Blackberry Injunction Postponed

ahhh.... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-24 08:44 · Score: 0

Us crackberry addicts can breathe a great sigh of relief... oooh, another email! one sec..

In other news... by voice_of_all_reason · 2006-02-24 08:44 · Score: 1, Troll

Judge Spencer found a big 'ol bag of cash lying on his front porch this morning on the way to work. The two incidents are in no way related.

Re:In other news... by voice_of_all_reason · 2006-02-24 09:01 · Score: 5, Funny

you have no understanding of the case, but want to give your useless opinion

You must be new here. Welcome aboard!
Re:In other news... by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2006-02-24 09:59 · Score: 1

It is a stupid joke that demonstrates that you have no understanding of the case, but want to give your useless opinion, so you insinuate that the judge was bribed...
Gentlemen, start your lighters...

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."

No patents but still infringing by plankrwf · 2006-02-24 08:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

Interesting system in het States: no valid patents, but stil possible infringement... But then, hey, I'm a stupid European ;-0

Re:No patents but still infringing by k2dbk · 2006-02-24 08:50 · Score: 2, Informative

Despite the fact that the US Patent and Technology Office (USPTO) has declared the patents invalid, NTP still has the option of challenging the "invalidity" of those patents in court. Apparently, Judge Spencer won't consider the patents to be non-existant until that happens. The challenge process could take a year or more.
Re:No patents but still infringing by terrymr · 2006-02-24 08:56 · Score: 1

Although RIM has alrady been found to have infringed the patents the judge could set asside the jury verdict based on the new information or could simply set damages at $1 and end the case that way.
Re:No patents but still infringing by Astin · 2006-02-24 09:01 · Score: 1

True, it's possible. However, never in the history of the Patent Office has an appeal on a final rejection resulted in the rejection being overturned. So the chance of that succeeding appear slim.

--
- In hell, treason is the work of angels.
Re:No patents but still infringing by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-24 09:22 · Score: 0

What the heck are you talking about? It happens all the time. Sure, it's more common for it to be affirmed than reversed, but the Federal Circuit is notoriously fickle and random in its decision. Here's one example just from searching on google: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?c ourt=Fed&navby=case&no=011439
Re:No patents but still infringing by Schraegstrichpunkt · 2006-02-24 09:58 · Score: 1

The 'T' stands for Trademark.

--
http://outcampaign.org/
Re:No patents but still infringing by corbettw · 2006-02-24 10:15 · Score: 1

The judge could also set aside the jury verdict, since the patents are invalid, but still award huge sums of money to NTP just to punish RIM for lying in court. It over yet, though there is a woman with a severe thyroid problem gargling water off in the corner.

--
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Re:No patents but still infringing by Kelson · 2006-02-24 10:55 · Score: 1

I'd hazard to guess that the judge made his statement before the patent office issued its ruling... or at least before the information made it to the courtroom.

At least, I hope that's what happened. I know our legal system is messed up, particularly where patents, copyrights and trademarks are concerned, I'd like to think we're not so messed up that you can enforce an invalid patent.
Re:No patents but still infringing by 1ucius · 2006-02-24 13:13 · Score: 1

In USPTO-ese, the term "final rejection" means 'you need to pay more money if you want us to keep looking at your application,' not 'your application is invalid.'
Re:No patents but still infringing by Tough+Love · 2006-02-24 18:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

The judge could also set aside the jury verdict, since the patents are invalid, but still award huge sums of money to NTP just to punish RIM for lying in court.

It looks to me like the judge is the main fraudster in all of this. Apparently, the judge threw a fit because somebody noticed a 1990's file date in directory where supposedly 1980 software was being run for a prior art demonstration. Wellll, this sort of thing makes great theater, but it does not make sound law when you consider that the 1980's software was in fact able to do exactly what RIM said it would, and as proof of that, the patents have in fact been invalidated via that prior art. Somehow the judge twisted that all into a travesty of due process.

RIM's appeal of the initial case argued that the judge's decision to throw out the demonstration was "an abuse of discretion" since TekNow clearly had software for SAM from the 1980s and that the post-1991 directory dates of the demonstration software "occurred merely because TekNow's license-protection software automatically updates the directory dates with each new installation of the SAM software... RIM was able to successfully run the demonstration after the trial with 1980s software and provide evidence of prior art.

Throw the idiot judge in jail and throw away the key, I say. This judge is a menace to the rule of law.

--
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.

patent squatting by zephc · 2006-02-24 08:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

Patent squatting should forfeit the rights to a patent after, say, 3 years if no progress has been made. For example, if Company A patents something, then sits on it for years. Company B makes a device that uses A's patent, but A has done nothing with it said patent. If A can't prove that they are working on developing the invention in the patent, then the patent is voided. That includes you, hoverboard patent!

Vote for me in 2008 and I will see this passed into law :-D

--
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.

Re:patent squatting by Pensacola+Tiger · 2006-02-24 09:03 · Score: 2

Want my vote? Campaign to invalidate ALL software patents!
Re:patent squatting by sholden · 2006-02-24 09:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

There are two situations in which that would be bad.

If someone invents something for which the barriers to entry are too high - why shouldn't they be able to license it to the existing companies. Instead of the existing companies just waiting 3 years and then using the invention anyway.

And if someone invents something which relies on some other patented thing. The owner of the existing patent can just not allow them to use it, wait three years, and use the new invention anyway.

I'm sure there are others too. One thing to note is that these things tend to affect real inventions not stupid software patents...
Re:patent squatting by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-24 09:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

Contrary to popular belief, legal professionals generally know what they're doing. People practicing in the area of patent law usually understand the technology (more likely than not far better than the typical /. commenter) and the implications of the law on the technology well enough to formulate reasoned conclusions. While your point of view is one that is considered, perhaps what you don't know is how damages are calculated in a patent infringement case.

In your scenario, a patentee without the capability of producing the patented invention themselves would generally only be able to collect a reasonable royalty from an infringer. Steeper damages come when you can show, among other things, a loss of profits.

The oft cited justification for not doing what you recommend is "what about the little guy?" You are proposing essentially taking away a patentee's ability to negotiate a license for practicing the patented invention if they "sit on it for years." The law already does this, and simply asks that an infringer pay a "reasonable royalty" in this case. If the invention is so important that others might want to practice it, why shouldn't they want to pay a reasonable royalty? Reasonable royalties are controlled by market forces, and are in part a determination of what the terms and conditions for licensing would have been had the invention not been stolen.

It is important to remember the economic rationale that is glossed over in these discussions on Slashdot:
- If the invention is truly valuable, a would-be infringer would be willing to pay a reasonable royalty to use it. If they negotiate such a deal, cheers! If they accidentally end up using the patent and the patentee only sustained the theoretical loss you are concerned with, the law has you covered!
- If the invention is worthless, no one would be concerned with implementing it in the first place, or they have work-arounds.
- None of this would even be a question if the inventor hadn't patented it ... the invention simply wouldn't exist!
Re:patent squatting by Tweekster · 2006-02-24 09:09 · Score: 1

Why are they inventing stuff they cant make?

--
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
Re:patent squatting by madstork2000 · 2006-02-24 09:12 · Score: 0

That is a great idea, definitely sounds fair. Protects the interests of people working on a real invention, but keeps technology moving forward, rather than getting locked in closests.

It actually sounds much like how "trade marks" lose out if they are not actively enforced. Patents should most definitely be the same.

Use it or lose it. Big patent squatting should result in the life being sucked out of the shitty "holding" companies.

I Hope the judge sets damages at $1 and then RIM. It would be even better if the a$$ hole holding company has to pay for RIMs legal fees. Hopefully it would be enough to bankrupt them and send them packing the greed SOBs. I would love to be served at McD's by one of those f$cking ba$tards. There is a special place in hell for those guys.

BTW I am a blackberry owner.

-MS2k
Re:patent squatting by Throtex · 2006-02-24 09:34 · Score: 1

The judge CANNOT reasonably set damages at $1. The law guarantees that NTP will receive at minimum a "reasonable royalty". This is a MINIMUM. Reasonable royalties are calculated, in part, by figuring out what the two parties would have likely negotiated for. Remember, the patentee doesn't have to license the technology to anyone if they choose not to, so that property right can be worth quite a bit depending on market forces.

As for NTP having to pay RIM's legal fees, that would be downright impossible. NTP has not engaged in any form of inequitable conduct (if anything, RIM's been doing that, but even their practices, shameful as they are, don't rise to the level necessary to award NTP attorney's fees), and an award of legal fees are only to be used as an extraordinary remedy.

The Blackberry is a very useful device, but not everbody who makes a nifty product is "good." Like it or not, RIM's the bad guy here.
Re:patent squatting by yeremein · 2006-02-24 09:38 · Score: 1

The judge CANNOT reasonably set damages at $1. The law guarantees that NTP will receive at minimum a "reasonable royalty". This is a MINIMUM.

RIM has to pay reasonable royalties for a bunch of invalid patents?!
Re:patent squatting by zephc · 2006-02-24 09:44 · Score: 1

I would say to that the patent is voided, but can be reapplied for after 18 months (sounds reasonable). The 'little guy' should be able to at least prove some *research* is involved based on the patent. E.g. patenting 'a computer neural interface' and sitting on it for years is ludicrous - it's still far outside the scope of modern technology. However, if the little guy has some reasonable idea of how to do it, and is doing real research* towards it, his patent can stand. This is sort of like tax laws: your company has to prove its *trying* to make a profit to justify expenses/losses, otherwise the IRS lays the smack down.

By the way, this would be from patent acceptance date, not patent application date, so there's a little leeway there.

