[jimbob4321]

while reading the news, this is what i came across.

Cant wait to see these patents in action

RIM, Samsung, among leaders for global innovation, Thomson Reuters reports | Vancouver Sun

[Peritaxis]

WOW 637 patents, RIM? What have you been hiding from the rest of us???

[qbnkelt]

According to the usual suspects, RIM hasn't been doing a thing.

[anon(3896606)]

Better for us! More patents, usually more features!

[Rob Robertson]

Hopefully this is a sign of cool new stuff coming to BB10

[swyost]

Its called patent trolling - everyone is doing it to one degree or another....

[qbnkelt]

So we're going to assume that all these patents are paten trolling and there isn't one single initiative in the lot?

[Economist101]

So we're going to assume that all these patents are paten trolling and there isn't one single initiative in the lot?

That isn't what he claimed. He didn't offer an opinion on the validity of particular patents, and describing the activity as "trolling" doesnt mean the latents are invalid. Instead, I believe he was addressing the act of amassing a large number of patents. I wouldn't describe it as trolling unless the patents were pursued simply to enable offensive litigation, but opinions can differ.

[qbnkelt]

Given the history of the poster, I can infer that the intent and his wording were hardly neutral. Considering that in the entire first page of his post history there are nothing but constant attacks in CB's Blackberry sections, it would be reasonable to infer that the wording, in particular the usage of the phrase "patent trolling," is nothing more than a recurring and predictable tactic. Namely, is to incite and provoke.

[JeepBB]

It would be interesting to know what all those patents addressed.

If they are truely novel it might give clues as to RIM's technological intentions, if on the other hand they are the sort of spoiler patents (beloved of Apple) that seem designed simply to stifle competition and drag someone through the courts, I'd be rather disappointed.

RIM need to innovate and deliver products that people want to buy based on their merits, not because the alternative products have been sued off the shelves.

[Economist101]

Okay, but he/she also didn't single out anyone, and instead suggested the activity was wide spread. Maybe you're right. But if he really is as negative as you describe then you should have plenty of clearly hostile comments to counter, without jumping on the more subdued posts. Not trying to argue, just putting it out there.

[qbnkelt]

Okay, but he/she also didn't single out anyone, and instead suggested the activity was wide spread. Maybe you're right. But if he really is as negative as you describe then you should have plenty of clearly hostile comments to counter, without jumping on the more subdued posts. Not trying to argue, just putting it out there.

I do not visit the forums to counter posters. I come to the forum to read things of interest to me, and if in the course of those readings I find something that I want to address I do so.
I do very often read a poster's past history, to gain perspective. But to then go countering posts hints at amateur vigilantism, which is not something I am keen on.

EDIT: and the post history does speak for itself.

[Economist101]

If they are truely novel it might give clues as to RIM's technological intentions, if on the other hand they are the sort of spoiler patents (beloved of Apple) that seem designed simply to stifle competition and drag someone through the courts, I'd be rather disappointed.

Good point, except for this to be true you'd have to have Apple suing other companies using patents they've yet to use in their own products, which you don't have because it hasn't happened. Why? Because filing suit based on patents granted but not used in products would have the effect of pre-announcing unannounced products.

[sleepngbear]

Hmmmmm ... no, that's not what's called patent trolling. Filing patents is protecting one's investment in one's intellectual property.

Rather than regurgitate the difference between that and patent trolling, let me just say ...

No soup for you.

Next.

[qbnkelt]

Hmmmmm ... no, that's not what's called patent trolling. Filing patents is protecting one's investment in one's intellectual property.

Rather than regurgitate the difference between that and patent trolling, let me just say ...

No soup for you.

Next.

Click to view quoted image

OK, that was cute!!!!

[hurds]

RIM definitely isn't a/the company that seems to be in courts battling patents right now, although after seeing some products out there I can understand why some companies would. I wonder how many patents you could add to RIMs total with their acquisition of paratek. Things like this show how hard RIM is working to innovate and differentiate.

[JeepBB]

Good point, except for this to be true you'd have to have Apple suing other companies using patents they've yet to use in their own products, which you don't have because it hasn't happened. Why? Because filing suit based on patents granted but not used in products would have the effect of pre-announcing unannounced products.

Yes... I see the dangers of revealing your (future) hand by being too agressive with the patent suits, but I was thinking of organisations patenting things like "arrangement of icons on the screen in a grid" (Nokia?), and then suing a competitor because their home screen is organised rather than being a stupidly random arrangement of icons!

And I vaguely recall the Apple/Samsung spat in Europe recently, that seeemed to boil down to Samsung losing because their tablet wasn't ugly LOL - it had infringed some aspect of the iPad design in being a black rectangular form with curved corners or something equally ludicrous.

[anon(757282)]

Rather than trolling, many companies are amassing the patents in a Defensive move to avoid or successfully defend future challenges. Even if they own the technology and patent they may be more liberal about others using the technolovy. In contrast to Apple that sues frequently, for frivolous reasons like a tablet looking rectangular, with a screen, or the use of a button or gesture. Imagine the impact on the television industry if shape, size, crontrol, and presence of a bezel or screen was allowed to be patented for current flat screens.

