Slashdot Mirror
Last NTP Patent Tentatively Thrown Out
pcause writes "Reuters reports that the fifth NTP patent has been rejected. What does it say about the US Patent office and software patents that these patents have made it through trials, appeals, etc and only now has the Patent Office decided they weren't any good in the first place?" From the article: "The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has sided with BlackBerry portable e-mail device maker Research in Motion Ltd. by issuing a non-final rejection of a fifth patent at the center of its legal battle with patent holding company NTP Inc. The decision means the patent agency has now issued non-final rejections of all five patents at issue in a BlackBerry patent-infringement case before a federal judge."
As easy as it is for me to want to side with RIM, and be excited that this last patent was thrown out...
I'd like to know several things. First, what WAS the last patent? The article doesn't say - I'm sure someone could dig it up, though. Also, why was it rejected, and if there was good cause to reject it, why did it survive so much previous scrutiny? While the USPTO will accept almost anything at first - they don't do rigorous review of everything submitted, until it is challenged - they start scrutinizing them once court cases come up. So how did it survive previously if it could not survive now? Could this perhaps be only a political decision? The USPTO bowing to administration pressure?
-Daniel
They all have a crackberry.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
It means that those government employees, all the way up to the Congress, who were worried about their Blackberry service made some calls to some people in the Patent Office.
The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return.
Do you think the boys in Washington are afraid of loosing their toys?
Can RIM countersue the patent office or the lawyers of NTP who embarked on this mission on a basis of obtaining part of the extortion fee?
Well, it kinds of throws the supreme value of having the government as a client into sharp relief, doesn't it?
"In a court brief filed on January 17, RIM's lawyers argued that Spencer should refrain from imposing any injunction for a number of reasons, including an "exceptional public interest" in maintaining uninterrupted BlackBerry service for national security officials, among others."
As you can see these greedy f***s that own US companies can give a f*** about us or the security of our country. Not to mention that its going hurt many businesses and employees of businesses, as if the economy isn't messed up enough already. I hope they crash and burn just like SCO.
I moral of the story kids: If your compnay sucks, don't pull an SCO to make money, because you will loose, everyone will hate you, and your name will become "*something edited by staff members*"
It's about time these patents were thrown out, although I would have preferred a court ruling that said patent law does not extend beyond the US border. I may love my country, but that doesn't mean I think they're always right.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
They started this patent war, they were the ones who were suing a bunch of smaller firms doing the same thing as RIM, that's why the late Thomas Campana even started his lawsuit on the first place - he saw a newspaper article about RIM suing other firms for patent infringements, the same sort of patents NTP was sitting on.
You can't handle the truth.
I was just getting ready to photoshop a picture of Heston with a blackberry: "Not from my cold dead hands". Guess I don't need to now.
What does it say about the US Patent office and software patents that these patents have made it through trials, appeals, etc and only now has the Patent Office decided they weren't any good in the first place?
It says that the USPTO has and will continue to issue bullshit patents on anything put in front of them, but that when a patent affects 25% of the government, regardless of validity, they will toss it out so they don't risk actual reform. No need to fret, however, any bullshit patents that only act as a cudgel for big businesses to kill or blackmail small businesses will remain inviolate.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
This is just one step in a grand conspiracy by those sneaky canucks to take over the word.
I for one welcome our touque wearing overlords.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
What exactly is it about the word "lose" and it's various derivations that leaves so many people unable to spell it properly in internet forums?
Next thing you know people will be spelling it "loo'se".
How does a judge have the expertise to decide this. Are expert witnesses providing the rationale behind the decision or is this a case of political pressure on the court influencing its decision. Definitely something that needs to be clarified.
http://www.commodore69.com/
"What does it say about the US Patent office and software patents that these patents have made it through trials, appeals, etc and only now has the Patent Office decided they weren't any good in the first place?"
This is a political decision, but related more to the US Senate/House than to the administration. I have been waiting for the politicos to stuff this one, and as the deadline for RIM drew near, they are doing so.
Now we can just hope that this has an effect on the USPTO beyond just the RIM case, extending to the other questionable patents they have approved...
Using plain ol' text since 1968
I am coming to the connclusion that the Blackberry will be staying. People are begining to take sides, not to mention im sure there are plenty of things going on behind the scenes.
Im sure right now there is a gov. official holding someone at gunpoint telling them not to side with the Blackberry. Its not going anywhere, the goverment wont let it. They are dependant on it.
