RIM and NTP Settle For $612,500,000

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/03/technology/rimm_ntp/index.htm?cnn=yes">http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/03/technology/rimm_ntp/index.htm?cnn=yes</a><br /><br /><i>"BlackBerry maker Research in Motion said Friday it agreed to pay $612.5 million to patent holding company NTP to settle a long-running dispute that had threatened to shut down the popular wireless e-mail service. Canadian-based Research in Motion (Research) announced the settlement late Friday ahead of a U.S. judge's expected ruling on damages in the case."</i><br /><br />I wonder what the true cost to RIM has been, in lost/delayed business, attorney fees, etc. Oh well, It's over. Nothing else to see here. Move along. Move along folks... :)

[huangzhinong]

Funny. It's not that much money, why don't them pay earlier? NTP didn't ask a lot.

[daS]

Funny. It's not that much money, why don't them pay earlier? NTP didn't ask a lot.
More than half a billion dollars is not much money??? 8O I only wish I had your job! :wink:

Actually, considering that all the NTP patents are bogus and are being slowly rejected by the patent office, it's a sad indication of how our system rewards extortion methods.

Now all the other patent squatters are going to be emboldened by this news. :evil:

[Ed Hansberry]

Now all the other patent squatters are going to be emboldened by this news. :evil:

One of the original inventors of this technology in the late 80's, later became a cofounder of NTP, and he is somehow a patent squatter? :roll:

[whydidnt]

One of the original inventors of this technology in the late 80's, later became a cofounder of NTP, and he is somehow a patent squatter? :roll:

If indeed all of the patents are invalidated, as the Patent office indicates will happen, what would you call them? :wink:

RIM was strongarmed into this settlemtent by a Judge who was sick of the case and cared little that the Patent office's indication that the Patents would be invalidated. I agree this is nothing more than legalized extortion and we ALL pay in the long run.

I think anyone that patents an idea and then fails to implement the idea, then forms a company for the sole purpose of sitting on the patent until someone else comes along and re-invents the same idea so they can sue and take advantage of it is a squatter.

[huangzhinong]

NTP's patents are not concept only. PPT had a frontpage story to cover it. I expect a few billion at least to NTP from RIM, it turns out only a little bit more than half billion.

I only trust judge's decision. Considering how much money RIM made from those patents, half billion is only a small fraction. I am wondering if it also inludes the licensing fee for future use.

[msafi]

Of course, the problem when you patent something, you make the details of the internal workings of your technology or whatever you invented public. The question is, do you think RIM looked at NTP's patent files to figure how they might come up with the push email technology?

[felixdd]

Now all the other patent squatters are going to be emboldened by this news. :evil:

One of the original inventors of this technology in the late 80's, later became a cofounder of NTP, and he is somehow a patent squatter? :roll:

Yeah because he got the patent for the sole purpose of patent squatting....

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.

It's from the background story posted on PPCT a while back: http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060128.wxcover0128/BNStory/Technology/

[Ed Hansberry]

One of the original inventors of this technology in the late 80's, later became a cofounder of NTP, and he is somehow a patent squatter? :roll:

If indeed all of the patents are invalidated, as the Patent office indicates will happen, what would you call them? :wink:

Invalid patents? Is that was patent squatter means - an invalid patent? I thought it was someone that acquired unused patents or patented existing processes, then sat on them and waited to sue when someone violated it, not when someone worked on a particular technology most of their career, had a few failed startup companies, sold some products based on their inventions, patented them and then may find out their patents are invalid.

But if your definition is correct, why don't they call them invalid patent holders, not patent squatters? So confusing...

I think anyone that patents an idea and then fails to implement the idea, then forms a company for the sole purpose of sitting on the patent until someone else comes along and re-invents the same idea so they can sue and take advantage of it is a squatter.

What does that have to do with this patent? You are aware that a co-founder of NTP worked on wireless email almost all his adult life, right?

[birick]

RIM was strongarmed into this settlemtent by a Judge who was sick of the case and cared little that the Patent office's indication that the Patents would be invalidated. I agree this is nothing more than legalized extortion and we ALL pay in the long run.


A jury found RIM guilty of patent infringment. The judge was simply tired of RIM failing to comply with the sentence imposed on them when they were foung guilty. So were most of us I think. RIM probably lost way more than $612M in the years they spent trying to avoid paying for what they stole.

