BlackBerry case: No shutoff, for now

(continued from previous page)

"The world, we suggest, will not come to an end," should the service be shut down, NTP attorney James Wallace argued.

If nothing else, RIM's own publicly divulged work-around would undo any harm RIM claimed an injunction would cause it. RIM had said its work-around will allow it to bypass the claims in NTP's patents by changing the way the BlackBerry system delivers e-mail messages and queues messages that can't be delivered because the recipient is out of their coverage area.

Far from powerless, RIM would have at least three options if the injunction were issued, NTP attorney John Wyss argued: They could leave their users "high and dry," implement the work-around for all of their customers, or allow only "exempt" government users to keep using the service.

Wallace attempted to cast doubt on the company's seriousness about its work-around solution. "Even though they proudly trumpet what they term is 'alternative noninfringing technology,' they still prefer to use the NTP technology to this day," he said.

RIM's attorneys downplayed the work-around as a solution; lawyer Henry Bunsow did not even address the concept until about the last fourth of his presentation.

"It's not something that can be done overnight," he said, estimating that implementation would require about 2 million hours of labor and would also include "extensive public costs."

Justice Department attorney John Fargo told the judge that any work-around "is going to require at least validation." He said the government also has lingering doubts about the technical feasibility of exemptions for government users, which the Bush Administration has urged.

Attorneys from both companies focused a good deal of their arguments on that issue.

NTP attorney Wyss emphasized that NTP "agreed there should be express exclusion that would fully protect the U.S. government." Any injunction order, they said, should include an "exemption paragraph," derived from the Justice Department's suggestions, that would allow government users to continue using BlackBerry service. They said government contractors could also qualify for the exemption if the government sent a letter to RIM certifying those workers as such.

Wyss also outlined a number of methods, such as pulling information invoices for BlackBerry services ordered by government users, which he claimed RIM could use to determine which users would fall into the exemption category--what both parties have deemed the "white list."

RIM attorneys, for their part, argued that separating out government users would be "wholly impractical" and that it was unclear who would fit into which categories.

And besides, the government exemption endorsed by NTP wouldn't prevent cutting off such people and other critical private-sector workers, Bunsow said, citing excerpts from more than a dozen testimonies from those primarily involved in homeland security, energy and health care sectors.

Hoping to ratchet up RIM's "public interest" defense, he painted the BlackBerry at length as a "lifeline" for users from a wide variety of industries, from doctors dealing with organ transplants to volunteers helping in hurricane crises.

There was also talk from both sides of a licensing proposal that NTP has offered to RIM, as it has done with other mobile e-mail device makers. But it was clear that they were far from reaching an accord on that front.

Bunrow blasted the proposal, calling it "illusory" and accusing it of opening doors to new litigation by NTP against service providers such as Cingular and T-Mobile, with which RIM partners--an allegation that NTP forcefully denied.

"We want to keep you in business; it's just time to pay up," Wallace said, comparing RIM to "squatters in your nice house" who would turn down an offer to rent the place.

The debate, as has been customary during the ongoing spat, didn't stop when Spencer adjourned the hearing shortly before 10 a.m. PST.

"Contrary to RIM's public stance, we always have and continue to offer RIM a license that fully protects everyone--its customers, carriers and partners," NTP said in a statement released soon after the hearing. "RIM has rejected our efforts, stalled the proceedings and attempted to undermine the process every step of the way."

Balsillie said he was "very, very happy" with the hearing but was not sure when a ruling would emerge from Spencer's chambers. "We look forward to getting this decided. We're comfortable with the contingency plans."

[thenet411]

I knew it

NTP will lose. Know why? Because RIM's lobbyists will convince the judge that NTP is an extortionist and the judge will rule against the injunction. Plus, the second denial for the patent came in at the same time.

In some ways, this is really unfair for NTP. RIM's lobbyists are probably having a direct effect on the decision making process for the courts. But, NTP is really acting like a child and probably deserves it.

Yeah for capitalism!

[System Tyrant]

Problem.

Personally, I don't think an injuction should be allowed until after the patents are finally validated or invalidated. I think that companies like NTP and RIM are prime examples of why reform is needed. The unfortunate part is that in the end the reform will probably only benifit big companies and patent holding companies.

Either way the small guy will get screwed 80% of the time.

[yrrahxob]

The beat goes on

And the beat goes on
La de da de de, la de da de da

[Earl Benser]

To Hell with them all....

