<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories about &quot;ntp&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2012 03:03:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>RIM Loses Another Patent Case, Told To Pay $147.2 Million</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120715/15122919703/rim-loses-another-patent-case-told-to-pay-1472-million.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120715/15122919703/rim-loses-another-patent-case-told-to-pay-1472-million.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Perhaps one of the most famous patent lawsuits -- which really highlighted the whole patent troll problem -- was the case of NTP vs. RIM, which ended with RIM paying <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060303/1446243.shtml">over $600 million</a> to settle the case, even as the USPTO was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060222/1155242.shtml">rejecting</a> NTP's patents.  Since then, RIM has been involved in a number of other patent lawsuits as well, including one that <a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2407145,00.asp" target="_blank">it lost last week against "Mformation Technologies."</a>  RIM has been told to pay up another $147.2 million in this case.
<br /><br />
Of course, what some people forget is that RIM brought much of this on itself.  Before NTP even came on the scene, it was <i>RIM</i> who <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20020919/090102.shtml">started suing</a> a bunch of other companies for patent infringement, based on its broad portfolio of patents around wireless email and mobile devices.  On top of all that, RIM's business is collapsing.  The company is <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/07/14/rim-patent-lawsuit-loss.html" target="_blank">fighting for relevancy</a> as its latest operating system has been delayed -- and there's growing evidence that even once it comes out, <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/canadarealtime/2012/07/13/rim-objects-to-survey-showing-weak-blackberry-developer-outlook/" target="_blank">no one's going to care about it</a>.  
<br /><br />
RIM can try to <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/15/rim-ceo-thorsten-heins-we-will-continue-to-make-the-people-that-use-a-blackberry-successful/" target="_blank">put a nice spin on things</a>, but it seems clear that the company is in serious trouble.  Perhaps, next time, it will focus on improving its products more than getting caught up in the patent game.  Yes, many of these more recent lawsuits came from it getting sued, but there's no doubt that RIM drew a lot of attention to itself early on with its own patent lawsuits against others.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120715/15122919703/rim-loses-another-patent-case-told-to-pay-1472-million.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120715/15122919703/rim-loses-another-patent-case-told-to-pay-1472-million.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120715/15122919703/rim-loses-another-patent-case-told-to-pay-1472-million.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>live-by-the-patent,-die-by-the-patent</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120715/15122919703</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 1 May 2012 00:34:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Will RIM Go Full-On Patent Troll?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120423/13542518617/will-rim-go-full-on-patent-troll.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120423/13542518617/will-rim-go-full-on-patent-troll.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ RIM was the defendant in one of the most well known patent troll lawsuits of all time -- the fight against NTP, a company that claimed to have more or less invented wireless email.  In the end, even though the USPTO had problems with the patents, RIM ended up settling for $612 million.  What most people don't remember, however, is that one of the reasons that RIM got sued in the first place was that the guy behind NTP read an article in the newspaper about RIM suing tons of competitors over its own patents.  The company hasn't seemed quite as aggressive about its patents since then -- but perhaps that's going to change.  Reuters is reporting that, as RIM has been struggling to compete in the marketplace, it's hired a law firm to help it <a href="http://www.reuters.com/www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/21/us-rim-idUSBRE83K03C20120421" target="_blank">consider more options</a> and it appears that getting more money from its patents is one of the options being explored.  Considering just how "valuable" patents have become lately due to ridiculous disputes and awards, this isn't surprising.  But it's pretty sad to see companies increasingly turning to patent trolling and shaking down actual innovators when they can no longer compete in the market.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120423/13542518617/will-rim-go-full-on-patent-troll.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120423/13542518617/will-rim-go-full-on-patent-troll.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120423/13542518617/will-rim-go-full-on-patent-troll.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>if-you-can't-innovate,-you-litigate</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120423/13542518617</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 4 Aug 2011 22:09:34 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Patent Loving Court Strikes Again: CAFC Orders USPTO To Reconsider NTP Patents It Had Rejected</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110802/11494415363/patent-loving-court-strikes-again-cafc-orders-uspto-to-reconsider-ntp-patents-it-had-rejected.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110802/11494415363/patent-loving-court-strikes-again-cafc-orders-uspto-to-reconsider-ntp-patents-it-had-rejected.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We have discussed at great lengths the problems of the US setting up a specialized appeals court that handles patent cases, known as CAFC or the court of appeals for the federal circuit.  That court has tended to lean increasingly "pro-patent" over the years, presiding over the greatest judicial-driven expansion of the patent system and what it covers.  For a few years, the Supreme Court had started smacking down the massive overreach of CAFC, but in the past two years, it's started to back down and let CAFC do its thing again.
