RIM, NTP Settle Their Differences -- For $612.5 Million
from the innovation-rewarded-indeed dept
As expected, RIM has settled its patent suit with NTP by paying the company $612.5 million to settle all the claims against it, and for a full license of NTP's patents. Certainly RIM is glad to get this behind it, also noting today that the uncertainty of the case's outcome will hit the current quarter's earnings. The license covers all of NTP's patents, and puts not only RIM, but also its carrier and device partners in the clear. While the court case against RIM has been dismissed, the one thing that nobody's talking about is what will happen should the Patent Office finally reject all of NTP's patents and its appeals prove fruitless -- does RIM gets its $600 million back and an "I'm sorry"? Update by Mike: Looks like the Wall Street Journal is one of the few who actually found out about what happens down the road -- and have updated the link above to say there is no contingency for return payments or a new lawsuit, should the USPTO eventually find the patents invalid -- as has been looking increasingly likely. In fact, RIM's Jim Balsillie says he would have paid more to have such a contingency, but it appears NTP wasn't interested (suggesting that even they know how weak their stance is on these patents). The overall deal may have made business sense in the end for RIM (whose stock is way up, and whose sales will likely improve without the uncertainty over its head), but it's highlighted in very real terms what a travesty the patent system has become these days. The company that does nothing gets rich and the company that innovated is slowed down.
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
"Doing stuff" that is "patentable"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I get the money...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I get the money...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I get the money...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
If Americans have a fault, it's each one thinking that they and theirs are the only ones who could possibly be right about everything. Everyone else in their opinion are idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Carlo is Right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Well, a couple of Kanooks were setting around drinking beer, and said... C, eh, N, eh, D, eh...Okay, I thought it was funny :o)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
What are you talking about? Big business? This is a victory for the little guy over big business.
Tom Campagna, a small businessman/inventor, built this technology in the late 80s and tried to market it. Email wasn't even generally used at that point and cell phones were still pretty rare. His company, ESA (an engineering firm with about 30 employees at its peek), went under and he was allowed to keep the patents as part of the liquidation.
Now RIM, a billion dollar company, comes along and uses his innovations. He attempts to open a dialog and is ignored because RIM is too busy driving their competitors out of business with their own patent portfolio. He's forced to sue because otherwise RIM won't even return his phone calls.
RIM then uses all sorts of chicanery to try to undermine his case. RIM tries to prove their was prior art, but commits perjury when it presents equipment developed after Campagna's patent and tells everyone it was developed before Campagna developed his system.
Finally, RIM hires everyone they can in Washington to put political pressure on the PTO.
Fortunately the judge saw through it all, and court refused to buckle under to the pressure of the big business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Tom Campagna, a small businessman/inventor, built this technology in the late 80s and tried to market it. Email wasn't even generally used at that point and cell phones were still pretty rare. His company, ESA (an engineering firm with about 30 employees at its peek), went under and he was allowed to keep the patents as part of the liquidation.
In other words, he built something and couldn't figure out how to make it useful to the market. He failed to innovate. He went out of business as he should have.
Now RIM, a billion dollar company, comes along and uses his innovations. He attempts to open a dialog and is ignored because RIM is too busy driving their competitors out of business with their own patent portfolio. He's forced to sue because otherwise RIM won't even return his phone calls.
No, RIM came along and did a ton of research on their own and came up with the idea entirely independently from Campagna. It's true that RIM was obnoxious with their own patent portfolio, so perhaps they had this coming -- but it's completely wrong to say that RIM "used his innovation."
You also ignore the fact that the patents are almost clearly invalid -- not because of political pressure, but because there was prior art.
RIM then uses all sorts of chicanery to try to undermine his case. RIM tries to prove their was prior art, but commits perjury when it presents equipment developed after Campagna's patent and tells everyone it was developed before Campagna developed his system.
Uh. No. Again that's wrong. RIM did screw up in presenting the prior art -- which was their own mistake. But that doesn't negate the fact that there WAS prior art and the patent itself (wireless email) is for an obvious idea.
Finally, RIM hires everyone they can in Washington to put political pressure on the PTO.
Uh. And why would the patent office care? The USPTO is pretty resistant to lobbying/political pressure due to the fact that they make a ton of money and don't need to beg the gov't for budget.
Fortunately the judge saw through it all, and court refused to buckle under to the pressure of the big business.
In other words, the company that failed to actually innovate gets $600 million for FAILING, while the company that actually did something and actually figured out the markret.
This is a good outcome? Sorry...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike's comments
For God's sake, "failed in the market" DOES NOT equal "failed to innovate".
