Slashdot Mirror


RIM Chairman Wants Changes to U.S. Patent Law

florescent_beige writes "The Globe and Mail is reporting that James Balsillie '... called on U.S. lawmakers yesterday to fix a system that he says boxed the company into one of the largest legal settlements in U.S. history.' Although this will do nothing to change the $612.5M(US) settlement RIM was forced to sign with NTP, Mr. Balsille says he wants to help 'assure that no other company experiences what we endured over the past five years.' Mr Balsillie's rhetoric was direct: he said RIM's treatment at trial was like '... a judge in a murder case pondering execution while ignoring DNA evidence that exonerates the accused ... RIM was virtually held up for ransom by NTP...'"

245 comments

  1. Grammar nazi a quote? by Krach42 · · Score: 1, Troll

    'assure[sic] that no other company experiences what we endured over the past five years.'

    God, I hope that's what he actually said, and some jerk along the way didn't just mangle it into making him sound like a total idiot.

    --

    I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    1. Re:Grammar nazi a quote? by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      The actual statement (in pdf form)

      "By appearing before you today, it is my sincere hope that we are helping to advance meaningful patent law reform, thus helping to assure that no other company experiences what RIM endured over the past five years."

    2. Re:Grammar nazi a quote? by Wordplay · · Score: 2, Informative

      Lordy.

      http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=assure

      Definition 4. Damned grammar nazis!

    3. Re:Grammar nazi a quote? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look up "assure" in the dictionary and THEN tell us who sounds like a total idiot.

    4. Re:Grammar nazi a quote? by Surt · · Score: 1

      I'm mildly curious, why is this funny? Did the article have the sic originally, and it got removed later?

      Or is assure:
      http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/assure

      somehow being used incorrectly here?

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    5. Re:Grammar nazi a quote? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what they say about 'assure'...it makes an ass out of ureself.

    6. Re:Grammar nazi a quote? by Intron · · Score: 2, Informative

      The person transcribing this might not know the difference between assure, ensure and insure, any of which could have been used and sound pretty much alike.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
  2. 3 Views on Patent Reform by mcwop · · Score: 2, Informative
    --

    "I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX

    1. Re:3 Views on Patent Reform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I clicked your link expecting beautiful screenshots of a place called Patent Reform from an EconoLodge.

    2. Re:3 Views on Patent Reform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only "beautiful views" I've seen from EconoLodges involve elevated freeways or possibly airplanes flying dangerously close overhead.

    3. Re:3 Views on Patent Reform by MdntToker · · Score: 1

      Please, RIM was given a million chances to settle this case, both before and during trial. From accurate news reports concerning this case, RIM comes off as arrogant assholes in the whole process until the end, when the court finally says "Pay Up!"

      And now they're complaining!? I don't buy it.

      The patent system is working fine. Yes, it needs a few tweaks, but in this case RIM reaped what they sowed.

  3. Corporate grassroots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was holding out for a longer court battle, in the hopes that more and more crackberry addicted suits would be forced into looking at patent reform. I'll take what I can get but it would be nice to have more than one chairman on board.

    1. Re:Corporate grassroots by Verdict · · Score: 1

      Gah! I need to learn to log in BEFORE posting

    2. Re:Corporate grassroots by guildsolutions · · Score: 1

      What I find is how the government wanted to be excluded from any injunctions/service shut downs. The government says that they are not above the law, but... this sure says they want to be. =)

      Now that crackberry addict government people are safe with their phones, the patent reform issue is moot because they got their crack and are happy.

  4. Am I missing something? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 3, Informative

    I didn't closely follow the case but if memory serves it went something like this:

    1) RIM and NTP originally tried to negotiate an agreement so that RIM could use NTPs patented idea

    2) No agreement was reached so RIM walked away

    3) RIM, despite knowing of NTPs patented idea, went ahead and developed a communication system based directly on NTPs patent

    4) RIM got caught and had to pay for its mistake

    Am I missing something or is this just a case of someone getting caught and whining about it? I'm sincerely curious, not trolling.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:Am I missing something? by ergo98 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Am I missing something or is this just a case of someone getting caught and whining about it? I'm sincerely curious, not trolling.

      To get this straight: Instead of finding one of the countless case of information on this case, instead you decided to post a hopeful karma-whore on Slashdot, repeating a bunch of ignorant mistruths that you're unsure of?

      Interesting approach.

    2. Re:Am I missing something? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      Eh, I'm lazy. What can I say.

      And no, it wasn't for the karma. I'm maxed out.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    3. Re:Am I missing something? by ergo98 · · Score: 5, Informative

      NTP is a purported patent troll, existing on fluffed up patents (many created using the continuation loophole of the patent office, allowing them to add news discoveries in other people's products into a long idling patent application). All of NTPs patents are likely to be discarded by the USPTO on review, however the disconnect between the justice system and the USPTO allowed NTP to extort $600+ million dollars out of RIM by threatening them with an injunction.

      The civil justice treats granted patents as valid, yet the USPTO operates under the workflow model of basically granting everything, and then dealing with problem patents upon petitions -- but the review is far too slow, allowing malicious patent trolls to siphon off of legitimately innovative organizations.

      e.g. I sneak a patent in that patents vacuums. The USPTO grants it, and I can then cajole a judge into granting an injunction against every vacuum maker unless they pay my extortion fee. The USPTO will of course pull the patent out and start reviewing it, but the vacuum cleaners will have long been forced to pay up.

    4. Re:Am I missing something? by smbarbour · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, that's not quite it...

      1) RIM established it's BlackBerry service
      2) NTP filed a patent on how it works. (And did not subsequently do ANYTHING with it)
      3) NTP contacts RIM to "negotiate" a licensing agreement for NTP's patent (RIM walked away)
      4) Lawsuits are filed
      5) Patent office invalidates NTP's relevant patents
      6) RIM ordered to pay, due to the courts not allowing the testimony of the patent office.

      The patent system needs to be reformed. Patents are supposed to protect companies against theft. Patents are not supposed to be a form of revenue.

      The way it should work (in my opinion) is that if you want to patent something, you had better have something tangible to present with your filing. In this case, NTP only held a piece of paper saying they invented something. They did not write any code or develop any product (or component of a product). Essentially, there were only three possible sources of revenue for NTP: Investments, Licensing, and Lawsuits.

    5. Re:Am I missing something? by Mydron · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes you are missing something. Namely that NTP doesn't have patents, they have patent applications. Applications that were found to be undeserving of issuance by the PTO; but only for the time being, ultimately anything is patentable if you're determined and willing to pay enough continuance/appeal fees to the PTO.

      Unfortunately for RIM, fortunately for NTP, patent owners can litigate and license their patents before issuance. This little loophole was introduced because applications take so long to be examined by the PTO.

    6. Re:Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike you, Karma whoring by whining about someones on topic query being a Karma whorejob. Interesting approach. p.s. You'll notice I did my whine as an AC, so no Karma.

    7. Re:Am I missing something? by ergo98 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Unlike you, Karma whoring by whining about someones on topic query being a Karma whorejob.

      Karma whoring? Yeah, like my bitch is going to be moderated up, moron. It has zero indication of being a karma whore.

    8. Re:Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, so what actually happened is:

      1. NTP files lawsuit on 9 patent infingements.
      2. RIM decides the money being asked for is much too high.
      3. Pre-trial finds that only 5 patents actually apply.
      4. Long legal battle.
      6. A few weeks before settlement, all patents in question are not given to NTP (were still pending).
      7. Judge in trial to stop RIM's service in US say's he doesn't care about the status of the patents.
      8. RIM settles with NTP.

      It should also be noted that during this process RIM managed to create software work-arounds in case of more trouble.

      Like the other guy said, don't post ignorant speculation that can be easily looked up and shown false.

    9. Re:Am I missing something? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      Thank you. From your posting I was missing something. Now it becomes more clear.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    10. Re:Am I missing something? by ifdef · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, you certainly are missing something.

      1) RIM developed a communication system.

      2) Years later, NTP sent RIM a letter saying "we think you are infringing on one of our 5000 patents."

      3) RIM replied, asking "what patent are we infringing?", but got no reply.

      4) NTP sued.

      5) During the court case, RIM demonstrated prior art. However, on the same computer, there was another program, irrelevant to the demonstration, which was dated later than the patent date, so the demonstration was called "fraud", and RIM was not allowed to repeat the demonstration with that program removed from the computer. Yes, this appears to have been incompetence on the part of someone at RIM setting up the demonstration.

      6) RIM and NTP reached a settlement, but for some reason, NTP decided that they could do better. My guess is that the original settlement may have included a requirement to repay some of the money if the patents were eventually invalidated.

      7) Under threat of an injunction to shut down US operations, RIM settled again, as the injunction would have taken effect before the patent office was finished with its process.

      So, no, it's not just a case of someone getting caught doing something wrong.

    11. Re:Am I missing something? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      As I said to the poster above you:

      Thank you. From your posting I was missing something. Now it becomes more clear.

      *waits the required 1 minute until he can post this*

      *tick* *tick* *tick* *tick* *tick* (repeat 12 times)

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    12. Re:Am I missing something? by iplayfast · · Score: 1

      I heard that the problem with the original settlement was that it only was for current customers. The next customer that RIM got would start the whole process over again.

    13. Re:Am I missing something? by ifdef · · Score: 1

      Not true. They have patents. Patent applications are not enforceable.

      The patents were certainly granted. They may now be invalidated, but that is a second look AFTER the grant.

    14. Re:Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Said the asshole to the other asshole?

    15. Re:Am I missing something? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1, Troll
      Am I missing something [...] ?

      Yes: the fact that NTP's patents were on SMTP - via wireless!

      I wonder if anyone's patented SMTP - via quantum entanglement! - yet, or if it's still up for grabs.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    16. Re:Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know wombat, it's pretty obvious when you try to defend your shit under an AC.

    17. Re:Am I missing something? by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

      "The way it should work (in my opinion) is that if you want to patent something, you had better have something tangible to present with your filing. In this case, NTP only held a piece of paper saying they invented something. They did not write any code or develop any product (or component of a product). Essentially, there were only three possible sources of revenue for NTP: Investments, Licensing, and Lawsuits"

      I agree with you to a point about having something "tangible", but don't think it should be required.
      Rather, if you come up with some clever process/invention/whatever, and sit on it, your patent protection is limited to, say 3 years. You either use it or lose it.

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    18. Re:Am I missing something? by servoled · · Score: 1

      RIM established its BlackBerry service prior to May 20, 1991? Very interesting. And here I thought RIM's Blackberry service was a relatively new thing, but I guess its actually 15 years old.

      --
      "I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
    19. Re:Am I missing something? by Soporific · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Except it wasn't wombat...

    20. Re:Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the Patent office was on RIM's side.

    21. Re:Am I missing something? by jandrese · · Score: 1

      All they had was the application while RIM was building the Blackberry though. The Patents didn't actually go through until there were already Blackberries in people's hands.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    22. Re:Am I missing something? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Thank you. Since I got my account I ALWAYS post under it. I never post AC. I'll take whatever slings and arrows come my way.

      So to the original AC poster, suck it.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    23. Re:Am I missing something? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 2, Interesting
      So, in essence, what you're saying is:

      1. Patent vacuum
      2. Sue vacuum manufacturers
      3. Profit!

      If that's the case, I have applications to fill out...

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    24. Re:Am I missing something? by Zordak · · Score: 1
      I wonder if anyone's patented SMTP - via quantum entanglement!
      They haven't, so if you've reduced it to practice, get a patent attorney now!
      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    25. Re:Am I missing something? by Errandboy+of+Doom · · Score: 4, Informative

      NTP is no patent troll, the owner seriously tried to fund development of his project, until the megacorps repeatedly left him hanging. His investments in demos and prototypes ended up ruining him.

      NTP repeatedly sought good faith settlements from RIM, who knew he had tried to develop this design in the past.

      Then RIM tried to prove its case by lying in court directly to the jury and judge.

      But it's okay, it's hard to find this angle buried in the story.

      Unless you read slashdot.

    26. Re:Am I missing something? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 0, Troll
      They haven't, so if you've reduced it to practice, get a patent attorney now!

      Since when did having a prototype, or even being hypothetically possible, start being a requirement again?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    27. Re:Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, why should I "suck it"? I was commenting to ergo98, not you. I never claimed to be you, and I never commented to you. Other people make uninformed and incorrect assumptions, and you are for some reason blaming them on me? You asked an on topic question. ergo08 was whining that it was a whorejob to get a bit of karma. I commented to him. During the ensuing exchange someone incorrectly and arrogantly accuses you of my post. How is their incorrect assumption my fault?

