RIM releases BlackBerry workaround design

TalkBack 33 of 58:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

how it works

The patent system in all countries is based on 3 aspects. If an idea is new, not obvious and enabled then it is entitled to a patent. New means no one had thought of it before, which means it was not published anywhere before the date of the invention. Not obvious is the problem here, because for a patent to be a legal document "not obvious" can't be a matter of opinion. It must have a legal definition that is very clear.
The way around this is to define "not obvious" as meaning that no one has previously suggested the invention, or suggested an area of research that a non inventive person might stumble across the invention by following those suggestions. If there is no suggestion leading to an invention or published evidence the invention is not new then the patent is presumed original.
Enabled means the patent must explain how the invention works so one of average skill in that field (someone not inventive but who knows the technology) can make the invention by following the instructions in the patent.
A lot of people don't like that definition which is why Microsoft was trying to have it overturned in the Supreme Court, to save money from Eolas, not from any lofty desire for truth and justice. Here's a case with RIM: http://fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1615r.pdf.
So the issue with obvious patents is an unfortunate by product of how you define exactly what non obvious means. If you change that to a matter of what people "think" is non obvious then the system becomes arbitary and examiners could just say whatever they think the term means. In the same way the law can't work if property boundaries (like with houses) are what people think they are, or road traffic rules are what people think they should be. You need a clear definition which all sides usually grumble about but a clear line between right and wrong is essential in law.
Another aspect is whether it is ok for a company to have a patent and not develop it, but people do exactly the same thing with other kinds of property. For example people keep land unused waiting for the price to go up. This issue is called squatter's rights, whether others have a right to take over unused property (land, patents, building, etc) because the owner is not using them. So RIM taking a patent because it is not being used is the same under law as you owning a house and not using it, then someone moves it and claims it as their own. There is plenty of property besides patents that people want to take on the basis that they could get more use out of it then the owner, but the law doesn't accept that argument. Nor would the reader if it was their house being squatted in.
Another point is that RIM are complete hypocrites in this. If they owned the patents and another company was infringing them you can be sure they would be using all of NTP's arguments if it meant they could make money out of them. RIM is no advocate of open source or getting rid of software patents. They are an advocate like most companies of making money and hanging onto it, by fair means or fowl.
To understand the patent process it is useful to follow the link to the Federal Court and read some cases. They are usually not hard to follow.

Posted by: zzgorme   Posted on: 02/09/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Iinfrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now
• Five Steps to Determine When to Virtualize YourServers VMware Server virtualization isn't just for big companies. Entry-level ... Download Now
• VMware Infrastructure: A Guide to Bottom-Line Benefits VMware Frustrated by the costs of maintain ever larger data centers?or building ... Download Now