* needs to be defined better

--
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
Re:patent squatting by SatanicPuppy · 2006-02-24 09:52 · Score: 1

I think they still should have something. I mean, the "inventions" we're talking about here are nothign of the kind. They're just ideas with no practical anything behind them...Like, I'm going to patent "Holographic optical email display interfaces that use retinal focus for navigation" *Patent patent patent*

Okay, I'm done. Now, when someone actually invents that, I own it because I thought of it first? How does that follow? I can sit around and pull stuff outta my ass all day long, do no more investment in it than it costs to get a patent, then sue the people who put zillions of dollars and tens of thousands of manhours into developing it, and that is somehow legit?

All that does is make corporations unwilling to invest in new tech, for fear some stupid patent troll who has a patent on the fricking XOR gate will come along and sue them for *cue Dr. Evil voice* One billion dollars!

There is no legal punishment sufficient for NTP...I'm thinking dark alleys, big angry nerds (with overdeveloped Crackberry thumb muscles) wielding boards studded with nails.

--
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Re:patent squatting by greed · 2006-02-24 09:55 · Score: 1

In your first case, actually licensing the patent to someone else is "doing something with it". They're not squatting, they're actually going and finding someone who can bring their idea to production.
Even in your second case, they "did something"--though they cannot market the product, they can show progress towards design and the reason why they cannot complete it. That sounds more than good enough to show that it isn't squatting.
Re:patent squatting by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-24 09:58 · Score: 0

Mainly because research differ from manufacturing, A company can legimately specialize in just research, though the system is sometimes abused with wildcard lottery patents, which are the ones you seem to want to prevent, as do we all.
Re:patent squatting by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-24 10:07 · Score: 0

If they are invalid they obviously needn't pay royalties at all. But if they are valid, damages can't be set to $1 just because 'they were only sorta' kind of valid.' or 'we really like blackberries' or whatever.
(IANAL, and thus I just wasted 3 seconds of your precious time. Now 4 seconds.)
Re:patent squatting by FrostedChaos · 2006-02-24 10:18 · Score: 1

The oft cited justification for not doing what you recommend is "what about the little guy?" You are proposing essentially taking away a patentee's ability to negotiate a license for practicing the patented invention if they "sit on it for years." The law already does this, and simply asks that an infringer pay a "reasonable royalty" in this case.

The patent system is inherently biased in favor of large companies, because they have the financial and legal resources to stay the course throught difficult litigation. This is exactly what we are seeing in the RIM vs. NTP case. RIM has deep pockets, so they have been able to hold out almost indefinitely.

In fact, it's possible for a large company to ignore the patents of a smaller one, and "win" in the marketplace. Even if they are eventually fined, their smaller competitor may no longer even be in business by the time the case is over. Try googling the Microsoft vs. Stac case. Patent law is a "pay-to-play" system that prices out smaller corporations, let alone startups in the garage.
Arguments that patents help "the little guy" are completely bogus.

If the invention is truly valuable, a would-be infringer would be willing to pay a reasonable royalty to use it. If they negotiate such a deal, cheers! If they accidentally end up using the patent and the patentee only sustained the theoretical loss you are concerned with, the law has you covered!

Who decides what is "reasonable"? Why should anyone be assessed a fee, "reasonable" or not, for re-inventing something that has already been discovered?

If the invention is worthless, no one would be concerned with implementing it in the first place, or they have work-arounds.

Maybe. Or maybe the "invention" is so abstract in nature that there are no work-arounds. A patent like "one-click shopping" or "wireless email." Of course, the patent office would never grant those patents... would they?

I think the key thing to remember here is that the patent system is not self-correcting. It's very open to abuses of power. Whenever you have lots and lots of money being tossed around, you will get some amount of corruption, statistically. It's also very easy for clever people to "game the system" by creating patent holding companies.
This is what SCO and NTP have turned into. Although both started out as legitimate companies, they have become shell companies, part of an elaborate chess game played by cynical mega-corporations.

It may be true that the patent system was created with good intentions, but take a look at what is actually happening in practice. At least in the field of computers, I think you will find that the "useful arts" are advancing not because of, but in spite of, the system. Maybe "intellectual property" has been a useful concept in other domains. I haven't followed those other fields closely enough to have an opinion.

The ultimate question here is one of power. Do we want to give away our right to create code, and invent in other domains, to established interests-- the so-called original inventors and established corporations? Or do we want to retain these rights for ourself? I think the answer is clear.

--
"Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental." -Slashdot
Re:patent squatting by LionKimbro · 2006-02-24 10:21 · Score: 1

"None of this would even be a question if the inventor hadn't patented it ... the invention simply wouldn't exist!"

You see, this is why popular belief is against the legal professionals. It's because you say insane things like this.

I also want to know where the little guy went, when the little guy independently invents something. Where, oh where, is the little guy argument? For some reason, the argument disappears.

Yet the computer software industry is full of little guys, independently inventing, and then told: "You can't use that." "I wasn't even going to patent it!" "Oh, you have goodness in your heart, that's nice. Still, you can't use it." "But it's obvious!" "Nothing is obvious, my dear friend, nothing."

I hope you know that, if all free software "inventions" were patented, and placed into a gigantic Free Software pool, we could completely gum up all software development in the world, or perhaps the WIPO subscribing world, or, hey, let's face it- at least just in the United States. It's only because we don't have the money and the time to do it, that it doesn't happen. I do hope that you realize this.
Re:patent squatting by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-24 10:29 · Score: 0

I'd be more inclined to say, patents relating to in the main software, should only last 8 years. The software world is a fast moving thing, and patents which last much longer than the commercial life of any revision of a software product is quite insane.
Re:patent squatting by pizzaman100 · 2006-02-24 10:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

If someone invents something for which the barriers to entry are too high - why shouldn't they be able to license it to the existing companies. Instead of the existing companies just waiting 3 years and then using the invention anyway.
The problem is that it is not some guy tinkering in his garage that is getting and stockpiling patents. It's greedy IP firms. Maybe a compromise would be to allow individuals to sit on say X number of patents, but make it illegal for IP only firms to do the same thing. This way the little guy with no start up money is protected, but the IP firms (aka NTP, SCO, RAMBUS) can't just randomly patent ideas and sue manufacturers.
Another reality is that if a company actually manufactures a product, they are less likely to agressively enforce their patent portfolio --- because they are usually vulnerble to a countersuit for some other product they produce. IP only firms have no scruples in this matter since of course they produce nothing except lawsuits.
Re:patent squatting by tinkerghost · 2006-02-24 10:44 · Score: 1

It shouldn't invalidate the patent, but the scenario should create an 'implied liscence'. It was there, you knew about the infringement, you did nothing -> you implicitly gave your permision to do so.
However not sure if this applies, NTP has been suing RIM for years & started shortly after RIM started operating in the US.
Re:patent squatting by jheath314 · 2006-02-24 10:45 · Score: 1

No, you misunderstand... the GP's first point was that companies could try to sidestep ever having to pay liscense fees by simply waiting three years and then getting the concepts for free.

In reply to this, I would say that any company trying to do so would run the risk of having one of their competitors snap up the exclusive rights to the invention before the three year wait is up. That, or the inventor might do some inexpensive busy-work on models or prototypes which might convince the courts that he hasn't been squatting. Alternatively, a simple way to solve this problem would be to include "actively seeking corporate backing regardless of success" as an acceptable form of 'making progress.'

IHMO, the three year expiry date is an excellent idea.

--
Procrastination Man strikes again!
Re:patent squatting by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-24 10:51 · Score: 0

Of course, assuming that they're valid. Despite Slashdot's fascination with this, even the patent that has been "finally" rejected is still nowhere near at the end of its existence. There are venues of appeal within the PTO itself and, eventually, within the federal courts.
Re:patent squatting by logicpaw · 2006-02-24 11:07 · Score: 1

Why are they inventing stuff they cant make?
Most small inventors have enough trouble saving money for a new car, much less funding a new manufacturing company, tooling a factory, etc.
Re:patent squatting by mysidia · 2006-02-24 11:59 · Score: 1

Simple solution: make the rule so that if the patent holder licenses another party, allowing them to utilize the patented invention in something they produce, that counts as use, AND, if the inventor can prove that they demanded a specific company obtain a license for a patent that was still valid at the time that they were practicing, and they refuse to, then a new patent is automatically present against that particular company using that technology for 20 years from the date they refused to license the patent, without a license.

So, if they can't find anyone to license the technology, then the patent itself dies, but each company that refused to license it are in penalized, in a way that could hurt them competitively, unless the patent was invalid for some other reason.
Re:patent squatting by Macadamizer · 2006-02-24 12:06 · Score: 1

Patent law is a "pay-to-play" system that prices out smaller corporations, let alone startups in the garage.

That's really not true. There are any number or law firms out there that are willing to take on patent infringement cases on contingency, as long as the patent is a pretty good one and there is a reasonable chance of prevailing and making money. As with any contingency-fee arrangement, the lawyers only get paid if the plaintiff wins, so this is relatively cost-free for the "little guy."

Of course, if the patent is weak, or infringement is not strong, or if the infringer doesn't have any money to pay off a judgment, then yeah, I guess the little guy might have a tough time. But then again, why would anyone sue in such a case, unless they were just trying to make life difficult for someone else -- and that's usually the province of big companies anyway, not "little guys."

For every NTP v. RIM or RAMBUS v. The World or SCO v. IBM, there are hundreds of infringement cases involving small companies and individuals going on everyday. They don't make headlines, but they are out there.

--

"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
Re:patent squatting by Macadamizer · 2006-02-24 12:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

It shouldn't invalidate the patent, but the scenario should create an 'implied liscence'. It was there, you knew about the infringement, you did nothing -> you implicitly gave your permision to do so.
However not sure if this applies, NTP has been suing RIM for years & started shortly after RIM started operating in the US.

But we already have that -- it's called "laches." If you know infringement is going on, and do nothing, eventually you lose the right to sue for damages. For patents, you cannot sue for damages that have occured more than 6 years prior to the filing of the lawsuit.

