Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Blackberry Injunction Postponed

Posted by Zonk on Fri Feb 24, 2006 03:41 PM
from the chalk-one-up-for-not-dumbness dept.
Patents Government The Courts Communications News
Astin writes "The PTO has rejected the last of the NTP patents against Research in Motion. On top of this, Judge Spencer has decided that Blackberry service won't be shut down today, but he will issue a decision on the injunction 'as soon as reasonably possible.' RIM CEO Jim Balsillie just said on CNBC that it's 'quite possible' that NTP won't see any settlement from RIM at all now."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] RIM - The Whole Story 262 comments
khendron writes "The Globe and Mail has published an article titled Patently Absurd, detailing the whole history of the RIM vs. NTP wireless war. It is a blow by blow account of how a dispute that could have been settled for a few million dollars is now 'a billion-dollar dagger hanging over RIM.' The article reads like a fairy-tale of egos, legal blunders, and patent stupidity."
[+] RIM Loses NTP Case, To Pay $53 Million 256 comments
theodp writes "A judge has ruled in favor of holding company NTP in its patent-infringement case against BlackBerry maker Research In Motion, awarding monetary damages and fees of $53.7 million and granting an injunction preventing RIM from making, using, or offering to sell handhelds, services or software in the U.S. until the date of expiration of NTP's patents, the latest of which is May 20, 2012. The court then stayed that injunction, pending an appeal by the Canadian company."
[+] Hopes Rise for RIM 143 comments
sbowles writes "U.S. District Court has set Feb 24th as the next date for a hearing to consider a possible injunction against Research in Motion. Despite this, RIM shares are rising on news that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), under pressure from crackberry-addicted Congressmen, may be moving to invalidate NTP's patents. As a contingency, RIM has announced that they have a software workaround that will allow service to continue uninterrupted."
[+] RIM Announces Workaround in NTP Case 118 comments
Justin Michael writes "RIM announces they have a software solution in the event that the courts rules in favor of NTP. The fix is called their multi-mode edition. Customers are being told that they do not need to take action yet, but would need to install the multi-mode edition on both servers and handhelds." A Reuters article also covers the announcement. From that article: "The company said it will soon begin shipping handsets with the software update in a dormant mode. It will make the update available at www.blackberry.com/workaround at a later, but as yet unspecified, date. RIM said the changes would require software updates, but the new system will deliver the same functions and performance."
[+] RIM Settles Long-Standing Blackberry Claim 295 comments
David Jao writes "Research in Motion has agreed to pay 612.5 million dollars for a 'full and final settlement of all claims' resulting from the NTP patent lawsuit against the makers of BlackBerry. According to the article, the settlement is 'on the low end of expectations', perhaps because the patents in question had earlier been preliminarily ruled invalid by the US Patents & Trademarks Office." Many article submitters characterize this move as 'giving in' to NTP's tactics. What do you think?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Blackberry Injunction Postponed 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • No patents but still infringing (Score:4, Interesting)

    by plankrwf (929870) on Friday February 24 2006, @03:47PM (#14796260)
    Interesting system in het States: no valid patents, but stil possible infringement... But then, hey, I'm a stupid European ;-0
    • Despite the fact that the US Patent and Technology Office (USPTO) has declared the patents invalid, NTP still has the option of challenging the "invalidity" of those patents in court. Apparently, Judge Spencer won't consider the patents to be non-existant until that happens. The challenge process could take a year or more.
    • Although RIM has alrady been found to have infringed the patents the judge could set asside the jury verdict based on the new information or could simply set damages at $1 and end the case that way.
        • The judge could also set aside the jury verdict, since the patents are invalid, but still award huge sums of money to NTP just to punish RIM for lying in court.

          It looks to me like the judge is the main fraudster in all of this. Apparently, the judge threw a fit because somebody noticed a 1990's file date in directory where supposedly 1980 software was being run for a prior art demonstration. Wellll, this sort of thing makes great theater, but it does not make sound law when you consider that the 1980's so

  • patent squatting (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zephc (225327) on Friday February 24 2006, @03:48PM (#14796269)
    Patent squatting should forfeit the rights to a patent after, say, 3 years if no progress has been made. For example, if Company A patents something, then sits on it for years. Company B makes a device that uses A's patent, but A has done nothing with it said patent. If A can't prove that they are working on developing the invention in the patent, then the patent is voided. That includes you, hoverboard patent!