Maybe NTP does own the key patents. Maybe RIM was inviolation
=of those patents. Now, NTP wants to rip RIM a new bunghole in
compensation top keep the service running.

RIM should tell NTP to go to Hell and totally shut down
Blackberry, INCLUDING the government dweebs who are
pleading for exclusion from any court decision. No ransom, no
tribute, no payment, and no Washington sycophants thumb
typing their inane messages.

Rim gets nothing, NTP gets nothing, The government dweebs
get nothing - a nice even up solution.

[Sadie_DC]

No surprise, this will drag on forever

Unitl the patent process makes it clear that patents should be used and not horded, other companies will behave like NTP.

[intellibloke]

Weird World

It's been said before but people who dream up ideas and patent them without ever implementing them should not have the patents granted.

I think the ultimate insult goes to RIM who stand to lose a couple of hundred million dollars, even if the NTP patents are all scratched.

The Patent system should be revised thus:
1. Only applications where a working prototype is available will be considered.

2. The appeals system for patent applications should remain within the patent office and not federal courts.

3. If you take someone to court for infringement and win, but the patents are subsequently dismissed, you should lose the damages awarded and have costs awarded against you.

This may seem harsh but each point would have the following effect:

1. True innovation comes from identifying a problem and solving it, not from having your lawyer document an idea.

2. The patent office should be beefed up (not have budgets cut) so they have access to the best brains in any area to pass an opinion rather than going to a jury of people who undoubtedly are unfamiliar with the concepts and are open to being swayed by some silver tongued lawyer arguing a point.

3. Ultimatley NTP may find they have no valid patent in this case, which means they have achieved income through threatening behaviour i.e. we will take you to court if you don't licence our technology. I thought this was extortion. Knowing you might not keep your initial damages would stop these tenuous cases.

This might sound as though it favours the big players with deep pockets, but quite the contrary - unless you have proven your idea you don't have a case and you wont take the risk of bringing a case unless you are completely convinced of its validity. It really becomes a case of first to dream it, do it, file it wins.

[Musmanno]

I've managed to get plenty of patents allowed after final rejection

happens all the time, in fact. So it isn't quite accurate to say the PTO has found these patents to be invalid. Yet. But given the state of reexamination, it hardly seems appropriate for the judge to grant an injuntion in this case. If the patents are upheld, in whole or in part, then greater damages may accrue and RIM will have to pay them. But if the patents go down in flames, then RIM (and their users) will have been harmed for nothing.

[Ronald J Riley]

Is RIM a patent pirate?

Mr. Balsillie, chairman and co-CEO of Research in Motion (RIM) has very efficient public relations and lobbying operations which plead his case in media and on the Hill while a multitude of RIM's victims for the most part suffer in silence. As you will see below - we of the Professional Inventors Alliance (PIAUSA.org) strongly believe that he and his company RIM - are clearly the "patent abusers" and we are disappointed that most of media does little more than repeat RIM's self serving propaganda! We understand that big money speaks loudly in the political process but are disappointed that most of media is failing to do due diligence before writing about these issues.


Based in part on the information detailed below, we believe that RIM has demonstrated an appetite for others? intellectual property.



The best known case is RIM?s attempt to deny inventor Thomas J. Campana and his family justice in the RIM v. NTP dispute. So many innovators' stories are tragic because well heeled predators decide to take their inventions. In this case, an American inventor and small business person died in 2004 without seeing justice. Justice delayed is truly justice denied. We should all pause to think about the injustices American innovators may be suffering at the hands of RIM and all the other inventors who are suffering similarly across America. .



In addition to the NTP case where RIM was caught red handed trying to foist contrived evidence on the court, RIM was sued by the University of Texas for patent infringement and paid $1.8 million dollars to settle that case. RIM also was alleged to have infringed a patent held by Antor Media Corporation.



Even more recently an American inventor of predictive text Howard Gutowitz, who owns a small company named Eatoni Ergonomics, tried to license his inventions to RIM. RIM responded with a lawsuit. This is a common tactic of deep pocketed companies, which often is a ploy to bankrupt financially weaker inventors. Our organization, PIAUSA.org has helped this inventor make contact with those who are in a position to stay the course until justice is achieved.



