Blackberry's may become Illegal???!!!!!!!!!!! SOON!!!

[Doramius]

That's total Bull. I hope big businesses jump on this one and rip NTP to shreds. Small companies that produce nothing but patents and very little product should be beaten over. Honestly, this is what pisses off inventors who wish to make a major product. They have an idea for practical use, but can't mass manufacture or get backing because someone else who had the similar idea, but would rather sit on their own a** and do nothing, has a similar patent in place. I feel there should be a strong extenuating circumstance here. The impact of Blackberries being made illegal would be horribly severe and catastrophic on a very large scale.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6448213/did/10989832/?GT1=7538

Updated: 11:51 a.m. ET Jan. 23, 2006
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from the maker of the BlackBerry in the long-running battle over patents for the wildly popular, handheld wireless e-mail device.

The high court’s refusal to hear Canada-based Research In Motion Ltd.’s appeal means that a trial judge in Richmond, Va., could impose an injunction against the company and block BlackBerry use among many of its owners in the United States.

The justices had been asked to decide on whether U.S. patent law is technologically out of date in the age of the Internet and the global marketplace.

At issue was how U.S. law applies to technology that is used in a foreign country and allegedly infringes on the intellectual property rights of a patent-holder in the United States.

The justices were asked to decide whether Research In Motion can be held liable for patent infringement when its main relay station for e-mail and data transmission is located in Waterloo, Ontario, outside U.S. borders.

RIM was challenging a ruling by a federal appeals court that found that the company had infringed on the patents held by NTP Inc., a tiny northern Virginia patent-holding firm, because its customers use the BlackBerry inside U.S. borders. The panel said it did not matter where the relay station is located.

Attorney Kevin Anderson, who represents NTP, said the firm is pleased with the court’s action. “We think the Supreme Court’s rejection of RIM’s position makes it clear that RIM should stop defying the U.S. legal system,” he said.

RIM sought to play down the significance of the court’s rejction. “RIM has consistently acknowledged that Supreme Court review is granted in only a small percentage of cases and we were not banking on Supreme Court review,” said Mark Guibert, RIM’s vice president for corporate marketing. “RIM’s legal arguments for the District Court remain strong and our software workaround designs remain a solid contingency.”

Governments, big business concerned
Since its introduction in 1999, the BlackBerry has revolutionized the business world, allowing people to stay in constant e-mail contact with their offices and customers while they are away from their desktop computers.

The BlackBerry almost instantaneously transmits data through radio frequency technology that Thomas Campana Jr., an engineer, says he developed in 1990, long before the Internet became an integral part of American life.

The dispute not only has resonated with BlackBerry users who worry that their lifeline to their offices could be severed. The U.S. and Canadian governments also are concerned, as is Intel Corp., the world’s largest semiconductor manufacturer.

U.S. officials worry about the loss of BlackBerry use for law enforcement and health workers in a crisis, while the Canadian government is concerned that research and development in other industries will be stifled if RIM loses on all fronts.

In a filing with the Supreme Court, Intel’s lawyers said the company is torn. As an investor of billions of dollars into research and development, the company is among the nation’s leaders in obtaining patents and wants to protect itself against infringement.

At the same time, Intel also is frequently accused of infringement and wants clearer rules that protect it from small patent-holding companies that have little infrastructure and produce no products.

Attorney Herbert L. Fenster, who represents RIM, said the company is fighting the injunction. But he said an injunction would not end BlackBerry use among at least 1 million of its 3 million users in the United States.

Fenster said he believes federal law prohibits U.S. District Judge James R. Spencer from cutting off BlackBerry service to federal, state and local government users and others who rely on the devices to communicate during a public emergency.

Spencer has set a Feb. 1 deadline for filings on the injunction issue.

The legal fight began in 2001, when NTP sued RIM for infringement. The next year, a jury in Richmond decided that RIM had infringed on patents held by NTP, awarding the company 5.7 percent of U.S. BlackBerry sales. Spencer later increased that rate to 8.55 percent. At last count, the tally of damages and fees had exceeded $200 million and it continues to grow.

In a court filing last week, NTP said it was willing to resolve the matter if RIM were to pay it the original 5.7 percent royalty fee, Anderson said.

Last year, attempts to resolve the case fell apart when Spencer disapproved a settlement in which RIM would have paid $450 million to NTP.

The case is RIM v. NTP, 05-763.

[adam]

I wouldn't worry about Blackberrys going away. The patent is held by a holding company. They are in the business of buying up patents and licensing them to investors. If blackberry use/sale is enjoined than all that really does is give the patent holder greater leverage. Either way they are going to license use of the techology and make a killing in royalties. That's what they do. They already tried to settle this and the judge disapproved it. It will settle or they will negotiate royalties out of court. Blackberry may have to modify its software to avoid infringement. It will cause headaches and they will lose alot of money but a product like this doesn't just get shut down.

BTW: Some of the Supreme Court justices use blackberrys.