[whydidnt]

What does that have to do with this patent? You are aware that a co-founder of NTP worked on wireless email almost all his adult life, right?

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. Never mind that the patents have all been or will be ruled invalid. This means that becaue of very questionably issued patents innovation is stifled and a company that delivered a true solution has to pay over half a billion dollars. Not what the patent process was developed to provide. It was developed to stimulate innovation, not stifle it, as is the case here.

[whydidnt]

A jury found RIM guilty of patent infringment. The judge was simply tired of RIM failing to comply with the sentence imposed on them when they were foung guilty. So were most of us I think. RIM probably lost way more than $612M in the years they spent trying to avoid paying for what they stole.

How can you be guilty of infringing on invalid patents? Yes, they were found guilty, and yes they appealed, since they felt the patents were invalid. There never was a sentence imposed. The judge told both parties they had to negotiate a settlement or he would impose one, yet he never did. The (un)funny thing is that just as the patent office was about to rule the patents invalid the judge decided it was time to wrap things up. RIM had to pay the ransom - though NTP had to accept much less than if they knew they had valid patents.

[szamot]

NTP originally wanted a cool $420 mil so let this be a lesson to you kids and greedy RIM boys and girls. Play nice. Bogus or not, they still had a piece of paper that it was their (NTP) magic that made mail go.... Looks like Crackberries are either finally going to flurish or go up in price and die. It will be interesting to see.

[birick]

NTP originally wanted a cool $420 mil so let this be a lesson to you kids and greedy RIM boys and girls. Play nice. Bogus or not, they still had a piece of paper that it was their (NTP) magic that made mail go....

There you have it! And, as of this minute (much less when the jury ruled), most of the patents are still valid. In the end RIM made the right decision, it would have cost them a lot less (lawyers, lost / delayed sales, stock price drops etc) if they had done it a long time ago!

Glad it's over...what will we debate next??? :devilboy:

[MitchellO]

I think that this is outrageous. RIM builds a product based on an idea, and they are forced to pay a company that patented the "idea" but never used it. I believe that to aquire a patent you should be required to produce evidence on how you will use it. e.g. marketing a product, selling the idea to another company. You shouldn't be allowed to patent something and then do NOTHING with it. Thats just bogus and unfair to other businesses.

[birick]

I think that this is outrageous. RIM builds a product based on an idea, and they are forced to pay a company that patented the "idea" but never used it. I believe that to aquire a patent you should be required to produce evidence on how you will use it. e.g. marketing a product, selling the idea to another company. You shouldn't be allowed to patent something and then do NOTHING with it. Thats just bogus and unfair to other businesses.

They are doing SOMETHING with it...they are licensing their technology to RIM so that the Blackberry will function.

[DaleReeck]

I think I'll patent the warp drive right now so that my decendents can be paid big time when someone else eventually develops one. While I'm at it, the transporter too plus anything else I can think of. Might as well get paid BIG. I hope they are still using money at that time :D

The judge declared that the patent rejections came "too late in the process to be considered." Huh? Great. "OK murderer, we just found DNA evidence to exonerate you one hour before your execution. But it's too late in the process to be conmsidered, so tough luck for you." :roll:

When the patents are judged officially invalid, will NTP have to give the money back? Or, is it "too late in the process to be considered?" :roll:

When the rules get in the way of justice, something is wrong.

[MitchellO]

I think that this is outrageous. RIM builds a product based on an idea, and they are forced to pay a company that patented the "idea" but never used it. I believe that to aquire a patent you should be required to produce evidence on how you will use it. e.g. marketing a product, selling the idea to another company. You shouldn't be allowed to patent something and then do NOTHING with it. Thats just bogus and unfair to other businesses.

They are doing SOMETHING with it...they are licensing their technology to RIM so that the Blackberry will function.

Why now? Why not earlier?

[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

[Jeff Song]

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
I completely agree.

[daS]

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]

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.


Absolutely, David. :evil:

[MitchellO]

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]

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]

What does that have to do with this patent? You are aware that a co-founder of NTP worked on wireless email almost all his adult life, right?

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]

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]

...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.

[Paragon]

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.