<br /><br />
If there was a "poster child" for the ridiculous excesses of the patent system, it was NTP, the results of a company that completely flopped in the marketplace (because it couldn't execute) that then successfully used the patent system to pressure RIM -- a company who successfully executed where NTP failed -- to hand over an <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060303/1446243.shtml">astounding $612.5 million</a>, even as the USPTO had made it clear that it found NTP's patents <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060222/1155242.shtml">unlikely to be valid</a>.
<br /><br />
Despite NTP and its small group of investors making out like bandits on the RIM case, they <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070911/162434.shtml">continued</a> to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100709/11531110156.shtml">sue</a> a lot more companies.  Unlike in the RIM case, where the judge put tremendous pressure on RIM to settle, even as the USPTO had made it clear that it was likely to reject NTP's patents, in these other cases, the judges wisely decided to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071107/014547.shtml">wait</a> for the USPTO, who did, in fact, invalidate many NTP patent claims.
<br /><br />
And, of course, NTP appealed the USPTO's reasoning... and along comes CAFC to say <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-01/blackberry-foe-ntp-wins-appeals-court-ruling-on-7-patents.html" target="_blank">that the USPTO got it wrong</a>, and it needs to reconsider its invalidation of claims in seven of NTP's patents, meaning that NTP has, yet again, been given new life.  And, of course, thanks to the somewhat idiotic and dangerous "presumption of validity," this means that the courts need to treat those patents as valid while the USPTO reviews them yet <i>again</i>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110802/11494415363/patent-loving-court-strikes-again-cafc-orders-uspto-to-reconsider-ntp-patents-it-had-rejected.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110802/11494415363/patent-loving-court-strikes-again-cafc-orders-uspto-to-reconsider-ntp-patents-it-had-rejected.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110802/11494415363/patent-loving-court-strikes-again-cafc-orders-uspto-to-reconsider-ntp-patents-it-had-rejected.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>amazing</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110802/11494415363</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 8 Oct 2010 09:34:05 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Meet The Patent Thicket: Who's Suing Who For Smartphone Patents</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101007/22591311328/meet-the-patent-thicket-who-s-suing-who-for-smartphone-patents.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101007/22591311328/meet-the-patent-thicket-who-s-suing-who-for-smartphone-patents.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A few folks this week sent over a story in the Guardian by Josh Halliday and Charles Arthur with a graphic purporting to show <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/04/microsoft-motorola-android-patent-lawsuit#" target="_blank">who was suing who in the smartphone space</a>, following the news that Microsoft had sued Motorola.  You can see that graphic here:
<center>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/floorsixtyfour/5060806793/" title="mobilelawsuits-rvs-460 by floorsixtyfour, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4085/5060806793_af80824618.jpg" width="460" height="436" alt="mobilelawsuits-rvs-460" /></a>
</center>
Meanwhile, someone in our comments had pointed to <a href="http://ompldr.org/vNXFndg/lawsuitmap.gif" target="_blank">a very similar graphic</a>.
<br><br>
The problem is that both of these graphics are <b>wrong</b>.  The Guardian one admits that it was built off of the NY Times post from back in March that <A href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/an-explosion-of-mobile-patent-lawsuits/" target="_blank">that showed a similar graphic</a>, which we <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100304/1234218418.shtml">wrote about at the time</a>.  Here's that graphic:
<center>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/floorsixtyfour/4407267530/" title="bits-suepatent2-blogSpan by floorsixtyfour, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2726/4407267530_bb725e9434.jpg" width="375" height="500" alt="bits-suepatent2-blogSpan" /></a>
</center>
However, Joe Mullin quickly pointed out that <a href="http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/2010/03/new-york-times-publishes-chart-featuring-nonexistent-patent-lawsuits.html" target="_blank">the graphic was wrong</a> and included a bunch of lawsuits that never happened.  NY Times blogger Nick Bilton posted a correction to his story way back in March... so I'm unclear on why the two Guardian reporters were still using that as the basis of their own drawing.
<br><br>
Either way, with <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20018791-37.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20" target="_blank">Motorola suing Apple</a> for patent infringement, the already wrong graphic was now also out of date.  So, I figured <i>why not create my own</i>, correcting the original errors and adding in the new information.  
