Slashdot Mirror
End of the Road for U.S. BlackBerry Users ?
_termx23 writes "US BlackBerry users may have to find an alternative source for their email addiction after the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington rejected a request by Research in Motion to rehear its appeal of a patent infringement case brought by NTP, which holds a portfolio of wireless email-related patents violated by RIM." From the article: "As part of that litigation, NTP, whose only assets are wireless e-mail related patents, had been granted an injunction banning the sale of BlackBerry devices in the United States and forcing Research in Motion to stop providing e-mail services to all American customers except government account holders. While the court declined Research in Motion's request for a complete rehearing by all 12 of its judges, it did order the panel of three judges to review some aspects of NTP's patent claims." We've discussed this previously.
What is it with these pseudo companies that are formed just to hold supposed IP? We have companies like SCO group, Forgent Networks and NTP who do not really have any products, but whose business model is to go out and purchase any and all "patents" they can get their hands on. They then do nothing with those patents until one day in the future, they identify some product or company that has a product that has come about through parallel evolution or innovation and then try and sue the pants off of them. Most of these companies employees are not doing anything productive as they are a bunch of lawyers on staff who are parasites on technology and innovation doing nothing but sucking the life out innovation and progress.
It has got to be apparent that this business model has nothing to do with innovation and everything to do with piracy and racketeering.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Exactly what has NTP done with these patents? The USPTO keeps striking them down (see here). Did NTP actually use or license the patents to make a product? I can't think of any.
Of course, this was nearly all settled but seems to have fallen apart.
RIM vs NTP is a complicated case.. many patent cases are. But when it boils down to it, the approach doesn't not appear to be consistent between different cases. If the judgement remains, then RIM's revenues will take a huge hit, US Blackberry users will not be able to use their devices and I can't see any product on a comparable quality anywhere on the horizon.
Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
With the amount of corporate users Blackberry targets what sort of compensation package will RIM have to provide for loss of service?
Of course this matters on the contracts the user's signed but surely this could result in filing for bankrupcy protection.
The article is short on details. What patent are we talking about and how exactly did RIM violate it? And are other PDA/phones possibly violating this patent too?
eTrade SUCKS
Seriously, though, I think I'm in the wrong business. Instead of creating software and hardware, I should just come up with some really cool ideas and patent them. Eventually someone else will come up with the same idea and I can sue for $$$$.
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
I guess when RIM counter-sues NTP (and wins of course) the NTP's CEO should be made selling his organs to pay for damages. That would only be fair.
Email already exists....wireless networking already exists....lets put together email and wireless networking and patent it! Better idea. Breathing....on the internet? Can I patent that?
and because of that owner of government accounts are excluded from the ban of email services.
Maybe they are "more equal" than others... or somebody doesn't want to hurt them otherwise they could start thinking why the patent system is so stupid...
How can a company enforce (or even hold) a patent on something when they don't actually manufacture anything that uses the patent ? Surely this is a restrictive practice that should be outlawed ?
Finally we have a patent suit that'll hit non-techs where they notice. Blackberry devices seem to be the device of the moment with sales staff and management. A patent suit which disables their Blackberrys may just be noticeable enough that the public start to take an interest in the who0le patent issue.
Let us hope so anyway.....
Well, there is GoodLink, which is debatably better, but also more expensive. No word on whether THEY also violate the same patents, but since they only provide software and don't actually make or sell devices, you never know... It was my understanding that the patent violation was in how the device worked. Then again, if Blackberry's all suddenly "Don't work" GoodLink suddenly morphs from "more expensive" into the only option... which would make them an attractive target for one of these "Patent Holdups," as I like to call them.
Also interesting is that GoodLink software is compatible with some Blackberry handhelds, so some RIM users may have something of a migration/escape hatch option if this ruling isn't successfully appealed in a higher court.
Who did what now?
The USA will fall behind because ever more intellectual property will be locked up behind a multitude of corporations and individuals effectively ruled by lawyers who are more interested in earning legal fees rather than bothering to actually manufacture anything.
Other Governments and Europe's bureaucracies will not hesitate to forcibly acquire the necessary intellectual property needed get things done for large projects. That's how the European airline industry managed to get the Concord, Euro-fighter and even the latest Airbus built.
Other countries and even Europe's parliament will also not hesitate to adopt more liberal intellectual property structures if you demonstrate that doing so will better benefit their economies as a whole, instead of just a few major corporations.
The USA administration and even more myopic major corporations will continue to let more and more manufacturing and service industry be off-shored resulting in importing permanent poverty into the USA.
You want to see the future of the USA? Visit the remnants of Detroit motor city works and despair.
If NTP is successful at this IP game with RIM, they will have money to go after Smart Technology, and others that are using basic common sense, but which the USPTO managed to let them patent. That is the real problem. Anything that is a natural, anybody-can-see-it extension of a technology should not be granted a patent. Yes, that is a broad statement, and probably won't work everywhere, but seriously, asking for a patent on sending email to wireless PDA (or other) devices is just common sense, as in what else would you do?
The FCC has seen fit to take a mostly hands-off approach to IP networks, but there seems to be no sense of the common good at the USPTO. Perhaps that is what we need. This is not unlike the patent issue about navigating a menu on mobile devices problem that Apple ran into.... OMG, its just stupid, and the devil in the details of trying to remain legal about things is killing us. The USPTO needs to simply say, oh, ooops, mea culpa, sorry. and then the courts can send all the life sucking lawyers home again.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Wireless SSH
Wireless FTP
Wireless NNTP (AKA Wireless Pron)
Wireless Telnet
Wireless IRC
Wireless Web!
Of course, to use any of that, you need to license my wireless DNS patent unless you want to be tying IP addresses all day! Muhahahahah
Maybe they'll go out and re-possess all the damn things and I won't have to support them anymore. 90% of the people with Blackberries are clueless micro-managing morons who are so insecure they get panic attacks if they are out of contact for 10 minutes. Why is it the most unreliable and pain-in-the-ass technologies have to end up in the hands of those least equipped to use it and the most likely to blame others for their own incompetence.
Sorry. Monday morning and already three helpdesk tickets on goddamn PDAs. Apparently, they need, like, batteries, or power, or something and won't work without it?
