NTP Sues Palm

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2006/tc20061107_059015.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_businessweek+exclusives">http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2006/tc20061107_059015.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_businessweek+exclusives</a><br /><br /><i>"Here we go again. Just when you thought you had heard the last of NTP—infamous for the lawsuit that nearly squashed the BlackBerry and the company behind it, Canada's Research In Motion (RIMM)—the Virginia-based patent holding company has filed suit against another handheld maker, Palm (PALM), the company behind the Treo smartphone—and the BlackBerry's main rival."</i><br /><br />The article goes on to say that the Palm Treo, Tungsten and a few other devices infringe on 7 of NTP's patents. I assume these have nothing to do with Windows Mobile versions of the Treo since NTP would go after Microsoft directly for that. The big difference between RIM and Palm is available cash. Palm couldn't hope to survive a $612,500,000 judgement. As of August 31, Palm had $127M in cash and $400M in short term investments, though I don't know how liquid the latter might be. In any event, a protracted defense could be costly and given NTP has already won against RIM, you certainly can't dismiss this suit as a hopeless money grab. :?

[DaleReeck]

Maybe they just don't want to take on Microsoft :) If NTP tried to sue, MS could probably just buy them :D

[inteller]

NTP isnt just a patent troll, they are patent terrorists! They are destroying innovation through litigation. Patent reform needs to happen NOW and there needs to be a use it or lose it clause just like there is with trademarks.

[Brad Adrian]

"Hopeless?" No.
"Money grab?" Definitely.

[Paragon]

"Hopeless?" No.
"Money grab?" Definitely.

Exactly!

Patent laws were setup to protect people from vultures. Not for vultures to use as tools of extortion.

Dave

[jaytee]

This is stupid. It's like they're patent campers. :evil:

[Mark Kenepp]

NTP isnt just a patent troll, they are patent terrorists! They are destroying innovation through litigation. Patent reform needs to happen NOW and there needs to be a use it or lose it clause just like there is with trademarks.

I thought we went through all this in the NTP vs. RIM threads.

NTP is not a company that came up with an idea just waiting for someone else to use it so they could sue.

According to this article (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1331106&amp;page=1):

It (NTP) 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.

If you developed a product for a company which then goes under, does that mean that your product is now fair game for anyone to copy?

[Janak Parekh]

If you developed a product for a company which then goes under, does that mean that your product is now fair game for anyone to copy?
I think the counterpoint turns that argument on its head: if you once made a prototype that never really took off, does that make you privy to essentially free money off of other people's hard work for a long time thereafter? Or, if you invent something that's not exactly revolutionary (1-Click) does that mean you have absolute rights to that process?

The answer lies somewhere in the middle -- and, like others in this thread, I'm not convinced the current state of affairs is the best thing. I do agree NTP isn't your classic patent troll, but I don't exactly like the fact that the rest of the industry will be hostage to NTP for the foreseeable future for something that will be ultimately ubiquitous.

--janak

[Jacob]

NTP isnt just a patent troll, they are patent terrorists!

Geez.. that's just what we need, another front on that war! :roll:


Sorry if that was a touch political, couldn't resist :oops:

[Mark Kenepp]

...if you once made a prototype that never really took off, does that make you privy to essentially free money off of other people's hard work for a long time thereafter? ...

Yes, as long as the patent is valid.

To be fair, it is not really free money. You need to prove that there was an infringement on your patent. If you can do that, then you need to prove that there are monetary damages.

When the whole NTP vs. RIM thing came up, I was appalled that something like this could happen and that NTP was even attempting to claim any damages. After reading more about the case and NTP, I realized that they appeared to have a claim.

I agree with you that if you are looking for a poster child for patent litigation reform, NTP would not be the best choice, and I too hate to think that the industry will be held hostage by NTP for the foreseeable future.

Would the industry still be held hostage if NTP was able to successfully produce and market their product, it just ended up that RIM came up with something better and everyone bought a Blackberry instead of a NTPberry?

[mcsouth]

One part of me wants to be enraged like others have mentioned - patent campers, patent trolls, whatever - it seems outrageous that a company's primary financial base surrounds suing other companies.

The flip side is that if they truly have a valid patent that RIM, Palm and others are in violation of, then they have a right to take legal action for financial compensation. Shame on RIM, Palm and those others for not doing a thorough patent search when they were developing their business models - they should have legal staff on hand for exactly that purpose. Had they done the search, discovered the patent, and negotiated for privileged use on a royalty basis, there would not be any need for lawsuits later.

The challenge is trying to do a thorough search against the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of patents that exist, looking for that one patent whose language covers the product and/or idea that you are preparing for your business.

I'm not familiar with the tools that patent lawyers use to do patent searches, but I do know that we have staff in our company for doing exactly that - they also file patents on behalf of our company in order to protect our "intellectual property".

I do know that our company has filed for and received patents for innovations that we pursued through R&amp;D, but later abandoned for any numbers of reasons - no perceived market, excessive cost, not practical, not feasible given current materials/technology, etc. This doesn't mean that we won't pursue that innovation later, but sometimes a good idea just can't be executed practically given the current materials/resources/etc.

I agree that there needs to be some serious thought given to patent reform; the process and system are too complex, with too many issues that need to be addressed. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how we would ever be able to clearly define what is patentable, and what is not - it seems that there can be a strong subjective element to any patent application review.

[felixdd]

I thought we went through all this in the NTP vs. RIM threads....
It took me a day to fully digest your point and to come up with a counter-point. But here it is.

NTP is not a company that came up with an idea just waiting for someone else to use it so they could sue.

According to this article (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1331106&amp;page=1):
NTP was created specifically for that purpose. Even the quotation you provided makes that clear:

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.

You made a good point about having others copy your work if you failed at marketing the product. But on the flip side, the idea of patent protection should be just that -- protection from damages (financially) because someone copied your idea. In this case, it is immediately apparent that NTP exists simply to exert ownership. Frankly, no damage whatsoever was incurred to Campana as a result of RIM's action, years after Campana gave up the patent.

It's ridiculous that RIM gave in and settled. It's ridiculous that the judge for that case entertained the litigation for 5 years, and then threatened RIM for drawing things out. Ultimately, it's irrelevant that Campana came up with the idea first. What is relevant is the damages he's suffered as a result of RIM's action. Which is none.

If, on the other hand, he was sitll trying to market his product when RIM came on the scene, then it's another story.