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.

Comments

Racketeering

[BWJones]

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.

Re:Racketeering

[mysticwhiskey]

Yeah, certainly seems that way. On the other hand, what an almost perfect business model - Purchase patents, produce no product, then profit on the litigation. Sigh, business != ethical behaviour. In my naive world, actual product is greater than idea.

Re:Racketeering

[Mikkeles]

Well, this could just be the best thing to happen in order to reform patent legislation. An aweful lot of VIP are going to be very annoyed at not having Blackberrys (in the US).
To reinforce the point, RIM should also remove the government accounts.

Re:Racketeering

[SatanicPuppy]

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."

Re:Racketeering

[jeffs72]

This seems very similar to the Rambus deal where they sat with Intel and Micron and others at a JDEC summit and came up with a new standard for memory to replace sdram. The end product was RIMM (which sucked balls by the way). Rambus went and patented a lot of the JDEC designs and then sued all the people that came up with the standard for patent infringement. With RIMMs sucking, they weren't on the market for too long, so Rambus died a fairly quick and ignomius death. Hopefully we can hope for similiar for NTP.

I'd be interested to see how Microsoft's involvement with the new Palm pda's is affected by this. I can see Blackberry and Microsoft and Palm all forming a coalition to sue NTP into oblivion, since presumably the palm treo and even the smart phones made by motorola and others violate some aspects of NTPs patents, which sound overly broad.

It's obvious the US patent system is broken. Maybe someone should form a mail-in campaign to our congressmen and senators to make this an issue. That's the way we're supposed to invoke change in this country right? Bitch at our politicians until they get tired of listen to us.

Re:Racketeering

[mikkom]

What is it with these pseudo companies that are formed just to hold supposed IP?

When you have legistlation that allows companies like them, they will appear.

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.

Re:Racketeering

[bhmit1]

So how do we fix it? Do we require companies to prove that they are developing or selling a product that uses a patent for them to maintain it? Do we require that damages have been incurred (e.g. loss of revenue) due to a competing product? It seems appropriate to have a way to protect a small company from competition from a larger copy-and-destroy company (e.g. Microsoft). But then with so many patents out there, how does a small company ensure that they are not infringing on someone else's patents for a reasonable cost (free) and in a reasonable time (should it take one person hours, days, months, or years to do the checking)? If RIM failed to verify this, what hope does anyone else have? I think the world has gotten too complex for an easy answer to this problem, and the knee-jerk reaction to get rid of software patents would only trade one problem (long if not impossible research process) for another (copy-and-destroy business model).

Re:Racketeering

[dotwaffle]

I think we can all agree that the patent system is not just old and outdated, but doing those it was designed to aid a great disservice. What is the benefit of patenting in the 21st century? None! Copyright law does everything patenting should do - patents should be phased out within 5 years in my opinion.

Then again, I'm an outsider - I live in the UK...

Re:Racketeering

[brxndxn]

I also agree they should remove the government accounts. Keeping government accounts alive is like telling a cell-phone provider that they must lose 99% of their customers but keep the entire network infrastructure alive in order for the few important 1%. There are many doctors, paramedics, vets, teachers (private schools too if 'teacher' falls under gov't employee), hell.. the media that all use Blackberries. Why are gov't employees more important?

If I were a stockholder (if it's publicly traded or not), I would be fuming if they kept the entire network running - wasting precious company money..

BTW, I can get email on my cellphone that is not a RIM device. Is that infringing on this vapor-company's patent too?

Re:Racketeering

[71thumper]

If you go with the model of "you can only patent what you can build" -- you will squeeze out all the "little guys" with limited resources.

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.

I think this is a great example of "the little guy" being able to fight back against being crushed by the large corporations.

Steve

Re:Racketeering

[klingens]

The problem lies not with the missing implementation. Each of those PureIP companies could hire a contractor for 2 days and produce a sample application for any patent they wanted. They can even sell it to a single customer to make it a "commercial enterprise".

The first problem is the fact that your lawmakers allowed patents on business methods and software. The second one is that your PTO (and our european one too) doesn't review the patents for non-obviousness anymore. The PTO is also treated at a profit center while it really really shouldn't cause this will lead to shoddy examination by default which tremendously compounds the obviousness problem.

Re:Racketeering

[nanoakron]

Exactly. Why are government account holders allowed to keep their service, but the rest of us folk aren't?

-Nano.

