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...'"

Comments

3 Views on Patent Reform

[mcwop]

Patent Law Views from EconLog

Am I missing something?

[smooth wombat]

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.

Re:Am I missing something?

[ergo98]

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.

Re:Am I missing something?

[ifdef]

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.

Re:Am I missing something?

[Errandboy of Doom]

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.

Re:Am I missing something?

[enjo13]

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.

Re:Am I missing something?

[paraax]

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.

Re:Am I missing something?

[kerasineAddict]

RIM was founded in 1984. [ RIM ]

NTP was founded in 1992. [ NTP ]

Re:Am I missing something?

[llefler]

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?

Re:Am I missing something?

[ergo98]

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.

Re:Am I missing something?

[gvibes]

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.

Re:Grammar nazi a quote?

[Wordplay]

Lordy.

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

Definition 4. Damned grammar nazis!

Re:The U.S. Patent System is Broken!!

[Verdict]

Streaming media

http://www.streamingmedia.com/patent/

But it now

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060312-6364 .html

Netflix vs blockbuster

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?typ e=internetNews&storyID=2006-04-06T014212Z_01_N0538 7732_RTRUKOC_0_US-MEDIA-NETFLIX.xml

Re:Wait a minute...

[Chris Burke]

No, it was definitely a patent issue.
http://www.google.com/search?q=rim+handspring+pate nt+keyboard

Re:Grammar nazi a quote?

[Intron]

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.

Software Idea Patents are legalized extortion

[billybob2]

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.

Re:Please...

[PrairieFire]

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.

NTP Patent 6,317,592 & 5,436,960

[NigelJohnstone]

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.

Re:How to turn $19 into -$9,000,000

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Why this case is particularly contentious...

[Errandboy of Doom]

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.