Another NTP Patent Invalidated

darkmeridian writes "Bloomberg reports that the PTO has granted a non-final rejection of a third NTP patent asserted against Research in Motion in the Blackberry litigation. Five patents have been asserted against RIM, and only one of the three rejected has been found to be valid and infringed. Yet this development helps RIM as it seeks to avoid an injunction against operation of the Blackberry network pending appeal."

Comments

Not much sympathy

[augustz]

Research in Motion was the leader in a lot of this patent litigation.

http://news.com.com/2100-1040-958550.html

I remember them suing over everything, Good technology, handspring with the treo, etc etc.

In this case, NTP is clearly just a patent litigation machine which is worse, but everyone's been using these patents to muscle around in the marketplace...

Re:They wont shutdown anyway

[cbreaker]

Hey, cluless. Patents don't protect against TRADEMARKS.

A lot of people out there that are against software patents are actually against the length of the patents. In 1922, if you developed a special kind of chair, you'd patent the design and you'd be able to sell it for several years before other people could use your design. With those slower times, it was resonable. And patents genetally protected inventions - and physical objects.

Enter the field of computing. And think back 7 years. What technology existed then? Color LCD was crappy and expensive. Windows 98 was just released. The Internet was just getting into full swing. Cell phones were mostly analog. Things move a lot faster in the technology world, and a seven year patent on a key technology can stagnate the industry and have a huge impact on adoption rates, prices, and innovation.

But, if that was the only problem with patents, it might not even be that bad. The fact is, companies are filing so many patents these days to take advantage of the system. They're patenting things they can't create - theory. They patent things that are obvious. The patent offices can't keep up, and they make mistakes by granting patents when they really shouldn't. It's causing a huge problem.

Re:Work-around for obvious patents

[Greeneland]

The issue of unobviousness is key in that the email application created to perhaps run over 10-base2 ethernet and novell ipx, then later over packet-radio, then later gets deployed on a system running 10-base-t, then later deployed on another system running 100-base-t then later deployed on another system running 1000-base-t, also deployed over cellular wireless is later found to be infringing when:

1. it has not changed
2. it is operating exactly as it had been designed, to exchange email over a network.
3. the network can be demonstrated to have changed many times over the years and yet now this wireless network is somehow special compared to other wireless networks (besides packet radio) that it no doubt has been used with? how can a combination patent be unobvious and valid when many such combinations have occurred over time and yet there are no demonstrated differences?
4. it has not been demonstrated how an application interacting with a NIC necessarily has any relevance with how the NIC interacts at the physical layer.
5. the evidence would seem to indicate that historically, using existing applications over new networking technologies is indeed both obvious and generally cost-saving.

In these cases and in regards to the NTP patent, I have to disagree over who had invented what. I understand what you are saying, I simply disagree with the value of these types of patents and I will contend that they are not moral, useful or unobvious.

Re:What's wrong? *No value add*

[mi]

Now compare that to NTP. They provide *no value add*. No work, no service, no accessibility, no publishing. If on the other hand, they make the ideas accessible to those who would like to license them, *that* would be a value add.

First of all, I absolutely reject this criteria. One must be entitled to enjoy her property, even if he does not do anything (perceived by others as useful) with it.

But you are wrong. NTP and entities like it certainly make our lives better by paying inventors for their ideas. This allows inventors to make a living inventing.

They waited until RIM had invested *big money* in their infrastructure, not knowing about the virtual landmine.

This is simply, as they say, factually wrong. NTP first contacted RIM in 2000, a year after the service was introduced. RIM chose to fight, and lost...

It's worth noting that patent language is so impenetrable, and the numbers of patents so massive, that it (the patent system as it stands today) probably can no longer serve its original purpose.

This may well be true. But it is not NTP's fault. Patent system needs fixing, but ideas still have value. And thus they must remain sellable, and the ownership of them must enforced.

Here is an article on the subject -- my other post with a link to it gets slowly down-modded by dimmer mods.

Re:What's wrong? *No value add*

[Waffle Iron]

One must be entitled to enjoy her property, even if he does not do anything (perceived by others as useful) with it.

Patents aren't intended to be "property". They're intended to be an economic incentive to promote progress in arts and sciences. Any property-like features are a side-effect of the current implementation of patents. Such windfall benefits for the patent holder should not take priority over the utility of patents in benefiting the overall economy.

In particular, snatching up a bunch of cheap obscure patents, sitting around waiting for someone to do the hard work of independently re-inventing them, and then pouncing on them with a lawsuit is beneficial to no one besides the patent troll, and this practice should be totally prohibited.

Re:What's wrong? *No value add*

[Waffle Iron]

An intelligent inventor would do a patent search up front to avoid the "hard work of independently re-inventing.

Nobody searches software patents for ideas, especially high-level fuzzy ideas like "wireless e-mail". Do you honestly think somebody is going to be sitting around saying: "Gee, I'd love to read e-mail with a mobile device. I can't imagine how to do that, though. Oh, I know, I'll search for a solution at the USPTO! .... Well I'll be damned, it turns out you can do it with wireless radio! I would never have thought of that. This just saved me years of research! I'll get in touch with these people to license their innovation right away!"

This concept known as "designing around" other patents is a key feature of the patent system.

If that's true, why don't we just arbitrarily outlaw random ideas? That would spur all sorts of new innovation. Maybe we should start by outlawing wheels, that way we might finally get to drive flying cars.

Report wildly overstates the relevance . . .

[werdna]

The issuance of non-final rejections in a patent case before the PTO is all but routine -- indeed, it is rare that the PTO does not issue at least one non-final rejection of one or more claims in a patent application or reexamined patent. Please take the time to learn what a non-final rejection is and means. To suggest that mailing of an office action constitutes "invalidation" of a patent is to manifest supreme ignorance of the patent process.