[daS]

Originally Posted by Paragon

Look out corporate America...who's next?

I agree Dave. And what's more, it's not corporate America that will be paying the bills - it's all us consumers.

This case has shown that all one needs to do is run out and do a few patent filings, then wait until someone else does the heavy lifting to make a product. The worst part of this is that it doesn't even matter if your patents will hold up to review of prior art or other tests of validity. You simply need to get the courts to act faster than the pathetic patent process and you can hold the golden ticket to unearned wealth. :evil:

I don't really care about what RIM paid - in fact, their stock went up just on the news that it's over, so it's not a major hardship for them. But it's a very sad day for all consumers that will pay for such nonsense in every new product they buy. :cry:

[daS]

Originally Posted by Paragon

Look out corporate America...who's next?

I agree Dave. And what's more, it's not corporate America that will be paying the bills - it's all us consumers.

This case has shown that all one needs to do is run out and do a few patent filings, then wait until someone else does the heavy lifting to make a product. The worst part of this is that it doesn't even matter if your patents will hold up to review of prior art or other tests of validity. You simply need to get the courts to act faster than the pathetic patent process and you can hold the golden ticket to unearned wealth. :evil:

I don't really care about what RIM paid - in fact, their stock went up just on the news that it's over, so it's not a major hardship for them. But it's a very sad day for all consumers that will pay for such nonsense in every new product they buy. :cry:

[Paragon]

Originally Posted by daS

I agree Dave. And what's more, it's not corporate America that will be paying the bills - it's all us consumers.

Absolutely, David. :evil:

[MitchellO]

Originally Posted by Paragon

It's a sad day when a company is forced into a situation where they determine it is a better business decision to fork over well over a half a billion dollars, than it is to continue to pay lawers, and run the risk of lost business because of customer speculation that they may loose their service.

I always thought that in order to prove liability one had to show a true loss at least based on potential income. For NTP to have a potential loss of income they should have to show real proof of intent to implement their patent. If they could show they had a workable plan to put their patents into service in some way that would come close to rivaling what RIM have done, then I would say they deserve a financial reward. So far they have shown they are bandits sitting in the shadows waiting to pounce. Look out corporate America...who's next?

Dave

Bravo! Excellently written.

[wshwe]

NTP extorted their ill-gotten gains from RIM. The patent system is in dire need of a complete overhaul. This case amounts to nothing more than legalized extortion.

[birick]

I realise that I am in the minority on this subject, but the bottom line is that RIM was found guilty in a jury trial and unsucessfuly appealed their case all the way to the Supreme Court. In America that usually indicates that the defendant is in fact guilty. Why is this case different? Did NTP bribe the jury, all of the appeal judges and the supreme court?

[DaleReeck]

Originally Posted by birick

I realise that I am in the minority on this subject, but the bottom line is that RIM was found guilty in a jury trial and unsucessfuly appealed their case all the way to the Supreme Court. In America that usually indicates that the defendant is in fact guilty. Why is this case different? Did NTP bribe the jury, all of the appeal judges and the supreme court?

The jury and judges up to now based their decision on evidence available at the time. Fair enough. While I still consider patent squatting (sorry, but that's what it is) scummy, it's still legal and thenpatents were valid. At the time.

But my complaint (and I'm sure most people's) is that the patent office has now begun denying the validity of the patents. New information has come to the case. Yet apparently this does not factor into the final outcome. What kind of nonsense is that? This judge is in such a damn hurry to get the case off his docket that he's ignoring the patent findings. He claimed that the patent office's rejection of NTP's patents was "a separate issue." Huh? The patents ARE the issue, how are they separate? If the justice system makes a mistake, is should be corrected. Instead, in this case it will not be corrected. At all.

It might be different if the case was over and then the patents were rejected. But this case is ongoing. I'd like to think that new evidence in an ongoing case would be considered in any judicial proceeding. But I guess not and that's the foolishness here. This judge on the case has been described as "no-nonsense". Apparently, "no-sense" is also a fair description as is "no-patience".

[lapchinj]

Originally Posted by whydidnt

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-

[Ed Hansberry]

Originally Posted by birick

I realise that I am in the minority on this subject, but the bottom line is that RIM was found guilty in a jury trial and unsucessfuly appealed their case all the way to the Supreme Court. In America that usually indicates that the defendant is in fact guilty. Why is this case different? Did NTP bribe the jury, all of the appeal judges and the supreme court?

Oh please birick... do NOT attempt to use logic and reason here - and especially don't introduce facts. What could you possibly be thinking? If you aren't going to buy into the spawn-of-Satan-patent-squatter dogma, than at least don't speak out and dampen the indoctrination of others.

Repeat after me. "NTP is a bunch of low life patent squatting life sucking corporate leeching doofus heads." :razz:

[lapchinj]

Originally Posted by Paragon

...I always thought that in order to prove liability one had to show a true loss at least based on potential income. For NTP to have a potential loss of income they should have to show real proof of intent to implement their patent. If they could show they had a workable plan to put their patents into service in some way that would come close to rivaling what RIM have done, then I would say they deserve a financial reward...Dave

I agree with you on this but my question is what gives another company the right to use someone's patent? I agree with the liability part you mention but I would imagine that NTP is at least entitled to a licensing fee for the use of their technology.

Jeff-

[wshwe]

One problem with our legal system is its inablity to consider new facts in cases. Innocent people sit in jail while their lawyers try in vain to get a judge to overturn judgements that are plainly wrong. Instead of pushing both parties to settle, the judge should have postponed making any decisions in this case. In the eyes of any reasonable person these patents are close to being invalidated. RIM is paying through the nose for the mistakes of the US Patent Office. RIM shouldn't have to pay NTP a dime IMHO.