Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents

RIM Wins BlackBerry Patent Dispute in UK 75

Posted by Zonk from the one-down dept.
Guinnessy writes "Research In Motion has won its first patent case against Inpro Licensing. Justice Nicholas Pumfrey rejected a claim by Luxembourg-based Inpro Licensing SARL that it holds a UK patent on the technology used by RIM to transpose images and Internet files onto BlackBerry screens ruling that all the claims at issue were either obvious or lacking in novelty. It is the second European legal victory this year for RIM, following a Munich court's invalidation of a German version of the same patent. The big court case of course is on Feb 24 when a U.S. court will consider whether the BlackBerry service should be halted for infringing patents held by licensing firm NTP."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIM Wins BlackBerry Patent Dispute in UK More

RIM Wins BlackBerry Patent Dispute in UK

Comments Filter:

  • Now my blackberry won't make me blue (Score:3, Funny)

    by oc-beta ( 941915 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @11:34AM (#14635486)
    This is a great thing!

  • It sure is obvious... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by dunkers ( 845588 )
    ...10 years down the line. In 1996, the use of a proxy server to change data to suit the target device would have been very innovative.

    • Re:It sure is obvious... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 03, 2006 @11:54AM (#14635653)
      In 1996, the use of a proxy server to change data to suit the target device would have been very innovative.

      True, if you're under 25, in which case you probably believe that information distribution (and indeed the world), was invented in 1980's.

      On the fly format translation by in intermediary device was, of course, a new innovation in 1996 as long as you limit the context to "computers on the internet". Broaden the scope to the parent realm of information distribution and such methods have been around for decades and were VERY obvious in 1996.

      • Prior Art (Score:3, Informative)

        by Fzz ( 153115 )
        I was the expert witness for RIM in this case.

        The problem with finding prior art is that you need to find one piece of prior art that covers all the aspects of a claim. You can't mosaic them. The prior art we used in trial was the following:

      • I seem to remember a talk at the W3 conference in 95 or 96 that outlined something just like that. At the time I thought it was clever but certainly not revolutionary.

        unfortunately I don't have the faintest idea where I put the printouts we were given at the time.

    • Re:It sure is obvious... (Score:5, Funny)

      by hey! ( 33014 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @12:01PM (#14635725) Homepage Journal
      ...10 years down the line. In 1996, the use of a proxy server to change data to suit the target device would have been very innovative.

      Because back then we were still trying to figure that "bang the rocks together" thing.

      If we had data headed for a device that couldn't handle it, we just threw up our hands. "If God wanted us to see this data on computer screens, "we'd say,"he'd make them in an A4 size." We hired people to hold two phone receivers, one to each ear, so that users on the PBX who had analog phones could talk to the digital phone users.

    • If by 'innovative' you mean 'old hat', then yes. I mean, what do you think people _did_?

      "Sorry, Bob, the data doesn't suit the target device."
      "Well, can't we put some sort of extra link in the chain, to, you know, convert it to the right format?"
      "WHATTT??? He speaks HERESY! Kill him, my children -- and BURN HIS BODY WITH FIRE!!"

      I mean, if you'd said 1986, it would still not have been true, but in 1996 it was even being done on the forkin' WEB ffs!

      Kids!

  • Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by MustardMan ( 52102 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @11:37AM (#14635504)
    Looks like they aren't going to go out of business after all. Maybe I'll send them an application, I always wanted a RIM job. I just hope they aren't anal about the dress code.

  • Whoa, hold the phone! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ettlz ( 639203 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @11:38AM (#14635513) Journal

    From TFA:

    InPro's patent described the use of a proxy server which downloaded data from the Web in response to a request from a device, then transposed the data to match the specific size and resolution of the device, according to The Times. The patent in question was granted in 1996.

