End Of Frivolous Patent Lawsuits In Sight?

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/20051221150546394">http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/20051221150546394</a><br /><br /><i>"Info-Tech Research Group says that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's rejection of the five patents that are at the heart of a lawsuit that has threatened to shut down Research In Motion's BlackBerry service will once again return wide-open competition to the wireless e-mail market. "The USPTO announcement sends two strong messages to the wireless market," says Info-Tech analyst Carmi Levy. "The first is that predictions of BlackBerry's imminent demise were highly premature and unnecessarily inflammatory. The second is that life will get tougher on companies whose business model consists of using patents to sue successful vendors instead of competing for clients and markets."</i><br /><br />The article goes on to state that with the rejection of all five claims, NTP has nothing to go after RIM with. Presumably this will similarly render Visto's suit against Microsoft equally impotent.

[Mitch D]

It's about time that something was done about this, I just keep wondering what took so dang long though.

:D

[bvkeen]

I've been waiting on this since Amazon patented one-click. I hope this is a true sign of lasting sanity and not just abberation.

[Paragon]

But what will this do to the economy? Think of all the lawyers who's income just went in the crapper. :D

[Silver5]

Is Visto, unlike NTP, actually running a business that does try to compete with other push email providers? If they do, they're suit might have more to stand on than NTP's against RIM. In addition, NTP would still have something behind the suit were the patents not to have been rejected, so this may not make it difficult for other companies who do the same thing. Rather it just means they should have filed a better, more detailed, patent.

[paschott]

This sounds like great news if only just to stop the idea of patent-squatters. If someone is actively using an idea or developing an idea, that's great and they should have some protection. If all they're doing is getting a patent and waiting for someone else to make money so they can sue, they don't deserve anything and should be drummed out of court shortly after filing the lawsuit.

I'll be following this storyline with some interest. Thanks for the link.

[Paragon]

Is Visto, unlike NTP, actually running a business that does try to compete with other push email providers?

Reports have stated that NTP has one employee. A lawyer who researches and buys patents that can then be used in lawsuits such as the one against RIM. There are apparently six shareholders. All are relatives of the original owner.

[Ed Hansberry]

Is Visto, unlike NTP, actually running a business that does try to compete with other push email providers? If they do, they're suit might have more to stand on than NTP's against RIM. In addition, NTP would still have something behind the suit were the patents not to have been rejected, so this may not make it difficult for other companies who do the same thing. Rather it just means they should have filed a better, more detailed, patent.
Yeah, Visto is a real company with real products and stuff. I've just always wanted to use the word "impotent" on the front page and this was the perfect opportunity.

[Mark Kenepp]

I hope this is a true sign of lasting sanity and not just abberation.

I hope it is a sign as well but we shall see.

From what I have read and understood, this is not a new policy. There is nothing to prevent companies like NTP from pulling this in the future. It may be that the PTO will be a little more diligent in issueing patents but there is no legislation making it illegal.

I am no economist nor am I a historian but I think that there was a lot of legislation that came out of the Industrial Revolution to prevent companies (or individuals) from exploiting the system by using the new technologies, technologies which the existing legal system was not designed to handle.

I have believed for some time that there needs to be a similar legislative reaction to the recent technological revolution to prevent situations like NTP vs. RIM from happening again.

I guess it could be a drawn out process that has already begun.

[ChemNerd]

The sad part is that is a viable source of income to sue people over intelectual property like this. It's what SCO has been hanging on to for the longest time, they don't do anything except use their patent protfollio to sue people.

Unfortunatly the USPTO has a massive backlog on things and are doing the best they can to get through all of it and maintain some standards.

It should be illegal to have squatting like this, and it's possible it will be at some point. Patents are there to protect inventors from having someone else making money off their idea - from taking money away from their product and to motivate people to make new inventions so they can make money off them.

[aroma]

I've just always wanted to use the word "impotent" on the front page and this was the perfect opportunity.
OMG! :rotfl:

[Jonathan1]

Now lets see what happens in the inevitable Creative vs. Apple lawsuit. Can one patent something that is for all intents and purposes a file browser which the Pocket PC's built in file browser would violate.

[Raphael Salgado]

I work for a pharmaceutical company and we are all familiar to other pharma companies who have legal teams in place of true research and development teams who go out to challenge the possible loopholes in other companies' patents. Apparently, it's a lot cheaper to wrangle and hurt other companies than trying to develop your own drug products to further the market.

Hopefully this landmark incident will set a precedence for other industries to shape up from this obnoxious and often pointless behavior.

[Jason Lee]

it is about damn time. the behavior of some people/companies discusts me at times. kinda makes you ashamed of the human race...