Re:Racketeering

[bani]

the government is allowed to ignore patents.

Re:Racketeering

[Taladar]

No, this is a great example of large corporations crushing the little guy AND other large corporations with laws that were meant to protect the little guy from large corporations.

Re:Racketeering

[putaro]

There used to be a requirement that you had to have "reduced to practice" whatever it was that you were patenting. The patent office used to require you to submit a working scale model.

With today's technology a simulation could be used to the same effect. In the case of a 3D chipset, a Verilog model could be required.

Re:Racketeering

[gabebear]

"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.

Re:Racketeering

[Bozdune]

The fantasy that patents protect the little guy has almost always been a fantasy. Only little guys with big pockets have won (Eolas has big pockets, for example).

The best defense is to get out ahead and stay ahead, and when Micro$oft or some other known abuser of small companies comes looking for a "joint development" or "partnership" deal, tell them to get lost. Don't give up your IP, ever, to anyone, for any reason. Big companies are really a colony organism of small companies. Probably the guys that are really competing with your little idea or concept are just a small sub-group inside that large company, perhaps with no more developers than you have. It is rare for some executive to say, "OK, let's stop everything we're doing and take these 200 programmers here and put them to work on kicking the tar out of ThreeNerds, Inc."

So the right answer, is, in fact "Get rid of software and process patents." They didn't protect you before. Now they actively prevent you from starting or doing anything. For example, what is the fallout from RIM's case in the investment community? Why should I invest my capital in a fledgling software company, when some sleeper patent lurking out there can be invoked by a bunch of sleazeballs and steal everything I've built? The answer is, I don't invest in software companies any more, period. Fuck 'em. I'm taking my money elsewhere.

Re:Racketeering

[FlopEJoe]

There should be at least some proof that the patent is specific and unique enough. The little guy can show the math of a new chipset and that can be compaired to what's out there. We can't go on with the vague crap of, "I want a patent on when people click stuff and there's a wheel mouse gesture and all my characters are with one pen-stroke... thankyouverymuch."

(submitting blindly... /.'s "Preview" is all whack. Can we get a patent on forum Previews?)

Re:Racketeering

[aralin]

Ethically, the only thing that can be said about them is that they're following the law.

Since the US started to enact laws that enforce some forms of ethics and morals for the whole society, it seems like americans started to confuse a moral or ethical and lawful behavior.

Ethically, the only thing that can be said about them is that they're total scumbags. Legally, they are following the law.

Re:Racketeering

[Itchy Rich]

If I were a shareholder, i'd be scared if I had any part in removing the governement's accounts, when some of those governement officials will be the judges when my case hit the superior court...

If I were a judge with a Blackberry that stopped working that would illustrate to me how far removed from the public interest this kind of behaviour is. That's probably why the IP holder didn't demand shut-down government employees too.

Re:Racketeering

[hey!]

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.

Re:Racketeering

[tnk1]

To reinforce the point, RIM should also remove the government accounts.

Businesses very rarely consider it desirable to completely throw away their income in order to prove a point, however good the cause. The government contracts are probably a substantial fraction of their user-base, and considering the amount of money you can squeeze from the government, probably makes up a disproportionate share of their revenue for this product.

In other words, the stupid IP company put the product on life-support, and they're not going to pull their own plug to spite them. Indeed, by keeping government accounts active, you still have a userbase from which a deal can be made where the technology emerges from this debacle. Sometimes, you just need to grind your way through the bad times and the IP jerkoffs.

Re:Racketeering

[InvalidError]

An FPGA prototype can be fairly expensive. To make a working modern CPU on an FPGA, you would need a couple of the largest FPGAs currently in existence and these cost around $15k each. Even there, it may not be possible or practical because register files and other internal memories are too massively multi-ported to be practical on FPGAs. Then you need $2000+ PCBs to fit those FPGAs, $100k in software licenses (PCB design, FPGA design, etc.) and over $1M in lab equipment to test/debug the setup.

Requiring a proof-of-concept sounds good but for some things, it is either impossible, impractical, very expensive, takes too long to the point of being obsolete by the time the demo is ready, etc.

Since eMail is just text data and manipulating text data is done by software, this really boils down to software patents. Now, that was a dumb idea and this story is just one more example of why.

Re:Racketeering

[cpt kangarooski]

Why are gov't employees more important?

Because people working in Congress like Blackberries a lot, and have made it known that they don't want this conflict to disrupt their service, or else. Doctors and so forth can't pass legislation to get what they want.