What does it say about the US Patent office and software patents that these patents have made it through trials, appeals, etc and only now has the Patent Office decided they weren't any good in the first place?
That the PTO had its head up its collective @$$ on computer patents in the 1990s (which everyone here knew) and that there is the slim possibility that the PTO has now pulled its head back out (which most people don't believe yet).
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
This action by the USPTO will have HUGE implications for anyone that has a patent on anything.
A patent is supposed to secure, for a limited time, exclusive use of the patented item for the inventor. What the USPTO has effectively done here is said:
"We rubber stamp almost everything. You shouldn't build a business on a patent until it has been tried in the courts."
Of course, most patents will not be tried in courts until there is money (and a big business) at stake....catch 22.
A patent is supposed to be a guarantee - the due diligence should have been done before the patent was granted. Now, no business based on a patent has any reason to believe that their business is safe, or that they will recoup the costs of their investment until the courts decide so.
The patents granted by the USPTO are effectively paper tigers and not worthy of investment trust.
-ted
Still, look on the bright side, this has hopefully made a lot of very influencial people realise that stupid patents, be they on software, business processes or anything else have far more potential for harm than good. Maybe once the USPTO has finished wiping the egg off it's face they will realise this too and be a little bit more careful about just how much latitude they give patent applicants in future. It's highly unlikely to make the problem go away of course, there are now far to many companies in the US operating purely on the basis of an "IP Portfolio" for that, but at this point anything that might apply some brakes to the process is to be welcomed.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
What does it say about the US Patent office and software patents that these patents have made it through trials, appeals, etc and only now has the Patent Office decided they weren't any good in the first place?
Can somebody please explain, or at least define the terms used?
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
It means that 20 Senators, 100 Congressmen, and 1000 federal judges, along with Tommy Lee Jones in a US Marshall's uniform, called upon the USPTO and told them that they could either find a way to invalidate the patents or they could all find themselves drafted under secret provisions of various secret laws and assigned as the US Navy's designated patent examiners at the secret underground Antarctic base for the rest of their lives, with no vacation time or days off. And no funeral; their bodies would just be tossed out for leapord seals to eat sometime around 2030.
And believe me, that was probably the only true BIPARTISAN delegation Washington DC has seen in 13 years.
sPh
There was an article - I believe in the Wall Street Journal - about these patents being rejected within the last week. The USPTO only does a very minimal prior art search during the initial application process because there is just too much data to dig through in order to complete an exhaustive search for prior art. Once the patent is issued, if a patent disput arises, then normally the two sides of the dispute will provide additional information to the USPTO that supports their side of the argument. In this instance, RIM was able to find prior art in Europe that pre-dated NTP's patent applications by a year, or so. This prior art was the basis for the non-final rejections that have been recently returned by the USPTO.
Five Dolla Moddy-Moddy?
Wouldn't it have been easier to just disallow patenting this in the *first* place?
The five patents are 5,625,670, 5,631,946, 5,819,172,
6,067,451,
and 6,317,592.
Let's take a look at the first of these patents:
1. A system for transmitting information from one of a plurality of originating processors contained in an electronic mail system to at least one of a plurality of destination processors contained in an electronic mail system with the information including originated information originating from one of the plurality of originating processors and being transmitted by an RF information transmission network to at least one of the plurality of destination processors and other originated information originating from one of the originating processors is transmitted with the electronic mail system without using the RF information transmission network to at least one of the destination processors comprising:
at least one interface, one of the at least one interface connecting the electronic mail system containing the plurality of originating processors to the RF information transmission network; and wherein
the originated information is transmitted in association with an address of the one interface from the one of the plurality of originating processors to the one interface with the electronic mail system responding to the address of the one interface to direct the originated information from the one of the plurality of originating processors to the one interface; and
the originated information is transmitted from the one of the at least one interface to the RF information transmission network with an address of the at least one of the plurality of destination processors to receive the originated information being added at the originating processor originating the originated information, or by either the electronic mail system that contains the plurality of originating processors or the one interface.
So, basically, written as confusingly as possible, these turkeys have filed for a patent that covers any email system in which some information is sent via RF and some is not and the devices involved have addresses. The last is pretty much a given, and the first is pretty straightforward.
I'm serious. Advances in device development simply do not require patents. This is stupid. Why should anyone be granted a monopoly over this? Why does the production of RF devices require a patent at all? Say I'm an engineer. I want to send email from a mobile computer (hardly a stretch to envision). So I select a data transmission medium. Well, there's RF, IR, etc. These all have different properties. I choose the one that is most appropriate -- RF.
