You aren't getting it. NTP didn't invent squat. They don't invent anything or make any products. Most of their employees are lawyers. They are a patent holding company who go out and either buy other people's patents or patent common no-brainer ideas and wait for someone else to do the work. Then they demand payment or sue. So yes, they are scum of the earth.
Also, it's not that the patent office knowingly gives invalid patents. It's actually easy to get a patent as the initial process doesn't involve much research on their part. Only if there is a conflict, such as in this case, does the patent office review (and reverse if necessary) previously issued patents.
Actually, I don't have (much) of a problem with what initially went down between NTP and RIM. I still think its a scummy business, but its RIM's business how they wanted to deal with it. The thing that burns me is, NTP has a deal with RIM for $450,000,000. Not a bad paycheck for doing nothing. But when NTP got greedy and realized they could go for twice as much (some say they want as much as $1 billion), they renegged on the deal. And the dumba$$ courts decided that going back on a deal is apparently OK. Considering the kid of business NTP engages it and that most of their employees are lawyers, I'm not really surprised though.
You aren't getting it. NTP didn't invent squat. They don't invent anything or make any products. Most of their employees are lawyers. They are a patent holding company who go out and either buy other people's patents or patent common no-brainer ideas and wait for someone else to do the work. Then they demand payment or sue. So yes, they are scum of the earth.
So the patent in question, which is it? Is it a patent they purchased (you could call that "investing in") or is it a no brainer patent?
Quote:
Also, it's not that the patent office knowingly gives invalid patents. It's actually easy to get a patent as the initial process doesn't involve much research on their part. Only if there is a conflict, such as in this case, does the patent office review (and reverse if necessary) previously issued patents.
Actually, I don't have (much) of a problem with what initially went down between NTP and RIM. I still think its a scummy business, but its RIM's business how they wanted to deal with it. The thing that burns me is, NTP has a deal with RIM for $450,000,000. Not a bad paycheck for doing nothing.
They didn't do nothing. At worst, they only invested in the patent, which isn't "nothing." Unless this was a no brainer patent that requires an extremely modest investment. Let's say they invested in it by buying it from the guy that invented it. What is the limit of the return on investment they should be allowed to make?
Quote:
But when NTP got greedy
So, you have a chance to sell X for $Y and you realize during negotiations that X is worth 2$Y. Why is that greed?
Quote:
... and realized they could go for twice as much (some say they want as much as $1 billion), they renegged on the deal. And the dumba$$ courts decided that going back on a deal is apparently OK.
Well, we have the law to look at here. Which law was broken, or did the court say it was ok to back out? Which law did the court system allow to be broken?
Quote:
Considering the kid of business NTP engages it and that most of their employees are lawyers, I'm not really surprised though.
Classical logical fallacy, called an ad hominem. When all else fails, just pile on the derisive lawyer comments.
I'm sorry, but agreeing to almost half a billion dollar settlement despite very little work or investment, then backing out only to watch the courts side with the agreement breakers is too much for my own sense of fair play. $450,000,000 was a more than fair price and anything more is greed, plain and simple.
The courts won't even delay the proceedings to allow the patent courts to properly review the patents, which could take a year. Which of course is another matter. You are arguing for enforcement of patents that have already started to fall apart and are being shown to be invalid. By the time the review is done, NTP may very well deserve zero dollars. Yet they could end up with 500 million to a billion dollars? Is that fair? How can this judge not wait for a patent review? That's like declaring someone guilty or innocent before the trial is even over and hope you made the right judgement when it's all over. But at the patent office, at least someone in our government is starting to show some common sense.
But the courts can't give NTP their money fast enough it appears. Just because they can get 2$Y more than $X doesn't mean they should throw out prinicple and fairness to get it. That may be naive, but if that's the way NTP wants to do business, that's their choice and their reputation. And if their patents are ruled invalid, do they get to keep their half billion dollars for free?
I'm not sure why NTP backed out or what the legal basis was. But apparently the courts allowed it.
As far as the lawyer comments go, the evidence is out there and clear. For every decent and honorable lawyer, there are ten ambulance chasers who helped create our climate of litigation. Our lawmakers have focused so much on the letter of our laws that they've thrown the intent out the window. Our society is sue-happy because our so called lawmakers allowed it to get that way and the ambulance chasers are more than happy to take advantage of the situation. I hear all this talk about activists judges, conservative judges, liberal judges etc. But I think we need some common-sense judges.