Well, Jeff, I think they just caught a motherload of licensing fees. :)

To answer your question "What gives another company the right to use someone's patent?" The answer to your question is simple. RIM did not pay this money because they felt they used someone's patent. They paid it because it was extorted from them. They paid this "fee" to end the steady stream of legal fees, and most importantly to end the speculation that their ability to continue delivering their service was being questioned. In short, they were afraid of loosing a large part of their customer base.

A licensing fee in line with the effort that NTP put into bringing this product to market would be fair.

This will forever leave a bad taste in most people's mouths because NTP's sole intended use of this patent was to extort funds. Patents were intended to protect the patent holder. NOT for the patent holder to "legally" extort huge amounts of money. The patent system has been turned upside down. It is now being used as a business model. Not as a protection tool. It used to be that if someone held a patent on something and their sole purpose was to sell it, they did just that. They would sell it to the highest bidder. Today that idea is long gone. Now patent holders weigh the bidding against what they feel they can get if they sit on it and sue someone for infringing on it.....or at least scaring someone into a bigger settlement.....for me that is way to scummy.

What's really sad is that now the hottest items to buy for the foreseeable future will likely be patents. Everyone and their Uncle Joe are going to be looking for patents to buy in hopes of cashing in like NTP just did. :roll:

@Ed....

NTP is a bunch of low life patent squatting life sucking corporate leeching doofus heads." :)

Dave

[LarDude]

If the judge, in his "haste" to get this case off his docket, cannot wait until the new findings from the patent office are finalized -- and RIM ends up paying NTP for what eventually proves to be invalid patents -- should the legal system (or US government) not be liable for some form of negligence?? Can RIM later sue the US government to reclaim the lost half billion? (Assuming they could prove that not settling "now" would cost them more)?

There have been cases of innocent people, who were found guilty but later exonerated because of DNA evidence, who received compensation from the government for their mistaken imprisonment.

[Jason Lee]

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

I've always preferred the term poopoo heads... ;)

[lapchinj]

...To answer your question "What gives another company the right to use someone's patent?" The answer to your question is simple. RIM did not pay this money because they felt they used someone's patent. They paid it because it was extorted from them. They paid this "fee" to end the steady stream of legal fees, and most importantly to end the speculation that their ability to continue delivering their service was being questioned. In short, they were afraid of loosing a large part of their customer base...
...A licensing fee in line with the effort that NTP put into bringing this product to market would be fair...
I think we're on the same page with this

...This will forever leave a bad taste in most people's mouths because NTP's sole intended use of this patent was to extort funds. Patents were intended to protect the patent holder. NOT for the patent holder to "legally" extort huge amounts of money...for me that is way to scummy...
Then it is safe to say that a company cannot use someone elses patent without paying a license fee. If it is used then that company can be sued for that license fee (and court costs). I would assume that the license fee could get more expensive over time but not to the point of becomming someones new inlaw (or outlaw). So I could buy up patents as an investment with the hope of licensing it out to some company and make a lot of money on licenses. If I'm correct on what I just mentioned then the only issue would be for companies and patent holders to agree on how much licensing should cost.

Well, Jeff, I think they just caught a motherload of licensing fees. :)
:drool: Nice business model but I can see some room for improvement by removing rape and some plunder as a barganing method and greed as the catalyst :shocked!: That's not going to be easy :deal:

Jeff-

[birick]

...The answer to your question is simple. RIM did not pay this money because they felt they used someone's patent. They paid it because it was extorted from them.

When did getting found guilty at a jury trial and losing all of your appeals become extortion?

Many keep saying the judge rushed the case...isn't 4 years of appeals enough? Long (real long) ago I remember learning that the american legal system promises a "fair and speedy trial" How many years in a speedy?

Once more for clairity... (and then I promise not to speak on this subject again) RIM was found GUILTY in a court of law. They were allowed to appeal the verdict all the way to the Supreme Court and they LOST ALL APPEALS. (Remember people have been put to death without ever getting to appeal to the Supreme Court.) Their Punishment for breaking the law was to pay the victim a license fee for using their technology. They finally paid the victim $612.5 millon for the technology that keeps their multi-billion dollar system functioning.