<br><br>
I ended up spending many hours on it, because once I started, I realized that to <i>really</i> show the state of the patent thicket, I couldn't just include the big name companies that were suing each other, because that's only a part of the story.  What about all of the non-practicing entities (so-called "patent trolls"), who were suing lots of these companies for infringement as well?  Doesn't that matter in understanding the thicket?  Of course, there are lots of them, so I focused on the higher profile NPE lawsuits -- the ones involving multiple defendants -- and added them to the chart too (in green).  And then, I added in a few other companies who actually make stuff but have been suing as well.  Once you start, it's difficult to know where to stop.  There are so many companies involved in so many lawsuits, some you just have to leave out.  However, I believe the image below gives you at least some sort of picture of the lawsuit situation concerning smartphones.  Some of these lawsuits have settled, but many are still ongoing.
<center>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/floorsixtyfour/5061246255/" title="smartphonethicket(3) by floorsixtyfour, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4128/5061246255_45a015568b.jpg" width="560" height="407" alt="smartphonethicket(3)" /></a>
</center>
Now, here's the crazy part: this is <b>just lawsuits</b>.  I thought about showing licensing deals in this chart as well, but that would have killed my whole weekend (in fact, just as I was finishing up this post, I saw that <a href="http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/more-mobile-patent-madness-microsoft-licenses-74-smartphone-related-patents-from-acacia/7606?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zdnet%2Fmicrosoft+%28ZDNet+All+About+Microsoft%29&utm_content=Google+Reader" target="_blank">Microsoft has just licensed 74 smartphone patents from Acacia</a>).  And then I thought about including companies like Intellectual Ventures which apparently are <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-20001235-94.html" target="_blank">sitting on a bunch of other smartphone patents</a> but haven't yet sued over them.  However, I'd already wasted hours that could have been spent doing other, less brain-damaging work, and decided to leave it like this and move on.
<br><br>
Anyway, I'd say this does a damn good job demonstrating the concept of a patent thicket.  It also explains how such thickets are  hindering innovation.  Anyone who wants to get into the smartphone business knows that they're facing lawsuits from a large number of the companies listed on the graphic.
<br><br>
<b>Update</b>: Someone just pointed out that Ars Technica apparently <a href="http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/10/motorola-asks-itc-two-federal-courts-to-throw-book-at-apple.ars" target="_blank">made their own graphic</a>, which is <i>really</i> pretty.... but also relies on the same bad data that the NY Times used and corrected months ago.
<br><br>
<b>Update 2:</b>  Apparently <i>everyone</i> had the same idea.  The folks at Information is Beautiful <a href="http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/10/the-tangled-web-of-mobile-patent-suits.html" target="_blank">made another version</a> of the same chart... again including the incorrect information from the NY Times (though, at least they admit those lawsuits are about LCD price fixing, not patents).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101007/22591311328/meet-the-patent-thicket-who-s-suing-who-for-smartphone-patents.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101007/22591311328/meet-the-patent-thicket-who-s-suing-who-for-smartphone-patents.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101007/22591311328/meet-the-patent-thicket-who-s-suing-who-for-smartphone-patents.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>now,-with-more-troll</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101007/22591311328</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 9 Jul 2010 13:02:43 PDT</pubDate>
<title>NTP Keeps On Making The Case For Patent Reform As It Sues More Companies</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100709/11531110156.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100709/11531110156.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ NTP, a patent holding firm that is really just a bunch of lawyers with incredibly broad and questionable patents, is at it again.  As you probably know, NTP was locked in a long and contentious patent fight with RIM over NTP's claimed patents covering the concept of mobile email.  Even as the US Patent Office was telling the world that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060222/1155242.shtml">NTP's patents almost certainly weren't valid</a>, pressure from investors (and the judge in the case who refused to wait for the Patent Office's final rejection of the patents) resulted in RIM <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060303/1446243.shtml">settling the case</a> for $612.5 million.  For RIM, it became something of a no brainer.  Even though its legal position was strong, its investors were killing the company over the uncertainty (there were threats that the judge could issue an injunction shutting down the entire Blackberry network).  Settling the case helped RIM's stock price jump up (increasing its market cap more than the cost of the settlement).
<br /><br />
But, from a legal perspective, the lawsuit and the end result became the centerpiece of attention for efforts at patent reform.  While I still think that the patent reform process in Congress has been misguided and the end result probably a lot more damaging than helpful, many of the politicians involved will point to the RIM-NTP case as evidence of the problems with the patent system.  You might think, then, that NTP's investors might sit back and enjoy the spoils of the RIM settlement, but the company quickly went back out and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070911/162434.shtml">sued all the major mobile operators</a> in the US for violating its patents.  However, judges in those other suits said (unlike the judge in the RIM case) that those trials should <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071107/014547.shtml">wait</a> until the Patent Office has made a final decision on the validity of NTP's ridiculously overbroad patents.
