Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple and Other Tech Companies Face Lawsuit Over Wireless Email Patents
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Or license...
I think that you have to include licensing as a viable option in this type regulation, or you will preclude small business from patent protection. Companies that don't have the economic muscle to push their way into a market like smartphones despite having important technology.
In this case, NTP have, at least, licensed RIM, so they do not qualify as a patent troll under those guidelines. They are owners of patents who's validity have already withstood challenge during the RIM prosecution (and, consequently, are in a very strong position in the patent courts), and, in NTP's opinion, the technology covered by those patents is being stolen by Apple and others. This would not, I believe, be the first time that Apple was judged to have stolen other's technology.
NTP has the right to sue. Let's wait and see what happens. My guess is that Apple will settle (quietly/secretly to cover their image as an "innovator"), pay a few hundred million in judgement and back-royalty costs, and get a license for moving forward. It will come out of cash on hand and amount to a couple of dollars a telephone.
I think that you have to include licensing as a viable option in this type regulation, or you will preclude small business from patent protection. Companies that don't have the economic muscle to push their way into a market like smartphones despite having important technology.
In this case, NTP have, at least, licensed RIM, so they do not qualify as a patent troll under those guidelines. They are owners of patents who's validity have already withstood challenge during the RIM prosecution (and, consequently, are in a very strong position in the patent courts), and, in NTP's opinion, the technology covered by those patents is being stolen by Apple and others. This would not, I believe, be the first time that Apple was judged to have stolen other's technology.
NTP has the right to sue. Let's wait and see what happens. My guess is that Apple will settle (quietly/secretly to cover their image as an "innovator"), pay a few hundred million in judgement and back-royalty costs, and get a license for moving forward. It will come out of cash on hand and amount to a couple of dollars a telephone.
This kind of stuff really annoys me.
It's not fair that companies who have no intention of perusing what they patent can go and claim all these ideas as their own. I think the whole patenting system in the United States needs to be overhauled. I'll bring it up to Obama at our next dinner party.
It's not fair that companies who have no intention of perusing what they patent can go and claim all these ideas as their own. I think the whole patenting system in the United States needs to be overhauled. I'll bring it up to Obama at our next dinner party.
...in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia...
Not Texas? Well, that's progress
Yeah, very surprising!
Uh huh. Of course you ignore the fact that Teknow was not 35 USC 102 art, and RIM couldn't prove that it could be combined with other 35 USC 103 art. And you ignore the fact that there was no evidence the teknow art ever operated prior to the priority date. (it's not enough that it was written prior to that date). And you ignore the fact that rim's CEO claimed he didn't know that the "from" line in an email denoted the sender of the email.
Surely the people who invented 'wireless' and, in turn the people who invented 'email' can each sue NTP ?
My boyfriend is a former patent clerk; he specialized in telecom there. Am I allowed to post? I promise to leave out the profanity he uses in his opinions of NTP and its claims.
wasn't teknow only in the paging field and not email? i think RIM only got into email around 2001 or 2002. i remember when their only product was a texting device for teens
The recent Bilski decision and some other important decisions before that have opened the way to get many patents invalidated. Combining wireless and email doesn't count as "non-obvious" anymore. I can see their number of patents drastically reduced.
The rules what is "obvious" have changed. If A is known, and B is known, and combining A and B does what one would expect it to do, then the combination of A and B is now considered obvious. It would not be obvious if combining A and B would produce something that is unexpected. So wireless transmission was there. And email was there. And combining both gives the expected result. Obvious with the changed legal standard.
Future nobel prize winner
They'll settle for a few bucks
The US patent office threw out 7 of the ten patents that NTP used to sue RIM and upheld 3. This happened after RIM had settled. RIM (based in Canada) was essentially forced to settle because its stock value was being seriously depressed by the possibility of having its sales in the US blocked (thanks USPTO).
Apple, Google, etc. are US-based, have far deeper pockets than RIM had and also have the later judgements in their favour. But NTP is obligated to defend its patents because if not, they become valueless. My bet is they'll settle for undisclosed (and very small) amounts.
Edit: Ads by Google on this page is: How to Patent Your Idea. Love it!
The US patent office threw out 7 of the ten patents that NTP used to sue RIM and upheld 3. This happened after RIM had settled. RIM (based in Canada) was essentially forced to settle because its stock value was being seriously depressed by the possibility of having its sales in the US blocked (thanks USPTO).
Apple, Google, etc. are US-based, have far deeper pockets than RIM had and also have the later judgements in their favour. But NTP is obligated to defend its patents because if not, they become valueless. My bet is they'll settle for undisclosed (and very small) amounts.
Edit: Ads by Google on this page is: How to Patent Your Idea. Love it!
Legal or not I get the vision of NTP execs sitting on a beach talking on a cell phone with their accountant, "bank account getting low? Ok start the process of suing another company"
innovation at an expensive price
it really gets annoying all those lawsuits. Email delivery over wireless my goodddd where can you get patents on in the USA?
And who pays the bill? the consumers.
USA should change of those stupid patents that you can get over nothing.
it really gets annoying all those lawsuits. Email delivery over wireless my goodddd where can you get patents on in the USA?
And who pays the bill? the consumers.
USA should change of those stupid patents that you can get over nothing.
Bilski isn't relevant (and the supreme court just overturned the fed. Circuit's test)
KSR is the case you want. Now you don't have to prove a motivation to combine. The art from the 1980's needed to be combined and couldn't pre-KSR.
Same goes for the one in Marshall, Texas. It's also nicknamed rocket docket (oahahaha, soooo original), and is much loved by patent trolls for the jury pool of imbecilic troglodytes that venue provides.
-35 USC 102 "A person shall be entitled to a patent unless (f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"
Had the judge not left the courtroom enraged and actually listened to the explanation from David Keeney (TekNow) about the file dates, it would have clearly shown that Tom Campana "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented." Invalid patent, end of case.
And no, RIM couldn't demonstrate 35 USC 103, because the judge terminated the demonstration and refused to hear any and all other information related to it. How the hell, exactly, do you expect RIM to have proven this when NTP managed to confuse and enrage the judge to the point of ignoring RIMs information on the matter?
As for "the fact that there was no evidence the teknow art ever operated prior to the priority date. (it's not enough that it was written prior to that date)", TekNow was selling "System for Automated Messages. Our first product was a simple E-Mail type messaging system. It delivered messages to a number of receiving devices such as alphanumeric pagers, fax, PC computer screen, MHS, and little thermal desktop printers. (C,DOS,Windows,Novell)" in the 80's. Again, had RIM been allowed, this evidence would have been presented.