RIM-competitor Good sued by NTP-ally Visto

We're sure that there's a soap opera or at least an after-school special to be made surrounding the ongoing drama in the wireless email industry. As if the RIM/NTP saga wasn't juicy enough, NTP-partner Visto has just filed a suit against RIM-competitor Good Technology charging, guess what- that the GoodLink service is infringing on Visto patents. This is the third such major suit brought by Visto, who have previously targeted Microsoft (for push email in Windows Mobile 5, and not for calling their upcoming OS "Vista") and Seven Networks, but unlike NTP (who have seen all of their patents stricken down by the USPTO) a reaffirmation of one of Visto's patents in the Seven case seems to give Visto's claim some foundation. There's a good lesson in this for all the Junior Achievers out there: if you grow up to be a patent troll, and you've spent years in court spouting prior art this and injunction that, make sure to hedge your bets by aligning yourself with another lawsuit-happy company whose bargaining position is a bit stronger.

[Alcaron @ Feb 1st 2006 9:04AM]

This article SUCKS, seriously, do you guys not even read your own site?

I seem to recall just a few days ago there being an article about all that "behind the scenes" of NTP stuff, where the author even noted "it almost makes you want to root for NTP", but that was a couple days ago so I guess we are back to "PATENT TROLL WEDNESDAY"?

[Iceman @ Feb 1st 2006 1:44PM]

Why would anyone want to root for NTP? They sued RIM for patent infringement, and meanwhile every single one of those patents has been thrown out. Booo!!

[pants @ Feb 1st 2006 1:45PM]

For those of you keeping score at home, a recap:

NTP sues RIM
RIM sues Good
Good and RIM settle
Visto sues Seven
Visto sues Smartener
Seven buys Smartener
Good licences NTP patents
Visto licences NTP patents
Intellisync licences NTP patents
Nokia buys Intellisync
Visto sues Microsoft
NTP aquires a stake in Visto
Visto sues Good

[Jamie Jones @ Feb 1st 2006 2:10PM]

Ok #3 wrong, #4 nice analysis... I just wanted to post because I have posted every time NTP v RIM has come up. But I am slowly tiring of this nonsense. The issues are clear, you either root for RIM or NTP and the positions are clear too... in fact I dont think there is a single issue that hasnt been spelled out.

I wrote an article on America Daily about Canadian companies in the US, but cant imagine anyone wants to read it. If interested click on my name which should take you to the site.

Otherwise, lets move on from RIM and NTP (even I am getting bored).

:)

[JC @ Feb 2nd 2006 4:09PM]

In response to #5 by Jamie Jones

Perhaps you could answer the question I posed to you the other day: what is it that Campana invented, that was not covered by prior art and that RIM infringed?

Simple question. The patents are not particularly complex and it should be easy to express in a few sentences the core invention by Campana if there is one.

So far as American treatment of Canadian companies go you should go review what happened to Loewen Brothers.

[Ed Pool @ Feb 3rd 2006 3:27AM]

Patents encourage innovation � Oh really!



Having now endured a ten-year journey as the acknowledged inventor of computer-to-computer international transactions it seems appropriate to take a pause and reflect on this unique ordeal, it�s effects and legacy.



There is something very special that happens when an individual has a �moment� which results in a recognized creation of something �new� which will provide benefit to humanity. Whether it is a song or symphony, penicillin or the cure for cancer we as societies seek to encourage our citizens to push the envelope of our imaginations to bring forth new ideas and concepts for our mutual benefit in the progressive development of humanity. I sometimes think that this symbiotic relationship is the fabric that makes us human and the spark that generationally moves us forward in our social expansion.



The recognition of this critical piece of our uniqueness has even been deified by most of humanity as our soul. That little something different that seeks beyond our senses to a vast well of knowledge to be explored and exploited. And, as we collectively have gained and understanding into this resource, we have also recognized in more recent centuries its incalculable value. Ever changing and ever evolving this well will never be drained by our species.



In recent centuries as societies freed themselves from the shackles of authoritarianism they realized just as with the freedoms of speech, public discourse and ownership of property, that creative thought also deserves and requires encouragements and protections for our most valuable commodity, the spirit, to be exercised and developed. To this end many societies have created protections against the theft of such works by conveying property rights in the form of copyrights and patents to those individuals who at their own risk, expense and sometimes peril decided to serve the society at large by dedicating themselves to artistic and creative thought.



