On TV.com: BATTLESTAR Galactica Maxim Photoshoot
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 3 of 58:
Next »
« Previous
Patents are for protecting intellectual property.
The person(s) who developed the idea that was patented and the company NTP should be paid for use of their intellectual property. If RIM had done a patent search, they would have seen their idea was already patented. They could have licensed the technology from NTP or they could have done at the beginning what you applaud them for doing now (rewrite their technology). They chose to either not do a patent search or to just ignore NTP's patent. Now they have to pay the consequences. Intellectual property has value, but RIM either decided to steal NTP's property or because of sloppiness by not doing a patent search ended up doing it unknowingly. Either way they are liable.
Posted by: jimroar2000   Posted on: 02/09/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

GOOD  blenky | 02/09/06
...more  blenky | 02/09/06
Patents are for protecting intellectual property.  jimroar2000 | 02/09/06
Utopia  blenky | 02/09/06
I'm one of the little men  Ken_z | 02/09/06
There's the difference  blenky | 02/09/06
NPT didn't invent ANYTHING!!  Predrag Vasic | 02/09/06
One of it's partners did!  pics@... | 02/09/06
That may be true, but...  Predrag Vasic | 02/09/06
Not from what I read  voska | 02/09/06
Amen, As i've said before if you don't develpo it, then lose the rights (NT  Update victim | 02/09/06
A lesson on Patents....  Cayble | 02/09/06
Well stated.  blenky | 02/09/06
...And, as been eluded to,...  The King's Servant | 02/09/06
Good Point, but...  pics@... | 02/09/06
If the U.S. Patent Office only understood this !!! (NT)  Update victim | 02/09/06
use  zzgorme | 02/10/06
perpetual motion...  engrmerc | 02/12/06
A well-written but bad lesson. Why patents are so misunderstood.  alphachi | 02/13/06
Either you missed the point, or you do not get patent law....  Cayble | 02/26/06
Sorry, lost some of the messge there!  Cayble | 02/26/06
I somewhat agree, however  Update victim | 02/09/06
tax payers money  clockmendergb@... | 02/09/06
A lot of broad assumptions jimroar2000  billywill | 02/09/06
Interesting logic - let's ignore the USPO rulings  canuck_golfer | 02/09/06
Patent Search  Techanalyst | 02/10/06
jurisdiction....  engrmerc | 02/12/06
Prior Art  Sheeva | 02/16/06
What a joke!  techboy_z | 02/09/06
Ok techboy  blenky | 02/09/06
not an alumni and not Canadian  ttocsmij | 02/09/06
techboy may have just...  John Zern | 02/12/06
how it works  zzgorme | 02/09/06
Comparing Apples to Oranges  blenky | 02/09/06
squatting  zzgorme | 02/10/06
there is a difference...  engrmerc | 02/12/06
A breath of fresh air  Bruce_B2 | 02/09/06
Patent Holding Companies.  clockmendergb@... | 02/09/06
transfers  zzgorme | 02/10/06
Benefit of the community  biomedr | 02/18/06
So where are the details of the workaround?  jfranche@... | 02/09/06
RIM workaround  iswcky | 02/09/06
I second the "Good"  Narg | 02/09/06
Royalties  ljuly | 02/09/06
Workaround...  blenky | 02/09/06
The only way they would be 'loosers' would be...  Predrag Vasic | 02/09/06
Royalties  brichter | 02/09/06
Is this why BB halted their suit against MS?  ThinkAboutIt | 02/09/06
Has anyone read the NTP patent?  lamp299 | 02/09/06
Slew 'O Patents  jaytho | 02/09/06
Yes, I have.  DickCaro | 02/10/06
claims  zzgorme | 02/10/06
you missed it by "" much...  engrmerc | 02/12/06
patents  Ron406 | 02/09/06
works for me  ttocsmij | 02/09/06
Sounds like the work-around may not be so great  John Zern | 02/12/06
simple  engrmerc | 02/12/06
Revealed?  jacjar1 | 02/13/06

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement

Meet Doc