    28. Re:Am I missing something? by Zordak · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and then back in the real world, you invent something truly remarkable, like a quantum computer, you send your application into the patent office and two years later, your first office action is a rejection like every other first office action the USPTO sends out. If your "invention" was a vacuum cleaner, then you have no hope of overcoming that rejection. If you have something that nobody has actually patented before, you tell the examiner what's wrong with his reasoning, and THEN he issues your patent (yes, often even if it's obvious or stupid). So your plan is cute and fully approved by the Slashdot Collective Opinion which holds that the patent office simply turns out an allowance notice two weeks after getting an application and not reading it, but it wouldn't work. Now, if you patented a vacuum cleaner that also used SMTP over wireless while you clean the floor, then your patent would be granted. And yes, it would infringe NTP's patent, and no that wouldn't matter.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    29. Re:Am I missing something? by Rac3r5 · · Score: 1
    30. Re:Am I missing something? by florescent_beige · · Score: 1

      Here (pdf) are the details of the case up to sept '05. It misses the end-game, most importantly the invalidation of all NTP's relevant patents and the final settlement.

      --
      Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    31. Re:Am I missing something? by enjo13 · · Score: 3, Informative

      My experience indicates the parent is absolutely correct.

      We filed a patent application nearly 4 years ago. We received a rejection about 3 weeks ago, and are in the process of resubmittal. Our patent has been hung up in the system for better than 3 years AND it was rejected initially. This despite the fact that this particular patent is both non-trivial and quite narrow.

      --
      Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
    32. Re:Am I missing something? by Rac3r5 · · Score: 1

      I think it is necessary to produce something tangible in order to grant a patent for it;
      Otherwise idiots like NTP will still be able to abuse the patent system.
      Individual inventors don't have the funds to strech lawsuits to 3 yrs so that ppl can come to a conclusion.

      On the other hand, I completly dislike patents. I don't think they foster innovation at all, rather they hinder it. The only people that profit from patents are Lawyers.

    33. Re:Am I missing something? by Phillup · · Score: 1

      The way it should work (in my opinion) is that if you want to patent something, you had better have something tangible to present with your filing. In this case, NTP only held a piece of paper saying they invented something. They did not write any code or develop any product (or component of a product). Essentially, there were only three possible sources of revenue for NTP: Investments, Licensing, and Lawsuits.

      Personally, I think that the moment someone else comes up with a solution that infringes on a patent... without them referring to the patent (or any documentation / examples that copy the idea)... you've reached the point where the idea is "obvious to someone familiar with the field of study" and the patent should be terminated.

      IMHO, this first to file stuff is BS. If two people come up with the same idea at the same time... then the idea isn't unique enough to deserve a patent.

      Likewise, if you ask a programmer to solve a problem for you, and he sits down and slings out some code... it can't (shouldn't) be patent infringement because he is simply employing "common knowledge" and doing his damn job. "Clean room implementations always get a pass". At least that is how it should be.

      --

      --Phillip

      Can you say BIRTH TAX
    34. Re:Am I missing something? by Dav3K · · Score: 0, Troll

      Mod the parent up. I started scanning the comments to see if anyone would call bullshit on this article or not. NTP is NOT a patent troll. There are many other cases of patent troll companies, but this is not one of them. Oddly enough, this is one case where the US patent system appears to have worked as intended.

    35. Re:Am I missing something? by paraax · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is a lot of misinformation about this case, and as with most things in life it is not so cut and dry.

      Lets try this order:

      1) NTP is in the wireless communication business early. I think a decade before Blackberry and its derivatives come into existence.
      2) NTP creates said patents. Whether they should have passed the novelty or prior art threshholds I don't know.
      3) NTP fails in its attempts to market the technology and ultimately folds. Patents are placed in a dusty drawer.
      4) RIM creates blackberry.
      5) RIM creates various patents, and threatens to use them.
      6) The remnants of NTP hear of this, decide to enforce their own patents.
      7) ... etc.

      The rest seems fairly accurate. In either case, not so clean cut as a classic patent troll. Still, it points out why patents, by and large, are evil. It shows that a successful and/or popular product is not just the idea and denies others the use of countless ideas... many of which could have happened easily without patent protection.

    36. Re:Am I missing something? by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 1

      You're posting on Slashdot admitting to taking out a patent? Hope you're wearing your flame-proof underpants...

    37. Re:Am I missing something? by kerasineAddict · · Score: 2, Informative

      RIM was founded in 1984. [ RIM ]

      NTP was founded in 1992. [ NTP ]

    38. Re:Am I missing something? by llefler · · Score: 2, Informative

      Didn't you just write:
      "To get this straight: Instead of finding one of the countless case of information on this case, instead you decided to post a hopeful karma-whore on Slashdot, repeating a bunch of ignorant mistruths that you're unsure of?"

      And then go on to say:
      NTP is a purported patent troll, existing on fluffed up patents (many created using the continuation loophole of the patent office, allowing them to add news discoveries in other people's products into a long idling patent application)."

      Maybe you should read this:
      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM .20060221.wpatentlyabsured-rim21/BNStory/RIM2006/h ome

      So I guess if you invent something but can't make it profitable, you should give up all your rights and let someone else have it?

      --
      It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit. -- Harry Truman
    39. Re:Am I missing something? by ergo98 · · Score: 5, Informative

      NTP is no patent troll, the owner seriously tried to fund development of his project, until the megacorps repeatedly left him hanging. His investments in demos and prototypes ended up ruining him.

      Using dubious patents (all of the patents in question have been rejected) to coerce money out of organizations that independently created something similar (e.g. Does anyone think that RIM learned about NTP's projects and then covertly copied them? I've never, ever heard that accusation) is pretty much the definition of a patent troll. Further vilifying them, NTP held out for a non-reversable judgement because they know that odds are great that their patents will fail the appeals: They wanted their $600 million or they'd force an injunction, and they wanted it quick before the USPTO rips out the entire foundation of their case.

      There is absolutely no positive angle for NTP.

    40. Re:Am I missing something? by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      I wonder if RIM would be treading on libel lines for some of the highly-charged phrases used in this plea to Congress?

    41. Re:Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (sarcasm)So inventions claim priority back to the date the company was founded? Is that how it works in Canada?(/sarcasm) Maybe that's why you ignoramuses got your asses kicked in US courts.

    42. Re:Am I missing something? by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      > I wonder if anyone's patented SMTP - via quantum entanglement! - yet, or if it's still up for grabs.

      since your patent idea is now published, and soon locked into google, if you havent sent in the patent, your patent could be easily invalidated.

      however, you apparently have time to profit between application and invalidation.

    43. Re:Am I missing something? by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      So I guess if you invent something but can't make it profitable, you should give up all your rights and let someone else have it?

      Did NTP use some of those funds to pay for Slashdot astroturfers or something?

      a) All of the pertinent NTP patents have been rejected by the USPTO. NTP wanted to rush to judgement in the case, and wanted a non-reversible settlement (e.g. they don't have to give the money back if/when the patents get their final rejection).

      b) No one has ever claimed that RIM in any way learned from, or copied, NTP's "invention". Given that it was one of the inevitable sorts of patents that clog up the patent system -- one of the sorts of things that any half-intelligent person would inevitably do for a solution -- it was inevitable that RIM would "violate" their patents. If I patent using a computer to book travel to the moon, that doesn't make me an "inventor" when moon travel becomes a reality years in the future, and inevitably computers are used for bookings.

    44. Re:Am I missing something? by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      sounds like a start to reform.

      >your patent protection is limited to, say 3 years. You either use it or lose it.

      3 years from when would be my problem. I think companies like TIVO, 6 months after it was available, as the only product of it's kind, at best buy, the patent should have been rendered as fair use public domain.

      but I can't think of a way to write a legal definition to match that in every instance, other than, "Ask Darren if the inventor has made enough profit, or had enough compensation yet."

    45. Re:Am I missing something? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I believe our system use a date of conception principal, which avoids some of the "land office rush", but starts court fights over date of inception. I remember seing a TV story about the guy who invented the laser, complete with technical drawings but no working prototype as it was techincal impossible at the time and the application was turned down. Eventualy lasers utilizing the NeHe discharge tube were patented that was exactly like the original drawings, which began a 15 year court battle eventualy resulting in the original application being granted. Fortunatly for the guy the patent was granted at a time for 17 years from the court order, when laser were in use all over the place.
      So at least in this case you can apply for a patent and let somebody else build the prototype for you.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    46. Re:Am I missing something? by jtev · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He could have a real patent instead of a software pattent, we support those you know. It's not like we think people shouldn't be able to protect the "Computerized Better Mousetrap" Just that they shouldn't be able to pattent "Better Mousetrap OS Upgrade 5 subversion 23" that uses the exact same hardware, to do the exact same job, where copyright law would be quite satasfactory to cover the new software.

      --
      That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
    47. Re:Am I missing something? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Funny
      NTP is no patent troll

      Given that NTP doesn't have any valid patents, logic would dictate that your statement is true.

    48. Re:Am I missing something? by criscooil · · Score: 2, Funny
      e.g. I sneak a patent in that patents vacuums. The USPTO grants it, and I can then cajole a judge into granting an injunction against every vacuum maker unless they pay my extortion fee. The USPTO will of course pull the patent out and start reviewing it, but the vacuum cleaners will have long been forced to pay up.
      Wow. That would really suck!
      --

      My life is an open book ... up to a point.

    49. Re:Am I missing something? by SparkEE · · Score: 1

      I agree with the use-it-or-lose-it concept. IMO, getting a patent shouldn't require a product. Patents are supposed to be about ideas. But, a company should be required to show that they are at least in development of a realization before being able to sue someone for patent infringement. Of course, the problem there would be defining "development". Is working on it one day month enough?

      Additionally, a company with no marketed product of their own should never be allowed to get an injunction against someone else's product.

    50. Re:Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So I guess if you invent something but can't make it profitable, you should give up all your rights and let someone else have it?

      Now wouldn't that depend on a couple of things:
      • Did someone else come up with the same idea, completely independent of your idea? Although hard to prove that someone didn't find your idea, I'm sure it happens quite often that people are creating very similar things independent of each other.
      • Is the idea completely obvious that anyone else would use the same approach?


      I'll admit that I don't know a huge amount about the RIM/NTP patent specifics, but from the sounds of it, it really comes down to wireless email. My father is a plumber and the company he worked for 20 years ago used to supply their servicemen with pagers capable of either displaying a text message or play a voice message. To me at least, the NTP patent seems to take pagers to the obvious next level and NTP seems very 'troll like'. If I'm missing something on their patent in this case, I'd sure appreciate a link describing what is so innovative about their patent.

      Jim
    51. Re:Am I missing something? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      I don't claim to know all the details of this case, but I do know that just adding the word "wirelessly" to a description of information technology should fail the obviousness test just as much as if it was the word "telepathically", regardless of whether telepathy itself had been invented or discovered yet or not.

      Telepathy created through technology (but not by biology) would be patentable, but not any utilization of it for a particular purpose.

      I'd also invalidate any patent created through serendipity, even if its discovery required the use of a particle accelerator.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    52. Re:Am I missing something? by pnewhook · · Score: 1
      I didn't closely follow the case but if memory serves it went something like this:

      1) RIM and NTP originally tried to negotiate an agreement so that RIM could use NTPs patented idea

      2) No agreement was reached so RIM walked away

      3) RIM, despite knowing of NTPs patented idea, went ahead and developed a communication system based directly on NTPs patent

      4) RIM got caught and had to pay for its mistake

      Am I missing something or is this just a case of someone getting caught and whining about it? I'm sincerely curious, not trolling.

      Not quite. Here's how it really went:

      1) RIM creates blackberry

      2) NTP (not a real company, but a bunch of blood sucking lawyers), holds a patent they bought off a dead guy, and they think RIM is violating this patent so they sue. RIM believes the patents are invalid.

      3) In 2004 after much negotiation, NTP and RIM almost settle for $450 million, but NTP eventually breaks it off asking instead for $1 Billion

      4) Despite the patent office indicating that they would invalidate NTP patents, a court of law threatens to force RIM to shut off their Blackberry servers.

      5) RIM settles for $615 million

      6) NTPs patents declared invalid

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    53. Re:Am I missing something? by gvibes · · Score: 2, Informative

      The patents are valid until the reexam process is over. A patent troll, to my mind, is a company whose only assets are patents that they bought from others. Under my definition, NTP is not a patent troll. Some people use the defintion patent troll = someone who owns and enforces a patent, but doesn't produce any patented items. Under a definition like that, pretty much any research university would be considered a patent troll, which doesn't seem right. I like my definition better.

    54. Re:Am I missing something? by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 0

      Nice try. In fact, NTP's patents are laughable. They obviously thought they could convince everyone by making them ridiculously inscrutable and verbose. You can't patent "email forwarding through an electronic device" - it's been done for ages.

    55. Re:Am I missing something? by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
      We? Who the hell is "we"? A bunch of mindless sheep spouting groupthink?

      Oh, wait, that is a pretty accurate description of Slashdot.

