RIM Settles Long-Standing Blackberry Claim 295
David Jao writes "Research in Motion has agreed to pay 612.5 million dollars for a 'full and final settlement of all claims' resulting from the NTP patent lawsuit against the makers of BlackBerry. According to the article, the settlement is 'on the low end of expectations', perhaps because the patents in question had earlier been preliminarily ruled invalid by the US Patents & Trademarks Office." Many article submitters characterize this move as 'giving in' to NTP's tactics. What do you think?
Serves the f*****s right (Score:3, Informative)
Now we just have to wait a few years for the NTP <descriptions containing far too much vitriol to ever be displayed publicly> to get their peckers handed to them in thin slices. It'll be worth it.
Why are they patent trolls? (Score:4, Informative)
The founder of NTP had many years of wireless experience, and developed many technologies that moved wireless messaging forward. When RIM showed up on the scene, he sent them (as well as some other companies) a few letters to inform them that they were infringing on his patents. RIM ignored the letters, and continued doing business as though they had never heard of this guy. He didn't sue, he just chalked it up to a losing battle that there was nothing he could do anything about.
Then he saw a story about how RIM was suing other companies out of existence using patents that were infringing on HIS patents. At that point he figured it was time to try and get a big law firm involved, and went after RIM. He died of cancer before this whole court case was ever finished, but I am glad to hear his family will be well off.
The fact of the matter is, this never would have even happened if RIM hadn't started the whole thing by employing predatory practices with their dubious patents to drive competition out of business in the first place. I have no sympathy for RIM at all. They flat out lied in court, and were busted for it, they used some pretty questionable lobbying practices to get NTP patents invalidated, and they have practiced far more dubious patent extortion than NTP ever did. I don't think this is a case of a fine, upstanding company getting a shakedown by a troll. This is a case of pretty sweet karma in action!
Re:AW MAN! (Score:4, Informative)
RIM was wise to settle.
Re:All this proves is we need to fix the USPTO (Score:2, Informative)
From my experience there, plus from what I have heard from former colleagues the management reaction to quality criticism has been things like enhanced "quality review" and additional policies such as "second pair of eyes" that provided little extra substantive value but end up cutting into the time available to productively work on applications.
If upper management is seriously entertaining some real reforms (including increasing the time to work on each application) then, perhaps, this will bear some fruit, but changing the management culture of production and deadlines that has thoroughly penetrated the Directors and SPEs for decades now will not be an easy task.
NTP did have products! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I'm confused... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I'm confused... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why are they patent trolls? (Score:3, Informative)
Apparently, NTP had valid patent claims (orignally developed for the Telefind company, not just 'ideas') that were ignored by RIM (as NTP is just a 2-people company, why should RIM care?) when NTP confronted them with this in 2001. NTP had the right to set this through and did accordingly.
I don't say that/know if the patent system allowed the patents correctly in the first place, but I do think that NTP had their right as it is and shouldn't be barked down as some just-for-money patent fabricating company. Furthermore we saw some pretty dubious US government-supports-US corporation things happening in the process, which in all are not a very good contribution to a more rightful way to treat patent disputes.
Re:In this case, I believe the little guy is dead. (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, Tom Campagna was around for most of this case. This case started in 2001 and he died in 2004, IIRC. And it hasn't just been the lawyer, Tom's widow inherited his interest in NTP. They've brought in more partners in order to have the capital to pursue the case, which has cost millions.
My understanding is that NTP offered a licensing agreement in 2001 on the order of $4 or $5 million. RIM didn't even respond. When a patent holder contacts you and you respond and try to work out an arrangement, the damages that the patent holder can collect are relatively small. However, if you have been notified that their is a potential infringement and you ignore it, it becomes "willful infringement" and the potential damages are much higher.
Not in direct response to your comments, but as a general comment, it is important to point out that Campagna filed the patents in 1990-91. He built a working system and demonstrated it at trade shows before email or cell phones were commonplace. He tried to market it, but the customers weren't ready. RIM basically reimplemented his ideas when the market was ready.
Re:All this proves is we need to fix the USPTO (Score:3, Informative)
The quality issue MUST be solved, and NOW; so before you launch into a general "patents suck" rage, take a reality check and think about ways to get more prior art into the patent system and improve the quality.
I've yet to talk to anybody on Slashdot who had the slightest clue what patent quality means. Maybe you're that guy, maybe not. I've yet to find anybody on Slashdot who criticizes the patent system with even the most basic understanding of how the system works. Hell, it's a rare occasion to find somebody on Slashdot who recognizes that the USPTO does what Congress and federal courts tell them to do rather than simply make up laws and policy however they feel like.
