Just When You Thought RIM's Patent Problems Were Over
from the this-helps dept
Mobile e-mail software company Visto found itself in an interesting deal with Research In Motion's tormentor NTP last year, when NTP bought an equity stake in the company at the same time Visto licensed its dubious patents -- a move that looked an awful lot like a horse trade orchestrated by NTP in an attempt to bolster its patent case against Research In Motion. It looks like Visto's now putting both the cash and experience of NTP to use, announcing that it won a patent case against rival Seven and is now suing RIM. While at least Visto sells an actual product, unlike NTP, it's hard to buy their founder's claims that they're "a global leader in the mobile email market" if they can't compete in the market and have to resort to using legal tactics to try to shut competitors down, or piggyback on their success. The amount of patent litigation in the mobile email space makes it hard to believe that many of these patents aren't obvious, while prior art isn't hard to find. On a side note, the Visto case took just five days (in a jury trial, natch) thanks to everybody's favorite patent judge in Marshall, Texas -- so guess where they've filed suit against RIM. Seven says the win wasn't nearly the blowout Visto portrays, as it was found to have infringed just five claims from three patents, rather than the almost 200 claims on six patents Visto alleged. Seven will fight on in court and with the Patent Office, which is re-examining the patents and has offered an initial rejection of one already. Does this sound familiar? It should, as it's awfully similar to what happened to RIM: the USPTO gives patents that shouldn't have been awarded in the first place, then can't undo its screwups fast enough to stop them from being run over by courts that can't, or won't, wait.
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
Perpetrating ignorance without a license
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another useless diatribe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the thing i don't get
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ex Post vs. Ex Ante
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah once again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bizness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No personal attacks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gaaawd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wow
I prove your argument is 100% wrong and that's your best response? Yup. Makes us take you seriously...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That giant sucking sound...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
link
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
reading comprehension
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF are you talking about ?
It's a dog-eat-dog world out there by corporate design.
Or, live by the sword, die by the sword...
Unlike mostly cluless people of Techdirt, those guys know all too well what they are doing and what risks they take...
Just calm down and go about your bussiness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF are you talking about ?
RIM was suing competitors right and left before it was sued itself by NTP... It's a dog-eat-dog world out there by corporate design.
Or, live by the sword, die by the sword...
Did we deny this? Nope. In fact, we wrote almost exactly what you wrote last year. So can you explain to us how we're idiots, when we actually said what you said well before you said it? Right... you can't, because you have no credibility.
Whether or not RIM gets involved in patent suits isn't the issue here. In fact, in the past, we've been just as critical of RIM's patent suits. Does that change the issue? Not in the slightest.
In the meantime, because you still refuse, I have to ask again. Angry dude, show us your patent. It's public info, isn't it? Why won't you tell us?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WTF are you talking about ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF are you talking about ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WTF are you talking about ?
If I were running a corporate PR campain I would certainly pick somebody more knowledgable about patents and high-tech in general than Mike.
But, hell, who knows ? It is sometimes amazing to see that some of the highest-paid CEOs in this country are just dumb mother-fuckers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WTF are you talking about ?
Man. You have serious issues. We are not part of any marketing firm designed to help big companies at the expense of small.
We actually very much support the rights of small innovators and have REPEATEDLY called out whenever big companies misuse the patent system.
We're just as upset at that as we are when small companies misuse it.
Our complaint is with the way the overall patent system works and how it's holding back the entire economy, by putting in place incentives that STIFLE innovations.
If you want to make baseless accusations against us, at least try to make them sound sensible.
I will state, for the record, that there is NO ONE who is funding us to make these statements. I will stand by that. I will swear to it on whatever belief system you want, because it's 100% true. We absolutely believe in what we state here, and just because you DISAGREE, doesn't mean that we are paid to make these statements.
What's funny, ThinkSolveDo, is that every time you post here, I go in and point out where you're wrong. Yet, all you do is come back and insult me. Now you're adding lies to the list.
Insults and lies. And you expect us to take you seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: WTF are you talking about ?
I just read your NOTICE... that I did not write that foolish "Corporate Shill" note. Thank you for pointing out the truth about that. I do speak my mind and appreciate your letting everyone know that was not me. With that said... hear is my response to your statement above.
First off please note... I live and breath IP. The only thing you are pointing out in your posts is that you do not know much about IP and how the real world of innovation works.
The changes you are suggesting will kill innovation, give the market less than it deserves and make the big companies rich in cash at the expense of diversity and the individual.
The specific examples you use make it appear as though 100% of the system is broken. It's like throwing a piece of aluminum in the air and then when it falls you tell everone, "now we know for sure that planes can't fly." Your examples stink.