Re:Racketeering

[cpt kangarooski]

Sorry, but that's just dumb. Copyrights and patents don't overlap at all: you cannot copyright inventions, and you cannot patent something that's not an invention. Furthermore the types of protection are significantly different.

Additionally, patents are still perfectly capable of being beneficial, and often are.

Re:Racketeering

[CreatureComfort]

and over $1M in lab equipment to test/debug the setup.

And how likely is it that someone without these resources is actually going to come up with an truly non-obvious and workable improvement on current designs? In addition, as noted in some other posts, a simulation or Verilog model would be acceptable. If you don't have that, or a very similar tool, you're likely not producing anything workable to begin with.

I don't think it's too much to ask for an inventor to at least produce detailed schematics from which the object of the patent can be created.

Re:Racketeering

[gi-tux]

You have to be careful about this "use it or lose it" mindset. It is possible that two viable patents exist between two separate companies that really require each other for a viable product to exist. Now in today's culture the companies might be willing to share IP and both compete with similar products, but let's look at a real case in the past.

Colt owned a patent on the external cam locking cylinder for a revolver. This locking cylinder assured the shooter that the chamber was properly aligned with the barrel of the revolver when it was fired thus making a revolver relatively safe to shoot. However, Smith and Wesson owned a patent (actually had exclusive rights to a patent through licensing) for the bored through cylinder. The bored through cylinder was necessary for a revolver to fire a cartridge instead of being of a muzzle-loading type.

Smith and Wesson could not make a successful cartridge revolver because they couldn't use the locking cylinder. Colt couldn't make a cartridge revolver because they couldn't use the bored through cylinder. Colt could claim that their patent was productive because they used the locking cylinder on their "cap and ball" revolvers. Smith and Wesson could claim that their patent was productive because they did make a line of small caliber pistols that used cartridges. However niether company could use their patent to its maximum gain because of the other patent.

Do you declare both patents null and void so that anyone can use them? Do you arbitrarily declare one or the other null and void so that the other company can dominate? Now we know from history that the patent of Rollin White for the bored through cylinder expired before the patent on the external cam locking cylinder expired and that Colt went on the build the 1873 Colt "Peacemaker" Single Action Army. This gun became one of the most recognized guns in the history of firearms. It could have existed many years previously if patents hadn't stood in the way and it could have existed during the American Civil War and very well could have ended the war much earlier in the hands of Union solders due to the speed of reloading.

Now I agree that a company that holds a patent and does absolutely nothing with it and doesn't even pretend to do anything with it probably deserves to lose their patent. But, it is very difficult to write laws that will be fair in every case. The patent laws were written to help protect the little guy when inventing. The loop holes in the system have been exploited by corporations to make it work like they want. They have flooded the system with so many patents that patents can not be investigated properly and thus the PTO issues patents that are not innovative, can not be produced, or are just plain stupid.

You also have to be careful about not allowing software patents. In our world today, almost everything has software involved. If you completely eliminate software patents, then do you hurt the little guy as well. It is simple and inexpensive to develop a model of some software improvement (maybe even an innovative improvement) using a PC to simulate everything and test it. It may be implemented in a blackbox solution for production, but it still involved software. Most of the things in our homes have software of some sort (microwave oven, range, tv, radio, even your refrigerator, freezer, dishwasher, etc might have software in ROM). Were those new features innovative at the time they were invented? Probably, but they are software still.

Re:Racketeering

[japhmi]

Since the US started to enact laws that enforce some forms of ethics and morals for the whole society, it seems like americans started to confuse a moral or ethical and lawful behavior.

All laws enforce some form of ethics or morals for the whole society.

However, I think you have the cause and effect mixed up. We started thinking "if it's legal, it must be moral" and then the opposite, and then people started trying to use that.

Re:Racketeering

[feijai]

[sigh] The people that get modded +5:Insightful these days (and at 0 I don't expect anyone to see this, argh)... A quick rundown about NTP. For more info, see the excellent article in The Washingtonian (DC's local magazine) debunking the crap RIM has been spreading.

