Slashdot Mirror


Blackberry Maker Facing Infringement Case In U.K.

xoip writes "As if the problems facing RIM in the U.S. are not enough, a second patent infringement case has been launched in the U.K. by Luxemburg based, Inpro Licensing SARL. A report published by The Globe & Mail says that the U.K. represents 10% of RIM's existing Blackberry subscriber base." More from the article: "At risk in the dispute is RIM's service to around 375,000 BlackBerry subscribers in Britain, about 10 per cent of its global total. If the Waterloo, Ont., company loses the case, it may be forced, along with licensees such as T-Mobile International AG, to stop selling or supporting the devices in Britain, according to lawyers representing the companies." Things don't look so good for their U.S. business either.

14 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. Patents are force by dada21 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I got news earlier today that the U.S. trial is moving forward as well.

    The article shows why I am so anti-government:

    Under U.S. law, a company can be guilty of violating patents it didn't know about.

    Try reading every law. Try finding a lawyer that knows every law. Now expand that to patents that even the Patent Office doesn't know exist.

    But a judge denied RIM's request to enforce a $450 million settlement the companies announced in March but never finalized.

    $450 million over basically a dream or a vision. Patents are ridiculous. How can anyone rightfully say that just announcing an idea without having at the minimum a justification for how to implement the idea is worth more than $0? Ideas don't have value. Words don't have value. Business plans don't have value. What has value is the ability to convert anything INTO a marketable resource.

    The typical slashdot reply is "without patents no one would develop anything" and "without patents drug companies wouldn't be able to protect their investment." I don't believe this at all. Even with rampant P2P, there are 10 thousand musicians right now trying to write music. Even with strict non-compete clauses, there are thousands of programmers writing the next big thing on their home computers. People will always develop, invent, dream and write. The key to making money is not just having the idea, but coming up with a plan on selling that idea before someone can knock it off. Sure, patent and copyright might restrict another company for a few years from selling the item (in some countries), but the instant a drug or a device comes out to the market, you better believe there are black market copies sold a few days later in some countries with more lacking patents.

    I am a firm believer in a very simple idea: if you have something of value, don't give it to others. Don't leave your gold on your porch in the open. Don't make your idea until you can find ways to capitalize on it.

    inventor Thomas Campana began acquiring patents for wireless communications. Campana co-founded NTP to collect royalties on them. He died of cancer in 2004.

    I can only hope that one we find that cell phones DO cause cancer and that this bastard got what he deserved from not having enough karma.

    1. Re:Patents are force by MemeRot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is so annoying. Two companies hold patents on something that they never, ever, intended to turn into a product. One innovative company actually makes a wildly successful product and bam, lawsuits.

      GREAT way to encourage innovation.

  2. patenting obvious ideas... by rd4tech · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The company is asking a London court to invalidate a British patent held by Luxembourg-based Inpro Licensing Sarl... ...The patent is for a simple idea, which we say is either anticipated or obvious," RIM's lawyer, Antony Watson, told the High Court yesterday at the start of a five-day hearing.
    1. Can a company asks for a patent invalidation so then it can go ahead and sell it's own implementation of it?
    2. Aren't all patents for a 'obvious' ideas once one reads them?

    1. Re:patenting obvious ideas... by Proaxiom · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "Aren't all patents for a 'obvious' ideas once one reads them?"

      You have to keep in mind what patents are for. They are intended to promote investment in innovation and technology. The problem is that if you invest time and money into inventing something new, you may actually put yourself at a competitive disadvantage once you finish. Your competitors can now make the same product and sell it at a lower price, since they did not make such an investment. Patents are intended to solve this problem by guaranteeing a monopoly on the product for a limited time, so you can make a reasonable return on your investment.

      Now the reason the patent system is broken is the huge number of patents covering ideas that did not require investment to come up with. How much time and money did Amazon.com put into 'inventing' one-click shopping? If they hadn't 'invented' it, would one-click shopping not exist?

      How much did Thomas Campana invest in 'inventing' push e-mail over a wireless network? Would our world be worse off had he not 'invented' it? Would push e-mail not exist without someone having spent money to come up with it?