We implemented Goodlink and it's an improvement on Blackberry and much more flexible. This will be the future.
Look I know alot of people are going to post about how the entire patent system needs to be defenstrated (thrown out the window), but lets not forget the tremendous innovation our patent system has protected. The solution to these submarine patent lawsuits seems to be have a clause specifically preventing this situation: a company must be in the process of selling the product in question in order to bring a lawsuit like this to trial. We need legislation that prevents people from obtaining patents and sitting on them. You should lose your right to the patent for failure to act within a certain time period. A twenty year monopoly on an idea is far too long in todays modern world. I open the discussion up to patent reform and your ideas, please post
I got a Blackberry two weeks ago, so I could stay in touch with work and such while my wife was in the hospital undergoing surgery (she has breast cancer, just diagnosed the beginning of September, and has had two operations so far, with more to come).
This just totally pisses me off. I'd like to wring the neck of each member of NTP (not to mention their smart-ass, scum-sucking lawyer) for pulling this BS.
Maybe there could be some way for us Blackberry owners to file some kind of class action lawsuit against NTP?
No matter where you go... there you are.
I fail to see what is so unique about "Wireless Email" ... Email has existed for umpteen years, and wireless networks for a decade or so.
As soon as the wireless network became digital and the devices accessing them powerful enough to do more, it is a logical progression that you would be able to access your digital media (emails, photos, etc) via that device, possibly via a gateway service.
However maybe there was something unique in their patent. Shame they NEVER MADE A DEVICE which used the patent. Patents should exist to protect the inventor whilst he/she/it sells their product utilising said patent. It should be for people to have ideas, patent, and wait for someone else to implement.
I think that patent lawsuits should be stopped on the first day after the judge asks "Did this patent ever result in the creation of a device that you wish to protect from the alleged infringers?".
Ideas are cheap. Doing them is where the work is.
"forcing Research in Motion to stop providing e-mail services to all American customers except government account holders"
Now if I were RIM and a branch of the US government handed me down this ruling, I'd shut the whole system down in the US. I'm allowed to keep providing service to government account holders, but I can't keep my business account holders? No thanks. I'll just kill everything in the US until we get this straightened out. Up yours, government.
The government make the law, they decide how it's enforced, why shouldn't they feel what it's like to be on the wrong end of a dumb decision.
I'm sorry - why is the government an exception? If you want to except people, how about *existing customers*. I work at a hospital, and just about every doctor here has a Blackberry. I wouldn't be able to ever get answers on any of my questions if they didn't have them - as these doctors are NEVER in their office long enough to sit down.
I don't see how some government official with more time and money on his/her hands than they know what to do with keeps their Blackberry, when people who are genuinely busy and using the damned thing are going to get shut out in the cold.
Is the government excepted just so they don't have to look at it from a "who's getting hurt by this"? Arguably, the point of the patent is to protect the creator so they can bring the product to market and profit from their research - well, NTP wasn't didn't and wouldn't - and their use of the patent now and under these terms explicitly HURTS consumers and the world in general.
Incidentally - I'm rather against the "patent for patents sake". Patents have a place, but they are all too often abused. There need to be some rules about sitting on your ass when you know infringement is in the works, so you can let it get big and profitable before digging in. I know this RIM:NTP has been going on for a while, but they didn't pipe up until RIM was well underway.
cyn, free software and *nix operating systems enthusiast.
I just want to comment that I think this stop providing e-mail services to all American customers except government account holders is a bullshit biased judgement. Admittedly it was the original judgement, but I only just noticed it.
Why should corporate America have to suffer but the government not?
When MCI went down the tubes, I bought stock, simply because I knew that too much of the Govt infrastructure, corporate America and the internet was dependent on their network, and that MCI weren't going to get turned off.
I can understand doing something to keep the company alive, but this just seems wrong. Why the double standard?
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
Now I have to go talk to the higher up's in my company and let them know their Blackberry devices are going to be useless in the near future. At least warn them before they come to me about it. And just to think, our office managers just started getting blackberry's and have to stop useing the email services before I even set them up with it hahaha.
We have companies like [The] SCO group, Forgent Networks and NTP who do not really have any products
The SCO Group has several products, and they haven't officially canceled all of them yet. They're not immune to a patent-based counterattack because they don't have any products, they're immune because they don't have enough customers or money. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip, especially not after the turnip farmers have already juiced it while laughing at you.
This means that in meetings people will pay attention to me instead of their Blackberries. There's nothing I hate more than making some point and having to repeat it because half of the people in the room are checking their Blackberries.
It seems logical to me that when granting a patent, the USPTO should stipulate that the invention being patented actually be produced or used to some degree, within a certain timeframe. Now, I realise that it would be important to come up with a clear definition of what consitutes implementation, but other than that purely logistical point, can anyone see a reason why we shouldn't do this?
Put another way, are there any valid reasons to allow companies to hold patents for devices that they have no intention of ever developing?
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one " -Albert Einstein
When there are too many policemen, there can be no liberty.
When there are too many soldiers, there can be no peace.
When there are too many lawyers, there can be no justice.
threadeds blog
Maybe we can rediscover the pleasure of being out of touch.
Maybe my time can be mine again.
Check out Good Technologies. They have software that works on both Palm and PocketPC OSes that does much the same of what Blackberry does except that, you have the option of getting different devices for each user.
Granted though, given the nature of the suit against RIM... I don't see how Good would be able to stay out of it either.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
RIM will license the patent.
It will then pass along the costs to the Blackberry users.
The Blackberry users will then gripe and whine about how they are getting ripped off by RIM.
Technology gets another black eye.
I'd put more consideration into your neck wringing idea. I can't say what I'd do, where I in your situation... for fear of prosecution.
Seriously, I wish your wife the best.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Are there companies whose only assets are patents, say, in the mechanical engineering field? Pharmaceuticals? Aerospace? I wonder if this phenomenon happens only with software patents.
NOw they will see that they got their fingers burned, will recognise that this COULD NEVER happen to MS, so will play even safer next time.
It's pathetic.
Only big ligs use sigs.
NTP is just upset that a Canadian company. What does NTP get out of this ruling since they have no products?
