Slashdot Mirror


RIM Settles Long-Standing Blackberry Claim

David Jao writes "Research in Motion has agreed to pay 612.5 million dollars for a 'full and final settlement of all claims' resulting from the NTP patent lawsuit against the makers of BlackBerry. According to the article, the settlement is 'on the low end of expectations', perhaps because the patents in question had earlier been preliminarily ruled invalid by the US Patents & Trademarks Office." Many article submitters characterize this move as 'giving in' to NTP's tactics. What do you think?

19 of 295 comments (clear)

  1. I'm confused... by chill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...if the patents that based NTP's lawsuit were going to be ruled invalid, what was the basis for the settlement? Why didn't RIM just tell NTP to go fuck themselves and wait for the patent office to finish. No patent == no patent infringement == no lawsuit.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    1. Re:I'm confused... by jarich · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I suspect that they were bleeding customers like crazy from all the bad publicity and the near shutdowns. I can't imagine how much stress their bean counters were under! ;)

      Also, do you really know that the patents were invalid? I haven't looked at it that closely.

    2. Re:I'm confused... by cyngus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Simple. The uncertainty surrounding RIM was hurting their business and was going to continue to. By resolving the dispute sooner they keep many customers they might have lost and have a better chance of attracting more. NTP could have kept this dragging through the courts for years and possibly sunk RIM in the process. Gotta love corporate shakedowns.

    3. Re:I'm confused... by GoMMiX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ahhh, but people thought this case had something to it. They had patents. SCO on the otherhand has nothing, and even they know it.

      Lets not forget IBM was not losing business at all as a result of SCO's suit against them. SCO's suit against IBM has actually been positive publicity for IBM - that much has been apparent since the day it was filed.

      The blackberry, on the otherhand, had a lot of people very concerned given the validity the courts gave to the claims (IE: they already won once).

  2. I guess they won the patent lottery. by God+Virus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is ridiculous. Why should a company with only an idea and no product have any claim to over half a billion dollars? It's not like Blackberry stole their idea, right?

  3. 612.5 million?! by BewireNomali · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Low end of expectations? Wow. This justifies patent squatting to the unscrupulous looking for the cash-out.

    --
    un burrito me trampeó.
    1. Re:612.5 million?! by faedle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yep. And it all started when RIM very loudly and publically stated that they would sue others based on their patent claims.

      RIM got exactly what they deserved.

    2. Re:612.5 million?! by tsm_sf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, it's like watching the two biggest bullies in school fight each other. It's fun to see one of them get his ass kicked, but you know that the other will still be after you tomorrow.

      ((man, sometimes I feel like I just post on /. to exercise my analogy lobe))

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
  4. Disappointed by OzPhIsH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm pretty disappointed with this move by RIM. I was hoping that by going all the way through the courts we might get some serious patent reform out of the whole mess. While this brought a lot of attention to the issue, I fear that it will just go back to being business as usual at the patent office.

    --

    "To lead the people, you must walk behind them"

  5. No other choice... by avalys · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They had no other choice but to give in. There was an article in the WSJ today that talked about how many people were switching to competitor's products, just because of the uncertainty surrounding the Blackberry.

    It will be interesting to see how easily they recover from this.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank.
  6. Re:Who gave up? Not RIM, that's for sure! by HoneyBunchesOfGoats · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So if someone tries to blackmail me for $100 and I talk them down to $50, I didn't give in either?

    That's some faulty logic right there.

  7. The only thing worse than a patent troll... by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    is a patent troll with $600M in the bank.

  8. Not having a product doesn't mean anything by PCM2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not in favor of NTP or anything, but the people who point out that NTP had no product are missing the point of patents.

    Suppose you invented the Blackberry. You. Right now. You have the idea. Now what? Do you have the financial backing to manufacture a million Blackberrys? Do you have the industry connections to go around and make deals with all the mobile carriers to get your service into people's hands? No. But it's still a good idea, so you want to go forward with it. That means finding potential partners and investors. But just talking to those people about it is spreading the idea around. Suppose you go to the mobile company and say, "I have these plans for this service, I'm going to call it Blackberry." What's stopping them from just making the service themselves and cutting you out of the picture completely?

    Your patent is.

    In an ideal world, that's what patents are for: protecting the little guy inventor from big business.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
    1. Re:Not having a product doesn't mean anything by DShard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which is utter bunk. NTP came in after the fact, well after precedent and patented obviousness. These people had no product other than litigation. Their business plan was to sue successful companies.
          Now let's assume that you are the little guy. You come up with something utterly missing in the market. Let's call it middle management crack. So you patent it, build a company on it and become the "next big thing".
          During that time, a different company, comes in who doesn't actually make anything new or produce any products. What they do is buy "analysts" to come up with how your design is "not patented". Next they produce legalease to sue you for your unique business model. At no point have they ever had _one_ customer and now they sue you.

      This is what happened in this case. In an ideal world, people can not use the justice system to extort money from you.

    2. Re:Not having a product doesn't mean anything by laffer1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've never looked at the specific claims in this case, but I think many people on slashdot are against patents as they are applied to software. Many people feel that patent law should not be applied to software. From a business perspective or the way the courts like to view computer stuff its a "product". As a computer scientist, its viewed as an algorithm... or more generally math. Everything we write can be proven correct with math and if someone patented how to calculate loan payments or the pythagorean theorem we'd have serious problems. Sometimes there is only a few possible ways to solve a problem from a practical standpoint. Should those few solutions be patented? Anyone interested in open source software, especially things like linux should see that software patents are a bad thing. In my example, the little guy is hurt because he can get handed a lawsuit for adding something to the linux kernel.

      Of course I know nothing about law. :)

      I still don't understand how someone can patent a genetic defect in blood. Isn't my wife prior art?

