RIM Settles Long-Standing Blackberry Claim 295
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?
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.
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:2)
Because the judge in the last ruling was really pissed off and stated the case never should have made it to the courts, and that RIM should have settled with NTP.
For RIM to settle for so much, it means that they figured they'd lose even more. The judge basically tore them a new a55hol3
Re:I'm confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
Gee, I hope there's a clause in the settlement... (Score:2)
Re:I'm confused... (Score:2)
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).
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm confused... (Score:2)
Re:I'm confused... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I'm confused... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm confused... (Score:2, Interesting)
It seems really dumb. Why
why they settled in the end (Score:2)
Re:I'm confused... (Score:2)
So who's fight is it? You have no idea how much I look down on and despise people like you. Get a goddam backbone you pussy and fight for what you believe in, not what your wallet tells you.
Your sig (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, here [about].
I guess they won the patent lottery. (Score:3, Insightful)
Priceless (Score:2)
Bad Press and market instability: $100 million+
Patent Infringement Settlement Case: $612 million
Sound of Silence from annoying company who may/may not have driven you out of business without settlement/payoff: Priceless
If *somehow* they can use a credit card on this one, I want to know if they how much cash back or frequent flyer miles they get...
Re:I guess they won the patent lottery. (Score:2)
Whether it was an origninal idea that NTP should own exclusive rights to is another question.
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.
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.
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?
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:2)
There's always more than one way to solve a problem.
1+1 = 10 (base 2)
1+1 = 1 (logical OR)
1+1 = 0 (mod 2)
The point is, you thought of the first way, so you get exclusive rights to that way. I liked the whole 1+1 thing, so I came up with 3 more ways, that are mine now.
To keep this relevant, RIM should have said, "OK sure, you have those patents. We thought of a different way to do this. Bye." In fact, they did think of a
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.
Re:Not having a product doesn't mean anything (Score:2)
Re:Not having a product doesn't mean anything (Score:2)
Case Summary Please? (Score:2)
From a quick search, it sounds like the one company is based entirely off of patenting ideas and licensing them out (what some might call a "patent whore"). 5 of their patents happen to be related to some of RIM's technology, so they're suing. Can somebody (unbiased
Re:Case Summary Please? (Score:2)
612.5 million?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:612.5 million?! (Score:5, Insightful)
RIM got exactly what they deserved.
Re:612.5 million?! (Score:4, Insightful)
((man, sometimes I feel like I just post on
Re:612.5 million?! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:612.5 million?! (Score:2)
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.
Disappointed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Disappointed (Score:2)
Hardly a good business decision to keep this going until the competition catches up.
Re:Disappointed (Score:2)
Re:Disappointed (Score:2)
Re:Disappointed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Disappointed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Disappointed (Score:2)
Re:Disappointed yes inspired (Score:2)
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.
Re:Disappointed (Score:3, Insightful)
No other choice... (Score:5, Insightful)
It will be interesting to see how easily they recover from this.
Also this thought (Score:2, Insightful)
ot only is it "giving into" NTP, but it is also giving NTP 612.5 million "bullets" to go after anybody who transmits a message using a computer. Which they will do, because it is their business model to do so.
Re:Also this thought (Score:2)
I'll tell you what I think (Score:2, Funny)
Time to organize because.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Time to organize because.. (Score:2)
I am curious what will happen if the remaining patents are ruled invalid, though. Can shareholders then sue to overturn the deal and retrieve the money, taking on
Cash Money (Score:2, Insightful)
They couldnt afford a pyrrhic victory (Score:2)
A lot of that cash reserve was earmarked (Score:2)
As much as I despise NTP's "business", it was better for RIM to do the deal. Customer uncertainty and all that...
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
Re:All this proves is we need to fix the USPTO (Score:2)
I think maybe you need the reality check buddy. A biggest problem here is tha ideas that us geniuses dismiss as inconsequential are now finding themselves wrapped in a shiny new patent. So, what, every night, after tinkering with my latest geek proj, should I print out my diff's and get them notorized and mailed to the uspto? I dont think getting art INTO the system will work. You need to cha
Re:All this proves is we need to fix the USPTO (Score:2, Informative)
From my experience there, plus from what I have heard from former colleagues the management reaction to quality criticism has been things like enhanced "quality review" and additional policies such as "second pair of eyes" that provided little extra substantive value but end up cutting into the time available to productively work on applications.
If upper management is s
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.
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
What do I think? (Score:2, Funny)
If they're not top posting, dropping attachments, or bitching because they can't see the website (the one they told to be designed for IE and damn everyone else), they're pounding away on that thing in meetings, giving everyone else half their attention.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless Blackberry. Because I'm a fucking tool.
Re:What do I think? (Score:2)
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.
Unethical courtroom tactics? (Score:2)
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.
The only thing worse than a patent troll... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why isn't the mafia into this yet? (Score:2)
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.
But what about the system? (Score:2)
But, I'm a bit concerned about the system. The entire patent system seems to be nothing but a game. It has nothing to do with who actually invented anything. It has nothing to do with protecting rights.
When the innovators can't make money; they will stop trying. And that is the end of the USA as an economic power. Think about it: manufacturing is long since dead in the USA. Now engineering and software development are going overseas. Technical support is also being off-sh
What were the real terms? (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Back to Business as Usual (Score:2)
Well, when all those gestures came to nought, what else was there to do? You'll notice that despite all the fighting, bad patents keep getting issued at an astonishing rate, the Communications Decency Act has been reauthorized
Re:Back to Business as Usual (Score:2)
Oh, that's right, they don't actually make any products, they are just a bunch of lawyers who write patents (and poorly, I might add, their patents were ruled invalid) all day.
These companies are nothing but scum, and I would be perfectly happy if their executive board had their knees shattered.
Here's what many people will think (Score:2)
Get ready for the floodgates.
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.
Thank god this is settled!!! (Score:2)
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.
Re:In the end it all comes down to money (Score:2)
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.
Re:Who gave up? Not RIM, that's for sure! (Score:2)
I really hope... (Score:2)
GRRRRRRRRRRRR!
Re:AW MAN! (Score:2)
Sheesh, I seriously hope you develop some technology that you can't afford to develop. Then before you get funding,some company infringse upon it and make billions.
I am sure if that happens, you wouldn't dream of suing.
Re:AW MAN! (Score:2)
The trouble with your argument (Score:2)
The trouble is, for every time you protect the little guy, there are many more examples of patent portfolio companies basically being a leech on progress and legitimate companies. Is it worth the cost for that one in a million example of protecting the lone inventor?
To me, your argument is the equivalent of saying "The lottery is a great thing
Re:AW MAN! (Score:4, Informative)
RIM was wise to settle.
Re:NTP Wins (Score:2)
have you ever tried find out if your IP is being infringed upon ?
I'm actually in that business now http://www.i4e.com/ [i4e.com],http://www.invequity.com/ [invequity.com]
its a very hard thing to do
Really, most attourneys will check 10-12 fields to see if there is infringement when writing up a claim, thats conside
Re:NTP Wins (Score:2)
You only need to pay 25000 for a lawyer if you are trying to get a patent that is overly broad, or very similiar to one that exists. You know, people who are trying to screw the system.
The cost for maintaining a patent is not that prohibitive.