1. NTP owns six patents that RIM is violating. These patents were submitted at the dawn of PDAs -- before the Newton, in fact -- and proposed the general notion of a wireless handheld which receives email, including protocols, long before this was an obvious notion.
2. The original patent submitter actually built devices based on these patents and hawked them at trade shows.
3. NTP's lawsuit includes the original inventor as one of its litigants. He's directly suing RIM.
4. RIM completely ignored NTP's requests for a year.
5. NTP wasn't formed to go after patents in general: it was largely formed to give the original patent submitters enough power to go after RIM for flaunting them -- and believe me, RIM was flaunting.
6. RIM behaved monstrously at court. They tried to starve NTP to death by dragging out everything, repeatedly lied to the judge (to the point that he issued a condemnation of them), and even appealed to Congress to throw out the case by fiat because they'd given Congressmen Blackberries and so if RIM lost the case it'd create a problem with "national defense".
7. RIM has been doing whatever they can to suggest that NTP is a patent whore.

I hate patent whores. They are evil. But NTP is not one of themI. They invented the concepts, produced products based on them, and were screwed by RIM. RIM deserves to fry.

Re:Racketeering

[bfields]

"If you go with the model of "you can only patent what you can build" -- you will squeeze out all the "little guys" with limited resources."

The patent system isn't intended as some sort of charity for tinkerers with "ideas".

It's intended to encourage investment in new ideas, by providing a limited temporary monopoly to support such investment. If we're awarding patents for things that don't require a lot of time and resources to come up with, then the there's something wrong with the system.

Forget the whole myth of the lone inventor walking through the park one day and having that one brilliant world-changing idea. The fact is, *lots* of people have those brilliant world-changing ideas, all the time. Some of those people make it into the history books, but not because of one moment of brilliance, but because they happened to be in the right time and place to develop the idea, or because they did a lot of work getting the details right.

Big ideas are a dime a dozen. The hard work is always in the details.

Re:Racketeering

[SatanicPuppy]

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.

Re:Racketeering

[AstroDrabb]

Sorry, but that's just dumb. Copyrights and patents don't overlap at all:

No, then tell that to Amazon, MS, ...

you cannot copyright inventions, and you cannot patent something that's not an invention.

I guess Amazon doesn't have copyright _and_ a patent on their "one-click" "IP" crap. I guess you consider Microsoft's "Office XML" crap an "invention"? I guess you consider Amazon's "one-click" crap and "invention"?

Additionally, patents are still perfectly capable of being beneficial, and often are.

Yes, _ALL_ patents are "beneficial". It just comes down to exactly WHO they are beneficial to. Amazon's "One-Click" crap is "beneficial" to Amazon, yet a major burden to tons of commercial websites trying to do a _very_ basic task that Amazon DID NOT INVENT. Microsoft's "XML" crap is "beneficial" to Microsoft, yet it is a major burden to many developers/companies that have been doing the same thing for much longer.

I would venture a guess that about 20% of all software patents are even close to being an "invention" (and 20% is extremely generous). Heck, I don't think _any_ software patent is an "invention". Why should one person/group/company be allowed to patent a method of doing something with software? Is a chef allowed to patent his/her method of preparation of a recipe? Nope. Is a mathematician allowed to patent his/her method of a proof? Nope. Can I patent my "method" of telling you how to inflate your tires? Nope (well, maybe, the US PTO is really that bad). Software patents are no different than the above examples. Software IS NOTHIGN BUT INSTRUCTION TO A COMPUTER! Why should you be allowed to lock anyone out of telling a computer how to do "one click" to buy an item for a repeat customer? Why should you be allowed to lock people out of telling a computer how to react to certain mouse clicks (MS)? Sadly big business has once again bribed our "representatives" into allowing laws to protect their business methods.

I have a good idea. Software patents should cost $0 for people who do not work for a large corporation (say, any company doing less than $500 million a year). Oh, and that small corporation must not have any ties, financial or whatever, to a large corporation. This way, all the little guys out there could rack up a boat load of patents and sue the crap out of the big corps.

I am personally glad that this group of non-producing pond scum is suing RIM. I personally hope to see any successful product be sued out of existence by a group/person that only owns "IP". This way maybe the big corps will throw around their bribe money to the crooked politician and maybe we would see the end of software patents.

Re:Racketeering

[Solandri]

NTP owns six patents that RIM is violating. These patents were submitted at the dawn of PDAs -- before the Newton, in fact -- and proposed the general notion of a wireless handheld which receives email, including protocols, long before this was an obvious notion.

