Slashdot Log In
RIM Settles Long-Standing Blackberry Claim
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Mar 03, 2006 07:01 PM
from the end-to-a-long-and-sordid-tale dept.
from the end-to-a-long-and-sordid-tale dept.
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?
Related Stories
[+]
RIM Wins Ground in Patent War 98 comments
ttyp0 writes "The maker of the BlackBerry on Wednesday gained some ground as it fights a battle over patents with NTP, which is trying to shut down most sales and service of the portable e-mail device in the United States. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a final rejection of one of five disputed patents owned by NTP, another step in a long process that Research In Motion Ltd. hopes will allow it to keep operating its U.S. BlackBerry service. NTP, a closely held patent holding company, has successfully sued RIM for infringement of its patents. I've been following the case closely as our company is about to invest in BES, a costly venture indeed."
[+]
NTP Sues Palm, Alleging Patent Violation 121 comments
mikesd81 writes "The Seattle Time reports that NTP is now going after Palm for patent infringement on technology used in their devices. The suit asks the court to bar Palm from continuing to infringe on NTP's patents and seeks monetary damages for the alleged past infringements. At issues are eleven patents, dating from 1995 to 2001, according to the lawsuit. Five of the patents were part of NTP's lawsuit against RIM. The Palm complaint also centers on products, services and systems that integrate e-mail systems with wireless communications, including the Treo, Palm VII, Palm i700 and Tungsten products." You may recall NTP from the just-finished Blackberry case. Good to know they're staying busy.
[+]
Hardware: The Real Inventor of Wireless Email? 106 comments
theodp writes "The NY Times reports on Geoff Goodfellow, possibly the real inventor of wireless e-mail, who says NTP was concerned that his earlier work might undermine its patent claims and went to some lengths to ensure that it did not, including gagging Goodfellow during the RIM lawsuit. Not only did high-school dropout Goodfellow - who hung out as a teen in the lab of Doug Englebart -
describe wireless e-Mail in 1982, he implemented it in the early 1990's."
Offsite: BlackBerry saved
[+]
Mobile: The Complete History of RIM 94 comments
museumpeace writes "I enjoyed reading Alex Frankel's thorough Tech. Review article on the luck, persistence and shrewdness that took RIM's proprietary mobile e-mail technology from presumed small niche product to the must-have blackberry that so many use today. Although the technology at the heart of the product was developed in 1989, it took years of further development, the lucky break of GPRS supplanting Mobitex, and the business smarts to jump on their first-mover advantage and the daring to partner with giant Nokia who could have swallowed RIM. Its a great example of how to succeed by carefully making a defacto standard out of a good proprietary technology."
[+]
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."
[+]
Blackberry Injunction Postponed 166 comments
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."
[+]
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."
[+]
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."
[+]
Another NTP Patent Invalidated 104 comments
darkmeridian writes "Bloomberg reports that the PTO has granted a non-final rejection of a third NTP patent asserted against Research in Motion in the Blackberry litigation. Five patents have been asserted against RIM, and only one of the three rejected has been found to be valid and infringed. Yet this development helps RIM as it seeks to avoid an injunction against operation of the Blackberry network pending appeal."
[+]
NTP Gets a Taste of Its Own Medicine 49 comments
UltraAyla writes, "NTP's patent suits seem to have attracted the attention of Oren Tavory, a man who claims to have worked on a project with NTP founder Thomas Campana back in 1991. From the article: 'In September, Tavory filed a lawsuit against NTP in U.S. District Court in Richmond, VA, demanding that a judge issue a court order naming him as co-inventor on seven NTP patents, and accusing NTP of copyright infringement and unjust enrichment.'"
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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I'm confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, do you really know that the patents were invalid? I haven't looked at it that closely.
Parent
Re:I'm confused... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm confused... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I'm confused... (Score:3, Informative)
Wow! That's so not true. NTP can sue the end users. The question of whether RIM indemnifies the end user is another question. But technically, RIM is not infringing the patent but rather contribu
Re:I'm confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I'm confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets not forget IBM was not losing business at all as a result of SCO's suit against them. SCO's suit against IBM has actually been positive publicity for IBM - that much has been apparent since the day it was filed.
The blackberry, on the otherhand, had a lot of people very concerned given the validity the courts gave to the claims (IE: they already won once).
Parent
Remember the GPL (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Remember the GPL (Score:3, Funny)
IANAL, but I don't think that the GPL had all that much to do with it. Certainly SCO was raising a hell of a fuss over the GPL for a while (some of their funniest moments, those), but it never seemed to be all of the core of the issue -- as far as I've understood it (and I've been reading GrokLaw for quite a while), it's mainly been (supposedly) about breach of contract. Everything else seems to have stemmed from that initial charge. Apparently, anyway
Re:I'm confused... (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't you believe it. People get robbed by the threat of litigation every day.
