RIM Chairman Wants Changes to U.S. Patent Law 245
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...'"
3 Views on Patent Reform (Score:3, Informative)
Corporate grassroots (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Corporate grassroots (Score:2)
Now that crackberry addict government people are safe with their phones, the patent reform issue is moot because they got their crack and are happy.
Am I missing something? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:2)
And no, it wasn't for the karma. I'm maxed out.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Patent vacuum
2. Sue vacuum manufacturers
3. Profit!
If that's the case, I have applications to fill out...
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:5, Informative)
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 [slashdot.org].
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:2)
NTP Patent 6,317,592 & 5,436,960 (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=patent+6%2C3
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=patent+5
Here's the last two patents in question.
Why this case is particularly contentious... (Score:4, Informative)
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
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.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:2)
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:3, Informative)
"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?"
And then go on to say:
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)."
Maybe yo
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:2)
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:2)
I agree with you to a point about having something "tangible", but don't think it should be requi
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:2)
Otherwise idiots like NTP will still be able to abuse the patent system.
Individual inventors don't have the funds to strech lawsuits to 3 yrs so that ppl can come to a conclusion.
On the other hand, I completly dislike patents. I don't think they foster innovation at all, rather they hinder it. The only people that profit from patents are Lawyers.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:2)
>your patent protection is limited to, say 3 years. You either use it or lose it.
3 years from when would be my problem. I think companies like TIVO, 6 months after it was available, as the only product of it's kind, at best buy, the patent should have been rendered as fair use public domain.
but I can't think of a way to write a legal definition to match that in every instance, other than, "Ask Darren if the inventor has made enough profit, or had enough compensation yet."
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:2)
Personally, I think that the moment someone else comes up with a solution that infringes on a pate
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:2)
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:2, Informative)
Lets try this order:
1) NTP is in the wireless communication business early. I think a decade before Blackberry and its derivatives come into existence.
2) NTP creates said patents. Whether they should have passed the novelty or prior art threshholds I don't know.
3) NTP fails in its attempts to market the technology and ultimately folds. Patents are placed in a dusty drawer.
4) RIM creates blackberry.
5
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:2, Informative)
RIM was founded in 1984. [ RIM [wikipedia.org] ]
NTP was founded in 1992. [ NTP [wikipedia.org] ]
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:2)
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:2)
Thank you. From your posting I was missing something. Now it becomes more clear.
*waits the required 1 minute until he can post this*
*tick* *tick* *tick* *tick* *tick* (repeat 12 times)
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:2)
The patents were certainly granted. They may now be invalidated, but that is a second look AFTER the grant.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:2)
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:2)
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:2)
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:2, Troll)
Yes: the fact that NTP's patents were on SMTP - via wireless!
I wonder if anyone's patented SMTP - via quantum entanglement! - yet, or if it's still up for grabs.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:2)
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:2)
since your patent idea is now published, and soon locked into google, if you havent sent in the patent, your patent could be easily invalidated.
however, you apparently have time to profit between application and invalidation.
Wait a minute... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:2)
I'm not familiar with that case, but that sounds more like a copyright infringement than a patent issue.
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.google.com/search?q=rim+handspring+pat
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:2)
At least they act
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:2)
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:2)
RIM, the patented jihadist got burnt (Score:4, Interesting)
From the horse's mouth. Research In Motion Files Wireless Patent Complaint Against Glenayre Electronics, Inc [rim.net]
I guess what goes around come around, at least in this case.
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:3, Interesting)
Regardless of what stupid, immoral, abuse of the very same patent/copyright/trademark system they committed in the past, if they now turn around and say "the system is b0rked! Fix it!" however selfish and hypocritical their motivation would be, they still have a point.
Imagine Microsoft coming out, guns blazing, against buggy software, vendor lock-in, software monopolies, immoral and anti-competitive tactics and sundry other things for which t
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:2)
Yeah, I know, it's totally OT. I just had to get it out of my system.
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:2)
Yes. Hopefully this is a good thing.
You see, there is no better way to be certain that something is possible but to do it yourself.
These guys tried to be a patent troll, got mugged by a fouler troll and want to clean up the countryside. They are not going to easily accept the usual of "well, the system mostly works with some exceptions" - not only it happened to them, but they have experience in doin
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:2)
Is Research In Motion Ltd. Done? (Score:2)
I'm know their sales have been through the roof but recently the company I work for restricted anyone from using a blackberry--in fact I don't even think the company owns anymore for that matter. Whether this be security concerns or just operating cost, I'm not sure.
What I
Re:Is Research In Motion Ltd. Done? (Score:2)
On the contrary, RIM ought to see stronger sales going forward now that there is a settlement.
Ridiculous patent... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Share the blame... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Share the blame... (Score:2)
Between NTP and SCO, I've lost almost all faith in the patent/copyright IP system. I mean, in both cases, the two companies didn't have much to go with, and they're costing legitimate innovators (RIM and IBM) serious time and money, and spreading a lot of FUD. Then there's the really stupid patents, like "One Click Shopping" or "Buy it Now" or doubleclicking.
Re:Share the blame... (Score:2)
ITYM Sun Microtzu's "The Art of W4R3Z".
RIM should have shut down gov users (Score:5, 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.
Re:RIM should have shut down gov users (Score:4, Interesting)
Is anyone really surprised... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is anyone really surprised... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why wouldn't they be? They're operating in the US, and as such those operations are subject to US law (and the silly US Patent system)
(A Proud Canadian
Re:Is anyone really surprised... (Score:2)
Petty Mindset Troll (Score:4, Funny)
There was a simpler way. (Score:5, Funny)
For a fraction of that they could have hired hitmen for all the NTP management and thier legal counsle.
