Slashdot Mirror


RIM - The Whole Story

khendron writes "The Globe and Mail has published an article titled Patently Absurd, detailing the whole history of the RIM vs. NTP wireless war. It is a blow by blow account of how a dispute that could have been settled for a few million dollars is now 'a billion-dollar dagger hanging over RIM.' The article reads like a fairy-tale of egos, legal blunders, and patent stupidity."

19 of 262 comments (clear)

  1. Stupidity... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Never underestimate the stupidity of bean-counters, even more so that they run most companies nowadays.

    1. Re:Stupidity... by geoff+lane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You left the "i" out of "ruin".

  2. Re:Patent stupidity? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Funny

    Alternative title: Rim - The hole story
    Starring goatse?

    Nahhhh no puns

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  3. Glad this wasn't settled out of court by Rick+and+Roll · · Score: 4, Interesting
    This is a great example of the kind of problems our patent system causes. I hope that this gets more and more press. I'm tired of being alone when it comes to my outrage at software patents.

    While I'm not naive enough to think that the problem will get fixed any time soon, at least this will add another straw, and eventaully enough straws will be added to break the camel's back.

    Oh, and by the way, NTP are bastards. I don't care about their cute little story. Nobody should be able to do a half-assed job and get hundreds of millions.

    1. Re:Glad this wasn't settled out of court by Nato_Uno · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not sure I'd agree that their "intellectual property" was violated. Unless there's something yet to come to light, NTP's patents (the only "intellectual property" in play here) were not part of the development process for RIM and weren't even known until *after* the development was substantially complete.

      Yes, technically speaking, if NTP held valid patents and RIM infringed on them, then the "IP violated" claim does stand. Technically (legally, even, perhaps). But not *practically*, not in my mind at least. RIM stole nothing from NTP. RIM did not prevent NTP from pursuing business opportunities or developing products.

      NTP chose to sit on their ideas. Do *nothing* with them. Should they be allowed to protect ideas they have no intention of ever using? Does that "encourage progress" as is the original intent of the patent system?

      The patent system is being abused in ways that were never intended. If NTP was actively pursuing a product, or even actively pursuing a partner with which to produce a product, I'd have a different view - in that case RIM would be hurting NTP, NTP would be discouraged from entering the marketplace, and "progress" would be stifled. The patent system was designed to prevent that.

      In this case, though, NTP had no intention of developing anything. NTP was waiting for someone *else* to invest *their* millions of dollars and then NTP would step in and capitalize. *That* stifles progress, in my opinion - no-one is encouraged to develop NTP's ideas for fear of being sued, NTP is unwilling to pursue them, and suddenly an idea is *completely* *lost* (in terms of becoming a viable product).

      If this is upheld and NTP wins I fear we'll see even more of this "sitting" behavior and that will ultimately have a very negative effect on competition in the marketplace.

      --

      Have fun,

      Nathan 'Nato' Uno
      http://web.unos.net/
    2. Re:Glad this wasn't settled out of court by holt · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, it does seem to make them upset: "I don't like seeing NTP referred to as a patent troll company," says Tom Campana III, Mr. Campana's son. "I take it personally." Of course, a big payout will make them feel better. I hope they don't get it.

      I don't think that RIM has acted in anything but self-interest, but the Campanas are being ridiculous. RIM came up with a product that actually works, while NTP has nothing to offer except a bunch of old patents. They aren't actively developing them; they're sitting on them until someone else comes up with something similar, and then they sue. They have no redeeming value. It's too bad.

      In my opinion, if you're not going to use something that you've patented, then you should have no right to stop someone else from developing it, especially if the other party seems to have come up with the idea independently. The idea behind patents is to let the inventor develop their product without competition for a limited amount of time. If the inventor isn't developing it, it's not in anyone's interest to let them stop others from doing so.

    3. Re:Glad this wasn't settled out of court by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This kind of thing has been going on for a century or more ... large corporations maintaining huge patent portfolios that they cross-license with other huge companies so that they can a. avoid needless squabbling amonst themselves and b. squeeze individual inventors and smaller companies that don't have similar patent leverage. All that's happening now is that the practice is becoming popular outside the corporate sphere by organizations whose sole raison d'etre is to collect "intellectual property" and litigate for royalties and/or damages. Truly, this is a perversion of the patent system, and it is entirely due to Congress monkeying with said system over the years. The removal of the demonstrable prototype requirement was a big mistake, I think. It was really hard to say you had a patentable idea when you couldn't actually demonstrate it. Nowadays, patents are just pieces of paper with "concepts" spewed from the brain of some erstwhile "inventor", massaged by a patent lawyer (pardon me, "intellectual property attorney") into something the Patent Office can be persuaded to accept, which are then used to bludgeon people and organizations that have actually accomplished something.

