Quote:
|
Originally Posted by whydidnt
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ed Hansberry
What does that have to do with this patent? You are aware that a co-founder of NTP worked on wireless email almost all his adult life, right?
|
Yes, and that the co-founder was unable to deliver a workable solution AND that NTP was founded simply to sit on that patent until some other company came along and figured out a way to deliver wireless email so that the inventor could collect on his supposed invention. Hence, a squatter, in my mind... |
I would have to agree with Ed's definition of squatting is on this. While I didn't follow this soap opera in depth it does seem to have gotten bad press for something that NTP owns and one of the cofounders is an officer of. I don't think this should be called squatting. And why couldn't I buy up patents as an investment hoping that someday someone will be able to create a product using one of my patents? There are many companies today that help inventors patent and bring their inventions to market and investors looking for technologies to invest in and to help them(selves) make a buck.
If someone develops a technology and patents that technology but is unable to 'deliver a workable solution' that doesn't mean that the patent is null and void. A person would protect his/her investment by creating a company to house that patent. Just like a safety deposit box in a bank. If another company comes along and wants to use that technology in their product let them pay a licensing fee for its use.
I might be missing a big piece of this soap but with all that's being said about nullifying NTP's patents in the very near future why would RIM settle and how can a judge ignore this?
Jeff-