      It becomes quite literally an extortion game, where some guy predicts obvious future developments in a given field, patents key concepts before the companies in that field do, and then demands royalties when the companies want to roll out products. This is what is happening with NTP and RIM.

    2. Re:patenting obvious ideas... by robertjw · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Now the reason the patent system is broken is the huge number of patents covering ideas that did not require investment to come up with.

      That's definitely not the only reason the patent system is broken. It's also broken because:
      • It's so expensive to register and enforce a patent that small companies often don't even try it
      • Patents are good from the date of application filing, even if the idea was many years previous
      • Patents are given for a term of 20 years. In our society product lifecycles have declined, but patent terms have increased
      • New patents can be applied for with minimal changes in the products. Pharamecutical companies do this all the time. When a patent is nearly up they will tweak the process for creating the drug and file a new patent.
      Everyone says patents are to promote innovation, but I can't see one area where this is true. All they do is stifle innovation, make lawyers rich and allow big companies to maximize profits.
  3. Patent Goodness by Vicegrip · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Would one of the pro-patent people I see on these boards care to explain to me how this is a shining example of how patents foster innovation?

    --
    Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
    1. Re:Patent Goodness by servognome · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Would one of the pro-patent people I see on these boards care to explain to me how this is a shining example of how patents foster innovation?

      If a virus is found on Linux does it mean that open source doesn't work?
      The problem isn't patents as an idea, it's the poor implementation by the patent office and outdated length of protection with increasing rate of development and shorter time to market/profit.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
  4. Time to do away with patents by hsmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One company can patent something, sit on the patent and do nothing with it? How is that "innovation"?

    The whole system all needs to go.

    1. Re:Time to do away with patents by krakelohm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I dont think its time for patents to go away. Inventors and companies need protection for the time and effort they put in to products. Now patent reform I believe is what is needed. In my eyes if you patent something and nothing comes of that patent within a resonable time (one to two years?)then it should be revoked or better yet be changed to a non-patentable 'idea' for all to use.

      --
      You are all a bunch of idots.
    2. Re:Time to do away with patents by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's an enforcement nightmare. How will you police if people are doing anything with the patent or not?

      There's a lot of loopholes in it too. You want patent examiners that are too stupid to refuse patents on completely obvious things to judge whether the company has brought the completely obvious thing to market or not?

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    3. Re:Time to do away with patents by robertjw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      if you patent something and nothing comes of that patent within a resonable time (one to two years?)then it should be revoked

      Who decides what constitutes 'nothing comes of that patent'? Your idea would be good in a perfect world, but I fear in our flawed universe it would just result in additional beauracracy, lawyers making more money, more court time and unfortunately no change in the status quo.

      I agree that it would be nice to offer ethical inventors and companies protection for their ideas. Thing is, the current system is already so broken that true innovaters like RIM are in danger of being run out of business by patent squatters like NTP Inc. There currently aren't enough resources to validate the patents that are already on the books - the patent office is currently in the process of invalidating NTP's patents. I don't think creating additional work for the patent office and asking them to determine if a company has validated their patent by makeing sure something comes from that patent after two years is going to work.

  5. Has anybody considered..... by 8127972 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...... that people could be lining up to sue RIM as they perceive that RIM may be weak on the patent front? Basically, this lawsuit (and any that follow after it) are simply companies fishing for cash?

    --
    This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
  6. Said it before and I'll say it again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Screw the government!

    If the system has to shut down, throw the switch on EVERYONE, no exempting government users of any country. Let them lie in the bed of shit their asinine patent system has created, just like the rest of us.

    At the very least there needs to be a law that says you can't have the patent without doing something with it. None of this bullshit sitting on a great idea so you can sue someone who actually turns it into a product or service.

  7. Something i don't udnerstand about the NTP case by brunes69 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If the courts rule that the 450 million dollar settlement is invalid, and that RIM has to stop selling blackberries, doesn't that mean that NTP will not get any money from them?

    To me, this reads like NTP is going ot be losing out on 450 million dollars. Sure, RIM would be losing too, but my point is, how is this patent doing any good for NTP if they can't even legally license it to RIM?

    Sure, they could maybe licens eit to some other company who will start useing it to make devices, but that would liekly never happen.