Otherwise, what do you think all the leading US universities are doing , are they failing to innovate ? According to you they are...
Campana was just a little too early and he lacked the resources and connections of Mike Lazaridis, so what ?
Not every bright kid just out of college (well, Mike Lazaridis actually dropped out before graduation just like Bill Gates) can get a GE contract for 600,000 $ as that RIM guy did...
For Christ sake, I had a GPA 4.0 all the way to my Ph.D. but still had to accept a traditional hose job in the hands of those sleazy CEOs and their greedy lawyer pals...
Life is just not fair to a little guy without connections, but sometimes a little guy takes those corporate crooks to the cleaner's
This is a GOOD thing for America, believe me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike's comments
Oh give us a break, Mike. NTP/Campana innovated.. he came up with the idea first.
So what if he held onto the idea and did nothing with it? Since he thought of it first, that's his perogative to do so. Apparently a federal jury also agreed some years ago.
Why should a company who decides to make a product or service, based on someone else's idea, be granted immunity from a prior patent holder just because they achieved 'market share' with it? What if someone stole the idea of Techdirt, called it 'Techdirt2', lured away your advertisers, user community and your staff to work for them? I'd bet, once the tables were turned, you'd be singing a much different tune.
Regarding RIM, it's really their problem their bungling legal department didn't conduct proper patent research beforehand. They should have taken due diligence in researching BEFORE they committed to manufacturing any product based on prior art.
It is unfortunate Campana is no longer around to experience the fruits of his labors.. however, his partner and estate still have a legal claim.
"Mike, every time I read your comments about whatever patent-related I am just amazed how ignorant and biased you are..."
Nuff said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike's comments
We've gone over this a thousand times. There's a BIG difference between innovation and invention. Coming up with the idea is invention -- and there's plenty to question about whether or not he really "came up with the idea."
INNOVATION, however, is ALL about being able to successfully bring a product to market. In this case he FAILED to innovate, because he couldn't come up with a product people would buy.
So what if he held onto the idea and did nothing with it? Since he thought of it first, that's his perogative to do so. Apparently a federal jury also agreed some years ago.
Yeah, that's his perogative, but THAT'S THE PROBLEM. It doesn't encourage actual innovation. In encourages patenting and waiting for someone else to innovate. The point of the patent system is to encourage innovation.
Why should a company who decides to make a product or service, based on someone else's idea, be granted immunity from a prior patent holder just because they achieved 'market share' with it?
Because they're the ones who ACTUALLY ADDED VALUE by making it worth buying.
What if someone stole the idea of Techdirt, called it 'Techdirt2', lured away your advertisers, user community and your staff to work for them? I'd bet, once the tables were turned, you'd be singing a much different tune.
Well, first, that would be trademark infringement, creating confusion in the market. However, we have plenty of competitors, and we don't whine about intellectual property -- we COMPETE in the market by being better.
If someone else wants to copy our business model, more power to them. It will keep us innovating as well by forcing us to continue to improve.
So, no, you're flat out wrong. We'd have no problem if someone competed with us. If anything, it would validate our model.
Regarding RIM, it's really their problem their bungling legal department didn't conduct proper patent research beforehand. They should have taken due diligence in researching BEFORE they committed to manufacturing any product based on prior art.
Uh, no. Why should they have to conduct a patent search if they had a good idea on their own. They didn't take the idea, they came up with it on their own (suggesting the patents shouldn't have been granted in the first place, since they were obvious). By saying the problem was they hadn't done a patent search is ridiculous and goes against the whole point of the patent system. It's basically saying no one can innovate if someone else was there first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike's comments
>The point of the patent system is to encourage innovation.< br>The point of the patent system is to encourage public disclosure of new and useful INVENTIONS by providing a limited time property right in the invention called patent.
And believe me, as much as some people like you hate patents, this country would be a living hell without properly functioning patent system.
Imagine what kind of non-compete agreement you would have to sigh to get employed by e.g. Microsoft or better yet Phiser.
Engineers and scientists would be chained to their employers without much pay - just like slavery. Otherwise what would stop anybody to go work for a competitor if there is no property right in the invention which can be assigned to the employer ?
And no VC would invest a dime in anything if there is no legal right to protect that anything from free-riders.
People like you, Mike, suggest silly solutions without thinking much about the long-term consequences.
Yes, patents can suck big time, but there is no replacement for them, nothing that I know about...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike's comments
The point of the patent system is clearly laid out to promote innovation.
And believe me, as much as some people like you hate patents, this country would be a living hell without properly functioning patent system.
