Behind the scenes in the RIM/NTP patent war

If you thought the Blackberry patent battle between RIM and NTP was just a fight between a successful wireless company and a greedy patent farmer, this lengthy article from the Toronto Globe and Mail may be an eye-opener. It's the story of the late Tom Campana, a failed wireless messaging entrepreneur, who founded NTP to protect his patents, which were all he had left after his business collapsed. It's enough to almost make you root for NTP, oddball patents and all.

[Via Slashdot]

[Trinidex @ May 16th 2006 4:56PM]

Where's the article?

[Steve Jobs is life @ Jan 29th 2006 2:23PM]

As a partner of a sucessful law firm, i can honestly say that NTP has a very valid case. They have the ability to turn RIM's service off. They are going to wait, till the case is in huge favor for them and than they are going to settle for a tremendous amount. Good for NTP. Bad for RIM.

[Virtuous @ Jan 29th 2006 2:36PM]

Almost all of NTP's Blackberry-related patents have been invalidated. Nuff said! I sincerely wish NTP is forced to file Chapter 7 after this is all over.

[anonymous coward @ Jan 29th 2006 2:45PM]

I don't care what a feel-good story they paint of NTP's founder or how much of an ass RIM is, if NTP sat on these patents for years (regardless of the patents' validity), they should lose them.

Patent holding companies shouldn't exist at all. It runs completely contrary to purpose of the patent system.

And the fact that NTP can get an injunction is outrageous. Injunctions are supposed to protect against irreversible damages, of which there would be none to NTP if everyone waited for the patent office to rule.

Unlesss of course "irreversible damages" means not being able to extort a company that is actually using the technology to produce a working product.

No matter how nice NTP is or mean RIM is, the fact remains that NTP is a holding company, and they idea of a holding company shutting down a "real" company makes me whince. This whole situation smells bad.

[Kevin @ Jan 29th 2006 2:49PM]

What I don't get is... and if someone could shed some light for me on...

Why does a Patent system in the US apply to a Canadian company?

If NTP has these patents on wireless email systems/devices, why aren't they going after Palm Treo's, Windows Smartphones, or any mobile device that you can get email wirelessly? or how about on your laptop on wifi, getting your email?

Isnt there a point where "archaic" patents become invalidated because they've become common knowledge?

[Moonbaseone @ Jan 29th 2006 3:05PM]

Well, with the patent office invalidaing most of NTP claims, it looks slightly better for Rim, but do they really wanna take the risk of losing in court a second time?

As far as the "work-around", seeing as they have not released any details on what it will and won't be able to do, I am not all that impressed. Might be a smoke and mirrors trick...

Also, if the work-around is not as fast or as good as the current technology, they will lose alot of future business as well, especially seeing how they have a few more serious competitors who will be making devices using the current tecnology. One of them is bound to make a device that might actually be better than the BlackBerry.

[Ran @ Jan 29th 2006 3:17PM]

Go cry me a river.

Regardless of the validity of the patents, NTP should lose simply because one company has a series of wildly successful products and the other has a bunch of paperwork that never had a chance of coming to market and was founded just for legal suits (by their own admission). The whole idea of patents is for companies to bring new innovative products to market, not sit on them and make money off others hardwork. If anything, this makes me root for RIM/Blackberry even more.

Of course the winners here are always the lawyers.

[spice @ Jan 29th 2006 3:31PM]

FYI: The Globe and Mail is a national newspaper. - it isn't The Toronto Globe and Mail.

Kevin: RIM tried that one already [link: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=rim+pleads+canadian&ei=UTF-8&fl=0]. Didn't work (obviously). They might be Canadian, but they are making money in the states.

[Will @ Jan 29th 2006 4:25PM]

Anyone can come up with an idea, not everyone can build it. NTP's business approach is apalling, existing only to undermine the efforts the "can do's". I hope they lose.

[Larry Borsato @ Jan 29th 2006 4:44PM]

Kevin, a patent protects the inventor from infringement in that country. For example, a US patent protects the holder from infringement in the US. RIM tries to argue that the patent shouldn't cover their US operations because the email messages pass through Canada.

Also, patents expire after a certain, time, but not because they become common knowledge. In fact, when they are published they are automatically common knowledge, so that others can improve upon them.

Regardless of what you think of either company, the problem here is that when NTP informed RIM that they were infringing they ignored them. That constitutes willful infringement. And a jury found them guilty of that. There have been several chances to settle but RIM has chosen to fight on.