Re:There was a simpler way. (Score:2)
Re:There was a simpler way. (Score:2)
Re:There was a simpler way. (Score:2, Funny)
That's why you've got to give the first hit as much dramatic impact as possible. It's one thing to know that someone's out to get you, but a completely different thing to know that the guy in the next cubicle got drawn, quartered, decapitated, a cow's head sewn on in place, stuffed with pinto beans, then dropped from 50,000 feet onto the parking lot at the World Scout Jamboree.
Re:There was a simpler way. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:There was a simpler way. (Score:2)
It's all in the money interests (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:It's all in the money interests (Score:2)
biology patents, too (Score:2)
you've forgotten Congress is populated by lawyers (Score:2)
Don't look for lawyers to reform our legal system. Pigs migh
Where's the Canadian Gov't? (Score:2, Insightful)
Canada's breakout convergence darling, our future NOKIA gets beaten with some BULLCRAP legal play by a collection of yankee lawyers -- forcing the company to hold still for years (customers doubt their viability, causing them to divert attention from conquering the world).
Where was our government in all this? Why was a Canadian company being brow beaten by a housefull of lawyers? One reason: If RIM was AMERICAN, some in-house politico would h
Re:Where's the Canadian Gov't? (Score:2)
Please... (Score:2)
Re:Please... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Please... (Score:2)
Three Nafta panels have ruled in favour of Canada, including the extraordinary challenge commitee, the highest point of appeal IIRC. The irony is that Canada didn't originaly want this commitee when negotiating NAFTA, but the US did, and now it too has ruled against the US.
Lo
Re:Where's the Canadian Gov't? (Score:4, Insightful)
ummmmmm
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.
Re:Where's the Canadian Gov't? (Score:3, Funny)
Too late for RIM, unfortuneately...
Re:Where's the Canadian Gov't? (Score:3, Insightful)
Protect Losers or New Way to Win! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Laws won't change anything (Score:3, Insightful)
If we want to change the system, we need to get these laws in front of the Supreme Court, over and over and over. Don't let them tell you no, just keep refiling under new pretenses. Stop voting for the monsters who make the laws, and consider all the bad laws on the books.
What we need is a President who does nothing but veto, over and over and over. That won't happen. What we need is Senators to be elected by the state governments like it was before the 17th Amendment was passed -- Senators who think about the power of the state over the power over of the federal government. That won't happen. What we need is to reduce the power of the two parties by throwing out all campaign finance laws ("incumbent protection acts") and also throwing out the control of the debates. That won't happen.
It isn't just the patent laws that are broken, it is the system. Instead of a Republic of Independent States, we have a democracy of statism and authoritarianism. Don't expect it to get fixed, not as long as you continue supporting the monsters in office -- from both parties.
Some history is useful (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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.
People can change (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Good. (Score:2)
That is one of the main things the "Pirate Party" has right, and it is time we start getting this fixed before it is unrepairable.
simple change would help (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:simple change would help (Score:2)
More, more, more (Score:2)
Where is my popcorn?
Oh, NOW you tell us... (Score:3, Funny)
Uh huh.
How to turn $19 into -$9,000,000 (Score:5, Interesting)
To read the exact excerpt (where Balsillie made the point quite eloquently), read this [slashdot.org]
Re:Grammar nazi a quote? (Score:3, Informative)
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=assure [reference.com]
Definition 4. Damned grammar nazis!
Re:Why being a grammar nazi is a good thing (Score:2)
Re:Why being a grammar nazi is a good thing (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Grammar nazi a quote? (Score:2)
Or is assure:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/assure [m-w.com]
somehow being used incorrectly here?
Software Idea Patents are legalized extortion (Score:5, Informative)
Software Idea Patents [nosoftwarepatents.com] are a form of legalized extortion [nosoftwarepatents.com] encouraged by the US government. It was put in place in order to protect monopolies like Microsoft, who has recently threatened [vnunet.com] to sue users and developers of open-source software, including Linux. No wonder the US government intervened [theinquirer.net] on behalf of Microsoft in its European anti-trust case -- Microsoft and the Patent Mafia [nosoftwarepatents.com] has Uncle Sam in their pocket. Too bad Europe is heading there [ffii.org] too.
Re:Software Idea Patents are legalized extortion (Score:2)
Re:Software Idea Patents are legalized extortion (Score:2)
Re:Grammar nazi a quote? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The U.S. Patent System is Broken!! (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.streamingmedia.com/patent/ [streamingmedia.com]
But it now
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060312-6364
Netflix vs blockbuster
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?typ e=internetNews&storyID=2006-04-06T014212Z_01_N0538 7732_RTRUKOC_0_US-MEDIA-NETFLIX.xml [reuters.com]
Re:Linux could be NTP'd some day by Microsoft? (Score:2)
I think this is the biggest reason we haven't seen Microsoft try anything like this yet. They aren't sure who to go after. It's a little like the RIAA trying to sue individuals for downloading music. It ends up being mostly ineffective and a PR nightmar
Re:Linux could be NTP'd some day by Microsoft? (Score:2)
Linux is protected by the patent portfolios of all companies which are using it in business. The GPL also ensures that you can't get any money out of such a lawsuit, you can just force removal of the infringing code.
Re:better solution (Score:2)
Oh boy, I can imagine this.
"Is the NTP patent a troll?"
1) Yes
2) No
3) CmdrTaco
Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.