[%] Cingular Ringtones
I use Good Technologies for my mobile users and so far it's been golden. It gives us a choice of devices and carriers, provides over-the-air provisioning, and performs like a champ.
BTW, Good has licensed the intellectual property from NTP so they should be OK.
Of course we torture people, we need the information --Gen. Pinochet
Correct me if I'm wrong but... isn't the Blackberry just a small portable device used for reading and sending email? If it gets shut down, I have some advice for all the disgruntled users out there. Buy a mobile phone! They're pretty amazing these days; color screens, web access, email, and (quite uselessly) some can play music and take pictures.
Management can no longer use the argument that open source products are not protected from patent problems the way that closed source products are.
RIM is a Canadian company, so it makes for good press (evil, possibly terroristic influences). Yeah, it's stupid, but then again, morons hang on whether Bill Gates appears to have a hangnail and make trades based on that.
The stock market is a joke where listed companies can get away with virtually anything and low-level people suck it up thinking they are hot shot investors and discuss their trades at work. People these days want a quick buck without having to work for it. The poker websites are cashing in on this, witness all the recent TV ads. It's sad really.
Let's see, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8:
I guess I'm missing the "promotion" part here.
Do you have ESP?
Thanks for that bit of info on the way Good licenses, was informative. I'd mod you up but I can't as I've already posted in this discussion :)
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
The guy who invented the intermittent windshield wiper sued Detroit. The case took more than a decade. When he finally won it didn't mean the end of intermittent windshield wipers. It meant the guy got tens of millions of dollars in back royalties.
It's highly unlikely that NTP wants to shut down RIM. There will almost certainly be a licensing deal.
Insert witty sig here.
Why are people so against companies that buy patents from inventors? I agree that it 'feels' wrong somehow when such a shell company starts to litigate, but let's face it - it's not.
In these cases the inventor gets money for the patent, he could've also said 'no' and kept it. Instead, he has made a (hopefully) informed decision to sell his rights. The patent-buyers made the choice to invest. The choice for the inventor is: get money NOW, or maybe get more money later, if you can afford the lawyers and time.
Why do people consider this practice 'evil' while things like making money off trading stocks is considered perfectly legit? In the stock market you also buy a -share- of something you have no intellectual input in.
Incidentally: as far as I can tell, NTP is not the 'vulture' company but actually was founded by the actual inventor of the patents discussed here.
No, really, will this be the downfall of the mighty RIM? No more RIM jobs for UW students?
Meh.
If you like helping people who dont have brains, you yourself may not have a brain.
I'm in networking to solve complex issues. Not to change some morons battery.
Not allowed. Parent thought of it first.
So why not bend the rules....
Have the blackberry server convert the emails into something else.
HTML webpages or IMs or whatever.
Then send those wirelessly and have the handheld convert them back to email. Thus, they're not doing "wireless email"....
I really love this. "OK you can't sell this to anybody, but I still get to use it"! How ironical!
How about the government uses only the service from a patent owning company like NTP ? Maybe patents are a bit clumsier to use than real products.
et les Shadoks pompaient...
BWJones: It has got to be apparent that this business model has nothing to do with innovation and everything to do with piracy and racketeering.
SatanicPuppy: The idea is to protect innovation, not to protect a group of idiots sitting around in a room, patenting anything that flies out of their mouths. The idea of a thing isn't worth crap compared to the massive NRE that goes into making it work in the real world.
mikkom: Corporate world is a lot like ecosystem. If you allow these kind of companies exists, they will exist. If your legistlation allows these kind of companies sue companies and win, they will prevail.
Youse guys' problem is that you are thinking as engineers - as though laws were written by engineers for the benefit of engineers.
But laws aren't written by engineers: Laws are written by lawyers ["legislators"] and interpreted by lawyers ["jurists"] for the benefit of lawyers [e.g. paperwork fictions like "corporations"].
"NTP" is a front for a bunch of lawyers. The Court of Appeals is a front for a bunch of lawyers. You do the math: Lawyers win, engineers lose.
Well, if RIM is being held hostage, there's always their nuclear option:
Take the product off the market. Not just their product, but all wireless email, everywhere, in the states.
After all, it's unimaginable that RIM has no patents themselves that could block others from creating products. And with SMS arguably a form of wireless email, that can go too.
Perhaps this is an option that shouldn't be available to them. I'm sure they'd be the first to call for global disarmament. But -- if the patent endgame is facing them, they can always return the favor. Anything that would invalidate their patents would surely hit NTP as well!
--Dan
This writeup from USA Today
g y/2005-10-07-rim_x.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technolo
says that USPTO "has now issued preliminary rejections of the five NTP patents that RIM was found to have violated in the jury trial. The most recent of those patent office decisions came last week".
Maybe this is why the story isn't getting much news coverage; RIM will probably be OK.
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
the entire patent system needs to be defenstrated (thrown out the window),
People that use extremely uncommon words and then define them in parenthesis are non compos mentis (pompous stupid dorks)
Odds are very low that RIM will realyl be forced to shut down, NTP is obviously in this for the money, not to prevent the use of this technology. Just checked my blackberry...and all is still up as of 10:13EST.
I wonder what my managers are going to do during meetings now? I'm so used to seeing the tops of their heads; I probably won't even recognize them.
Funny, if one of my help desk techs could clear a trouble ticket by changing a battery, I'd be pleased, not crying in my soup that it isn't some complex issue. But maybe that's just me.
No sweat...just a happy customer really. It's rare these days that I buy a product that does what I expect it to do. Goodlink really delivered for me at a price I could afford.
Of course we torture people, we need the information --Gen. Pinochet
"granted an injunction banning the sale of BlackBerry devices in the United States and forcing Research in Motion to stop providing e-mail services to all American customers except government account holders."
I think BlackBerry if they are forced to stop providing service should in fact STOP providing service to government account holders. Why make an exception. Sure, maybe there will be a potential for critical issues to arise due to government reliance on Blackberries. If so, it just points out the silliness of patents enforced in such manner.
First off, Patents should only be available for new technology. NOT new business models or simply a "task". A patent should not be granted for "online auctions". But if someone were to come up with a specific device that allowed for "online auctions" to be conducted in a certain manner. That might be patentable. But these broad patents are silly.
