Slashdot Mirror
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."
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...
In other words, they're parasuits.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
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.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
It seems to me you could get around the RIM situation by doing the following:
1. find the oldest net-based email-solution you can and use the source without any modifications whatsoever. (better yet use the binary if possible)
2. build a layer on top of it to interact with what is now a local app. It should be possible to use specific screen-grabbing, techniques, etc., that have been in existence for ages to avoid yet more patents.
3. wait for NTP to explain how you infringe their patent using source code that was written back in the dark-ages of the net.
Of course I have not read the actual patent (why should I when it will only give me a headache and someone else here will sum it up eventually), but it should be critical until the patent system changes to find ways to get a JURY to understand what is the difference between one technology and another. If all the patent does is take e-mail and "do it over the cell network", then it should be obvious to everybody (except a JURY it seems) that the application is the SAME (and by actually using an old application you can perhaps make your point), but SOMETHING ELSE is different. The cellular wireless network. And therefore, unless the patent covers the invention of a cellular wireless network, they should perhaps have the book thrown at them for various reasons I will not mention.
Retailers, grocery stores provide a clear value add (a.k.a. service): They *make the products accessible* to a broader marketplace of customers with shipping, inventory, marketing, establishment of quality name, et cetera et cetera.
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.
As far as I can tell, NTP simply held some patents (silently) until they saw a company that had done its own research and actually did the work to build a profitable business. *Then* they jumped on RIM's "infringement" of "their intellectual property".
I consider this to be the equivalent of a company like NTP staking out a legal but private claim for a piece of land in the middle of a public place, unmarked. Someone comes along and sets up a fruit stand in what they think, incorrectly, is legal open place. After investing effort in building their business, NTP comes along and says that the fruit-stand builders owe them 3 years in back rent.
The issues here are twins: 1) NTP didn't say anything to anybody about "their" ideas. 2) They waited until RIM had invested *big money* in their infrastructure, not knowing about the virtual landmine.
Classically, patents existed to enable the patent-holders to receive a return on their research investment and to get the ideas out into the world to serve as bases for conteinued economic development. NTP's behavior is exemplary of an economically abuse of the patent system.
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. As a developer, how do verify that
a) my code doesn't infringe one of hundreds of thousands of software patents
b) If I discover that some element of my work happens to be patented by someone else, can I license it for a price that doesn't eliminate the remaining shreds of margin that I still have?
There is such a thing as licensing you know.
Problem is that current patent law sees no problem with sitting on a patent and refusing to entertain offers to license. Title 35, United States Code, section 271(d). Though laches is potentially an effective defense against patent trolls, it has become much too hard to prove laches nowadays.
Ever wonder why it's so rare that anybody with any influence over the patent system pays any attention to the rants and raves of Slashdot, free software, open source, etc.? It's because these groups very rarely, if ever, have a clue what they're talking about.
Before you reply to flame me, think about what the word "marginalized" really means. By refusing or not bothering to become educated on the issue of patents, a huge majority of Slashdot's readship marginalizes itself and renders its thoughts and opinions irrelevant.
"Non-final rejection" equals "invalidated"? That's a joke, right? Surely the article is a troll. Nobody with any self respect would seriously submit that as a story unless they were pulling a prank on Slashdot's editors.