Blackberry Picking? (re: court case & patent)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Okay, sue me, 'cause I haven't been following this since I don't have a BlackBerry & don't want one. I'm just wondering if I've got this straight or not.

http://www.ajc.com/hp/content/shared-gen/ap/High_Tech/Scotus_BlackBerry_Battle.html
High Court Won't Hear BlackBerry Appeal
By TONI LOCY
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from the maker of the BlackBerry in the long-running battle over patents for the wildly popular, handheld wireless e-mail device.

The high court's refusal to hear Canada-based Research In Motion Ltd.'s appeal means that a trial judge in Richmond, Va., could impose an injunction against the company and block BlackBerry use among many of its owners in the United States.

The justices had been asked to decide on whether U.S. patent law is technologically out of date in the age of the Internet and the global marketplace.

At issue was how U.S. law applies to technology that is used in a foreign country and allegedly infringes on the intellectual property rights of a patent-holder in the United States.

The justices were asked to decide whether Research In Motion can be held liable for patent infringement when its main relay station for e-mail and data transmission is located in Waterloo, Ontario, outside U.S. borders.

RIM was challenging a ruling by a federal appeals court that found that the company had infringed on the patents held by NTP Inc., a tiny northern Virginia patent-holding company, because its customers use the BlackBerry inside U.S. borders. The panel said it did not matter where the relay station is located.

Now, if I'm reading this right:
-- the popular BlackBerry device is owned/distributed/serviced by a Canadian company which relays information through a station in Ontario
-- the Canadian company in question, Research In Motion, Ltd., has been adjudged to have violated patents held by a tiny company in Virginia.
-- the Supremes refused to hear an appeal of a ruling that basically said if you violated the patent of a U.S. company then you cannot do business with that product here in the U.S.

Bottom line -- either Research In Motion works out a settlement with the company that holds the patents, essentially licensing whatever-the-heck-it-is
or else they can't continue to provide the BlackBerry service in the U.S.

Is that about it? And, if that's the case, exactly how the heck do U.S. courts enforce any kind of order to cease & desist with the service? I mean, we could go after any bank accounts in the U.S., any other assets, properties, etc. but I'm not getting the impression they have much of their operation (if any) here, so what comes next (assuming there's no settlement, which I believe would have to be a slam-dunk to happen at some point).

[Mr. Wednesday]

I would assume that if no settlement is reached, the VA company would be able to block all sales of BlackBerry devices in the U.S. Depending on how the service is delivered, they might be able to get U.S. parts of it shut down, although if it's entirely outside the U.S. that's less likely.

[stevew]

I had also heard, although it doesn't appear to be in this article, that there would be a bit of a leeway time(30 days ) before Blackberry goes offline, to allow people to switch services, and also to probably work out the settlement.

[SirFozzie]

what sucks is, that the judge in the case has pretty much thrown out the patent, but refuses to block the injunction

[SirFozzie]

and before you think I'm speaking about something I know nothing about here's the end to a recent article:

The BlackBerry mess is a case in point: in the past year, the Patent Office has reëxamined N.T.P.’s eight patents, and issued preliminary rulings declaring them, and the nineteen hundred claims they contain, invalid. Until those patents are formally invalidated, however, R.I.M. is still on the hook, so it may end up paying for infringements that it never committed. Now, that’s innovative.

[QuikSand]

There are tons of little companies who essentially exist to conjure up IP/patent scares with big successful companies, all in hopes of reaching a settlement. I have heard this outfit placed into that category, though I don't claim any first hand knowledge. It does seem, though, that they have RIM over a barrell (or pick your Canadian euphemism, if you prefer) at the moment.

[Crapshoot]

There are tons of little companies who essentially exist to conjure up IP/patent scares with big successful companies, all in hopes of reaching a settlement. I have heard this outfit placed into that category, though I don't claim any first hand knowledge. It does seem, though, that they have RIM over a barrell (or pick your Canadian euphemism, if you prefer) at the moment.

Patent farms - yup, this outfit is one, no doubt. And it keeps a lot of lawyers and litigation consultants happy. :D

That being said, Corporate America has a Crackberry addiction that will be hard to break.

[SirFozzie]

They do, but their grip is slipping..

the Patent office declaring their patents invalid on a preliminary basis really took a hammer to their case. They need to push the case forward to use what leverage they have.. because if/when the Patent Office declares that their patents are invalid.. they have nothing.

