Yawn... There Goes Another NTP Patent (Yes, Another One)
from the oops-they-did-it-again dept
The US Patent Office today issued yet another non-final rejection of an NTP patent, meaning all five at the center of its legal battle with Research In Motion have been given non-final rejections. Of course, even though the Patent Office has indicated it will eventually finally reject all of NTP's patents, the judge in the case is happy to play along with NTP's schedule rather than wait for the patents to be rejected. It's been said before, but bears repeating: to rule in the case before the Patent Office acts seems awfully premature.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
The bright side is that eventually the patent system will get a kick in the pants and we can actually have patents that are useful for protecting innovation instead of stifiling them.
How about a rule that says you have to have an actual working implementation of your idea and you have to show that it's not an obvious step in the next direction.
"Gee somebody made wired email...AHA! I'll patent wireLESS email!"
Fucking retarded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
So then the ones who intend to produce a product, have to do tons of patent research, to avoid stepping in the bear traps. This system really encourages innovation, and is a great benefit to society.
Unfortunately the guy behind NTP actually was an inventor, that may have fallen into the bottom feed lawyer trap that you see advertised. For a fee I'll help you patent your invention, even if it is not really patentable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google
Two things:
One: I didn't write the post, so I'm assuming your comment is addressed to Carlo.
Two: Carlo does make it clear that these are non-final rejections and also points out that the USPTO has taken the almost unheard of step of saying very clearly to both parties that they don't see any possible way that they won't eventually become final rejections. Also, recognize that these aren't first rejections, but *second* ones. Also, the USPTO has made it clear that they have made this a priority and are aiming to put the final rejections in place as quickly as possible. All that combined make it pretty clear that the judge should absolutely wait.
So... I'm not sure why you say that we ignored the point, when we've discussed it extensively, even within this post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google
Is this you?
Heather Hill
Clemson drinking/pinball buddy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google
So what if the judge has to wait the entire process to be finished? How can the judge make an informed and balanced decision if the validity of the patents is in question? We are talking about billions of dollars here. We are talking about the potential shutdown of key telecommunication system. Seems to me that the judge should be 100% certain that the patents are valid or invalid before rendering a decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just got non-final rejection
I took them nearly 4 (!!!!!!!!!!!) years to produce this piece of shit and I couldn�t believe my eyes: the examiner rejected 2/3 of the claims citing obviousness and objected the rest of them.
My lawyer actually told me that usually they tend to reject 100% of all the claims initially nowadays � everybody and his brother curses USPTO these days so they are being overprotective.
Concerning my invention, the examiner improperly combined 2 references from 2 complete different fields and ruled that my invention looks obvious.
Something like (but much worse in my case) combining a previously issued patent on basic windshield wipers with a paper describing a physiology of the human eye to arrive at the conclusion that the patent on intermittent windshield wipers is obvious�
The hindsight is always 20/20.
I am going for a personal interview with the examiner next month to look this guy in the eye�
Just like I thought � USPTO is a big mess these days, they just don�t know how to evaluate inventions properly- they grant shitty patents to big corps all the time and reject truly novel inventions from small guys� Piece of shit, that�s all I can say�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just got non-final rejection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Natural Justice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uncommitting a crime.
So they don't argue the infringement. They first point out that it doesn't matter because they are Canadian. Then they work to eliminate the patents.
The crime is willful infringement. They were found guilty.
Are you now saying it is ok to commit the crime of infringement, as long as at some later time you can invalidate the patents?
Too bad Microsoft didn't know that every time they crushed a competitor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uncommitting a crime.
Uh. How can you infringe on invalid patents?
Yes, RIM screwed up with the demo, though if you read the details, it wasn't necessarily malicious, just stupid. And that influenced the jury tremendously. Juries are notoriously bad at understanding patent issues.
In the meantime, you think it's ok to be fined billions of dollars for infringing on a patent that never should have been granted? Scary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scary indeed...
RIM-like executivs and their greedy laywer-pals with no sense of ethics whatsoevr. Purposely lying in the court of law and faking a demo before the judge and the jury ?
The judge was very kind to RIM guys, I would
put them in jail for a few days just for insulting the court.
And giving free Crackberries to members of US Congress ?
I don't know about technical side, but on ethical
side RIM is being run by a bunch of dirtbags.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scary indeed...
Anyway, if that's their mistake, fine them for contempt of court... but that's a SEPARATE issue from whether or not the patents are valid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The points are: wait for the rulling - if invali
[It would appear that the patent lost likely invalid - how can the judge rule without this
essential information?]
if the judge forces payment of cash before the matter is determioned - this sems to be unjust.
Saying that you can go back to court - woudl be fine
if the judge were made to pay the legal costs.
[The problem with the legal system is that they
force people to fund the system - even though they
are innocent. where is the justice in that?]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scary indeed...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scary indeed...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uncommitting a crime.
So you're ok with their strategy of waiting you out while they try to have the patent ruled invalid? It may take years, and it will probably cost you a fortune. It will probably bankrupt you.
After all, your new technology is probably obvious anyway, and the patent would be ruled invalid. If the PTO looks hard enough anyway.
Let's see. Didn't the jury find RIM guilty a couple of years ago? They aren't even arguing that they didn't infringe. They're just waiting- for as long as they want.
And remember, from The Globe and Mail, RIM was planning on doing the exact same thing as NTP to crush their competition. Would they have waited for the patent to be ruled invalid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uncommitting a crime.
After all, your new technology is probably obvious anyway, and the patent would be ruled invalid. If the PTO looks hard enough anyway.
Um. If the patent would be found invalid, then YES. You should wait. Why are you okay with people being awarded billions of dollars on a patent that's invalid?
And remember, from The Globe and Mail, RIM was planning on doing the exact same thing as NTP to crush their competition. Would they have waited for the patent to be ruled invalid?
Uh. Yeah. We've pointed out in the past that RIM is a just as bad. But who cares? This isn't about the entity, but the case at hand. If the roles were reversed (as they were with RIM suing Glenayre) we'd feel the same way.
These types of suits go against everything the patent system stands for. They're not encouraging innovation. They're putting hurdles up for innovation. It's wrong and it's hurting our economy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIM
As I mentioned in my email, I'm sorry for addressing my comment to you instead of Carlo. I would blame it on posting late at night, but it was the middle of the afternoon :-)
Anyway, the point I was trying to make (badly) is that the judge can't wait until the patent office rules -- even if it is a ruling the USPTO describes as "final" -- because NTP can then appeal not just to the patent review board, but then to the courts, all the way to the Supreme Court if it wants to.
In other words, the USPTO's decision won't be the end, in a legal sense, as much as RIM would like it to be. And one of the things NTP might appeal on, it seems to me, is what appears to be the undue pressure that the U.S. government has brought to bear on the patent office. If I was a lawyer, that would be number one on my list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIM
Mathew, I think you're missing the forest for the trees. We understand the issues, but the important point is that the USPTO has clearly said that it's made a mistake with these patents. From the standpoing of doing what's right, doesn't it make sense not to proceed on the basis that they're valid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIM
I believe that some of those patents were defensively filed and they are probably invalid.
But at least some claims in one (first?)patent are
most probably valid, despite all the hysteria...
You know, as they say, US justice is the best justice in the world you can buy for your money...
Ugly political shit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIM
The Judge should be asking what order would best do justice between the parties. The recent decisions from the USPTO should weigh heavily on his mind in that determination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]