Accessing your email on the road via your handheld is no different from accessing your email via dialup on a laptop (or luggable suitcase-sized computer). There is nothing innovative nor original about losing the wires or shrinking the the computer down to the size of a handheld as it pertains to email. It is an obvious application of a pre-existing invention to advancing technology. Next you're going to tell me putting wheels on cars should've been patentable since previously they'd only been used on horse-drawn carriages.

What if..?

[Dynamoo]

What if RIM was a US company and NTP was Canadian. Do you think that the judgement would have been different? Consider also that Microsoft has been found guilty of patent infringments many, many times and yet it has never had an outright ban on those products being sold or used.

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.

Re:What if..?

[pieterh]

It seems that a large part of the "intellectual property" debate is about building an American IP imperium. Of course, US courts will judge with impartiality this case whatever the nationality of the companies involved. It's unimaginable that a US court would favour a US company over a Canadian one, since US courts are completely immune from the kinds of political pressure that might cause this. LMAO.

The point is this: as manufacturing, and R&D, and services, move out of the US and into China, India, and the rest of Asia, the only way the US can maintain some control over the world economy of the next decades is by IP-squatting. Patents and Mickey-mouse copyrights are the tools, control of global trade is the goal. It's a clear political goal, proven by the way IP-squatting is pushed into every "trade deal" the US signs ("we will buy your soybeans if you accept our IP laws").

RIM made a success in a market that should have belonged to a US firm. That's reason enough to kneecap them.

Re:What if..?

[AnObfuscator]

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

That's what really, really whigs me out about this whole case.

Here, we have one company that has developed an innovative, unique, and popular device that sells well, thus stimulating the economy. There, we have one company that merely owns the "intellectual property", and has done NOTHING to develop it, and is now trying to use that property to shut down the economically successful (and therefore, arguably socially beneficial) RIM.

This is clearly damaging to the public good, as now jobs will be lost, shareholder value will be lost, captial will be lost, and tax revenue will be lost.

Thus, by extension of the recent SCOTUS Kelo v. New London ruling, should not the patent be taken from NTP and given to RIM, via Eminent Domain?

Re:What if..?

[Dausha]

"What if RIM was a US company and NTP was Canadian. Do you think that the judgement would have been different?"

I don't think that has any relevance. If NTP was Canadian, it would have a U.S. subsidiary to hold its U.S. IP rights. So, even in that situation, it would be a U.S. company. Although, I could be wrong in thinking it wisest for a foreign company to have a U.S. subsidiary for such a purpose. I'm in law, not bidness.

I recently read a case involving an alleged intentional business tort where one of the parties (defendant) was Canadian. Without getting to much into the case, the Canadian company survived what read to be a marginally valid claim. So, federal courts appear to be sovereign-neutral when it comes to resolving disputes--as well they should be.

Besides, such a posture is bad for business. If U.S. courts had a preference for U.S. companies over foreign, then there would be less foreign investment. This does not work in the global market and would only serve to isolate the U.S. more.

Re:What if..?

[dcw3]

RIM made a success in a market that should have belonged to a US firm. That's reason enough to kneecap them.

Nice consipiracy theory. I not saying that it doesn't happen...we've all got our bias. But, without any evidence of a lack of impartiality in this case, your comment is just speculation. U.S. courts don't have any serious track record of pro-U.S. bias when it comes to this kind of stuff. For every case you can pull up in favor, I can easily counter with one against.

What patent?

[Jesus IS the Devil]

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?

Darn! I was just about to get a promotion!

[filesiteguy]

I was about to move into a management position, which was going to allow me to carry a blackberry. (Only cool managers at my company get blackberrys.) Now I'll be stuck as a peon working for The Man until another cool gadget can come along which doesn't infringe on trademarks.

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 $$$$.

Re:Darn! I was just about to get a promotion!

[CmdrGravy]

Ah yes but when lunch consists of 5 courses and serves to fill in the time before golf maybe it doesn't seem quite such a burden.

I have an idea

[SQLz]

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?

Re:I have an idea

[Linker3000]

Breathing....on the internet? Can I patent that?

Since the vast majority of Internet use is for pron, I recommend patenting heavy breathing.

Everybody is equal in front of "Justice"

[Advocadus Diaboli]

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...

Re:Everybody is equal in front of "Justice"

[l2718]

Actually, the US Federal Government is immune to claims of patent infringement. As specified in 35 USC Ch. 28 Sec. 271:

(h) As used in this section, the term "whoever" includes any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this title in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.

Farce

[defsdoor]

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 ?