    56. Re:Am I missing something? by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      Unless you have a patent lawyer. Then, while your lawyer fills out 'vacuum' with enough legalese to confuse the reviewers, the whole process is transparent on your end.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    57. Re:Am I missing something? by layer3switch · · Score: 1

      "Using dubious patents (all of the patents in question have been rejected)"

      So was cold fusion. Do some thinking before opening up your yap. NTP's patent was approved and it's based on real world demonstration and prototype before you had your thumb up your ass for crackberry juice. Rejections were all based on lobyist's pressure to Congress, nothing to see here.

      "I've never, ever heard that accusation"

      Then you weren't listening or don't know enough to even place your opinion about this subject.

      "Further vilifying them, NTP held out for a non-reversable judgement...{rant}"

      It's called, settlement.

      "There is absolutely no positive angle for NTP."

      Right, like no positive angle when RIM was on a roll sending out patent infringement letters to dozens of companies around US and filing suit against anyone came close to making any innovation. Yeah, you heard it right, NTP filed the suit ONLY after RIM's shopping spread for lawyers and bankrollers.

      RIM == Patent Troll
      NTP killed the Patent Troll with patent.
      now RIM crying against Patent Troll.

      Irony?

      --
      "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
    58. Re:Am I missing something? by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      So was cold fusion. Do some thinking before opening up your yap. NTP's patent was approved and it's based on real world demonstration and prototype before you had your thumb up your ass for crackberry juice. Rejections were all based on lobyist's pressure to Congress, nothing to see here.

      Hilarious. If you aren't on NTP's payroll, then you are one hell of an extraordinary idiot. If you are on their payroll, then congrats on getting the gig.

      Then you weren't listening or don't know enough to even place your opinion about this subject.

      Thank you, Mr. Authority. Would you mind pointing out a single source, on the planet Earth, that claims that RIM stole the "invention"? The only claim is that RIM "willfully" violated the patent because they didn't immediately cease after NTP came out of the blue and claimed that they were infringing. No one credible, despite your hysterics, has ever claimed that RIM actually stole technology.

      Right, like no positive angle when RIM was on a roll sending out patent infringement letters...

      So RIM acting like corporate thugs somehow makes it okay for NTP to act like corporate thugs? Quite a primary school attitude you have about the world there.

      Nowhere have I ever defended RIM, except for the specifics of this action with NTP. I have never implied that RIM is a model corporate citizen, or that they aren't patent trolls themselves. The issue has been NTP, and NTP's patents. Take your Ritalin and get some focus.

    59. Re:Am I missing something? by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      Oh, and this is truly delicious:

      Rejections were all based on lobyist's pressure to Congress, nothing to see here.

      Yeah, because congress has a long history of putting pressure on government agencies to defend the interests of Canadian corporations (RIM) over American corporations (NTP). Just like they did with software lumber and the beef industry. Oh...wait...

      Go cash that paycheque now, though I wouldn't say that you've earned it.

    60. Re:Am I missing something? by bigpicture · · Score: 1

      Yes you are missing a whole lot. The patents that RIM paid $615M for were eventually overturned as not valid patents. These had been invented in Europe, and being used two years before NTP had even filed.

      It's all about legal judgements by 12 people not smart enough to get out of jury duty. A great system, where the inmates run the asylum. Why should anyone have exclusive rights to an idea? If someone independently comes up with the same idea, like they inevitably do, they are then deprived of their human rights to use their own idea in any way they see fit. So who does the patent system really benefit? The consumers or the lawyers? Because someone at the bottom of the heap eventually pays for all the blackmail crap.

    61. Re:Am I missing something? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      We? Who the hell is "we"? A bunch of mindless sheep spouting groupthink?
        Oh, wait, that is a pretty accurate description of Slashdot.


      You're on here too, aren't you?

    62. Re:Am I missing something? by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      I am. But I'm not making pronouncements on what "we" approve or disapprove of as though I'm a nominated spokesperson for the user community.

    63. Re:Am I missing something? by mini+me · · Score: 1

      I'm not a big software patent fan, but I fail to see how a software patent is different from a physical object patent.

      For example, I don't like software patents because when computer company A patents their great new widget that improves computer usage efficiency by 99%, no other program can use that widget. That hurts me as a computer user.

      But the same problem exists in the real world. When car company A patents a great new fuel system that cuts fuel usage by 99%, no other car company can use it. Just buy car company A's car you say? But car company B has a patent on tires that never wear out, which is just as desirable as the fuel system. We'll assume for all intents and purposes that the patent holders aren't willing to license their patent, thus it's impossible to buy the car you want.

      The patent system may work where the patent covers the entire product, but when the patent only covers a small part of a larger system it starts to fall apart rather quickly.

    64. Re:Am I missing something? by laughingcoyote · · Score: 1

      Under a definition like that, pretty much any research university would be considered a patent troll, which doesn't seem right.

      Seems quite right to me, especially if the university in question receives any public funding or grant money. (I know there are a few that don't, but the vast majority of them do.) Shouldn't discoveries made on the public's dime belong to, well, the public?

      --
      To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    65. Re:Am I missing something? by sjames · · Score: 1

      NTP is no patent troll,

      Perhaps at one time, NTP was not a patent troll. However, after it folded up, it was explicitly restructured into one. That is, unless you believe that an essentially inactive compant consisting of two people and a few patents that are in the process of being rejected has any actual intent to bring a product to market. Essentially, NTP tried and failed, so they decided to wait until someone in the future is successful, THEN put the bite on them and siphon off some of their success.

      The water is somewhat muddy in this case since RIM is not exactly siantly themselves. It's not a case of evil patent troll vs. good guy inventor, it's more evil patent troll vs. weasely money grubbing bastards. While RIM is not a patent troll since they have an actual product, they do, nevertheless, have a history of patent abuse.

      A mugger is still a criminal, even if he restricts himself to victimizing other criminals.

    66. Re:Am I missing something? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      But I'm not making pronouncements on what "we" approve or disapprove of as though I'm a nominated spokesperson for the user community.

      You say that as if one needs permission. "We Americans are more materialistic, as evidenced through our greater per capita consumption of energy and goods." There, now do I need to be a spokesman to say such statements? Perhaps I am doing two things, stating a fact or opinion about a group, while at the same time identifying myself with the group. That does not mean that anyone would confuse me as the leader of that rag-tag group of people that call themselves Americans. So, that you would have some confusion over that point means you are either a moron that can't understand a simple idea, or an asshole that loves to argue for the sole sake of arguing. Seeing how "we love to be argumentative assholes" I'll take you to be in the second group.

    67. Re:Am I missing something? by smbarbour · · Score: 1

      The problem is that a patent is supposed to protect a specific way of doing something from being used by someone else. It's not supposed to protect "doing something" directly.

      Take a toaster for example. You could have patented a method for toasting bread using electric heating elements to darken and dry out a slice of bread. That patent would not have prevented someone else from inventing a toaster that used a propane flame to do the same thing.

      It should be the same way with software. If developer A writes a program to do something and developer B writes another program to do the same thing (without looking at developer A's code) there SHOULD be no issue (unless the interface is the same, but that should be a trademark issue rather than a patent issue) At the same time, I feel that if two companies produce a product that is identical in function at the same time, independently, then if any patents were to be issued, it should be jointly held by both companies (perhaps with royalties from licensing the idea being distributed equally to the two companies by a third party.)

      Additionally, if you came up with some idea, and someone else came up with the same idea without meeting you or seeing any of your work, but you file for a patent before they do because they took the time to produce a product before submitting a patent, should they be forced to license their work from you? (You may say "Yes", but if the positions were reversed would you feel the same way?)

    68. Re:Am I missing something? by smbarbour · · Score: 1

      NTP was never in the wireless communication business.

      From the very top of the Wikipedia article:
      NTP, Inc. is a Virginia-based patent holding company, founded in 1992 by the late inventor Thomas J. Campana Jr. and Donald E. Stout. The company's only asset is a set of wireless email patents that were awarded to Andrew Andros and Thomas Campana and originally assigned to Telefind Corporation, a Florida-based company (now out of business) partly owned by Campana.

      Additionally, the patent office is still investigating the patents NTP has and continues to invalidate them.

      The serious issue here is that email (a service that is transmitted over data connections) existed prior to the patents, wireless data transmission existed prior to the patents, and therefore it is a natural progression for email to be transmitted over wireless data connections. Since the logical progression of ideas is NOT patentable, these patents are invalid.

    69. Re:Am I missing something? by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      Under a definition like that, pretty much any research university would be considered a patent troll, which doesn't seem right.
       
      If they are publicly funded, then I'd say that it's right. I believe that taxpayers should have the right to use inventions created using their tax dollars without any additional payment.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
  5. Wait a minute... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is this not the same company that sued Handspring over the shape of the buttons on their Treo keyboards?

    I'm not saying the circumstances are the same, and the article doesn't make clear what reforms he wants (apparently patents with hundreds of claims are seen as problematic, and I agree)... it just strikes me as a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I personally am more against the extremely low standards for novelty and non-obviousness than anything, which is why RIM striking out against patents sticks in my craw. But hey, maybe they've now seen the light and realize patent holders simply have too much power.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
    1. Re:Wait a minute... by whitehatlurker · · Score: 1
      Is this not the same company that sued Handspring over the shape of the buttons on their Treo keyboards?

      I'm not familiar with that case, but that sounds more like a copyright infringement than a patent issue.

      --
      .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
    2. Re:Wait a minute... by iplayfast · · Score: 1

      It's more a case of the pot saying TURN OFF THE FIRE!

    3. Re:Wait a minute... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Informative
      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:Wait a minute... by fuzzybunny · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The phrase you're looking for is "my enemy's enemy is my friend".

      Regardless of what stupid, immoral, abuse of the very same patent/copyright/trademark system they committed in the past, if they now turn around and say "the system is b0rked! Fix it!" however selfish and hypocritical their motivation would be, they still have a point.

      Imagine Microsoft coming out, guns blazing, against buggy software, vendor lock-in, software monopolies, immoral and anti-competitive tactics and sundry other things for which they've been (rightfully or not) crucified in the past. Would you say "bah, it's Microsoft, fuhgedaboudit"?

      --
      Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
    5. Re:Wait a minute... by Ruie · · Score: 1
      Is this not the same company that sued Handspring over the shape of the buttons on their Treo keyboards?

      Yes. Hopefully this is a good thing.

      You see, there is no better way to be certain that something is possible but to do it yourself.

      These guys tried to be a patent troll, got mugged by a fouler troll and want to clean up the countryside. They are not going to easily accept the usual of "well, the system mostly works with some exceptions" - not only it happened to them, but they have experience in doing it to others.

    6. Re:Wait a minute... by Intron · · Score: 1

      "Hand-held e-mail device with a keyboard optimized for use with the thumbs ... In order to operate within the limited space available on a hand-held electronic device, the present invention optimizes the placement and shape of the keys, preferably using keys that are oval or oblong in shape, and that are placed at angles designed to facilitate thumb-typing. The angles at which keys on either side of the keyboard are placed is [sic] complimentary [sic]." -- The Register quoting the patent

      At least they actually invented something. It also shows their consistency with respect to grammar.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    7. Re:Wait a minute... by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      I like to imagine the sky as a deep iridescent purple. Can I have a flying swine too, while we're imagining things? :)
      Yeah, I know, it's totally OT. I just had to get it out of my system.

    8. Re:Wait a minute... by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      All the patents-in-suit in the RIM/NTP case were stamped with non-final rejections by the PTO. Still, if RIM wants to trash NTP, they ought to look at their own actions a few years back. I wonder if NTP will renege on the deal in light of these inflammatory comments and really trash RIM.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    9. Re:Wait a minute... by whitehatlurker · · Score: 1

      Ah! Well then, that is wrong.

      --
      .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
    10. Re:Wait a minute... by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

      It's not necessarily the case that companies opposing patents should also avoid using them. It's also a consistent, non-hypocritical position to:

      1) use them, because turning down business advantage is stupid, and because your arm will be twisted with other people's patents unless you have enough of your own to twist back

      2) oppose them, because it's a whole lot of effort spent basically trying to manoeuver the government to twist each other's arms, and business would be so much simpler and more profitable if nobody had to do that.

    11. Re:Wait a minute... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      use them, because turning down business advantage is stupid, and because your arm will be twisted with other people's patents unless you have enough of your own to twist back

      "Using" patents as in filing for them so that you can defend yourself from others' attempts to bring claims against you is one thing. Most companies' patent portfolios are used for this purpose. In fact the patent lawyer at my company explicitly stated that we file patents so that when (not if) we are found to be violating another company's patents and we both sit down at the negotiating table, we can use the patents of ours that they are inevitably violating to force a favorable settlement. This is also a very reasonable position from which to oppose patents, because if you lost your patents you would only lose a now unnecessary defense.

