# Suddenly a RIM job does not look interesting (Blackberry legal issues) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 25, 2006, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suddenly-a-rim-job-does-not-look-interesting-blackberry-legal-issues/341476 "2006-01-25T00:02:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suddenly-a-rim-job-does-not-look-interesting-blackberry-legal-issues/341476/1 "2006-01-25T00:02:39Z")
Looking for a job, I was temped to make this a post only on MPSIMS regarding this RIM Job posting: [http://www.business.mcmaster.ca/MBAA/artman/publish/article\_82.shtml](http://www.business.mcmaster.ca/MBAA/artman/publish/article_82.shtml) > [@](#): > > Career \> CBCD > > RIM Job postings > > Research In Motion has posted their co-op positions! > (Maker of the Blackberry) Sometimes these things write themselves! 😃 But there is now a serious reason for this thread and the pit seems to be a better place, but if the mods think it belongs better in GD feel free to move it. > **[Legal ruling worries BlackBerry users / Patent lawsuit may lead to shutdown](https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Legal-ruling-worries-BlackBerry-users-Patent-2523542.php)** > > Legal ruling worries BlackBerry users / Patent lawsuit may lead to shutdown > [@](#): > > BlackBerry users watched in alarm Monday as the company that makes the wildly popular handheld devices suffered a legal setback that could cause the service to shut down at some point in the coming months. > > The devices, which provide instantaneous access to e-mail and inspire such devotion they’re referred to as “crackberrys,” are at the center of a patent lawsuit in which a Virginia company, NTP, has sued Research in Motion, the Canadian company behind the BlackBerry. > > NTP claims that RIM is using some of its patented technology in the BlackBerry. RIM denies the charge, but has been losing in court. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear RIM’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling in NTP’s favor. > > The next step in the case is for NTP to seek an injunction, ordering RIM to stop using the technology in question, which would effectively shut down the BlackBerry service. RIM could also settle with NTP in the meantime, avoiding a blackout. > > With more than 4 million people hooked on their BlackBerrys, the argument is far from academic. Well, who to pit in this case? I have to say this got me confused, did RIM really need to obtain permission? If so one target for this pit could be the US Patent office: [http://www.suntimes.com/output/business/cst-fin-black24.html](http://www.suntimes.com/output/business/cst-fin-black24.html) > [@](#): > > RIM is also challenging NTP’s patents through the U.S. Patent Office’s lengthy appeal process. If the office invalidates NTP’s patents, the District Court case could get thrown out. That’s why RIM is trying to drag the court case out as long as possible, said lawyer Stephen Maebius at Foley & Lardner. > > The case illustrates the need for patent reform, Maebius said. No one has accused RIM of stealing from NTP, but under U.S. law, a company can be guilty of infringement even if it didn’t know about another patent. Recently, the Supreme Court decided not to review the injunction from NTP against RIM, but that injunction comes from the power they got from holding the patent; Blackberry reports that their refusal to deal with NTP comes from the fact that the patent decisions are going their way: [http://www.blackberrycool.com/2005/12/16/001199/](http://www.blackberrycool.com/2005/12/16/001199/) > [@](#): > > The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has rejected a second NTP Inc. patent in what it described as a non-final action. The patent, 5,625,670, is one of five at the center of the long-running patent dispute between NTP and Research In Motion Ltd., maker of the BlackBerry wireless handheld device. It’s the second time in a matter of weeks that the PTO has issued a “non-final” rejection of an NTP patent. > > The PTO indicated it expects its next ruling, or office action, to be a final rejection of all claims in the 670 patent. The PTO used similar language in its recent rejection of the 6,067,451 patent. Both patents have now been rejected twice by the PTO. The three remaining patents have had all been rejected in first-office actions by the PTO. I could then say that is a case were product development and jobs could be on the line only because NTP is abusing patent law. [http://hardware.silicon.com/pdas/0,39024643,39153373,00.htm](http://hardware.silicon.com/pdas/0,39024643,39153373,00.htm) > [@](#): > > Palm and RIM join hands for Treo > BlackBerry connectivity is go… > > ``` > By Michael Singer > > ``` > > Published: Monday 17 October 2005 > > Handheld computer makers Palm and RIM inked a deal on Monday that will enable Treo 650 owners to connect with BlackBerry email and calendar software. > > The option will be available for new and existing Treo 650 users as well as future Treo products with the Palm operating system starting in early 2006. Carriers, pricing and distribution deals will be announced at a later date, the companies said. > > The deal means that the BlackBerry Connect software will show up as an option on Palm’s VersaMail email client. Palm also has several software contracts including Microsoft Exchange, IBM’s Lotus and Domino, Good Technology’s GoodLink software, Intellisync, Seven and Visto in Europe Does NTP have a case or are they patent thugs? ---