I know I am hard headed, but no matter how I look at this I can't see how RIM is the victim. They (perhaps unintentionaly) stole, they got caught. They had their day in court, a jury found them guilty. They had several appeals, all agreed that they had received a fair trial. That means they had no choice but to serve their punishment (pay the license fee as ordered by the court) since that's they way it works. Now they still have their multi-billion dollar business and it is legal since they paid for the technology that is the root of their company and which will certainly bring them billions more in profit. Not a bad deal for RIM all in all.

P.S. Ed, sorry I just can't get far enough away from the facts to start feeling sorry for RIM.

Birick

[felixdd]

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.

Because you lay stake to "intellectual property" that you're not using, nor have any intent in doing so. Someone else whose intent is to make life easier are now denied their legimate needs, based on what we dictate to be "legally" right and wrong.

One thing that has to be made clear is that legality does not always equal to morality. Sitting on a "legally" acquired piece of intellectual property for the sole purpose of squatting and later making millions through lawsuit, is akin to buying a piece of much-needed land in a urban city-scape, only to refuse to a) develop the land to any use, and b) not allowing anyone else to use the land in any manner. Whereas in this case it would be a waste of land resource, patent-squatting can thus be seen as a waste of intellectual resource, as innovation becomes an increasingly costly game to play.

[felixdd]

...The answer to your question is simple. RIM did not pay this money because they felt they used someone's patent. They paid it because it was extorted from them.

When did getting found guilty at a jury trial and losing all of your appeals become extortion?
One thing you have to keep in mind is that the courts may not be ruling on the entire issue and it implications. It may only be ruling simply whether or not RIM infringed on a patent held by NTP.

Of course, there are other issues at play here. Such as the fact that NTP is not currently using the patent; such as the reason behind which the patent was held; or the fact that the patent is soon to be declared invalid.

Based on these alone, it shows the inflexibility of the justice system in dealing with a real life problem such as the RIM v. NTP dispute. The verdict is rushed because the judge refuses to allow the patent office to have their say in the matter (though NTP probably had a hand in rushing the matter), and you need not look beyond the fact that partial immunity was to be granted to RIM so that they can continue their blackberry service to US government officials, to see that the decisions made by the US legal system does not necessarily reflect the sentiments of the people, or the breadth and weight of the conflict. As I said in the above post, many times legality does not equally morality, and only through questioning the morality of our justice system can we hope to have a system that can evolve to the changing needs and features of our society as it progresses through time.

In the end -- financially it's not a bad deal for RIM at all. But on the terms of principles of what we see as ownership, as innovation, and as progress -- this decision is indeed a step back for RIM. The only good thing that comes out of this is that it forces us all to take a long hard look at the current patent system, and perhaps be the impetus that drives a long-needed reform to mend it of its shortcomings.

[Stik]

What's really sad is that now the hottest items to buy for the foreseeable future will likely be patents. Everyone and their Uncle Joe are going to be looking for patents to buy in hopes of cashing in like NTP just did. :roll:
Dave

If history is any indication of future events, I believe your fears are well founded. The most infamous patent disputes to date...

One-click online shopping (U.S. Patent No. 5,960,411.)
Online shopping carts (U.S. Patent No. 5,715,314.)
The hyperlink (U.S. Patent No. 4,873,662.)
Video streaming (U.S. Patent No. 5,132,992.)
Internationalizing domain names (U.S. Patent No. 6,182,148.)
Pop-up windows (U.S. Patent No. 6,389,458.)
Targeted banner ads (U.S. Patent No. 6,026,368.)
Paying with a credit card online (U.S. Patent No. 6,289,319.)
Framed browsing; (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,933,841 &amp; 6,442,574.) and
Affiliate linking (U.S. Patent No. 6,029,141.)

" Now some patent holders have begun to set their sights on the new class of technology users–small organizations and individuals who cannot afford to retain lawyers. Faced with million-dollar legal demands, they have no choice but to capitulate and pay license fees – fees that often fund more threat letters and lawsuits. And because these patents have become cheaper and easier to obtain, the patentee’s costs can be spread out quickly amongst the many new defendants. Our patent system has historically relied on the resources of major corporate players to defeat bad patents; now it leaves these new defendants with few if any options to defend themselves. "


http://www.eff.org/patent/wp.php

Now that the smoke has cleared from this dispute, RIMM must face up to even a larger threat to their well-being, imo. Microsoft &amp; Partners.