-jcr
Re:I'm confused... (Score:3, Informative)
Your sig (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, here [about].
I guess they won the patent lottery. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not having a product doesn't mean anything (Score:5, Insightful)
Suppose you invented the Blackberry. You. Right now. You have the idea. Now what? Do you have the financial backing to manufacture a million Blackberrys? Do you have the industry connections to go around and make deals with all the mobile carriers to get your service into people's hands? No. But it's still a good idea, so you want to go forward with it. That means finding potential partners and investors. But just talking to those people about it is spreading the idea around. Suppose you go to the mobile company and say, "I have these plans for this service, I'm going to call it Blackberry." What's stopping them from just making the service themselves and cutting you out of the picture completely?
Your patent is.
In an ideal world, that's what patents are for: protecting the little guy inventor from big business.
Parent
Re:Not having a product doesn't mean anything (Score:5, Insightful)
Now let's assume that you are the little guy. You come up with something utterly missing in the market. Let's call it middle management crack. So you patent it, build a company on it and become the "next big thing".
During that time, a different company, comes in who doesn't actually make anything new or produce any products. What they do is buy "analysts" to come up with how your design is "not patented". Next they produce legalease to sue you for your unique business model. At no point have they ever had _one_ customer and now they sue you.
This is what happened in this case. In an ideal world, people can not use the justice system to extort money from you.
Parent
Re:Not having a product doesn't mean anything (Score:3, Informative)
NTP is not one of the usual patent squatter cases, it's my understanding that in this case RIM is the big bad bully.
NTP bought the patent from someone who actually did try and set up a business selling things very much like blackberries, but they did it in the early 90's.
The ability of the very first inventor to sell his patent (after trying very very hard himself to make a go of it and not doing so well) is a fundamental part of what made the first inventor willing to invest so much time and energy into a
Re:Not having a product doesn't mean anything (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course I know nothing about law.
I still don't understand how someone can patent a genetic defect in blood. Isn't my wife prior art?
Parent
In this case, I believe the little guy is dead. (Score:3, Interesting)
What bothers me in this entire process is that NTP was composed entirely of the inventor and a lawyer. So for much of this case, it's been just a lawyer.
The most foolish thing though is that I believe RIM could have settled this case for far smaller sum early on, but now its 600M and probably something similar again in lawyers fees and business damage.
Re:In this case, I believe the little guy is dead. (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, Tom Campagna was around for most of this case. This case started in 2001 and he died in 2004, IIRC. And it hasn't just been the lawyer, Tom's widow inherited his interest in NTP. They've brought in more partners in order to have the capital to pursue the case, which has cost millions.
Re:'merciful' atomic bomb !? (Score:3, Insightful)
What's stopping them from just making the service themselves and cutting you out of the picture completely?
I don't know. It's the Microsoft Model (just ask Citrix, Symantec, etc). If you have a shit-hot application idea, Microsoft *will* eventually start competing against you, w
Re:Not having a product doesn't mean anything (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's say inventor A have the idea of a way of doing something. He patents it. Doesn't use it, and sit on it.
Inventor B a bit later, wants to do the same thing and OH, strange thing, think of the same way of doing it! A & B never talked to each other, and just saw a problem, found the same solution. 1+1=2 right? if I ask you what should I add to 1 to get to 2? how many answers?
Example:
- I think of the invention of a door with a handle. to open the door I have to push it so it ge
Re:Not having a product doesn't mean anything (Score:3)
No, you are missing the point of patents. Patents are *not* property. They are a temporary privilege granted by the government for the sole purpose of stimulating creativity and productivity. If at any time they have opposite effect, the government can and should snatch them away.
612.5 million?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:612.5 million?! (Score:5, Insightful)
RIM got exactly what they deserved.
Parent
Re:612.5 million?! (Score:4, Insightful)
((man, sometimes I feel like I just post on
Parent
Re:612.5 million?! (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:612.5 million?! (Score:5, Interesting)
Someone else who has followed this case from the beginning
I think their early IP talk actually popped them up on NTP's radar initially, they were making a lot of noise about it.
They got exactly what they deserved, but the system could still use a fixing, badly.
Parent
Disappointed (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't give up too soon. (Score:3, Interesting)
Keep in mind, the House and Senate (not to mention damn near every federal agency imaginable) use Blackberry, so they're already on their side and will probably be more than happy to make life $612M easier for RIM over time.