Re:Farce

[ivan256]

The functional prototype requirement should be restored. If it's not something you can hold in your hand you should have to provide a demonstration. If it's an abstract concept that can't be demonstrated, you shouldn't be able to get a patent.

Let's make these IP warehouses at least put on a good dog and pony show.

Re:Farce

[Dausha]

"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?"

I hate to disagree with you, but I must.

A patent is a property right, and intellectual property right. I, a typical citizen, have a great idea. I patent it. Unfortunately, I have $20k in credit card debt and $450 in my checking account. So, while I have a great idea, I lack the means to produce that idea. What to do? What to do?

I know, I'll license my idea out to companies and they can manufacture it for me. Under your model, I would not be allowed to do this "restrictive" process. You'd rather it be outlawed. I've heard that Leer invented the 8-Track tape; and becuase he could not afford to do anything with it, he sold the patent for the player and licensed the patent for manufacture of the tapes.

The purpose for patents is to foster creativity by allowing an entity a limited monopoly on the idea. This prevents huge companies from stealing others ideas and smothering competition. It has the unfortunate side effect of limiting companies who violate the patent rather than properly license. Granted, I do not know the facts of the Blackberry case, so I am not referring to that.

On a more practical level, Let's say I own 40 acres of quality real estate. Next door, there is Company that produces something and has a fair amount of waste material. Would it be okay for them to dump that waste on my property? I would complain, and somebody would argue that I'm being restrictive with the use of my property--I won't let Company use my property without compensation.

What you are complaining about is when a smaller corporation plays clearing house to several patents. That is no different. You say SCO is sitting on IP? If a large enough company wanted to wrest that IP from SCO, a publically traded company, then they just need to perform a hostile take over, sell the IP to themselves, then dump the carcass. You can't do that with a person, but you can do that with a business.

Re:Farce

[Mr. Underbridge]

I know, I'll license my idea out to companies and they can manufacture it for me. Under your model, I would not be allowed to do this "restrictive" process. You'd rather it be outlawed. I've heard that Leer invented the 8-Track tape; and becuase he could not afford to do anything with it, he sold the patent for the player and licensed the patent for manufacture of the tapes.

No, that's not the idea. The idea (at least as I see it) is that patents should be a shade more like trademarks - you should at least have to make an effort to commercialize the patent to be able to keep it. That would certainly include selling said patent - if you can't commercialize, sell it to someone who can.

The question is, what's the point of the patent system? In a healthy environment, patents stimulate innovation by providing a system of reward for the person who puts in the research and development, so they get to recoup investment and get a reward for their risk. The point is not to *stifle* innovation by allowing people to squat on patents so they can stop companies from implementing an idea.

So we need a way to stop the bad without the good. I think a requirement to demonstrate attempted commercialization would work. That would eliminate IP holding companies - they'd have to establish R&D departments or sell.

Finally something people will notice

[Nursie]

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.....

While the USA Sues Itself Out Of Existence

[NZheretic]

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.

Re:While the USA Sues Itself Out Of Existence

[russotto]

Except that Europe is trying to jump down the same rathole as fast as it can.

Forget about Shelley. Try Orwell instead. You want to see the future of the world? Imagine a boot stomping on a human face -- forever.

This is bad

[zappepcs]

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.

Next big patents...

[SQLz]

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

Thank you, God

[Ruprecht the Monkeyb]

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?

Re:Thank you, God

[gowen]

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?

Dude, if you don't want to help people with their technical problems, it seems pretty likely that you're in the wrong line of work...

Do you suppose there's a www.crossingguard.org where people post complaints like "Goddamn ignorant little kids, not being able to cross the road on their own"?

Re:Thank you, God

[mysticwhiskey]

Why not? Those at the "front line" field the calls from the end-users, so why would their views be any less worthy?

Re:Thank you, God

[mshick]

I work for a couple of business magazines and I have to concur. Not an issue comes out without some completely forced, pointless and obnoxious reference to the BlackBerry.

It's not just a phone, but rather a badge of too busy, pretentious yuppiedom.

Somehow I don't see "Windows Mobile 5.0 Powered smartphone" rolling of the lips, or keyboard, quite as easily.

Patent Reform

[elitedeceptic0n]

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

Well This Just Sucks!

[DoctorPepper]

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?

What's so unique or amazing about the patent?

[hattig]

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.

If I were RIM...

[hal2814]

"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.

Re:If I were RIM...

