Interesting People mailing list archives
more on The Blackberry patent debacle is in the news again
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
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 anydifference 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 treatsfacts 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>
<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/07/technology/07patent.html? ex=1402027200&eFrom
n=5831810075d0c0fe&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND> "[... ] 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. [...]" -- 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=ipArchives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- people/
------------------------------------- You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on The Blackberry patent debacle is in the news again David Farber (Oct 10)