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...'"
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
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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!
To read the exact excerpt (where Balsillie made the point quite eloquently), read this
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.