    And here I was — silly me — thinking that this sort of thing consituted a "method" and was therefore unpatentable in the UK! From the UKPO's web-site [patent.gov.uk], the following are excuded:

    • a discovery;
    • a scientific theory or mathematical method;
    • an aesthetic creation such as a literary, dramatic or artistic work;
    • a scheme or method for performing a mental act, playing a game or doing business;
    • the presentation of information, or a computer program.

    Don't 5, and possible 4, call this whole game into question?

    • Doesn't really matter that they got the patent, what matters is that they couldn't enforce it.
    • InPro's patent described the use of a proxy server which downloaded data from the Web in response to a request from a device, then transposed the data to match the specific size and resolution of the device, according to The Times. The patent in question was granted in 1996.

      Isn't this precisely what Opera Mini [opera.com] does?

      And I wonder if the timing between the ending of this case and the release of Opera Mini [slashdot.org] is any sort of coincidence?
    • An invention implemented by a business method or a computer program can be patented in the UK, it's just computer programs and business methods as such that aren't.

      I haven't read InPro's patent, but from the press coverage it seems fairly clear it was an invention. The problem is that it's equally clear it was "obvious", and therefore not patentable (even if there hadn't been any prior art). The patent should never have been granted and the Court was right to throw it out.
    • There are lots of patents granted in the UK (and in the EU as a whole) that are completely unenforcable. Even software patents... they're not valid, but companies like to have the whole 'patent pending' thing on their literature...
    • I was the expert witness for RIM in this case. IANAL but I talked to a lot of them in the last 6 months.

      For the record, here's the patent in question [espacenet.com].

      The problem is that there's a grey area in the law as what constitutes a computer program and what constitutes a piece of hardware that includes some software. The latter is patentable, the former isn't.

      In this case the patent claims to be on the proxy server itself (ie the box), but if you read it closely there's nothing special about the box - the pat

  • Question on Patents (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fatjesus ( 703825 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @11:44AM (#14635566)
    Why are companies allowed to sit on patents and wait for someone to come allong and violate it? Why aren't they forced to A) license it or B) to implement it? (If they choose neither then the patent should expire.)
    • What you suggest, in the original spirit of patent law at large, would stifle innovation. Assume you, an individual, could invent and patent a new, say, powerful-yet-expensive internal combustion engine. The obligation to implement/licence would force you to ally with someone else (unless you had the means to build it yourself), and therefore reduce the motivations to invent things in the first place, given that you pretty much have to share the wealth.

      • If I invented a "powerful-yet-expensive internal combustion engine" then I think I could live with sharing the wealth. If my creation is worth much at all, then I expect I can still make money from it by licensing the production to another party. And as to getting a fair deal, then again I can make others compete for the rights. And if my creation isn't worth enough for both of these concepts to work, then let the inventor try to produce it themself.
        • Except that the companies are in a powerful position to screw you over. If all the relevant licensees agree to not license your invention, then they will get it for free. Sure there is a short-term advantage in it for them -- they get their product out say a year earlier (assuming your patent expires in a year), but at the long-term obligation of license fees. Corporations are greedy and shortsighted, but not terminally stupid.

          • Re:Question on Patents (Score:2, Interesting)

            by Plunky ( 929104 )
            what you are proposing is the classic prisoners dilemma, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_dilemma [wikipedia.org] for more details than you can shake a stick at.

            But you would never get a bunch of corporations to agree on such a thing. For one thing, one of them will have shareholders who DEMAND that they maximise their profits and step forward to licence the technology to get ahead of the pack.

            You might not think they are stupid, but most of them have more care about the short term profits than the long term.

      • Given the choice between inventing something and making money, or doing sod all, or accountancy or something, I think most invention-driven firms would invent anyway.

        I don't personally think withdrawing the monopoly incentive would make much difference, but if it did, I reckon it would only remove the crappiest innovators from the market.

