Slashdot Mirror
RIM Facing $147.2 Million Patent Verdict
An anonymous reader writes "Reuters reports that beleaguered wireless device maker Research In Motion is on the losing end of a patent suit that will cost them $147.2 million. The jury arrived at that number by assigning an $8 royalty for every BlackBerry connected to RIM's enterprise server software. Unsurprisingly, RIM intends to appeal the decision. 'Mformation sued RIM in 2008, bringing claims on a patent for a process that remotely manages a wireless device over a wireless network, a court filing says. According to its web site, Mformation helps corporations manage their smart phone inventory. The company also says it helps telecoms operators, such as AT&T and Sprint, with remote fixes and upgrades for users' gadgets. RIM argued that Mformation's patent claims are invalid because the processes were already being used when Mformation filed its patent application.'"
RIM's lawyers have asked if they can pay the penalty based on current usage. That would bring the verdict down to $72.
Out of curiosity where would this patent plaintiff stand in order of having access to RIM assets if they where to file for bankruptcy? Assuming that RIM goes bankrupt tomorrow so before a new trial begins etc. I hope they are at the end of the line.
So, even if there is prior art, now that is a worthless argument against a patent?
If so, then the American tech industry is completely screwed. I LIKE IT!
claims on a patent for a process that remotely manages a wireless device over a wireless network
How else are you going to manage a wireless device? If this isn't a ridiculous patent there is none.
The two main parts of this patent seem to be that it's over a wireless network and that it handles what we used to call "occasionally connected" devices. Since you can't assume the device will be turned on or available when you need to communicate with it you stage the data and send it when you do get a connection. We did that 20 years ago with dial-up devices. But I guess wireless connections are more special than dial-up.
They forgot to pay somebody. It reminds me of the old movie "Back to School" where Rodney Dangerfield is taking a business class and he starts filling the instructor in on all the payoffs and bribes necessary to conduct business in the "real" world.
If we forget Blackberry, there were a lot of devices around that were connected by switched telephone lines that could only get their updates when connected. Not all that different from wireless.
See my journal, I write things there
I own a Blackberry phone, it's the easiest phone I can use SINGLE-HANDED and perform tasks that otherwise would require screen flipping using other smart phones. The Blackberry is not a tablet nor does it claim to be, it is a phone designed to be tough, functional and very reliable when you need it.
Here's a simple and old feature of my Blackberry, I can set an alarm for 7AM, turn off my phone completely, go to sleep, it will turn on at 7AM and sign the alarm. I cannot tell you how many times I've been in situations where I didn't have a battery charger and needed all the battery power I could get and needed to be awaken in the morning.
The shape of the Blackberry is very ergonomic, fits perfect in anyone's palm, I can do everything (short of typing a long message) single-handed, try doing that with those over-sized devices. The Blackberry one of the few devices left for true mobility.
Exactly. That's how UUCP mail worked. Store & forward between the modem-connected nodes then over the internet to the destination MX.
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
So, even if there is prior art, now that is a worthless argument against a patent?
If so, then the American tech industry is completely screwed. I LIKE IT!
A patent is invalid if there is one or more pieces of prior art, existent at the time of filing, that, alone or in combination, disclose, teach, or suggest, explicitly or inherently, each and every element of the claims. There's been a lot of FUD spread about the patent reform act and moving from first-to-invent to first-to-file. It changes nothing about prior art, novelty, and obviousness.
In this case, RIM claimed there was prior art that anticipated the patent, but the jury disagreed. That doesn't change the law and mean that prior art isn't valid - the question is one of fact: RIM's prior art just wasn't good enough, apparently.