Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications Patents Wireless Networking Government Hardware Politics

Governments Take Sides In Blackberry Patent Suit 311

Posted by timothy from the please-don't-call-it-a-free-market dept.
geekboy_x writes "The recent court decision giving NTP a big chunk of Research In Motion's Blackberry profits has attracted an unusal participant - the government of Canada. The original ruling, where RIM was judged to have violated 5 of NTP's patents, has now been stayed pending appeal, and the Canadian government has filed a motion in the U.S. court to request a full re-hearing. At stake is not only money, but the rights to sell and service any Blackberry-like product."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Governments Take Sides In Blackberry Patent Suit More

Governments Take Sides In Blackberry Patent Suit

Comments Filter:

  • Canadian Government... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Caydel ( 851013 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @01:51PM (#11410814) Homepage
    Obviously the Canadian government has an interest in this, as it is one of the leading canadian technologies; however, this seems to be quite a large step for them. They usually seem to pussyfoot around such issues, especially when dealing with the US...

    • Re:Canadian Government... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rborek ( 563153 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @01:56PM (#11410899)
      The issue isn't with RIM per se, but the fact that the US courts are trying to apply US patent laws to systems physically located in Canada - which should fall under Canadian patent law. If the US courts uphold this, it will present a huge barrier to Canadian (or for that matter, any other countries) companies entering the US in any way (including sales and support to US companies from Canada), as a US company that holds a patent will be able to sue the Canadian company for using their patent in Canada to supply technology, services, etc. to US entities.

      • Re:Canadian Government... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mzwaterski ( 802371 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @02:50PM (#11411617)
        I don't see how you could have this fall any other way. Lets assume for the sake of discussion that NTP does own these patents and that the Blackberry does infringe them. Why should a company from Canada be able to come to the US and start selling a product that is infringing a US patent. The minute their products crossed the border, they became subject to US laws. Of course, they are free to make and sell what they want in Canada, and this lawsuit does not interfere with that. In fact, as the article points out "In August 2003, a U.S. court awarded NTP $53.7 million in damages and an 8.6 per cent royalty on all the revenue from U.S. BlackBerry sales." I.E. none of the sales in Canada are at issue.

        I guess I don't see how this could fall any other way. Think about what would happen if international companies were allowed to make an infringing product then ship it across the border and start selling it. Why should I invent something if I could just move to Canada, wait for someone else to invent it and perfect it, then copy their idea and start selling it myself. Heck, while I'm at it I will even use their name and logo.

        • People whining about extraterritoriality can keep their products out of the United States. This isn't a WTO decision, but you can bet that this may yet be escalated to that level anyway.
      • Actually, this is not even an issue in this case nor is this the revolutionary concept you make it out to be. RIM is a Canadian company, true, but they operate in the US, sell their (allegedly) infringing devices and services in the US, and activelly promote the majority of their business activity to US consumers. Therefore, they are subject to US laws in connection with their activities in the US.

        US Courts enforce US patent laws against foreign companies (and vice versa) every day and this has been goin

      • Re:Canadian Government... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Kwil ( 53679 )
        No, they're trying to apply US patent laws to items that are being sold in the US.

        As a Canadian, I think the Canadian government is wrong to step in here. NTP, as much as they're bad for the industry in general, have the legal point.

        What really needs to be looked at is the patent system itself. Submarine patents need to be abolished. Patents need to be granted on a pass/fail system. They either get through the first time, or they get rejected. If they get rejected, then a new application is required, with

    • Re:Canadian Government... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by srw ( 38421 ) *
      We usually pussyfoot around, but there are more and more of us at many levels that are getting quite pissed off with the US government's economic policies towards Canada. Read about softwood lumber, cattle (please don't say it's about BSE. It's incredibly clear by now it has nothing to do with BSE.), fishing issues (google for Jesse Ventura's comments on this), "offshoring" of jobs to Canada, and on and on.

      Free trade my ass.