Read the news and you will see that big companies do not need a level playing field. In fact... they do not want one. If the playing field gets too level they sue, price fix or use some other trick to keep the edge. We read about what happend years later and after our money was taken and the crappy product we were sold was thrown out. If we are lucky we get a Class Action Award of 15 cents.
Todays patent system allows people, real people like you and me, to stake a claim on our invention and, if possible, work to bring it to market. I have FIRST HAND and ACTUAL EXPERIENCE that big companies would rather kill an idea AND keep it from the market than to pay an honest royalty. Nothing has changed since the RCA TV incident.
Go get a patent and try to sell it to a big company. You will be singing a different tune in less than a year. When you see how the system really works you will finally realize the changes being discussed are BAD for innovators and innvation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: WTF are you talking about ?
I just read your NOTICE... that I did not write that foolish "Corporate Shill" note. Thank you for pointing out the truth about that. I do speak my mind and appreciate your letting everyone know that was not me. With that said... hear is my response to your statement above.
First off please note... I live and breath IP. The only thing you are pointing out in your posts is that you do not know much about IP and how the real world of innovation works.
The changes you are suggesting will kill innovation, give the market less than it deserves and make the big companies rich in cash at the expense of diversity and the individual.
The specific examples you use make it appear as though 100% of the system is broken. It's like throwing a piece of aluminum in the air and then when it falls you tell everone, "now we know for sure that planes can't fly." Your examples stink.
Read the news and you will see that big companies do not need a level playing field. In fact... they do not want one. If the playing field gets too level they sue, price fix or use some other trick to keep the edge. We read about what happend years later and after our money was taken and the crappy product we were sold was thrown out. If we are lucky we get a Class Action Award of 15 cents.
Todays patent system allows people, real people like you and me, to stake a claim on our invention and, if possible, work to bring it to market. I have FIRST HAND and ACTUAL EXPERIENCE that big companies would rather kill an idea AND keep it from the market than to pay an honest royalty. Nothing has changed since the RCA TV incident.
Go get a patent and try to sell it to a big company. You will be singing a different tune in less than a year. When you see how the system really works you will finally realize the changes being discussed are BAD for innovators and innvation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: WTF are you talking about ?
I just read your NOTICE... that I did not write that foolish "Corporate Shill" note. Thank you for pointing out the truth about that. I do speak my mind and appreciate your letting everyone know that was not me. With that said... hear is my response to your statement above.
First off please note... I live and breath IP. The only thing you are pointing out in your posts is that you do not know much about IP and how the real world of innovation works.
The changes you are suggesting will kill innovation, give the market less than it deserves and make the big companies rich in cash at the expense of diversity and the individual.
The specific examples you use make it appear as though 100% of the system is broken. It's like throwing a piece of aluminum in the air and then when it falls you tell everone, "now we know for sure that planes can't fly." Your examples stink.
Read the news and you will see that big companies do not need a level playing field. In fact... they do not want one. If the playing field gets too level they sue, price fix or use some other trick to keep the edge. We read about what happend years later and after our money was taken and the crappy product we were sold was thrown out. If we are lucky we get a Class Action Award of 15 cents.
Todays patent system allows people, real people like you and me, to stake a claim on our invention and, if possible, work to bring it to market. I have FIRST HAND and ACTUAL EXPERIENCE that big companies would rather kill an idea AND keep it from the market than to pay an honest royalty. Nothing has changed since the RCA TV incident.
Go get a patent and try to sell it to a big company. You will be singing a different tune in less than a year. When you see how the system really works you will finally realize the changes being discussed are BAD for innovators and innvation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: WTF are you talking about ?
Do not make assumptions about what I do, or do not, know. You may find yourself looking foolish in the end. I'm not making assumptions about what you do or do not know... However, if you want to talk to me about IP, you'd be better off focusing on the issues, rather than making baseless statements, as you've done repeatedly (including suggesting that I made the satirical post, which I clearly did not). It makes you look silly when you make these assumptions.
Just because I disagree with you does not mean I don't know what I'm talking about. Please take that into consideration.
The changes you are suggesting will kill innovation, give the market less than it deserves and make the big companies rich in cash at the expense of diversity and the individual.
First off, I'm guessing that you're making assumptions about what "changes" I want to make. I do believe that most people in power are talking about are dangerous and will hurt innovation. You seem to assume that just because I don't like the system now, I must support the current reform effort -- I do not. Again, I suggest you not make assumptions. They're not going over well so far.
Second, your claim that they will "kill innovation" is provably false if you look at history. Look at historical examples of places that had weaker or no patent protection, and you see plenty of evidence that innovation actually did much better. So, for you to say that it would kill innovation is simply false -- and that's a historical fact.