**Author:** ![splatterpunk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3be4f8/32.png) [@splatterpunk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/splatterpunk)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suddenly-a-rim-job-does-not-look-interesting-blackberry-legal-issues/341476/2 "2006-01-25T04:18:41Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Does NTP have a case or are they patent thugs? I dunno. I tried to follow this case for awhile, but it just gave me a headache. My understanding is that a huge settlement will result if NTP prevails, but that Blackberry users won’t be affected. But that could be nothing more than wishful thinking. BTW, I’m posting this reply from my own Crackberry. ---
**Author:** ![shelbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3d9bf3/32.png) [@shelbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shelbo)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suddenly-a-rim-job-does-not-look-interesting-blackberry-legal-issues/341476/3 "2006-01-25T18:36:42Z")
What is inexplicable to me is that, based on the quotes in the OP, the patents at issue are ALL likely to be deemed invalid. Why in the world would (type that three times fast!) the federal courts issue orders that could destroy Blackberry based on patents that will be tossed out? Why in the world can’t the patent office speed things up and toss out the patents now? It is a screwed up system that is helping to enrich lawyers and wealthy speculators at the expense of innovative companies, and to hinder competition at the expense of the consumer. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suddenly-a-rim-job-does-not-look-interesting-blackberry-legal-issues/341476/4 "2006-01-25T19:07:59Z")
> [@shelbo](#): > > What is inexplicable to me is that, based on the quotes in the OP, the patents at issue are ALL likely to be deemed invalid. Why in the world would (type that three times fast!) the federal courts issue orders that could destroy Blackberry based on patents that will be tossed out? Why in the world can’t the patent office speed things up and toss out the patents now? It is a screwed up system that is helping to enrich lawyers and wealthy speculators at the expense of innovative companies, and to hinder competition at the expense of the consumer. I was looking for updates in the subject and it seems this article from Znet has partial answers to those questions: The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office is already accelerating final review of five disputed NTP patents that are at the heart of this case. :dubious: :dubious: I imagine the USPTO moving this from snail to tortoise mode. > [@](#): > > Thus far, the USPTO has shown a strong inclination to disallow these patents. Yet only when they make such a final ruling will Judge James Spencer - who has thus far expressed more sympathy for NTP’s position - have to listen. Up 'til then, the patents are assumed valid and he has to rule that way. > > … > > I envision the following scenario: RIM pays a small escrow payment to NTP. In this world, “small” could be $100 million, but the escrow carries a “wait until the USPTO rules and the final court ruling comes down.” > > An alternative - not necessarily exclusive of my first scenario - gives NTP a small stake in RIM, with an escalator clause should things not fall RIM’s way. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suddenly-a-rim-job-does-not-look-interesting-blackberry-legal-issues/341476/5 "2006-01-25T19:12:32Z")
> [@shelbo](#): > > What is inexplicable to me is that, based on the quotes in the OP, the patents at issue are ALL likely to be deemed invalid. Why in the world would (type that three times fast!) the federal courts issue orders that could destroy Blackberry based on patents that will be tossed out? Why in the world can’t the patent office speed things up and toss out the patents now? It is a screwed up system that is helping to enrich lawyers and wealthy speculators at the expense of innovative companies, and to hinder competition at the expense of the consumer. I was reading updates on the subject and it seems this article from Znet has partial answers to those questions: [http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=862](http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=862) > [@](#): > > The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office is already accelerating final review of five disputed NTP patents that are at the heart of this case. :dubious: . I think the USPTO is only moving this from snail to tortoise mode. > [@](#): > > Thus far, the USPTO has shown a strong inclination to disallow these patents. Yet only when they make such a final ruling will Judge James Spencer - who has thus far expressed more sympathy for NTP’s position - have to listen. Up 'til then, the patents are assumed valid and he has to rule that way. > > … > > I envision the following scenario: RIM pays a small escrow payment to NTP. In this world, “small” could be $100 million, but the escrow carries a “wait until the USPTO rules and the final court ruling comes down.” > > An alternative - not necessarily exclusive of my first scenario - gives NTP a small stake in RIM, with an escalator clause should things not fall RIM’s way. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suddenly-a-rim-job-does-not-look-interesting-blackberry-legal-issues/341476/6 "2006-01-25T19:45:43Z")
> [@shelbo](#): > > What is inexplicable to me is that, based on the quotes in the OP, the patents at issue are ALL likely to be deemed invalid. As far as I can tell, the “non-final rejection” is pretty much standard practice in these cases ([cite](http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2005/06/blackberry_pate.html)), and is generally non-indicative of the final result (the Microsoft FAT patent challenged recently was also non-finally rejected–twice–only to be eventually upheld). It may be that the USPTO has indicated it intends to reject the NTP patents in the end, but I can’t find a direct quote saying this, and am unwilling to trust [blackberrycool.com](http://blackberrycool.com), which has a fairly clear vested interest in the matter. > [@](#): > > Why in the world would (type that three times fast!) the federal courts issue orders that could destroy Blackberry based on patents that will be tossed out? The flip side is that by abusing the patent re-evaluation process, which is expected to take years, companies that are genuinely infringing a patent can continue to do so to the detriment of the patent-holder. Since the non-final rejection is neither binding nor final, it’s not unreasonable to proceed on the assumption that the patents are indeed valid, this being the last binding decision made by the Patent Office. Patents don’t last forever; if infringers can indefinitely delay the consequences of infringement by pointing to yet another re-evaluation, then there isn’t a point in having them. The USPTO’s “final” decision is also not the final stage; NTP can then ask for reconsideration at the PTO, and may subsequently appeal to the PTO’s internal board, then the federal courts (which have already upheld the patents). Why, given that we don’t know that the PTO will reject the patents, nor how any of the subsequent stages will go, should we assume the result of a non-final stage that hasn’t even occurred yet, and use that assumption in preference to current, binding decision? > [@](#): > > Why in the world can’t the patent office speed things up and toss out the patents now? Because their own rules require that NTP be given a chance to defend their patent, something that seems eminently reasonable to me. Surely, whatever your opinion on the patent system, you must agree that patents should be fairly scrutinised, not withdrawn because a case has gained prominence and has large ramifications. > [@](#): > > It is a screwed up system that is helping to enrich lawyers and wealthy speculators at the expense of innovative companies, and to hinder competition at the expense of the consumer. How do you know that NTP aren’t the genuinely innovative company in this case? (I’m genuinely interested to find this out, and am trying to find the patents in question to see what they actually cover.) If the USPTO did indeed simply chuck out the patent, without following their own procedures, and without giving NTP the right of reply, this would surely constitute a screwed up system that helps to enrich intellectual thieves at the expense of innovative companies, and to hinder innovation at the expense of the consumer. Where is the incentive to innovate, if your invention can be summarily taken away, or for that matter if the courts will just let you take someone else’s idea? Much has been made in the press about Blackberry’s huge user base, and the inconvenience it will cause should the service be shut down. However, this doesn’t seem like an argument in favour of summarily rejecting the patent to me. Surely, if an invention has been this successful, it is one most deserving of protection (assuming it is indeed valid). ---
**Author:** ![shelbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3d9bf3/32.png) [@shelbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shelbo)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2006, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suddenly-a-rim-job-does-not-look-interesting-blackberry-legal-issues/341476/7 "2006-01-27T19:54:25Z")
> [@Dead Badger](#): > > How do you know that NTP aren’t the genuinely innovative company in this case? (I’m genuinely interested to find this out, and am trying to find the patents in question to see what they actually cover.) [This Wikkipedia entry on NTP](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTP,_Inc.) has links to the patents in question. I really have no way of knowing whether NTP was ever truly innovative, or whether, as implied by the Blackberry folks, they are just another speculative patent troll. It is clear that they don’t make or sell anything, and currently exist solely to pursue patent claims against companies like Blackberry. I’d be interested in a non-biased assessment. ---