I mean, I should file a patent on "flying car" sure I can't make one, I have no technology...but as soon as someone invest billions of dollars to successfully build a flying car I can sue them and stop production until they pay me my 40% due royalty. !@#$% ???
This is simply about the broken IP process where the ideas of "novel" and "non-obvious" are concerned. Allowing this to stand means essentially that ALL wireless e-mail systems are in jeopardy. I've been using e-mail wirelessly for a number of years now. Didn't Heathkit have a kit for sending low bandwidth data over radio years and years ago? The very concept that you can patent wireless e-mail or wireless anything else that was already being transmitted over wires long before is ludicrous. It's like patenting sending something over water on a boat instead of a truck.
It needs to be a LOT more novel, a LOT more non-obvious, and has to have NO prior art.
Seems to me the USPTO is granting patents left and right without doing their jobs properly and the courts are being way too reluctant to wade in and thump the USPTO soundly for it and make the difficult rulings that need to be made due to their idiocy.
We need a SCOTUS watershed case at this point to move the process of reformation to where something is actually being done about it.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Theoretically in your case, the government could step in, seize your land, pay you some chump change, and turn around and give it to the neighbor company for a toxic waste dump. The company next door pays larger taxes than you do, a few local commissioners see that, some other "consulting fees" change hands sub rosa, poof, you are SOL. Eminent domain property seizures have happened a lot, and are judged "legal" as long as there is some tenuous public benefit.
I would imagine some enterprising lawyers are already drooling over this legal concept when it comes to IP "products". It's only a short step away.
Say, you had large established company A with deep pockets that needed patent B from joe nobody in order to produce product C, and offered to set-up a factory in some locale. Perhaps they could persuade the governmental entity that if they seized the patent they needed and gave it to them that it would result in "more business and growth" for this community.
It could happen theoretically, property is prperty, seizure is seizure.
Forget keeping the network up for the government, shut them off a week before everyone else gets shut-off... see if that gets their attention about what kind of problems it's going to create for the US at large.
I feel a great disturbance in the Service, as if millions of voices cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced...
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
This whole lawsuit is equivalent to what cybersquatters do. Briely, cybersquatting means registering domain names that you otherwise have no intention to use other than to try and generate revenue by click-thru ads or sell to legitmate companies with the same name.
Most of you slashdotters think cybersquatting is a legitimate business model. So why is buying up patents and then sueing potential infringers not a legit business model? Me thinks a double standard exists here. Personally, I think it is a legit business model.
This is great. Tens of thousands of executives are getting an education on how broken the patent system is.
Why is it that there is no provision for multiple people coming up with the same idea independently? In this case, NTP bought the rights to a patent from somewhere - that's fine. However, it certainly doesn't look as if RIM knew about this patent or maliciously used it - as others pointed out, they came up with the same obvious idea at the same time. The difference is then they actually did something with it.
History is rife with examples of people coming up with revolutionary things at the same time, just because the pieces were all falling into place and multiple people went "aha!" at once.
Maybe I'm trying to inject too much common sense into a legal argument, but wouldn't this squash a lot of this IP-squatting, if the law were to accept the idea that multiple parties could independently come up with a novel idea, and the first to actually DO something with it (license it, produce it, or otherwise make use of the idea) would be given priority on the patent?
The nationalism of the whole thing bothers me as well. Just for the sake of argument, say we had a Canadian company patent the same idea in their system a week before a US patent was filed. Does anyone really believe the US courts would uphold a foreign patent over one of their own? I place bets the foreign one would be ignored as having been granted under different standards, much the way the FDA doesn't recognize other countries' drug approvals.
(Quite obviously, IANAL)
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
seriously, the more software/stupidly easy yet needed patent articles I read, and the more slashdot I read, the more I think that someday I'll become your average ranting psychotic revolutionary who brings arms against the state just to show the media the point.
the upper-class who make the laws are becoming further and further away from those who it actually effects. One can't help but think that one day we'll have so few rights as that such a drastic measure will be more than justified. Perhaps the 'tyranny' of the former democracy would one day be recorded as such.
I realise people will probably think this is a troll, or more of the same, but think of how far rights have come in the last century, now compare them to how they've been limited in the last decade.. if it's a sign of things to come... I wouldn't want to stick around too long. If your not allowed to think because your thought may have been previously thought by someone else... what is there to do?
The injunction is just a way to get more money out of RIM.
The only thing NTP wants is money. They don't want market share. They don't market anything.
If RIM fails in all its appeals, they will make some deal to keep selling devices and providing service.
--Barry
Research in Motion are no Saints. I worked for a wireless carrier in the Procurement Group and did the 120 page contract with RIM. The negotiations set a new record internally because you HAD to agree to all their terms or you were not going to be allowed to resell RIM's products. The management at RIM are Canadian cowboys who spell it out for you, their way or the highway and trust me, they will/would do the same IP litigation if the roles were reversed! So, do not feel sorry for RIM. Just MHO.....
Sadly, the "Little" guy is nothing more than a lawfirm- Patents are solely only worth what kind of legal defense you can mount to defend them. The "Little" guy can't even afford a decent legal defense in most of these cases, and when you seer a lawsuit like this it's somebody that thinks that they have deep enough pockets to bleed even deeper pockets.
This would be a little easier to stomach if it were the "Little" guy fighting back and that the litigant actually DID something with their precious Patents. What we have here is a letter of the law thing- and a bunch of lawyers abusing it seriously to their and their client's best interests. It's not illegal- but it is immoral.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I would like to see what patents NTP has over RIM. I've spent hours looking at other patents recorded at USPTO. It's usually by companies that no one has heard of, or companies that haven't done a single thing with their 'innovation'.
What did NTP file? "The process of sending electronic mail via cellular wireless networks" ?? WTF? I'm having a little difficulty finding what NTP holds that RIM is infringing on. It's probably ridiculous/obvious innovation. 'Innovation' that would naturally come to mind while anyone competent is developing a new product.
Argh! - You don't reject a well established, world-wide known company's request to continue with the legal process, that's bad business for EVERONE. RIM and NTP should simply work on some pay-off deal to shut them up. Check this out: http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000573042005/
Just to elaborate. The GP was thinking of the "old" SCO, aka the Santa Cruz Operation, which was more recently known as Tarantella, Inc. They were the Xenix and UnixWare people. According to Wikipedia, lately they made some sort of secure thin client that was a competitor to Citrix and were bought up by Sun for $25M back in July after their stock tanked (this was news to me, I guess I missed it).