    • The Canadian Government pussyfoots when dealing with the BC softwood lumber issue, for example. However, RIM is based in Ontario, hence the non-pussyfooting.

      It is indeed good to be based in Central Canada.

      • Re:Canadian Government... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @03:21PM (#11412014) Journal
        Well, the Yankees are right spooked now about the removal of tarriffs (which is all but inevitable, though it will probably be at least a year). You see, while US government has allowed American sawmills to continue in their inefficient and outdated ways, the tarriffs basically culled all the weaker outfits in BC, leaving only the companies with the highest efficiency. Darwinian mechanics takes over now. If that tarriff is removed, those coddled American lumber companies are going to be deader than a doornail in a decade.

        This is why protectionism is ultimately detrimental to those industries that a government seeks to protect. Unfortunately the average voter in a lumber-producing region in the US is largely ignorant of this basic principle, and politicians and lumber company executives are quite happy to milk voter stupidity for short-term gain.

        The other side of this coin (as with Bush's protectionist steel policy towards the EU) is that the American consumer gets hit with higher prices on raw materials driving up commercial goods. Whether it's an automobile or a new house, it's all the poor joes at the manufacturing plants, distributors, sales outfits and the poor slob that's paying for the goods that get nailed. Of course, all these guys probably live in the wrong state, so that's okay.

        Don't worry American consumer, us Canucks will save you. When those tarriffs are lifted, those greedy short sighted goons in the Commerce Department and in the lumber companies are going to be run over by trucks bring BC 2x4s across the border.
    • this seems to be quite a large step for them. They usually seem to pussyfoot around such issues, especially when dealing with the US...

      Such as in dealing with Cuba...

  • How close are Matrin and RIM? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by spikexyz ( 403776 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @01:56PM (#11410887)
    I shook Paul Martin's (Prime Minster of Canada) hand outside the RIM headquaters in Waterloo this past summer during the election. I wonder how close of a relationship Mr. Martin has with RIM and how this played into the Canadian government's decision to get involved.
    • I can't speak on the Prime Minister, but my cousin is a top aide to the Minister of National Revenue. He (my cousin) carries his Blackberry everywhere he goes, and says that the things are ubiquitous in the upper echelons of the federal government these days.

      Accordingly, methinks the federal government is involved in this case as much out of self-interest as about helping out a Canadian tech firm.

      • Re:How close are Matrin and RIM? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by kaladorn ( 514293 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @03:07PM (#11411836) Homepage Journal
        I think that's entirely wrongheaded. Take off your tinfoil hat for a minute. CBC had some good coverage of this issue last night.

        The issue here is that the US court is trying to apply an outrageous scope to their own IP law - well beyond their borders onto systems physically present and using technology developed in Canada. This violates a number of traditions in the legal area (perhaps even aggreements or laws, but I'm a bit vague her) that say essentially that if something resides in your country, your own IP law applies. The US judge has made a decision which extends US IP law into Canadian space.

        The Canadian government is thus getting involved as a matter of national sovereignty and to forestall a whole whack of these. And to protect Canadian business interests from this ridiculous decision - it would effectively open up a whack of Canadian businesses to suits under a vastly changed understanding of how IP law is supposed to work and it would infringe Canada's sovereignty to have its own laws that differ from those that operate within our southern neighbour.

        This is perfectly well a matter of Canadian government legal, political and economic interest. It has nothing to do with RIM particularly, they just happen to be the test case. This is about a US court that is letting itself exceed its domain and pass judgements with wide ranging ramifications that reach into other countries.

        I think the simple logic that the US should be applying here is this: If it would piss us off if someone did it, maybe we should think twice before we do it to someone else.

        The might makes right argument has been responsible for any number of horrors over the years. Last time I checked, the US is supposed to stand for liberalized trade, free enterprise, fairness, etc. This judgement is about trying to inflict the laws of nation A on nation B in contravention of the historical process and in an unfair manner.