That can be questioned. As we've discussed repeatedly, countries have increased innovation when doing away with their patent system. So, your claims don't neccessarily hold true.
Imagine what kind of non-compete agreement you would have to sigh to get employed by e.g. Microsoft or better yet Phiser.
Engineers and scientists would be chained to their employers without much pay - just like slavery.
I don't see why either of those things would be true.
And no VC would invest a dime in anything if there is no legal right to protect that anything from free-riders.
Those would be dumb VCs then. As VC Greg Bonder recently pointed out in Business Week, the value of most startups has nothing to do with their patents. It's their ability to compete in the market place.
People like you, Mike, suggest silly solutions without thinking much about the long-term consequences.
I've discussed the long-term consequences repeatedly. Just because you refuse to listen/understand doesn't mean I haven't thought them through.
Yes, patents can suck big time, but there is no replacement for them, nothing that I know about...
And, because you can't think of anything, there can't be anything? Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike's comments
He just stated that patent system needs to be better implemented to truly serve its intended purpose, which is "to promote the progress".
Progress is only promoted when people publicly disclose their inventions, otherwise people would still invent, but keep their inventions secret, just like in the middle ages...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Calling angry dude
1) Suppose I invent a better mousetrap. Please explain how I could keep this secret and still make money by selling it in shops?
Surely, regardless of whether patents exist or not, I would have to let people see the product?
2) How do you explain the success of Open-Source software, which promotes progress by free sharing and is opposed to patents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Calling angry dude
>Surely, regardless of whether patents exist or >not, I would have to let people see the product?
Yeah, for a mousetrap you are out of luck without patents. For other things though, trade secrets do work and are a viable alternative to patents. This includes closed-source software.
>2) How do you explain the success of Open->Source software, which promotes progress by >free sharing and is opposed to patents?
much of the Open Source is just trivial software development by amateurs. It does not promote any progress computer-science wise.
Are you aware of any important breakthroughs coming from open-source community (e.g. on the scale of public key encryption, RSA ) ?
Have you seen any good open-source speech recognition software ?
Linux itself is just a trivial re-implementation of Unix. It is not an invention. Just cloning of already developed commercial products..
Now open-source guys will start throwing stones at me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Calling angry dude
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Calling angry dude
No, they should not, if they did not apply for one. However, anyone can take any of those ideas and apply for the patent. They can do it right now at this very moment while they're reading this, if no prior patent has been issued. Once the patent is granted, the idea becomes theirs, regardless of whether they thought of it or not.
The game is all about who makes it to the patent office first. If it was your own idea, then chances are good you'll be first to patent. If it wasn't your idea and you acquired it through other means, then lady luck has smiled upon you. Too bad for the inventor.
Look. Every inventor in their right mind should already know at this point.. the absolute first thing you do is apply for the patent, which provides legal protection for your invention/idea. Failing to apply for this protection is at your own peril and/or stupidity, and in not doing so you then assume all risk in having your idea 'acquired' and patented by someone else, at any time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Calling angry dude
No, they should not, if they did not apply for one. However, anyone can take any of those ideas and apply for the patent. They can do it right now at this very moment while they're reading this, if no prior patent has been issued. Once the patent is granted, the idea becomes theirs, regardless of whether they thought of it or not.
This is false. It's not just about prior art that's been patented -- but prior art period, and that can include something like the ideas that SciFi writers came up with. They can be used to invalidate a patent.
The game is all about who makes it to the patent office first. If it was your own idea, then chances are good you'll be first to patent. If it wasn't your idea and you acquired it through other means, then lady luck has smiled upon you. Too bad for the inventor.
This is false. While the US is looking at switching to a "first to file" system, they currently have a "first to invent" system -- so even if you're first to the patent office, it doesn't really matter. Large parts of the rest of the world *do* use first to file, but not the US.
Look. Every inventor in their right mind should already know at this point.. the absolute first thing you do is apply for the patent, which provides legal protection for your invention/idea. Failing to apply for this protection is at your own peril and/or stupidity, and in not doing so you then assume all risk in having your idea 'acquired' and patented by someone else, at any time.
While you're already wrong on most of these points, the real issue isn't how the system works, but whether or not it's doing what it intended to do and that's encourage innovation. If it's not, then that's a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First to {file|invent}: difference is not what it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First to {file|invent}: difference is not what
I didn't mean to imply any differently. Sorry if I did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Calling angry dude
But I can fix some of your twisted notions with some hard facts...
>Should science fiction writers from the 50's be >given a patent of jetpacks and flying cars?
Perhaps you don't know, but Arthur Clark first proposed idea of geostationary communications satellite - an idea certainly worthy of a patent by any standard.