The "new" SCO -- the one whose business model seems to consist of suing anyone with deep pockets who's ever heard of Linux -- was formerly known as Caldera Systems, made a commercial distro of the same name, and eventually bought the rights to some Unix stuff from the Santa Cruz Organization and changed their name to SCO.
The easiest way to tell, IMO, which SCO is being talked about in an article is to see if the state its based out of is mentioned. SCO/Caldera is Utah-based, while SCO/Tarantella was California-based.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Don't worry the Great Patent Rebellion of the early 21st century will soon be at hand. The number of tort cases will overwelm the court systems. Adjudication will be impossible and technology will run free and far. Tux, not Clippy will show us the way into a big, bright, better tomorrow... There is hope, the GPR is soon, geeks bring your tech to the ready!
--Neth
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
This is somewhat offtopic, but the Sidekick II is comparable if not superior. It has been marketed by Paris Hilton, and looks a little bit like a gameboy though which makes it totally unsuitable for use by adults who take themselves too seriously. They'll all get Treos which are far more stylish. I however returned my Treo and paid the cancellation fee so I could get my sidekick back.
For those of you wondering how RIM could offend their shareholders by doing this, they're not offending. RIM is a Canadian company that makes most of its revenue in the US, so this will hurt them a lot, but they'll still be able to continue selling elsewhere. Effectively, this ruling is going to force them to sell other countries harder, since they apparently are refusing the give in to extortion from this IP company. Plus, as long as they can still sell to the Fed, they will, since it does make them money.
(Obviously, the NTP folks don't want to stop BlackBerries from working - they want to cause enough pain that RIM will pay them a huge amount of money for doing next to nothing... since this hasn't happened yet, one can assume RIM is still holding out)
One more thing of note about this case... RIM claims that the patent shouldn't apply to them because the computers at the top of their equipment pyramid are in Canada, not the US. If the devices themselves don't infringe, this means the US is ignoring the fact that IT'S A SEPARATE DAMNED COUNTRY and acting like it owns the world.
I'm something like a seventh generation American... last night I was looking at my Grandfather's World War I records and wondering why he went over the top for this country. I can only conclude that something is different in the US from then to now.
I'd make a joke about this, but I can't joke about it any more. Instead, I'm going to do some legal research into precedents for secession from the US (for my state, MN) and I'm going to look into purchasing a Garand rifle from the Civilian Marksmanship Program. The Federal Government is beyond control, and leaving the union to help it collapse under its own weight may be the only way to stop it.
Erik
soap jury ballot ammo
I don't think anyone here knows what NTP is. They are the little guy in this case!+ dies/2100-1041_3-5238198.html
Before we stone NTP to death let's take a closer look at them.
NTP was found buy Tom Campana http://news.com.com/Key+figure+in+BlackBerry+case
a guy that invented staff, just like many others on this forum. He just did not wanted to be riped off by a big company!
I live in Uruguay, and they are right now negotiating a trade deal that says exactly that: that we should take the same "IP" protection provisions.
That point is being debated, but in the end, the strongest part does get what they want.
Does anyone know if the courts have selected a date to which RIM must stop service to U.S users?
Bare in mind, this is the U.S court system, they might just milk it for another 6 months for all we know.
...but make damn sure that trailer trash pays back their VISA bill.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Does anyone know if RIM is contesting the acutal patents?
The New York Times claims that RIM's position was, "Yes, they've got patents. No, they don't apply to us, even if we provide service in the U.S., because our *servers* are located in Canada, and NTP has no patents in Canada."
Well, no shit. That's the dumbest position I've ever heard.
These patents are retarded. The USPTO is striking them down on INTERNAL REVIEWS (this is the same process that upheld the Amazon one-click-purchase patent).
Make a stupid argument in court, get your products ripped off the shelf.
*shrug*
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Actually what Rambus patented was components of DDR SDRAM. They then used this as leverage to try to force the other DRAM makers to pay them royalities to ofset the extreme cost of their own product, RDRAM. The DRAM makers (expically the asian ones) told them to go to hell, and DDR became the de facto standard. Also, Intel had some shady dealings as they tried to push their systems to use only RDRAM, mainly because Intel held stock in Rambus at the time. Fortunatly for Intel they were smart enough to realize they cannot push the market around, and dropped RDRAM.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
But by RIM providing the service, they are the ones infringing, not the government.
Even if government uses eminent domain to force NTP to license use of the patented invention to RIM?
Patent protection *only* applies to the manufacture of a product. If NTP is not mfgr'g their patented invention they cannot withold the invention from the market by right of patent. Patent protection expressly insures that an inventor reaps the rewards of his creativity in the marketplace by guaranteeing other's may not manufacture and profit at his expense.
The purpose of the Patent process is to guarantee Society that inventions are disseminated throughout the marketplace for the benefit of all, at the inconvenience of protecting those who labored to bring the invention to fruition in the first place with a guarantee of manufacture.
NTP cannot choose to whom it wishes to benefit from their invention (i.e. Gov't). Keep watching, here... more to come in the courts.
Do you have a stake in NTP or some patent holding company or are you merely a useful idiot?
It's a self-perpetuating racket. Name another career which offers this?
Look at this: http://news.com.com/Sending+a+message+to+RIM/2008- 1082_3-5759953.html?tag=st.ref.goo
What a double-standard! It's the "we don't want you to infringe on this patent, unless it benefits us *judge looks at Blackberry PIN message on his blackberry*". It's a very American government mentaility, as seen with many other issues such as softwood lumber.
In any case, if this ruling becomes final, I'd provide the ?30? days notice or whatever is in the contract from the government and start sending mail and PINs to
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
Create new firmware using common wireless networking and VOIP, upload the changes, done! You will still never be able to go on vacation.
Exxxxcellent!
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
False, Rambus settled with Infineon, has licensed its patents to various others, its patents have been upheld to date in court, and it is still pursuing lawsuits against Samsung and others.