        I'm not confident it will be struck down - IP laws which original protected and fostered innovation and artists now throttle them and quash innovation through prodigious if questionable litigations. The US court in question has been passing wide ranging decisions which seem to strengthen the IP laws rather than pruning them back to foster the innovation they were originally meant to foster. So it may well be that this (to my mind) ridiculous decision stands.

        But this, for once, is an example of the Canadian government standing up and doing something *where and when it should* though perhaps getting involved earlier might have been useful. Still, they may not have expected such a wide ranging ruling and the precedents it set, so perhaps that isn't even a fair criticism.

    • RIM was started by two guys from the Kit/Woo area (Kitchener-Watreloo). Paul Martin is from the Maritimes and comes from a very priviledged shipping background.

      Maybe he was outside their offices because RIM is a great Canadian success story, both in terms of profit and of philanthropy?

      For the latter, I lead you to the Perimiter Institute [perimeterinstitute.com], Canada's premier think-tank for foundational theoretical physics. Which was entirely started and paid-for by the two RIM guys. In essence, it's a place for brilliant sci

  • Blackberry-like product (Score:4, Interesting)

    by spiritraveller ( 641174 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @01:56PM (#11410896)
    Um, how is the Blackberry different from any other PDA/mobile phone combination that accesses email? Pardon me, but I've never used one.

    • Re:Blackberry-like product (Score:5, Insightful)

      by youngerpants ( 255314 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @01:58PM (#11410926)
      Just beat me to the obvious point. Ever since mobile/ cell phones have had the abiolity to connect to POP3, I have had a "Blackberry-Like" product.

      Perhaps Nokia should get litigous on RIM?

      • Re:Blackberry-like product (Score:5, Informative)

        by deadsquid ( 535515 ) <(asx) (at) (deadsquid.com)> on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @02:09PM (#11411079) Homepage
        It's more about the proxy/relay services on the back end which allow the devices to synch up securely (I know, I know, don't berate me for the inclusion of that word) with corporate messaging systems (like Exchange) without the need for a TCP/IP stack on the device or relying on traditional protocols such as IMAP and/or POP.

        They also synch more than just email. Calendaring and contact info can by synchronized wirelessly using the BES (Blackberry Enterprise Server) software and Exchange. It's not just simple email, and the systems RIM uses to provide the services through carriers and corps is a little more involved than just mail access protocols.

    • Re:Blackberry-like product (Score:5, Informative)

      by JWG ( 665579 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @02:05PM (#11411018)
      If I am not mistaken (and I frequently am) the patent at the centre of this is about how the Blackberry uses the cellphone network to access mail, etc. Although a Blackberry uses the cell phone system to check email constantly, it uses a different communication protocol than what a regular cell phone does, and accesses a different type of communication system from that point on. It is somewhere in between there where the patent at issue rests. Someone, somewhere, at some time dreamed this idea up in the States, got a patent for it (although they never actually made anything) and then formed a company whose sole purpose was litigate to generate revenue, meanwhile, in Canada at roughly a the same time, RIM developed this into a working idea first, then started patenting it.
      • Yes, you're getting close. I've worked somewhat with RIM devices and there's some notable differences between them and other email-enabled cell phones / PDAs.

        First of all, the phone does not poll the email server or anything like that to check for email. An organization using Blackberries for email would normally have a BES (Blackberry Enterprise Server) that will actually push out the email to the device.

        Other features this enables is calendar sync, meeting requests, access to the company's intranet etc.
        • RIM does use the cell phone network as a communication platform between the BES and the units. And the key, as you mentioned, is that the server "pushes" to the unit to inform the user of any new information (such as a new email had arrived).
          • I know they use the cell network, but they have another layer there. I believe they have ~10 master servers (unclear on the exact number, but I remember dealing with issues related to these) that communicate with the BBs. This allows you to say, call up RIM and get them to disable a blackberry if it is stolen, etc.
        • Yes, I think this is the 'technical issue'. The reason the Canadian Government is involved has more to do with the fact that the servers and back end services that make this all work reside in Canada. So attempting to go after RIM in this particular means attempting to apply the associated patents etc. across the border into someone else's country. That's what has the Canadian government involving itself.
    • Can your PDA access an exchange server? Blackberry's can.