Strand Consult, a Denmark-based IT research house, expects companies worldwide to invest in much broader mobile e-mail access for their employees in 2006.

"At the end of the year, many will be asking themselves whether they really needed a BlackBerry handset from RIM to check mail — and RIM might be asking themselves what went wrong," Strand wrote in a research note. "Microsoft will most probably overtake RIM as the leading mobile e-mail provider."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184654,00.html

[whydidnt]

Putting aside any emotional discussion of RIM vs. NTP - I have never used a RIM device and hopefully never will. As a matter of fact RIM has been on the other side of cases like this, so they are anything but innocent bystanders. This case is a lightning rod for some of us because it points out severe flaws in the current patent system that must be addressed. I think there is real danger if the patent system continues down it's current path that the innovation's that patents are supposed to create will be killed off by the very process meant to encourage them.

Why do you think we have patents? Why do most governments think it's a good idea to allow one company or person a monopoly on a specific product for predetermined period of time, when they won't allow coroporations a monopoly (think MS, Standard Oil or AT&amp;T)? The answer is that patents were created to encourage people to create new "stuff". Under the current system we see patents being used to STOP people from creating new stuff - RIM vs. NTP is a perfect example of this. The fact that it has taken the Patent office 5 + years to invalidate the patents shows how flawed the current system is. A patent holding company knows that once a patent is granted, the legal system moves faster than the patent office and it will be able to collect on potentially invalid patents long before the patent office finally figures out that the original patent was invalid. During this whole period of time most if not ALL innovation on the patented idea stops, which is exactly the opposite of the intended affect of patents.

The 2nd flaw in the current system is that patents are granted for things that should not be patentable. First off we see general ideas patented, without specific implementations attached. Like a previous poster indicated, why don't we patent warp drives and collect on that idea in 50 years when a company comes along and delivers it? Patents are not supposed to be granted for things that are "obvious to the skilled practitioner". In other words if the patented product is something that others in the field would think of or develop it is not unique enough to be issued a patent. There are several other wireless email solutions currently available, and several other law suits from other companies about their patented wireless email system. How can this be non-obvious to a skilled practitioner, if everyone thought of it? Amazon's patent of one-click ordering is a good example of this. We see patents all the time for things that simply combine two existing technologies -- such as email and wireless for example. Combining of two technologies is nice, but that is the normal course of things, but is that really patentable?

Too often we see my second point - an obvious idea, combined with my first point, a flawed patent process that takes too long to overturn being used by holding companies to stop innovation not create it. That's why I get concerned when I see NTP get 612 million dollars in cases like this. They have taken advantage of an extremely flawed system AND in the process have probably delayed improvements in technology we all want to see. It will certainly embolden other holding companies to do the same.

[Paragon]

When did getting found guilty at a jury trial and losing all of your appeals become extortion? ............................................RIM was found GUILTY in a court of law.

birick, this is why I made this statement

Patents were intended to protect the patent holder. NOT for the patent holder to "legally" extort huge amounts of money. The patent system has been turned upside down. It is now being used as a business model. Not as a protection tool.

Just because the courts find something to be illegal doesn't necessarily mean it is right or just. The patent laws are definitely out dated and don't work in today's world. There are plenty of laws around the world that are no longer just. The patent laws are definitely in that group. I think this case, because of its exposer, large settlement, and the possible ramifications if RIM did not pay up, illustrate very well that something can be legal, yet unjust. Clearly NTP deserved some reward in this case, but not this huge amount. RIM paid this amount solely because they felt is was better to settle than it was to continue taking the chance of loosing business because of the uncertainty of this case....That to me is extortion.

This case clearly shows that under the present patent laws there can be huge financial rewards for doing nothing but sitting on a patent and waiting for the right whale to nibble at the bait.

I'm not one to base my decisions entirely on what is legal. I like to look beyond that and see what is right, moral, and just. I really dislike people who use the law, not to protect themselves, but to gain financial reward from it at others expense. I don't think I'm alone in that way of thinking at all.

