RIM Handed Defeat On Supreme Court Appeal

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/23/technology/rim/?cnn=yes">http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/23/technology/rim/?cnn=yes</a><br /><br /><i>"BlackBerry maker Research in Motion was dealt a setback Monday after the Supreme Court turned down a request to review a major patent infringement ruling against it. The move takes away yet another barrier between BlackBerry users and service interruptions. There are more than 4 million users of the BlackBerry e-mail service. Research In Motion (RIM) had petitioned the Supreme Court to review a federal appeals court ruling that could lead to a shutdown of most U.S. BlackBerry sales and service."</i><br /><br />I never imagined it would go this far. It could really be turned off, though many speculate even if the Blackberry service is forced to shut down for most, it would be left running for goverment and emergency workers that have come to rely on the devices. Still, I think worst case scenario is RIM pays NTP whatever is necessary to keep the service going.

[Hugh Nano]

This is rediculous! Hasn't the US Patent office already said (or at least essentially said) that NTP's patents are invalid? "The law is an ass!"

[Brad Adrian]

Nope. The Supreme Court has reviewed that decision and ruled (twice, now, I believe) against RIM. It's stupid that a company that had no interest whatsoever in using their patent to actually produce anything is allowed to hold RIM users hostage.

I expect that RIM will pay a huge ransom (after a brief interruption) and will be forced to pass that fee onto its users.

[CTSLICK]

This is rediculous! Hasn't the US Patent office already said (or at least essentially said) that NTP's patents are invalid? "The law is an a$$!"

That is a fact as reported last month:

U.S. Patent Office Sides with RIM (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1904090,00.asp)

It is absolute crap that NTP should gain anything financially from this scheme.

[MitchellO]

NTP is one of those ar$ehole companies that uses patents to make money buy extorting it from legit companies that have products based on their patent.

I believe that you should show proof that you intend to use an idea before you patent it to stop this crap of patenting an idea so that companies that want to use it have to pay you.

This kind of thing is absurd, and the whole patent system needs reviewing to stop this kind of extortion.

Extortion is basically what this is.

[whydidnt]

The Supreme court decision was expected - RIM was appealing on the basis of being a Canadian Company, so not subject to the order to shut down, a tough sell since 80% of RIM's revenue comes from the US.

However, the Patent office has indicated that all or almost all of NTP's patents in this case are invalid - subject to appeal, which is really the issue now. The patent office have written to the judge who issued the injunction against RIM that the Patent's are invalid and that is highly unlikely that they will change that decision, even on appeal.

The real issue now is whether the judge wants to stick to his original injunction, knowing that it is most likely based upon an invalid patent. I think it would be a huge misuse of justice if he decided to enforce the injuncition, forcing RIM to either pay a huge settlement or shut down.

[DaleReeck]

I've read that NTP only has one or two actual employees and the rest are lawyers. Patent suing is how they make their money.

This is especially annoying since NTP already agreed to a $450 million settlement a while back but renegged on it, looking for more cash. That's the thing that really burns me. But despite this agreement (which is overly fair and NTP should be forced to uphold IMO - and even then, RIM is still getting jobbed), the US courts seem determined to force RIM into financial ruin. This is strictly conspiracy theory stuff, but we all know that since 9-11, there's been an anti-foreign backlash here in the US. Since NTP is US based and RIM is Canadian, well, do the math ;) As I said, no proof, but suspicious because I can see little legal reason for these judicial decisions.

Of course, not wanting the wrath of the US government to come down on them (Blackberry is hugely popular in government circles. Even Bush's boys use them :) ), NTP has "graciously" said that any shutdown would not apply to government contracts. That's very big of you NTP * ahem * but, uh, nice try. If Blackberry is forced to shut down service, do it everywhere including government service. Let's see how long NTP's stance lasts with the weight of the US government on their arses.

[ipaq_wannabe]

well, that is the craziness of being in the states - you can sue, and can be sued for practically anything under the sun as easy as buying hotdog of a corner street...

american's are just "sue-happy"...

:twisted:

[Mr. PPC]

If I remember what I was told correctly, was awhile ago...

US Government Blackberry services run through a NOC in the US, not the one in Canada. I don't know if this is for all US Gov. agencies or only specific ones.

The security part of my brain has a problem with forwarding internal email to a different country before being received by another employee of the same company/agency who sits two desks away.

Here an interesting thought for you Blackberry users [conspiracy hate on] 8)

Normally the NSA cannot spy on US Citizens[sic], so they would at times have other agencies like the CSE (Canadian equivelant) do it. So...

Imagine if you could get most of the US Federal Government (Civilian and Military), State Government and corporations to use a service where their communications (e-mail etc. in this case) actually leave the US and are processed in a differnt country. Been Done
Imagine if the NSA had a relationship with that countries NSA equivelant (remember the CSE). They Do
Expand this theory, how much would the NSA or CSE love having other foreign governments and corporations doing the exact same thing. Drool and been done
Still like your internal documents and email going to Canada (RIM)? [conspiracy hat off]

I'll stick with managing our own server and direct communications with our devices, Microsoft got this one right.

:dilemma:

[karlth]

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.

Anyone familiar with the arguments for the other side?

[Ed Hansberry]

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. ;)

[Mr. PPC]

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.

Just a thought :D

[DaleReeck]

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.

[bystander]

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.


More to follow???
:)

[Jonathan1]

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.

[whydidnt]

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.

[whydidnt]

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.

[DaleReeck]

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.

[birick]

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? :? :?:

[Ed Hansberry]

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.

Make sense now?

[DaleReeck]

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.

[Ed Hansberry]

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?

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?

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?

... 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?

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.

[DaleReeck]

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.

[birick]

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?

[DaleReeck]

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.

[whydidnt]

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.

[DaleReeck]

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.

[aristoBrat]

#1: NTP didn't back out of the $450M settlement because it wanted more money. Judge Spencer ruled the settlement "unenforcable" and invalidated it.

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,69723-0.html?tw=wn_tophead_11
http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=14674&amp;hed=Judge+Nixes+RIM+Settlement
http://www.forbes.com/technology/cionetwork/2005/11/30/rim-blackberry-lawsuit-cx_de_1130rimm.html

Also, regarding NTP being a "patent troll":
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."
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1331106&amp;page=2

(sorry for hitting this thread so late -- I just noticed it from the weekly recap email) :)

[Mr. PPC]

Here is an article I just read that revealed a lot about both RIM and NTP. Definately worth a read ( http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060128.wxcover0128/BNStory/Technology/ )

{article snipped. See the link. - EH}