[dasmenneke @ Jan 29th 2006 4:50PM]

Normally I'm against all sorts of patents etc. but when you read the entire article (which I bet almost noone does) the first thing you read is that NTP discovered of RIM because THEY were fighting over their SUPPOSED patent (which was in fact a patent made earlier by NTP) when I later on read that RIM even used false evidence I say a big no-no to such a company. False evidence: they tried to say that NTP's patent was to old because someone also had done it already before they filed their patent...

Quote(from linked article)

The only problem was that to get the demonstration to work, TeckNow and RIM had secretly swapped in newer software. NTP's lawyer spotted the discrepancy and cornered Mr. Keeney and RIM officils during cross-examination. After a few more minutes of struggling to explain how the newer version was installed, Judge Spencer cut Mr. Keeney off and told the jury to leave the room. �I'll count to 10. I don't want to yell at you,� the judge said, admonishing RIM's legal team for the deception.

[rightclick @ Jan 29th 2006 5:02PM]

Let's not get mad that NTP exists for no reason other than to bring lawsuits.....it just seems an easier (and, sadly, more legit) than brining about the suit called Tom Campana v. Reasearch in Motion.

Let's argue about the merits.

[Larry Borsato @ Jan 29th 2006 6:56PM]

The funniest thing about this is that RIM had every intention of doing to others exactly what RIM did to them:

�BlackBerry knockoffs will now need a licence from us,� RIM co-chief executive officer James Balsillie warned. �The amateurs out there have to stop.�

[quanta @ Jan 29th 2006 7:34PM]

The article still doesn't make me more sympathetic to NTP. OK, so RIM's first band of lawyers were too cocky and sleazy and they suffered for it. But frankly, Mr. Stout seems to have simply outsleazed RIM's legal team. Wired's expose on NTP is, shall we say, less forgiving.

I would be very disappointed at the precedent set if the court makes this one-man patent troll filthy, filthy rich while delivering a death blow to a successful company that provides good jobs and good products to millions of North Americans.

[WiredEarp @ Jan 29th 2006 8:27PM]

You guys who think that just because someone else makes it to market with a product, that should somehow trump the rights of the person who actually invented the whole concept, really have it ass backwards. Anyone with MONEY can see someone elses good idea, and get it to market before most casual inventors could. Patents are already pretty worthless as you have to sue to enforce them, but its all the inventors have. Just because someone with more cash takes your concept and sells millions of them (illegally, since theyre infringing on your patents) doesnt make it right for them to do so. Before ANYTHING is created, the idea has to come first. Saying that the idea is not as important as the implementation is bs. Also, just because you have an idea and patent it but do nothing with it for a while, doesn't give another company the right to do something with your idea without patenting it. Thats why patents expire...

[James Scott @ Jan 29th 2006 8:33PM]

RIM was doing what NTP should have done - stop IP Theft when it started. Not sue them AFTER a company gets built on them so you can make more money. There should be a system in place to prevent just that. If you don't take action right away then your patents should be invalidated and you should be fined for being an asshole.

[Ira @ Jan 29th 2006 8:47PM]

Drawing a distinction between a holding company and a so-called "real" company is absurd. PEOPLE produce things, not companies. Holding companies are just a legal structure for handling certain types of things for people.

'...they[sic] idea of a holding company shutting down a "real" company...'

What else is someone who produces intellectual property going to DO? There are real legal benefits to holding that intellectual property in some kind of legal entity, just the same as there are legal benefits to holding physical property in a legal entity.

The real problem here is not that NTP doesn't Produce anything, it's that the concept of intellectual property as we have chosen to define and implement it in Law is completely unsound.

[shant sherbetdjain @ Jan 29th 2006 9:21PM]

Regardles of the legality of NTP's patent portfolio, I think this is rediculous. There should be some clause protecting RIM simply because they're utilizing the technology for a greater good thant NTP is. If NTP had a rival product than it would be a different matter, but they're just greedy and it would be a disservice for everyone if they win. The government should declare it a case of eminent domain, take the patent, and award it to RIM (since most federal employees can't function without their blackberries nowadays anyway,, lol) I'm shant sherbetdjian, thank ..

[Sean @ Jan 29th 2006 9:53PM]

Consider this scenario:

You are a songwriter who sells his songs to musical artists. Bono from U2 happens to read one of your songs and rushes to produce it. U2 releases that song and makes millions off of it, with no royalties being paid to you. Guess you'd be pretty pissed and want your share wouldn't you?
Just because U2 had the production power to get that song out quickly doesn't mean they own that song. As the creator of that song I have the right to sit on that song until I sell it because it is my song, just like NTP has that same right.
Of course they could have paid NTP to use the technology, but I guess that would have cut into their profits.
I know you guys love your crackberries and are afraid of losing them but please don't be blinded by RIM.
Just my 2 cents.

