Last NTP Patent Tentatively Thrown Out 198
pcause writes "Reuters reports that the fifth NTP patent has been rejected. What does it say about the US Patent office and software patents that these patents have made it through trials, appeals, etc and only now has the Patent Office decided they weren't any good in the first place?" From the article: "The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has sided with BlackBerry portable e-mail device maker Research in Motion Ltd. by issuing a non-final rejection of a fifth patent at the center of its legal battle with patent holding company NTP Inc. The decision means the patent agency has now issued non-final rejections of all five patents at issue in a BlackBerry patent-infringement case before a federal judge."
can RIM sue the patent office? (Score:1, Insightful)
well (Score:5, Insightful)
It's About Time (Score:5, Insightful)
Under pressure... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a political decision, but related more to the US Senate/House than to the administration. I have been waiting for the politicos to stuff this one, and as the deadline for RIM drew near, they are doing so.
Now we can just hope that this has an effect on the USPTO beyond just the RIM case, extending to the other questionable patents they have approved...
Re:Washington is playing favorites (Score:1, Insightful)
Someone in Congress likes you? Congratulations, we can offer to hold up your patent or alternatively strike someone else's down. Uh oh! Made an enemy in the government? Well don't expect to get paid for your work!
Re:Connections (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's About Time (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, huh (Score:5, Insightful)
The five patents are 5,625,670 [uspto.gov], 5,631,946 [uspto.gov], 5,819,172 [uspto.gov],
6,067,451 [uspto.gov],
and 6,317,592 [uspto.gov].
Let's take a look at the first of these patents:
1. A system for transmitting information from one of a plurality of originating processors contained in an electronic mail system to at least one of a plurality of destination processors contained in an electronic mail system with the information including originated information originating from one of the plurality of originating processors and being transmitted by an RF information transmission network to at least one of the plurality of destination processors and other originated information originating from one of the originating processors is transmitted with the electronic mail system without using the RF information transmission network to at least one of the destination processors comprising:
at least one interface, one of the at least one interface connecting the electronic mail system containing the plurality of originating processors to the RF information transmission network; and wherein
the originated information is transmitted in association with an address of the one interface from the one of the plurality of originating processors to the one interface with the electronic mail system responding to the address of the one interface to direct the originated information from the one of the plurality of originating processors to the one interface; and
the originated information is transmitted from the one of the at least one interface to the RF information transmission network with an address of the at least one of the plurality of destination processors to receive the originated information being added at the originating processor originating the originated information, or by either the electronic mail system that contains the plurality of originating processors or the one interface.
So, basically, written as confusingly as possible, these turkeys have filed for a patent that covers any email system in which some information is sent via RF and some is not and the devices involved have addresses. The last is pretty much a given, and the first is pretty straightforward.
I'm serious. Advances in device development simply do not require patents. This is stupid. Why should anyone be granted a monopoly over this? Why does the production of RF devices require a patent at all? Say I'm an engineer. I want to send email from a mobile computer (hardly a stretch to envision). So I select a data transmission medium. Well, there's RF, IR, etc. These all have different properties. I choose the one that is most appropriate -- RF.
Yes, this patent got thrown out, but what I'm saying is that this is not a field in which patents -- guaranteed, time-limited government monopolies -- are necessary to produce advancements. The lifecycle of a new device is mayb
Remember the FAT patent reviews??? (Score:4, Insightful)
So if experience is a teacher here, then this means nothing.
Re:Drug companies beware (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What does it say? (Score:3, Insightful)
They can start by eliminating (as I understand it) the use of patent fees to fund the USPTO. Those fees should go into the general fund and the USPTO should have a budget like everyone else. That way the USPTO isn't encouraged to allow every patent that crosses their path to be accepted just to collect the fees.
The definition of "significantly new" needs to be tightened up also. Some forms of patents should also be eliminated, such as business methods (a BS invention if you ask me).
Someday we might see copywrite reform also but I'm afraid I won't live that long.