[Doramius]

I still find it pointless that a settlement has to be made to a company that produces little to no product. I follow the same for anything with Copyright. Make your money off it, or release it to the public. If the sales are not meeting a certain level over a period of time for a product, then it either needs to be sold to someone who can get it to meet the level, or it needs to be released to the public.

Don't Trademarks follow that route?

[yoda313]

Don't Trademarks follow that route?

Aren't trademarks specifically owned by that particular company???

I can't imagine Ford and GM don't own their own trademark. Thats something that gets registered with the government.

[smearbrick1]

I still find it pointless that a settlement has to be made to a company that produces little to no product. I follow the same for anything with Copyright. Make your money off it, or release it to the public. If the sales are not meeting a certain level over a period of time for a product, then it either needs to be sold to someone who can get it to meet the level, or it needs to be released to the public.

Don't Trademarks follow that route?

I agree. I should be given the rights to the names Plymouth and Oldsmobile! Nobody is using those names anymore. They obviously didn't turn a decent profit. Give em' to me.

[Doramius]

The thing is they still use those trademarks, even though the product isn't made anymore. SO the trademarks still have backing. Sorry guys, I would have taken the Tucker and Groucho Marx trademarks long ago. As long as the holder uses them, they won't fall into public domain. DAMMIT People, Stop buying Haynes manuals!

[Guest]

I still find it pointless that a settlement has to be made to a company that produces little to no product. I follow the same for anything with Copyright. Make your money off it, or release it to the public. If the sales are not meeting a certain level over a period of time for a product, then it either needs to be sold to someone who can get it to meet the level, or it needs to be released to the public.

Don't Trademarks follow that route?

Your copyright/patent is only good if you you do X$ in annual sales,see........????????

I think it is awesome when small companies/individuals get paid large on stuff like this.I think the same thing happened with the guy who invented the variable occilating windshield wiper.

[adam]

I still find it pointless that a settlement has to be made to a company that produces little to no product.

I tend to agree with this statement but only in regards to holding companies like this because this type of situation is exactly what they are hoping will happen. They file/buy up patents and try to find companies that are infringing and then either sue them or enter into a licensing agreement with substantial leverage on their part.

But the fact of the matter is that patents are supposed to encourage and protect inventions not necessarily the exploitation of them. The incentive to use an invention is money and its all the motivation any company ever needs. What most people probably don't realize about patents is that rarely do people sit on them on purpose. If they don't have the means or desire to make a product with it then they will still be willing to license the technology to someone else who will use it. Unless they have big plans for it themselves, there's no reason not to license it.

RMI should have licensed the technology from NTP from the get go, or they should have found a way to modify their technology to avoid infringement. Now they've got to compensate NTP for what they would have recieved in licensing royalties all along.

[adam]

Make your money off it, or release it to the public. If the sales are not meeting a certain level over a period of time for a product, then it either needs to be sold to someone who can get it to meet the level, or it needs to be released to the public.

Don't Trademarks follow that route?

More or less yes. Trademarks are considered "use" based protections and copyrights and patents are not. The latter protect an actual thing of value whereas Trademarks literally only protect the value that you have built up in the mark itself. Thus if you haven't used it at all it has no value and you cannot even register the mark. And since a trademark only grants you the right to use it, if you don't use it then you have no grounds to enforce your right to it.

[gadgetguy]

And since a trademark only grants you the right to use it, if you don't use it then you have no grounds to enforce your right to it.

I may have my facts screwed up here, but I thought Spike Lee caused trouble for SpikeTV because he had trademarked the name. He hadn't used it but didn't SpikeTV have to pay him to be able to use it or buy it from him?

[adam]

Spike never registered Spike or SpikeTV as a trademark but he did release films prior to that time with his name attached to it. I think his movies are always captioned, "A Spike Lee Joint." Just using something like this affixed to a product grants you some amount of common law trademark protection. Its limited to your trade area though which is the point of registering with the US Govt., that grants you protection in the entire country.

Trademarks are intended to prevent confusion so the names used do not have to be identical, just confusingly similar as applied to the product. Spike releases motion pictures under his name and the channel uses Spike in its name and provides a similar product.

Also you don't even necessarily have to construe this as a trademark issue. You have a property interest in your celebrity and can prevent people from capitalizing off of your name or likeness.

Anyway they settled that case so we can only assume that they paid him for the right to use the name. Alot of people thought the suit didn't have any merit to it.

When you file for a Trademark there are two applications. If you can show that you have actually used it in trade then you can apply directly for protection. If you have not used it yet you have to file an intent to use application which requires a verified declaration that you intend to use it and even this requires some actual proof of intent like proof that you are leasing office space or have started ordering parts or inventory. If you go this route than you have about 6 months to start using it. Sometimes you can get this extended another 6 months. But you cannot just register a trademark and hold it for ransom, you've got to use it.

[gadgetguy]

Thanks Adam, I appreciate the explanation. I had heard that he had registered SpikeTV as a trademark because he anticipated developing his own network, but that came from a dubious source and I didn't care enough to verify it at the time, but this conversion sparked my memory.