    Vote for me in 2008 and I will see this passed into law :-D
    • Want my vote? Campaign to invalidate ALL software patents!
    • There are two situations in which that would be bad.

      If someone invents something for which the barriers to entry are too high - why shouldn't they be able to license it to the existing companies. Instead of the existing companies just waiting 3 years and then using the invention anyway.

      And if someone invents something which relies on some other patented thing. The owner of the existing patent can just not allow them to use it, wait three years, and use the new invention anyway.

      I'm sure there are others too.
      • I think they still should have something. I mean, the "inventions" we're talking about here are nothign of the kind. They're just ideas with no practical anything behind them...Like, I'm going to patent "Holographic optical email display interfaces that use retinal focus for navigation" *Patent patent patent*

        Okay, I'm done. Now, when someone actually invents that, I own it because I thought of it first? How does that follow? I can sit around and pull stuff outta my ass all day long, do no more investment in
      • If someone invents something for which the barriers to entry are too high - why shouldn't they be able to license it to the existing companies. Instead of the existing companies just waiting 3 years and then using the invention anyway.

        The problem is that it is not some guy tinkering in his garage that is getting and stockpiling patents. It's greedy IP firms. Maybe a compromise would be to allow individuals to sit on say X number of patents, but make it illegal for IP only firms to do the same thing. Thi

    • Re:patent squatting (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Contrary to popular belief, legal professionals generally know what they're doing. People practicing in the area of patent law usually understand the technology (more likely than not far better than the typical /. commenter) and the implications of the law on the technology well enough to formulate reasoned conclusions. While your point of view is one that is considered, perhaps what you don't know is how damages are calculated in a patent infringement case.

      In your scenario, a patentee without the capabil
      • I would say to that the patent is voided, but can be reapplied for after 18 months (sounds reasonable). The 'little guy' should be able to at least prove some *research* is involved based on the patent. E.g. patenting 'a computer neural interface' and sitting on it for years is ludicrous - it's still far outside the scope of modern technology. However, if the little guy has some reasonable idea of how to do it, and is doing real research* towards it, his patent can stand. This is sort of like tax laws:

      • - None of this would even be a question if the inventor hadn't patented it ... the invention simply wouldn't exist!

        This is utter hogwash, particularly in the area of software, where independent invention is commonplace. Inventions don't cease to exist simply because someone fails to patent them. And while the possibility of patenting an invention may provide an additional incentive, it is hardly the sole necessary incentive to invention. It's not like the software industry went nowhere before an activ

      • The judge CANNOT reasonably set damages at $1. The law guarantees that NTP will receive at minimum a "reasonable royalty". This is a MINIMUM. Reasonable royalties are calculated, in part, by figuring out what the two parties would have likely negotiated for. Remember, the patentee doesn't have to license the technology to anyone if they choose not to, so that property right can be worth quite a bit depending on market forces.

        As for NTP having to pay RIM's legal fees, that would be downright impossible.
        • The judge CANNOT reasonably set damages at $1. The law guarantees that NTP will receive at minimum a "reasonable royalty". This is a MINIMUM.

          RIM has to pay reasonable royalties for a bunch of invalid patents?!
      • It shouldn't invalidate the patent, but the scenario should create an 'implied liscence'. It was there, you knew about the infringement, you did nothing -> you implicitly gave your permision to do so.
        However not sure if this applies, NTP has been suing RIM for years & started shortly after RIM started operating in the US.

        But we already have that -- it's called "laches." If you know infringement is going on, and do nothing, eventually you lose the right to sue for damages. For patents, you cannot su
  • I don't have a blackberry, but I've been waiting all morning for this news. I was wondering if the judge was going to shut down Blackberry service. I was thinking about how the government (or legislature) would respond if RIM was given 30 days to shut down their service. And hopefully it woulda been, a first step to the patent system being overhauled.

    Oh well. This is probably the better outcome.
    • 1. The government won't react till the day the service is turned off.
      2. Then they'll look surprised
      3. Then they'll have a committee set up to investigate the issue
      4. On being blamed for lack of action, they'll feign ignorance and say they were not aware of the seriousness of the situation because it's not every day that RIM shuts its services off
      5. They'll say they'll treat this as learning experience
      6. They'll look into separating RIM from the DHS
      7. They'll find a scapegoat
      8. And then they'll wait for Ma
      • What annoys me is that I read an article where the judge stated that he'd make sure there were provisions for the governemnt so RIM could continue service for them. I'd like to know what incredibly vital governemnt service is being supplied by BlackBerry email?

