Maybe the Supreme Court believes this issue can be (should be) solved in normal court proceedings and not the highest court in the United States. This would make total sense if they believed the case will be ultimately won by RIM and as such would be a waste of their time to hear it. Especially when compared to other cases they may have to hear.
The Supreme Court is not a bunch of nutters. And considering the Patent Office's input the court must surely have a good reason for the verdict.
Now you've done it. Injected some common sense into the thread instead of ranting against patent law.
I'm not ranting against patent law, I'm ranting against NTP A leach company who does nothing but patent other people's work, then sue for damages. That's how they make their money.
Also, the Supreme Court didn't deny RIM's request, Chief Justice John Roberts did. The whole court only reviews cases when they are accepted. I believe each justice is assigned a district in the US and each justice decides about whether a case goes forward or not depending on from where in the US the case originates. They decide if a case goes forward. The Chief Justice sets the agenda and also gets federal matters I believe. And Roberts hasn't been on the job long enough for us to know whether he's a "nutter" or not. In fact, if you look at the Supreme Court's history, there have been all sorts of crazy characters over the years. Just being on the Supreme Court doesn't automatically make you the perfect picture of judiciary conduct.
Can anyone find the actual petition language? This is from the orders of the Supreme Court of the USA from Monday this week.
05-763 RESEARCH IN MOTION, LTD. V. NTP, INC.
The motion of Intel Corporation for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The motion of Canadian Chamber of Commerce, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The motion of Government of Canada for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari. (informally called "Cert Petition.") A document which a losing party files with the Supreme Court asking the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower court. It includes a list of the parties, a statement of the facts of the case, the legal questions presented for review, and arguments as to why the Court should grant the writ.
Writ of Certiorari. A decision by the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from a lower court.
Cert. Denied. The abbreviation used in legal citations to indicate that the Supreme Court denied a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the case being cited.
Yah never mind that all but one of the patents NTP have been knocked down. The American legal system is a fricking joke. We should scrap the whole thing and go to rock, paper, scissors. At least RIM has a chance that way. I also find it funny that if RIM's lights go out it doesn't effect the governments RIM's. I call BS. Your sorry *** should suffer like the rest. Mr. Congressman's assistant's RIM device should go silent to prove the point that the patent system in this country is critically retarded. Everyone there should be fired for gross incompetence. Then again if they were given a real budget. Gah! What Am I talking about. We don't need no stinking budget.
__________________
PDA History: Palm Pilot 5000 -> Apple Newton 2100 -> Casio E-11 -> iPaq 3650 (64MB Upgrade) -> iPaq 3700 -> Casio EM-500 -> HP Jornada 568 -> HP iPaq hx4705 www.spreadfirefox.com
The Supreme Court is not a bunch of nutters. And considering the Patent Office's input the court must surely have a good reason for the verdict.
As stated here earlier, the Supreme court was not ruling on the merits of the case. RIM appealed to them with a claim that US patent law didn't apply to them, since they were based in Canada. The Supreme court refused to hear their case, probably because it was either without merit or needed to be ruled on at a lower court, so they also did not issue a verdict.
I also find it funny that if RIM's lights go out it doesn't effect the governments RIM's. I call BS. Your sorry *** should suffer like the rest. Mr. Congressman's assistant's RIM device should go silent to prove the point that the patent system in this country is critically retarded.
I agree 100%. I'm not surprised to see a double standard from our law makers, but if they had to actually live with some of the insane laws they pass, maybe they would fix some of what is broken.
I'm not even as concerned about the Supreme Court, that was a single ruling on a longshot. But the lower Federal court seems intent on RIM is 100% wrong and NTP is 100% right.
I think I must be missing something, or maybe I don't understand because I don't own a blackberry. What confuses me is that the majority of the folks here see the patent holder as the bad guy.
I always thought that if you had a fantastic idea for a better way to do something then you should get your idea patented. Then you can either put your idea into a product or you can license/sell your idea to someone else to produce (or you can strike a deal with a patent holding firm since they are the experts on such things). Isn't that how it works? Isn't that what happened here? Isn't that why, as a condition of employment, I had to sign an agreement with my company stating that my ideas (while employed by them) were company property?
Now, if you are a producer who is set to release a lifestyle changing product on the world, aren't you supposed to insure that you aren't infringing on someones patent before you release your hot new item? Shouldn't you have a license for the patented technology before you start selling it?
Now, lets assume that you honestly overlooked the fact that were infringing on someones patent and they came to you to resolve the issue. Don't you have a responsibility to compensate them for your accidental theft of their technology, and shouldn't you have an agreement with them to continue using their patent? If you think they are trying to hold you hostage shouldn't you issue your newly developed, non-infringing solution to show that you are sincere in your efforts to resolve the issue?
OK, I'll stop but there is one more thing I don't understand... If you are the US Patent Office why would you issue invalid patents??? Anyone know how many patent office employees currently use Blackberrys? :? :?:
I think I must be missing something, or maybe I don't understand because I don't own a blackberry. What confuses me is that the majority of the folks here see the patent holder as the bad guy.
I always thought that if you had a fantastic idea for a better way to do something then you should get your idea patented. Then you can either put your idea into a product or you can license/sell your idea to someone else to produce (or you can strike a deal with a patent holding firm since they are the experts on such things). Isn't that how it works? Isn't that what happened here? Isn't that why, as a condition of employment, I had to sign an agreement with my company stating that my ideas (while employed by them) were company property?
Well, of course you are right. However, in today's technological society, you would be considered a patent squatter, the bane of society, unworthy of breathing air. You are not eligible to receive compensation for the fruits of your creative labors. Instead, if you come up with the best idea in the world, but are unable to put together the capital to actually build your creation, you must forfiet your brainchild to whomever does have said capital and you don't get a penny out of it.
Linear Mode