[SirFozzie]

Patent Trolls are what's wrong with the system right now. Patent an idea.. never mind any specifics or whatever. Patent it.. then you can hold a whole industry hostage, without ever intending to use the patent yourself

[Mr. Wednesday]

How do you differentiate between a troll and a legitimate IP house that intends to make reasonable licensing arrangements with their technology? The ability to shut down people misappropriating your patents is the stick that forces them to actually deal with you if you have something that's truly innovative.

(Personally, I judge between a legit operation and a troll based on the quality of the patents and the reasonableness of the requested licensing terms. I'm not qualified to judge either in this case.)

[Ksyrup]

I have to look at my T-Mobile contract. I have Blackberry, and if I lose the ability to use this device for anything more than a glorified cell phone, I wonder if I have the right to terminate my contract. I doubt it, but I wonder what the phone companies are going to offer their customers? I wonder is Palm steps in and offers free Treos to people in exchange for a 1 or 2 commitment? That would be a smart business move on their part.

I just want the hell away from T-Mobile, and my contract doesn't expire until mid-April. I don't need Blackberry (although I'm used to it and think it's great), I'm sure the Treo will do just as nicely.

[SirFozzie]

How do you differentiate between a troll and a legitimate IP house that intends to make reasonable licensing arrangements with their technology? The ability to shut down people misappropriating your patents is the stick that forces them to actually deal with you if you have something that's truly innovative.

(Personally, I judge between a legit operation and a troll based on the quality of the patents and the reasonableness of the requested licensing terms. I'm not qualified to judge either in this case.)


Although I'm not sure that there is a difference between a IP house that comes up with inventions but then doesn't make an effort to bring them to market and patent trolls..

I think it has to do a lot with upfrontness of things.. if you see a new product using your patent that you haven't used... and wait to see if it succeeds or fails beore contacting them and letting them know (usually with a GOTCHA note and a demand for a rediculous amount of money), you're a patent troll.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Although I'm not sure that there is a difference between a IP house that comes up with inventions but then doesn't make an effort to bring them to market and patent trolls.. My point is that you can't tell whether they're making an honest effort to bring them to market (for a reasonable price) just from whether they've executed a license agreement or entered litigation. Assuming they're automatically wrong gives big business a free pass to steal innovation left and right or extort unfairly low licensing arrangements.

Edit: I agree that your second definition is a reasonable one.

[SirFozzie]

Perhaps, you should have a limited amount of time to license the patent to an existing product or bring such a product to market yourself, or risk losing the patent?

That might prevent IP Farming, where it's not innovation, just "Combine Patent A and B together"

Or "Existing Patent A.. ON THE INTERNET!"

[Airhog]

the problem is that if you put a time limit on them, then business will just hold out...

[SirFozzie]

So how do you prevent a company with no employees, such as the one in this case, patenting an idea that they just want to be paid for doing really nothing at all (the patent has been declared invalid).. the USPTO has allowed very shaky patents to get through that are neither new nor innovative (the USPTO has turned into a near rubber stamp organization), and rather then encourage innovation and technology, it;s currently acting to retard such development

[Airhog]

Im not sure how you do. I just don't think putting a time limit on it is the right idea.

[Mr. Wednesday]

So how do you prevent a company with no employees But formed by the inventor and his lawyer, in an attempt to stop RIM from flaunting a valid patent... (notwithstanding that I understand the PTO has indicated that it will be invalidated)
such as the one in this case, patenting an idea that they just want to be paid for doing really nothing at all (the patent has been declared invalid).. Rather, doing some innovative work at a time when the mobile explosion was a long way in the future (albeit not as innovative as it should have been).

the USPTO has allowed very shaky patents to get through that are neither new nor innovative (the USPTO has turned into a near rubber stamp organization), and rather then encourage innovation and technology, it;s currently acting to retard such developmentThat's absolutely true, but not necessarily a reflection on the motives and actions of NTP and the inventor -- it's entirely possible that they have acted throughout in a good-faith belief that they had a legitimately innovative patent that did not receive the due diligence it deserved from the PTO. (It's also possible that the inventor did only a cursory prior art search and was hoping to get a patent that could later be capitalized... I don't know enough to comment further.)

[Mr. Wednesday]

Rather than railing against "patent trolls", what needs to be done is the PTO's issuance work needs to be overhauled so that they do a better job of identifying prior art and weeding out non-novel patents; and the patent system itself needs to make sure that the worst abuses of submarining and market timing are not possible. I don't know if the tools are in place for the latter, but if they're not, a reasonable balance must be struck with the legitimate interests of inventors and their successors in interest.

[Rizon]

For what it's worth I use to pick blackberries on a small island as a kid.