        You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the government is subject to Law.
      • http://www.computerworld.com/mobiletopics/mobile/s tory/0,10801,108094,00.html [computerworld.com]

        If you're going to enforce the law, ENFORCE THE FUCKING LAW!! Don't make exceptions for government panseys who feel their operations will be hurt (oh, like other people aren't hurt? or are you special?) if Blackberry does get shut down.

        Does "a government for the people, by the people" ring any LIBERTY BELLS?
        • Although I have no idea which portions of government might use the service, yes, some parts are special.

          When you see those flashing red lights and hear the siren, for instance, you're required to pull over and let the firetruck get by, because it's special. I can certainly imagine portions of emergency services that would greatly benefit from a good text service.

            • Sure, some ARE *special*, but not in the sense of having more RIGHTS than the rest of us.

              Um, yes they do. The whole point of a government is that they have a monopoly on the right to use force to keep society functioning smoothly. I certainly don't agree that the government should be exempt from a shutdown, since they're not the only people with mission-critical stuff depending on their BlackBerries, but they most definitely do have rights that the rest of us don't.

      • A nice side effect of that bizzare clause is that the outcome does not affect the decision makers.

        If the outcome did affect the decision-makers, then they'd be inclined towards one side.

  • Bad news for me (Score:3, Funny)

    by PunkPig (738544) on Friday February 24 2006, @03:54PM (#14796314)
    I could have gotten out of pager support this weekend.

  • I think of this: (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MtViewGuy (197597) on Friday February 24 2006, @03:55PM (#14796328)
    The famous U.S. v. United Shoe Machinery Company case of 1941.

    United Shoe was caught abusing its patent portfolio to keep competitors at bay; this was the same rationale that got Rambus into a lot of trouble a few years back when courts said Rambus' patents on certain computer memory designs was used to keep DDR-SDRAM technology at bay in favor of Rambus' own RDRAM technology.

    In short, NTP was abusing US patent laws to keep a competitor at bay.
    • They're a patent holding company. They don't compete against *anyone*, they just patent shit.
    • They don't have a product. They don't have a market. They exist solely to be extortionists. They don't even have anything to use to extort anyone -- they have no valid patents!

      So they exist solely to sue trying to frighten people based on bullshit claims that have no logical or legal standing.
    • United Shoe was caught abusing its patent portfolio to keep competitors at bay;

      Isn't this what Macrovision does?

      1: Develop VCR copy-protection system that corrupts the video signal.
      2: Get movie studios to force its adoption in DVD players, satellite systems, and cable boxes.
      3: Patent every way they can think of for defeating their own system.
      4: Sue anyone who markets a system to fix the corrupted video signal for patent infringement.
      5: Profit!

  • Whoo Hoot (Score:4, Funny)

    by HeroSandwich (920245) on Friday February 24 2006, @03:57PM (#14796339)
    SCREW NTP!! Rat bastards!

    Yay.. I mean what the hell.. I can't understand how you can patent an idea like e-mail / txt through a wireless device..

    Why what a great leap of logic for me to want to get my e-mail or stay in touch remotely.. however did the great minds at NTP think that up. Oh how did they ever come up with the idea.. Patent a very specific way to do something.. don't hand out patents for vauge ideas.

    I wonder if can patent and new way of doing business in which people give me money for services and or goods and I refuse to give them exact change. Then anyone who rounds up a coffee or newspaper will owe me a crap load of money!! Whoot.. where's the nearest Mercedes dealership!

    Stupid people.. I tell you.. back in my day AirWolf wouldn't have sorted this out in no time.

    Nothin is more AirWolf than AirWolf!
    • I can't understand how you can patent an idea like e-mail / txt through a wireless device..

      They didn't patent such a broad idea. They did however patent stuff related to how RIM chose to deliver email (a push method instead of a poll) to its wireless device.

  • I'm generally against patents in software and in IT in general. But it would have pleased me so much to see Crackberry addicts suffering from withdrawal.