Re:Disappointed (Score:5, Interesting)
This might not have been a good case for prompting patent reform. I haven't read the patents myself, but from the discussion on the TWiT podcast, they were saying that the patents actually looked pretty legitimate, and were only likely to be overturned because of the immense pressure the government was putting on to keep their Blackberries going.
In other words, it's not clear that NTP is that bad guy here, and the RIM is the good guy.
Parent
Re:Disappointed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Disappointed (Score:3, Insightful)
No other choice... (Score:5, Insightful)
It will be interesting to see how easily they recover from this.
All this proves is we need to fix the USPTO (Score:5, Interesting)
Despite averting a BlackBerry shutdown, however, this case is just more proof that the US Patent Office is in crisis. While some of NTP's patents may prove to be valid, it is clear that many of them should never have been granted in the first place.
The US Patent Office's failure to ensure quality threatens the patent system that is so critical to innovative small tech firms. If the quality of patents is not improved, the industry may lose faith in the entire system.
Some may not like software patents, but the reality is that companies have them. Open Source Champion IBM is the single largest patenter in the WORLD. they still make billions (with a b) off of patent licensing - including software/method patent licensing. Small companies like 'slingbox' have patents to ensure that they get VC funding and to prevent Sony from just creating the exact same product and steamrolling them.
I, along with Diane Peters from OSDL, Bruce Perens, lawyers from IBM and others got together at the USPTO last month to talk about ways to improve patent quality. No solutions yet, but some good discussion.
The quality issue MUST be solved, and NOW; so before you launch into a general "patents suck" rage, take a reality check and think about ways to get more prior art into the patent system and improve the quality.
It will be several years before patent reform legislation becomes law, so we are going to to have to find technology solutions that we can implement now, and hope that legislation fixes the things we can't.
Morgan Reed
Stop the nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
Why don't you get together to discuss the fact that most of the significant discoveries in computers, information and software fields came about before software patents.
And if you want to quibble with me, fine, but answer this: If software patents were important to drive innovation in the high-tech industry, then how did some many great pieces of software get written in the days before software patents?
Let's not pretend that software patents are an old, time-tested way of protecting software. They're not, they're less than 10 years old. So rather than accept a relatively recent ruling by a court (Not even a law from congress), why don't we do the right thing and stop software patents. The fact that the courts lowered the bar so that nonobviousness was no longer the primary determinant of whether a patent should be granted should be reason enough to get rid of them.
Name something... anything out there in the market that was only possible because of software patents. The idea of these patents isn't to make NTP rich simply because of knowing how to game the system, but to advance the state of the art. These patents aren't doing that; if anything, they're doing the opposite.
I'm opposed to coming together and working out an arrangement because it presupposes these patents are acceptable. They are not. Software patents are so tremendously wrong that I think they're something that have to be opposed on general principal.
Parent
Re:All this proves is we need to fix the USPTO (Score:3, Informative)
The quality issue MUST be solved, and NOW; so before you launch into a general "patents suck" rage, take a reality check and think about ways to get more prior art into the patent system and improve the quality.
I've yet to talk to anybody on Slashdot who had the slightest clue what patent quality mean
Magic money for nothing (Score:5, Interesting)
The one good thing to come of this is it has raised the problem in the public eye. Congressmen thought they would lose their Blackberries. Let's hope some real reform is on the way.
Re:Magic money for nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
First, you never lie or piss off a judge. Doing so is simply a sign of great incompetance, and when on does this anything short of total humiliation is a generous punishment. in this case, the judge did not want to deal with these fools any longer, and just wanted the parties to work it out.
Second, this stuff should not have gone to court. Again, given the incompetent behavior of RIM, I can only assume the entire negotiations were handled badly. Perhaps RIM thought they were a multibillion dollar company, so they could just intimidate the small party. Perhaps they can, but it always better to take the high road in these situations, expecailly when dealing with a widow. Instead of fighting and lying and trying to invalidate the patents, an initial payment might have been in order. I have no idea what went on behind doors, but, again, given the public record these people just seemed really stupid.
And finally, the 600 million must be taken in context. This is like a years EBITDA, and who knows what it will actually mean to RIM after the tax accountants get done. And, since they have been effectivelty saving for a few years, the impact on this year is like 2 months EBITDA.
So, I am not saying that the payment in the best situation, but given RIM lied in court, continued to anger the judge during negotiations, and was clearly trying to play a waiting game, probably hoping that the parties would continue to die off, it was not a horrible outcome.