Yes, this patent got thrown out, but what I'm saying is that this is not a field in which patents -- guaranteed, time-limited government monopolies -- are necessary to produce advancements. The lifecycle of a new device is mayb
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
Non-Final - Hmmm...remember the FAT patent that MS got? It was rejected at this stage, but later upheld in the "FINAL" review. (FAT - File Allocation Table as invented by Gary Kildal in CP/M (or maybe even earlier than that???))
So if experience is a teacher here, then this means nothing.
Have you compiled your kernel today??
I guess if the IRS came up with "One Click" tax returns Amazon's patent would have to be removed.
At least the US Gov. could have been a little more transparent about it.
"Go back to bed America, You are free to do what we tell you"
Success is not the result of spontaneous combustion, you must set yourself on fire.
Dismantle the patent system completely. Software patents make no sense. As long as someone wants to push for software patents I call for no patents whatsoever.
I vote to dismantle the patent office.
Who's with me?
What everyone has to realize is that there is a vast amount of data to dig through in order to find prior art that can be used to reject claims in a patent application. Simply put, a patent examiner is given a limited amount of time to research for prior art for each patent application. If a particular claim cannot be refuted, the patent examiner must accept it.
As someone previously mentioned, as the claims in the patent get challenged, more time can be spent looking for prior art that can be used to refute the claims in the patent application.
The system isn't perfect, but it is the best we have, considering how much technology has evolved in such a short period.
It means the system works. It does not work the way lots of people would like, but then, those people aren't in charge, aren't looking to be in charge, and wouldn't make it if they tried to take charge. It may be inconvenient, but governments will apply their authority until it is taken from them by force. Nobody seems to be upset enough about this issue to stage a coup, so the status quo prevails.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
No. I am running Debian 2.2 kernel... Woody Baby!!! Now that is stable.. err. OLD STABLE!
You forgot to mention that the "little guy" is already dead.
Besides, he didn't invent anything--he *patented* an obvious concept and waited for someone ELSE to invent something that used the concept, so he could sue them.
What does it say about the US Patent office and software patents that these patents have made it through trials, appeals, etc and only now has the Patent Office decided they weren't any good in the first place?
This is ridiculous question. What do you think it says? The timing arises from a corrupt decision led by pure politics, driven by the U.S. Senate, caused the PTO to take up a Commissioner's reexamination, to protect a non-US company from an injunction.
Does it mean that the initial examination by the PTO was substandard? Of course not -- in fact, that very question was the point of the trial and two appeals. RIM, spending kazillions to search the world for prior art and multi-kazillions on lawyers to tear the patent and PTO to shreds, couldn't convince either a jury or the Federal Circuit that the patents were less than airtight. It was simply the economic and political fallout of a possible injunction that led to this "hail mary" pass.
Does this mean that the present rejections raise new doubt about the patents? Not necessarily, and probably not. It is ROUTINE for the PTO to initially reject all claims of a patent on an initial office action, and this may be nothing more than a perfunctory "through the paces" rejection. I don't really know how much trouble the patents are in (and not all claims were rejected by the way), because I have not studied the documents, but I find it astonishing that there would be any better prior art than was considered by the courts before. So much money was spent to defend RIM in this all-or-nothing case, it is hard to believe that any substantial new question of patentability could now arise. In any case, only time will tell. And even if there is a final rejection of each adjudicated infringed claim in each patent, there will be an administrative appeal, and then an appeal to the Federal Courts, which have so far been unimpressed by the claims of invaliidty.
Do not be surprised, however, if the patents reissue with the original claims (only one claim of many asserted is needed!), or claims not materially weaker than they began.
stunningly, she has chosen to produce a *readable patent*
Now THAT process is worth patenting!
SCO, Microsoft, P2P, what's your hot button?
As easy as it is for me to want to side with RIM, and be excited that this last patent was thrown out...
That isn't the case. The USPTO, on its own motion, placed these patents through a process called reexamination, in which each patent claim allowed is subject to review for subtantial new questions of patentability not previously considered by the office. So an examiner takes a new bite at the apple, based on new prior art, and reexamines te claims in view of the new art.
All that happened here, is that what is called an "iniitial official action" was issued, laying out the examiner's case that there existed new prior art that could invalidate the patent. First action rejection of all claims, which didn't happen in this case, is ROUTINE in ALMOST EVERY patent examination, and rarely indicates that the patent claims are in doubt. The next step is that the applicant files a response, either defending the claims as originally allowed, or introducing amendments or amended claims and defending them. It is then ROUTINE in MOST applications, that some or all patent claims are allowed to issue, either as originally filed or with some amendments.