What does it mean? (Score:2, Insightful)
What "little guy" (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, he didn't invent anything--he *patented* an obvious concept and waited for someone ELSE to invent something that used the concept, so he could sue them.
That was a ridiculous question . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
This is ridiculous question. What do you think it says? The timing arises from a corrupt decision led by pure politics, driven by the U.S. Senate, caused the PTO to take up a Commissioner's reexamination, to protect a non-US company from an injunction.
Does it mean that the initial examination by the PTO was substandard? Of course not -- in fact, that very question was the point of the trial and two appeals. RIM, spending kazillions to search the world for prior art and multi-kazillions on lawyers to tear the patent and PTO to shreds, couldn't convince either a jury or the Federal Circuit that the patents were less than airtight. It was simply the economic and political fallout of a possible injunction that led to this "hail mary" pass.
Does this mean that the present rejections raise new doubt about the patents? Not necessarily, and probably not. It is ROUTINE for the PTO to initially reject all claims of a patent on an initial office action, and this may be nothing more than a perfunctory "through the paces" rejection. I don't really know how much trouble the patents are in (and not all claims were rejected by the way), because I have not studied the documents, but I find it astonishing that there would be any better prior art than was considered by the courts before. So much money was spent to defend RIM in this all-or-nothing case, it is hard to believe that any substantial new question of patentability could now arise. In any case, only time will tell. And even if there is a final rejection of each adjudicated infringed claim in each patent, there will be an administrative appeal, and then an appeal to the Federal Courts, which have so far been unimpressed by the claims of invaliidty.
Do not be surprised, however, if the patents reissue with the original claims (only one claim of many asserted is needed!), or claims not materially weaker than they began.
Re:Easy to side with RIM (Score:2, Insightful)
NTP: A "Virtual Company" (Score:3, Insightful)
NTP is the one gaming the system here -- the NY Times called them a "virtual corporation" (according to Engadget [engadget.com]), and they're nothing but a holding company with a fat war chest set up to create landmine lawsuits over the patents that they hold.
In terms of patent abuse, these guys make Microsoft look like Mother Teresa. They don't make anything (except lawsuits), they don't do anything, and the only way they have of making money is by going after the 'deep pockets' of established, successful companies. In short, they're an inherently parasitic business.
Is what they're doing legal? Yes. Should it be? Clearly not.
It would be different if they actually had a wireless-email product which was being infringed on by the Blackberry, but they don't and never did. All they ever wanted to do was bleed RIM for about a half billion dollars, and the hell with anyone who uses the service.
I think RIM is going to come out of this okay, and kudos to them for standing up to NTP. Regardless of what I'm sure were self-interested reasons for doing so, it was the right thing to do.
Re:RIM needs to be hit on the head anyway (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolutely true, and RIM should be lambasted continually until they apologize for their unethical business behaviour.
But it is also important to remember that this is a victory for true technology companies, inventors, and innovators. While RIM did use the same tactics as NTP there is a core difference between RIM and NTP. RIM is a company that makes and sells a product, they have individuals within the company who invent and innovate and are building upon the inventions and innovations of others. NTP on the other hand is simply a technology leech that produces nothing and, as evidenced by five of their patents being thrown out, don't even invent or innovate.
RIM should repent and change their evil ways so they will be a constructive force in our technology dependant societies, but NTP is a scourge which should be litigated into oblivion.
burnin
Re:NTP: A "Virtual Company" (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the most ideal solution for cases like this would be for the court to throw out the patents by both parties and let them compete on the free market... let customers decide who deserves their money. I could just imagine how the litigants would react to such a ruling...
Courts: Ok, you are both free to market your devices
RIM: Sweet! So, NTP, I suppose we'll be seeing your wares on the store shelves next to ours?
NTP: Shut up.
Re:It's About Time (Score:3, Insightful)
The interesting question is whether by connecting to a sever in Canada, a U.S. customer makes the Canadian server subject to U.S. patents.
This is somewhat similar to the arguement that by serving a web page in Canada you're subjct to the laws of every country where it is viewed.
--dave