My point is that Slashdot talking about patents is a joke. To make a couple of analogies, Slashdot is grandma telling you about the internet. Slashdot is the script kiddie telling you about UNIX security.
Your post seems to be far more constructive than most, but still misses the point in my opinion.
The quality issue MUST be solved, and NOW; so before you launch into a general "patents suck" rage, take a reality check and think about ways to get more prior art into the patent system and improve the quality.
Getting more prior art "into the patent system" (I'm not even sure what that means or what you're trying to suggest) is hardly the problem. In contrast, there are some significant issues regarding the Graham v. Deere test as applied to computer related inventions in order to establish a prima facie case of legal obviousness. That has nothing at all to do with access to more prior art.
Another significant problem is the ambiguity of 35 USC 101 and how that's supposed to be applied to computer related inventions. On the one hand, there is a huge economic advantage to allowing software patents in the US (if we're the only nation that will protect software with patents, there is a huge incentive for large corporations to do business (and keep jobs) in the US) but this is a clearly objectionable idea to many people for all the usual reasons. But there is no clear legal basis for going either way. As far as I can tell, nobody inside or outside the USPTO has a clear idea what is excluded by 35 USC 101. The patent office is doing what it can to follow judicial decisions on this topic, but those decisions are a mess. Even State Street (the decision from the mid-90s that opened the door for software-related patents) is barely coherent. That decision says that the MACHINE was a patentable invention, but then inexplicably begins to discuss a patentable SOFTWARE METHOD.
And out of that murky soup, patent examiners are expected to make 1-3 determinations on that topic per day, based on the hundreds of pages of summaries, rules, and guidelines. It's a mess, but it isn't something the USPTO can fix. Someone on the outside has to push the issue until it reaches a courtroom, where (hopefully) some clear judicial precedent can be set. There are problems, sure, but everybody on Slashdot is ranting about the USPTO. What the hell does the USPTO have to do with amending federal legislation or handing down CAFC decisions? This is like a 12 year old kid trying to tell me what is or isn't good music. Even a third grade social studies textbook can explain why the executive branch (like the USPTO) doesn't write its own laws.
If there's a legitimate complaint about how the USPTO actually operates, then sure, they should fix that, but I've yet to read a single coherent complaint about that.
The issue of "more prior art" simply isn't that relevant. Patent examiners perform a $2000 prior art search. If you're sued for patent infringement, it's common to spend $50,000, $100,000, or $5M performing a prior art search for a validity attack. The patent office was ne
Re:I'm confused... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I'm confused... (Score:3, Informative)
Wow! That's so not true. NTP can sue the end users. The question of whether RIM indemnifies the end user is another question. But technically, RIM is not infringing the patent but rather contributing to the consumer's infringement of the patent. NTP simply chose to sue RIM because it's easier to get their attention rather than track down and sue a million people that includes congressmen. For example, a patent was created for using a particular clip in a certain surgical operation. The doctors installing the clip were infringing the patent. But the manufacturer of the clip was contributorily infringing the patent and was sued. The surgeons could have been sued. Because end users can be sued most of the time, the patentee will sometimes walk up to the infringer's clients and say, "You know, you may be infringing on these patents. Call your vendor about this legal liability." Of course, this scares business away and the infringer has to settle.
So, in conclusion, you are wrong. End users can be sued for patent infringement, and sometimes are threatened with such suits to put leverage on their vendors to settle.
Re:Not having a product doesn't mean anything (Score:3, Informative)
NTP is not one of the usual patent squatter cases, it's my understanding that in this case RIM is the big bad bully.
NTP bought the patent from someone who actually did try and set up a business selling things very much like blackberries, but they did it in the early 90's.
The ability of the very first inventor to sell his patent (after trying very very hard himself to make a go of it and not doing so well) is a fundamental part of what made the first inventor willing to invest so much time and energy into attempting to invent something new.
NTP did not dream this up from thin air and patent it themselves after the fact. Someone else worked very very hard trying to get it going, they're the ones who got
the patent that NTP ended up with. It's the original inventor's choice to sell his
patent for a few million after failing to establish a business instead of waiting himself 10 years to see if anyone does anything useful with his idea.
Remember, in the beginning NTP was perfectly willing to license the original inventor's idea for just a few dozen million. The only reason RIM ended up getting slammed for a half billion is that they behaved really really badly, like a pack of assholes and weasels and bullies, and the judge finally laid down the law and punished them for it. Remember, knowingly infringing a patent is much much worse than not knowingly infringing it.
I'm not arguing that the patent system isn't often used in the way you describe - it's definitely broken. Just look at the idiotic legalese that patents are written in. As a physicist I generally have no fucking idea what most software patents are describing. That's not right.