So, if a single claim of a single patent survives unscathed, or allowed and amended claims are narrower but still infringed, nothing gets better for RIM.
The fact of initial rejections indicate nothing -- it is just another point of leverage for a settlement negotiation.
This is not the first time this has been pointed out in these letters.
On each patent application, there's a part that says, "Do not write in this section," and they wrote, "OK."
Call your senators and ask them to please gut the patent system.
But more directly, you can contact NTP. NTP is a legal fiction of a business invented by an author of legal fiction by the name of Donald Stout. He is a partner at Antonelli Terry Stout & Kraus, LLP. Their phone number is 703-312-6600.
A thousand polite calls will be more effective than a thousand rude ones. Though honestly a few dozen rude ones wouldn't start WWIII.
Once you call, ask for Don Stout and then say "Please stop abusing the patent system."
Keep in mind that it is illegal to use an interstate communications device to harrass someone anonymously. So give your name on request! Then it's legal!
I don't think there is any statutory exemption for the U.S. government in the patent act. (There is an express statement that States are not exempt, although the Supreme Court struck that down a few years back.) If I am mistaken, I'd be pleased to see a citation to the provision.
What government can do, of course, is to seize the patent, indeed ANY PROPERTY, all or in part through its power of eminent domain. Thus, no injunction can issue against the government. It's good to be the king.
The problem here is this -- it ain't free. The Fifth Amendment expressly provides that the taking of property for public use requires "just compensation." In fact, there is a special federal court that was created for and exists just to handle such claims: the United States Court of Claims.
Accordingly, I suggest that the iniitial poster was mistaken.
It says that the USPTO has and will continue to issue bullshit patents on anything put in front of them, but that when a patent affects 25% of the government, regardless of validity, they will toss it out so they don't risk actual reform.
All evidence is to the contrary. What is your basis for suggesting these patents are truly in trouble? A kazillion dollars were spent in defense of RIM at trial, including multi-kazillion dollars in an effort to identify real prior art to invalidate the claims of the patents in suit. After that, a judge and jury, dealing with legal and factual questions respectively, found the patents not invalid, and the judgments were twice affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
It is ROUTINE for initial official actions during examination and reexaminations to ding all or nearly all the claims of a patent, and this indicates nothing about whether the patent claims will survive, either unscathed or with irrelevant amendments. Until this process is over, you are simply hoping past hope that these facts will ultimately support your prejudices. It may feel good for yout to engage in name-calling, but that isn't much of an argument.
In this case I don't think you need to worry about that.
NTP is the one gaming the system here -- the NY Times called them a "virtual corporation" (according to Engadget), and they're nothing but a holding company with a fat war chest set up to create landmine lawsuits over the patents that they hold.
In terms of patent abuse, these guys make Microsoft look like Mother Teresa. They don't make anything (except lawsuits), they don't do anything, and the only way they have of making money is by going after the 'deep pockets' of established, successful companies. In short, they're an inherently parasitic business.
Is what they're doing legal? Yes. Should it be? Clearly not.
It would be different if they actually had a wireless-email product which was being infringed on by the Blackberry, but they don't and never did. All they ever wanted to do was bleed RIM for about a half billion dollars, and the hell with anyone who uses the service.
I think RIM is going to come out of this okay, and kudos to them for standing up to NTP. Regardless of what I'm sure were self-interested reasons for doing so, it was the right thing to do.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I am coming to the connclusion that the Blackberry will be staying. People are begining to take sides, not to mention im sure there are plenty of things going on behind the scenes.
Of course the Blackberry will stay online, perhaps with a brief glitch. Nobody, least of all the plaintiffs, wants to see the valuable resource shut down. The problem is that RIM has been totally unyielding -- much to their detriment -- in an effort to win by hard-lining and stonewalling. Now that their failure has been dismal and almost absolute, this is just one last "hail mary" pass to get leverage in a hopeless negotiation.
Once the injunctin is in place, market forces will work their magic.
That the PTO had its head up its collective @$$ on computer patents in the 1990s (which everyone here knew) and that there is the slim possibility that the PTO has now pulled its head back out (which most people don't believe yet).
At least in this case, all evidence is to the contrary. These patents have been super-litigated and held up. The PTO reexam is highly unlikely to change that result, and if it did, would be highly unlikely to survive an appeal. Think about it. If there really was killer art found by some miracle long after the case had been litigated -- we would be discussing their invalidity on the merits.
