interesting-people message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: [IP] more on The Blackberry patent debacle is in the news again

  • From: David Farber <dave@farber.net>
  • To: Ip Ip <ip@v2.listbox.com>
  • Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:45:32 -0400



Begin forwarded message:

From: Bob Frankston <Bob2-19-0501@bobf.frankston.com>
Date: October 10, 2005 12:13:06 AM EDT
To: dave@farber.net, ip@v2.listbox.com
Cc: 'Joseph Lorenzo Hall' <joehall@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: . Re: [IP] The Blackberry patent debacle is in the news again



The usual caveat -- I'm not a lawyer -- then lawyers aren't necessarily technologist.

Glancing through the patents it sure seems that this would win any
obfuscated code contest. As far as I can tell it takes pretty obvious
stuff, randomizes it and throws in the word RF as if it makes any
difference and then holds innovation hostage. This is typical for patents
that try to pretend processes and basic ideas are mechanical devices as per
the rules of the game and it is just a game to so many of the participants.


What is so special about the word RF that it makes any difference at all in
the system design -- does this mean that if take any mail system and run it
over 802.11 you are violating the patent because you are using RF? Also,
does anyone involved in the litigation realize that all Ethernets use RF?
So basically all communications systems since the late 1970's have used RF
(albeit contained within a Coax)? Given that RF has been the transport for
decades, is there anything at all new or novel let alone not obvious?


This deserves more than a rant but I would like to hear from any lawyer who
can defend this system. It seems to me that it is a system that treats
facts and learning with contempt. Can anyone in the press explain why this
is reported as another sporting event without at least some analysis of the
actual patents and their vacuousness?


2000 years ago China had advanced mathematics with proofs, decimal
arithmetic and then jurisdiction was shifted to the bureaucracy...

Perhaps some good will come of this when all BlackBerries are taken hostage
and the absurdities become obvious.


-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave@farber.net]
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 14:28
To: ip@v2.listbox.com
Subject: . Re: [IP] The Blackberry patent debacle is in the ne ws again



_______________ Forward Header _______________
Subject:    Re: [IP] The Blackberry patent debacle is in the news again
Author:    Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall@gmail.com>
Date:        9th October 2005 8:53:28 am

On 10/9/05, David Farber <dave@farber.net> wrote:


Begin forwarded message:

From: Bob Frankston <Bob19-0501@bobf.frankston.com>
Date: October 8, 2005 10:25:24 PM EDT
To: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>
Subject: The Blackberry patent debacle is in the news again


Does anyone on the list know exactly what the patents are about?


Here are tinyurls to the patents in question (see below):

5,625,670: <http://tinyurl.com/97s6c>
5,631,946: <http://tinyurl.com/b2v7b>
5,819,172: <http://tinyurl.com/c6dr4>
6,067,451: <http://tinyurl.com/7lt23>
6,317,592: <http://tinyurl.com/4pel>


From

<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/07/technology/07patent.html? ex=1402027200&e
n=5831810075d0c0fe&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND>


&quot;[... ] RIM has been aggressively challenging five of NTP's eight
patents covering this technology (patents 5,625,670; 5,631,946;
5,819,172; 6,067,451 and 6,317,592). The director of the Patent Office
has ordered reexamination of these five NTP patents, which were also
the subject of anonymous challenges.

Those five are being re-examined by the Patent Office. Four are
undergoing what is known as ex parte re-examination, a process in
which only one side is heard, where the chances of a patent being
overturned are usually quite small. The party being heard in these
four cases is NTP.

The fifth is undergoing what is called an inter partes re-examination,
which means a third party is involved, in addition to the Patent
Office and NTP. In this fifth case, that third party is RIM. Given
that inter partes re-examinations are relatively new at the Patent
Office, this process is considered a wildcard in the case. The Patent
Office is expected to issue its ruling on this fifth patent soon.
[...]&quot;

--
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
UC Berkeley, SIMS PhD Student
<http://josephhall.org/>
blog: <http://josephhall.org/nqb2/>

This email is written in [markdown] - an easily-readable and parseable
text format.
[markdown]: http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/


------------------------------------- You are subscribed as BobIP@Bobf.Frankston.com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- people/




------------------------------------- You are subscribed as interesting-people@lists.elistx.com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

</form>

Powered by eList eXpress LLC