  • Gods (Score:2, Funny)

    by kneecarrot ( 646291 )
    I am from the small city of Waterloo, Canada (population 70000 people) where RIM has its headquarters. Let me tell you that they are incredibly important to this city. It's basically become an institution. The city has paid for the entire parking lot and street where RIM is located to be fitted with heating pipes so that there is never snow on the road. There is a city-wide holiday every October to commemorate the founding of the company. Everyone has the day off and there is a parade that ends in the

    • Re:Gods (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by ahsile ( 187881 )
      Woah. I used to live in KW too, you know. Took that a little far didn't you? You went from reality to la-la land when you confused Oktoberfest with a celebration of RIM...

    • Re:Gods (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GoofyBoy ( 44399 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @02:04PM (#11411008) Journal
      >and pride of Canadian citizens is difficult to overstate.

      1. This happens to any local economy, not just RIM/Waterloo. For example; Hamilton/Stelco, GM+Ford/Detroit, Big Government/Washington DC, Inco(?)/Sudbury.

      2. The "pride of Canadian citizens" are not wrapped up in this. Do you have pride in what happens to B.C. softwood lumber?
      • Do you have pride in what happens to B.C. softwood lumber?
        Absolutely. Every time I get a splinter I always salute and sing B.C.'s anthem - "Dance of the Whale and Bear".
      • Answer to 2:
        Yes damnit. I also care and have pride in what happens to the CWB (Canadian Wheat Board), our cattle producers, and Bombardier's operations.
      • I feel all special that you mentionned my hometown and its massive mining operations that made my house shake a little every night at midnight for years.

    • Re:Gods (Score:3, Informative)

      by drunkennewfiemidget ( 712572 )
      I just moved from Waterloo in the last few months, and I was raised there most of my life. My ex-gf works there, and she's still a good friend. You couldn't be further from the truth. (I sincerely hope you have tongue in cheek on this one.)

      #1: Population of Waterloo in the last few years has grown. It exceeds 100,000.

      #2: There are no pipes ensuring there's no snow on the roads RIM's offices are on. I've driven to and from there dropping my ex-gf off hundreds of times. Those roads get mighty bad just

      • Re:Gods (Score:3, Funny)

        by kneecarrot ( 646291 )
        I was born and raised in Waterloo. Trust me, every last word of that post is true. Well, not counting the stuff about RIM. Although, one time, during Oktoberfest, I saw a really drunk guy waving his Blackberry around. It was definitely celebratory.
    • They also have an office in Ottawa, out in Bells Corners, across from the Shoppers Drugmart & Loeb Grocery; and next to a Pizza Pizza, Beer Store and LCBO...It's a wonder if the workers there ever go home?

      ttyl
      Farrell

    • Re:Gods (Score:2, Interesting)

      by TDot ( 621879 )
      Pfft. I'm from Waterloo and i've lived here the last 5 years, and most of that is news to me. It's certainly the biggest corporate entity, but in no way would waterloo tank if RIM did. There are so many other companies here, from small to big (IBM/Microsoft/Sybase). Besides, it's as much as a university town as it is a tech-town: the schools aren't going to wither and die if RIM does.

      IMHO companies are beating up on RIM because they are convinced RIM is the biggest threat, not because they are Canadian, bu

    • Jealous (Score:2, Redundant)

      by nuggz ( 69912 )
      You're just jealous that you can't get a RIM-job.
    • The City named a huge tourist attraction after RIM. It's called RIM park! Go there if you ever want to get rimmed^h^h^h^h^h^h nevermind...

      RIM park is a huge attraction because of how it was put together. (With pure money... Really!)

      The RIM park modelling idea:
      The City should patent it's RIM park modelling idea and make millions to pay for the park.

