It's a rudimentary early stage drawing showing how two pagers can connect, brilliant workaround imho.
Thanks for the link about Spencer.
Great - Spencer is a guy with a chip on his shoulder, who studied divinity, and then practised law as a criminal prosecuting attorney who sees his mission in life to be punishing wrongdoers.
Why is this guy hearing patent cases?
It's not really the written law I disagree with so much as how the courts are applying the law and exercising the discretions the written law gives them. That is what the eBay case at the US Supreme Court is all about: how should the Courts be exercising the discretion. If you needed a change in the written law then they would have to go to Congress.
Whether you or I, or anyone hear agrees with the CURRENT laws on the books is immaterial to this case. It does not change the fact that RIMM knew the US Patent Laws (fair or not) existed and that they knew more than a decade ago that NTP wanted to enforce its patent rights.
RIMM management would have served their shareholders much better by licensing back then on receipt of the original notice.
If "society" doesn't like the laws, change them. End of story. If I had my ruthers.... I'd probably through 95% of the laws in the trash and pass a law saying they can't add new laws to the pile.... But the truth is my wishes aren't reality.
good morning .... it would help a great deal if
some would simply do a little research on the subject, infringement .... if you've been keeping score, each of the NTP patent the Patent Office has reviewed has come back with serious questions about their validity... in this case, it's the "second time" this patent has been reviewed.... while NTP still gets to respond, the USPTO made it clear that it's extremely unlikely that they'll change their mind... this is important, since RIMM was only found guilty of infringing on "two patents" -- and this is one of them.... the oddest part about this, however, is that the reason for finding the patent invalid was that the USPTO reviewed some prior art submitted by NTP's own lawyers -- who still claim that they will prevail in the end.... Wallace & staff submitted the evidence that seems to discredit their own patents.... either way, the fact that the USPTO appears to have serious doubts as to whether or not these patents are valid seem like a pretty damn good reason for the court not to force RIM to pay out nearly a billion dollars....
>Examiner didn't quite call him a liar,
But the District Court did call RIMs witnesses liars and pointed out the many discrepancies in their positions. See the litigation files in your link.
>Is there any way the PTO can find NTP in contempt for wasting their time?
The PTO is not a Court, it's merely an administrative agency.
>HOW DID THIS PATENT GET ISSUED????????
Because the people you now think are so smart issued it in the first place.
That's a hellofa document! If you had any sympathy for Campana or the widow, read that & you can forget it (NTP - no sympathy for them anyway). Examiner didn't quite call him a liar, but I would have, really sleazy, Reagan's "I don't remember" testimony more convincing.
Is there any way the PTO can find NTP in contempt for wasting their time? 5 separate source of prior art they tried to invalidate - examiner's response - "The examiner respectfully disagrees ..." about 50 times - left out "respectfully" a couple if times - typo, or PO'd? Hard to believe Judge Jimmy can ignore this.
NTP - prior art no good cause it doesn't say "email messaging system"
EXAMINER - well no, but it says it sends messages using SMTP, TCP/IP, X.25, X.400 - any normal artisan KNOWS all that MEANS it's an email messaging system [you dolt!]
NTP - prior art no good cause it doesn't say that addresses are examined
EXAMINER - well no, I thinks that's kinda inherent cause otherwise EVERY message would go to EVERY user [you dolt!]
NTP - prior art no good cause Judge Jimmy defined a term this way
EXAMINER - well no, he's wrong and here's a bunch of citations saying so [you dolt!]
and on and on.
HOW DID THIS PATENT GET ISSUED????????
HIGHLY recommended reading.
I agree with you. RIMM has been the commercial driver of wireless email. The U.S. legal system is somewhat goofy. Yet RIMM has been arrogant and obstinate. Canadians are our neighbors, trading partners, and genuinely nice people. RIMM was riding high. Pride goeth before a fall.
You are sort of missing the point. Those of us who feel the NTP litigation is unfounded do so precisely because we think there is nothing special about the tech in the Blackberry. It is the product design / user interface that makes it special - not the underlying technical architecture.