Nickname: La La Land

Review: NTP isnt a co at all! Just a bunch of lawyers! What a joke. This is just an example of how lawyers can screw around with a valid business in the hopes of winning the lotto. The patent process needs to be re-evaluated if these games can be played. How productive is this and who benefits? The patent process needs to be improved and changed.

Date reviewed: Mar 2, 2006 11:16 PM

Nickname: Shaker

Review: The main points of this case is that 1) NTP is a company that has no current or past operations other than corporate blackmail such as this, and 2) If this was a U.S. company does anyone think it would have gotten this far?

Date reviewed: Mar 2, 2006 12:34 AM

Nickname: patent agent

Review: RIM should have settled long ago, but it's determined to drag things out. If it's true what they say that their partners (Motorola and Nokia) would not be covered by RIM's license, then the partners could (shock, horror) pay for their own licenses themselves! Oh no! (Feigns mock indignation). No doubt it probably is true because Milgrim, who is apparently representing RIM, wrote one of the standard works on IP licensing, and should be sound on license construction. As others have already pointed out, rejection and then final rejection of the NTP patents can be followed by appeal to the board of appeals, then to either federal district court or directly to the federal circuit, which already held them all valid before. After all that, only one claim of one patent would need to survive for infringement to continue! Hence RIM's assertion that the NTP patents are "going in the garbage" is no more than bluster.

Date reviewed: Mar 1, 2006 11:21 PM

Nickname: captainbob

Review: My company calls it a crackberry, because it's so addictive. I think it's very productive, but another way to intrude on family time, vacations, etc. I hope they all get turned off for about 6 months. I could use the break.

Date reviewed: Mar 1, 2006 3:31 PM

Nickname: moose

Review: This case points out the need for a revised patent application process. The United Nations could maintain the network needed. Moreover, this would add to the security of all new patents. We need a universal international patent house that can register all new novel ideas and designs. Moreover, we need allowances for application designers to file based on existing patents with notice and limited response time given to the existing patent holder. This sort of revised system would allow for better international patent protection while enabling innovation by designers on existing patents.

Date reviewed: Mar 1, 2006 10:19 AM

Nickname: Heather Green

Review: Hi Allan, I wrote the story. So the answer to your question is no. RIM was found guilty at the time that the patents were valid. Remember, they still are valid. They have been overturned in review, but NTP can and says it will appeal to a board within the PTO and then to the federal district court. If all that plays out and the patents are then overturned for good, RIM would still owe damages to NTP for the time that it was held to be infringing on the patents.

Date reviewed: Feb 28, 2006 7:00 PM

Nickname: patent lawyer

Review: The fact that the Patent Office has rejected NTP's patents means nothing. Ultimately, the Patent Office's decision can be appealed to the very same Federal Appeals Court that found at least some of NTP's patents to be not invalid. Also, patent holding companies have been around for a long time, and they are legit. Individual inventors can rarely afford the millions of dollars required to sue someone for patent infringement. Finally, a patent is granted for disclosure of the invention to the public, not for the practicing of the invention. There is no rule that a patent owner must itself practice the invention first before it can sue another for infringement.

Date reviewed: Feb 28, 2006 6:38 PM

Nickname: Kilby

Review: We should not lose sight of the fact that NTP is not a legitimate business enterprise. NTP has, at most, a handful of employees (read: lawyers) and the company's sole mission is to litigate acquired patents and force companies like RIM, which actually contribute to the overall economic well being, into saying "uncle." Should we really have to ponder the question of truthfulness in this case?

Date reviewed: Feb 28, 2006 4:44 PM

Nickname: brk400

Review: How can a judge in his right mind not take into account the rejection of all of NTP's patents?

Date reviewed: Feb 28, 2006 3:51 PM

Nickname: Allan Wing

Review: If all the patents are rejected, can the court verdict be overturned? Or what will happen?

Date reviewed: Feb 28, 2006 3:41 PM