Society has organized city orchestras, museums, libraries and educational institutions to encourage our growth and discourse. All to allow those individuals of either gifted or acquired skills an environment of decency to live and work. Following on we also realized that great advancements in knowledge also needed greater protection in order to seek the best ideas from the masses instead of waiting centuries playing the odds that economic rewards will motivate a person of resources to devote their time if so inclined into the arts and sciences. What wondrous benefits have we attained by seeking to protect each of our intellects and spirits from the bondage of depravity, slavery and domination.



The last two centuries alone have seen greater advancements in human society on virtually all fronts than has occurred in the entire developmental history of humanity itself. This is not a coincidence! It is the direct result of our willingness to organize and develop social orders for adherence and a mechanism of redress for violations. In short we call these mechanisms laws. Whether the bedrock foundation springs from the �Constitution� in America or the Magna Carta to name but a few, this too has been an ever-evolving process. If we as humanity could but share a level of decency and respect for others the amount of legal evolution we have seen would not be necessary. We could as societies agree upon our basic values of cooperation and be done with the matter once and for all.



The destruction of these principles while it may seem irrational and illogical happens time and again and has prompted great slogans and wars to motivate decent humanity to its� common cause � �Freedom is not Free� � �Constant Vigilance� � �Pay Not this Price Again my Brothers� ��He who fails to remember history is destined to repeat it�. All warning that the struggle to maintain a free and democratic society is not without a price to be paid. Until humanity can forever root out those who engage in behavior disrupting to an individuals freedom we as humanity will be engaged in this constant or in this writers opinion perpetual struggle. It is simply the nature of some of us to dominate, control and perverse the freewill and freedom of their neighbors. Let the psychologist and religious scholars argue the causes we simply need to accept there and their existence and marshal our efforts to contain and eliminate them.



Our greatest debate is what tools and resources should be marshaled for this operation and what time frame and consequences we are willing to suffer to create a �vigilant social order�. Maybe we should look at the techniques that are being utilized to subvert free societies and strive to perfect a defense to use against the corrosive and divisive practitioners who seem to surround us at every corner, break down public discourse and corrupt our governing institutions and elected officials.



While our societies take false comfort in the complexity of our existence the future growth of humanity has in the past and will continue in the future to derive its sustenance from simplicities. As with any species we each at the first level have needs that must be met in order to survive. We must have water, food, clothing and shelter. These we should acknowledge as basics rights of humanity and safe guard that they are in the public trust never to be commodities in any form that deprives humanity of the essence of life.



The next level would be the right to reproduce in balance with the resources of level one, to have access to resources of basic health care and the right of a basic education to spark the creativity of the masses.



Our final tier then becomes the expanse for our other agreed upon �rights� that must be set forth to protect and preserve the levels one and two while keeping open that human creativity and ingenuity may enlighten us to even more fundamental levels such as the protection of the �spirit � where the spark of creativity and ingenuity seem to be nurtured and developed.



In order for us to implement a mechanism to safeguard these basic fundamental rights we therefore must construct the laws of agreement and build a fair unwavering system of enforcement. Theses two components solidly in place we now have a barrier to prevent domination from within our societies and the structure of barring the reoccurrences by the same offenders. These two fundamental mechanisms the law and the mechanism of redress cannot operate with any effectiveness separated from one another. They are part and parcel, yin and yang able to exist only by their mutual coexistence. Therefore disruption to one creates failures in the other leading ultimately to the very depravity they are chartered to prevent.



It stands in the simplest form, that in order to create dominance, control and perversion of freewill that manipulation of the law or the system of redress must occur. Better yet would be a dual assault on each separately and collectively since each is mutually dependent on the other. While efforts to divert attention from this strategy are of critical importance until the corporate mission is accomplished, one only needs to place their critique on modifications to our bedrock laws and the system of redress to see if tampering is occurring.



Obfuscating the primary critique of tampering into the myriad of legal changes that have taken place in the United States and other Western societies does not in the overall discourse assist our goal to protect our laws or mechanism of redress. The amount of violations or modifications of national, regional and local statutes is today simply to massive to address. Hopefully most, if not all, regardless of their unique position relative to a law would agree that many variations, dilutions, interpretations and layering have been placed on the Constitution. One might even conclude that the legitimate interpretation of our bedrock legislation has via this process been rendered non-descriptive of our present judicial situation. This too is no coincidence!