[dcw3]

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.

Disclaimer: I don't like the current IP/patent system any more than you do, and I'm aware and concerned with the gripes that you've got against the U.S...I've got plenty myself. That said, I don't know the details of the case, so I won't comment on it validity.

What portion of RIM's income comes from the U.S.? Do you suppose that it's enough to put them out of business (hopefully not the case) if they can't continue providing service here? Do you think that (as others have mentioned) this may actually be a good thing because it's going to hit so many managers where it hurts, and possibly force a change?

Yes, our patent system is out of control (and no, you can't blame George for this one...it was heading down this path long before he arrived). I was appalled when my company held mandatory IP training for all the engineers recently, and we were told about how we should be sending more stuff in for evaluation, and keeping detailed notebooks, etc. (like we don't have design documents...DOH!). However, until the laws change, you can expect nearly all companies here to act that way, just to cover their own collective arses.

Except government?

[Cyn]

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.

Forgetting the patent stuff

[bernywork]

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?

TSG isn't a good example

[roystgnr]

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.

I see this as a good thing

[crass751]

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.

Re:I see this as a good thing

[C_Kode]

What about their dingleberries?

Change to patent law?

[MacGod]

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?

Lin Yutang quote

[threaded]

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.

Silver Linings

[dlefavor]

Maybe we'll get to rediscover the joy of being alone. Really alone

Maybe we can rediscover the pleasure of being out of touch.

Maybe my time can be mine again.

Well to those sysadmins looking for a new home...

[HerculesMO]

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.

Does this happen outside software?

[brlewis]

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.

Yet another reason gutless CEOs will jump to MS

[natd]

Blackberry was about the only thing we used where MS have a stated interest in the market. Our CEO and other top level guys just loved their Blackberries. Forget other good technologies, we are loyal MS customers...except Blackberry

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.

Re:Well to those sysadmins looking for a new home.

[weez75]

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.

I missed something....

[Trailer Trash]

Let's see, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

I guess I'm missing the "promotion" part here.

This is hardly the end of the road.

[windowpain]

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.

Re:This is hardly the end of the road.

[rco3]

What? Somebody got a patent on the intermittent windshield wiper? Shit, I know there's prior art - I have an MGB. This is ridiculous. Next you're going to tell me that someone got a patent on a car that leaks oil.

Why do you think NTP is so evil?

[puntloos]

First of all, this patent indeed seems unfair, just randomly combining two obvious current or future technologies ("lets patent in-flight muzak for teleporters!"). But let's leave that alone for a while and assume that the patent is not evil by itself.

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.

Whatever....

[8400_RPM]

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.

NTP == Lawyers; Court of Appeals == Lawyers

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

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.

Patents Already Rejected?

[tabdelgawad]

This writeup from USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technolog y/2005-10-07-rim_x.htm

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.

Re:Alternatives

[weez75]

I found Good to be much less expensive than Blackberry Enterprise Server overall.

Also, Good has already licensed the IP from NTP so no worries at this point on that.

you could lose

[zogger]

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.

May the Patent be with you...

[griffjon]

I feel a great disturbance in the Service, as if millions of voices cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced...

Great Minds Think Alike?

[diamondsw]

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)

Little guy...

[Svartalf]

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.

Trade deals

[orasio]

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.

Re:Trade deals

[Dr Caleb]

Take it from someone who's lost their job to US companies several times under NAFTA - do everything you can to fight 'free' trade agreements with the US. If they do sign them, it's always in their favour. If they lose a trade dispute, they'll ignore the judge or panel anyhow. Believe me, any IP trade deal with the US can only hurt Uruguay.

Hypocrites?

[xnot]

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?

A sensible fix

[PeterHammer]

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.

Karma's a bitch?

[llefler]

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?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/28/good_techn ology_settles_with_lawsuits/

Be sure and follow some of the links at the bottom of the article.

+5 Informative?!??

[ErikTheRed]

Rambus died a fairly quick and ignomius death.

What planet did you just get in from? Rambus is still very much alive and well and licensing technology. I would say that they deserved an ignomius death for their bullshit tactics with JDEC, but wishing don't make it so...

I can see Blackberry and Microsoft and Palm all forming a coalition to sue NTP into oblivion, since presumably the palm treo and even the smart phones made by motorola and others violate some aspects of NTPs patents, which sound overly broad.

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.

It's obvious the US patent system is broken.

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'.