<br /><br />
However, NTP is not waiting around.  It's now suing again.  This time, rather than the mobile operators, it's going after device makers and platform vendors, <a href="http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/smartphone-patent-suits-challenge-big-makers/" target="_blank">suing Apple, Google, Microsoft, HTC, LG and Motorola</a>.  Basically, it appears that NTP has decided that if anyone does email on a phone, they have to pay NTP.
<br /><br />
There might not be a better example of how incredibly screwed up the patent system is than this.  NTP was involved in an attempt to do mobile email ages ago (and it <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070416/021539.shtml">wasn't the first</a> actually... but NTP <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060417/0324230.shtml">paid off</a> some folks who had prior art).  The idea itself wasn't new or all that innovative, and the timing was off, so NTP failed.  In a functioning free market, that's a good thing.  If a company can't execute, it should fail.  Unfortunately, thanks to a ridiculously overbroad patent award, NTP has been able to live on as a bunch of lawyers suing any company that does figure out how to execute.
<br /><br />
Perhaps the only good thing coming out of this is that it may help draw more attention to just how broken the patent system is.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100709/11531110156.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100709/11531110156.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100709/11531110156.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>milking-it</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100709/11531110156</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 3 Nov 2008 04:21:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>RIM Sued Yet Again For Patent Infringement</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081102/2002592707.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081102/2002592707.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While most people think of just the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060303/1446243.shtml">NTP lawsuit</a> when they hear about RIM and patent infringement troubles, what's often left out of the discussion is that prior to the NTP suit, RIM was one of the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20020919/090102.shtml">more aggressive</a> companies in filing patent infringement lawsuits against everyone else.  In fact, it was news articles about RIM's aggressive patent enforcement strategy that convinced the guys behind NTP to file their lawsuit in the first place.  Since paying $612.5 million to NTP to settle that battle, other patent holders have been lining up to sue RIM as well. 
<br /><br />
 Earlier this year, we wrote about another aggressive patent enforcer, Wi-LAN, which <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080620/1324141465.shtml">sued RIM</a> for infringement.  RIM, once again, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080811/1749301946.shtml">settled</a> -- indicating a bit of an open season.  If you happen to have a patent that RIM might sorta possibly infringe on, why not sue?  
<br /><br />
The latest to step up to bat is Mformation, who has <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10080681-94.html" target="_new">sued RIM for two separate patents</a> which are both about remote management of a wireless device (<a href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=_rAVAAAAEBAJ&#038;dq=6,970,917">Patent 1</a> and <a href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=AayoAAAAEBAJ&#038;dq=7,343,408">Patent 2</a>).  Whatever the merits of the case, all of this has to make you wonder if RIM regrets its decision to kick off the process of suing lots of companies for patent infringement.  It seems that the blowback was a lot worse than any benefit.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081102/2002592707.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081102/2002592707.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081102/2002592707.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>maybe-you-shouldn't-have-kicked-up-all-that-dust</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081102/2002592707</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:24:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>NTP Can't Leave Well Enough Alone Concerning RIM</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080815/0325521991.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080815/0325521991.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ In one of the biggest travesties of the patent system, over two years ago, RIM agreed to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060303/1446243.shtml">pay NTP</a> $612.5 million for patent infringement, even though the USPTO had been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20060222/1155242.shtml">rejecting</a> NTP's patents on re-exam.  The patents were highly questionable: extremely broad patents covering pretty basic concepts about making email "wireless."  Beyond combining two existing ideas in a rather obvious way, there was a fair amount of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070416/021539.shtml">prior art</a> as well.  Yet, under pressure from both the judge and its own shareholders, RIM decided it was worth paying out over half a billion dollars rather than dealing with the potential uncertainty of an injunction forcing it to shut down its service.
<br /><br />
You would think that this would have kept NTP happy.  After all, NTP was basically built out of the ashes of a company that had <i>failed</i> in the marketplace.  It was unable to come up with a product that anyone wanted.  RIM, on the other hand, had done the real innovation of figuring out what customers actually wanted, and packaging it in an appealing manner.  All that was left at NTP was a bunch of lawyers, who now had $612.5 million for failing in the marketplace.
<br /><br />
But NTP won't stop.  It's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070911/162434.shtml">kept suing</a> a bunch of other companies.  However, the courts have put its latest lawsuits on <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071107/014547.shtml">hold</a> while the USPTO continues to review the legitimacy of NTP's patents (why RIM wasn't allowed the same consideration has never been explained).
