

  5. Gods by kneecarrot · · Score: 2, Funny

    I am from the small city of Waterloo, Canada (population 70000 people) where RIM has its headquarters. Let me tell you that they are incredibly important to this city. It's basically become an institution. The city has paid for the entire parking lot and street where RIM is located to be fitted with heating pipes so that there is never snow on the road. There is a city-wide holiday every October to commemorate the founding of the company. Everyone has the day off and there is a parade that ends in the RIM Performance Theatre where the CEO addresses the crowd, live bands play, and food is dished out. It's almost wacky... RIM employees actually have all their taxi expense paid for by the city. It may seem strange, but the value of RIM for the local economy and pride of Canadian citizens is difficult to overstate.

    --

    I always save my last mod point to mod up a good troll. You people are too serious.

    1. Re:Gods by GoofyBoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >and pride of Canadian citizens is difficult to overstate.

      1. This happens to any local economy, not just RIM/Waterloo. For example; Hamilton/Stelco, GM+Ford/Detroit, Big Government/Washington DC, Inco(?)/Sudbury.

      2. The "pride of Canadian citizens" are not wrapped up in this. Do you have pride in what happens to B.C. softwood lumber?

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    2. Re:Gods by drunkennewfiemidget · · Score: 3, Informative

      I just moved from Waterloo in the last few months, and I was raised there most of my life. My ex-gf works there, and she's still a good friend. You couldn't be further from the truth. (I sincerely hope you have tongue in cheek on this one.)

      #1: Population of Waterloo in the last few years has grown. It exceeds 100,000.

      #2: There are no pipes ensuring there's no snow on the roads RIM's offices are on. I've driven to and from there dropping my ex-gf off hundreds of times. Those roads get mighty bad just like the rest of them.

      #3: The big celebration in October is called Oktoberfest, and has been a part of K-W since probably before you were born. And it's not a holiday, you get no time off for it.

      #4: RIM employees have their taxis paid for by RIM before and after company events so that they don't drink and drive, NOT the city.

      Yes, RIM is a bit of an institution on Waterloo now, much like the Toyota plant in Cambridge. But lets not go overboard.

      And for what it's worth, I still think the 2 guys that started RIM are pompous assholes.

    3. Re:Gods by kneecarrot · · Score: 2, Funny

      I was born and raised in Waterloo. Trust me, every last word of that post is true. Well, not counting the stuff about RIM. Although, one time, during Oktoberfest, I saw a really drunk guy waving his Blackberry around. It was definitely celebratory.

      --

      I always save my last mod point to mod up a good troll. You people are too serious.

    4. Re:Gods by TDot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Pfft. I'm from Waterloo and i've lived here the last 5 years, and most of that is news to me. It's certainly the biggest corporate entity, but in no way would waterloo tank if RIM did. There are so many other companies here, from small to big (IBM/Microsoft/Sybase). Besides, it's as much as a university town as it is a tech-town: the schools aren't going to wither and die if RIM does.

      IMHO companies are beating up on RIM because they are convinced RIM is the biggest threat, not because they are Canadian, but they are being so annoyingly "American" about it. I think it's outrageous that any American could be so pompous and arrogant as to assume that "U.S. patent laws override Canadian patent laws", which is the taste I get in my mouth when I read posts like "Dangerous step for Canada". If Americans don't like "foreign influence" then they can bloody well cut all trade with Canada and see what happens: we'll *both* crumble. Quit the whining, realize we're mutually good for each other, and get back to work.

      As for RIM, yeah there's reason to be afraid; I worked there for a year and i'm happy to report that it is full of bright and educated people who (most importantly IMHO) actually enjoy what they are doing there.

  6. good by ashpool7 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I really don't care who is motivated by what in this case, but NTP is nothing but a holding company on some BS patents for stuff that already exists but "with RF" tacked on.

    If it means throwing out bogus patents, I'd like to see a good explanation if anybody thinks that's a bad idea.

  7. Patent holding business by mszeto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I find the 'patent holding company' to be very counterproductive. Patents should be owned by companies creating products, like they were originally intended. Companies like NTP (correct me if i'm wrong) are made solely to find other companies to sue due to infringement. The company doesn't actually DO anything other than sue other companies right?