Similarly, in March, the German chip maker Infineon Technologies agreed to pay Rambus, a California chip designer, quarterly amounts totaling nearly $50 million until 2007 with the possibility of further payments of up to $100 million to settle a U.S. patent. The suit could have entitled Rambus to as much as a 3.5 percent share of all memory chip sales in the $26 billion industry, or revenue of about $910 million annually, said Michael Cohen, a California-based analyst with Pacific American Securities.
Rambus, which is expected to earn about $21 million this year from licensing patents, spent $23.1 million on litigation in 2004 and has pending fights with other chip makers, including Samsung of South Korea, which continue to accuse Rambus of making overly broad claims to ownership of vital chip technologies.
Or maybe You just dont know enough about it to understand that it isnt that easy?
1. Who's definition of productive?
2. Medicine takes more than that to get to the market.
3. More taxes? Nice....
I agree. You have some nice tv shows.
Saudi Arabia doesn't want our economy to go into the toilet either. That's where the payoff is.
I don't get it. I really don't. I see this sort of opinion all over the place, and it makes no sense to me. Your cellphone has all sorts of neat features designed to do exactly what you want:
1. An off switch
2. Caller ID, and the resultant ability to screen calls
3. The ability to make the ringer silent
4. Intrinsic ignorability, owing to the lack of any sort of mechanism to actually compel you by force to answer it
Why do people feel like they'd have to get rid of technology to be "free"? Use it on your own terms. Keep it off unless you need a tow truck. Only answer it when you want to talk to a person. Why do communications tools make people feel like slaves to the tools? It's not like the device is going to reach out and smack you around if you wait 24 hours to return a call while you do whatever you need or want to do. Or is the problem your JOB? If you can't be "really alone" now, you must have some sort of job requirement that requires you to answer immediately. And if you lose the phone, that requirement isn't going to change-- you're just gonna have to hang out by a landline your boss knows you can be reached at.
Damnit, I just bought a Blackberry on eBay and subscribed to the services offered by my cellular carrier a month ago! So thanks to this IP bullsh*t, am I correct in thinking I may be paying $20 more a month for at least the next year for something I can't use?
If someone puts together some kind of class action against NTP, I for one will sign on, even though I hate how screwed up the legal system in the US is.
You might have a point if NTP's patents are valid. But that is in question.
Sept. 29, 2005 - U.S. patent office issued an initial ruling rejecting all claims in the final of eight NTP patents it is re-examining, as it has with the seven other patents.
NTP simply wants RIM to give them a big cut out of the worldwide sales of Blackberries, for a patent that they hold in the US. It's extortion, pure and simple.
If I were the President of RIM, I would bankrupt the company, right after cutting off every single Blackberry account worldwide, just to spite the US, which (I would guess) has most of the users of the Blackberry. I'd make them regret allowing a company, whose only asset is IP, to be able to do this.
The Patent system is completely broken, and unless something like this happens, nothing will ever be done to fix it.
"To make a mistake is only human; to persist in a mistake is idiotic." Cicero
NOT!
This will be solved by RIMM paying a royalty to the patent holder. No one dies, no wireless email users are injured. Fairness issues aside, things will work out.
Now my company can't annoy the hell out of me when I'm at home! Freedom!
Love sees no species.
EFF and whoever, this is your cue to hit the piggy-bank with the hammer, and call in all your favours! There will never be a better moment to move the mainstream and throw patents out of software for good.
But let's leave that alone for a while and assume that the patent is not evil by itself
My point was more about the general case than this specific one.
The company I work for just last week issued brand new Verizon Blackberries to all the managers, on-call staff, and important people-type staff.
It was Wednesday, I believe. We managed to break one of the holders in less than 24 hours. I hoped at the time that it wasn't an omen.
If our company was jumping in with both feet, it was a) probably a shallow pool of water, and b) time for everyone else to jump out.
Sig for hire.
In one corner, we have Blackberry, which cleverly turned a very simple thing (wireless e-mail) into a huge proprietary system which they plan to pump for cash for decades. In the other corner, we have an IMAP server and a Treo (or any other smartphone capable of running an IMAP email client; there's a lot of them). Does the same thing, using established, open standards that have been around for years. I run courier-imap on my home server and Chatteremail on my Treo - I've got mobile email (and yes, it does 'push') without paying Blackberry a monthly fee ad infinitum, and without any nasty patent lawyers coming around...
I'm in tech support for a large US companies European operations. We've shipped hundreds of Blackberries to management and reps. They absolutely adore the blighters. Of course, this case only affects the US use of Blackberries.
Now, what I'm interested in is - just what is the scope? Can our European users roam in the US and still use the Blackberries? Does it only affect BES's in the US?
1. Who's definition of productive?
How about "if the product is being produced, it it's productive"
2. Medicine takes more than that to get to the market.
Unless all those tests are actually done with sugar pills, see #1.
3. More taxes? Nice....
If you're going to have Big Daddy Government step in to create an artificial monopoly just for you, you should pay for the service. Unlike all the other taxes everyone has to pay for things they don't use, this is money changing hands specifically for a particular service.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Rim should have simply gotten a contract to give all the Judges Blackberrys. Once the judges got hooked, the judges would have sided with RIM.
Especially when they can't even spell them right. It's defenestrated.
Interesting how when people are hit directly by something, they suddenly start to care. Congress doesn't care about updating patent law but as soon as individual Senators can't use their Blackberries they want to intercede. Never mind whether the case brought against RIM is valid or not. Has there ever been a case where the government has bailed out an individual company because they rely on that company's technology?
It is good to see RIM get a taste of their own medicine. They tried to sue Good Technology out of existence when Good announced their competing product. RIM's arrogance is unbounded ...
I'm reminded of a comment Unisys made on the GIF patent a couple of years ago, around the time it expired. They said that the creation of PNG was a perfect demonstration that their patent on LZW compression had done what it was supposed to and spurred innovation: without it, no one would have bothered to create the new image format.
I don't think anyone was convinced.
You guys really need to take a long, hard look at those intellectual property laws of yours. Unfortunately Australia's tagging along courtesy the Free Trade Agreement, but with any luck the recent attempts in Europe will be the closest we'll ever come to software patents over here.