      "Using" patents as in going on the offensive and suing those who infringe your patents (a side issue to the fact that they threaten your business model with competition) is entirely another. It is this abuse of the patent system to shut out competition that is wrong, and hypocritical if you complain when it is subsequently done to you.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    12. Re:Wait a minute... by freeweed · · Score: 1

      Imagine Microsoft coming out, guns blazing, against buggy software, vendor lock-in, software monopolies, immoral and anti-competitive tactics and sundry other things for which they've been (rightfully or not) crucified in the past. Would you say "bah, it's Microsoft, fuhgedaboudit"?

      Yes.

      You must be new here :)

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  6. Is Research In Motion Ltd. Done? by eldavojohn · · Score: 1

    I understand that the six hundred million dollar settlement is to be paid out over a period of time but isn't that quite a bit for a company that reports $213,387,000 net income in 2005 and only $51,829,000 net income in 2004?

    I'm know their sales have been through the roof but recently the company I work for restricted anyone from using a blackberry--in fact I don't even think the company owns anymore for that matter. Whether this be security concerns or just operating cost, I'm not sure.

    What I am curious to know, is whether or not you think Research In Motion Ltd. is done.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Is Research In Motion Ltd. Done? by aimless · · Score: 1

      Not at all.

      RIM took a $450M reserve prior to settlement. The Balance is a comparatively small amount. Initially, I believed that they were not responsible for Royalties going forward (in which case RIM should STFU and pat themselves on the back for getting away with robbery) but I believe that there are some royalty stipulations in the settlement.

      With the success of the Blackberry, and RIM's strategy for bringing it to market, RIM is certainly not done as a company.

      -C

    2. Re:Is Research In Motion Ltd. Done? by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      From what I remember, RIM had ~$450M in a war chest for a settlement with NTP, and the difference of $200M was easily covered by recent sales.

    3. Re:Is Research In Motion Ltd. Done? by rockhome · · Score: 1

      RIM Actually had 700+ million ion cash at the end of Q3 2005, so they have been set for this for a while. I'd heard that they were positioning themselves to have to pay up to 1 Billion, so it will hurt, but it isn't going to destroy the company.

      On the contrary, RIM ought to see stronger sales going forward now that there is a settlement.

    4. Re:Is Research In Motion Ltd. Done? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NTP should be the ones to shut up. They got $600 for doing NOTHING. RIM put all the hard work into development and marketing their product and NTP came along and siphoned off their profits. Leeches.

  7. Ridiculous patent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "NTP's eight original patents, for example, contained an average of 240 claims each, including one with 665 claims, Mr. Balsillie said."

    Coming from someone with granted patents, patents pending, and patent applications on the works, I can tell you that 665 claims is totally ridiculous in a patent.

    I propose NTP's lawyers be sent -airless- to outer space, that company's executives be hanged, and its servers donated to a Barbie website. Hot pink.

    1. Re:Ridiculous patent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG! Barbie and Ponies!!!!1111

  8. The U.S. Patent System is Broken!! by fernandoh26 · · Score: 1

    The US Patent System is seriously broken, the current nonstop lawsuits are a sign of this.

    Among others I have seen recently:

    1) Patent on streaming media (WTF? How did this even go through?)
    2) Patent on "Buy-It-Now"
    3) Netflix vs Blockbuster's online DVD queuing patent

    I could provide sources for all these, but I'm lazy. The point is, something has to be done to stop these stupid lawsuits. Businesses are becoming dependent on lawsuits to help them stay afloat, rather than just being better than their competitors.

    --
    Chums up, let's do this!
  9. Share the blame... by PhysicsPhil · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If he wants to blame someone for a massive court settlement, perhaps he should try looking in the mirror. RIM had the chance to settle this for a pittance early on, but decided to role the dice in court and lost. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/29/17 26238

    The patent system certainly needs some fixing, but outlawing stupid CEOs at the same time would also be a big help. I'm not going to get my hopes up though.

    1. Re:Share the blame... by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 1

      No. RIM deserved to win. The patents were being thrown out. But they still had to pay NTP for patents that were invalid.

      Between NTP and SCO, I've lost almost all faith in the patent/copyright IP system. I mean, in both cases, the two companies didn't have much to go with, and they're costing legitimate innovators (RIM and IBM) serious time and money, and spreading a lot of FUD. Then there's the really stupid patents, like "One Click Shopping" or "Buy it Now" or doubleclicking.

    2. Re:Share the blame... by fragamus · · Score: 1

      This is the dark little secret of the corporations. This chairman is whining about something he could have dealt with easily. Now he wants to change the system. The patent holder can't get money for the patent unless the licensee agrees. The heavy handed approach that some companies use with respect to licensing forces patent holders to choose between going home empty handed or suing. I think Lao Tzu's "The Art of War" should be required reading for all executives. The right move would have been to offer an amount of money that was minimally acceptable to the patent holder, and move on.

    3. Re:Share the blame... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The right move would have been to offer an amount of money that was minimally acceptable to the patent holder, and move on.

      So if I stand in your front door and keep you from entering your house, the "right move" would be to pay me to let you in every day, instead of challenging my right to keep you from entering your house?

      NTP's patents in this case appear to be invalid, assuming the USPTO doesn't change their mind again. (Wouldn't that be an awesome rush of power? To be holding the balance of hundreds of millions of dollars, then changing your mind on a whim?) As it stands, they don't even have the right to ask for the pittance in the first place.

    4. Re:Share the blame... by TommyBlack · · Score: 1
      Lao Tzu's "The Art of War"
      That's one of the funniest things I've read in a long time. I'm afraid I missed that particular work by the founder of Taoism. I don't suppose you have a copy of Siddhartha Gautama's "Wealth of Nations"?
      --
      Why do my serious comments get modded "funny"?
    5. Re:Share the blame... by fragamus · · Score: 1

      At the outset, years ago, these were issued patents with a presumption of validity. This presented a substantial potential risk to RIM. Back then, the company executives had a decision to make, and they blew it. Of course they say that it was the Federal Court Judge who blew it. That is what the US Court of Appeals is for. When people disagree on something like this, it is the courts that decide "who's right". In the end, we may not like a decision, but "who's right" is whoever wins in the end. That's how our society works out things like this. The difference between the "theif at the door" of your analogy and the patent holder is that the patent holder is backed by Federal Law and the articles of the Constitution.

    6. Re:Share the blame... by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      Lao Tzu's "The Art of War"

      ITYM Sun Microtzu's "The Art of W4R3Z".

    7. Re:Share the blame... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So would you settle if you believed you were innocent?

  10. RIM should have shut down gov users by emil · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It would have been interesting if RIM had called NTP's bluff and provoked an injunction.

    While the damage to their business would have been grave, it would have been interesting to see them FIRST shut down all government users en masse.

    If they could have delayed the shutdown of commercial systems by a few days or weeks, they might have gotten congress to pass special legislation putting a stop to it.

    I wonder what shutdown options were discussed in the board room.

    1. Re:RIM should have shut down gov users by debest · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If I remember correctly, the government had asked for (and received from the judge) an exemption from the shutdown. In other words, RIM would have been forced to shut down everyone but the government's Crackberry addicts.

      --
      Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
    2. Re:RIM should have shut down gov users by onecheapgeek · · Score: 1

      No court can REQUIRE a foreign company to remain open for business. The injunction may have exempted RIM from shutting down government customers, but it couldn't require the service to remain in operation.

    3. Re:RIM should have shut down gov users by Generic+Guy · · Score: 1
      If they could have delayed the shutdown of commercial systems by a few days or weeks, they might have gotten congress to pass special legislation putting a stop to it.

      Except that congress cannot (or at least is supposed to not be able to) pass laws which benefit a specific party.

      But I agree, the best solution would've been to shut down all the Gub'ment balckberries and maybe, just maybe we'd get some progressive movement toward patent reform.

      --
      { - Generic Guy - }
    4. Re:RIM should have shut down gov users by aqfire · · Score: 1

      According to my rep, RIM was ready to roll out a firmware upgrade to all its customers at a moment's notice to work around the patent issue. I was ready to see this happen, and quite surprised that they settled, becuase if they really did have this update, they could have saved themselves a lot of money by just applying the patch anyway and getting around the patent infringement suit. This leads me to believe that either the patch was just a tactic to keep their customers, or something else is going on that I don't understand. Perhaps they'd still have to pay NTP even if they rolled out this patch to prevent an injunction?

    5. Re:RIM should have shut down gov users by gvibes · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that the U.S. government can't be enjoined from infringing patents. With the government, it's more of a mandatory licensing thing than a exclusionary grant.

    6. Re:RIM should have shut down gov users by lightknight · · Score: 1

      "This leads me to believe that either the patch was just a tactic to keep their customers, or something else is going on that I don't understand. Perhaps they'd still have to pay NTP even if they rolled out this patch to prevent an injunction?"

      Yes, the patch was a PR play to keep users from defecting to the alternatives. RIM was going to have to pay one way or the other (damages + license if they settled (keeping their system the same) or just damages if they continued to fight it (refused to settle). Either way, they were going to pay.

      The fact of this case is as follows:

      Once upon a time NTP was a real company, with real R&D. They came up with a system similar to what RIM employs today for its blackberries. NTP, like all good companies of the time, filed for patents on this system, and they were duly granted. NTP, in good faith, attempted to market the system, but the time was not right. As time passed, NTP fell on bad times, and underwent a transformation: they fired the employees, stopped marketing their products, and hired lawyers. What is left today is a shell of the former company, with a singular purpose of using the IP they created a long time ago to shakedown other companies. RIM, who was already widely known for using IP in an offensive manner, became a victim of their own tactics.

      NTP has full, valid patents (despite their re-examination, which is tinged with politics (government employees are biased in that many of them use blackberries)), and RIM is not an innocent. RIM had a chance to settle, but they decided to play double or nothing, and they lost. They're what we call a sore loser.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
  11. Is anyone really surprised... by concurrent.ca · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...a Canadian company is on the receiving end of US courts?

    1. Re:Is anyone really surprised... by Gorshkov · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...a Canadian company is on the receiving end of US courts?

      Why wouldn't they be? They're operating in the US, and as such those operations are subject to US law (and the silly US Patent system)

      (A Proud Canadian ..... well, since we got rid of the Liberals, anyway :-))

    2. Re:Is anyone really surprised... by MC68000 · · Score: 1

      No, the patent system is broken for everyone, except of course the trolls. Look at MercExchange vs. Ebay, for example.

      --
      E = m c^3 Don't drink and derive E = m c^3
  12. There was a simpler way. by demigod · · Score: 4, Funny
    ...$612.5M(US) settlement RIM was forced to sign with NTP...

    For a fraction of that they could have hired hitmen for all the NTP management and thier legal counsle.

    --
    "The last thing I want to do is deal with a bunch of people who want something."
    Major Major
    1. Re:There was a simpler way. by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 1

      yes, but then you need to hire hitmen to do the original hitmen (in case they think of talking), and then legal counsel for the second-degree hitmen, and it's just a big mess.

    2. Re:There was a simpler way. by Surt · · Score: 1

      Hiring a hit on one guy is easy, but hiring a hit on ~30 guys, who don't all ever meet in one place, is a substantial challenge. Remember, you have to do it all pretty simultaneously, or the victims get wise and start to hire on protection, and then you have escalation and retaliation to worry about.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    3. Re:There was a simpler way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or for that same fraction you could contribute to the Republican National Commitee and invite them on an all expenses paid hunting vacation with VP Cheney as their guide.

    4. Re:There was a simpler way. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      On a related note, I wonder how many congress critters you can get for $612.5...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:There was a simpler way. by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1, Funny
      Hiring a hit on one guy is easy, but hiring a hit on ~30 guys, who don't all ever meet in one place, is a substantial challenge.

      That's why you've got to give the first hit as much dramatic impact as possible. It's one thing to know that someone's out to get you, but a completely different thing to know that the guy in the next cubicle got drawn, quartered, decapitated, a cow's head sewn on in place, stuffed with pinto beans, then dropped from 50,000 feet onto the parking lot at the World Scout Jamboree.

      The other 29 would probably voluntarily move on to more productive employment at that point.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    6. Re:There was a simpler way. by BobSutan · · Score: 1

      Actually, the simplest and most effective way to change a law (or federal system) is campaign contributions and good lobbying. Google, Microsoft, et al just found this out the hard way with the squashing of the network neutrality bill.

      --
      "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
    7. Re:There was a simpler way. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      NTP is a corporation, so you can't really kill them. Even in bankrupcy or disolution the assets live on. What you just have to tag the majority stochholder and make the widow an offer she can't refuse; once you've got control of the board, you just cancel the litigation. I'm not saying anybody should do this, I'm just sayin it happens.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    8. Re:There was a simpler way. by demigod · · Score: 1

      Nah, it's OK if they continue to own the patent. It just need to be made clear prosecution is unhealthy.

