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.
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.....
Nothing to do with ethics, it's to do with our crappy IP laws. Ethically, the only thing that can be said about them is that they're following the law.
I do think, however, that all such IP claims, based on nothing, should be thrown out when someone else produces a viable product first. 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.
I wish more of these pie-in-the-sky morons understood that. Patented the idea of wireless email? You've got to be kidding. It's like they looked at all technology that was blowing up 10 years ago, and said, "Let's put 'wireless' in front of that and patent it."
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
"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.
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
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.
Maybe we can rediscover the pleasure of being out of touch.
Maybe my time can be mine again.
"For example, you couldn't patent a better way to do 3D graphic chipsets unless you could actually BUILD that chipset?
Effectively, you've narrowed the market down to a small cadre of companies."
If a "little guy" wanted to patent some non-obvious chipset improvement he wouldn't have to build a shipping product, just a prototype of his improved part. A prototype could consist of a computer simulation or FPGA and cost very little, it wouldn't need to run at full speed.
I think we need to move back to a patent system where you actually have to implement what you are patenting. It's really sad that it has gotten to the point where it is less profitable to actually make a product then squat on ideas and ruin those that actaully do.
Well, that's not hard to address. You do several things:
1) Distinguish productive patents from non-productive patents. A patent would be productive if you can show you are using it in a product, or if it is being infringed.
2) Make non-productive patents expire five years from filing. If you can't commercialize it in five years, it's either not viable or you have no intenion of it.
3) Charge an annual patent mainenance fee structured to make it possible to work on commercializing a small number of non-productive patents but expensive to hold a large number of them. For example charge 500 * 2^n per year, where n is the number of non-productive patents an entitiy holds. The small time inventor with a single idea pays $500 per year, which in most cases doesn't take food off his table. An IP company with ten non-productive patents would be paying a half million dollars on the off chance they will be able to catch somebody.
Naturally, this is just fantasy. Democracy in this country is to rotten for any laws to be passed for the public good, unless it makes good TV.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Perhaps you would like to point out how the current system is better?
Right now we have a system that is set up so that the little man can go in and effectively block production of a product forever. This is idiotic. Period.
Patents that are never implemented should either be invalid or they should lapse as soon as someone else implements it. I frankly have no sympathy; if you can't get it done, then get out of the way and let someone else do it. End of story. This "IP Hostage" crap has got to go.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.