Patents in NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.

by Tim O'Brien

Related link: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/…




I found it strange that I've been reading about this case for a few years now, but I still haven't seen a good resource that links to the patents in question.
Here's a list of the Patents involved in NTP v. RIM. Read on...




Is this case just the first in a decade long series of cases against companies and open source projects? Are we entering into a dark age for innovation?


3 Comments

qazwart
2006-01-25 10:28:00
Is that all there is in the patents?
So, what was the innovation that the patent is protecting? Is it simply wireless connectivity to a mailserver? That seems like a rather obvious technical innovation which means that the patent shouldn't be valid.


Of course, I thought the same thing with Amazon's one click buy button too, and that's a valid patent.


Maybe there's something deeper going on, but I can't see it.

tmo9d
2006-01-26 13:28:01
Is that all there is in the patents?
No, you should take some time to read the patents......errrr.....let me guess, you don't have time?


Methinks you are not alone, I've read the full copy of two of the patents linked to above. Click on that last one, search for "lata 112". Now tell me if you really believe that our judicial system should be the final arbiter of software patents. I'd be surprised if any of the lawyers involved in the case could even come to a basic understanding of the technical aspects of this patent.


JoeSmith
2006-02-06 15:58:00
Is that all there is in the patents?
Never mind the lawyers - what about the Judge and jury? NTP made a submission to the USPTO asking for time because their expert was not available and said that it would take a new expert weeks or months to understand the patents and their relationship with the prior art.


If it would take an expert weeks or months what hope for the Judge or Jury during a one week trial - it reduces the whole process to a popularity contest.


Here the court has said "by the court's process, the patents have been determined to be valid". Since every engineer who has looked at the patents knows there was nothing new in the Camapana patents the only thing that has been proven is that the court process (rules of evidence and procedure made up by lawyers and judges) are profoundly misconceived.