      You know, if we can't have a properly functioning patent system in the U.S. we'd really be better off with none at all. I mean, we're at the point now where the cost of acquiring and maintaining a patent is prohibitive for smaller inventors, and while some people believe that "innovation" only comes from big companies, they're simply wrong. A hell of a lot of cool stuff comes out of garages, basements and kitchen tables, and those people don't have much of a chance anymore. The system is so skewed towards corporate ownership of "intellectual property" that it is becoming harder and harder for anyone but a big corp to gain any traction.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    4. Re:Glad this wasn't settled out of court by Nato_Uno · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ironic, isn't it, that the patent system is becoming increasingly burdensome for exactly the people the system was originally intended to protect (the "small guy"). The cost of acquiring a patent is on the order thousands of dollars ($5,000 - $10,000, depending on your lawyer), which you have to be willing to spend without knowing if the patent which you receive actually has any value. It may be invalidated later (being granted is *not* a good measure of whether or not prior art exists) or simply not be useful.

      More damagingly, though, a patent is useless if it can't be defended and defending one's patents is becoming horrifically expensive to the point that the winner is most likely to be the "big guy", and the "small guy" loses out.

      --

      Have fun,

      Nathan 'Nato' Uno
      http://web.unos.net/
    5. Re:Glad this wasn't settled out of court by MKalus · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The moral of this story is simple: don't lie in court.


      Ummmmm no, the moral is: "Don't get caught".
      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
  4. Which side am I supposed to be on? by db32 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ok...so...basically as pointed out in any number of the previous RIM/NTP stories, RIM started as a bunch of patent litigating bastards. Now...NTP attacks them with an equally moronic patent and suddenly we are all supposed to gather the horde, fetch the pitchforks and charge to RIM's defense because patents are bad. So...once this is over...and someone attacks NTP the same way RIM went on the attack, followed by NTP attacking, are we supposed to support NTP during their defense? This also brings up similar questions with SCO and friends...are we supposed to support SCO when they are attacked by the same litigious bastard types that they were being? I for one would like to see RIM get torn to pieces by this silly patent, partially as karma, partially as an example to the world how stupid this patent nonsense is getting, and partially becuase I just don't really like crackberries.

    --
    The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
  5. The only winners... by rf0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...are the legal rep's screwing both sides for all they can

  6. Fun with crackberryheads... by IAAP · · Score: 5, Funny
    ...I just don't really like crackberries.

    I got this from a waitress friend of mine...

    A lot of times, people come into the restaruant she works in and while she's trying to take their order and ask them things like: "What kind of dressing do you want, what do you want to drink, etc...", they'll be looking at their crackberry and findling with the butons. Of course, they're asking her to repeat what she said and thy always get pissed when their order isn't what they thought they asked for. So, to make their rudness fun, while she's (other waitresses are doing this, too) taking their order, she'll interject a "meow", as in a cat's meow. The contest amoung the waitresses is to see how many "meows" they can say to the crackberryheads before they say "excuse me?". It's really fun to watch!

  7. wireless Email, I'm so confused! by SQLz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm still confused about how someone could patent wireless email. Basically, you have email technology (POP,SMTP) and you have wireless data transport networks designed for general purpose use, IEEE, GSM, whatever. How is it considered an invention to simply use the network for what it was designed to do? I mean, what about wireless web browsing? Wireless DNS resolution? Wirless SSH/Telnet? Or Email over ATM? Email over ISDN? Email over DSL?

    The real inventor of 'wireless email' is the original inventor of email plus the original inventor of a general purpose wireless networking protocol. Doesn't the patent office think that when a network is invented to move bytes, the original inventor envisioned email or any TCP/IP service to run on it? If the logic I am reading is true, wouldn't it technically be possible to patent any TCP/IP service over 'insert layer 1/layer2 technology here'?

  8. Re:RIM Has Itself to Blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Except the idea behind patents is to protect innovation. I'm sure you've thought of a good number of things that would be great if patented, researched and marketed. The problem here is the researching and marketing. NTP has no product.

    The blackberry is running on top of 18 million lines of code. How much code did NTP write? The blackberry is a physical piece of hardware I can hold. What can I buy from NTP with the same functionality?

    NTP put in exactly zero work in their patent. Someone had a good idea, patented it, and then sat on it, waiting for someone else to actually MAKE IT WORK. That is not, or at least should not, be the foundation of the patent system. At this point there's plenty of options...save the patent so it can be researched while protected, I'd tentativly agree with that, maybe a 4 year limit and at least show some progress. (In NTP's case, they could've had a 15 year limit and not make product). Only issue a patent when there's a tangible device to go along with it, that's ideal.

