Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIM Chairman Wants Changes to U.S. Patent Law

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the with-good-reason dept.

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...'"

5 of 245 comments (clear)

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.