Dave

[daS]

When did getting found guilty at a jury trial and losing all of your appeals become extortion?
Without getting too off topic hear, recall that O.J. Simpson was found not-guilty of murder by one jury and liable for the same deaths by another. Regardless of which court was right, there's no question that our judicial system is not infallible.
Many keep saying the judge rushed the case...isn't 4 years of appeals enough? Long (real long) ago I remember learning that the american legal system promises a "fair and speedy trial" How many years in a speedy?
Four years is not long enough if the basis for judgement is a patent process that takes even longer! All the NTP patents are being invalidated on the extremely slow review process of the patent office. How can it be fair for the courts to work faster than that?

Also, many of the NTP apologists here seem to be under the misconception that RIM "stole" the idea(s). The problem is that patents are not made public until after they are issued, but they are retroactively effective to their filing date. That means that two people can come up with the same idea independently and the one that files first is able to control the technology.

Also, the patents are being invalidated because they were not original ideas in the first place. The trouble is that the patent office is so overwhelmed with filings by companies like IBM and Microsoft (who each file hundreds of thousands of "trivial" patents each year) that they don't spend the proper time researching the filings before issuing the patents. They currently have the attitude of "let it get sorted out in court". Of course, when the courts value these ill researched patents so highly, there's a paradox that points to a completely broken system.

I'm curious to know if any of you that think that NTP deserves $600M+ feel our patent system works well?

Being an optimist these days :wink: I do see a silver lining to this dark cloud: This case might just cause the US Congress to give the process a much needed overhaul.

[birick]

I'm curious to know if any of you that think that NTP deserves $600M+ feel our patent system works well?

I would have to say yes, $600M+ is a fair price for the technology that makes the multi-billion dollar product (Blackberry) what it is. It's a very small investment when you look at the possible returns.

However, the patent system is clearly FUBAR since it issues patents and then several years later, when the patent is in a court battle, they say maybe they will someday be invalidating these patents.

As a side note, several people have said that the courts need to look at whats right and morale not just the law. The right thing for RIM to do when they found out that they were using someone elses technology to make their product would have been to quickly negotiate an agreement and pay for the technolgy. It would have been cheaper in the long run I think.

[lapchinj]

Because you lay stake to "intellectual property" that you're not using, nor have any intent in doing so. Someone else whose intent is to make life easier are now denied their legimate needs, based on what we dictate to be "legally" right and wrong...
Are you saying that in order to own a patent I must be doing something with it and am not allowed to sit on it? I can buy real estate and do nothing for years with it. I only have an intention to build on it - someday.

I might be wrong but it seems to me that a patent is a tangible item such as a deed that can be traded. Just because of the fact that the patent office made it worth something. I agree that I cannot sue for liability or loss of business like NTP is doing but since I am the owner of that technology I have the right to license it to someone else. It could be that I saw a good buy but didn't have the money to create the worlds next big thing.

It was mentioned here more than a few times that the patent laws are outdated but according to the law today I own that technology ( I guess :? ). It seems that the only way to protect against this type of slimeball antics is to change the patent laws. Like Paragon mentioned before that it's becoming the new business model of today which is very scary indeed.

Jeff-

[Ed Hansberry]

I'm curious to know if any of you that think that NTP deserves $600M+ feel our patent system works well?

That is a red herring. First of all, whether or not I think NTP was correct or not does not allow me to put a monetary value on it, so I couldn't support or refute the $600M. What would allow me to do that is have a sense of the standard royalty for this kind of technology, the projected lifespan of the product using the patent in question, the amount of revenues over said time period, etc. I know none of that. Second, our patent system can work great in my opinion and I can still disagree with this outcome, or I can like this outcome and still think the patent system is flawed.

[DaleReeck]

Because you lay stake to "intellectual property" that you're not using, nor have any intent in doing so. Someone else whose intent is to make life easier are now denied their legimate needs, based on what we dictate to be "legally" right and wrong...
Are you saying that in order to own a patent I must be doing something with it and am not allowed to sit on it? I can buy real estate and do nothing for years with it. I only have an intention to build on it - someday.



I actually agree with this wholeheartedly, that you must do something with a patent. If you own a patent and don't do anything with it, then you are holding back technological advancement and society as a whole in the name of greed. As the old saying goes, "sh1t or get off the pot". If you don't do anything with it, then give it to someone who will. By "doing something with it", this includes coming to an agreement to share with someone who will. That is perfectly acceptable if this intention is clear from the start. If NTP had gone out looking for partners to work on this, all would be fine. But they didn't. They just waited. To lie in wait, then ambush someone with a patent violation as NTP has done is immoral and wrong. Legal, but wrong.