What I'm not comprehending is this:
What about all the institutions (such as mine) that have a copy of Blackberry Enterprise Server? How could they (.gov) stop us from using it?
Also: we're part of the "state government". Is that included in the "government clause"?
Everybody agrees that the US patent laws are woefully inadequate, particularly when it comes to its application in information technology. And in its potential for abuse by vultures like NTP. Here is a simple clause that should fix some of the more egregious offenses to system:
What IF the patent law said that in order to enforce a patent a patent holder must show that they are actively pursuing development of the inventions described in the patent they are holding. Otherwise the patent is not enforceable. Obviously it needs to be a lot more detailed that this simple statement, but it seems to me that requiring patent holders to do more than just sit on their assets waiting for an opportunity to litigate, would go a long way to fix the perception that pantents serve to protect corporate pirates, instead of true inventors.
Sure it'll irritate a few people further, but not so much as having the service totally unavailable for a while (so long as they know the reason).
It would certainly be very easy to address from a legal standpoint, relative to most of the other aspects of the patent problem. The political aspects are hard though. The patent system could cost our country billions of dollars in lost productivity, but there's no poster child you can put up on the evening news.
1. Who's definition of productive?
This is a perfect example. "Productive" is a lot easier to define than things "original" and "non-obvious". Naturally it would be wise to do so very liberally, so things like releases of software under open source licenses are considered "productive". Broadly, I'd say if people obtain something from you or your licensees, something which we'll for want of a better word refer to as a "product", then the patent is productive. If there is no way for anybody to obtain a product based on the patent, or such products are priced in ways that literally nobody buys them, then the patent is non-productive beyond any reasonable standard of doubt.
2. Medicine takes more than that to get to the market.
Bit of a strawman, don't you think? There is no reason that different rules can apply to different kinds of inventions, for example inventions intended for use in biomedical appliations could have a longer period, software patents shorter.
3. More taxes? Nice....
Well, how does this sound:
That's what a patent is.
In any case, a tax by definition is a involuntary exaction. What I'm talking about is a fee, in return for which the public grants you a monopoly on producing something in the future.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
That's one thing that could change a lot: Limit the amount of money that can be gathered from a patent to something like (cost of research + x%) where x allow for some profit so that research pays off. After that amount is reached, the patent goes into public domain and nobody has to pay anymore. This approach does prevent people from profiting from ridiculous patents (think Eolas) by putting the value and the effort needed to make the invention into perspective.
:)
That way, you could still make a living by inventing things. But you can not "retire early" just by being lucky. But why should this be possible, anyway? And why should society have to pay so someone doesn't have to work for the rest of his/her life?
This system might not be fair for certain kinds of innovations. But I can't think of any right now
I'm really surprised at all the outrage surrounding poor RIM losing this battle. Short memory I guess. Isn't RIM the company that The Register affectionately labeled Lawsuits In Motion because of all the patent lawsuits they file?
n ology_settles_with_lawsuits/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/28/good_tech
Be sure and follow some of the links at the bottom of the article.
It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit. -- Harry Truman
What I can't understand is why NTP would want the US to be without Blackberries. Surely their patent-farm business model does better if they get license fees than if they don't.
Shouldn't they be trying like hell to get RIM to settle?
Where I work we got rid of the crackberrys and replaced them with Handspring Treos. They work great with uur mail server, they run on Linux, and we don't have ro pay a license to have a RIM-job (pun intended). Our support people always recieved calls from our VP's because the services were always down. Since the move, trouble free ever since. Bye Bye Research in Motion.
China does not have a lot of regard for intellectual property, and this is to their competitive advantage. While Eolas and NTPs will continue destroying few remaining north american companies that actually MAKE products, China and India will develop new software and hardware without patents.
You can't secede.
Um no.
One, this is about software patents (which are illogical). Two, no one wants to stop you from licensing your fucking patent. All we're saying is: Make some sort of attempt to bring your product to market, either by searching for venture capital, or shopping it around to existing companies. If you sit on your ass and do nothing with your patent, there's no reason we should reward you for that. Show some proof you're not just sitting on IP
Making a random analogy between intellectual property and physical property does not make you 'right' because any such comparisons are a fuck FALLACY. Jackass.
Look an analogy!
A scientist develops a drug that cures cancer, aids, and the common cold, in 2 hours. This scientist takes all of his research and puts it in a locked box underneath his bed. Five years later, a company creates the same drug in their lab. They bring it past the FDA and bring it to market. Now the scientist decides to speak up and sues company X. HE LET PEOPLE DIE FOR FIVE YEARS BECAUSE HE "COULDN"T AFFORD" TO GET THE PRODUCT TO THE FDA AND DIDN"T WANT TO SHOP IT AROUND?????
Your opinion that a person has no responsibility to bring their product to market would let innocent men women and children die to aids and cancer before requiring that the scientist disclose his research. For shame dausha.
Talk about divine intervention. It may not keep palm from dissapearing but it will certainly buy them some time.
"Bad news everyone. We received a letter from the NTP lawyers today. They're threatening us with RIM-job."
If you want all your applications provided by a central corporation, then get used to losing them when the corporation gets shut down.
If you don't like them don't buy one. No need to wax poetic. For all the complaining some people do about technology you'd think there was no escaping it. Thats simply not the case. There are days I wish I didn't have to carry a phone with me everywhere, but I *chose* to be a sys admin. I could just as well choose to be a rancher, a farmer, a clerk, a logger, a priest. You get my point.
:)
Like most things, technology is neither 100% good nor 100% evil (accept Solaris, but I'm not sure which 100% it is yet).
Quack, quack.
Damned things are annoying, and so are the people that dont have the courtsey to not check their messages while things are going on around them, such as a meeting, or direct discussion.
They are almost as rude as the damned cell phone users that cant get off the damned phone long enough to even check out at the grocery store.
Actually, a pocket wireless jammer sounds better and better every day.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
A real easy way to fix things would be to suddenly discontinue services to government on the grounds of it being financially unfeasable. Within days of cutting off all the politician's Blackberrys, there'd be legislation in the works to fix the problem.
Smart makes whiteboards.