    I suppose, though, that they do have the patent, so they should get some recourse. I imagine that the best way would be to have RIM pick up NTP's R&D costs which amount to... the cost of filing a patent.

    Seriously though, should I be able to file a patent for warp drive and just sit on it until someone actually does the grunt work and makes it...and then sue them back to the stone age? If you can answer yes to that without flinching...I fear for the fate of this nation.

  9. job loss by DirtyJ · · Score: 4, Funny

    After reading that blow by blow summary, I worry that many Research in Motion employees will have to say goodbye to their RIM jobs.

  10. Shoot 'em both by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What a thoroughly ugly situation.

    On one side we have a former innovator that decided to become a patent troll. I suppose if not for RIM, those patents would have just quietly turned to dust.

    On the other, we have an actual innovator that produced a real product. It then learned that he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword. They sure thought patent lawsuits were a good idea until they found themselves on the wrong end of one.

    The big winners are the lawyers on both sides. The undeserving loosers are everyone who depends on this technology. Fortunatly, there are a few other ways to keep up with e-mail while mobile now.

  11. Long article... by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I got about 20% of the way through and lost interest in this even though I've seriously been wondering what this whole Blackberry lawsuit is about. How can someone have a patent on something like "wireless e-mail"? Tons of phones can read e-mail and even my Motorola pager can send and receive e-mail. If NTP sat on this submarine patent just waiting for people to start using their technology without sending out cease and desist orders then their patent should be invalidated.

    Personally I feel companies that buy and sell patents as if they're some kind of property are a disgrace to everything the patent and trademark system was founded to uphold. They're not using the patents to innovate, they're just using the patents to extort money out of other companies. NTP should have all its patents stripped because it's quite clear they're nothing but a patent squatter.

  12. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  13. Behind it all, Real Human Story by layer3switch · · Score: 5, Informative

    "He was not the greatest businessman in the world," Mr. Campana Sr. concedes. "Even when his business was going broke his employees never missed a day's pay. He went home without paying himself."

    Mean while RIM in Nov. of 2002, to meet the finacial quota, layoffs followed;
    http://news.techdirt.com/news/wireless/article/824

    To be more balanced, here is the timeline on RIM vs NTP stories/posts;
    http://news.techdirt.com/news/wireless/search?quer y=RIM&topic=&author=

    I am not defending NTP or RIM, however this seems awfully a lot like history being repeated.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo_Farnsworth (Father of TV)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Howard_Armstron g (Father of FM radio)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Meucci (Father of Telephone)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Boole (Father of Digital Age)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Diesel (Father of Internal Combustion Engine)

    All died with tregic end, without entitlement or recognition or compensation for their life's work while they were alive, only to be stolen and profited by thieves and corrupt hands of greed.

    This may sound naive and to some "slashdotters," idiotic, but I value true human story in history more so than the profit margin or success of marketing and public opinion. The truth is, Mr. Stout and Campana are robbed from their rightful entitlement as Mr. Stout successfully demonstrated his idea through practical usage and only to be failed as business venture later on. This does not mean that Mr. Lazaridis didn't have any valuable input for this technology. However as patent is to protect the legitimacy of an idea, our legal system should validate that entitlement, not manipulate and craft to falsify the technical validity of original idea of the inventor.

    I don't personally care for how many lines of code are there, regardless if it's 16 million lines or 16 billion lines to make BlackBerry work flawlessly. This patent isn't about who has how many lines of code or how much work has been put in or how much money it made or how important it is on fight against "terrorist." It's about the innovative idea and technology.

    Other point is that often people are too quick to judge that patent itself is wrong, however without patent, non-profit driven, non-corporate endorced, average inventors and innovators of technology become faceless, only to be digged up later to be found in history book as many Open Source developers and programmers may face later.

    Or are we all that naive that one day, giant corporations and investers will dig up the holder of the original idea their proprietary software/technology benefited from in oder to share the profit and entitlement? Will FOSS and GPL ever have enough backbone or teeth to enforce its ideal and fight legal battles against billion dollar corporations'?

    What if Farnsworth became billionaire with his invention, what change could we have seen in today's TV broadcasting? What if Armstrong could have made his FM radio available to millions, what different sound could we hear over the radio today? What if Meucci and not Bell profitted from telephone, what could have happen for today's telecommuncation industry? What if Boole's idea was taken seriously and valued as later Claude Elwood Shannon, nearly 70 years later, found it to be, what could we have accomplished in today's computing industry? What if Rudolf Diesel was alive and prospected as Ford, could we have seen cars running on vegetable oil mor

    --
    "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."