        Real inventors invent because they love it, not because they have a patent incentive anyway. Sure big corps need patent-incentive, but they still have it, just no monopoly

    • Re:Question on Patents (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      In the US patents are 20 years from the date of filing of an original application. This is done to give companies time to implement their idea without fear of losing their investment(Company A develops a new widget, 2 years into the design of it Company B hires away their core team developers and finishes the project, patent law keeps Company B from selling their stolen product)

      For an individual inventor, the patent laws lets them invent something and then shop around for a comapny to develop/market the pro
    • Exactly, I think this can be taken one further. No prototype, no proof, no patent.

      Currently there are patent pendings. If you file for say something like a pre-patent which allows you time to build at least a rough prototype or proof that you aren't just patenting for patents sake. Now you must produce something to warrent the patent, with proof of idea already filed should someone try to take it. Essentially I think it is what a patent should be with now having to produce something to get the full prot
      • I've had this idea myself before, but then realized why it wouldn't change much. If some patent troll has a patent on some obvious idea of an ecommerce system, all they have to do is put together some sort of a product and offer it for sale. Even if it were so shitty and overpriced that nobody would buy it, that would be enough for legal purposes. It would be too difficult to have the law evaluate whether it was a legitimate business idea or not.
    • Good question. But as a quick aside to the main point of post, the time frame question is often key. NTP is a licensing company that formed around the inventor. It took Texas Instruments a decade to develop the Digital Light Projection technology found in those flat screen Tvs and the Infocus projectors. We need to allow time for great ideas to be developed.

      One way for individual inventors to get around the necessary manufacturing infrastructure is to simply license it. This helps the system because a

    • How about?: If you want to enforce a patent you have to show that you:
      1. Have a working implimentation of the patent which you are selling on the market
      2. Have a working prototype on the way to production
      3. Have invested or are investing considerable time/money creating a prototype or product
        -OR-
      4. Have already licensed your patent to an entity which fulfills one of the prior conditions

      Too simplistic?

  • I was sure there was a semi-recent interview by Slashdot with someone that worked at the USPTO, but I can't seem to find it.

    But really, can anyone fathom what actually goes on inside the USPTO? One assumes there must be people there who are fighting the incompetence and denying patents, only to be disciplined or fired, but I can't think of any examples of that. I just don't see how the USPTO could a) keep qualified people out or b) keep the qualified people inside from denying patents without using some k
  • Though interesting news occurance, it's unrelated to the NTP Vs. RIM. The NTP Vs. RIM case is only a US distribution of a contested technology. But on the other hand, thinking about international patent rights, it's interesting that a Canadian firm would seek to overwhelm a small US patent holder by legal wrangling and political maneuvering.
    • As opposed to an employee-less US patent squatter trying to overwhelm a markedly successful Canadian business?
      • So the inventor doesn't count eh? I understand the outrage at Zombie companies (which in my mind doesn't involve the inventor), but again this "witch hunt" mentality has got to stop. Especially if supposedly this website draws the "nerds" or the technically-minded. The mentality goes on to suggest drastic changes are needed to US Patent Law to stop Zombies and all I've heard are suggestions that make it way easier for big companies to squash small companies. Now that just hurts the American economy by f

  • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:One major check on the system (Score:5, Insightful)

      by montyzooooma ( 853414 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @11:58AM (#14635692)
      With all due respect that's not a great idea. Only allow patents on actual products you can hold in your hand and you'd cut out 99% of the bogus patent applications. That would also be in keeping with the original spirit of the patent system.

    • Re:One major check on the system (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AutopsyReport ( 856852 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @12:00PM (#14635708)
      A company that doesn't have employees paid to create new things shouldn't be allowed to own patents since it has not created anything

      And while your at it, completely destroy a reason and the means for individuals to invent and patent?

      • This is different. GP is lambasting companies that are formed solely to wage litigious war against other companies with an arsenal of patents that they have no desire to ever actually use.
        Patents were created to provide incentives to creating new products (although they aren't necessary, as any economist worth his salt will be able to explain); they were created to promote innovation. A company that sits on its patents waiting to sue someone who infringes on them is doing nothing but stifling innovation. Th
        • No doubt, but precluding individuals and corporate entities that do not have a distinguishable R&D division from the patenting process is ludicrous. I don't agree that a company formed to patent-squat should be considered acceptable, but I also don't think this idea would be a viable basis for determining who is a candidate for patenting.