--

"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
Re:patent squatting by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-24 12:58 · Score: 0

OK, define "progress".

Define "working on".

You're an idiot.
Re:patent squatting by RevMike · 2006-02-24 14:39 · Score: 1

I think they still should have something. I mean, the "inventions" we're talking about here are nothign of the kind. They're just ideas with no practical anything behind them...Like, I'm going to patent "Holographic optical email display interfaces that use retinal focus for navigation" *Patent patent patent*

Okay, I'm done. Now, when someone actually invents that, I own it because I thought of it first? How does that follow? I can sit around and pull stuff outta my ass all day long, do no more investment in it than it costs to get a patent, then sue the people who put zillions of dollars and tens of thousands of manhours into developing it, and that is somehow legit?

All that does is make corporations unwilling to invest in new tech, for fear some stupid patent troll who has a patent on the fricking XOR gate will come along and sue them for *cue Dr. Evil voice* One billion dollars!

There is no legal punishment sufficient for NTP...I'm thinking dark alleys, big angry nerds (with overdeveloped Crackberry thumb muscles) wielding boards studded with nails.

I can't believe how badly the Slashbots have been brainwashed on this one...

NTP's predecessor built and demonstrated working systems in the late 80's/early 90's (back when email was in technical colleges and research labs, but virtually nowhere else). He demonstrated the technology at trade shows. He almost closed a deal with IBM. The technology is real, not some fanciful bit of imagination the way yo imply.

A little later RIM comes along, builds a successful company, and uses their patent portfolio to stifle innovation and drive competitors out of business.

NTP's predecessor goes out of business. The basement inventor loses his money but gets to keep the patent portfolio after the liquidation.

NTP attempts to license the patents to RIM for $4 million. RIM refuses. NTP sues RIM. RIM falsifies evidence during the case. The jury finds for NTP. RIM still refuses to settle.

The inventor dies. Now his widow is the owner of NTP.

NTP requests that RIM be shutdown. RIM works out a deal to license the patents for $450 million, but backs out at the last moment. RIM floods congress with lobbyists. After all these lobbyists start spreading money around Washington, the PTO is suddenly interested in reviewing the patents. Apparently you can buy patent invalidation.

And the slashbots all stand up and cheer while a big company lies, cheats, and bribes in order to steal a basement inventor's legacy from his widow.
Re:patent squatting by technos · 2006-02-24 17:15 · Score: 1

And the slashbots all stand up and cheer while a big company lies, cheats, and bribes in order to steal a basement inventor's legacy from his widow.

There isn't a part in any of the patent claims that isn't obvious now, and wasn't obvious fifteen years ago. The fact it was a "basement inventor" doesn't make the patent more worthy than one filed by a "big evil company".

Obvious patents are bad.

--
.sig: Now legally binding!
Re:patent squatting by Znork · 2006-02-25 01:11 · Score: 1

All of which goes to prove that a conflict based exclusive rights patent system is inherently flawed and serve no useful purpose.

An attribution system where incentive is granted as a government payout instead wouldnt be subject to the same problem; NTP wouldnt be able to block RIM's use; RIM wouldnt have a reason not to claim use of NTP's invention. RIM would simply report use of the invention, and the incentive would be paid.

The whole system conflict is moved to the internals of the patent office instead; the more patents they grant the smaller each incentive payout becomes; either they have to grant better and fewer patents or they have to obtain higher funding for the incentive system (which would be subject to the ordinary political control.
Re:patent squatting by Dan+Ost · 2006-02-25 03:26 · Score: 1

Most small inventors I know are actually quite well off. They're either retired and inventing as a hobby, or have lucrative jobs that don't let them be as creative as they'd like, so they invent on the side.

Think about it. If you've got the skills to successfully invent something useful, you've probably got the intelligence and abilities to be gainfully employed.

--

*sigh* back to work...
Re:patent squatting by Oloryn · 2006-02-25 16:01 · Score: 2, Informative

- None of this would even be a question if the inventor hadn't patented it ... the invention simply wouldn't exist!

This is utter hogwash, particularly in the area of software, where independent invention is commonplace. Inventions don't cease to exist simply because someone fails to patent them. And while the possibility of patenting an invention may provide an additional incentive, it is hardly the sole necessary incentive to invention. It's not like the software industry went nowhere before an activist judge or two decided to legislate software patents into existence.

heh by nubbie · 2006-02-24 08:48 · Score: 1

I think the slashdot article is longer then the actual article being linked.

--
'Go for the eyes, Boo, go for the eyes, aaarrrrrrrr!' -- Minsc

Re:heh by engagebot · 2006-02-24 09:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yeah, but in this case that doesn't matter. Today was the day, and all we needed to know was Blackberry staying or going.

Thats big news a little before quitting time on a friday. Especially since its a long holiday weekend here (mardi gras). Getting the news that blackberries would be shut down or not just before a 4-day weekend was big deal to us.

--
Han shot first.

i was waiting for this news by moochfish · 2006-02-24 08:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

I don't have a blackberry, but I've been waiting all morning for this news. I was wondering if the judge was going to shut down Blackberry service. I was thinking about how the government (or legislature) would respond if RIM was given 30 days to shut down their service. And hopefully it woulda been, a first step to the patent system being overhauled.

Oh well. This is probably the better outcome.

Re:i was waiting for this news by Quintios · 2006-02-24 08:57 · Score: 1

What annoys me is that I read an article where the judge stated that he'd make sure there were provisions for the governemnt so RIM could continue service for them. I'd like to know what incredibly vital governemnt service is being supplied by BlackBerry email? Is the DoD depending on Blackberry email to keep this country safe? I think not.
This is me understanding that shutting down the Blackberry service basicly only shuts down the unit's ability to send and receive email, but not make phone calls (provided by the cellular provider).
If they're shutting us down, shut down the spoiled govt brats too. See how long it takes to get the workaround up and running.

--
Anonymous Cowards are at -6...
Re:i was waiting for this news by voice_of_all_reason · 2006-02-24 09:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

What annoys me is that I read an article where the judge stated that he'd make sure there were provisions for the governemnt so RIM could continue service for them. I'd like to know what incredibly vital governemnt service is being supplied by BlackBerry email?

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the government is subject to Law.
Re:i was waiting for this news by enjerth · 2006-02-24 09:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

http://www.computerworld.com/mobiletopics/mobile/s tory/0,10801,108094,00.html

If you're going to enforce the law, ENFORCE THE FUCKING LAW!! Don't make exceptions for government panseys who feel their operations will be hurt (oh, like other people aren't hurt? or are you special?) if Blackberry does get shut down.

Does "a government for the people, by the people" ring any LIBERTY BELLS?
Re:i was waiting for this news by Dr.+Evil · 2006-02-24 09:15 · Score: 1

A nice side effect of that bizzare clause is that the outcome does not affect the decision makers.
If the outcome did affect the decision-makers, then they'd be inclined towards one side.
Re:i was waiting for this news by david+duncan+scott · 2006-02-24 09:21 · Score: 1

Although I have no idea which portions of government might use the service, yes, some parts are special.
When you see those flashing red lights and hear the siren, for instance, you're required to pull over and let the firetruck get by, because it's special. I can certainly imagine portions of emergency services that would greatly benefit from a good text service.

--
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
Re:i was waiting for this news by enjerth · 2006-02-24 09:31 · Score: 1

What I'd like to see is the judge shutting down the Blackberry network for all Blackberry units except those own by government personel and then see RIM pull the ole Microsoft anti-trust verdict response of "uhh, we can't do that" when told to de-integrate IE from Windows. Actually, does RIM even have any obligation to the government to continue service if other service is shut down? If I were RIM, upon being told to shut down the network except for government personal, I'd give them the big finger and shut them down, too. "Eat it, dickheads. I don't have to do squat."

"I believe government agencies should get an exemption based on the use of taxpayer dollars to put the BlackBerry infrastructure in place and the potential costs associated with replacing the technology," Biswell said. "This may not be fair to private companies, but we are all taxpayers, so it makes my position easier to justify."

Sounds nice and flufy. What he really means is it's not in his department's budget and they couldn't afford it. I wonder, how did the government ever operate before the advent email and instant messenger?
Re:i was waiting for this news by enjerth · 2006-02-24 09:39 · Score: 1

Sure, some ARE *special*, but not in the sense of having more RIGHTS than the rest of us.
Re:i was waiting for this news by irablum · 2006-02-24 09:47 · Score: 1

One of the funniest things about this is that Blackberry's are very popular in the intelligence industry and defense industry for government employees. The reason for this is that most contractors are prohibited from bringing a camera on-site. Since a Blackberry acts as a cellphone and pda and has some nice other features but DOESN'T have a camera, its much more popular than the TREO (which is my phone of choice).

I can see Blackberry service being turned off and thousands of defense contractors calling their buddies in congress to do something about it.

Ira
Re:i was waiting for this news by Dr.+Sp0ng · 2006-02-24 09:57 · Score: 1

Sure, some ARE *special*, but not in the sense of having more RIGHTS than the rest of us.

Um, yes they do. The whole point of a government is that they have a monopoly on the right to use force to keep society functioning smoothly. I certainly don't agree that the government should be exempt from a shutdown, since they're not the only people with mission-critical stuff depending on their BlackBerries, but they most definitely do have rights that the rest of us don't.
Re:i was waiting for this news by david+duncan+scott · 2006-02-24 10:19 · Score: 1

Actually that's exactly my point -- that firetruck has the RIGHT to get by you, no matter how late you are for work.

--
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
Re:i was waiting for this news by Jay+Maynard · 2006-02-24 10:56 · Score: 1

You can get a Treo (at least a 650) without a camera.