    There is no more annoying thing than sitting down in a roomful of people trying to make an argument about something important just to find all eyes downward towards those vile and evil devices. The meeting ends and you have to resend the information via email, wasting two good hours that could've been dedicated to other more worthy pursuits such as drin

  • Doesn't bother me (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dream1979 (946688) on Friday February 24 2006, @04:20PM (#14796507)
    I personally would love to see the blackberries shut down. I work in a real estate agency and all the brokers use them. I would LOVE to see the havoc caused if these self-proclaimed "important people" cant get their messages on the spot. They really need to learn that not everything needs to be done 5 minutes ago.
    • I personally would love to see the blackberries shut down. I work in a real estate agency and all the brokers use them. I would LOVE to see the havoc caused if these self-proclaimed "important people" cant get their messages on the spot. They really need to learn that not everything needs to be done 5 minutes ago.

      I am with you on thatm but I can forsee a better result. A Blackberry shut-down would most likely result in a geometic increase in productivity. Instant communication devices lead to micro-mana

  • Looks like Microsoft won't be competing soon with RIM if they get past this one; MS plans of world domination will be held off for a while.

  • Umm, Gov't uses Blackberries (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rAiNsT0rm (877553) on Friday February 24 2006, @04:50PM (#14796749) Homepage
    Not sure if folks realize it but most of the government relies on Blackberries, including many mission critical areas... I'm not seeing any judge ruling them out anytime soon. A number of these agencies have been working (unsuccessfuly) on trying to port their info over to another form from the Blackberry and it ain't happening.

    That is one company I see coming through all this with flying colors, or else they could make shit real bad for a lot of people.
  • I was looking forward to the crackberry addicts at my company to actually begin paying attention in meetings and such again.
  • does anyone see a parallel?

  • Live & Die (Score:3)

    by nighty5 (615965) on Friday February 24 2006, @06:43PM (#14797526)
    Lie by the sword, die by the sword.

    NTP should have acccepted RIM's first offer instead of being greedy.

    Nuff said.

    • I'm sure it's not a simplistic as my idea, but should RIM just have to pay license dues on the patents, and continue their service?

      If the patents really are invalid, why should RIM have to pay license fees at all?

      I would assume that a final ruling will be delayed until after NTP's appeals.

    • Possibly the settlement could involve transfer of the system to NTP's control?

      Good Lord! The last thing in the world NTP wants is control of the system. They're just in it for the money.

      If they had control of the system they might actually have to do something like work to earn their living, instead of just buying, selling and litigating bits of paper. They much prefer being part of the something for nothing economy.

      KFG
    • Just goes to show, $450 million in the hand is worth more than $1 billion+ in the bush!

       
      • Really, how greedy do you have to be? NTP pretty much had a deal with RIM for $450M one year ago. Sheesh, for a "company" with no staff or product or facilities? Forget haggling over the details about future revenue streams or whatever happened to break down the previous deal. I would have been happy to sell the whole "company" for that much money. Be rich, buy an island, and sit around on a beach trying to think about what other patents I should get or buy to screw over the next industry.

    • Re:heh (Score:3, Interesting)

      by engagebot (941678)
      Yeah, but in this case that doesn't matter. Today was the day, and all we needed to know was Blackberry staying or going.

      Thats big news a little before quitting time on a friday. Especially since its a long holiday weekend here (mardi gras). Getting the news that blackberries would be shut down or not just before a 4-day weekend was big deal to us.

    • Re:Crushing BS Innovation (Score:4, Insightful)

      by VP (32928) on Friday February 24 2006, @05:38PM (#14797098)
      What is so innovative about email over a wireless connection? Let's take a look at what the technology was in the mid-90's:

      1. E-mail protocols: widely available, run on top of general switched-packet networks
      2. Switched-packet transport protocols: widely available
      3. Wireless switched-packet protocols: available

      What RIM did was:
      1. Design a usable device
      2. Create the infrastructure so that the devices can send and receive e-mail almost everywhere.
      3. Profit

      What NTP wants is to jump directly to 3. Innovation, my a$$.

        • Debatable (Score:3, Informative)

          by typical (886006)
          What the predecessor to NTP did was demonstrate a workable system in the late 80s/early 90s, before all that infrastructure was in place.

          Let's take a look at this, because I think that I have a very different take on software patents than you do.

          The earliest patent number I see here [wikipedia.org] is 5,438,611 [uspto.gov].

          That patent was granted August 1, 1995, and the application filed May 23, 1994.

          Ricochet [markshapiro.com] was already a commercial product in 1994. So, even ignoring the fact that I don't think that there's any benefit in granting p
    • Working around a patent infringement by changing what you're doing so that you're not infringing any more is not underhanded; it's explicitly allowed, and even encouraged - because doing that is creating another invention. Just ask a patent attorney.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.