No; but there is a certain question of whether the invalidity of the patents affects the lawsuit or not.
It's a rather bizarre thing, really, but the judge (at least based on what I've heard) at some point basically said that he wasn't going to get into the issue of the validity of the patents one way or the other, and that everything was going by the assumption that they were valid, because the USPTO issued them, and they were valid when the suit was filed.
I don't know whether there's some flexibility in that doctrine or not, to deal with what happens if the USPTO really makes a final judgement on the patents and throws them out -- or whether the lawsuit grinds on regardless, and the USPTO decision only prevents future suits.
I think if the latter is really true, that there will be a tremendous hue and cry over it, because it's obviously unjust -- to continue to hear a case after what is essentially the evidence has been declared invalid. However problems like this in the US court system seem to get worked out only after the fact. There's a lot of "oops, well, we won't do that again" in the history of jurisprudence. It would be unfortunate if RIM became a casualty of that type of thinking.
I wonder if the USPTO has the ability to make a patent invalid retroactively -- so basically say, no only is this patent invalid going forward, but it should never have been issued in the first place. "Our bad, sorry about that," etc. That would make it pretty clear that it should change the lawsuit. However if their decision isn't retroactive, then it might not affect the existing suit.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
What the USPTO has effectively done here is said:
"We rubber stamp almost everything. You shouldn't build a business on a patent until it has been tried in the courts."
That's just plain silly, of course. The patents in this case have withstood intense scrutiny, and been affirmed by the trial court and the Federal Circuit. There is no indication yet that these patents issued, if at all, for failure to adequately examine them for the initial application fee.
A patent is supposed to be a guarantee - the due diligence should have been done before the patent was granted.
Actually, no. Patent examination entails only a novelty search, a topical level search done by patent examiners who are familiar with an art area. If that's what you mean by due diligence, fine. There is a solid indication here that this application was well-examined below. There is no effort during examination to do more than generally survey the specific art area for prior art, and no more could be justified for the iniitial fee. That's it, and that's how it has been for hundreds of years. After that, the burden shifts to the prospective defendant to find better art if she can and invalidate it -- either through the courts or by bringing a reexamination petition to the USPTO.
The patents granted by the USPTO are effectively paper tigers and not worthy of investment trust.
Again, all evidence is to the contrary. The market for assertable technology has never been stronger. Certainly, many patents are unmarketable or unassertable. But the general statement is plainly false.
I'd like to agree with this. Based on everything I've heard, it's really Congress that we should be pointing the finger at, for the wasteland that is the USPTO lately.
A system where their application fees actually WAS kept in a trust fund, would probably result in a much higher quality of patents. However -- and this is where I'll agree with the GP -- politicians are far too addicted to money for their pet bullshit projects to let that kind of income stream remain untouched.
Instead of being used to pay for more patent examiners, it just gets sucked off into the General Fund, never to be seen again. And the USPTO gets what I suspect is a fraction of it back in its budget.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Courts certainly (district, appeals) can and do rule that some patents are invalid. It may be that they can only make this ruling on narrower grounds (fraud by patent applicant, failure to disclose prior art, etc) than the USPTO, but I'm not a lawyer so I don't know.
The grandparent poster's question is valid. Perhaps an IP attorney can enlighten us?
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
But could they not, as a result of this, sue the USPTO for causing them to spend millions of dollars "defending" patents that were rightfully theirs until the rug was miracolously pulled out from under them?
I mean, they did everything by the book, however sneaky, and now they're changing the book?
Doesn't that mean the USPTO is negligent - their actions directly not only cost NTP a lot of money, but damaged their reputation as well.
This day, the technology of sending a UDP packet to a device after checking a POP account is vindicated!! Now, all those people who thought of it before and were doing it for years can breathe freely!
If a patent on some variation of "sending email over RF" is overturned on the basis of new prior art, it does not mean the system works.
Such a patent should not be valid based on the much more basic fact that patents which just combine a bunch of known things shouldn't be allowed. Using well known technology A to solve problem B does not have an "inventive step".
And the much more basic problem is you shouldn't be allowed (and you aren't allowed in europe) to patent ideas, algorithms, protocols, math, etcetera. All of that is software patents. Patents such as the many ones on MP3, or the LZW compression patent (that affected the GIF format) do cover innovative ideas (LZW is pretty cool!), but they still shouldn't be allowed.