--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Re:i was waiting for this news by enjerth · 2006-02-24 11:26 · Score: 1

That is not a personal right.
Re:i was waiting for this news by david+duncan+scott · 2006-02-24 12:31 · Score: 1

...and if we were discussing mandarins being allowed to use Blackberries simply because they are mandarins, then their personal rights would be the issue. If, however, we are discussing governement workers using Blackberries in their work, then the analogy may be quite accurate.
Again, I don't know who in government has the little things. I'd agree that most of the users probably are just cranking out the data on the Xerox line and view the thing as a status toy. At least a few, however, almost have to be people for whom it would be a very valuable tool for necessary work. I'd much rather that emergency workers got instructions in text than try to remember what somebody said over the radio ten minutes ago -- I end up calling my wife from the grocery store rather than remembering the five things she called me about earlier, and the grocery store isn't on fire.

--
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander

Bad news for me by PunkPig · 2006-02-24 08:54 · Score: 3, Funny

I could have gotten out of pager support this weekend.

I think of this: by MtViewGuy · 2006-02-24 08:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

The famous U.S. v. United Shoe Machinery Company case of 1941.

United Shoe was caught abusing its patent portfolio to keep competitors at bay; this was the same rationale that got Rambus into a lot of trouble a few years back when courts said Rambus' patents on certain computer memory designs was used to keep DDR-SDRAM technology at bay in favor of Rambus' own RDRAM technology.

In short, NTP was abusing US patent laws to keep a competitor at bay.

Re:I think of this: by Snaffler · 2006-02-24 09:00 · Score: 1

Nice try L1, but Rambus was (unfortunately perhaps) cleared. And NTP is not a competitor. It just holds the patent.
Re:I think of this: by kansas1051 · 2006-02-24 10:25 · Score: 1

You are confusing antitrust law with patent misuse/laches. International shoe's problem was that they required consumers to purchase unpatented products with patent products, thereby unlawfully extending their monopoly (in violation of Sherman section 1). Such "tying" agreements have long been prohibited. NTP is not engaging in unlawful "tying" because they dont sell anything period.

The doctrine you are thinking of is "patent misuse" or "laches", which is entirely unrelated to antitrust law. Federal courts have already considered both of these issues (several times) and come out on NTP's side each time.
.
Re:I think of this: by Paranoia+Agent · 2006-02-24 12:20 · Score: 1

They're not even a competitor, NTP doesn't make anything. There's another word for what they are....

Natural Solution by WillyPete · 2006-02-24 08:56 · Score: 1

I'm sure it's not a simplistic as my idea, but should RIM just have to pay license dues on the patents, and continue their service? Possibly the settlement could involve transfer of the system to NTP's control?

--
Shaw's Principle: Build a system even a fool could use, and only a fool would want to use it.

Re:Natural Solution by mopslik · 2006-02-24 08:59 · Score: 1

I'm sure it's not a simplistic as my idea, but should RIM just have to pay license dues on the patents, and continue their service?

If the patents really are invalid, why should RIM have to pay license fees at all?

I would assume that a final ruling will be delayed until after NTP's appeals.
Re:Natural Solution by kfg · 2006-02-24 09:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

Possibly the settlement could involve transfer of the system to NTP's control?

Good Lord! The last thing in the world NTP wants is control of the system. They're just in it for the money.

If they had control of the system they might actually have to do something like work to earn their living, instead of just buying, selling and litigating bits of paper. They much prefer being part of the something for nothing economy.

KFG
Re:Natural Solution by RevMike · 2006-02-24 14:00 · Score: 1

If they had control of the system they might actually have to do something like work to earn their living, instead of just buying, selling and litigating bits of paper. They much prefer being part of the something for nothing economy.

Who do you think NTP is? Its the widow of a basement inventor who tinkered with radios and electronics for most of his life. The numbers got out of hand only after RIM refused to pay reasonable licensing fees of roughly $4 million.
Re:Natural Solution by kfg · 2006-02-24 14:19 · Score: 1

Who do you think NTP is?

A patent holding company. The company doesn't tinker with anything but paper.

Its the widow of a basement inventor

For whose benefit the company currently exists and who certainly doesn't want control of the system. She wants the money.

What does she herself do?

The numbers got out of hand only after RIM refused to pay reasonable licensing fees of roughly $4 million.

If the patents are good, that's reasonable. If they aren't, it's extortion. The fact that it's a widow doing the extorting doesn't make it more ethical; any more than being an orphan makes piracy ethically acceptable.

And it isn't RIM's fault if the basement tinkerer didn't come up with something legitimately patentable, even if he left a poor, starving widow behind. Perhaps she can figure out something for the company to do.

KFG
Re:Natural Solution by RevMike · 2006-02-24 14:47 · Score: 1

If the patents are good, that's reasonable. If they aren't, it's extortion. The fact that it's a widow doing the extorting doesn't make it more ethical; any more than being an orphan makes piracy ethically acceptable.

And it isn't RIM's fault if the basement tinkerer didn't come up with something legitimately patentable, even if he left a poor, starving widow behind. Perhaps she can figure out something for the company to do.

The patents were good until RIM bought enough congressmen and lobbyists. Or do you subscribe to the theory that sending large sums of money to Washington and the PTO review were simply a big coincidence. RIM bribed their way to a patent invalidation.

I guess it is the widow's fault that she didn't buy off congressmen too. All hail RIM, defender of the prinicpal - "Money Talks".
Re:Natural Solution by kfg · 2006-02-24 15:13 · Score: 1

Or do you subscribe to the theory that sending large sums of money to Washington and the PTO review were simply a big coincidence.

No. I subscribe to the theory that about 98% of all patents actually granted these days are bogus, and 100% of software and "process" patents are bogus.

I empathize with widows. I was raised by one. Had $16 in her pocket when my father died. I was one and about to be diagnosed with a terminal illness, and she was pregnant and didn't know it yet. We had some hard times. My brother's "crib" was a dresser drawer in a dresser given to her by the Salvation Army.

I empathise with people fighting for the money due them from their work on intellectual property. My uncle Al spent most of his life doing that. He ended up getting money, but never did get the Nobel committie to acknowledge his work that lead to the award of the prize. There's even a book written about how he got screwed by his department head.

I guess I should read it or something.

I also empathise with basement electronics tinkerers. I've been one myself for about 40 years now. Used to go to the town dump to salvage parts from discarded TVs and radios.

In all those years I've come up with many things that I could have gotten a patent on, but only one that I believe may be legitimately patentable. I might apply for that one. I havn't bothered for the others.

I have no emapthy for RIM, per se, and the Blackberry is a tool of a "lifestyle" I personally find loathsome.

Yes, fighting a patent is expensive. So expensive that only large companies can afford it.

More's the pity.

They should never have been granted in the first place and saved everyone, including the widow, a lot of trouble and expense over nothing.

KFG

Whoo Hoot by HeroSandwich · 2006-02-24 08:57 · Score: 4, Funny

SCREW NTP!! Rat bastards!

Yay.. I mean what the hell.. I can't understand how you can patent an idea like e-mail / txt through a wireless device..

Why what a great leap of logic for me to want to get my e-mail or stay in touch remotely.. however did the great minds at NTP think that up. Oh how did they ever come up with the idea.. Patent a very specific way to do something.. don't hand out patents for vauge ideas.

I wonder if can patent and new way of doing business in which people give me money for services and or goods and I refuse to give them exact change. Then anyone who rounds up a coffee or newspaper will owe me a crap load of money!! Whoot.. where's the nearest Mercedes dealership!

Stupid people.. I tell you.. back in my day AirWolf wouldn't have sorted this out in no time.

Nothin is more AirWolf than AirWolf!

Re:Whoo Hoot by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-24 09:07 · Score: 0

I disagree. Chuck Norris is more AirWolf than AirWolf.
Re:Whoo Hoot by Keeper · 2006-02-24 09:36 · Score: 1

I can't understand how you can patent an idea like e-mail / txt through a wireless device..

They didn't patent such a broad idea. They did however patent stuff related to how RIM chose to deliver email (a push method instead of a poll) to its wireless device.
Re:Whoo Hoot by Pig+Hogger · 2006-02-24 10:56 · Score: 1

I wonder if can patent and new way of doing business in which people give me money for services and or goods and I refuse to give them exact change.
Move to France. Over there, a merchant is not legally obligated to give you change if he posts "Faites l'appoint" and you pay more than the charge...
Re:Whoo Hoot by rob_squared · 2006-02-24 12:36 · Score: 1

You shouldn't be badmouthing the Network Time Protocol like that. It's only trying to help!

--
I don't get it.

My new phone... delayed... by TechSnack · 2006-02-24 08:57 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I was waiting till today to get the 8700C (Free from Amazon, with contract)... guess i have to wait for a while longer...

--
Here, take a cookie. I promise, by the time you're done reading it...oh, well!

And I say... by anupamsr · 2006-02-24 09:04 · Score: 1, Funny

...being in India, where I have yet to hear a patent case, I feel lucky :)

--
I forgot to be anonymous.

NTP doesn't compete against RIM by brunes69 · 2006-02-24 09:07 · Score: 1

They're a patent holding company. They don't compete against *anyone*, they just patent shit.

CBC Story by aoeuid · 2006-02-24 09:09 · Score: 1

I think the slashdot article is longer then the actual article being linked.

The CBC has a good article about the case today.

NTP Screwed the Pooch! by Cpt_Kirks · 2006-02-24 09:09 · Score: 1

Just goes to show, $450 million in the hand is worth more than $1 billion+ in the bush!

Re:NTP Screwed the Pooch! by RevMike · 2006-02-24 13:58 · Score: 1

Just goes to show, $450 million in the hand is worth more than $1 billion+ in the bush!