Assaulting the �citizenry�s� normal and understood interpretation of our bedrock principles would after all be an insurmountable task on its face via the mechanisms of redress. Whether for criminal or civil violations the citizenry could quickly, efficiently and effectively discourage such perverse insults through a non-exclusionary regime of penalties. It is of fundamental importance that no one individual or group can escape the severity of a penalty that is utilized against other members of the society for like offenses. The simple statement that no one is above the law must be administered with rigidity and purpose if we are to gain our most fundamental freedoms (Level I).



Further, such attempts at depriving the citizenry of their guarantees would in the end lead to defeat of such manipulative actions when challenged against the basic language of our legal foundations. This guarantee of redress will always provide the means of holding legal statutes to their bedrock interpretations. It would seem logical therefore to conclude that in order dilute or layer legislation to deny the masses freedom one must deny the masses not the penalty, not the law but rather the mechanism of redress.



It was previously concluded that manipulation of the law has not only taken place but is continually being administered under the various guises of creation, interpretation and enforcement. Administering similar logical thought to the system of redress we find what must be the most insidious and obvious evidence of tampering. In short the ability to access the mechanisms of redress is a direct result of ones ability to afford access to the legal system itself whether involving criminal or civil, international, national or regional laws. It stands to reason that if access is correlated to affordability one only need to determine the average cost associated with the action required to be taken and compare it to the disposable income of the general populace at large.



Utilizing the Bureau of Statistics figures for 2003 (pg.8, http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxann03.pdf) and comparing average income before taxes against average annual expenditures a full 60% of the working population has no disposable income for the purpose of accessing the legal system regardless of the offense. In other words if dragged into the system for criminal violations or defense against a litigious action 60% cannot defend themselves in a proactive manner much less assume the roll of plaintive for any purpose. The majority of the American citizenry are being effectively denied their most basic of rights not to mention anything else.



Of the remaining 40% even at the highest 20% income group disposable income average is $45,415.00. The charges for legal access vary considerably depending on which legal jurisdiction the case will fall into with international the most expensive and then working its way down the line to national, regional and then local. While this writer has not been involved in international courts experience has been gained in national and regional venues. Without to much debate or argument that the charges for partner work would average 190.00/hr. at the local level and in excess of 400.00/hour on Federal level cases a dramatic reality comes to light. This does not include expenses, associate work, expert witnesses, filing charges, depositions or the amount of time and disruption that you will have to personally cover which will be significant in their own right.



The top 20% income earners by utilizing all of their disposable income can buy 113 hours or 14 days worth of service work from the law firm�s partners. The next 20% income earners with $10,664.00 of disposable income can afford 3.3 days of service at the Federal level whether a plaintiff or defendant while the balance 60% of the population have no disposable income what so ever and therefore saving pro-bona or fee contingent work no access at all. Considering the previous standard of freedom and its� direct correlation to a system of laws and mechanism of redress one seems forced to conclude if 60% of the citizenry have no access and 20% can only afford 3.3 days of service then certainly the proponents of control and depravity have done the seemingly impossible - negated the mechanism of redress at the Federal level for 80% of the citizenry and at all other levels shut out 60%. It is simply not good enough to say that we have the protections on the books; access and a fair mechanism of redress must also be part and parcel. It equates to the infamous unfunded mandates that our legislators hold up as the golden fleece of their guardian stewardship.



If the mechanism of redress is denied to citizens at large at this level then does not a state of lawlessness and disorder resulting from a failure of government not exist? In short a true state of anarchy? If so what can be done to correct the situation and how long will the solution take to implement? This last question places us squarely on a very dangerous road, a road in fact that has but only two choices:

1.) Volunteer establishment of a system of laws and mechanism of redress.

2.) Armed conflict to establish a system of laws and mechanism of redress.



There is probably no other statement so foretelling of the present situation than the answer to a question posed by a lady to Dr. Benjamin Franklin in 1787 as he left independence hall as recited in the notes of Dr. James McHenry one of Maryland�s delegates to the Convention. � A lady asked Dr. Franklin � Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy? A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.�



What does this have to do with a patent you might ask? Well plenty, especially if you understand the mechanism of redress for inventors in general and most poignantly for small or independent inventors. This latter group encompassing the ever-stalwart backbone of national employment � small and mid size businesses.



The generally taught perceptions of obtaining and enforcing patents as harbored by the public and legislators are not reflective of today�s procedure in anyway shape or form. In fact it should be rather intuitive that something is amiss when these allegations are called �infringement� and not �theft� of ones property. This distinguishes one of the most fundamental barriers that faces the small inventor and in today�s mechanism of redress that which allows predatory practices by any well healed individual, organization or institution.