Who is this small guy that got crushed? NTP has no employees. They hire lawyers and buy patents that are being infringed upon in order to make money through law suits. These people are parisites who do nothing to employ the technology to which they patents; they are certainly not inventors.
Someone in Congress likes you? Congratulations, we can offer to hold up your patent or alternatively strike someone else's down.
Congress? They have little to no sway regarding the validity of a particular patent. They can only push legislation that allows antiquated technology producers to quash new technology that threatens thier market share. Look at what RCA did to Edwin Armstrong, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Armstrong, or the history of internet radio.
This the problem with righteous anger: it's a crutch for ignorant people who want to participate in the opinion game.
HIBT?
If I read the article correctly, all the patents that NTP is holding over RIM's
head have been declared NFG, yet NTP STILL is seeking an injunction agains RIM to
shut them down for infringement! Are they smoking crack? Is the judge trying the
infringement case on drugs? This should be a slam dunk get the F#$! out of my
courtroom verdict against NTP!
We have 2 sides that aren't going to back down, one because they don't have anything to lose and the other because they feel they are on the moral high ground and should not lose. No one is going to quit the battlefield and run off with a settlement. Instead, some fundamental absurdities of the patent system are being exposed. An earlier article expressed incredulity over the fact that RIM could have settled for a few million, but now the issue could cost them billions. Yes, and the Union could have bought out all the slave owners and avoided the Civil War. Not that simple. Who's to say a hundred other patent holders wouldn't come after RIM if RIM caved to NTP?
It looks to me like NTP did make working prototypes, and tried to market their product. That 2nd step did not succeed, and we really can't say why. Was their design in some way impractical? Too expensive? Too bulky? Was there a technical reason why their product did not go further? Or are there other reasons, such as the partner never intended to play fair and was only stringing NTP along until they'd learned enough to make their own version? Questions like those are hard to answer, but for the patent system to work, we need answers to those sorts of questions.
Enter RIM. They apparently independently design a product that does the same thing NTP tried to do. Did RIM really independently do the work, or did they copy from NTP? In this case, it seems clear that RIM did not borrow from NTP. Didn't even know NTP existed. This puts up more questions: How can we know whether some idea was independently conceived more than once or whether it was copied? Maybe we can tell after a great deal of close examination of both sides, but such an effort may not be worth the time and cost. However, if the effort is made and the answer is they are independent efforts, then the next question is if it's "non-obvious" how come others also came up with the same ideas? And we need the answer to the obviousness question beforehand, so we know whether to grant a patent. What about the many fine shades of independent thinking? Many, many variations of many different ideas are needed. A great idea is a synthesis of many puzzle pieces, and each piece may be a synthesis of yet more puzzle pieces, with the pieces changeable and applicable to many puzzles. The law treats an idea or piece of an idea as if it has clearly defined boundaries, like a piece of land. In reality, ideas overlap considerably. There's more than one way to solve most puzzles. Where should the boundaries be drawn? Can boundaries be drawn? Why should any one idea be enshrined as the one and only solution to some problem, and all other solutions to the same or related problems be suspected as mere copies of the original solution? Since no one can tell about the obviousness let alone the other points, the patent office has taken the patentable-until-proven-otherwise route, granted a great number of dubious patents, then let the justice system decide boundaries (which may be undecidable) on a case-by-case basis, as disputes arise. Maybe it's just coincidence that that slant brings in more revenue.
In the court case, RIM's legal defense really blew it. Lied about prior art.
RIM has other blemishes. They have not hesitated to do unto others as NTP is doing unto them.
And now RIM is trying a wonderful new line. They've placed their head on the chopping block and showed their users, some of whom are lawmakers, that danger to RIM is danger to us all. They've really put the issue in the limelight. For the sake of justice for one "little guy", will the lawmakers do nothing and let the system hose everyone else, including themselves? So now the patent office has "tentatively" invalidated NTP's patents! They still don't know whether those patents should have been granted.
If NTP's case has merit under the current patent system, how should NTP be com
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
That's funny. I'd think that Thomas Campana and his widow might want to be paid for his work. NTP sure does have employees. But what I asked for was fairness and justice. If NTP's patent is going to be invalid, perhaps there's a slew of others that deserve the same treatment.
That's the problem with ignorance. It rears its head at the ugliest moments.
I went through this with a patent on game physics engines. The USPTO rejected some claims as an insufficent advance over prior art. So I sent in published reviews of games that didn't use my technology. "This game really sucked". "Worst game I ever played". "Game physics terrible". "Objects randomly flying off into space after a collision".
