Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Overturns Patent Suit, Rules RIM Did Not Infringe

Posted by timothy on from the oh-canada dept.

New submitter ottdmk writes "You may recall this recent Slashdot story about Mformation being awarded 147.2 million dollars in a patent suit against RIM. Well, it appears a California appeals judge has disagreed with that verdict. As part of the ruling, if Mformation successfully appeals, the matter will go to a new trial instead of the jury award being restored."

13 comments

  1. I can picture by Sulphur · · Score: 2, Funny

    Their receptionist Miss Mformation.

    1. Re:I can picture by redneckmother · · Score: 2

      Their receptionist Miss Mformation.

      Shades of "TV or not TV" (Proctor & Bergmann)!

    2. Re:I can picture by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      Their receptionist Miss Mformation.

      Sounds like a poor contraction for "misinformation". How poetic.

      How To Kill A Joke 101

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
  2. the nail in the coffin by theweakend · · Score: 1

    I must say i never had a black berry but i'd imagine this would be like if google got sued the day after the g1, my first smart phone, came out. And no I don't mean that to sound as insulting as it kind of does.

    1. Re:the nail in the coffin by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      I must say i never had a black berry but i'd imagine this would be like if google got sued the day after the g1, my first smart phone, came out. And no I don't mean that to sound as insulting as it kind of does.

      Which is why no patent troll ever sues on any infringement. There's no benefit to killing a product before it gets its legs, at least for patent trolls.

      A patent troll's motivation is money. If they go after a product that's barely on the market, there's hardly any to be made. OTOH, if they sue AFTER it's successful and growing, there's a great chance to make a LOT of money in licensing fees and damages. Also, there's less likelihood that there could be workarounds without breaking something, thus ensuring future profits.

      Killing a product before it can prosper isn't a good way to make money. Same as alerting the product's owners to work around your patents early on before there are any compatibility issues. Leeching off it once it's healthy enough to do so is, however.

      You'll note that patent trolls only go after successful products.

  3. Re:$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski by vux984 · · Score: 0

    Well the most demented of the gibberish originates here:

    www.timecube.com

  4. Re:$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski by VortexCortex · · Score: 0

    I have to say, I have found that, in a large majority of instances, "Belly-Button Logic Works!"

  5. Re:$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think it's the Internet, about to become sentient.

    And it's insane.

  6. Finally - Some sense! by pubwvj · · Score: 2

    Yes, thank you, Judge! Finally some good sense in this patent troll nonsense. Now to start forcing patent trolls to pay damages for their harassment.