**Author:** ![shelbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3d9bf3/32.png) [@shelbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shelbo)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2006, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suddenly-a-rim-job-does-not-look-interesting-blackberry-legal-issues/341476/8 "2006-01-27T20:13:53Z")
> [@Dead Badger](#): > > Because their own rules require that NTP be given a chance to defend their patent, something that seems eminently reasonable to me. Surely, whatever your opinion on the patent system, you must agree that patents should be fairly scrutinised, not withdrawn because a case has gained prominence and has large ramifications. I don’t have any problem with giving the company a chance to defend their patent. But why must it take so long? This has been going on for 6 years now. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2006, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suddenly-a-rim-job-does-not-look-interesting-blackberry-legal-issues/341476/9 "2006-01-27T22:12:53Z")
I hate the US Patent system, at least in the area of technology. Tech companies patent things like mad knowing few, if any, of them will ever be rejected. There aren’t many companies of any significant size which could not be targeted by some sort of infringement lawsuit if someone wanted to dig into it. Mostly companies file these things as a sort of “mutually assured destruction” pact where Microsoft agrees not to test their patents on software against IBM because IBM has patents Microsoft may be in violation of and the counter suit would suck. It’s almost like a racket and the only ones making money off it are the USPTO off of filing fees and patent lawers off of “researching”. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![SavageNarce](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@SavageNarce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SavageNarce)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suddenly-a-rim-job-does-not-look-interesting-blackberry-legal-issues/341476/10 "2006-02-25T00:53:24Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > It’s almost like a racket and the only ones making money off it are the USPTO off of filing fees and patent lawers off of “researching”. Well, I filed an elusive but all-encompassing patent on my Comprehensive Encyclopedic Cache of Intellectial Lore, so all you Straight Dopers are going to owe me _ **big time** _ unless you pay up now… we’ll call it a “licensing fee” for CECIL. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suddenly-a-rim-job-does-not-look-interesting-blackberry-legal-issues/341476/11 "2006-02-25T01:31:21Z")
Hmm - sorry, missed the original replies to my post. Thanks to **shelbo** for providing the patent links. This is only my personal view as a computer science researcher (I’m most definitely not a patent lawyer), but still: I read the abstracts for the ten patents linked, of which 6 appeared to relate to network topology in a wireless context. I personally don’t think network topology should be patentable, since it simply represents a configuration of previously available technology, and thus would not be an “invention” per se. This leaves four patents, all of which seem to relate to error correction and compensation in the presence of a lossy transmission medium, and which (without going through the whole patent, which I’m too tired to do at the minute) appear patentable on their face, assuming there is no prior art. Not my area of expertise, but it certainly seems that the claims are at least deserving of scrutiny. I’ll have a go at reading the full claims for each patent, but I’m finding the patentese slightly impenetrable, so I’m not sure what my analysis will be worth. Plus I’m away this weekend, so I’m sure those hanging on my every word (_cough cough_) will be patient. 🙂 As for the question of timing, well, the claims were upheld at initial review; it seems capricious to now turn around and say to NTP that their claims are not deserving of proper scrutiny. The USPTO has already cut the time in which NTP were allowed to respond to the challenge of their patents. Why should NTP suffer because this particular patent challenge has been deemed of public interest? The USPTO has established procedures for the review of challenged patents; there needs to be a compelling reason for those to be eschewed, and “because lots of people use this product” is not particularly persuasive. That is an argument in favour of making the patent ruling _correct_, not swift.