- CrackBerry Abuser
- 499 Posts
RIM Issues Statement RE: Patent Dispute
- 07-14-2012, 08:53 PM #7
I know this is an unpopular thought, but has anyone considered the possibility that RIM actually violated the patent and has been rightfully fined? We already know that RIM is not always careful with infringement issues, BBX, anyone? As every business is starting to learn, when it comes to patents, sometimes you get the bear; sometimes the bear gets you.
Still, I must admit to some surprise at this news. Everyone keeps talking about how strong RIM's patent portfolio is. This case seems to destroy that notion completely as this hits RIM right in the center of their wheelhouse. If their patents can't protect them in the area of enterprise, mobile management, then their patents aren't worth spit.
- CrackBerry Genius of Geniuses
07-14-2012, 09:41 PM #10one of these days see me drivin' round town in my rock 'n' rolls Royce with the sun roof down
- 7,935 Posts
my bottle of booze no summertime blues shouting loud look at me in my rock 'n ' roll voice...
- 07-14-2012, 10:28 PM #11
People are really going over the deep end in this thread. Courts and juries aren't infallible but some people are making some crazy generalizations and statements in here.
Not only does is the US media conspiring to bring down RIM but now a California district court is as well. Good grief. Let the appeal run its course before spouting all this conspiracy talk.
Last edited by east; 07-14-2012 at 10:31 PM.
- 07-14-2012, 10:30 PM #12
Last edited by east; 07-14-2012 at 10:35 PM.
- CrackBerry Abuser
07-14-2012, 11:08 PM #13
- 194 Posts
There are no grounds for appeal. Australian scientists from the CSIRO( Commonwealth Scientific Independent Reseearch Organization) invented WiFi but arrogant companies like Microsoft ignored this and paid for it ten years later.
Sent from my BlackBerry 9800 using Tapatalk
- 07-14-2012, 11:17 PM #14
Intellectually property law in the US is a joke. Everyone knows it.
Software patents are the biggest joke because the people approving them know nothing about the state of the art.
The Mnformation suit was filed in 2008 after their patent was granted in 2006. It pertains to remote device management and they're being sued over BES. IT policies have been part of BES since 2000, how is that not prior art?
They're just patent trolls.
And the American legal system isn't some God-like uncorruptible entity.Thanked by:
- 07-15-2012, 12:31 AM #15
Secondly, you have no idea to what extent the issue of prior art was litigated. You're just speaking in terms of generalizations and have no familiarity with the SPECIFIC issues in this suit. You don't think RIM already tried to assert the prior art theory in a dispositive motion (which obviously failed)?
Last edited by east; 07-15-2012 at 12:40 AM.
- 07-15-2012, 07:20 AM #16
Software patents are still a bloody joke. It's about as bad as Samsung being denied the ability to sell their phones and tabs in the US because Apple has patented the shape.
America is going to lose its tech dominance. It's only held up by spit and duct tape right now.
- 07-15-2012, 07:48 AM #18
They were too busy not checking up on the availability of "BBX". Oops.
Look, patent lawsuits are a cost of doing business. RIM has won their share of lawsuits, lost their share and settled plenty of times. NTP was a settlement (which RIM could have settled years before for a lot less money, but decided to fight).
- 07-15-2012, 08:04 AM #20
I'm no legal expert, but I hope they have a better strategy than to try the same, failed arguments with a new set of faces. The new judge will be familiar with the ruling of the old judge. RIM might want to try something different.
I have noticed as of late that the defense of every infringer is prior art. It is like the insanity defense for murder. It is the Hail Mary of legal defenses. You admit that you are infringing on the patent, but the patent holder doesn't have a right to it.
Here is a power tip. Every patent could fall to prior art. There is nothing invented today that someone 100 years ago didn't have a fever dream about, and probably wrote about, told someone about, or drew on a napkin. Prior art has to mean more than that, or there is no patent system at all. By the way, every murderer is technically insane, at least at the time of the murder. Prior art is not a get out of jail free card.
- CrackBerry Abuser
07-15-2012, 08:04 AM #21
- 371 Posts
At the appelate level, there is no jury. I don't know if there is at the superior level for this type of lawsuit. Regardless, knowing that US patent law is seriously flawed, RIM should have been patenting everything.
IBM has a patent for the motion of a laser pointer that makes a fun cat toy. Why? Just so they won't get sued one day for who knows what.
- 07-15-2012, 08:13 AM #22
Prior art implies that the invention in question has been in use for much longer than the patent itself has been around. It's not just a fever dream or a scribble on a napkin. It's a working implementation of the services in question.
6 years in the tech industry might as well be 60 years.
It's a joke of a lawsuit and it's an abuse of your patent system.