Its also ironic you bring up the land example because there are in fact emminent domain laws in the US that allow the government to take land from people in the interests of societal improvement. The Supreme Court in fact just held up an emminent domain case a while back. We do this with land, but not with ideas.

Oh, and Ed, by the way, just because we don't agree with your opinion on this doesn't make you the rational one and us a bunch of raving, illogical lunatics. No one is denying that NTP has the law on its side. At least not me. But the patent laws are clearly outdated and to urge changes so that what is currently lawful is changed to become right morally too is not crazy talk. There have been injustices throughout history that have only been corrected when "illogical ones" tried to urge changes.

In any case, I cannot believe that you truly believe that NTP has the right to $612 large ones based on invalid patents - that you believe that the court can't change it's rulings based on new evidence. I'm not a lawyer but I can't believe that there is precedent that allows the court to ignore pertinent new facts in a case. If there is, I'd like to see the judge's reasoning behind his ruling that the patent rejections by the patent office are "a separate issue" and not pertinent to the case.

[Ed Hansberry]

Because you lay stake to "intellectual property" that you're not using, nor have any intent in doing so. Someone else whose intent is to make life easier are now denied their legimate needs, based on what we dictate to be "legally" right and wrong...
Are you saying that in order to own a patent I must be doing something with it and am not allowed to sit on it? I can buy real estate and do nothing for years with it. I only have an intention to build on it - someday.



I actually agree with this wholeheartedly, that you must do something with a patent. If you own a patent and don't do anything with it, then you are holding back technological advancement and society as a whole in the name of greed.

No you aren't. You are getting paid for your ingenuity. And that has nothing to do with this case anyway. A co-founder worked most of his life in wireless message delivery. Just because he wasn't a successful business man at it doesn't mean he was a squatter undeserving of any compensation.
In any case, I cannot believe that you truly believe that NTP has the right to $612 large ones based on invalid patents - that you believe that the court can't change it's rulings based on new evidence. I'm not a lawyer but I can't believe that there is precedent that allows the court to ignore pertinent new facts in a case. If there is, I'd like to see the judge's reasoning behind his ruling that the patent rejections by the patent office are "a separate issue" and not pertinent to the case.
I never said the patents were valid, never said NTP should have been paid, never said $612.5M was a good number.

I am simply disagreeing with the "patent-squatting" meme.

[felixdd]

As a side note, several people have said that the courts need to look at whats right and morale not just the law. The right thing for RIM to do when they found out that they were using someone elses technology to make their product would have been to quickly negotiate an agreement and pay for the technolgy. It would have been cheaper in the long run I think.

If someone came to your house one day demanding that they in fact owned your property, under which contained some rare mineral that, due to the passage of time, is worth less now than it did (thereby your living there is making them lose money by the day), and then demanded that you pay them an exorbant amount in damages -- how would you feel?


Are you saying that in order to own a patent I must be doing something with it and am not allowed to sit on it? I can buy real estate and do nothing for years with it. I only have an intention to build on it - someday.
It's a pickle isn't it. Obviously, taking such a stance has its own issues to contend with; but faced with such obvious abuse of the system, is there really any other way? And label me stubborn, but I don't see a scenario beyond idea-squatting for someone to invent something, lay intellectual ownership to it, but make no effort in distributing it to the market.

[felixdd]

No you aren't. You are getting paid for your ingenuity. And that has nothing to do with this case anyway. A co-founder worked most of his life in wireless message delivery. Just because he wasn't a successful business man at it doesn't mean he was a squatter undeserving of any compensation.
I respectfully disagree. To me, claiming ownership of an idea, letting someone else go through the efforts of marketing it, and then going back to threaten legal action for their success, flies in the face of capitalism altogether. If you are not a good businessman, then pair up with someone who is. I'd go so far as to say that intellectual property should only be as valuable as their implementation.