      --
      "The last thing I want to do is deal with a bunch of people who want something."
      Major Major
    9. Re:There was a simpler way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...$612.5M(US) settlement RIM was forced to sign with NTP...

      For a fraction of that they could have hired hitmen for all the NTP management and thier legal counsle.

      Who needs a "In Soviet Russia"-joke, when it pretty much writes itself.
  13. It's all in the money interests by erroneus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It was only a matter of time before the gold-rush of patents turned into a pain in the ass. It's still there, the culture of routinely filing for patents for complete nonsense, I mean. The changes that are needed are pretty well thought-out by thousands of people and organizations out there. Now's the time to get their ideas moving. And clearly since both the senate and congress are addicted to crackberries too, I don't suspect this will be a hard issue to get onto the floor.

    Kill off software patents and kill off business process patents and that'd likely take care of the bulk of the problem right there. And since it seems that most of these frivolous patents are simply defensive in nature, I'm pretty certain the many level-headed execs out there would not mind relinquishing their defensive weapons so long as it's a unilateral disarmament.

    1. Re:It's all in the money interests by Lewisham · · Score: 1

      I rather think that patent law should come under a "use it or lose it" kind of deal. Defensive patents are a terrible thing: deep pockets combined my ability to come up with any sort of independant thought whatsoever should not equal a patent being awarded. Patent Holding companies are just a ludicrous exploitation of the system: "Oooooo, I'm gonna sue you!" And like you said, patents should be awarded for genuine innovation, not abstract ideas. I'm in two minds on software patents, I think denying our knowledge economy the ability to patent their work is a bad thing, but I think software patents currently allow a way too big a net to be cast.

      Getting back to the point: I'd like to see some sort of grace period, say two years, where the patent is assigned to you. You then have to prove that you utilised that patent before the time was up in pursuit of a legitimate business interest. How you quantify this (rather than just making a single token product and going "ta-da") is not something I would know how to do (judge's leeway?), but it would help I think.

      What do you reckon?

    2. Re:It's all in the money interests by symbolic · · Score: 1

      I think denying our knowledge economy the ability to patent their work is a bad thing, but I think software patents currently allow a way too big a net to be cast.

      I don't. Software is protected under copyright, and what patents do is offer companies an excuse to actually limit their innovation and drive for better products. Once they have product and a market, without competition, there is little reason to improve it. Competition drives innovation. In the end, consumers are the ones who pay- they are deprived of choices they might otherwise have from competing entities.

  14. Why being a grammar nazi is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There really is a deference in meaning between ensure and assure. Although many people use assure when they mean ensure it does not mean that the difference is gone, only that they are unaware of it. Apologists such as you will point to dictionaries. So what? Dictionaries have abdicated their former prescriptionist role and now contain common usage. Conflating ensure and assure detracts from the precision of the language. If you use a knife long enough it gets dull and needs to be sharpened. Grammar Nazis are the whetstone of language.

    1. Re:Why being a grammar nazi is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There really is a deference in meaning ...


      So ... does "assure" defer to "ensure" or the other way around?
    2. Re:Why being a grammar nazi is a good thing by God'sDuck · · Score: 1

      that's true! if it weren't for the heroic work of grammaticians, we never would have suppressed vulgar Latin and its barbaric northern offshoot "dialects"!

    3. Re:Why being a grammar nazi is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a different huh? That's funny, since the Oxford English dictionary has examples of "assure" being used in the context in question, some dating back to the 1400's.

      So what you mean is you don't want the word to be used in the sense that is common now. Instead you want it used how it commonly was used a while ago, but not too long of a while ago. In other words, you picked some arbitrary point in time at which you feel the english language should have been frozen from further change.

    4. Re:Why being a grammar nazi is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. The point was that if you have two different words and two different meanings it makes sense to keep them separated, no matter how long the two have been confused by the subliteratti.

      Its always a pleasure to engage in debate with a scholar.

    5. Re:Why being a grammar nazi is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is that, according to pretty much every dictionary, they two words share a common meaning. I think I would probably consider the major dictionaries to be a more scholarly source than you on the meaning of words.

    6. Re:Why being a grammar nazi is a good thing by Krach42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The point is that, according to pretty much every dictionary, they two words share a common meaning. I think I would probably consider the major dictionaries to be a more scholarly source than you on the meaning of words.

      The point is, that according to my ideolect, the sentence sounds fucked up.

      You quote the dictionary as proper usage, the other guys quotes tradition as proper usage, and I rely upon my instinct and my ideolect. As a native speaker of English, I am afforded the right to do that.

      It's all in who you trust. If you want to trust the arbitrary authority of your dictionary or "common usage", which both say that a proper pronunciation for "nuclear" is "nookyoolur", then go ahead, but perscriptionists are still going to tell you it's wrong.

      If he wants to trust the arbitrary authority of tradition, and the way things used to be--or should be--then he'll mandate that "nookyoolur" is an abomination against God, and that anyone who says "nuclear" that way should be shot. But anyone who cares about common usage, and dictionaries is going to tell him that he's being over bearing.

      If I want to trust my trained ear that tells me how to speak English, then I'll say that "nookyoolur" is going to be pronounced in a hundred different ways, and no one person is correct. I'd also say that using "assure" like the guy in the article is wrong.

      It all depends on who you want to trust, you all go ahead and enjoy all the authority that you just abdicate your own sense of English to, and I'll trust myself, because I'm the only person who isn't going to lie to me.

      Also, please note, I'm not complaining about pronunciation, I'm not complaining about spelling, I'm not complaining about anything related to actual Grammar. I'm complaining about an unusual word choice, that it appears is valid for only some subset of the English speaking world. (Note: since I am an English speaker, and I object to this usage, it must therefore be a subset, even if I'm the only person objecting, which I'm not.)

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    7. Re:Why being a grammar nazi is a good thing by SilverJets · · Score: 1

      The point is, that according to my ideolect, the sentence sounds fucked up.

      Yes, according to you the sentence sounds fucked up. However, that does not necessarily mean that you are correct in your assumption that the word assure was used improperly.

      It's all in who you trust. If you want to trust the arbitrary authority of your dictionary or "common usage", which both say that a proper pronunciation for "nuclear" is "nookyoolur", then go ahead, but perscriptionists are still going to tell you it's wrong.


      If your dictionary says that nuclear is pronounced "nookyoolur" then perhaps it is time you invested in a real dictionary. The Oxford English Dictionary does not list "nookyoolur" as either the British nor the American pronunciation of nuclear. Also a real dictionary would be able to let you know that there is no such word as "ideolect", which you use throughout your post. Perhaps you were thinking of "idiolect".

      Personally I would trust the authority of a dictionary over the rantings of an individual.

    8. Re:Why being a grammar nazi is a good thing by Krach42 · · Score: 1

      Yes, according to you the sentence sounds fucked up. However, that does not necessarily mean that you are correct in your assumption that the word assure was used improperly.

      I'm willing to concede archaic usages, and non-American uses that sound unusual to me as being outside of the scope of the authority of my idiolect. But using word choices that are outside of common usage is inappropriate for the media, and reporting to the media/people.

      If you want a litterati president that's going to get up in front of the media and talk like a "proper" educated man, turning phrases, and using archacisms, then that's fine for you, but meanwhile, me and numerous other people are going to be totally fucking lost listening to him.

      If you're using uncommon usage beware that people are going to be upset at you for it.

      If your dictionary says that nuclear is pronounced "nookyoolur" then perhaps it is time you invested in a real dictionary. The Oxford English Dictionary does not list "nookyoolur" as either the British nor the American pronunciation of nuclear.

      Merriam-Webster, and other respectable dictionaries *do* list this pronunciation, because it *is* in common usage. Just because *you* don't like it, doesn't mean it's not being said that way.

      I stand by my complaint at his usage of "assure", if you want to disagree, then that's fine, your idiolect is outside of the scope of influence of my idiolect.

      Also a real dictionary would be able to let you know that there is no such word as "ideolect", which you use throughout your post. Perhaps you were thinking of "idiolect".

      Pfff... English dimutes its vowels into schwas all over the place, and makes it difficult for people to remember which vowel should be written where. Combine that with learning a language that has clear and distinct vowel usage, and you have a recipe for bad spelling, because I can't remember which "vowel" goes where, because they've all been diminished beyond recognition. So, I guess. Sometimes I'm wrong, sometimes I'm right. Sometimes it's just a freaking typo.

      Personally I would trust the authority of a dictionary over the rantings of an individual.

      As is your perfectly legitimate right. But that very same attitude is why we have the word "adventure", which is a total crock. Look up it's history. We got the word through French as "aventure", and we also got the word "avance" from French. Then people wanted to make things more like the original Latin, and they looked at "avance" and said, "Oops, this should be advance." Then someone else noticed "aventure", and said, "Hey, this should be adventure, too." and what ever authority it was that setup that rule agreed with them.

      The problem is that while "avance" came from Latin by the elition of the 'd' in "advance", the word "aventure" came from Latin through a leniation of the 'b' in "abenture".

      So this stupid hyper-correcting authority "broke" English, but because it's tradition now, and no one knows, and 99.999% of the population speaking English natively is going to tell you that "adventure" is correct and "abenture" is wrong, that's the way it is. So, I pity you that you think the individual's opinions don't matter. I bet you think the same thing about your vote that you cast for your elected officials.

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    9. Re:Why being a grammar nazi is a good thing by SilverJets · · Score: 1

      I'm willing to concede archaic usages, and non-American uses that sound unusual to me as being outside of the scope of the authority of my idiolect. But using word choices that are outside of common usage is inappropriate for the media, and reporting to the media/people.

      Perhaps you should look at the article again. It is from The Globe and Mail, a Canadian newspaper. Once again it is back to your opinion about improper usage of the word. You do realize that a) English is not an "American" invention and b) Canadian English is more closely related to British English than it is American English. Further, RIM is a Canadian company and while I cannot find any profile information for James Balsillie on RIM's homepage I am taking a "leap of faith" and assuming that he is Canadian. Hence, we are once again returned to the fact that it is strictly your opinion, and perhaps a little bit of ignorance on your part, that the word was used incorrectly.

      Merriam-Webster, and other respectable dictionaries *do* list this pronunciation, because it *is* in common usage. Just because *you* don't like it, doesn't mean it's not being said that way.

      That is an interesting argument coming from someone who is complaining about the improper usage of the word assure in a news article. I find your last sentence in the above quote rather humorous given the current topic of discussion.

      So this stupid hyper-correcting authority "broke" English, but because it's tradition now, and no one knows, and 99.999% of the population speaking English natively is going to tell you that "adventure" is correct and "abenture" is wrong, that's the way it is.

      Actually I would consider the people who work for Oxford English Dictionary, and to some degree the folks at Merriam-Webster, to be the guardians of the English language.

      In closing I'd just like to say,

      1) The Globe and Mail -- Canadian Newspaper

      2) RIM -- Canadian Company (leading me to believe James Balsillie is Canadian)

      3) Canadian English does not equal American English

      4) The English language was invented by the occupants of what is now England

      5) Relax it's Friday!! :-)

    10. Re:Why being a grammar nazi is a good thing by Krach42 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should look at the article again. It is from The Globe and Mail, a Canadian newspaper. Once again it is back to your opinion about improper usage of the word. You do realize that a) English is not an "American" invention and b) Canadian English is more closely related to British English than it is American English. Further, RIM is a Canadian company and while I cannot find any profile information for James Balsillie on RIM's homepage I am taking a "leap of faith" and assuming that he is Canadian. Hence, we are once again returned to the fact that it is strictly your opinion, and perhaps a little bit of ignorance on your part, that the word was used incorrectly.

      Well if someone just SAID that it was all Canadian English from the start, and not just get all pissed at me for complaining about alternate usage, then I'd have apologized upfront.

      Shit, people need to learn how to tell people that they're wrong. Stop telling me wrong just because a dictionary tells me I'm wrong, I don't give a crap about some authority. Tell me I'm wrong, because I have my premises were wrong in the first place :P

      That is an interesting argument coming from someone who is complaining about the improper usage of the word assure in a news article. I find your last sentence in the above quote rather humorous given the current topic of discussion.

      You gotta learn what I'm doing when I'm complaining. I'm not saying I'm right, and you're wrong, I'm saying, I wouldn't do something like this, and it bothers me. Yes, this usage of "assure" bothers me. And damn well right, I know saying "nookyoolur" bothers other people.

      I heckle them for it, and I expect to be heckled by anyone who says that "assure" is being used properly here. But in my personal position, this usage of "assure" is not common usage in America. And not knowing the country of origin here, I assumed that they were American, and got my premises wrong. You corrected that with the first paragraph I quoted in this comment. Thanks for the correction, it would have been a hell of a lot more useful than a stupid "you're wrong fucktard" like everyone seems to ever give around here.

