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)
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:Grammar nazi a quote? (Score:3, Informative)
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=assure [reference.com]
Definition 4. Damned grammar nazis!
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: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/20060312-636
Netflix vs blockbuster
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?ty
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:Wait a minute... (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.google.com/search?q=rim+handspring+pat
Re:Grammar nazi a quote? (Score:3, Informative)
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: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:Please... (Score:2, Informative)
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: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) RIM creates various patents, and threatens to use them.
6) The remnants of NTP hear of this, decide to enforce their own patents.
7)
The rest seems fairly accurate. In either case, not so clean cut as a classic patent troll. Still, it points out why patents, by and large, are evil. It shows that a successful and/or popular product is not just the idea and denies others the use of countless ideas... many of which could have happened easily without patent protection.
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: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 you should read this:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGA
So I guess if you invent something but can't make it profitable, you should give up all your rights and let someone else have it?
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.
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.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:How to turn $19 into -$9,000,000 (Score:1, Informative)
Did it include the fact that the inventor Campana started a company that spent a fortune in trying to get companies to try his "push" email system in the early 90's?
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.