RIM should have just paid the $4 million that NTP originally wanted. But no. They were in the habit of using their own patent portfolio stifle their competitors, and couldn't accept the fact that someone else had invented part of the system first. After they refused, egos got involved and the whole thing spun out of control.

RIM has just about the greatest PR people in the world. The real story goes something like this...

Major foreign company hires DC lobbyists and lawyers to deprive the widow of a basement inventor out of her inheritance.
Re:NTP Screwed the Pooch! by subl33t · 2006-02-24 18:16 · Score: 1

Inventor?! No, an inventor would have something workable. RIM INVENTED the device and rightfully said to the squatter: "go pound sand up your ass"
Re:NTP Screwed the Pooch! by RevMike · 2006-02-24 22:17 · Score: 1

So RIM invented something that Tom Campagna demoed at COMDEX in 1990? That is a pretty good trick. Or maybe we should blame him for being almost a decade ahead of the market?

RIM needs to step up... by Run4yourlives · 2006-02-24 09:11 · Score: 0

Seriously, RIM needs to really play hard ball here... Just turn the system off tomorrow for all US users. Done.

They'd win this case and destroy the patent system within a week.

Hey I can dream, can't I.

A pity... by citizenklaw · 2006-02-24 09:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm generally against patents in software and in IT in general. But it would have pleased me so much to see Crackberry addicts suffering from withdrawal.

There is no more annoying thing than sitting down in a roomful of people trying to make an argument about something important just to find all eyes downward towards those vile and evil devices. The meeting ends and you have to resend the information via email, wasting two good hours that could've been dedicated to other more worthy pursuits such as drinking.

I actually refused having a Crackberry. Everybody here thought I was from another planet, but once I'm out the door at 5:30PM I'm free. I don't want to be answering emails at 9:00 PM.

--
the future is but past forgotten

Re:A pity... by P3NIS_CLEAVER · 2006-02-24 09:46 · Score: 1

Yeah but girls think those buldging thumbcepts are hot!

--
Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

http://financialpetition.org/

NTP doesn't have competitors! by Buran · 2006-02-24 09:16 · Score: 1

They don't have a product. They don't have a market. They exist solely to be extortionists. They don't even have anything to use to extort anyone -- they have no valid patents!

So they exist solely to sue trying to frighten people based on bullshit claims that have no logical or legal standing.

--
i am a soviet space shuttle

Re:NTP doesn't have competitors! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-24 11:20 · Score: 0

So they exist solely to sue trying to frighten people based on bullshit claims that have no logical or legal standing.

...or to put it another way, pulling an SCO
Re:NTP doesn't have competitors! by MtViewGuy · 2006-02-24 14:23 · Score: 1

What you said essentially is abuse of US patent laws to essentially destroy a competitor in a predatory fashion. I believe such actions might not pass muster at the US Surpreme Court.
Re:NTP doesn't have competitors! by Buran · 2006-02-24 14:39 · Score: 1

And you see my point of why NTP needs to be busted into oblivion.

--
i am a soviet space shuttle

In the Government by shadowyfigure05 · 2006-02-24 09:19 · Score: 1

What would happen economically if the Blackberry network got shut down?

At my office, everyone has a Blackberry, and since no one is ever actually at their desks, it's the only way to keep in touch.

Not to mention that every Congressman and Congresswoman use them to stay up to date with their staff...

Doesn't bother me by Dream1979 · 2006-02-24 09:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

I personally would love to see the blackberries shut down. I work in a real estate agency and all the brokers use them. I would LOVE to see the havoc caused if these self-proclaimed "important people" cant get their messages on the spot. They really need to learn that not everything needs to be done 5 minutes ago.

Re:Doesn't bother me by ndansmith · 2006-02-24 10:06 · Score: 1

I personally would love to see the blackberries shut down. I work in a real estate agency and all the brokers use them. I would LOVE to see the havoc caused if these self-proclaimed "important people" cant get their messages on the spot. They really need to learn that not everything needs to be done 5 minutes ago.
I am with you on thatm but I can forsee a better result. A Blackberry shut-down would most likely result in a geometic increase in productivity. Instant communication devices lead to micro-managing, needless chat, and other distractions.

That's Reasonable by crunchly · 2006-02-24 09:23 · Score: 1

as soon as reasonably possible

Meaning: as soon as it looks like all the patents are void, so I don't have to incur the wrath of all the Blackberry owners.

any how to's? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-24 09:27 · Score: 0

how can i make a quarter of a billion off an invalid patent? any ideas?

Microsoft is thwarted....RIM lives for another day by postbigbang · 2006-02-24 09:30 · Score: 1

Looks like Microsoft won't be competing soon with RIM if they get past this one; MS plans of world domination will be held off for a while.

--
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.

Will someone enlighten those ... by Cutting_Crew · 2006-02-24 09:35 · Score: 1

who arent familiar with this case? i have read bits and pieces but would like to find out the crucial events that led up to the point of going to court over blackberries and what it could mean for all us blackberry users.. thanks in advance..

Re:Will someone enlighten those ... by The+Wicked+Priest · 2006-02-24 10:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

Why not start with the colorful "Related Stories" box at the top of this very page?

--
Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

not for nuthin', but by GungaDan · 2006-02-24 09:36 · Score: 1

Blue Thunder would kick Airwolf's ass. ;-)

--
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!

Re:not for nuthin', but by Kancept · 2006-02-24 09:45 · Score: 1

No way! Airwolf would kick Blue Thunder's ass cuz they'd be too distracted watching the pretty ladies through the window in silent mode, and Airwolf would knock em out fo the sky! Then they'd land, girl would emerge from home, String would say Blue Thunder was peeping on her, and he'd get the girl. Easy.

Moral of the Story? by PacketScan · 2006-02-24 09:37 · Score: 1

Greed gets you no where.

Hear, hear! by WoTG · 2006-02-24 09:38 · Score: 2

Really, how greedy do you have to be? NTP pretty much had a deal with RIM for $450M one year ago. Sheesh, for a "company" with no staff or product or facilities? Forget haggling over the details about future revenue streams or whatever happened to break down the previous deal. I would have been happy to sell the whole "company" for that much money. Be rich, buy an island, and sit around on a beach trying to think about what other patents I should get or buy to screw over the next industry.

Re:Hear, hear! by silentbozo · 2006-02-24 10:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

From I've read, NTP backed out when RIM wanted a provision that would force NTP to pay back some of the settlement fees if their patents were later ruled invalid.

I mean, really - if you're going to bluff, go all the way. Once you have the money, then it's up to RIM to try and collect later. Instead, they tried to double down against RIM, and they lost.
Re:Hear, hear! by Cpt_Kirks · 2006-02-24 12:18 · Score: 1

Yeah, it was G-R-E-E-D, big time. After they screwed RIM, they planned on going after carriers, ISP's and even some of RIM's bigger clients.

At least the crackberry addicts at work are happy. They don't make me carry one yet. Looks like a fun toy, but I HATE leashes...

Stupid Patenting by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-24 09:39 · Score: 0

This all stems from the Push e-mail methodolohy that RIM have implemented, but this is slashdot, so I don't need to point that out.
NTP have done exactly zilch with their patent, and they want a piece of the pie simply because it turned out successfully, after all, there's no money to be made from a patent that's being infringed by a company that failed to profit from it.
Some ideas that can be stolen, rather than invented without the requirement of a wave of genius (maybe we should patent the wheel?) does not deserve a patent because it's easy for someone to create and implement without needing to look back at prior work, or to scan through patents and decide which one to have a crack at ripping off.

Is there a patent on how to get a patent yet?? by Cutting_Crew · 2006-02-24 09:39 · Score: 1

if there isnt then step aside or i will sue you for infringing my patent on how to get a patent. maybe i can get a patent on thinking.. i dont think that has been done yet.

Maybe... just maybe... by zubinjdalal · 2006-02-24 09:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

1. The government won't react till the day the service is turned off.
2. Then they'll look surprised
3. Then they'll have a committee set up to investigate the issue
4. On being blamed for lack of action, they'll feign ignorance and say they were not aware of the seriousness of the situation because it's not every day that RIM shuts its services off
5. They'll say they'll treat this as learning experience
6. They'll look into separating RIM from the DHS
7. They'll find a scapegoat
8. And then they'll wait for Mardi Gras!

But this seems unlikely. The government would never do that.

Re:Maybe... just maybe... by jjohnson · 2006-02-24 10:38 · Score: 1

Your post is meant to be funny, but in fact there's a lot of evidence that RIM, finally learning to play power politics, has been effectively mobilizing congressmen to lean on the patent office to invalidate the patents to avoid losing their crackberries. RIM hired Washington lobbyists, and with a couple months the patent office fast-tracked a review of NTP's claims (something Microsoft couldn't even pull in it's patent case regarding plugins).

--
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.

And if you listen closely... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-24 09:45 · Score: 0

Millions of thumbs cried out in agony: "NOOOO!!!"

No bribes... by rmallico · 2006-02-24 09:49 · Score: 1

Did anyone see the judge checking his email on his blackberry during the trial? :)

--
sig goes here!

Re:No bribes... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-24 13:46 · Score: 0

The payment came through on his Bribeberry shortly before count was in order.

Umm, Gov't uses Blackberries by rAiNsT0rm · 2006-02-24 09:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

Not sure if folks realize it but most of the government relies on Blackberries, including many mission critical areas... I'm not seeing any judge ruling them out anytime soon. A number of these agencies have been working (unsuccessfuly) on trying to port their info over to another form from the Blackberry and it ain't happening.

That is one company I see coming through all this with flying colors, or else they could make shit real bad for a lot of people.

--
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea

Re:Umm, Gov't uses Blackberries by edfardos · 2006-02-25 04:38 · Score: 1

Yes, this irony is rich here. The government finally did it to themselves. They've finally become victims of their own legislation. I'm proud of RIM, for not caving and supporting billions of more pattent squatter suits.
--edfardos

Bummer. by SCHecklerX · 2006-02-24 09:53 · Score: 1, Funny

I was looking forward to the crackberry addicts at my company to actually begin paying attention in meetings and such again.