      Actually I would consider the people who work for Oxford English Dictionary, and to some degree the folks at Merriam-Webster, to be the guardians of the English language.

      Yeah, guardians of the English language. Just like Bush is the guardian of American values. Values and language change. If "assure" came into common usage here in the US, I'd not complain about this usage. In fact, in 5 years, I may come back here, and go "what the hell was I complaining about?" But this is my idiolect now, and it sounds wrong to me.

      1) The Globe and Mail -- Canadian Newspaper
      Got that. A good point of correction that is the first constructive comment I've seen on this whole argument, and as such, is the first real piece of information that means jack to me.

      2) RIM -- Canadian Company (leading me to believe James Balsillie is Canadian)
      Got that. A good point of correction that is the second constructive comment I've seen on this whole argument.

      3) Canadian English does not equal American English
      Knew that. I didn't know in the first place that this was Canadian English we were discussing. I was discussing within the US-centric dialog that is common on Slashdot.

      4) The English language was invented by the occupants of what is now England
      Just a little point of interest here. The English spoken in America is closer to now-archaic English (Victorian English) than the English actually spoken there now. We ennunciate more, and speak clearer. That's nothing against British English. It's simply evolved.

      I'd just rather people say "American" and "English" or in some other way always indicate "US English" vs "Commonwealth English", in contexts of perscriptivism, since both have highly heated sides over stupid silly issues such like this.

      5) Re

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    11. Re:Why being a grammar nazi is a good thing by SilverJets · · Score: 1


      Just a little point of interest here. The English spoken in America is closer to now-archaic English (Victorian English) than the English actually spoken there now. We ennunciate more, and speak clearer. That's nothing against British English. It's simply evolved.


      Certainly some Americans do, but I cringe everytime I hear "Amblance" instead of "Ambulance" and "axe" instead of "ask".

      Excellent debate Krach42! :-)

    12. Re:Why being a grammar nazi is a good thing by Krach42 · · Score: 1

      Certainly some Americans do, but I cringe everytime I hear "Amblance" instead of "Ambulance" and "axe" instead of "ask".

      *shudders, and cries* please don't hurt my ears like that!

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
  15. Where's the Canadian Gov't? by SubtleNuance · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Where has the Neo Liberal Canadian Government been in all this?

    Canada's breakout convergence darling, our future NOKIA gets beaten with some BULLCRAP legal play by a collection of yankee lawyers -- forcing the company to hold still for years (customers doubt their viability, causing them to divert attention from conquering the world).

    Where was our government in all this? Why was a Canadian company being brow beaten by a housefull of lawyers? One reason: If RIM was AMERICAN, some in-house politico would have stopped it Pretty Darn Quick.

    $650 million was EXTORTED from RIM. Ive been pissed about this (i dont work for RIM or hold shares), but my vote is we burn NAFTA. It really blows getting burnt by your money grubbing patent laws (America to world: "we own IDEAS(!)). Stuff it.

    1. Re:Where's the Canadian Gov't? by pubjames · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I was about to post the same thing.

      This is just about a Canadian company that got too successful in a key technology area in the USA, so the USA system f*cked it.

    2. Re:Where's the Canadian Gov't? by Surt · · Score: 1

      Hey, don't get all whiney just because you can't come up with your own ideas, eh?

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    3. Re:Where's the Canadian Gov't? by Gorshkov · · Score: 4, Insightful

      .... but my vote is we burn NAFTA. It really blows getting burnt by your money grubbing patent laws (America to world: "we own IDEAS(!)). Stuff it.

      ummmmmm .... I have some bad news for you.

      NAFTA covers international trade, not intellectual property rights. When RIM conducts business in the United States, it's subject to US law. When IBM conducts business in Canada, it's subject to Canadian law.

      Running a business in a foreign country is not the same as selling wheat, softwood lumber, or beef from Canada into the United States.

    4. Re:Where's the Canadian Gov't? by MyNameIsEarl · · Score: 1

      Face it Canada was owed some kind of payback for Celine Dion. In fact maybe the USA should go after ATI next, 600MM for enduring Celine Dion just doesn't seem like enough. :)

    5. Re:Where's the Canadian Gov't? by RestartLater · · Score: 1

      At least they didn't make RIM close down shop and burn all the documentation or throw it in the lake or something...

    6. Re:Where's the Canadian Gov't? by spanielrage · · Score: 3, Funny
      Where has the Neo Liberal Canadian Government been in all this?
      Getting their asses voted out of office.

      Too late for RIM, unfortuneately...

    7. Re:Where's the Canadian Gov't? by darkmeridian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How much money does RIM make from the United States? If RIM doesn't want to subject itself to United States law, it can leave our markets. If RIM wants to make American dollars, it has to follow American law. Certainly, RIM didn't shy away from the U.S. legal system when it sued others for infringing on its patent on miniature keyboards on portable devices. Besides, it's not as though RIM didn't lobby U.S. Congressman into getting the PTO to reject all the NTP patents in unheard-of pace.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    8. Re:Where's the Canadian Gov't? by crabpeople · · Score: 1

      I agree 100%. The americans are taking our money and harper, if he had any balls, would slap them down. Money that could be put into the canadian economy. Everyone who voted for harper that i knew thought that he would fight the americans. They almost had me convinced. A few more episodes like this and we will see how spineless the conservatives really are. Oh well. We'll have the last laugh when they are paying us $200/bbl for oil (or water depending on the mystical futar!).

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    9. Re:Where's the Canadian Gov't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Past Canadian business interests in the US:

      http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2001/06/ 11/railmergers_010611.html
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4374502.stm

      Go NAFTA! Go belief in capitalism, free markets, etc.
      Go right out the window, if dealing with... you guessed it...

    10. Re:Where's the Canadian Gov't? by SubtleNuance · · Score: 1

      uuummmm, except that the USA is extending IP law into places and visions its never seen before.

      I do appreciate your point, you are correct. but, my point is that the USA is playing "dirty pool" with its IP law. Any product / business that arrives in the USA is going to be subject to this domestic IP squating.

      The market isnt "Free" for us to business if you allow IP squaters to extort us. This is legal harrasment, covered and aided by a corrupted IP regime.

      Given the present state of your markets, no foreign company can work there without fearing that someone will put up a hand claiming to own some element of your product. Get your IP house in order.

  16. better solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    instead of fixing the patent system, they should instead pass a law that does the following:

    1) any patent lawsuit will be presented to slashdot.

    2) slashdot will vote and decide if the company bringing suit is a "patent troll" (if at least one member with some good kharma says they are a troll, that's good enough)

    3) if the company is a patent troll, then all lawyers and executives for that company will be drafted into the army and sent to the front lines where they will be forced to go on patrols unarmed and waving american flags.

    1. Re:better solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      then all lawyers and executives for that company will be drafted into the army and sent to the front lines where they will be forced to go on patrols unarmed and waving american flags
      As a signatory of the Geneva conventions, I believe this action on the US' part would be a direct violation as cruel and unusual punishment. Even I wouldn't subject the US' enemies to this.
    2. Re:better solution by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      slashdot will vote and decide if the company bringing suit is a "patent troll"

      Oh boy, I can imagine this.

      "Is the NTP patent a troll?"

      1) Yes
      2) No
      3) CmdrTaco

      Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.

  17. Share the blame...3-4-1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The patent system certainly needs some fixing, but outlawing stupid CEOs at the same time would also be a big help. I'm not going to get my hopes up though."

    True however this story provides:

    Slashdot entertainment. The clown quit.

    A platform for the "I hate IP, but I LOVE your ideas!" people to rally around.

    Boosts slashdot's karma with the world to +5: they're all right!

    Truely a three for one that doesn't come around often.

  18. Protect Losers or New Way to Win! by buckhead_buddy · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This sounds like a good thing from the perspective of those who have seen abusive lawsuits over questionable patent claims. I can't help but think that from a lawmaker or business perspective it's RIM's opinion that will be viewed as a "sore loser" rather than "moral reformer".

    It's more likely this call for attention from RIM will encourage more curiousity of how to exploit these legislative loopholes rather than start the reformation of a broken system. It's a new way to milk your competitor. The only people hit by this will be the slow, poor, or legally-inept losers. And those are irrelevant voices in making legislation today anyway it seems.

    I really hope I'm wrong though. Reformation has to start somewhere.

  19. if at first you don't succeed... by helmutvs · · Score: 0

    Try to change the law! I'm sure RIM employees were walking the halls of their headquarters for those five years saying "It's NOT FAIR" and stomping wildly. In fact, it is also rumoured that their chairman flung a spoonful of pudding through his limo's sunroof at the U.S. Capitol Building after the Patent Office "withheld" his sippy cup.

    --
    There are no uninteresting things. There are only uninterested people.
  20. Laws won't change anything by dada21 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Laws are written with the pretext that it will better serve the citizens, but with the posttext that it servers the politicians in giving them power over those they serve. No change to the law will make a difference -- politicians don't write laws the way we want them written, and many of them don't even read the bills that they vote into law. Don't be surprised when the "Fix the Patent System Act of 2007" is passed, and all it does is incorporate 500 pork barrel items not pertaining to patents, as well as some changes that only give Congress more power over something it was never meant to destroy. Yes, Congress has the right to make patent laws, but they were supposed to exist for a short period of time to protect individual inventors, not megacorporations who create nothing and stifle innovation.

    If we want to change the system, we need to get these laws in front of the Supreme Court, over and over and over. Don't let them tell you no, just keep refiling under new pretenses. Stop voting for the monsters who make the laws, and consider all the bad laws on the books.

    What we need is a President who does nothing but veto, over and over and over. That won't happen. What we need is Senators to be elected by the state governments like it was before the 17th Amendment was passed -- Senators who think about the power of the state over the power over of the federal government. That won't happen. What we need is to reduce the power of the two parties by throwing out all campaign finance laws ("incumbent protection acts") and also throwing out the control of the debates. That won't happen.

    It isn't just the patent laws that are broken, it is the system. Instead of a Republic of Independent States, we have a democracy of statism and authoritarianism. Don't expect it to get fixed, not as long as you continue supporting the monsters in office -- from both parties.

    1. Re:Laws won't change anything by mickwd · · Score: 1

      First you say "Laws won't change anything", then you say "If we want to change the system, we need to get these laws in front of the Supreme Court".

      Why would you want to do this ? It can only be because "these laws" have changed something.

      You say "we need to get these laws in front of the Supreme Court, over and over and over", then you say "What we need is a President who does nothing but veto, over and over and over". Both of these suggestions seem to completely ignore any concept of listening to other points of view, just blindly going on an on, trying to force your own point of view on others until you get your own way.

      Which seems to be just the problem with the current US situation over intellectual property in the first place - people with a different point of view to your own, and the ability to enforce it, doing just that in their own self-interests.

      Not that I don't agree with you that the current US IP situation is badly in need of reform, and also, sadly, looking unlikely to get it in any meaningful way.

    2. Re:Laws won't change anything by Descalzo · · Score: 1
      I think that vetos are how Clinton came off looking like he was financially responsible. I am no fan of Clinton, but in those days, he was touted as being "The Man who Balanced the Budget." And back then, the Republican Party was touted as being "fiscally conservative."

      Not so today. The Republicans have outspent my wildest imaginings (and that doesn't include the war). I wondered why this is, then I realized that back then, the Republicans controlled Congress, and the Democrats controlled the White House. The Republicans wouldn't pass any of Clinton's bills, and Clinton would veto the snot out of anything they did pass. So there we have it: the formula for government thrift is to pit people against each other so they are so busy hating each other that they can't spend our money.

      --
      I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
    3. Re:Laws won't change anything by dada21 · · Score: 1

      It is an interesting premise, but Clinton definitely did NOT balance the budget, and he was also the beginning of the money inflation disaster that created so much cheap easy money and credit that created both the stock bubble and the housing bubble. Both of these bubbles created bad investments that in the long run will increase the wealth of other countries while slowly bankrupting the lower and middle classes through the death of savings and true investments.

      I'm no fan of the idea of two parties pretending to battle while government continues to grow. In the long run, all that happens is more eyewash that people start believing in.

  21. Some history is useful by augustz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a point of references, some history is useful.

    RIM made lots and lots of noise about their own IP, and have gone after lots of people before finding themselves on the other side of the ball.