It is our opinion that RIM's litigation with Howard Gutowitz may well become as contentious and self destructive as their battle with NTP. How will investors and end users react when they discover that RIM is facing a very similar situation to the NTP case? What businesses will deploy RIM services when they have legitimately licensed alternatives such as Visto and Good Technology and the Palm Treo? Why isn't our government switching to reputable service providers who respect American innovator's intellectual property? And perhaps the most important question is why some of our representatives are backing patent pirates!



In light of RIM?s rash actions, can investors or users have any confidence that RIM will not make similar decisions in the future?



Mr. Balsillie made some outrageous claims in a WSJ editorial letter regarding NTP?s abuse of the patent system. It is our understanding from off record USPTO sources that RIM lobbied the USPTO to initiate reexaminations of NTP's patents and in concert with their PR and political efforts also made many reexamination requests through normal and back channels as evidenced by Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) outrageous comments. Rep Davis has been reported to have said the BlackBerry case exposed inefficiencies with how the Patent and Trademark Office operates.



What the RIM case demonstrates is that American inventors' are being discouraged by patent pirates at a time when we desperately need those inventors and the jobs they create. This sin is being compounded by the sin of a coalition of patent pirates vision of a reformed patent system which would make inventing a kings sport. A system where innovators do not have a prayer of building the next generation of innovative companies.



During a reexamination an inventor is entitled to add claims as long as such claims are supported by the original disclosure. Seeking the full coverage which an inventor is entitled to under law is not an abuse of the system. This is especially true when the reexamination was forced on the inventor. We did not find RIM's claims of patent system abuse by NTP to be credible, and the large number of reexamination requests made by RIM is a perfect example of how an opponent of an inventor who has deep pockets can and does abuse the patent system to create delays and unduly burden invention based small business with the goal of bankrupting them. When an inventor is crushed financially, the infringer wins by default.



The USPTO has become increasingly politicized over the last decade. When faced with a hot potato like the RIM v. NTP case and the fact that RIM is politically savvy while NTP and the other victims of an insatiable appetite for other's invention are not, the USPTO is anxious to lob the hot potato into the appellate courts. This is not the first case PIAUSA.org has seen such conduct from the USPTO. It is unfortunate that the agency can be influenced by companies who pirate inventors property and a gross injustice to America's inventors and the public.



In light of RIM's pattern of patent disputes, PIAUSA finds it hard to believe that RIM is always the injured party.



It is common for young successful companies to feel invincible. There are a number of contemporary examples of such companies who act like bullies when it comes to their use of the intellectual property of others.



While such tactics may often work for years, sooner or later companies who take others intellectual property do meet their match. The results often take a severe toll on them. Those who live by the sword, eventually die by it. It is those companies who unjustly appropriate other's intellectual property who are howling for changes to the patent system which would cement their positions and legitimize their appropriation of other's property.



It seems that what RIM may lack in an ability to invent for themselves, they make up in marketing, public relations, and lobbying savvy. There is no doubt that RIM is very sophisticated in those areas.



Mr. Balsillie makes some rather sweeping claims about America's patent system, claims which Mr. Davis parrots. Like other companies who are being held accountable for taking liberties with others' inventions, they claim our patent system is deficient. On the contrary, it is that patent system which has fueled our economy and there is no question that America is the greatest economic success story in the world today in large part due to our exceptional patent system.



Many foreign competitors would like to see our successful country pulled down to their levels. The reforms which RIM and our own multinational companies are promoting are designed to protect those company's vested interests but would kill the patent system which has made America, truly the land of opportunity.



Some companies who pirate others intellectual property make self serving claims that there is consensus among experts supporting their agenda for ?reforming? the patent system. These claims are false. Dr. Irving Kayton, a top IP law expert in the US is adamantly opposed to the changes being proposed as was recently deceased former patent commissioner Don Banner and a multitude of other intellectual property experts and patent practioners also oppose so called patent reform.



Inventors and the companies they form are the seeds of new industries ? examples being HP, Apple, Edison, the Wright brothers, Gordon Gould (LASER), Wilson Greatbatch (Pacemaker), and Dr. Ray Damadian (MRI). They create jobs and tax base. As long as inventors control their companies their ties to the community keep those businesses in those communities. When American innovators? property is taken -- society's losses are greater than the loss the inventor suffers. When an innovator?s life blood is sapped by protracted litigation -- their ability to innovate and build businesses is crushed along with the businesses they can no longer support and nurture. When large companies get away with taking inventions the benefits of those inventions generally end up in a low wage country while the patent pirate's business unjustly profits from its acts. In the end it is the American public that is impoverished.



