Supreme Court won't hear Blackberry case
By Marc Perton 
posted January 23rd 2006 11:49AM
posted January 23rd 2006 11:49AM
Things have been looking up for Research in Motion in the company's long-running patent dispute with rival NTP.
With the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office overturning NTP's patents left and
right, it looked like any justification for NTP's claims that RIM needed to pay up for IP infringement was rapidly
slipping away. But RIM has just been dealt a potentially severe blow, as the US Supreme Court has declined to hear the
company's appeal to an injunction against the Blackberry brought by a Virginia
judge. The case now goes back to Judge James Spencer, who has set a February 1 deadline for RIM, NTP and interested
parties to file papers. If the judge enforces his injunction, Blackberry service could go dead in the US -- though the
company has long said it has a "workaround" to keep things up and running. We still tend to think RIM's
eventually going to prevail in this one, but NTP may have just won enough leverage to push harder for some kind of settlement to make the whole
case just go away.[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]
SpudTastic, thanks for your constructive criticism of my comment. By the way, the USPTO has now formally rejected all of NTP's patents, but being well-read (unlike myself) you already know that of course.
No individual or organization should have the right to file for such broad-based patents and then attempt to hold other companies to ransom.
Having been involved in the technology sector, advisory service and venture capital all of my life, I'm all for innovation. Sadly, companies like NTP are not the innovators - they're the companies that hold the rest of the true innovators back.
Just my two cents.
Madness. Why don't these patent trolls just disappear back under the rock that they crawled out of, and let innovators like RIM get on with their business.
RIM = constructive
NTP = destructive
Let's hope common sense will ultimately prevail on this one.
Things are starting to look better for GoodLink.
Comment #1 = you are ignorant as to what it means to own and protect your intellectual property.
BY LAW a patent grants a monopoly right to anyone who holds it. Just like real property, Intellectual Property contains perimeters and borders. And just like real property, an owner can prevent a trespasser from using and abusing that clear right. Patent law grants NTP the right to enforce their patent.
This is the general stuff.
But if you want to talk specifics:
NTP is a holding company that was created by the INVENTOR of the PATENTS in question. This inventor put his blood sweat and tears into creating something which was then stolen and used by Crackberry for its own profit.
Crackberry made money out of this no doubt and now its time to pay the rightful holder of the VALID (not the invalid) Patents for their Intellectual Property.
If Crackberry has a "workaround" then why did they not employ this initially instead of choosing to flagrantly violate the rights of a third party patent holder?
Perhaps it is YOU that should climb back under the rock and do a bit more reading rather than attack a patent holder for exerting their rights.
:)
The EVU Impressario
For an interesting read about the original inventor of the push-to-talk patents that are covered in this litigation check out the EVU Blog "American Dream Series" at http://america-daily.com/?page_id=201For an interesting read about the original inventor of the push-to-talk patents that are covered in this litigation check out the EVU Blog "American Dream Series" at http://america-daily.com/?page_id=201
Considering how prevalent and important the Blackberry is in today's corporate environment, I'd be interested if someone did a study of exactly how much lost American companies would lose in lost productivity if the Blackberry network goes dark...
My employer would be in a spot of trouble if that were to happen, i'm sure.
...and if those patents are invalid to begin with, then the original poster is right about NTP being the destructive ones here since they are suing over something they didn't "invent" anyway.
no no no - firstly Crackberry will never go dark, because even though the hammer of an injunction is looming, nobody wins if the injunction goes through. NTP wants royalties and wants them bad. Crackberry wants to stay in business. Crackberry's parent company Research in Motion has a fat bank account from profits directly related to the patents at hand and can and should pay up.
as far as patents being held invalid - there were something in the range of 7-9 patents all relating to this technology. While most have been held invalid, there are 1 or 2 that are still considered valid patents under US Patent Law - and those deserve the attention and protection that the law warrants.
:)
SpudTastic, considering almost all (if not all) of the patents in question have been since found invalid, your posts are not only meaningless and ignorant, but downright idiotic.
#6,
That is precise why you go to court. The PTO and courts, respectively, will decide whether the patents are invalid and whether the injunction should be enforced.
Ask yourself the question: What if NTP does have a rightful claim to its intellectual property?
What would be your answer then?
#8 (Neo), there is a HUGE difference between "all" and "almost all".
Even if only ONE patent is held valid, then that patent has the right to be enforced and those rights extend to the patent holder (or assignee).
You deride me for saying that even if just ONE lonely patent is valid, it should be enforced. But think about it. If there had been only ONE patent to start with and it was a valid patent, should it not be allowed the protection that the law affords? Who cares if "almost all" of the remaining patents were found invalid? If there is one valid patent, that valid patent has the force of law, and its owner can enforce its rights (just like a real property owner should or could do).
