Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Blackberry Injunction Postponed

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the chalk-one-up-for-not-dumbness dept.

Astin writes "The PTO has rejected the last of the NTP patents against Research in Motion. On top of this, Judge Spencer has decided that Blackberry service won't be shut down today, but he will issue a decision on the injunction 'as soon as reasonably possible.' RIM CEO Jim Balsillie just said on CNBC that it's 'quite possible' that NTP won't see any settlement from RIM at all now."

11 of 166 comments (clear)

  1. No patents but still infringing by plankrwf · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

  2. patent squatting by zephc · · 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.
    1. Re:patent squatting by Anonymous Coward · · 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!

  3. Bad news for me by PunkPig · · Score: 3, Funny

    I could have gotten out of pager support this weekend.

  4. I think of this: by MtViewGuy · · 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.

  5. Whoo Hoot by HeroSandwich · · 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!

  6. Re:In other news... by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    You must be new here. Welcome aboard!

  7. Doesn't bother me by Dream1979 · · 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.

  8. Maybe... just maybe... by zubinjdalal · · 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.

  9. Re:Will someone enlighten those ... by The+Wicked+Priest · · 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
  10. Re:Crushing BS Innovation by VP · · 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$$.