      Kneecarrot is right about the streets, only it's done by satellite with microwaves. It was a side effect of all the PDA's sending signals to the RIM head qua

  • good (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ashpool7 ( 18172 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @02:00PM (#11410954) Homepage Journal
    I really don't care who is motivated by what in this case, but NTP is nothing but a holding company on some BS patents [slashdot.org] for stuff that already exists but "with RF" tacked on.

    If it means throwing out bogus patents, I'd like to see a good explanation if anybody thinks that's a bad idea.

  • Patent holding business (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mszeto ( 133525 ) <mszeto@@@scompton...ca> on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @02:03PM (#11410984)
    I find the 'patent holding company' to be very counterproductive. Patents should be owned by companies creating products, like they were originally intended. Companies like NTP (correct me if i'm wrong) are made solely to find other companies to sue due to infringement. The company doesn't actually DO anything other than sue other companies right?

    I'm glad Canada is stepping and saying "this sucks." Though I'm a diehard palm user, it would be a shame to see a company lose a significant chunk of their profits to a bullshit company like NTP.
    • The company doesn't actually DO anything other than sue other companies right?

      I'm sure they'd be happy to accept license fees in exchange for not being sued. But basically, yeah, they do nothing but bludgeon people with patents.
      • I think building a prototype should be a requirement for finalizing a patent, in any system. Ok, so you have a concept. Apply for the patent, pending proof that it actually works. Get it to work, and your patent is then approved. Fail to get it to work within a given time period and you lose that patent application and have to start it again. I can think up thousands of ideas a day (exadurated, but you get the point), but if I never produce anything and just get patents for what I come up with, I violate th
        • This is a great idea, but the danger is that if you don't have the resources to complete the prototype in time, someone with greater resources could easily steal your idea. But you're certainly thinking along the right lines.

          Perhaps a patent might be granted, but for a shorter period of time unless a working model can be produced, at which time an extension to the patent can be granted.

          The other significant problem with patents, imho, is that the terms are too long. Shortening them to 5 - 12 years would b
    • >The company doesn't actually DO anything other than sue other companies right?

      Lawyers do the same thing too.

      Its a company that does something to provide a service. Just because you don't like what they do or think they should be making money for it, doesn't mean that they shouldn't exist.

      I don't like the music a record company produces, in fact I hate it. Should they not exist?
      • Hmm, you make it sound like something existing is strictly some sort of Darwinian thing and we'd be snuffing out all lawyers or all IP lawyers if we made any changes to current IP law.

        Let us take the other side of the coin: IP law has been getting more teeth, patents and copyrights have been extending in scope and duration, over the last 20-30 years most notably. Is this right?

        This whole 'buy a patent, sue everyone else' and 'failure to acknowledge spontaneous creation/first past the patent post' system a
    • You have no point.

      Patents should be owned by companies creating products, like they were originally intended.

      What if the best way for those creators to get their $$ is to sell the patent? NTP pays inventors for their creations. It's like saying that publishers owning rights to books is bad, so authors shouldn't be able to sell their rights.

      The fucked jam here is that patents can be submarined for years until someone else develops your product profitably, and then you can sue them bowlegged. It doesn't matt

      • Its a company that does something to provide a service. Just because you don't like what they do or think they should be making money for it, doesn't mean that they shouldn't exist.

        See I think this patent model is a flawed model - all this company does is buy up patents that they think they can apply to current companies and leech from their profits.

        The fucked jam here is that patents can be submarined for years until someone else develops your product profitably, and then you can sue them bowlegged. I
      • They could sell it to a company that actually produces something. NTP does nothing, they just barter in rights.

        Actually, you're onto something there. Why should the IP system allow for the full rights to an invention or book or whatever to be sold? Someone can make license agreements to whoever without transferring ownership of the IP, so that the hold on the invention/book/song exsits only as long as it's creator does.

        That one change to IP law would allow people who create/do things to continue to have an

        • If only. It would also harm the creators, because they would have less to sell.