The USPTO then accepted the claims without any further argument. That's how you prove non-obviousness - show previous failure. If others tried and failed, but yours works, then you must have invented something.
Not just congress but also some of the courts.
No, no, no... blame it all on Bush. He lied to us about how patents work...If I had points...
argumentum ad fallacium: Fallacy of defining a fallacy which allows one to dismiss the argument in question.
... in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (that is, if one or both of the parties doesn't go bankrupt in the meantime). If NTP gets a judgement against RIM, RIM could appeal to CAFC. On the other hand, if NTP's reexaminations result in rejection of all the significant claims, those appeals also would go the CAFC. Thus the CAFC could determine the final outcome here (of course, the loser could finally ask the Supreme Court to reverse the CAFC, but that would be highly unlikely).
So if your point is that the patents are valid
My point was simply that the validity of the patents in view of the prior art considered by the Court has been fully litigated and reviewed on appeal.
, I would have to question whether the USPTO is answerable to courts regarding its decisions
Well, the USPTO appears to think so. Manual of Patent Examination Practice 2659 (decisions of federal courts binding during reexamination)
- because it is most certainly answerable to the whims of congress (my initial point above), and congress is blowing very one-sidedly in this case.
You appear unable to distinguish between the whims of congressmen and ACTS of Congress. The Patent Act provides to the contrary:
35 U.S.C. 141-146 (chapter entitled "Review of Patent and Trademark Office Decision).
Even if the USPTO is ultimately answerable to the courts regarding its decisions, that would mean NTP would have to bring a whole new case against the USPTO - meaning 5 years during which it will be even harder than it has been for them to get an injunction.
Not likely, the injunction may be entered this week. Significantly, while the Administration is bound by the Courts, the Courts are not bound to stay proceedings in view of the reexamination. Many things would have to happen for a delay of the kind you suggest: (1) the PTO has to in fact invalidate the claims -- it has not yet done so; (2) the invalidation would have to be supported by the Patent Board of Appeals; and (3) the invalidation would have to require additional evidence to defeat, rather than mere appeal to the Federal Circuit; and (4) the Federal Circuit sustain the rejections. An unlikely parlay. Finally, it is doubtful that the trial, if it occurred, woudl require nearly as much time as you suggest.
I seem to recall that RIM wanted a $450 million settlement. Seems to me that RIM is not "totally unyielding".
The patents granted by the USPTO are effectively paper tigers and not worthy of investment trust.
No, all it means is that the patent office doesn't guarantee your patents, and they aren't supposed to. If you file a bogus patent that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, that's your problem. The burden of making sure you file good patents is on you and only on you.
Frankly, I think companies should be punished severely if their patents ever get thrown out--a patent that gets granted and then thrown out is pretty close to fraud on the part of the filer.
If others tried and failed, but yours works, then you must have invented something.
Or it may mean that other developers have deliberately chosen to use a cheaper technique because machines weren't fast enough. Or it may mean that the feature was cut because the art department didn't like it.
I went through this with a patent on game physics engines. The USPTO rejected some claims as an insufficent advance over prior art. So I sent in published reviews of games that didn't use my technology.
I think you just proved again how shoddy USPTO reviews are; your argument holds no water.
If you say so. Its not hard to start talking settlement after you have already lost the case, but I would still consider that pretty unyielding, given that the value of the injunction has been estimated in excess of more than a billion. They could have settled for far less a few years ago.
Anyway, the offer scuttled, and RIM is again playing hardline, hoping past hope that the U.S. government will do for them what the U.S. courts would not, and make this all go away. Not likely, but time will tell.
The interesting question is whether by connecting to a sever in Canada, a U.S. customer makes the Canadian server subject to U.S. patents. This is somewhat similar to the arguement that by serving a web page in Canada you're subjct to the laws of every country where it is viewed.
The most familiar web pages are most often available free of charge. BlackBerry service is not. If you bill a U.S. address, you have to follow U.S. patents, right?
Hmmm...remember the FAT patent that MS got? It was rejected at this stage, but later upheld in the "FINAL" review. (FAT - File Allocation Table...)
Microsoft's recent VFAT patent review concerned not the "FAT" part but the "V" part, a 1994 hack to store long file names as extra volume label data in a 1981 file system, which conforming legacy implementations would ignore. As long as you use only the 8.3 names in the spec, or you use some other prior-art method of storing long file names, you aren't practicing the patented invention. So selling cards preformatted as FAT will still work.