[anonymous coward @ Jan 29th 2006 11:29PM]

"Consider this scenario:

You are a songwriter...

... Guess you'd be pretty pissed and want your share wouldn't you?"

You and the people who are complaining about the semantics of the phase "patent holding company" are missing the point.

The point is that NTP (and the guy who started it) didn't seem to be doing anything to commercialize the patent. There is no harm to his business, because he wasn't running a business. His lawyer just noticed one day that they could sue for a bunch of money.

If I may paint this in broader strokes...

The belief among many people is that you should lose any patent that you are not actively using or attempting to use, including actively trying to licence it.


And some people would go so far as to say that if you aren't producing anything with it yourself, you should have no claim to it.


Making no attempt to use a patent for anything other than a payoff in court stinks. Had the original inventor been trying to do something with it *before he noticed someone else's infringement*, we wouldn't be having this discussion, but from the sounds of it, he wasn't doing anything, and his lawyer one day got dollar signs in his eyes.

And now we have this mess.

[JC @ Jan 30th 2006 12:51AM]

The discussion of the RIM/NTP dispute never addresses the core issue: what is it that NTP claims that Campana invented? If there was reporting on that question the technologically sophisticated public would be able to see that there is no real merit in the NTP position. The fact that the patent office issued a patent and the District Court found it valid simply demonstrates how inept both of those institutions are.

Campana and his assignees are no more deserving of sympathy or fortune than anyone else who ever "re-invented the wheel".

The sooner the patent office cancels the patents (as they inevitably will) the better.

[Ryan @ Jan 30th 2006 1:33AM]

It boggles my mind that some company that things of something, writes it down, fails at implementing that idea anywhere, admited to creating a company with the sole intention of waiting for people to litigate against, can get the favor of the courts, and the public in some cases.

NTP as a company was only there to SUE -- this is why our country is going down the tubes! Go RIM, even though you are Canadian! ;)

[Dave @ Jan 30th 2006 8:53AM]

This story changes my perspective completely. I was naive in taking the press that RIM had put out as truth. I understand better now and I believe this will not be settled as easily as we'd hoped. There are too many egos involved here. There should've been compromises up front, but the egos at RIM would never allow it. How sad.

[Jaime Jones @ Jan 30th 2006 9:43AM]

wow - everytime engadget even mentions "RIM vs NTP" it's like a full out war between two really opposite sides.

I couldnt even get through all of these posts!

But I do want to weigh in on the NTP side of things. These guys (and specifically Tom Campana) DID INVENT something and whether his shot at commercialising it failed, he still holds the intellectual property.

While some of his patents are invalid - the remaining ones are still in force and RIM is a clear infringer.

Nuff Said. wait for more comments!
:) JJ

[mark @ Jan 30th 2006 9:54AM]

Everybody seems to be ignoring a key point in all this: according to everything I've read, RIM developed its technology independently of Mr Campana's ideas. They did not rip off his ideas and use them to form the basis for the Blackberry -- they came up with what amounts to the same idea on their own. In my mind this complicates matters considerably. Why should RIM's hard work go down in flames just because they were successful, when Mr Campana failed to do anything with his patents? How would you feel if you spent years working hard on a great idea you had, only to find that someone else patented the same basic idea shortly before you and has done nothing with it?

The real shame here is that overinflated egos prevented an amicable resolution on both sides of the argument. RIM blew the whole situation off until it was too big to ignore, and Mr Campana seemed to be determined to shut RIM down like some petulant schoolboy who was upset that someone else succeeded where he'd failed.

[An impartial third party... @ Jan 30th 2006 10:11AM]

The folks who don't like one of the parties, or don't like the law - seem to be missing the point.

Looks like RIM got caught with their hand in the cookie jar! Doesn't matter that those cookies were old and stale and nobody cared about them, or that RIM microwaved them into warm cookie goodness. Not RIM's cookies to start with.