But the key technology behind Blackberry may very well be (read probably is) worth 1 billion, if not more. Blackberry is spreading across the globe and will be (if it isn't already) a multi-billion dollar asset for RIM. I have a hard time convincing myself that the patent holder doesn't deserve a fair share (a jury and federal appeals court agree). Even if the holder bought the patent for $100 then the worst you can say is that it a was wise and forward thinking investment.
If it was my idea or investment, I would certainly want my share. Wouldn't everyone?
Then maybe its time we stop patenting ideas and only allow patents for physical products. Any idiot can have an idea. But the first one to get that idea translated to a useful product (either built or a defined, specific design) should be the winner, not who thought of it first.
Besides, as I said earlier, what happens if they reach settlement but the patents are all rejected a year from now? Is NTP going to give the money back? Not likely. RIM gets boned for nothing. It's just not who holds the patent that counts, but the quality and viability of that patent that needs to be considered. The courts aren't doing that.
There are several point related to patents I feel the need to make. First off - Patent law, just like copyright law was written well before our lawmakers knew of the various technology that is available today. There are many questions that technology creates that are not specifically addressed in Patent law.
Patent law indicates that a patent will be granted on an idea if there is no prior art and the idea is not obvious to a skilled practitioner. Now, what happens if the person at the patent office is not familiar with the technology? They often ASSUME there is no prior art and there is no way for them to know if the idea is obvious or not. So what has been happening is that patents have been granted for items that would seem obvious to several of us - the ability to receive email wirelessly, for example. (Why is it combining two existing ideas - Email and Wireless internet access- a "new" idea?)
Once a patent office grants a patent it is extremely difficult, expensive and time consuming to prove that the idea was either prior art or obvious. One can appeal and provide proof of such to the patent office, but in the mean time the patent holder can attempt to enforce it's rights, which is what is happening in the case being discussed.
In the case in question, the Patent Office has admitted that they made a mistake and the patent should not have been issued. However the law allows the patent holder to appeal that decision, which is what NTP is doing. The patent office has further announced that it is VERY unlikely that they will uphold NTP's appeal. Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but it seems to me that the fact that the Patent Office has already said the patents in question are invalid AND that they said it was very unliekly that they would overturn that ruling should at least cause the legal system to hold off on effectively killing a company over an invalid patent. It should also be noted that NTP requested an extension to present it's appeal to the patent office- most likely to delay the office's final decision to make it occur after the court date on 2/1.
You can all say all you want about how Patents are good because they protect people's ideas, but the idea behind patent law is promote innovation. The goverenment doesn't care about protecting your idea, they just want to encourage people to create new "stuff". IMO, If you have an idea, but never plan on using that idea to create a product you should not be allowed to prevent others from creating products that may seem to use the same idea - particularly if you never heard or new of the original idea that was never executed.
NTP has never created any product. They are a very small organization that's only purpose is to review new products to see if there MAY have been some sort of prior idea some had for the same product. If so they they purchase the patent from the original holder, who most likely never intended to create anything anyway (for pennies on the dollar I might add). Then they turn around and sue the company that actually produced the product. It is beyond me why anyone would think this is a "good" thing, as it is NOT the intent of patent law to stifle innovation, which is surely what is happening as a result of patent hoarders such as NTP. Many of these patents should never have been granted since they are obvious, however, often companies settle as they have shareholders to answer to, and being involved in a long, costly legal battle over the validity of a product often is very brutal on stock price.
Thanks whydidnt for taking my ravings and turning them into something a little more elegant Bottom line, its time for lawmakers to review patent law so that it truely protects innovators for coming up with original ideas and not patent hoarders. That is why its important the NTP not win this case IMO.
The trouble is that NTP, based in Arlington, Va., doesn't exactly fit the mold. It was co-founded by Thomas J. Campana Jr., a Chicago-area engineer who in 1990 created a system to send e-mails between computers and wireless devices. His wireless e-mail innovations were shown at the well-known Comdex computer show in Las Vegas.
Campana was working for his own company, but his primary customer, a wireless carrier called Telefind, was unraveling. To protect his work, he formed NTP along with a northern Virginia attorney, Don Stout.
"The guy did make a good-faith effort of starting his own company; It didn't pan out for him," said Charles F. Wieland III, an intellectual-property attorney in Alexandria, Va. "He actually tried."
Bottom line, its time for lawmakers to review patent law so that it truely protects innovators for coming up with original ideas and not patent hoarders. That is why its important the NTP not win this case IMO.
Linear Mode
