% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

BlackBerry Limited Message Board

  • besser_99 besser_99 Nov 28, 2005 10:59 AM Flag

    Supreme court and congress will help

    Supreme Court to Hear EBay Appeal
    Monday November 28, 10:43 am ET
    Supreme Court Will Weigh EBay's Appeal in Case of Unpaid Licensing Fees From Online Sale

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court said Monday it will take a patent case involving eBay Inc. and a small Virginia business.
    A federal appeals court had said that eBay's fixed-price auctions and some of its online payment methods violated a patent obtained by MercExchange in Great Falls, Va. A judge had ordered eBay to pay $29.5 million in lost licensing fees and damages.

    The Supreme Court will hear eBay's appeal next spring. Meanwhile, a bill in Congress, inspired in part by this case, would make it harder for patent-holders to get court orders to stop the sale of products that potentially infringe on their patents.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • " two flicks of a fuck", good stuff lakeman. Say, would you mine if I use that line sometimes...or have you got it copyrighted?...or is it trademarked? surely it's not patented it right? :)

    • Awful post.
      Today must be extra monotonous.

    • <<<If you investing based on people saying on a public message board that it's all 'proven', then you deserve to suffer the consequences.>>

      Sorry to burst your bubble, I am way ahead of the game. Thank you! FYI, I took position on RIMM each time it was halted and it has already made me money.

      I thought about the predicament of catching a falling knife but this is not the case with RIMM. I have done my own DD elsewhere. To break the monotony of the day I would interject when I think a relevant issue needs to be addressed.

      I would try to instigate some discussions once in a while especially when other posters resort to name calling and would post some ridiculous comments with no basis.

      Mind you, I have personally read the article from Ebays' news. I am no authority on patents hence, I thought the article, which was posted on this board is a better thread of discussion. Of course, I don't swallow all hook, line, and sinker!

      NOw, what does that tell you when the U.S. gov't had also stepped forward to make certain that service should not get disrupted as a result of an injunction.

      Face it, we are now talking about the government's involvement here. Duh!?!

      And, yes, the battle between NTP and Rimm has clearly implicate Business International law and therefore, an amicable resolution will be uphold. IMO.

      On the other hand,RIMM has been preparing for some kind of a "work around" to maintain service. And, this is not hearsay.

      I find it noble for a company to issue a precautiounary statement regarding a 3% down on the revised upbeat range on the numbers of new subscribers versus a previously announced estimate on the lower range of numbers for new subscribers. Against this backdrop, RIMM has agressively pursued a stance to sign up new subscribers in Europe. Truly amazing! How about the other continents, like Asia, Australia, South America and Africa? Think about this seriously!

      Come to think of it, RIMM's choice on December 21st to report its financials could be its ploy to reward shareholders for good tidings during the holiday season. What a perfect Christmas gift! JMHO! Cheers!!!!

    • I hold patents, I understand the process very well and the differences with copyrights. I will not be lectured by you just because I chose an anology of real property to describe to the unware and uneducated how to view a patent.

      The analogy of real property is often used in the education of patent agents and attorneys.

      As far as any stupid reference to copyright issues, it is irrelevant to what is going to happen to RIMM. Some think that since NTP did not manufacture a device for push email, they should get no compensation. Posters that think are simply wrong. If I choose to explain how wrong they are using a composer's music and someone else playing it, I don't give two flicks of a fuck if it is an example in the copyright arena because that's not the point. The point is royalties and RIMM is going to suffer because they did not get that point.


    • amusedbylackofknowledgehere amusedbylackofknowledgehere Nov 28, 2005 3:59 PM Flag

      You won't find anything in the statutes about "working" a patent because there is no working requirement. Here's a quote from a Fed. Cir. decision (RITE-HITE CORPORATION v. KELLEY COMPANY, INC, 56 F.3d 1538; 35 U.S.P.Q.2D 1065 (Fed. Cir. 1995) on that issue though:

      "Kelley further asserts that, as a policy matter, inventors should be encouraged by the law to practice their inventions. This is not a meaningful or persuasive argument, at least in this context. A patent is granted in ex-change for a patentee's disclosure of an invention, not for the patentee's use of the invention. There is no requirement in this country that a patentee make, use, or sell its patented invention. See Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405, 424-30, 52 L. Ed. 1122, 28 S. Ct. 748 (1908) (irrespective of a patentee's own use of its patented invention, it may enforce its rights under the patent)."

    • Lake, learn the difference between patents copyrights and trademarks�..

      A patent for an invention is a grant of a property right by the Government to the inventor (or his or her heirs or assigns), acting through the Patent and Trademark Office. The term of the patent shall be 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, if the application contains a specific reference to an earlier filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c), from the date the earliest such application was filed, subject to the payment of maintenance fees. The right conferred by the patent grant extends only throughout the United States and its territories and possessions.

      The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, �the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling� the invention in the United States or �importing� the invention into the United States. What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention. Most of the statements in the preceding paragraphs will be explained in greater detail in later sections.

      Some persons occasionally confuse patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Although there may be some resemblance in the rights of these three kinds of intellectual property, they are different and serve different purposes.

      A copyright protects the writings of an author against copying. Literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works are included within the protection of the copyright law, which in some instances also confers performing and recording rights. The copyright protects the form of expression rather than to the subject matter of the writing. A description of a machine could be copyrighted as a writing, but this would only prevent others from copying the description; it would not prevent others from writing a description of their own or from making and using the machine. Copyrights are registered in the Copyright Office in the Library of Congress�..

      A trademark or servicemark relates to any word, name, symbol or device which is used in trade with goods or services to indicate the source or origin of the goods or services and to distinguish them from the goods or services of others. Trademark rights may be used to prevent others from using a confusingly similar mark but not to prevent others from making the same goods or from selling them under a non-confusing mark. Similar rights may be acquired in marks used in the sale or advertising of services (service marks). Trademarks and service marks which are used in interstate or foreign commerce may be registered in the Patent and Trademark Office...

    • This one is even better

      "The specification shall contain a written description of the invention..........and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention."

    • Thanks,tug. I will look at it.


      There is nothing found (so far) that requires an item to be manufactured, only a drawing and a fee.

    • A patent is a claim to property.

      If I survey a piece of property and submit a drawing based on the survey, and then I make a claim to the property, then the USPTO is required to ensure my claim in not infringing on neigboring properties.

      But nowhere is there a requirement that I fence my property in the sense that I manufacture a real boundary.

      So the USPTO will require a paper and likely one that is drawn up by a professional such as a patent attorney. They will not require a physical object.


    • View More Messages
7.86-0.08(-1.01%)Dec 1 4:00 PMEST