He pretended to regret about not patenting it, but actually he was smart enough to see that a 20 year patent term won't do it - by the time it is possible to launch such a satellite into orbit the patent would long expire...
Another example is laser: There are at least 2 major patents on this: Townes's patent and Gould's patent. The Towne's patent issued quickly and by the time lasers were mass manufacturtee almost expired - the total roylaties collected were a meager 1 mil. Gould's patent was delayed by the PTO (none of it was Gould's fault) by 17 years.
So when laser manufacturers learned about just issued patent and request for royalties 17 years after laser ibvention they just went nuts, and the laser patent war started...
Read about it, it's a facinating story...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Calling angry dude
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: important open-source software
Now, let's see you back up your arguments with some links to evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: important open-source software
"Not quite so angry dude" makes an excellent point "Should science fiction writers from the 50's be given a patent of jetpacks and flying cars?". This is something that has often occurred to me when reading recent patents about computer inventions that have not yet been implemented. This seems to be exactly the sort of thing that's happening in a lot of cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: important open-source software
Even if said science fiction writers had applied for patents, they would be out of luck. Before June 8, 1995, patents typically had 17 years of patent life from the date the patent was issued.
This is 2006, so no patent from the 50s would still be valid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike's comments
I got a Computer Science degree and had a lower but good GPA. Some of the 3.9-4.0 GPA people in my Dept. went to work for firms that went bust during Dot.Com era. When I asked them what the company was building they said, well I'm not really sure, but the people are really "smart". I replied that if the product was good and well thought out the company would have survived and your pay checks would not have bounced.
I have had no problem getting good jobs even during post dot.com era. and work with smart people but have never had a firm ask my GPA (this includes two fortune 100 firms that I have worked and currently work for).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just try to get the money...
Rim will withold payment, or pay small amounts until NTP gets fed up and has to sue them to get licence money for patents at which time they will no longer own.
Clever of Rim...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
From CNET
The agreement involves a one-time payment to NTP, RIM co-CEO Jim Balsillie said during a Friday afternoon conference call. Even if the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office eventually overturns NTP's patents, NTP will not have to repay the $612.5 million. "There is no provision for the PTO re-exam. This is a full and final settlement," he said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
Fair or Foul?
The Blackberry Patent Dispute
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Repayment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Repayment
Either way RIM has lost out on a lot of business, and it's very bad especially with MS starting to cut their grass with direct push mail capabilities in Exchange and now in Windows Mobile devices (tried the new AKU2 ROM upgrade for my HTC Wizard that includes this, and it works great)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
now if only I could have quotes...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
First of all, the patent database is obsolete. It is mostly public, so you can go look for yourself. Patents are notorious for opaque style and overblown claims. There may be hundreds patents referencing your interest, quite a few claiming them, and none addressing them.
Secondly, finding these bad patents has negative value. Accidental infringement is a less serious legal infraction and unlikely to _ever_ be uncovered. So the smart cookies purposely avoid looking. And this means the public is unlikely to ever read or benefit from even the few good patent filings.
Have you ever found any design information you could actually use in the patent system? If so, chime in. Otherwise go "help" someone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given by RevMike et.al.
Nothing about this case has anything to do with idea protection, it has everything to do with greed. Acts like this stunts the growth of technology and ultimately the growth of the human race.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given by RevMike et.al.
You see, I have some other things to do but I am spending time here explaining some very basic facts you can read about elsewhere, but for some reason you don't want to - you already have a wrong picture of the world in your head.
Patent applications are published after 18 months.
This means they are fully accessible at www.uspto.gov from anywhere in the world.
In this situation , in order for somebody to claim that he independently came up with the same idea (of course, I am talking about non-obvious ideas) you would need to institute some kind of a mind reading law..
Better yet, a polygraph test.
Even better, a torture chamber to get the truth out of a person... Do you want any of this ?
While it is true that the majority of issued patent are for some pretty obvious things (and guess who holds those junk patent - all the big corps whining the most about small inventors) some patents are truly novel and non-obvious.
Once such a novel and non-obvious idea is out, it is out. If any fool can claim any already published idea for himself, the world would be a mess... Just think about it if you still can think...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1) patent it, wait for other people to build similar products, then sue them for a share of their profits?
2) start making and selling the product. Sure, some big company will soon copy my idea and make millions, but in the meantime, I will have made some money.
Ron says at 2006-03-04 20:22:01 ...
I am not rich right now. I have no money. What do you mean I must hire a bunch of lawyers, an entire legal department, before I can invent something? Is this your idea of fostering innovation. Making it easier for the little guy to innovate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]