  9. Back to Business as Usual by tekrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This didn't solve anything. If anything it made things worse. I didn't see *ANY* reporting that the flawed patent system was at fault.

    All I heard from the mainstream news media was the Blackberry was being sued, and now they settled for $600 Million, so, in my mind, they must have been at fault.

    Furthermore, this payment will embolden other patent trolls who want to be fed to the tune of millions for doing nothing.

    And the Patent System will go merrily on it way, because now that Senators can use their Blackberries again, do you think they are going to give a tinker's damn that the system is flawed?

    If I'd been running Blackberry, I'd have shut down service for 24 hours, with the message "we can't provide service due to a flawed patent system.".

    Does anybody here remember the day everyone made their webpages BLACK as a protest? Does anybody remember when it was OKAY to fight back against something that was wrong? Now it seems, the M.O. is to give up, pay the bastards and lick your wounds, regardless of who's right or wrong.

    In fact, the more wrong you are, the harder you should fight, it seems, because these days, the good guy always loses. (RIAA anyone?)

    What a wonderful lesson to teach our younger people.
    George Lucas should make a movie on that subject.

    So this is how freedom dies. With a $600 Million payout.

    TTYL
    A disgusted and concerned old-timer.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  10. RIM is a not a hero, fellas by feijai · · Score: 5, Insightful
    RIM:
    1. Worked so hard to run its competitors out of the market with lawsuits that The Register nicknamed it "Lawsuits in Motion"
    2. Ignored all entreaties from NTP for a year, forcing NTP to eventually sue them.
    3. Lied in court so often that they received three-times punative damages just for their court conduct alone, plus attorneys' fees.
    4. Gave Congress free Blackberries as a tactic to get them hooked, then
    5. (Successfully) Lobbied Congressmen to put big-time pressure on the USPTO to invalidate NTP's patents while the court case was ongoing (can you say "cut off their air supply"?), regardless of their actual validity. In the US, if you're doing something illegal, you can always get the law changed if you have enough money. Even if you're a foreign company.
    6. Tried to push through a congressional resolution that shutting down the Blackberry network would be a "threat to national security" because of the free Blackberries they'd hooked the feds on.
    7. (Successfully) Lobbied the Canadian government to weigh in as if this were a matter of international concern.
    8. Purposely delayed resolution until after NTP's original inventor died.

    This company deserves to go straight to hell. $612 million is a rap on the knuckles.

  11. Stop the nonsense by tkrotchko · · Score: 3, Insightful

    " along with Diane Peters from OSDL, Bruce Perens, lawyers from IBM and others got together at the USPTO last month to talk about ways to improve patent quality. No solutions yet, but some good discussion."

    Why don't you get together to discuss the fact that most of the significant discoveries in computers, information and software fields came about before software patents.

    And if you want to quibble with me, fine, but answer this: If software patents were important to drive innovation in the high-tech industry, then how did some many great pieces of software get written in the days before software patents?

    Let's not pretend that software patents are an old, time-tested way of protecting software. They're not, they're less than 10 years old. So rather than accept a relatively recent ruling by a court (Not even a law from congress), why don't we do the right thing and stop software patents. The fact that the courts lowered the bar so that nonobviousness was no longer the primary determinant of whether a patent should be granted should be reason enough to get rid of them.

    Name something... anything out there in the market that was only possible because of software patents. The idea of these patents isn't to make NTP rich simply because of knowing how to game the system, but to advance the state of the art. These patents aren't doing that; if anything, they're doing the opposite.

    I'm opposed to coming together and working out an arrangement because it presupposes these patents are acceptable. They are not. Software patents are so tremendously wrong that I think they're something that have to be opposed on general principal.

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
  12. Re:Magic money for nothing by fermion · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It would be disapointing except for the context.

    First, you never lie or piss off a judge. Doing so is simply a sign of great incompetance, and when on does this anything short of total humiliation is a generous punishment. in this case, the judge did not want to deal with these fools any longer, and just wanted the parties to work it out.

    Second, this stuff should not have gone to court. Again, given the incompetent behavior of RIM, I can only assume the entire negotiations were handled badly. Perhaps RIM thought they were a multibillion dollar company, so they could just intimidate the small party. Perhaps they can, but it always better to take the high road in these situations, expecailly when dealing with a widow. Instead of fighting and lying and trying to invalidate the patents, an initial payment might have been in order. I have no idea what went on behind doors, but, again, given the public record these people just seemed really stupid.

    And finally, the 600 million must be taken in context. This is like a years EBITDA, and who knows what it will actually mean to RIM after the tax accountants get done. And, since they have been effectivelty saving for a few years, the impact on this year is like 2 months EBITDA.

    So, I am not saying that the payment in the best situation, but given RIM lied in court, continued to anger the judge during negotiations, and was clearly trying to play a waiting game, probably hoping that the parties would continue to die off, it was not a horrible outcome.

    A couple more thing to put this in context. I recall an invention, perhaps the steam engine and Watts, that was not fully patented because it borrowed patented technology and it was easier to hide the technology than share the credit. In the end this left the inventor wide open for the product to be copied. The inventor would likely have been better off making the technology transparent, honestly fighting the patent, and probably winning in the end.

    The second case is standard insurance industry practice, which is reminiscent of what RIM was trying to do. In most settlements, the insurance company will withhold all payments, even in the most open a shut cases. They will offer a fraction of what the policy would indicate. The injured party can either accept the token payment, or wait the statuatory three years to file suit. The insurance company usually ends up the winner as most people cannot self fund the recovery effort, or the insurance company rightly states that the cost of litigation will be greater than the present settlement. RIM was playing exactly this game, and it is probabl as sad they they won at this game as it is that NTP won at the orignal patent dispute.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black