If anyone doesn't see this as a "tactic," either he/she is blinded by too much press release from RIM or public opinion. Why is not RIM's, but NTP's patents being reviewed? Where is fair comparison by USPTO?
a re/story/0,10801,104664,00.html Is Eatoni Ergonomics also like NTP, a patent troll filing "frivolous" lawsuit and stifle innovation?
Should Canadian patent office review RIM's patents? I highly doubt that will ever happen. Who's looking out for US companies from being sued by foreign companies with shady patents being filed in foreign soil? How about comparing the patent infringement lawsuits filed by NTP and RIM? How many lawsuits did RIM file against US companies? How many lawsuits did NTP file against ANY companies?
So who are we to say, you can't file a lawsuit while other companies like RIM with market power can? Isn't it easier for RIM to wipe out smaller competitions with multimillion dollar legal war chest and political lobbyists? So if I patented something, but with limited investment and just enough money to make few prototypes, am I not an individual with IP (intellectual property) who's willing to find bigger companies to license and/or buy out my patent? Companies like Microsoft and RIM, decides to grossly ignore my patent, copys it, implements it, and profits from it, I suddenly become someone who files "frivolous" lawsuit and stifle innovation?
Only way this can be fair, Canadian Patent Office should review all RIM's filed patents and give non-final rejection as well. If NTP's patents are so shady and obvious, what is so NOT obvious and shady about RIM's patents? What innovation did RIM stifle with its QWERTY keyboard lawsuits? How can RIM think that it can get away with infringing Eatoni Ergonomics Inc. patents? http://www.computerworld.com/hardwaretopics/hardw
RIM stifles innovation by stealing and dening rightful claims of other's hard work and research. RIM is the true patent troll here. Lets get that straight.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
In the long run, a patent disaster was the best course of action against bad software patents. All this will do is validate the pro-patent forces in the eyes of the politicians. "See the process worked." That is what they will say.
;)]
A shut down of Blackberry's was the best chance to push some software patent reform. It appears that chance may now be lost. Better to sacrifice one for the good of the whole in this case. [Plus, blackberry's annoy the hell out of me, so it was an appropriate target in my mind.
You are absolutely right, but you are preaching to the wrong crowd. /. folks have no sense of right or wrong which makes them
Sadly, most of
highly susceptible to corporate BS propaganda...
they realised that Jack would not have been able to get in touch with Mike Novick.
We won't let you play until you spell it properly
TUQUE.
And I'm afraid you'll have to completely give up on this "beanie" nonsense.
--simon
home page
I stand corrected. Although NTP is purely a patent holding company that doesn't employ their patents to further develop the technology. the owner of NTP happens to be a co-inventor on all of the handful of patents they own.
I think we can all agree that many patent should be invalidated. Your outrage is even further justified by our society's view on the subject. We come come off as Marxists or pirates who want to change the law to squash inventors so that we can by chinese knockoffs at a discounted price. But in reality, we just want the basic criterion for patentability to be met.
From Wikipedia:
Patent laws usually require that, in order for an invention to be patentable, it must
* be of patentable subject matter, ie a kind of subject-matter that is eligible for patent protection,
* be novel,
* be non-obvious (in United States patent law) or involve an inventive step (in European patent law);
* be useful (in U.S. patent law) or be susceptible of industrial application (in European patent law).
Usually the term "patentability" only refers to "substantive" conditions, and does not refer to formal conditions such as the "sufficiency of disclosure", the "unity of invention" or the "best mode requirement".
In addition, I personally also feel that the patent holder should actively involved in the development of some technology or industrial application of some kind with or without regard to the specific patent(i.e. no solely patent holding companies or long term patent estates). The problem is that there can be no reform until IP becomes a center stage issue. A polititian's stance on a side issue in always for sale. Until Americans stop allowing the media to distacty us with ridiculous issues like whether or not the state should recognize monogamous butt-sex as a valid family unit, we will see our freedoms slip away.
You're assuming, as does China, etc, that conecting a program in Uzbekistan from Patentistan makes the Uzbek program subject to Patanti law.
China's interpretation is more likely to hold if you are selling a service to Patent customers. Remember that there's a difference between on the one hand offering an unpaid anonymous service (such as web), where contracts are weak or nonexistent due to lack of valuable consideration, and on the other hand offering a paid subscription service (such as mobile messaging service), where contracts are much stronger. For one thing, in order to have service outside Uzbekistan, RIM has to enter into contracts with owners of spectrum in each country to route messages to and from RIM's server in Uzbekistan. Don't these contracts give RIM assets in Patentstan?