AT&T Tech Support 360
NTP files patent suits against AT&T, Sprint and Verizon
Remember NTP? They're back.
The holding company that brought BlackBerry Nation to its knees in 2006 is once again on the advance, this time filing suit against AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile. The suit was filed last week (PDF) in Richmond, Va., home to the last round of legal tussling between NTP and Research In Motion, maker of the BlackBerry.
Way back in 2002, NTP won a jury verdict that RIM infringed on patents held by the late Thomas Campana for a wireless e-mail system. RIM tried several times to overturn that verdict on appeal but never prevailed, and in March 2006 the companies settled for $612.5 million. The settlement came despite the fact that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued final office actions invalidating most of NTP's patents at issue in the case. NTP is appealing that decision, in a process that could stretch on for years.
News.com Poll
This time around, NTP is going after the wireless carriers. Eight patents are cited, five of which were argued in the RIM litigation. The argument this time seems to be that because hardware makers like RIM and Nokia have licensed the patents in question from NTP, the carriers should have to have a license as well. NTP wants ongoing royalties as well as damages from the carriers.
Craig Merritt, a lawyer with Christian & Barton in Richmond who is representing NTP, did not immediately return a call seeking comment on his client's current thinking with regard to its patents and the wireless carriers.
Campana, who died in 2004, was issued several patents for a wireless e-mail system but never brought a product to market. NTP, the company formed to enforce those patents, has also sued Palm in a case that has been stayed pending the PTO re-examination process.
A call to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office seeking an update on the re-examination process was not immediately returned. Patents are often re-examined at the request of the patent holder as a way of receiving a confirmation that the patents are valid before asserting them at trial. But the PTO and RIM initiated re-examination hearings in 2005 with the belief that the patents in question were invalid. The initial finding of the PTO (called a final office action) was that the patents were invalid because of prior art.
However, that's a preliminary decision. NTP can appeal those decisions to an appeals board at the PTO, and then to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where NTP has prevailed already in the RIM case. And if NTP manages to secure a jury verdict in its favor before the patents are formally invalidated, the wireless carriers would still be on the hook for whatever damages are awarded by the jury.
UPDATED 4:34 p.m.--Brigid Quinn with the PTO called back with an update on the status of the re-examination process. After the office actions were issued, NTP filed responses to each of those actions. Over the last couple of weeks the original PTO examiner who issued the office actions has filed his own responses to NTP on each of the patents in question, and now NTP has two months to submit another reply to the PTO examiner's latest arguments.
After that, it goes to the appeals board, who can either hold a hearing or make a decision based on the filings, Quinn said. The appeals board is made up of a panel of three patent experts who were either former PTO employees or from outside organizations.
Tom Krazit, a staff writer for CNET News, focuses on all things Apple. He has covered traditional PC companies such as Dell and Hewlett-Packard, chip companies such as Intel and Advanced Micro Devices, and mobile computers ranging from Research In Motion's to Palm's. E-mail Tom.
I fear last week's patent reforms did not go far enough to resolve this situation. Then again, with all the attorneys in Washington what should we expect?
the patent system is being abused to the highest extent, it was made to protect peoples inventions from being copied to insure that innovation is respected. Now we have patent firms who do not innovate, and do not actually produce a product. Their needs to be a change; if a company isn't producing a product that uses the patent that their patent rights should become void.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
NTP and SCO both exist as corporations for the express purpose of holding onto patents for things they don't intend to make, so they can sue anyone who makes it. Given that patents are possible for just about any idea what-so-ever, (Gaming company Wizards of the Coast holds a patent for turning a card in play sideways. I kid you not. It's called "tapping," and any Geek over the age of 15 should remember Magic: the Gathering) it is almost inevitable that inventors will inadvertently duplicate existing patents, and not even think it significant enough to research. (Would you look to see if there's a patent on turning cards sideways before publishing a card game?)
SCO's original purpose has long since dissipated; it's profit model, and indeed it's very existence, is to sue users of Linux. NTP is demonstrating it's true purpose as well, to stifle and crush phone technology.
What's worse: we here in the United States are already looking pretty backwards compared to the rest of the world. While Asians and Europeans routinely enjoy broadband phone tech, we're struggling with CDMA vs. GSM format wars, phones locked to networks (the unequivocal main drawback to the iPhone), and limited service penetration. We don't need this, too.
It's incredible. A business model that many would agree is unethical at best, and nobody lifts a finger to stop it.
Charles R. Whealton
For the commenter who defended them by saying what if I'm an inventor and I don't have the resources to make the product should I just stop inventing: totally bogus excuse! Especially bogus if you are patenting very generic or vague ideas. Look at Apple, look at Microsoft, Napster or just about any technology company. They started in dorm rooms and garages and they actually made an effort to go out and seek funding to start a business or sell their ideas to other companies and bring it to fruition in some form. To simply come up with something, patent it and then simply sit on and do nothing with the idea is just stifling innovation. You're not a creator, your a dreamer, you think things up but don't see the entire process through.
It would be a different story if these guys went to RIM or Palm or whatever the case may be up front and early and try to sell it to them or get them to license it, but that's not what is happening. These people/companies are sitting on patents, waiting for another company to do all the real work, develop the business model, develop the technology and once the product is successful, THEN they go after them with a lawsuit. The same rules that apply to branding should apply to patents and intellectual property. It's why Windows went hard and heavy after Lindows and Apple music went after Apple Computer, etc. etc. If they don't actively defend the brand name up front, then they can't make a claim later down the road. These guys wait until there's big money on the table and then go after them.
It is 100% opportunistic and predatory. And in the case of these guys, we're not talking about some poor one man operation who invented something, we're talking about corporations. And again, even for the truly little guys, if you don't make an attempt to take it to market within X reasonable period of time, then too bad. Franklin didn't write up the specs for the light bulb and wait for someone else to create it so he could sue them. He did what he had to do. And in this day and age, you have kids in their teens who create these brilliant ideas and manage to get funding so I don't buy the idea of not having the resources. If you don't have the sales skills then take on a partner. Look at the Woz and Jobs. It's no secret, Woz did most of the creating, he was the real inventor, but Jobs had the business brains and sales appeal.
Look at Gates, and I'm not exactly a MS fan, but while still in college he managed to sell a product he hadn't even created yet and then had to figure out how to do it! if you want to half heartedly create something without seeing it through, then you don't deserve the credit for it. Someone will eventually come up with the same idea and why should they have to pay someone who chose to do nothing with it?
The current system is flawed and as long as the law allows it to stay that way, companies/people will continue to sue because they can win.
Sure, it's better to be a noble man, but would you rather be noble and make a meager salary or be a prick and become rich WITHIN the law....hmmm, I bet most would rather have the big house and a Porsche.
The law needs to change so that the real inventors and innovators don't have to pay the people who had an idea they weren't willing to see through.