Adding insult to injury is the massive PR campaign being orchestrated by abusive companies. In my opinion it is truly ironic that RIM and other companies with similar mindsets are painting those they abuse as abusers. This is an example of doublespeak and of spin at its best.



Many years ago I observed that some CEO's as being similar to teenage boys, big egos - little thought before engaging those egos, short term gain orientation and marginally developed sense of ethics. The situation which RIM and several other companies who have been accused of pirating other's inventions most certainly reinforces this observation.



====



The Professional Inventors Alliance USA was created more than a decade ago to protect American invention and encourage innovation. American inventors saw a need to track congressional legislation and federal policy that impacts independent inventors, small and medium-sized businesses and colleges and universities. The Alliance is the premiere organization in the nation, providing independent inventors a united voice in order to improve public policy.

The Alliance provides legislative counsel, congressional updates and strategy development to its members through a number of vehicles. Additionally, through its speaker?s bureau, Alliance members have an opportunity to provide expert opinion to many of the nation?s top-tier business, technology and mainstream media organizations. Over the years its members have testified before Congress, offered counsel to key Senate and House committee members, and successfully pushed legislation to protect America?s independent inventors.

Since its inception, the organization has grown into one of the most vocal advocates for America?s patent system.


Ronald J Riley, President
Professional Inventors Alliance
www.PIAUSA.org
RJR (at) PIAUSA.org
Change "at" to @
RJR Direct # [phone]

[thenet411]

Wrong place idiot

This is NOT the forum for your moronic, diarhea of the mouth diatribe. Not to mention, you couldn't be more wrong. NTP is the guilty party here. They exist for no reason. They are entitled to nothing. They will lose. And we will all laugh. Way to go idiot.

[thenet411]

Dammit

I already posted that this is the wrong place for that diarhea of the mouth diatribe. Now, its gone? Way to go, CNET. You've taken censorship to a new level.

[System Tyrant]

My view on Patents.

First let me say I think you are preaching to the wrong people. From the many post I have read most people here want to see software patents done away with completly.

In my view the patent system doesn't work the way it was intended and needs major reform. Of course if this every happens it will it probably will just screw the individual inventor while helping corporations and patent holding companies get rich. I love America and it may be the best thing the worlds got, but frankly it's a country of greed and secrets.

[johnd3]

Patents and the current system....

I am our department's patent reviewer, from a technical perspective, when we have patent issues / questions. I have also been closely involved with the writing of several patents. I have come to the conclusion that ANY patent can eventually be written and re-written until it passes; all you have to do is put up enough funds and find a lawyer willing to take your money! If the system is so good; how come we even have patents for the cardboard coffee cup insulators? And we don't just have ONE patent for this invention (?)! For gosh sakes; IT'S A PIECE OF CARDBOARD!!!! I have seen patents for the perforated corners of my softener salt bags. All clever ideas; but patentable; come on! This current system is all about making lawyers rich; nothing else. I recently was checking out patents for baseball catcher's masks; we have them dating back to 1896. How many times do we need to patent that idea? I once had the understanding that IF you asked for a patent; you actually HAD TO BUILD the device.... (see the Selden automobile).... Now we have relatives of inventors and 'trawling' companies that couldn't actually make the original idea work; even if they wanted to. Pretty pathetic if you ask me. No wonder Asia is about to 'eat-our-lunch'!

[speak2u]

Some are valid

I take exception to those who bring in the "CrackBerry" comments or blow off the need for the devices. I am a therapist and consultant who has patients on life critical situations and events that sometimes demand fast response. As a consultant who spends very little time at his desk, the same applies. I don't do this for fun I use it for survival of both myself and my clients. What did I do before, well my practice was not the nature it is now - I changed it because I had this access. Going back would take a lot of time and hurt people in the process.

So, consider that point of view in your judeement.

[speak2u]

Some are valid

I take exception to those who bring in the "CrackBerry" comments or blow off the need for the devices. I am a therapist and consultant who has patients on life critical situations and events that sometimes demand fast response. As a consultant who spends very little time at his desk, the same applies. I don't do this for fun I use it for survival of both myself and my clients. What did I do before, well my practice was not the nature it is now - I changed it because I had this access. Going back would take a lot of time and hurt people in the process.

So, consider that point of view in your judeement.