Patents are simple, right? by Analogworm · 2006-02-24 10:00 · Score: 1

You may not have been involved in the patent process to understand this, but I'll try and pursuade you by saying, producing a new product just doesn't happen that fast. It took TI >10 years to invent the digital light projection (DLP) technology.

Also, it's up to the patent holder to determine what s/he wants to do with it. Sometimes you may not want to build the manufacturing, just license it to someone else who already has the manufacturing capability. That's been done here, others have licensed the technology, just RIM thinks that US Patent Law doesn't matter.

Sometimes, the Wookie does win though.

fountainhead by braindead_in · 2006-02-24 10:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

does anyone see a parallel?

Re:I think of this: Macrovision by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2006-02-24 10:05 · Score: 1

United Shoe was caught abusing its patent portfolio to keep competitors at bay;

Isn't this what Macrovision does?

1: Develop VCR copy-protection system that corrupts the video signal.
2: Get movie studios to force its adoption in DVD players, satellite systems, and cable boxes.
3: Patent every way they can think of for defeating their own system.
4: Sue anyone who markets a system to fix the corrupted video signal for patent infringement.
5: Profit!

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."

What RIM Should Be Doing by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2006-02-24 10:09 · Score: 1

What RIM should be doing in sending targeted messages to all their users with instructions on how to contact their Congressman if they want their Blackberry service to continue uninterrupted. Since likely every Congressman or their aides have a Blackberry as well, it shouldn't be hard to send them your opinions.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."

NTP: by pleasegetreal · 2006-02-24 10:09 · Score: 1

To NTP: You had $450,000,000 in escrow and pissed it away. Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered...

Crushing US Innovation by Analogworm · 2006-02-24 10:19 · Score: 1

Thomas Campana developed the email wireless technique in middle 90's at that time this was novel. Later he got involved in NTP to license his patent to others. NTP, the US firm, informs the Canadian firm, RIM, that they may be infringing in the United States with the clear patent holder. RIM ignores NTP. RIM gives US legislators Blackberrys. RIM fails to defend its technology in court and judgement goes to the inventor who is cofounder of NTP, i.e. this is not a zombie company. But knowing the process takes forever and that this is a big company (=money) versus small outfit (=almost no money, just an idea), RIM tries to wear them out in a legal endurance test that clearly doesn't relate to the idea of good idea brought to market to help a good society. Throw idealism out the window. This is about money and power. Hell this has made the international wires. RIM is gambling that instead of licensing the technology which they are clearly borrowing, that they can convince people that somehow they developed the idea first and you know what... that doesn't matter. With time, people stop caring , that's where the money and lawyers pay off for the big company.

Oh yeah and "software workaround" well, you might as well say, "US Patent Law Workaround." That's what they're saying to their users.

In the end, this could spell doom for the US electronics/software industry. Startups, unless supremely well funded, will be only minor legal obstacles to big companies. Does this lead to innovation? No it leads to the Detroit 3 crushing competitors and taking down the US economy at the same time.

Re:Crushing US Innovation by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-24 10:49 · Score: 1, Insightful

Sorry, that's crap.

RIM ignored it because the patents were obviously ridiculous, and they knew they wouldn't stand up. Which, of course, they haven't. There are a few more possible steps in the process, but if things have gotten this far, the outcome is pretty certain: NTP's patents are not valid under US law.

Big company, small company, money, lawyers, whatever. Not relevant to the issues, only to the process. Bad patents getting tossed, that's the news here.
Re:Crushing US Innovation by Jay+Maynard · 2006-02-24 11:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

Working around a patent infringement by changing what you're doing so that you're not infringing any more is not underhanded; it's explicitly allowed, and even encouraged - because doing that is creating another invention. Just ask a patent attorney.

--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Re:Crushing US Innovation by MULTICS_$MAN · 2006-02-25 00:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's entertaining that that this kind of nonsense could be promoted on a site so dedicated to dicussion and understnding of technology. The notion that anyone had anything to invent in the alleged firld of "wireless e-mail" is preposterous, and a distortion of anything resembling reality. The beginnings of the ARPA internet are to be found in the ALOHA net work of the University of Hawaii, which networked Universities in the Hawaiian islands wirelessly and developed the basic shared-channel packet based communication system that was continued in development by literally thousands of honest, hardworking, patriotic citizens to the benefit of our nation and to provide for the national defense.

By the late seventies, globe spanning networks comunicating both wired and wirelessly had benefited freely from these technologies for scientific, edcutational and defense purposes and our armed forces were developing field systems for command, control and communication that provided for vastly greater capability than these alleged "inventors" are capable of describing to this day. The "inventors could have become aware of these facts simply by having any interest whatsoever in computer data networking, since these developments were widely and notoriously published. See for instance this publication from 1987:

http://www.gordon.army.mil/AC/articles/fiedler/dfa npsc2.pdf

If these alleged "inventors" had gone to their public library, they would have had access to all of the information that they purport to "teach" in their patents. The fact that the judge in this case ignored and suppressed the testimony and evidence presented by the actual inventors of wireless data internetworking (including Dr. Norm Abramson the primary investigator in the development of ALOHAnet) and the actual ownership of the technologies enabling "wireless e-mail" by the People of the United States makes this case a travesty of the highest order and an insult to the judicial system.

Re:Meetings? What are those? by citizenklaw · 2006-02-24 10:19 · Score: 0

I should have made myself more clear. My bad

I refused a Crackberry on this project which doles them to employees as if they were Mana falling from heaven and in my very personal opinion they're badly used. Also my (soon to be ex)company started a trial with Blackberries but only for higher ups, for which I am glad. My commentary wasn't aimed at the technology per se, it was aimed at the whole sociology behind the people using it.

I agree on your point about meetings. For example on my current (soon to be ex)project the lead wanted us to meet every day twice at 9:00 AM and at 5:30 PM (a meeting BTW for which I'm right now waiting for). What's the use of having a meeting at 5:30 and then a next status meeting at 9:00 the next day?

As you said, meetings are productive if everyone conributes. But you have to know your audience and the type of meeting it is. If you're - for example - meeting with an executive give him the cliff notes. If you're leading a meeting with the worker bees keep 'em in check and on track.

--
the future is but past forgotten

The Judge Knows Better! by TheZorch · 2006-02-24 10:22 · Score: 1

He knows better NOT to shut RIM down. I live near D.C. and I can tell you there would be major hell to pay if the service was shutdown. NTP would have the full weight of Congress and the FTC down their backsides so fast they won't know what hit them. And, there would be Patent Reform like you wouldn't believe. In fact, I'd love see ALL SOFTWARE PATENTS INVALIDATED. Patents were for physical objects only, not abstract ideas like software.

--
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
thezorch@gmail.com
http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home

Re:Crushing BS Innovation by VP · 2006-02-24 10:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

What is so innovative about email over a wireless connection? Let's take a look at what the technology was in the mid-90's:

1. E-mail protocols: widely available, run on top of general switched-packet networks
2. Switched-packet transport protocols: widely available
3. Wireless switched-packet protocols: available

What RIM did was:
1. Design a usable device
2. Create the infrastructure so that the devices can send and receive e-mail almost everywhere.
3. Profit

What NTP wants is to jump directly to 3. Innovation, my a$$.

Don't hedge your bets on RIM by Clown+Jizz · 2006-02-24 11:24 · Score: 1, Insightful

The mainstream press hasn't picked up the truth of this matter. It seems crystal clear at this point that the judge will rule against RIM in the coming week or two.

Also, bear thee in mind that rejections by the patent office mean next to nothing, both in the trial and for the validity of the patents. Rejection just means that the patent office is challening the applicant to prove the merit of their patents, and 90% of the time they are subsequently reapproved. NTP only needs one valid patent for them to win, and they have around seven that are applicable, so the odds are monumentally in their favor. The patent rejection process and the trial process are entirely separate, too, so while RIM may try to point at the rejection and say they should be handed the case, the judge is going to tell them that it doesn't matter in the least.

Moreover, the judge seems to be pretty irritated with RIM all around. I'm told that the only time he was taking extensive notes was when the paperwork needed to obtain an injunction was being discussed, and the rest of the time he spent looking annoyed. This isn't solid evidence, of course, but it all points to RIM getting smacked, with victory extremely unlikely. For whatever reason, the non-financial press hasn't picked up on this, and RIM's stock is up today in spite of the pending bad news.

Re:Don't hedge your bets on RIM by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-24 11:45 · Score: 0

I would suspect, could be wrong, that the high profile nature of this battle insures a thorough job on the part of the patent office.

BTW, I've seen many references documenting the patent office process in the "mainstream media".
Re:Don't hedge your bets on RIM by Clown+Jizz · 2006-02-24 16:42 · Score: 1

Thorough, sure, but the likelihood of all of the patents being permanently anulled is extremely low, though a couple may be rejected. As for the coverage of this, I was speaking generally. Nonetheless, reports have been overwhelmingly positive in tone and they really shouldn't be. The assertion that it's "'quite possible' that NTP won't see any settlement from RIM at all now" is categorically false, unless you take "quite" to mean "remotely".
Re:Don't hedge your bets on RIM by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-24 16:48 · Score: 0

The Patents were rejected in Final Office Actions -never in US Patent history has a rejection lke this been overturned. They're all finished.

Live & Die by nighty5 · 2006-02-24 11:43 · Score: 2

Lie by the sword, die by the sword.

NTP should have acccepted RIM's first offer instead of being greedy.

Nuff said.

Re:Live & Die by RevMike · 2006-02-24 13:50 · Score: 1

Lie by the sword, die by the sword.