If you dont like the Patent System - then think of the alternative. no incentive to create, no incentive to invent. The purpose of providing an inventor with a monopoly right for a FINITE period of time (20 years from filing), is to provide incentive to create and innovate.
AND yes the patent holder, NTP did invent. There owner, Campana (now deceased) invented push-to-email long before RIM came into the picture.
:)
Judging from what I've seen just by skimming these comments I think that most people are missing a big point. This shouldn't be about whether NTP's patents are valid or not. If the PO decides they are then RIM should pay up to NTP for the infringment, if the PO says they are not then NTP should just take a long walk off a short pier. The point though is that the US courts will not allow RIM and the PO the time need to invalidate/validate NTP's patents. IIRC this started out with something like 7 patents, 5 of which have been invalidated, does nobody else seem to think that it is wierd that the courts seem to be trying to push a settlement before the last 2 can be examined by the PO?? Something smells fishy to me.
i for one can NOT stand the crackberry as it only does 1 good thing, push e-mail. but this is exactly like if microsoft "stole" someone IP, you guys would be all up in arms about how MS is evil, blah blah blah. it's NO different at all, and just paying a fat sum of money just to make them go away isn't right either, it's just plain robbery. and just because a technology is popular and "so important" doesn't make it right that the president can say whether or not the service gets shut down or not. that's bullshit. RIM should rott in hell where they belong.
As a patent lawyer, let me say something that may shock some of you: *virtually anything can be patented.* That said, there are a few catches. For one, the inventor must be willing to make some apparent concessions (by apparent, I mean make it seem like they're relinquishing some patent coverage in the eyes of the examiner). Secondly, the inventor must be prepared to fight - hard - to enforce his or her patent. Finally, and most importantly, the inventor must be willing to invest the resources ($) to obtain a patent. Now, let me tell you the corollary: *virtually any patent can be rendered invalid.*
The most important thing is that in either case, you must have a near inexhaustible pool of funds. Give me $XX,XXX, and I'll patent an online auction system with a twist. Give me $XXX,XXX, and my team will invalidate virtually any patent you like. Some of you may balk at this, but I assure you, I've pushed so many patents through the system - for things that clearly already existed in startlingly similar form - that I know, deeply and truly that the system can be manipulated by those with the money and the means. Easily.
The patent system is severely messed up, as it has been for decades now. To hear (see, rather) people on this and other forums discussing the actual merits or, more laughably, relative moral positions (i.e., RIM:GOOD! NTP:BAD!) has me in tears and stitches: tears because no one knows what they're talking about; stitches because it's funny to watch people ascribe human attributes to corporate structures (corpropomorphism? like the sound of that!).
The bottom line is and always will be money. The patent system is there to reward innovation - it doesn't care about the public good or public harm so much as it cares about encouraging innovation (the foundational basis of most IP). NTP and RIM are what we call in certain analysis "isolated actors" - they're battling each other on a completely different plane over issues that have no real bearing on most onlookers. If you are going to stake out a position, either put yourself on the level (i.e., discuss the issues they're fighting about) or at the very least keep your analysis disinterested.
Finally, someone who knows what they're talking about posting about the RIM/NTP case: a patent lawyer.
If anyone is curious, there are several comments at this (http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/19/ntp-dont-cry-dry-your-eyes/) post that help illuminate the subject.
I wish I didn't love saying 'I told you so,' but when I've actually put work into learning about a particular subject, and my analysis seems to be about dead-on, I can't help but gloat.
Important things to remember:
1.) RIM's already lost. They were found guilty
2.) NTP was awarded enhanced damages, but NOT because RIM was 'stealing' IP, as #3 alleges. In fact, NTP *GRANTS* the fact that RIM had no prior knowledge of the Campana patents (the one's in question)
3.) RIM's appeal did VERY little to strengthen its case. It was remanded for review of the judge's rendering of of miniscule elements of the case, unlikely to seriously reverse the decision.
4.) RIM has seriously hacked off James Spencer. He is not happy with their behavior at all, and rightfully so. In one instance, it looks as if RIM executives lied on the stand, though no formal charges were pressed. In another, RIM lawyers submitted a motion 4 times, it was denied four times, and was almost the exact same motion. Spencer's not an idiot.
5.) Spencer also doesn't particularly care what the USPTO finds in terms of validity, because it has been argued by NTP, and he agrees, that once the patent is ruled invalid, NTP will appeal, a process that could take years, and he "has spent enough of my life on NTP and RIM."
6.) NTP gains nothing by an injunction against RIM. The injunction is meant to force a licensing agreement for the technology.
Hope this helps. As I mentioned before, check www.findlaw.com and Lexis Nexis if you have access at your university (or law firm, though if you're at your firm, you probably don't need my opinion...)