You seem to base your assumption on the idea that the only incentive to innovate is to get a patent. That's false. Many people innovate in order to get rewarded in the marketplace from paying customers. Others innovate to solve interesting challenges.
The specific examples you use make it appear as though 100% of the system is broken. It's like throwing a piece of aluminum in the air and then when it falls you tell everone, "now we know for sure that planes can't fly." Your examples stink.
Equally, you seem to act as though the system is perfect. However, if you read what I write instead of jumping to conclusions, I have stated *REPEATEDLY* that the patent system creates both incentives to innovate and disincentives to innovate (something you told me I was clueless about, despite it being accepted fact among most). So, I'm the one presenting the balanced viewpoint, while using examples to demonstrate the disincentives, because so few people talk about them. So, no, my examples don't stink. They highlight the problem... which is important because people like you want to pretend that the patent system doesn't act to stifle innovation in some cases. I'm showing how it does.
The question is whether or not that disincentive outweights the incentives. That's a point that you can argue over... but the evidence seems to suggest that's true as well.
Read the news and you will see that big companies do not need a level playing field. In fact... they do not want one. If the playing field gets too level they sue, price fix or use some other trick to keep the edge. We read about what happend years later and after our money was taken and the crappy product we were sold was thrown out. If we are lucky we get a Class Action Award of 15 cents.
Again, you are making assumptions about how I feel about big companies. I don't disagree with you on what you're saying here. Big companies will often (though, not always) act unethically, and that's a huge problem of the system. However, suggesting that patents are the solution is curing a symptom not the illness. Corporate ethics is a different issue -- and one that isn't really impacted by patents, since an unethical company will be unethical either way.
Also, by the way, I find it amusing that you claim I only highlight the bad use of patents... and then in your very next paragraph you claim that *all* big companies are evil and unethical. Frankly, I think claiming that is as ridiculous as saying that all patents are awful.
Todays patent system allows people, real people like you and me, to stake a claim on our invention and, if possible, work to bring it to market. I have FIRST HAND and ACTUAL EXPERIENCE that big companies would rather kill an idea AND keep it from the market than to pay an honest royalty. Nothing has changed since the RCA TV incident.
Please do not speak to me as if I'm a child. I, too, have first hand experience bringing products to market. I've done so successfully and have fought off big companies that tried to compete with me. And I did it proudly without patents. I don't care if big companies copy my ideas, because I believe I can continue to out-innovate them and beat them in the marketplace. I have faith in my ability to compete -- rather than waste my time and money at the patent office.
Please don't assume I have no experience. It's both foolish and wrong.
Go get a patent and try to sell it to a big company. You will be singing a different tune in less than a year. When you see how the system really works you will finally realize the changes being discussed are BAD for innovators and innvation.
No, I'd rather innovate and bring products to market. I have no desire to license a patent to a big company. If they want to compete, let them. It only drives me and my company to offer better products and services -- something we think we do succeed in. In the meantime, I'll focus on innovating and serving my customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are in LaLa Land... What is the weather like t
Have you ever applied for a patent for yourself? Do you actually own any patents?
Clearly your bull horn is bigger than your experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You are in LaLa Land... What is the weather li
Uh, what...? The fact that the USPTO is rejecting these patents certainly does seem like a sign of patent validity. So, why are we the ones who don't know what we're talking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Angry dude
There are legitimate issues about how the patent system should be reformed to best serve the society (at whose sufferance it exists at all) and yet Angry Dude can't get beyond: little guy good; big guy bad.
I've made the point before that there is an irony in Angry Dude's incoherent rage at calls for reform of the patent system when he himself complains that the current system is not working for him personally. He should be all in favour of reform which supports genuine innovation and discourages squatting on public intellectual property (which is what is going on right now with companies like RIM).
Oh and before I get accused of being on someone's payroll let me say that I'm not - I'm just grumpy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I take it that your Ph.D. is not in English....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OKAY, FINE -- Here's my patent!!
I'm just waiting for someone to build it, then I will sue their asses off. Muhahahahaha! I'm a genius boy!!! I'm a bonas fide genius!! The patent office says so!!!! And all you losers who don't have no patents can't say anything about it, because you are all a bunch of dumbies without patents! Unless you have a patent, you are stupidheads.
Ha! Take that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporate Shills
The patent system is 100% perfect. It is the best that there ever was and ever could be. It never screws up! It is perfect!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Corporate Shills
Once again we see people who can't create stealing from those who can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Corporate Shills
Once again we see people who can't create stealing from those who can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Corporate Shills
Once again we see people who can't create stealing from those who can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Corporate Shills
Once again we see people who can't create stealing from those who can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it isn't obvious...
Anyway, we prefer that you *not* post such satirical posts mocking our regular commenters. If you disagree with someone, simply reply and show why you disagree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]