Some Background on the RIM vs NTP Patent Issue

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060128.wxcover0128/BNStory/Technology/">http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060128.wxcover0128/BNStory/Technology/</a><br /><br />Contrary to popular belief, NTP, Inc. doesn't appear to be just a band of lawyers intent on patent squatting. In fact, one of the founding members, Thomas Campana Jr., is a long time inventor that has had several start-up companies involved in wireless text delivery, each with varying degrees of success. Mr. Campana died in 2004, but he was fiercely involved in protecting his intellectual property, and the amount he wanted was ridiculously small compared to where the case has gotten to today. RIM is far from innocent and has committed a number of serious blunders, many of which would have let them off the hook for mere fractions of the amounts now on the table.<br /><br />The site may require free registration to read the 11 page article, but it is well worth it if you are interested in finding out some facts about this case and the history of the founding members of both RIM and NTP, and why this case has reached the US Supreme court and the attention of millions of individuals around the world. I still don't have a clue as to who should and will win, but after reading this, I am more inclined than ever to dismiss someone's comments as ranting when they launch into "patent squatter" diatribes. It is not nearly so black and white.

[birick]

Thanks for pointing out this article, I enjoyed reading some of the lesser knows facts about this case.

[daS]

Contrary to popular belief, NTP, Inc. doesn't appear to be just a band of lawyers intent on patent squatting.

While it's true that the late Thomas Campana was the "inventor" named on the NTP patents, the company's only purpose was pantent squatting. From the article:
For a decade, Mr. Stout and his long-time client, Chicago inventor Thomas Campana Jr., had been patiently sitting on a batch of patents for a system to send text messages from computers to wireless devices.
Also, since so far each of the NTP patents reviewed by the patent office have failed the preliminary review (subject to further review of course), even the claims are dubious.

The point that I have been stressing: our current patent system is completely broken is unchanged by this article.

There's still no question that NTP does not, and will not, make anything of value and that their whole purpose in existing is to wait for someone to invent something independently of NTP's efforts in order to profit from the work of others.