          This is not an arguable point. Sure, I don't think that IP creators deserve all the monopoly rights we grant them, but there's no way to describe your proposal except as a reduction in the cash value of their work.
      • Hey Elwood,

        I think the way to go would be to require companies like NTP to actually develop a working prototype of their system within a certain amount of time or lose the patent, either starting from the application, granting, or purchasing of the patent.

        The hoped for result would be to lessen submarine patents, and to actually advance the technology. It would mean that a patent holding company would need to risk more than just money for the patent. They would need to invest time and effort to bring the
        • It would mean that a patent holding company would need to risk more than just money for the patent.

          Heh. No such thing as "more than money" for a company. You are simply saying that they would have to risk _more money_. Whatever. Neither of us are patent lawyers. We have no idea what would actually clean up the system.

  • Would it have killed you to explain you were referring to the BlackBerry wireless platform [blackberry.com] or to at least add a link to RIM (Research in Motion) [rim.net]? With all the patent related news about Monsanto lately some people might actually think you were referring to actual blackberries, the fruit.

  • live by the sword, die by the sword (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Doktor Memory ( 237313 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @02:04PM (#11411014) Journal
    This would be the same Research In Motion that tried to gouge Palm and HandSpring for patent licensing fees on the idea of a PDA with a keyboard, right?

    Imagine my total lack of sympathy.
    • Yup, the same company that came out and made mini-keyboard PDA's popular. Back in 2000 timeframe, RIM's were quite innovative with user interface designs (thumb kb/scroll wheel) when PDAs from Palm, etc.. were still limited to klunky detachable keyboards.

      Are there reasons to hate RIM as much as NTP? That's your own call, but personally I think RIM made a positive step in the industry whereas NTP has contributed what exactly to the advencement of middleware systems?? Nothing? Patent lawsuits? Well there you
    • "This would be the same Research In Motion that tried to gouge Palm and HandSpring for patent licensing fees on the idea of a PDA with a keyboard, right?"

      Not so much the idea of a PDA with a keyboard, but the specific design of such keyboard. A look and feel (and function) lawsuit. Blackberry's keyboard design includes keys on each half slanted down toward the center creating a wider surface perpendicular to the direction of the thumb - assuming a two-thumb tapping style. That's their patented innovati

  • Does this argument wipe out all network patents? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @02:07PM (#11411049)
    "RIM argued that because parts of the alleged infringement occurred on its relay and routing system that is based in Canada, U.S. patent law should not apply."

    Does this mean anyone who runs on a foreign server is exempt from the patents of other contries? How could any netowrk related patents be enforced? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
  • Does my alphanumeric pager violate?
  • call me crazy, call me overreacting, call me clairvoyant, but i forsee a U.S.-Canada war coming. this could be the big one, folks!
  • There is an irony here.

    RIM was the first out the gate with patent lawsuits against just about everyone. (Palm, Handspring, even MS etc). For a company that tried to shut down its competitors using patent litigation, there is a certain irony here. A taste of their own medicene perhaps?


  • RIM is about our only unstained big high tech company left.

    Corel, Nortel, ATI.
    They all turned out to be crooked or run by crooks (the ATI case is still before the OSC, but they sure sound guilty).

    I guess we aren't really as much different from the Americans as we though.

    Well, at least it wasn't us that made Conrad Black into a Lord. That must have been pretty embarrasing for the Brits. We just let him set the editorial direction of our media.

    Is RIM crooked? Or are the RIM founders decent people?

  • Blackberry (Score:3, Interesting)

    by spyd4r ( 769980 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @03:08PM (#11411854)
    I work for Research In Motion, and this whole lawsuit is a joke, this NTP company is a pathetic corporation that just hold patents trying to land big settlements.. they should just go f^&k off and die.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Being against torture ought to be sort of a multipartisan thing." -- Karl Lehenbauer, as amended by Jeff Daiell, a Libertarian

Close