Good makes wireless PDA-like email stuff.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
A better example is a factual one. The case of Robert Kearns, and the intermittent windshield wiper. They give some details here, in his death notification: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNew s/1109378985145_41?hub=SciTech
He filed the patent for his idea, and all of the automakers failed to pay him for it, then started to install it on their cars. He won against Ford and Chrysler, then strangely had the case dismissed against GM, and all the foreign auto-makers, with none of them being forced to stop using his IP.
Canadians are becoming more and more paranoid that the U.S. is screwing us over, and that this is more about politics than patents. First, there was the beef, then softwood lumber, and now the BlackBerry.
Read Canadian Prime Minister Martin's recent speech to U.S. businessman. Time to cut off the oil.
Patents are intended to benefit the inventor allowing him to get a return on his investment with his invention. This should mean exploit the investment, not sell it -- the second its sold, the patent expires.
I'd do it, but I don't have mod points.
Thanks for the info, though.
On what grounds? Having a patent upheld by various courts hardly ranks as tortious behaviour. They would have to prove that NTP damaged them in some significant manner through illegal activity or breach of contract. Fat chance of that. Unless you're an entity with the ability to spam the patent system. The system of granting patents is thoroughly screwed up right now (lack of resources to properly review applications), which favors this unethical but entirely legal behavior. So what we need to do is fix the approval system. What we're getting in the way of 'reform' - 'first to file', rather than 'first to invent' is going to encourage the current spamming problem to an even greater degree and remove incentives for inventors with fewer resources to file patents. In other words, we'll get Microsoft's definition of 'Freedom to innovate'.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
This whole topic really grinds my gears, but in keeping an open mind about it all, the comments here have brought up a bunch of points.
A lot of people are complaining that NTP has not done anything with the patent, and that in order for it to be valid they should have to have shown that they are working on developing a product that uses said patent....well, they've made a licensing deal with Good Technologies...that looks like they're trying to actually USE the technology in that patent. They are not directly making it, but neither is the initial person who developed the patent and sold it to NTP...which is what a lot of people are saying is ok for the garage based inventor with low cash to do.
So, based on the licensing that NTP has with Good, the patent would be valid in this case...the patent is being used by a company and that company is paying licensing fees.
If you change it to be "the entity that holds the patent must be activly trying to produce a product that uses that patent" because then any individual inventor with a good idea that get's a patent would not be able to sell that patent until they have made thier own product and therefore "validated" the patent. Otherwise it's not a valid patent and therefore cannot be sold.
HOWEVER, this does not give any reason why a company who has infringed on a patent should have to stop doing business. Make them pay restitution, and if they wish to continue providing a service/product, they have to get the proper licensing. And there has to be some way to ensure that the patent holder does not gouge the infringing company or deny them licensing. Because I'm willing to bet that if the judge said "Ok RIM, you lose. Pay NTP $x million and get proper licensing, or stop service" NTP would be like "Good pays us $x/year for licensing, so we want $4*x/year from RIM or you can't get licensing" because RIM has a proven product and large userbase already.
Ok, ending my $0.0144 US rant now. (That's about $0.02 CDN btw).
Zro . two
"I come from Canada...they say I'm slow....eh?"
"This writeup from USA Today ... says that USPTO 'has now issued preliminary rejections of the five NTP patents that RIM was found to have violated in the jury trial. The most recent of those patent office decisions came last week'."
So, if I understand that correctly: The USPTO will allow evil, money-grubing corporations to patent anything they want, unless, of course, the patent would adversely affect a large percentage of powerful people who might be able to do something about how messed up the US patent system is. Then the patents are rejected.
I'm gonna go cry now.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Motion to stop providing e-mail services to all American customers except government account holders.
.... they would no want any inconvinience for themselves!
Arg! if they have to stop the service for "normal" citizens why the hell does the goverment gets to keep the service????
oh wait, they are the one who made the ruling
Shit, that is lame. Hurray for democracy!
Most of these companies employees are not doing anything productive as they are a bunch of lawyers on staff who are parasites on technology and innovation doing nothing but sucking the life out innovation and progress.
That's because if you are a company making an actual product, there is no way in hell you can get anything for your patent from competitors: your competitors will have a huge patent portfolio, and they are going to sue you for patent violation unless you cross-license.
IP-only companies like these are salvation for the patent system: if they succeed, sooner or later, companies like Microsoft, Apple, and IBM will tire of getting sued and they'll work for patent reform.
And those IP-only companies often get their patents by paying some inventor or company good money for the patent itself.
I agree. Is there a place where bastard companies can be listed so we can boycott them? I mean, if the USPTO keeps refusing to do its job and keeps handing out frivolous patents, then our only choice it to use the capitalist system and spend the money on their competitors.
All in all, an object demostration that closed proprietary systems are in not automatically immune from the patent cartels.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
The reason that they cannot enjoin the governmen's use of the e-mail services is because the United States government can infringe on any patent, with or without the permission of the patent holder, and the only remedy is that the patentee man seek is fair compensation in federal court. See 28 USC 1498(a).
Unfortunately, it's not expensive enough to discourage the practice we're seeing here. Otherwise, it'd not be profitable enough to maintain the Patents long enough to pull these sorts of extortion.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
On the other hand, engineers can build death rays. Lawyer-targeting death rays.
Just gotta build it before they get that injunction...
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
Like the Treo 650, Sidekick (sucks) or Windows Mobile 2003 Cellular PDAs? A lot of them have built in slideout keyboards? Visit my website for more.
We can't even get more than 30% of the population to vote, how would anyone get them motivated to start a war?
go get a treo
http://www.npcgaming.com Dedicated Gaming Servers
These companies whose only product is IP which they sell to other companies: Are they viewed as leeches in their fields, squatting on IP that would have been easily developed by others, or are they legitimate research institutions that provide a valuable oursourcing of expensive research and development?
I STILL haven't heard anything that indicates the exact "innovation" of the NTP patents. Remember that one of the original sets of links in the Arpanet was ALOHA NET, in Hawaii, a CSMA wireless network (no CD). Remember that the original "killer app" for this partly-wireless network was email, rfc 788/822. I was writing and designing email systems 22 years ago, any patents in that era are long expired. Everything I've seen indicates that these patents are nuisance patents with no foundation, but I'm STILL waiting for the exact details about what was patented, and what was upheld in court!
Typical useless US & Canadian Press!