    I'm glad Canada is stepping and saying "this sucks." Though I'm a diehard palm user, it would be a shame to see a company lose a significant chunk of their profits to a bullshit company like NTP.

    1. Re:Patent holding business by kaladorn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hmm, you make it sound like something existing is strictly some sort of Darwinian thing and we'd be snuffing out all lawyers or all IP lawyers if we made any changes to current IP law.

      Let us take the other side of the coin: IP law has been getting more teeth, patents and copyrights have been extending in scope and duration, over the last 20-30 years most notably. Is this right?

      This whole 'buy a patent, sue everyone else' and 'failure to acknowledge spontaneous creation/first past the patent post' system are a result of our legal frameworks. These are not natural creations - we made them up and lobbied them into their current state.

      So if we could create them, we should darn well be able to realize their flaws and tear them down. This isn't the big nasty public crushing the heads of baby seal-like lawyers with large clubs... this is the case of a profession that has lobbied the government (and been paid for it) to create legal frameworks that allow more suing and more quashing of competition and innovation.

      Some amount of protection is probably sensible, but I think we're pretty far beyond the original intents and equally far beyond good sense. So applying some corrective measures isn't some sort of Draconic Evil... it would, if we could manage it, simply be restoring freedom to innovate and develop - which ostensibly is a good thing.

      Should that not exist, to use your own leading question?

      --
      -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
  8. Blackberry ambiguity by Anonymous+Cowherd+X · · Score: 2, Funny

    Would it have killed you to explain you were referring to the BlackBerry wireless platform or to at least add a link to RIM (Research in Motion)? With all the patent related news about Monsanto lately some people might actually think you were referring to actual blackberries, the fruit.

  9. live by the sword, die by the sword by Doktor+Memory · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This would be the same Research In Motion that tried to gouge Palm and HandSpring for patent licensing fees on the idea of a PDA with a keyboard, right?

    Imagine my total lack of sympathy.

    --

    News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.

    1. Re:live by the sword, die by the sword by Octagon+Most · · Score: 2, Informative

      "This would be the same Research In Motion that tried to gouge Palm and HandSpring for patent licensing fees on the idea of a PDA with a keyboard, right?"

      Not so much the idea of a PDA with a keyboard, but the specific design of such keyboard. A look and feel (and function) lawsuit. Blackberry's keyboard design includes keys on each half slanted down toward the center creating a wider surface perpendicular to the direction of the thumb - assuming a two-thumb tapping style. That's their patented innovation. It works well. I find my Blackberry quite comfortable to type on. You might notice that when Palm (or was it Handspring?) came out with a PDA incorporating a keyboard that all the keys slanted the same direction. That is because of RIM's patent.

    2. Re:live by the sword, die by the sword by jdew · · Score: 2, Funny

      You mean, you got a R.I.M job!

  10. Does this argument wipe out all network patents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "RIM argued that because parts of the alleged infringement occurred on its relay and routing system that is based in Canada, U.S. patent law should not apply."

    Does this mean anyone who runs on a foreign server is exempt from the patents of other contries? How could any netowrk related patents be enforced? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

  11. Re:This is a dangerous move for Canada... by JWG · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually, the US is only about 20% of RIMs maketshare, a lot of it is in fact European. Someone once told me the brilliant idea that RIM should just not sell in the States. Then, since the company with the patent in America is only a litigous corporation and never actually developed anything, there would be no RIM-like devices in the States and everyone else in the world would be able to get their email instantly. Besides, there are whole corporations and groups in the States (notably the US Senate) who rely on the Blackberry so much, they'd probably do all they can to get things altered in America pretty damn quick.

  12. Blackberry by spyd4r · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I work for Research In Motion, and this whole lawsuit is a joke, this NTP company is a pathetic corporation that just hold patents trying to land big settlements.. they should just go f^&k off and die.

  13. Re:get to the shelter! by Doctor+Crumb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That war already happened. In 1812. Canada won.