A couple more thing to put this in context. I recall an invention, perhaps the steam engine and Watts, that was not fully patented because it borrowed patented technology and it was easier to hide the technology than share the credit. In the end this left the inventor wide open for the product to be copied. The inventor would likely have been better off making the technology transparent, honestly fighting the patent, and probably winning in the end.
The second case is standard insurance industry practice, which is reminiscent of what RIM was trying to do. In most settlements, the insurance company will withhold all payments, even in the most open a shut cases. They will offer a fraction of what the policy would indicate. The injured party can either accept the token payment, or wait the statuatory three years to file suit. The insurance company usually ends up the winner as most people cannot self fund the recovery effort, or the insurance company rightly states that the cost of litigation will be greater than the present settlement. RIM was playing exactly this game, and it is probabl as sad they they won at this game as it is that NTP won at the orignal patent dispute.
Parent
The only thing worse than a patent troll... (Score:5, Insightful)
Pay them and then kick them in the groin... (Score:3, Interesting)
Serves the f*****s right (Score:3, Informative)
Now we just have to wait a few years for the NTP <descriptions containing far too much vitriol to ever be displayed publicly> to get their peckers handed to them in thin slices. It'll be worth it.
Why are they patent trolls? (Score:4, Informative)
The founder of NTP had many years of wireless experience, and developed many technologies that moved wireless messaging forward. When RIM showed up on the scene, he sent them (as well as some other companies) a few letters to inform them that they were infringing on his patents. RIM ignored the letters, and continued doing business as though they had never heard of this guy. He didn't sue, he just chalked it up to a losing battle that there was nothing he could do anything about.
Then he saw a story about how RIM was suing other companies out of existence using patents that were infringing on HIS patents. At that point he figured it was time to try and get a big law firm involved, and went after RIM. He died of cancer before this whole court case was ever finished, but I am glad to hear his family will be well off.
The fact of the matter is, this never would have even happened if RIM hadn't started the whole thing by employing predatory practices with their dubious patents to drive competition out of business in the first place. I have no sympathy for RIM at all. They flat out lied in court, and were busted for it, they used some pretty questionable lobbying practices to get NTP patents invalidated, and they have practiced far more dubious patent extortion than NTP ever did. I don't think this is a case of a fine, upstanding company getting a shakedown by a troll. This is a case of pretty sweet karma in action!
Re:Why are they patent trolls? (Score:3, Informative)
Apparently, NTP had valid patent claims (orignally developed for the Telefind company, not just 'ideas') that were ignored by RIM (as NTP is just a 2-people company, why should RIM care?) when NTP confronted them with this in 2001. NTP had the right to set this through
Back to Business as Usual (Score:5, Insightful)
All I heard from the mainstream news media was the Blackberry was being sued, and now they settled for $600 Million, so, in my mind, they must have been at fault.
Furthermore, this payment will embolden other patent trolls who want to be fed to the tune of millions for doing nothing.
And the Patent System will go merrily on it way, because now that Senators can use their Blackberries again, do you think they are going to give a tinker's damn that the system is flawed?
If I'd been running Blackberry, I'd have shut down service for 24 hours, with the message "we can't provide service due to a flawed patent system.".
Does anybody here remember the day everyone made their webpages BLACK as a protest? Does anybody remember when it was OKAY to fight back against something that was wrong? Now it seems, the M.O. is to give up, pay the bastards and lick your wounds, regardless of who's right or wrong.
In fact, the more wrong you are, the harder you should fight, it seems, because these days, the good guy always loses. (RIAA anyone?)
What a wonderful lesson to teach our younger people.
George Lucas should make a movie on that subject.
So this is how freedom dies. With a $600 Million payout.
TTYL
A disgusted and concerned old-timer.
RIM is a not a hero, fellas (Score:5, Insightful)
This company deserves to go straight to hell. $612 million is a rap on the knuckles.
Re:RIM is a not a hero, fellas (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you are passing on unsubstantiated hearsay. From what I can tell, the judge claimed that RIMM faked the prior art, which flies in the face of the fact that the patent office later invalidated the patents based on the prior art.
In the end it all comes down to money (Score:3, Insightful)
I was recently involved in a patent fight, where we had comprehensive prior art, and were really convinced that we were going to prevail eventually, but between getting to trial in the first place, and the resultant inevitable appeals, it was cheaper to settle. It made my skin crawl, but we did it anyway.
Also, remember that juries on cases like this are not technologists who will readily understand a complex technological argument, but "peers" who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.
NTP did have products! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Who gave up? Not RIM, that's for sure! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's some faulty logic right there.
Parent
Re:AW MAN! (Score:4, Informative)
RIM was wise to settle.
Parent