09-20-2002, 12:53 AM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
RIM granted handheld email patent - clobbers Handspring
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/27205.html
Wow - this patent may have dire consequences for the entire PDA world! I'm all for companies protecting their inventions, but this seems like such a generic patent - any handheld device designed for email and a thumb-based keyboard? What about keyboards that attach? This isn't good news in any way, and looks like yet another move that is typical for companies on the financial ropes - if you can't survive based on a good product, produce a patent and extort the industry. <sigh>
"On Tuesday Research in Motion was granted a patent for a "hand-held email device", and waited just 24 hours before clobbering rival Handspring Inc. with a writ. Have a close look at the patent [6,452,588, here], because it's sure to cast a very long shadow over the handheld wireless and cellular businesses in the coming months. (Coyly, RIM didn't mention this in its press release yesterday, and the first wire reports this morning haven't twigged that this is a new grant).
The 45-page filing, submitted last July, is for a "Hand-held e-mail device with a keyboard optimized for use with the thumbs � In order to operate within the limited space available on a hand-held electronic device, the present invention optimizes the placement and shape of the keys, preferably using keys that are oval or oblong in shape, and that are placed at angles designed to facilitate thumb-typing. The angles at which keys on either side of the keyboard are placed is [sic] complimentary."
Source: PDA Gerbil
|
| |
|
|
|
09-20-2002, 01:27 AM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 25
|
|
Ridiculous
If this holds water, then the future of mobile devices is at risk. I know, it's a little strong, but come on. Unless Handspring claims that their keyboard is optimized for index fingers they may consider themselves lucky to ONLY pay a royality to RIM. By RIM's account my SE T68, or most new phones, are in the same boat. What about that new software keyboard that others have raved about?
I shouldn't complain too much, a couple of my friends are in law school and will need jobs when they get out :wink:
|
| |
|
|
|
09-20-2002, 01:59 AM
|
|
Contributing Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,228
|
|
First Palm gets sued over the unistroke alphabet and now HS gets sued over their keyboard. Pretty soon PalmOS devices will come with a Post-it note pad so they don't violate input patents. :wink: :lol:
|
| |
|
|
|
09-20-2002, 02:02 AM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 58
|
|
Doubt is high!
If you read the patent clearly, it plainly states that the buttons must be oval in shape. This is only one small portion of this very narrow patent. I believe that in the long run, this will only be a factor for devices that are practically identical to the original RIM device. I highly doubt that this patent will have any effect, whatsoever, on ppc's. However, it did produce the same humor as the Sunday comics, so kudos for that!
my 2 cents.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-20-2002, 02:51 AM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 59
|
|
How did Handspring Get hit?
I am not understanding how handspring got hit? Because of their new Palm Device... doesn't look much like a RIM to me.... It does seem to be that this patent is a little loose..... Besides, a keyboard? Give me a break.. the patent on a keyboard ended a long time ago. Besides, RIM has been around for several years now... why the wait?
|
| |
|
|
|
09-20-2002, 02:56 AM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 168
|
|
This does sound like RIM is simply trying to eliminate the competition and generate some undeserved income. This patent also tries to snag the thumb wheel (a.k.a. Clie) as well. This will stifle the nacent always-on e-mail market initially, until better input solutions arise. Does this mean the Danger device is now history? How about the Motorola e-mail pager? This could really give RIM a monopoly in this sector of the handheld market.
I suspect they will also attempt to go after Sony over the thumbwheel and might even try to sue over the NR-70 keyboard if they really need the cash (allthought the layout and shape are not similar).
It seems ever since Rambus embarked on their 'sue for fun and profits' extortion scheme, other companies have seen this as a legitimate way to make money. Too bad -- I purposely avoided using Rambus memory in my last PC upgrade (DDR instead) as a result of this shady business practice and will have the same bias against RIM if they get stupid with their patenet claims.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-20-2002, 03:44 AM
|
|
Theorist
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 258
|
|
No a very broad patent
I've done a lot of research into Patents (having applied for one myself).
The claims are the most important/protective part of a patent. There are two general types of claims:
1) Independent claims - which are kind of a stand-alone statement of what [idea] you want to protect - The independent claims in this patent are 1,11,17,23,24, and 42.
Independent claims are a complete entity. Even if it mentions ten different things/attributes, it is still treated as one statement. You can only infringe on an indepedant claim if your idea/device uses ALL ten of the things/attributes mentioned in the independent claim. For example, if a claim mentions how to create a keyboard using 5 parts, but you are able to create a keyboard that uses only 4 of those same parts, then you probably won't be infringing on the independant claim because your keyboard does not include *everything* in the 'claimed' keyboard. However, if your keyboard uses seven parts, and five of them are the same as in the claim, then you will probably be infringing the claim because your keyboard encompasses *everything* in the claim.
2) The other type of claim in a 'DE'pendant claim, which rely on 'IN'dependant claims. Because DEpendant claims rely on INdependant claims, if you are able to get-around one or more of the details of the INdependant claim, then any DEpendant claims based on it are usually not applicable. Basically, if you wreck (get around) the foundation (the independent claim), then everything that the foundation supported (dependant claims) comes crashing down along with it.
So, generally speaking, the power of a patent is in the INdependant claims... and you will notice that most, if not all, of the INdependent claims mention *very specific* attributes for a keyboard (i.e. "arranged in an arc", " each oblong shaped letter key is tilted"). So, if you create a device in which the keyboard keys are not arrange in an arc and not tilted in a common angle, then you probably won't be infringing on this patent.
...Just my quick initial opinion of the patent
|
| |
|
|
|
09-20-2002, 03:59 AM
|
|
Theorist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 300
|
|
Good luck to RIM in its quest to prevent competition from flourishing and convincing the government that stopping companies from 'copying' their technology will not lead to a decline in tax revenues.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-20-2002, 10:20 AM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 102
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Take1
It seems ever since Rambus embarked on their 'sue for fun and profits' extortion scheme, other companies have seen this as a legitimate way to make money.
|
I think you have to go back a bit further. The computer industry has always been a mass of patent suits. The earliest ones I remember are the Apple vs. Atari suite, the Apple vs. Miscrosoft (Excel, I believe) and RSAs suits against Phil Zimmerman over PGP.
IMHO, very few of the patents we are now seeing in the industry should have been granted, and very few would be granted in the UK where the requirements for inovation are higher. Unfortunately, because some plank in the US grants a patent on "a novel method of transmitting text via electrical signals" we all get charged 10 cents a letter to send emails :roll:
You'll note that the US doesn't take our dumb patents seriously. BT (that's British Telecom) recently lost a patent fight which theoretically gave them a patent over hyperlinked documents (i.e. the whole of the web). But that was a UK patent, so it doesn't count. :wink:
|
| |
|
|
|
09-20-2002, 12:37 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 110
|
|
I'm not sure how US patent law works but, assuming it's broadly the same as the UK, I think RIM may have fallen into the classic trap here. Many businesses "over-specify" their patent claim. The right - but VERY expensive - thing to do is to employ specialist patent lawyers. The really, really wrong thing to do is to get your Techies to write the application. The former shoot for as "loose" a definition as they can get away with (eg "e-mailing on the move") - the latter are so proud of HOW they accomplished their wonderful development that they put ALL the details in (eg "oval keys").
From a users point of view the former is a real threat to "free trade" the latter is pretty much insignificant ("damm - we'll have to use square keys then - oh well").
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