In short this means that if someone steals your car it is not a �theft� and therefore is not a criminal act, which employs government resources for recovery and prosecution but rather a civil violation. This then places the burden of recovery upon the owner for all aspects of the case. Further compromising the recovery of your vehicle without damage is the fact that mechanism of redress will take several years while your vehicle continues to rack up mileage by its unauthorized appropriation (an inventor calls this theft and law calls this infringement). Meantime you have to find another means of travel and pay for that out of your own pocket as well. Now add to this fact that in order for you to own the car in the first place that you had to prove to the federal government that you have the resources to acquire the car, a procedure that can take 6 years. So the scenario is now set: You own a car that was 6 years old when you took delivery, it was appropriated by unauthorized users (stolen) the day you took delivery and you have to fund the entire investigation, location, trial, discovery and litigation to recovery your car which will be a high mileage 9 to 10 year old vehicle when you get to drive it again assuming it can pass a state inspection. If not you get to pay for the repairs as well. Sound strange, sound un-American, sound un-Constitutional well it is not. In fact that is a very good analogy of how the mechanism of redress operates for patents.



Are you ready for the real rub? Irrespective of the value of your car if the infringer (inventor perspective - thief) refuses to acknowledge your ownership and rights you will have to spend in excess of 3 million dollars to get it back! Now if these were the systems in place for car theft how long do you think your car will sit in front of your house on the street? Not long I would submit given the predatory instincts of many persons in our societies. Remember no jail time for this theft either, just return of your 9/10 year old car and maybe the cost of the repairs assuming you can pony up a 2 million dollar retainer, which we know 80% cannot. Not a bad deal to steal 10 cars and get to drive 8 of them without any fear of judicial accountability. This is the mechanism of redress that exists for the small inventor and given the previous analysis of affordability for society at large it is not rocket science to conclude the constitutional rights of small inventors have all but been silenced saving pro-bono or fee contingent services. This is the writer�s reality and the reality of many other small entities� engaged in the �patent wars.�



Now before I get beat up with legalese on my analogy, it is given from I believe the publics� perspective and not from the perspective of the law. I dare say that most normal citizens would express absolute astonishment if they understood the procedures of law required to file, prosecute, obtain and enforce patent rights today. I would further state that objectively one could conclude that the patent system and mechanism of redress encourage two primary results: 1.) To dishonestly encourage creative invention by the masses; 2.) Institutionalize wide spread infringement (inventors perspective � theft).



The patent office backed by the weight of the government clearly states: �For over 200 years, the basic role of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has remained the same: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing for limited times to inventors the exclusive right to their respective discoveries (Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution). Under this system of protection, American industry has flourished. New products have been invented, new uses for old ones discovered, and employment opportunities created for millions of Americans. The strength and vitality of the U.S. economy depends directly on effective mechanisms that protect new ideas and investments in innovation and creativity.�



Remember earlier it was stated that in order to take away the individuals freedom (Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution in this case) one only need to deny the mechanism of redress � civil action that minimally 80% cannot afford to utilize and will take years of effort if you can afford the mechanism including pro-bono and fee contingent services. Finally by the PTO�s own statement look at what happens when a mechanism of redress is denied to the inventors:



1.) American industry will not flourish.

2.) New products will not be invented

3.) New uses for old ones will not take place.

4.) No employment opportunities for millions of Americans

5.) The strength and vitality of the U.S. economy is put in jeopardy



Sound familiar? Could it be that the wholesale loss of middle class jobs, trade deficits, intellectual property theft, public debt, income loss and the wholesale weakening of our nation in general might not find its� root cause in parallel with the denial of the mechanisms of redress by society itself?



Next time you see a patent litigation action between a small firm and corporate giants understand you are witnessing a very rare drama and one you should go out of your way to understand and support. In spite of all the barriers placed upon the inventor some how through luck, persistence or heavenly graces an infringer (inventors perspective � thief) is being held accountable to the law. A rare and good thing for us all. Rare because without a mechanism of redress how can anyone afford to continue to invent?

[jc @ Feb 3rd 2006 1:08PM]

To # 7 by Mr. Pool

A quick internet search shows that you indeed are advancing large claims

"Pool and his lawyers argue that the patent will entitle his company to licence fees on every trade deal across borders. His company, DE Technologies LLC, is hoping to collect a 0.3% fee on each computerised cross-border transaction."

I have no problem with you copy righting and licencing software. But, your patent application should have been tossed out the moment it hit the examiners desk. You should be tossed in jail for attempted extortion for the claims you have advanced.