RSS
On Three, Everybody Cry For NTP
from the conveniently-ignoring-reality dept
Throughout this whole patent dispute between Research In Motion and NTP, there have been a couple of key points that remain unresolved. First, it's unclear how the patent process and resulting court case have helped innovation. Second, why a company that's never done any innovation -- just come up with an obvious idea and patent it -- should be rewarded. None of that's stopping NTP, though, which is now complaining that RIM's refusal to settle the case has caused it "substantial harm" because other companies are refusing to license its intellectual property as long as RIM holds out. This appeal is almost as pathetic as having the widow of NTP's founder mail her senators about the gross injustice being visited upon her, and it's typically misleading as well. The reason nobody wants to pay NTP probably has nothing to do with RIM, but rather the fact that it looks like the Patent Office will reject all of NTP's patents.
15 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- EU Official Who Resigned Over ACTA Details Why ACTA Is Dangerous; While His Replacement Seems Unlikely To Care
- Debunking The EU Commission's 'Myths About ACTA'
- European Parliament President Criticizes ACTA
- Lithuanian Minister Of Justice Says ACTA Is Unnecessary, Doesn't Actually Help Creators And It's Time To Reevaluate IP
- Ex-FTC Officials Remind Current FTC Officials That They're Supposed To Protect Consumers, Not Competitors
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
NTP founder
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
NTP = TP
Although, it wont do RIM much good, their days are numberered with the Mobile push from Microsoft.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: NTP founder
Hmmmm all those obvious ideas that could be turned into cash...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
About
"patent holding sloths" in your definition.
They manufacture nothing and they collect
royalties on their "paper patents"
And they've been doing it for quite a while before
this NTP vs. RIM thing started.
For some reason, nobody complained about this thing before. I am wondering why ?...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: About
I'm not defending the money-grubbing qualiaties of most Univerisity administrations, but at least their patents are non-obvious.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
it this a joke ?
HA-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-..............
BHa-ha- ha ha ---------
Har-HAR-HAR-ahr ----------Ha...........
(From a person with one Ph.D. and two MS degrees from top US universities...)
Ok. I managed to recover..
get real, man, Those things are fucking broken.
Academic career today is just a "publish-or-perish" experience in a race to get a tenure...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: it this a joke ?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: NTP founder
YAPAA: Yet Another Prior Art Anecdote.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: it this a joke ?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Obvious?
I notice through all of this that RIM is not arguing that they didn't infringe the patents, just that it doesn't matter if they did.
It doesn't matter if NTP doesn't build anything. You don't have to build what you invent, you just need the Patent Office to agree that it qualifies. If it did in 1991, why doesn't it now.
I hold patents personally, and I'd be pretty upset is the Patent Office suddenly reversed them all.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Obvious?
The argument many have made is that NTP's patents are really just combining two things that already existed -- and thus have little support for patent protection.
If "wireless email" is patentable, is it okay if people patented wireless internet access, wireless map viewing, wireless shopping, etc? Just because you take something and move it to "wireless" doesn't make it patentable.
Besides, the USPTO seems to have recognized that there was significant prior art before the NTP patents.
It doesn't matter if NTP doesn't build anything. You don't have to build what you invent, you just need the Patent Office to agree that it qualifies. If it did in 1991, why doesn't it now.
Indeed, but is that a good thing? That's part of the discussion.
I hold patents personally, and I'd be pretty upset is the Patent Office suddenly reversed them all.
Not clear what that has to do with anything. If the gov't granted me a monopoly on something and later took it away, I'd be mighty pissed off too... but that doesn't mean squat for this discussion. If the patents aren't valid then who cares if you're pissed off about it? Reversing them is the right thing to do.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: NTP founder
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: NTP founder
I remember 43110!
143 = I love you.
111447 12 11 0011116 = what r u doing
God, those were the days.
The advent of text messaging...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Obvious?
A jury ruled that RIM willfully infringed the patents. RIM failed to cooperate with the court throughout the process. RIM is not claiming they don't infringe. They just don't want to pay.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Obvious?
Yes, I think it's obvious, and we've trashed RIM in the past for being overly agressive with their own patent portfolio. Not sure what you thought you just proved, but it seems to support my argument. :)
A jury ruled that RIM willfully infringed the patents. RIM failed to cooperate with the court throughout the process. RIM is not claiming they don't infringe. They just don't want to pay.
You mean the same patents that the USPTO has now admitted they granted incrrectly. Why do you keep forgetting that very important fact? "They just don't want to pay" because though don't think they did anything wrong -- and the USPTO seems to agree with them.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment