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...'"

28 of 245 comments (clear)

  1. 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.

  2. 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: 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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!
    7. 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.

  3. 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
  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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!
  7. 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
  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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...

  17. 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!
  18. 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

  19. 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.

  20. 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.