I am simply disagreeing with the "patent-squatting" meme.
But that was exactly their intent.In 1992, Mr. Campana and Mr. Stout agreed to form NTP. The company was never about making things or selling things. It was about protecting potentially valuable ideas, some of which dealt with sending messages to wireless devices. And for nearly a decade, Mr. Campana's patents lay dormant, just waiting for RIM to produce the BlackBerry.
Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060128.wxcover0128/BNStory/Business/?page=rss&amp;id=RTGAM.20060128.wxcover0128

Campana couldn't implement it, so he decides to own it so that if someone else does a better job than him at implementing it, then they'll pay him a royalty. Arguably, some of those patents probably never saw the light of day in a board office; their feasibility never discussed, explored, or attempted.

[shindullin]

I would begin my reminding everyone that the criminal and civil judicial systems are TOTALLY different. The basic principle behind the criminal law is the it's better to let a few guilty people go free (OJ) than to have an innocent person go to jail. Thus if someone is CONVICTED, you DO get to put in new exculpatory evidence and get a new trial in the criminal system. Which is why you get the occasional DNA evidence freeing falsly convicted person cases. The guiding principles are Fundamental justice and the search for the TRUTH (with a strong bias toward the defendant).

The civil law is based on the RULES of CIVIL PROCEDURE. Not JUSTICE. It's basically a game. File your papers late? You lose. Your case is thrown out no matter how worthy your cause was. RIM lost under the rules so they had to pay. Pretty simple. The issue of whether the patent rules suck is a separate one. I agree with everyone else (and I suspect that this includes Ed) that the patent laws do need to be changed. Whether this is a case of squatting or not, the current rules and review system create too much room for abuse.

The purpose of the current rules that allow for squatting were developed under the old industrial model. Under this system you could invent stuff and then not get ripped off just because necessary partners did not want to cooperate with you. A real life example is the creator of the intermittent windshield wiper. That poor sap created the technology when to the big three and then was summarilly turned away. Years later he went to the Japanese manufaturers who agreed to license his technology. If there was a use it or lose it rule, the big three could have turned the inventor away, waited few years and then used it themselves without paying the inventor a single penny. This would have been a tragedy and the lack of a use it or lose it rule is explained by this type of potential dynamic.

Frankly, I think that there should be a different type of patent system for high tech and biotech. They're totally different industries from the traditional business of the 19th and 20th centuries, and far more prone to patent abuse.

So for whether RIM paid a lot of money or not. They really didn't. The half a billion licensing fee was based on sales figures from four years ago. Over the last four years, RIM has grown astronomically. The 600 billion dollar settlement obviously took into consideration the fact that NTP's patents were on a weak footing.

If RIM really thought the patents were weak from the beginning they should sue their lawyers for ineffective assistance of counsel. They should have put pressure on the patent office for a review 8 years ago while the case was still winding through the courts rather than when they'd already lost the case and were desperately trying to figure out a way to survive without paying out any money. The patent office is pathetically understaffed but not so understaffed that they couldn't have looked at NTP's patents earlier. (big business should also use some of their considerable clout to get the patent office more resources. sometimes I think that LIKE the current state of chaos).

[lapchinj]

I actually agree with this wholeheartedly, that you must do something with a patent. If you own a patent and don't do anything with it, then you are holding back technological advancement and society as a whole in the name of greed. As the old saying goes, "sh1t or get off the pot". If you don't do anything with it, then give it to someone who will. By "doing something with it", this includes coming to an agreement to share with someone who will. That is perfectly acceptable if this intention is clear from the start. If NTP had gone out looking for partners to work on this, all would be fine. But they didn't. They just waited. To lie in wait, then ambush someone with a patent violation as NTP has done is immoral and wrong. Legal, but wrong.
I think this attitude would be acceptable in a perfect world where people will help people. But it seems that the law give someone the right to sit on his patent for as long as he is able to.

It would have been nice if NTP would have started screaming that RIM was using their patent without paying license fees. Maybe they did I really don't know but if it's legal then NTP can do it. Slimy but they can do it.

I would think that the patent law should be revised (if it doesn't state it already) that there is a grace period to scream patent infringement at an offending company. After that time limit is up the patent holder would loose its rights to the patent. This would protect against a company waiting in ambush until the infringing company is rolling in money. That would seem to fix most of the issues being discussed here. And this doodo or get off the pot paradigm would force companies to get off their butts and develop what bought or loose it :wink: .

Jeff-