[Economist101]

Rather than trolling, many companies are amassing the patents in a Defensive move to avoid or successfully defend future challenges. Even if they own the technology and patent they may be more liberal about others using the technolovy. In contrast to Apple that sues frequently, for frivolous reasons like a tablet looking rectangular, with a screen, or the use of a button or gesture. Imagine the impact on the television industry if shape, size, crontrol, and presence of a bezel or screen was allowed to be patented for current flat screens.

Factually incorrect. The "look and feel" suit you describe goes well beyond the device being "rectangular" or having a bezel, and anyone who has really examined the litigation knows that. They also know that the "look and feel" litigation isn't based on patents, and is instead based on the claim that Samsung went out of its way to make Android look like iOS (in its stock form, Android looks nothing like iOS) while also duping the hardware in a bid to confuse customers.

As for your TV analogy, that's a horrific example, in part because Apple hasn't asserted any patent on the overall design of the iPad.

[VerryBestr]

It would be interesting to know what all those patents addressed. ...

A recent article said that many of RIM's patents concern "user interface, input recognition, and wireless communications" -- for tablets, and as simu31 remarked in the thread, probably equally applicable to phones:

| http://forums.crackberry.com/blackbe...ook-if-703614/

RIM definitely isn't a/the company that seems to be in courts battling patents right now ...

Filing lawsuits against other companies, you mean. In RIM's last quarterly report, its listing of patent lawsuits in which RIM is the defendant runs from p. 35 through p. 45. As Brianflys said, companies build up patent portfolios as defensive moves, too.

[hurds]

Filing lawsuits against other companies, you mean. In RIM's last quarterly report, its listing of patent lawsuits in which RIM is the defendant runs from p. 35 through p. 45. As Brianflys said, companies build up patent portfolios as defensive moves, too.

Agreed, they aren't the plaintiffs. Purchasing a company like paratek though seems to bring patents that are innovative and provide differentiation.

[DenverRalphy]

I take a lot of patent announcements with a grain of salt. The article in the OP doesn't provide much (if any) information. So I'd have to reserve judgement either way.

Unfortunately, the mobile industry (and the tech industry as a whole) worldwide is in a horrible situation as pertains to patents. Especially patents based around IP. There are far too many patents being granted which would better fall under copyright. Unfortunately, a computing platform that can accomplish similar results with different code is hard to argue under copyright, so the defacto standard has been an attempt to patent vs copyright.

Back in the days of the Microsoft/Mac wars, there were huge battles over copyright. Neither side could ever win the argument because there was an inherent flaw. Two wholly different methods of authoring a function could achieve the same result in software. So the battle of intellectual property began. Despite the point that computers were designed to be able to do exactly what a software programmer wished it to do... software developers got angry when another developer would accomplish the same results.

Where do you draw the line? That's a difficult argument. Sometimes it seems to be a no-brainer in theory, but difficult in court.

Take for example the patent over making a link out of a phone number or address on a computing platform. One smartphone manufacturer owns the patent over the simple concept of a clickable link being made of a phone number or address being in the body of a text message you receive from another person. Should this be patentable? Should it be copyrighted based on the code that accomplishes it? Or should it be considered a simple byproduct of any computer based on consumer demand?

Should the concept of a physical keyboard that is designed for input with thumbs be patentable? Despite the point that opposable thumbs is one of the key factors in human evolution and reasonably expected by anybody in the human race?

Should a method of parsing normal human input for reliable search results easily comprehendable by the self-same humans be patentable?

Imagine for a moment a few ideas in the past that could have been patented in the past should somebody decide to claim Intellectual Property and have the rights to patent them... Reading from left to right vs right to left, or up/down. Lefty Loosey, Righty Tighty. Singsong or Mnemonic Recall. Unit of measurements. Organized methods of traffic signals and direction. Sure these examples seem extreme and stupid. But 50 years from now, a lot of what's being disputed over patents today will seem stupid in the future too.

Seriously... a patent over the rectangular shape of a mobile device which provides occulatory input to its user? For as long as humans can recall, reading has always been on rectangular shaped devices. What are competitors expected to do? Create the Pyramid display? (shout out to The Office)

Okay... this rant may or may not apply to the OP, but the subject of patents has stuck in my craw over the past couple of years... so I had to vent.

[sleepngbear]

837 patents, 2nd most in North America last year ... agree with the system or not, that's some kinda salt shaker.

[missing_K-W]

Lol...RIM has spent more on R&D in the past two years then Apple. Expect big things from RIM....I certainly am

[anon(757282)]

Factually incorrect. The "look and feel" suit you describe goes well beyond the device being "rectangular" or having a bezel, and anyone who has really examined the litigation knows that. They also know that the "look and feel" litigation isn't based on patents, and is instead based on the claim that Samsung went out of its way to make Android look like iOS (in its stock form, Android looks nothing like iOS) while also duping the hardware in a bid to confuse customers.

As for your TV analogy, that's a horrific example, in part because Apple hasn't asserted any patent on the overall design of the iPad.

I am correct. The fact is that Apple sues based on frivolous patents. RIM has had screens full of icons for apps since the first device I was issued, 7900 or something like that. Apple has no basis for their patents. The Patent Office is an example of incompetent government and Apple is capitalizing on it. Smug retorts do not change those facts.