Is that a just a typo? RIM was the one caught falsifying evidence during the trial.
NTP should have acccepted RIM's first offer instead of being greedy.
Actually, RIM should have accepted NTP's first offer (something like $4 million). Before NTP came along, RIM was ruthlessly using their own patents to drive competitors out of business. They refused to pay a reasonable license to NTP. So NTP said "screw you" and sued.

Anyone who thinks that RIM is a bunch of good guys is smoking something. They're about as dirty as SCO. They've controlled the PR better in this case, but basically they're trying to cheat a widow out of her husband's work.
Re:Live & Die by nighty5 · 2006-02-24 19:09 · Score: 1

I'd somewhat agree with your analogy but I'm pretty much against the use of software patents with such a long shelf life. Such patents from NTP (and they arent the only ones) are frivilous and damaging to innovation.

But don't let that stop you, this is similar to the Soviet Union & US arms race during the cold war. Each company has been battling to hold as many patents "WOMD" as possible to ensure "adequate" legal protection over their lines of business.

The problem with RIM ackowledging defeat and paying money to NTP may of opened the flood gates to further litigation. But we'll never know.

But yes, PR is a very powerful division within a company, so, the good verses evil is never quite so black and white. Although that comes back to my first statement, live by the sword, die by the sword :)
Re:Live & Die by typical · 2006-02-25 04:12 · Score: 1

but I'm pretty much against the use of software patents with such a long shelf life

I'm pretty much against the use of software patents, period.

--
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.

RIM can always appeal by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-24 11:54 · Score: 0

If the judge goes ahead with the injunction, RIM can always appeal and possibly continue to operate while waiting for the final patent rulings (which seems to be going in RIM's favor).

There will be another trial which RIM is most likely to win and then they will sue to get back some of the money they lost.

Re:you cant be serious? by yugnats · 2006-02-24 12:02 · Score: 1

like was already mentioned: NTP sat on these patents for years and did nothing with them AND the patents are way too broad anyhow

Too bad; that's a shame! by cwsulliv · 2006-02-24 12:53 · Score: 1

If my understanding of the facts is correct, it looks to me like the probability of NTP prevailing in this case is rapidly approaching zero. And that's too bad!

Regardless of how we judge the merits of NTP's position (RIM is hardly above reproach in this case), the best thing that could possibly happen is for Blackberry service to be shut down in the USA.

Whoa you say - everybody and their brother has a Blackberry... how can rendering them all useless be a good thing?

Simple... the ensuing bitching and moaning and screaming and yelling would quickly force Congress to reexamine the wisdom of allowing software patents, and probably at least force Congress to severely limit the type of software idea which could be patented.

I guess that doctors will be happy for now.... by 8127972 · 2006-02-24 14:02 · Score: 1

..... They continue to get to see crackberry addicts with RSI.

--
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.

Re:Crushing BS Innovation by RevMike · 2006-02-24 14:12 · Score: 1

What the predecessor to NTP did was demonstrate a workable system in the late 80s/early 90s, before all that infrastructure was in place. He tried to bring it to market. He had a deal almost done with IBM, even demonstrated it at trade shows. His company was liquidated after the IBM deal fell threw, but was left with the patent portfolio.

Several years later, RIM came on the scene and developed a workable system based on his technology. He offered a license for $4 million. RIM didn't even bother to respond, because they were too busy driving competitors out of the market using their own patents. After RIM repeatedly blew him off, he got pissed and sued. RIM's lawyers were caught falsifying evidence. They still wouldn't pay the licensing. He started raising his price.

Fast forward a few years. The inventor is dead, but his widow now holds the patents. RIM is on the verge of losing. So RIM throws lots and lots of dollars at Washington lobbyists to pressure congressmen, who pressure the Patent Office.

The real lesson here is that big successful technology companies can push around the little guy, can cheat and bribe to steal someone else's work, and all the slashbots will stand up and cheer.

Karma's a bitch by gubachwa · 2006-02-24 14:33 · Score: 1

There was a point in history when RIM was sue-happy, claiming all these other companies were infringing on its patents:

RIM sues Handspring, Good

RIM wins patent, sues rival

and from Lawsuits In Motion files suit against Xerox:

Of course, it's all rather ironic given RIM's history of using the courts to challenge what it claims are other firms' attempts to cash in on its intellectual property. During the first quarter of its current fiscal year, the company - better known, perhaps, as Lawsuits In Motion - saw the cost of its litigation rise from $700,000 to $8.2 million.
RIM is currently suing NTP and Good Technology for alleged intellectual property violations. Last year, it pursued legal action against Palm and Handspring - both firms latter settled out of court. Microsoft and Symbian signed have signed licensing deals with the company.

Now they're crying that the patent system is against them and that they're being extorted: From BlackBerry decision delayed:

"It turned out to be not good enough," RIM lawyer Henry Bunsow said outside court, adding he was "cautiously optimistic" a settlement could still be reached.
"They basically want it all. God bless RIM, they refuse to be extorted under these circumstances, which is why we're here."

Whatever. They should be taken to the cleaners. They deserve it.

Re:Karma's a bitch by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-24 21:59 · Score: 0

Doesn't your point depend on the validity of the various patents. It seems to me that you're attempting to draw relationships that may not exist. The words may sound good but they are hollow - pointless without further analyses. So, I would ask that you either discredit or invalidate NTPs patents before making judgements about Karma.
Re:Karma's a bitch by gubachwa · 2006-02-25 02:51 · Score: 1

The point I was trying to make was independent of the validity of RIM's or NTP's patents.
RIM contributes to the patent-madness that currently engulfs the software industry as much as NTP or any other sue-happy company that holds numerous patents. When the system works towards RIM's benefit, they're happy with it; when it works against them, they cry foul. They're hypocrites.

Amazing what users in high places can do by katorga · 2006-02-24 19:04 · Score: 1

Every single politician, judge and goverment agency heads has a blackberry. Amazing how as soon as the suit seemed lost...every patent gets overturned. Amazing what friends in high places and a boat load of "contributions" can do.

The ironic thing is that RIM has about 12 more months of having a useful product. After 12 months every single cell phone will connected to MS Exchange, IMAP, and SPOP directly. No more need for a big bulky BB.

Re:Amazing what users in high places can do by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-24 21:02 · Score: 0

I'm still amazed the DoJ didn't just nationalize the crackberry boxes and save everyone a lot of money, time and trouble.

Every generation needs an INSLAW and all that.

William Shakespeare by slofstra · 2006-02-25 01:42 · Score: 1

"Voice of all reason", your comment reminds me of Shakespeare's plays where there are always one or two short scenes in which ordinary commoners indicate their interpretation of what's happening with the powers that be (princes and kings in Shakespeare's case). Somehow, without any deep or personal knowledge, the commoners get it right, and boil things down to a sentence or two. Not to say that Spencer is being paid off. But the legal system does appear to be very corrupt. And if it walks like a duck ...

Crap by __aajwxe560 · 2006-02-25 01:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

... and in a symbolic jesture, tens of thousands of system administrators threw their blackberry devices into the toilets of the world in disgust that bosses will continue to harass them at all hours of the day, night, weekend, or vacation day to perform even the most remedial of tasks. If you're not happy with the status quo, just go find yourself another job. What? The other job also expects you to instantly respond to every email without excuse as well?

Not that there aren't a dozen other companies waiting to jump in and fill the void at a moments notice with other technology solutions, but sometimes this blackberry craze strikes me as ridiculous in terms of what the expectations are when your employer gives you one. After seeing what this device did to many of my co-workers, I deliberately told my employer for several years that I did not want this device, as it would be a waste of money. I did not work like this on _MY_ time. I still maintained an old cell phone from them for reasonable true emergency purposes, as this requires some extra effort on their part to get ahold of me if a system crash, etc. The cell phone has basic email receipt functionality, so serious system alerts still were sent to me. This seemed like a reasonable medium. Enter a few months ago, and I finally had my job threatened if I did not take a Blackberry to demonstrate a committment to my job equal to my peers (I guess the 50+ hours a week I put in isn't enough anymore). As I suspected all along, the line is slowly being pushed. If an end user sends an email about their crashing of an old, little used dev box on the weekend, my boss expects me to respond right away from the "convenience" of my blackberry while out with the family or at a movie. By respond, this means telling the guy that I will rush home to remote access in and try and reset the dev box so he can keep playing, or drive into the office to physically resolve the issue. Had it just been a cell phone, I know for a fact the guy would have just waited until Monday morning when I was back on company time. If my boss emails me with a question on Saturday afternoon where he is sharing his thoughts about Microsoft's latest strategy, I am expected to respond from the Blackberry within whatever his daily definition of a "reasonable" timeframe to agree with him or give an immediate plan of when this is going to be implemented in our company.

So I know the typical response is if you don't like it, go find another job, which I am actually currently doing (for other reasons). What scares me about this though is that a good portion of my peers don't mind working under these conditions. I've been doing this job for many years, so I certainly understand the expectations of coming in on a weekend or late at night to resolve a crashed router or server issue. But I just see this type of technology blurring the line between when you walk out the door at 5pm/6pm/7pm, and them keeping in constant contact with you. Sure it's good... but for who?

Next up - map tracking software and GPS due to be the next big thing on these types of devices, I seriously start to wonder if my employer is going to see "Hey, he is only 9 miles from the office, so he has no excuse not to come in on Sunday to help put in a few hours."

Become an orthodox Jew by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-25 02:45 · Score: 0

Then you don't have to work on Friday - Sat.
I have some friends like that. Only thing which will be acceptable to corporations is "religion".

Justification for patents by typical · 2006-02-25 04:25 · Score: 1

Who do you think NTP is? Its the widow of a basement inventor who tinkered with radios and electronics for most of his life. The numbers got out of hand only after RIM refused to pay reasonable licensing fees of roughly $4 million.