<br /><br />
So now NTP is taking another strategy: claiming that RIM <a href="http://iplawandbusiness.law.com/display.php/file=/texts/0808/blackberry" target="_new">unfairly influenced the Patent Office's re-exam of its patents</a>.  Yes, the company already won the lawsuit and $612.5 million, but is <i>still</i> claiming that the other side cheated.  Of course, there's not much "there" there in the accusations.  Basically, RIM had representatives who tried to find out what was happening at the USPTO and what the process was for the re-exam.  As various patent attorneys outline towards the end of the article, it doesn't appear that RIM did anything wrong here, but NTP is doing whatever it can to try to bloody RIM, even given the fact that it won the lawsuit.  What we're seeing here is a case of extreme rent-seeking, where NTP will do pretty much anything to try to keep milking its highly questionable patents, diverting hundreds of millions away from innovation and into the pockets of folks who failed in the marketplace.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080815/0325521991.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080815/0325521991.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080815/0325521991.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>the-money-wasn't-enough?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080815/0325521991</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 8 Nov 2007 12:14:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>NTP's Latest Patent Shakedown Must Wait For USPTO; Why Wasn't RIM Given The Same Consideration?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071107/014547.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071107/014547.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Even if you just have a passing interest in the topic of patents, you've probably heard of the RIM-NTP case.  That's where NTP, a company that ended up with some excessively broad and obvious patents after the inventor was unable to build a product anyone actually wanted to buy, sued RIM, the makers of the wildly successful Blackberry device, claiming patent infringement.  The attention the case got caused the US Patent Office to look closely at the patents, and very publicly state that it was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20060222/1155242.shtml">rejecting</a> NTP's patents, as they never should have been issued in the first place.  However, rather than waiting for the official patent review process to work itself out, the judge in the case pressured the two sides to settle, forcing RIM to cough up <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060303/1446243.shtml">$612.5 million</a> for no good reason.  It never made sense that the judge refused to wait for the Patent Office to finish its review -- especially since the office had been so public in questioning the validity of the patents.
<br /><br />
NTP took its winnings and immediately started looking for others to sue while the patents were still valid.  It started with Palm, makers of the Treo.  However, in that case, the judge realized what was going on and put the case on <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20070323/104855.shtml">hold</a> until the USPTO could make a final decision on the validity of the patents.  Not willing to standstill, NTP <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070911/162434.shtml">sued</a> all the national US mobile operators (Sprint, Verizon Wireless, AT&#038;T  and T-Mobile) for selling devices like the Blackberry and the Treo.  Once again, though, it looks as though a judge realizes that it's ridiculous for such a case to go forward when the USPTO has expressed so much skepticism towards the patents.  <a href="http://www.againstmonopoly.org/index.php?perm=381">Against Monopoly</a> lets us know that the judge for the Sprint, Verizon and AT&#038;T case has also <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/05/AR2007110501881.html">put the case on hold</a> until the USPTO is done.  What no one wants to explain, however, is why RIM wasn't afforded the same opportunity?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071107/014547.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071107/014547.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071107/014547.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>innovation-at-work</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071107/014547</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:57:05 PDT</pubDate>
<title>NTP's Back, And It's Brought More Lawsuits</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070911/162434.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070911/162434.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Everybody's favorite patent troll, NTP, is back. It, of course, was the company that managed to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060303/1446243.shtml">wring $612.5 million out of RIM</a>, maker of the BlackBerry, for patent infringement -- despite the patents in question being <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060222/1155242.shtml">on their way</a> to being rejected by the USPTO after a bunch of prior art <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060417/0324230.shtml">came to light</a>. NTP has now <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070911.IBNTP11/TPStory/Business">sued AT&#038;T, Verizon and Sprint</a>, as well <a href="http://www.edn.com/article/CA6477576.html">as T-Mobile</a>, for infringing on the same patents. RIM's settlement with NTP was widely believed to protect its carrier customers from infringement suits, but it's likely such protection extended only to their use of RIM products, not other mobile email systems. It's not too surprising that NTP sued, since it's a patent troll and that's what they do, though it's slightly curious since the suits were filed in the same Virginia court, with the same judge, as its previous cases. This includes its earlier suit against Palm, which the judge <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20070323/104855.shtml">put on hold</a> until after the validity of NTP's patents is finally assessed. It's likely the same thing will happen here, but NTP probably doesn't care too much -- it's just looking for more leverage to wring undeserved settlements and licensing deals out of anybody it can.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070911/162434.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070911/162434.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070911/162434.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>oh-you-again?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070911/162434</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>