    "RIM is alleging that Good is infringing on its patents, according to the suit. The first is "for a method and apparatus to remotely control gateway functions in a wireless data communications network." The second "relates to a method and system for loading an application program on a device." The third "relates to a method and system for transmitting data files between computers in a wireless data communications environment."

    or this one

    "Ontario, Canada-based RIM charges in a suit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Delaware that Glenayre Technologies violates a patent granted last month to RIM protecting the way the BlackBerry redirects e-mail from a computer or server to a handheld using a single e-mail address." - http://news.com.com/RIM+wins+patent%2C+sues+rival/ 2100-1040_3-257801.html?tag=st.ref.goo

    Anyways, my point is that RIM really loved patents when they could shut out their competition with them, but disliked them when someone heard them making lots of noise about their IP and said, wait a minute, we have patents in the same area. Despite extrodinarily preferential treatment by the USPTO (ie, no one else will get patents they context reviewed that fast ever), they still were unable to prevail.

    Something def needs to be fixed on the patent side, but there is something interesting also about RIM getting some of its own medicine. I wonder if someone has a more complete history on their annoucements on monetizing their IP portfolio.

    1. Re:Some history is useful by aurumaeus · · Score: 1

      There's nothing wrong with eagerly patenting techniques and defending them with litigation. There's no inherent hypocrasy in suing and then being upset with being sued. If you can assert that all of RIM's patents are invalid (and merely having vague names is not enough to argue that), then you can make the argument that they don't have a leg to stand on. Otherwise, the position that manipulating the patent system to extort money from companies doing actual innovation should be illegal is an admirable one.

      And I'd support that, no matter who argues for it. Because they're right.

  22. Good. by rAiNsT0rm · · Score: 1

    Patent law is so far out of hand it is just a farse at this point. I'm personally glad that people (and people with money and a voice behind it) are finally also getting fed up with it.

    That is one of the main things the "Pirate Party" has right, and it is time we start getting this fixed before it is unrepairable.

    --
    http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
  23. US patents outside the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    RIM is a Canadian company, and if they want to do business in the USA, they have to accept the American patent system. Just as (unfortunately) do Americans.

    What really irritates me is that this system is being pushed on other countries by (cough..) 'elected and accountable' American politicians. At this point, the public interest of Americans is only being represented by proxy from those few regions that resist.

  24. RIM, the patented jihadist got burnt by saha · · Score: 3, Interesting
    You're right. Prior to the NTP fiasco RIM was on a patent jihad. Rampaging against companies not just for something as mundane as its QWERTY keyboard arrangement and shapes of its keys.

    From the horse's mouth. Research In Motion Files Wireless Patent Complaint Against Glenayre Electronics, Inc

    I guess what goes around come around, at least in this case.

  25. Re:Yeah, but will anyone listen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    American companies seem to be making a habit of broadsiding foreign companies who do business in the US. Take the case of Zi Corporation vs. Tegic (an AOL subsidiary) which resulted in a similar payout even though the patent in discourse was the silliest thing.

  26. Re:How forward thinking is RIM, anyway? by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Don't deal with the receptionist. Ask for the HR Department instead. HR is definitely the place to get a RIM job. People are getting RIM jobs from the ladies in HR all the time.

    A lot of people apply for those. Heck, I could really use a RIM job myself. I hear that they're really satisfying.

    --
    [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
  27. Linux could be NTP'd some day by Microsoft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just thinking of Steve Ballmer's recent comments to Forbes.

    Has anyone investigated what M$ patents Linux could be potentially violating?

    1. Re:Linux could be NTP'd some day by Microsoft? by robertjw · · Score: 1

      Doubtful, since 'Linux' isn't an entity. Now Red Hat, HP, IBM or other individual contributers/copyright holders could possibly be NTP'd by Microsoft. Companies providing distributions could possibly be sued, but 'Linux' as whole doesn't really exist.

      I think this is the biggest reason we haven't seen Microsoft try anything like this yet. They aren't sure who to go after. It's a little like the RIAA trying to sue individuals for downloading music. It ends up being mostly ineffective and a PR nightmare. Going after individual developers will be the same way.

    2. Re:Linux could be NTP'd some day by Microsoft? by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      Linux is protected by the patent portfolios of all companies which are using it in business. The GPL also ensures that you can't get any money out of such a lawsuit, you can just force removal of the infringing code.

    3. Re:Linux could be NTP'd some day by Microsoft? by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      I guess they try that by patenting fat32 and ntfs. But being a monopoly doesn't help them here.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  28. They have no credibility, but patents are broken by NigelJohnstone · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Every single one of these guys can see the patent system is screwed up and loves the way it fails as long as it works in THEIR favour. Sure, they have no credibility. But does that mean the patent systems not screwed up?

    "I personally am more against the extremely low standards for novelty and non-obviousness than anything, which is why RIM striking out against patents sticks in my craw."

    I wish they'd take patents back to their original purpose. Inventions that:

    1. cost a lot to research and develop to a working solution
    2. are easy to copy once the invention is released
    3. The time to copy means the first developer could never recoup the cost

    Novelty and non-obviousness come under 3, if you're not the first developer, its not your costs to recover.

    Software comes under 2, its not obvious how software works from releasing it, so its not easy to copy. This is why MS needs its arm twisted to reveal its interfaces.

    Business processes come under 1 & 3, a ten minute back of the envelope 'buy now' idea costs nothing to recover because there are no huge research costs involved in those ten minutes.

    Patent trolls would come under 1, they don't make the thing, so they haven't taken the risk to bring it to a working solution.

    It's just f*cking dumb, that I would be forced to apply for patents and lose my ability to use trade secrets, when trade secrets work worldwide and patents only work in the country they apply to.

  29. biology patents, too by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 1

    Which could be the most ridiculous of all of them. Patenting pieces of the human genome. . . that's gonna be good for science.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
  30. simple change would help by omahaNerd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    seems like an easy change would be to require a full review by the patent office once a lawsuit has been brought. the lawsuit would not be allowed to proceed until a final determination has been made. that would seem to address the RIM case where the patents are well on their way to being rejected.

    1. Re:simple change would help by robertjw · · Score: 1

      That would be a good idea, although you would also have to put a time limit on the review. The Patent office review process is currently rather lengthy.

    2. Re:simple change would help by omahaNerd · · Score: 1

      good idea. it seems like once you have another entity interested in the patent, one should be able to gather the relevant background more quickly. i'm curious if anyone has data on how many patents withstand challenges.

  31. People can change by Gorimek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You could see that a hypocritical, but I prefer to see it as someone having their eyes opened once they became the victim of the system. People can learn from their mistakes and become more enlightened.

    If they were just self serving and opportunistic I don't see why they would keep campaining on the issue now that their own problems have been solved.

    1. Re:People can change by Danse · · Score: 1

      If they were just self serving and opportunistic I don't see why they would keep campaining on the issue now that their own problems have been solved.

      Because they know it could happen again, and they don't want that. It's still self-serving and opportunistic, but it also happens to be correct. I'm pretty sure that the irony of the situation is completely lost on them, and I'm sure they'll never say anything about regretting their past actions taken in the same vein.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  32. Please... by Black-Man · · Score: 1

    The patent office threw out NTP's patent claims, albeit too late in the trial to make a difference. Or do you think this was some kind of retaliation for Canada's dumping of wood on the market which even the WTO ruled illegal? ROFLMAO!!!

    1. Re:Please... by PrairieFire · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, you got that backwards. The WTO has ruled a number of times that Canada isn't dumping softwood on the market and that the billions in tarriffs that the US has been collecting is illegal and owned back to the Canadian lumber companies.

    2. Re:Please... by xnderxnder · · Score: 1

      I think the OP had it right - the WTO rulings have been ruling in the American's favour, but all the NAFTA rulings have been favourable to Canada. Not that a silly trade treaty will prevent the elephant from doing what it wants.

      --
      hooked up funny
    3. Re:Please... by Malc · · Score: 1
      Actually, the WTO ruled that the US could apply tariffs:

      "A WTO panel on Tuesday upheld U.S.-imposed anti-dumping duties on imported Canadian softwood lumber, but said the U.S. government's calculations of the duties were wrong." - CBC


      Three Nafta panels have ruled in favour of Canada, including the extraordinary challenge commitee, the highest point of appeal IIRC. The irony is that Canada didn't originaly want this commitee when negotiating NAFTA, but the US did, and now it too has ruled against the US.

      Lots of information here (BC government) and here (CBC).
  33. Software Idea Patents are legalized extortion by billybob2 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Instead of crying over the stolen $612.5M, RIM should have pro-actively spent a small fraction of that sum to make the patent system fair in the US. Instead, they allowed the Patent Cartel to fund this monster of a legal system, which of course rewards its creators.

    Software Idea Patents are a form of legalized extortion encouraged by the US government. It was put in place in order to protect monopolies like Microsoft, who has recently threatened to sue users and developers of open-source software, including Linux. No wonder the US government intervened on behalf of Microsoft in its European anti-trust case -- Microsoft and the Patent Mafia has Uncle Sam in their pocket. Too bad Europe is heading there too.

    1. Re:Software Idea Patents are legalized extortion by Yartrebo · · Score: 1

      Mod the parent up. This is exactly what patents are all about. Patents are just a legalized protection racket used to keep ordinary people and corporations who are not among the chosen few out of power and to transfer wealth to from the commoners to the priviledged.

    2. Re:Software Idea Patents are legalized extortion by Kupek · · Score: 1
      Saying
      Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates our intellectual property. I'm not going to comment. But to the degree that that's the case, of course we owe it to our shareholders to have a strategy. And when there is something interesting to say, you'll be the first to hear it.
      is not a threat. Balmer was directly asked if what Microsoft would do if their IP showed up in Linux, and he gave a typical non-answer.
    3. Re:Software Idea Patents are legalized extortion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that I will patent air, then everybody that does not fork over all their money will be served with a court order requiring a tourniquet placed on their neck. Then I will refuse to license the use of my air to any and all lawyers.

    4. Re:Software Idea Patents are legalized extortion by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 1
      "This is exactly what patents are all about."

      Personally, I'd change the wording to "This is exactly how patents are used today." Patents, including those on algorithms (software is not patentable, despite what many people believe) have a very useful and noble purpose: to encourage people to publish their clever ideas and inventions so that others can learn from them, improve upon them, inspire new ideas, and encourage progress. A world without patents at all is a world of secrets where much effort (and expense) goes into keeping the inner workings secret. Otherwise, what's to keep people from creating and selling exact copies of your work without having to put in the investment of time and money into developing the invention like you did?

      The limited protection that patents offer is a necessary evil meant only as the incentive for publishing the details of the invention, and should be limited to only as much protection is necessary for that purpose. The protection is NOT the intent of patents, nor is it an inherent right of inventors.

      Unfortunately, that noble intention has been distorted and corrupted in a manner exactly as you describe. Now, instead of inventors we have huge multi-national corporations who patent everything including prior art and the obvious and use patent lawyers who are skilled at writing patents that are impossible to understand, such that nobody actually learns how it works AND with the added bonus that anybody who does something similar doesn't realize they've technically violated the patent even if they read it and didn't think it was similar.

      Patents are good. This system is bad. Very bad. Bring on the reforms.

  34. Petty Mindset Troll by weremook · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have seen no evidence for staunch nationalism in our civil courts. We treat Canada the same as the other 50 states.

  35. Eiiuuuwww!!! by pedalman · · Score: 1

    I don't think I would want the job of "RIM" Chairman. It has to be worse than "Pivot Man".

    --
    Friends don't let friends line-dance.
  36. RIM should sue US government under NAFTA by metoc · · Score: 0

    A little know clause in NAFTA allows a company to sue a country if that countries fails to keep things fair. It was intended punish countries from talking private property (think the Hilton in Havana). In this case the US government is quilty of not fixing the patent process. It sound better if they wait until after all of NTP's patents are thrown out, and RIM is still paying because a judge wouldn't wait for the USPTO's final ruling.

    1. Re:RIM should sue US government under NAFTA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the US government is quilty"

      I guess the US government definitely should look into reforming the patent system because they're liable to be sued by a paper towel company...

    2. Re:RIM should sue US government under NAFTA by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      It's not that unknown; search for Canada, MTBE and NAFTA.
      There are a couple other rather well-known cases but they elude me right now.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
  37. Attorney should share the blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    RIM needs to look to its own attorney for an explanation of why the Judge was unfriendly...

    This guy ran a technology demonstration in open court to demonstrate "prior art" for the jury and then it was discovered that the demonstration was a fraud!

    You don't win many points by attempting to pull one over on the judge.

  38. More, more, more by Britz · · Score: 1

    Please, let the patent cold war end. Let the hot war begin. I believe lawyers everywhere are very eager. They would earn a lot of money. I want to see Sun beat up Microsoft beat up IBM beat up ...

    Where is my popcorn?

  39. I've been saying this for 10 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I'm getting a little impatient waiting for everyone else to extract their heads from their assholes long enough to see that the real crime is "intellectual property" itself.

    Don't count on anyone realizing this until long long long after we've died of old age. Maybe, in a 1000 years or so.