[Doramius]

The only thing I'm wondering is:
RIM is Canada based and the copyright is only US jurisdicted in this matter. And with similar patents happening all the time, the likelyhood of a contest like this happening is obviously real. From the sounds of it, RIM did not intentionally try and use a copyrighted item and then mass market it. (THAT WOULD BE BLATENTLY STUPID) So why can't RIM have their copyright supercede as they obviously have a physical product that sells, and NTP has an empty hand they're looking to fill. I agree with a court ruling they are talking about if the settlement were amongst 2 businesses in the US where one is intentionally infringing on the other. This seems more accidental, and RIM has their patent filed elswhere in the world. You'd think that'd hold up enough to reducing the amount RIM would have to pay.

Unfortunately laws don't always go by ethics or the way that seems to benefit the higher masses. Again, it goes back to people pleasing the 1 disgruntled person and cause 50 million to suffer because you can't have 1 disgruntled person feel like they are alone.

[adam]

I'm assuming you meant patents not copyrights.

First off, I'm not sure that RIM even has a patent over this technology in Canada. Even if they did, patents are national law and we are dealing with two sovereign nations. If they have patents in one country and do not obtain similar patents in other countries they intend to do business in, and someone else files for them first (and in the case of the US, proves that they also invented it first) then they are out of luck in that country. If they want to use that technology then they must license it.

There really is no way to mitigate damages like you mention. Its irrellevant that they may have a right to use this technology in their own country. The way patent damages are calculated is by setting a fair royalty rate and calculating how much would have been paid over the years if the technology had been licensed as it should have been. Whether they can use the technology elsewhere doesn't change the fact that they would have had to pay royalties to use it in the US.

Patent law is tricky. Sometimes good companies get screwed. But if you invent something and get a patent than the techology is yours within that country and anybody who wants to use it has to go through you. This is how it is in all countries and I can't see how it could work any other way. You may have the same technology patented by different parties in 5 different countries. If each of them can use it in all of these territories than it defeats the point of having a patent.

[Guest]

Adam,you sound like one of those "law talkin' guys"

http://www.adequatulence.com/hartman/vault/sounds/bad-court-thingy.wav

Lionel Hutz: I move for a bad-court-thingy.
Judge: You mean a mistrial?
Hutz: Yeah! That's why you're the judge and I'm the law... talkin' guy.
Judge: The lawyer.
Hutz: Right.

*not to equate you with LH

[adam]

Well, I am one of those law talkin' guys.

[Doramius]

So what you're saying is I can invent something and have it patented here, but not patented in Canada; 4 years later someone in Canada realizes this, files their own patent in Canada and when my product is big enough and I want to start selling it in Canada, I have to license it through him?

In essence You're telling me there's a legal way to steal something and make the victim pay the guilty party money.

LAW F**KS people in the a** with a pool cue 3 ways never heard of. That's totally messed up.


LH: "I'm gonna go take one of my 5 minute breaks now."

[adam]

Doramius now you are going against everything you said before. I thought you wanted inventions to be put out in the public. You don't want someone to patent something in one country and sit on it and deprive everyone else in the world of using it until THAT country's patent terms have expired.

When you patent something the invention is published by that country. Anyone in the world can see how the invention works and decide whether they want to license it from you or not. You can use your patent in one country as a basis for filing in another. This means that you essentially have a grace period. No one can steal it from you while you are patenting it elsewhere. But if you sit on it then it becomes fair game in other countries.

But as for your example, actually no that probably cannot happen. Pretty much all countries with patent law have on sale bars. If your product is big enough that it reasonably can make its way into Canada, even though you only patented it in the US, then no one can patent it in Canada after the fact...not even you. Once technology is given to the public it cannot be taken away. Basically, after getting a patent you've got about a year to patent it elsewhere or its probably going to end up being in the public domain in those countries.

Also another thing worth mentioning is that the US always has to be different. They are, as far as I know, the only country with patent law that goes by first to invent instead of first to file. So if you patented something somewhere and sat on it and someone else came and patented it in the US, you could then go to the patent office and prove that you invented it first and the patent would be given to you instead.

[Doramius]

I catch what you are saying, but The person wouldn't be "sitting" on the patent.

Using my example above, the person is creating a product and is getting a profit and revenue from it. It starts out small, but it obviously grew fast in order for 4 years to pass. So a grace period of 1 year made it go public worldwide on something he really didn't know if it was going to grow that big or not.

If the product sucked and didn't go anywhere, I can see it going public and someone finding a way to make it sell big.

Now first to invent is something I believe in, BUT they need to file it and use it (maybe grace period the person a year or 2) -thus the reason to try and push inventors to get their product on the market- If they don't make any sales, then it moves to public. If it makes the sales, then the inventor profits off of it.

Why sit on an invention? Even if it is stupid. If you can't make a buck off it and help people out, then what's the point in holding on to the license if someone else has a way to use it you're not thinking of.

[Doramius]

Well, this sheds more light to the subject, but doesn't offer much more help. I guess I should get that Pocket PC, I saw before Christmas, after all.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6448213/did/11006534/?GT1=7645