See, here is the problem.

I haven't gone through all of the patents, but the first, for instance, is basically for a device that sends email wirelessly (possibly with the ability to dock -- not certain how to read that tidbit).

The justification for patents is that they will promote advancement in sciences and the arts.

The problem is that, as soon as a workable portable computer exists with wireless communication, it's pretty darn straightforward to, y'know, put email on a device. No engineer would have sat around for years saying "Darn, I've got this here portable computer that I'd like to send email from. Now how can I do this?"

Nor did anyone sit down and search through the USPTO database to *find* a way to solve the problem. The only time anyone searches the USPTO is if they (a) want to avoid patent mines or (b) want to lay some of their own.

So, basically, the patent-holder here is demanding a huge monopoly and millions of dollars for producing *no* advancement whatsoever. Did it take years of expensive research to come up with this idea? Certainly not (or if it did, they were very misallocated years). The patent holder doesn't really deserve any funding from society whatsoever.

The only organization that definitely had to expend money to provide something useful to society would have been the people that actually *designed* the Blackberry device. They easily made their money back, and in any event, their chips and software are protected by copyright.

Basically, software patents wind up funneling otherwise-to-be-used-for-engineering-new-systems money into the pockets of (a) lawyers and (b) patent holders. That doesn't sound like something that promotes advancement in technology at *all* to me.

Furthermore, the fact that you don't know when you might hit a patent mine means that the risk associated with engineering new tech increases, which only discourages funding for tech.

--
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.

Debatable by typical · 2006-02-25 05:06 · Score: 2, Informative

What the predecessor to NTP did was demonstrate a workable system in the late 80s/early 90s, before all that infrastructure was in place.

Let's take a look at this, because I think that I have a very different take on software patents than you do.

The earliest patent number I see here is 5,438,611.

That patent was granted August 1, 1995, and the application filed May 23, 1994.

Ricochet was already a commercial product in 1994. So, even ignoring the fact that I don't think that there's any benefit in granting patents on this stuff, the "infrastructure" certainly *was* in place. This was not an idea that nobody could or was coming up with.

He tried to bring it to market. He had a deal almost done with IBM, even demonstrated it at trade shows. His company was liquidated after the IBM deal fell threw, but was left with the patent portfolio.

"Almost done", huh?

He didn't sell it to them. IBM decided that they didn't want it. Unless you were involved in the negotiations *on IBM's side*, I don't see how you can have any idea how close they were. As it turns out, given how well Ricochet did, IBM probably was making a reasonable choice.

Several years later, RIM came on the scene and developed a workable system based on his technology.

And this is relevant to IBM how? How do you claim it is "based on his technology"? Are you claiming that RIM would not have had the 'revolutionary' idea of a wireless email device sans this guy, and that they proceeded to steal his idea?

What this guy did, if it had value (since I sure didn't see it) would have been in the device's design itself. The idea was neither groundbreaking nor unexpected.

He offered a license for $4 million.

Suppose you design, build, market, and make successful a cool gadget. Why should you hand $4M to every guy that walks up and demands money? Maybe he wanted to make a similar product in the same timeframe, okay, but he didn't.

Furthermore, at $100K a year (which, I think, is a darn good salary), and even ignoring inflation, what is being demanded is 40 years -- an entire working lifetime -- of salary. Even had RIM directly run out of one of his demos, said "Let's steal this idea" (and I don't have evidence that they didn't, but I doubt that you have evidence that they did), you're talking about nothing other than making a wireless computer access email. Does that take *forty years* of work to come up with this design?

RIM didn't even bother to respond, because they were too busy driving competitors out of the market using their own patents.

That may be true. I'm not familiar with RIM's IP background, and I'd be more than happy to see RIM not able to go after people with their patents either.

After RIM repeatedly blew him off, he got pissed and sued.

He demanded $4M, and RIM didn't bite. Okay.

RIM's lawyers were caught falsifying evidence. They still wouldn't pay the licensing. He started raising his price.

RIM's lawyers apparently put some sort of newer software on an '87 device. I have no further information on it. It may be that the outdated software was no longer available, and they just used the current version -- even though the original client could have performed the same tasks. It may have been that email couldn't be sent at *all* with that version. I don't have any knowledge about the specifics, and I doubt that you do either.

However, this is still breaking away from my point, which is that I don't think that there should be patents on this kind of thing at all. It is quite possible that RIM's lawyers conduct

--
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.

Re:Debatable by Analogworm · 2006-02-27 05:47 · Score: 1

>>So RIM throws lots and lots of dollars at Washington lobbyists to pressure congressmen, who pressure the Patent Office.

>*Good*. This is the one point where I *definitely* agree with RIM. Eliminating software patents would be an incredibly good thing for the tech industry.
Then you must clearly be opposed. If you think using legislators to prove that your technology didn't infringe instead of using the courts is a good idea then you must be drunk with passion about the "patent troll" argument. Really. I agree that we must squash patent trolls, but check your target and for pete's sake, do not condone political pressure in a technology dispute! That's outright criminal behavior!

Push only? by typical · 2006-02-25 05:15 · Score: 1

They didn't patent such a broad idea. They did however patent stuff related to how RIM chose to deliver email (a push method instead of a poll) to its wireless device.

Patent 5,625,670.

Go down to Claim 1. I don't see where this claim says that the information is specifically transmitted without receiving a request from the wireless device.

Besides...let's even assume that you're right.

This is basically the same thing that any system with a mail server on it with a wireless connection running to that server would do.

Fidonet, UCCP, etc were all push. It's a pretty safe bet that running it over a wireless connection was both not that groundbreaking of an idea and actually done by people (particularly UUCP).

--
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.

Re:Push only? by Keeper · 2006-02-25 09:11 · Score: 1

Go down to Claim 1. I don't see where this claim says that the information is specifically transmitted without receiving a request from the wireless device.

Start reading claim 20 (which is a subclaim of claim 4, which is a subclaim of claim 1) and go from there.

This is basically the same thing that any system with a mail server on it with a wireless connection running to that server would do.

That would be the intelligent way of doing it. But it isn't often the way it is done (and is one of the reasons why blackberry's are so popular IMO).

It's a pretty safe bet that running it over a wireless connection was both not that groundbreaking of an idea and actually done by people (particularly UUCP).

Which is probably why the USPTO is in the process of invalidating the patent as we speak ...

"Bought the invalidity"? by typical · 2006-02-25 05:27 · Score: 1

The patents were good until RIM bought enough congressmen and lobbyists.

Frankly, I don't think that anyone should even need to drag out prior art. This sort of nonsense should not be patentable, and the fact that can even be considered as such wastes the time of engineers who could be doing more productive things and siphons resources off production of actual good stuff into having a bunch of people sit around in suits and make ridiculous legal arguments.

However, that being said, I would dearly love to hear how you think that RIM "bought the invalidity of the patents". I haven't read all the patents -- just part of the first one -- but even by the USPTO's overgenerous rules, that patent is probably not valid -- people built wireless networks that sent email before that.

By anyone with familiarity with the subject's judgement, this probably shouldn't be patentable (even if the USPTO had decided that they were). For example, look at this. Digital radio networks among hobbyists in *'76*! Before the Apple II! These ideas are not new!

*My* take is that no software patent should ever be granted. The costs of the system far outweigh the benefits.

--
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.

Re:"Bought the invalidity"? by RevMike · 2006-02-25 08:28 · Score: 1

Wireless email is certainly predictable, and was done before ESA (the predecessor to RIM). What ESA produced was a system that pushed email without the client device needing to be continually active in a high power state. That is what was novel and non-obvious. A device that simple reimplemented wired or fixed wireless strategies would have needed to be powered continuously or at least recharged every several hours.
Re:"Bought the invalidity"? by typical · 2006-02-25 09:04 · Score: 1

Pagers have been around for a long time. I don't even agree that what you're claiming is non-obvious.

However, the patents are also clearly much broader than what you are describing.

--
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.

Software patents by typical · 2006-02-25 05:30 · Score: 1

Patent squatting should forfeit the rights to a patent after, say, 3 years if no progress has been made.

And software patents shouldn't exist at all.

--
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.

The value of software patents by typical · 2006-02-25 05:36 · Score: 1

- None of this would even be a question if the inventor hadn't patented it ... the invention simply wouldn't exist!

That's a fun hypothetical situation...but there were digital radio networks a long time ago.

I keep running into that...okay, I can see this compelling situation in which some guy spends years of work to come up with something decades ahead of its time, significantly advancing the state of the art. He doesn't have the resources to develop it, so he wants to go to a big company...but without patent protection, that big company will just swipe his idea.

The *problem* is that in the real world, every time someone seems to claim that they fit into this picture, their idea is nothing special -- they just (rationally) want to take a spin on the Wheel of Fortune (since the patent system allows them to do so) and see if they can get ahold of lots of money.

There are very, very few ideas that are revolutionary. Most are evolutionary. No big jumps, just building a little bit on the stuff beforehand -- ordinary engineering work. The people doing *that* kind of work, the stuff that matters a lot more to society, are being hurt by the people who are exploiting a system designed around funding the production of revolutionary ideas.

--
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.

Re:Crushing BS Innovation by Analogworm · 2006-02-27 05:35 · Score: 1

Glad to hear some reason on this site! It's amazing how RIM has "won" over the techie geek masses so easily. There's a lesson there more than just the large amount of money they've used for lawyers and bribery... uh... er... I mean "lobbying". I would think and still think that if people look at the actual abysmal behavior of RIM, even the blind geek masses would see the light. If the 15 second commercial-drunk masses are converted to believe that the most media apparent argument (hence big money) is the more correct one, then there is a serious danger to real innovation/achievement in this country. Cheers!

Slashdot Mirror

Blackberry Injunction Postponed

166 comments