  40. you've forgotten Congress is populated by lawyers by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

    Pain in the ass for whom? For entrepreneurs and engineers, trying to bring a great idea to market, and reap the rewards of their ingenuity? Sure. For lawyers and judges and Congress, the first of whom collect giant fees for litigating for and against patents, the second of whom revels in the glorious power of being able to decide the fate of millions, and the third of whom rolls in fat campaign contributions from all sides in the debate? Ha ha.

    Don't look for lawyers to reform our legal system. Pigs might as well petition wolves to consider the virtues of turning vegetarian. Lawyers like the legal system the way it is -- confusing, capricious and expensive -- because if it ever were simplified to the point where normal sensible people could reliably predict its outcomes and use it themselves without risking immolation or poverty -- why, where would the necessity go for paying lawyers $400-$500 per hour salaries?

    I'm not trying to be overly cynical here. Just pointing out that Congress on its own will never salvage the situation until angry citizens point the gun (of electoral defeat) at their heads and make them.

  41. Oh, NOW you tell us... by Moofie · · Score: 3, Funny

    OK, RIM, you liked patent law just fine when you were suing Handspring for having a tiny keyboard. But NOW it's time for Serious Patent Reform!

    Uh huh.

    --
    Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    1. Re:Oh, NOW you tell us... by faedle · · Score: 1

      Yep, exactly.

      RIM was the one beating the drum of "we're gonna sue anybody who uses this technology" until somebody else (NTP) said "yeah, um.. about that."

      RIM was the bully in this situation. They got hosed. They are in no position to be crying that the rules aren't fair: they wanted to screw everybody else. It's their own damn fault they didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.

      NTP's story is actually quite interesting..

    2. Re:Oh, NOW you tell us... by florescent_beige · · Score: 1

      But were any of the patents RIM used offensively invalid, as are *all* of NTP's? They have the right to feel hosed, a legal technicality cost them over half a billion dollars.
      As has been pointed out, RIM must play by the US rules if it wishes to do business there, and it seems leveraging software patents are a fact of life in America, RIM was just playing that game. Were they supposed to forsee paying out that kind of money for patents that *do not exist*? It's positively Kafkayesque.

      --
      Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    3. Re:Oh, NOW you tell us... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I don't know what you're talking about. They're trying to argue both sides of the issue.

      Let's see them return the money they extorted out of Handspring, and then they can talk. Until then, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    4. Re:Oh, NOW you tell us... by florescent_beige · · Score: 1

      If you can't see the difference beetween RIM enforcing a valid patent that is used in a real live product, and NTP successfuly enforcing an invalid patent that they never used in anything, then I guess you are unteachable.

      --
      Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    5. Re:Oh, NOW you tell us... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why the notion of "A little bitty keyboard" is patentable. As far as I'm concerned, that patent is every bit as silly as NTP's.

      Whether it's a product or not, I don't really care. I do care when the patent system is abused. Since RIM is a patent abuser, I have no issue with them being abused in turn.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    6. Re:Oh, NOW you tell us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it takes time and effort to determine the most effective method to lay out keys to strike the right balance between maximized space, ease of typing and speed of typing? And making it not suck? And, y'know, research to make sure that your design doesn't suck ass? And it isn't exactly obvious how the keys should be shaped and laid out, is it?

    7. Re:Oh, NOW you tell us... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Um, it's QWERTY.

      Same as 99.99% of the keyboards on Earth.

      What was your point again?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  42. Re:Who's the fool, fool? by Krach42 · · Score: 1
    In your rush to score points,

    Dude, seriously.... when was the last time you saw a grammar nazi get good karma points?

    did it even fleetingly occur to you that his grasp of the English language just might be superior to yours and that of the knee-jerks who modded you up?

    His usage violates my ideolect. I don't argue with the sentence given for definition 4 in the dictionary you linked to. It sounds reasonable. But the text given in the article:

    "RIM hopes to advance meaningful patent law reform, thus helping to assure that no other company experiences what we endured over the past five years."


    Sounds wrong. For me "assure" cannot be followed by a dependent clause.

    However, you probably spell colour without the "u" so I'll forgive you since the "English for Dummies" rule would come into effect.

    If this is a more international usage, then I concede to that point, I can't argue international English, only what sounds good to me. And "assure that..." sounds wrong to me.
    --

    I am unamerican, and proud of it!
  43. NTP s not the problem by Gorimek · · Score: 1

    The problem is not that NTP applied for these patents. The problem is that they were granted.

    Punishing NTP for this will have absolutely no effect on the actual problem, which is the US patent system.

    Pick your battles.

  44. NTP Patent 6,317,592 & 5,436,960 by NigelJohnstone · · Score: 1

    Here's the two last patents in question. Read them, see for yourself then decide for yourself if NTP is a patent troll.

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=patent+6%2C31 7%2C592

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=patent+5% 2C436%2C960

    I think they're pure patent trolls and should have been rejected as obvious.

    1. Re:NTP Patent 6,317,592 & 5,436,960 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Based upon the early effective filing date of 1991, I would not bet on that obvious conclusion. Also, as RIM tried to show to a jury that they were obvious and failed I would not buy your argument.

      I am sure RIM paid a lot of money for a legal team who probably scoured the earth to fid proff that it had been done before or was an obvious variant of something that had gone before and a jury did not buy it, the district court did not buy it and a court of appeals didn't buy it. see http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/ opinions/03opinions/03-1615.pdf

    2. Re:NTP Patent 6,317,592 & 5,436,960 by NigelJohnstone · · Score: 1

      Yet we had networks via IR & wireless in the early 80's and we had email like Compuserve then too), and presumably some of the email went over those network links.

      So what's left, deleting the email from the server after its received? What?

      "Also, as RIM tried to show to a jury that they were obvious and failed I would not buy your argument."

      Not so, once it gets to court, the burden of proof required to overturn raises sharply. The court assumes the patent office judgement of 'obvious' has been done correctly.

  45. an IDEA!!! COME THE #*&$ ON! by spitek · · Score: 1

    The fact that you can patent such broad ideas as people are allowed to, by itself COMPLETELY undermines the entire patent system. To make it worse all these patents are issues for the broad ideas (like "ecommerce payment") something that can be done a thousand different ways, and the kicker is half the time the people holding the patents havnt even made there idea work!!

  46. Ob Zoidberg by Your+Pal+Dave · · Score: 1

    Aha! Now the rubber band's on the other claw!

  47. How to turn $19 into -$9,000,000 by cheesedog · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Balsillie made an interesting point yesterday -- NTP spent $19 on postage to send out cease and desist letters to 47 companies. Because of the length of the claims in their 5 patents, it would cost each company roughly $200,000 just to respond to the claims (to consult with counsel to avoid willful infringement), which means that just by sending out those letters, NTP cost the economy a net $9 million bucks, and this is before ever stepping into court!

    To read the exact excerpt (where Balsillie made the point quite eloquently), read this

    1. Re:How to turn $19 into -$9,000,000 by cheesedog · · Score: 1

      sorry, link should have been this.

    2. Re:How to turn $19 into -$9,000,000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Does that include the amount NTP paid to get the patent through the patent office?
      Did it include the fact that the inventor Campana started a company that spent a fortune in trying to get companies to try his "push" email system in the early 90's?

    3. Re:How to turn $19 into -$9,000,000 by cheesedog · · Score: 1
      No, Balsillie didn't subtract out the cost of NTP/Campana filing bogus patent applications covering overly broad, obvious ideas, nor of paying lawyers to fight with the USPTO to get them approved. Why should he?

      No, Balsillie didn't subtract out NTP/Campana's cost of failing in the marketplace. Why should he?

    4. Re:How to turn $19 into -$9,000,000 by mgblst · · Score: 1

      That is why they call him Ballsy.

  48. NTP Patent 6,317,592 & 5,436,960 by NigelJohnstone · · Score: 3, Informative

    Why not let them judge for themselves:

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=patent+6%2C31 7%2C592

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=patent+5% 2C436%2C960

    Here's the last two patents in question.

  49. Re:Who's the fool, fool? by N1AK · · Score: 1

    No your right, assure is misplaced, ensure would probably be what they were aiming at. It does make sense, but at best it's a poor choice.

    As to the flamer, I can but apologise for my fellow Briton (most likely), and hope you believe it when I say, we're not all that bad.

  50. Re:Am I missing something? -- Yes by deck · · Score: 1

    This is in reference to your point a) which has been expressed elsewhere.

    The USPTO has been under considerable pressure from both the U.S. Congress and Executive branch to reject the NTP patents. So much of the U.S, Government is dependent on the RIM Blackberry that it is frighting. Having worked in the U.S, government, some people do things that are wrong because they are told in a round about manner to do them without a direct order being given. There is only anecdoctal evidence for this; however the situation is very plausable.

  51. I want immunity from patent law... by CherniyVolk · · Score: 2, Interesting


    For Open Source works.

    I fully understand, if a Company exploits a technology, a Companies sole motivation being economical, then they need to pony up a share to those who well deserve it.

    However, for the person in his garage who isn't economically motivated, since he's not being paid for the direct effort and since he wishes to freely release his work, then the "patent holder" isn't "losing" money because there's no money exchanged to begin with; in short, noone is making money yet everyone is benefiting. Secondly, the individual is incapable of such magnitudes in all aspects of "Companies" in terms of distribution, research and development, wealth/power, manufacturing etc.

    In short, I feel that patent law should ONLY be applicable to Companies. I would even extend this to any laws prohibiting reverse engineering as well; such that it's only illegal if you attempt to generate revenue in any way from your findings. Some upstart soundcard company reverse engineering Creative's work to market and distribute merchandise for sale should be illegal, but someone at home reverse engineering a Creative soundcard to write drivers for the Open Source community, or hardware hacks of any extreme, should be immune from any legal consequences, no matter how many others use the work; and becuase an "individual" would be lawful in doing such activities while companies aren't, companies that use what "individuals" have done lawfully (reverse engineering etc.) would still be required to pay royalties to relevant patent/copyright holders.

    But, regardless of what those in power choose, I'm going to do what I feel is right.

  52. CYA move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RIM has to pursue this. Otherwise, how do its corporate heads explain to shareholders how they lost hundreds of millions of dollars? (Good luck!)

  53. Re:Corporate grassroots - Legal Grassroots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone needs to patent processes used by politians and courts, then sue them for infringement. Only when it hits the fan, and senators + judges find their own a$$es on the line, will they actually do something about it.

  54. Why this case is particularly contentious... by Errandboy+of+Doom · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just looking back at the comments in this thread is really sobering.

    All the posts that get modded up fiercely defend one side or the other, and accuse the other side of being utter slime.

    These extreme positions (mine above included) all get modded up, and they all get modded overrated.

    I'm past believing that one half of /. or the other simply doesn't know the facts.

    I think the explanation is that we all think of patents as a tool to safeguard innovation, but we all think that system has broken down. This case illustrates that fact in different ways for different people:

    either
    1) It's a case of a large company vs. a little guy. Large companies in this system churn out spurious patents which clog the USPTO. They constantly cry out for strict protection for intellectual property, claiming innovation dies without such protections. When they get attacked for violating a little guy's patents, they act appalled, and cry bloody murder. This case points to the hypocrisy of megacorps in an era where the little guy who just wants to help the world is squeezed out of innovating, because he can't afford the expensive patent lawyers it takes to just get started.
    OR
    2) It's a case of a slimy law-saavy company who abuses the system, waiting to prey on any successful innovation without actually helping society get better by bringing anything to market. The patent system shouldn't protect people who game the system, waiting to pounce on companies that develop a working product. This case represents how the bogged down patent system represents a minefield where any inventor is always clueless as to whether they've stepped on someone else's toes or not.

    I suspect neither account is entirely accurate, but both have some truth.

  55. Why did RIM pay up? by EvlG · · Score: 1

    The patents were going to invalidated, so why did they pay up? There was nothing to pay for.

    1. Re:Why did RIM pay up? by Ur@eus · · Score: 1

      They paid because the judge seemed to be going to issue an injunction causing them to have to stop offering their product in the US. If this had happened the damage to their business would probably been bigger than the cost of the settlement. Which is why many think that the US court system are letting itself be used for patent blackmail.

      As a side comment I think its sad how so many commenters here seem to say that since RIM used to be (still are?) a patent troll its ok for them to get hammered. It is not, while we might not like RIM, two wrongs will never make one right. Either we are against the damages caused by a broken patent system or we are not, who the victim is in any specific case is irrelevant.

  56. Don't you know who they are? by jda487 · · Score: 1

    They're Americans! They don't give a fuck about screwing over a Canadian company or even themselves. Trade laws? They mean nothing! Look at the 5 billion dollars that have been screwed out of the Canadian softwood lumber industry.

  57. Ok, I'll do it by ylikone · · Score: 1
    Hey, did you hear about the guy that got the RIM career?

    HA HA HA HA!! ..... oh wait, that's not quite right is it

    --
    Meh.