          I was moreso referring to the GP's first line, Make it so that a company without any R&D division cannot file or own patents, than what I actually quoted. I real

  • Patents are an evil and savor in their own The protect companies who spend millions in research from another company coming along and just basically stealing all the work put into a project. On the other hand they are the cause of our large drug prices and crazy licensing agreements (at times). Some technology should just not be patented but where that line is would be nearly impossible to draw. There should be something to stop companies from patenting products they don't even on building or a way for pa

  • counter sue (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Twillerror ( 536681 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @12:08PM (#14635783) Homepage Journal
    Although I don't generally like sueing which got us in the case in the first place RIM should go after InPro with all their resources and crush them like a bug. Someone needs to put these patent companies in their place and set some precedence. This has cost not only RIM, but lots of other people money and time. If I was the government I'd go after InPro as well, think of all the tax dollars they have wasted.

    • The problem with "crushing" a patent company, is that along with having no employees, they also have no assets, there's nothing to "crush" by invalidating the patent they have already taken away that company's only asset, and the way companies are structured, the people behind the company are immune to anything but the most severe illegal acts, the company declares bankruptcy and the owner walks away with any remaining funds in some form of "severance"

      in short, it's not worth anyone's time to counter-sue, a
  • Never Transgress Patents Vs. Really Irritating Misunderstanding

  • Maybe they will learn... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by db32 ( 862117 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @01:15PM (#14636244) Journal
    Hopefully RIM will learn their lesson with these things and maybe quit going after other people for stupid patents. In the latest issues I do side with RIM, but at the same time, they are getting what they deserve. RIM is hardly innocent here, they did this same crap with their stupid mini keyboard on the blackberry vs makers of PDAs with mini keyboards. Sharp Zaurus was doing the mini keyboard thing about 4 years before RIM put the first Blackberry on the market, so to me this is mostly karma coming back to RIM for their nonsense prior.

    • Re:Maybe they will learn... (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Someone should look it up. The minikeyboard patent in question looks like a really specific layout with precise distances between keys, shapes and everything. I'd call it an non-obvious innovation.
      • Honestly to me it still seems relatively trivial. It's like the difference between the original Xbox controllers being made for bigfoot and the later ones being made for normal man. I have seen dozens of controllers, keyboards, interfaces, that ultimately are the same, but I really havn't seen very many companies patenting (they may be there) or enforcing (the part that shows up in the news that exposes the companies patenting) this sort of thing. "Your qwerty is spaced differently!" Hell, if that is th

  • I'm rooting for NTP in this fight. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cwsulliv ( 522390 ) * <cwsulliv@triad.rr.com> on Friday February 03, 2006 @03:33PM (#14637466)
    RIM has hardly been above reproach in court or in its prior dealings with NTP, which after all does hold what are valid patents - at least the patents haven't yet been invalidated in a final declaration by the US Patent Office. And NTP is the company of the now-deceased inventor as opposed to a cabal of speculators who buy up patents wholesale and wait like vultures for a chance to strike.

    But the primary reason for my position is the hope that NTP will succeed in obtaining the injunction to shut down RIM's operation in the US. Only then will the discomfiture of millions of Blackberry owners raise a big enough stink to force Congress into a reevaluation of the wisdom of allowing software patents at all.
  • Judge Pumfrey is the same guy who ruled that Storage Computer didn't have a valid patent on parity-based RAID such as RAID 3 and RAID 5. I read the transcripts of that case -- he is very skeptical of patents which are obvious implementations of existing ideas. If you can give an average engineer the same problem and he comes up with the same solution, then there shouldn't be a patent.

Slashdot Top Deals

There is very little future in being right when your boss is wrong.

Close