[Jaime Jones @ Jan 30th 2006 11:09AM]

re: #25 - no totally disagree. that goes against the entire concept of patentability or notion of inventiveness.

if you are stupid enough to spend years developing a technology internally that has already been patented and then dont follow through with a due diligence on the patent landscape, you are destined to fall into the infringement trap.

to give RIM a little bit of credit, they probably did realise the patent landscape but chose to ignore it, believing instead that enforceability would be either too costly or too lengthy for any small patent company to enter. they misjudged poorly and have consistently misjudged the outcome and result of each step in the litigation.

if you invent, file, and receive a patent, you deserve the right to enforce that patent. period.

jj

[Bobby D. @ Jan 30th 2006 11:28AM]

Why shouldn't the service be shut down? It will be back up the instant they agree to obey the law. What incentive do they have to obey the law otherwise?

The only smart move RIM made in this was when it realized how corrupt the US Congress is. And the only question remaining to be answered is, did they pump enough millions into enough pockets fast enough to get their way?

I'm guessing, with prominent Republicans chanting "national security" as cover, that the answer will be yes.

[sygyzy @ Jan 30th 2006 1:29PM]

What exactly did Campana invent? Does his patent truly cover a specific solution on how push email should be implemented? Or was it simply an "idea". If it's the latter, anyone can just start thinking of cool ideas and then sue th company that makes it 30 years later.

[jc @ Jan 30th 2006 1:36PM]

Post 24 by Jaime Jones says: "These guys (and specifically Tom Campana) DID INVENT something"

That is the whole problem. Campana did not invent anything. Read the patent claims that RIM was found to have infringed and tell us what they mean and how they differed from the prior art.

[Johno @ Jan 30th 2006 3:00PM]

I have this great idea for a wireless headset that will have voice recognition software and the ability to make phone calls, send and receive email, synchronize Calendars etc all without touching it once you place it over your ear. After the initial models the subsequent versions will actually be using information stored in a smart chip embedded under your skin behind your ear so that anyone can pick up the wireless headset and use it with whatever wireless carrier they have an account with.

REALITY: Something like this will happen eventually in the future, its the way things are going. Can I design and make all the hardware and software to make this idea a reality? NO WAY! Assuming I took out a patent, does that give me the right to ask for money for someone else financing the research and actually making the product? NO WAY!
Get real NTP, the ideas that T.C. may have had are nothing compared to the brilliant device that RIM developed. You cannot draw ANY comparison.

[richal @ Jan 30th 2006 5:36PM]

response to post #31 by Johno:
I highly doubt you can patent your wireless headset idea based on that description alone.

[Blackberry @ Jan 31st 2006 11:33AM]

It was a joint effort between patent lawyer Stout and Campana. Stout was Campana's patent lawyer and it was his idea to sue RIM. Not surprising from a lawyer.

Anyways that company is no more than a patent troll, and I hope RIM comes out on top of this one.

[John @ Jan 31st 2006 4:50PM]

Now Visto is requesting an injunction against Good Technology for infringing on 4 wireless data patents.

The request for an injunction is a standard part of a patent-infringement lawsuit.

[Justin @ Jan 31st 2006 10:25PM]

Hello All....

With technology always changing and improving, you shouldn't be able to have such a broad patent like the one NTP holds for the wireless email (ill get to that in a second). That would be like Microsoft getting a patent titled: OPERATING SYSTEM GUI ON A PC/PALM/PHONE/ANYTHING WITH A PROCESSOR IN IT/ETC.

This is the title of the patent NTP holds at the U.S. Patent Office that they are suing RIM over: ELECTRONIC MAIL SYSTEM WITH RF COMMUNICATIONS TO MOBILE PROCESSORS AND METHOD OF OPERATION THEREOF

Now really, how broad is that? If I am not mistaken, this covers just about anything that you can get text with like SMSing. You can get personal e-mails on many things other than a Blackberry, like a Treo, Razor, crap....my crappy old Samsung with Sprint gets emails if I want it to. Basically, nowadays, anything with an active network connection can get email. Pentium and AMD have a 'mobile processor', just like the laptop I am on writing this....not to mention I have a wireless RF link to connect to the internet.....OH NO!!!!! NTP basically picked the one product the 'wished' they could have developed to sue. Think back to high school, that kid you hated because he had the nicest car and you didnt....something like the same thing?

Going on.....
I have a sneaky suspicion that the 16-million lines of code that Blackberry uses in no way represent the code that ESA developed back in the day, nor does the network structure compare to anything ESA could have imagined back in 1980's.

With the amount of changes that the wireless network have undergone in the last 10 years, I really don't think that there should be any way that NTP should be able to win this case. I whole-heartedly agree with Ryan (#22), this country is going downhill hella fast with idiotic judges and retarded patent holding companies that can do nothing but sit on paperwork while the real geniuses are out there making up concepts that work in the real world and then continuously make them better for you and I to use.