Related link: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/…
I found it strange that I’ve been reading about this case for a few years now, but I still haven’t seen a good resource that links to the patents in question.
Here’s a list of the Patents involved in NTP v. RIM. Read on…
Is this case just the first in a decade long series of cases against companies and open source projects? Are we entering into a dark age for innovation?
- 5,436,960 - “Electronic mail system with RF communications to mobile processors and method of operation thereof”
-
-
-
-
…and, here’s a section from a Judgement in 2004 from the Richmond Federal Appeal court that describes these patents:
“C. The Patents-in-SuitInventors Thomas J. Campana, Jr.; Michael P. Ponschke; and Gary F. Thelen (collectively “Campana”) developed an electronic mail system that was claimed in the ’960, ’670, ’172, ’451, and ’592 patents. The ’960 patent, filed on May 20, 1991, is the parent of a string of continuation applications. The most recent patent, the ’592 patent, filed December 6, 1999, is a continuation of the ’451 patent, filed September 28, 1998. The ’451 patent, in turn, is a continuation of the ’172 patent, which itself originates from the ’670 patent, a direct continuation of the parent ’960 patent. As continuations of that single parent application, these patents contain the same written descriptions as the ’960 patent. NTP now owns these five patents-in-suit.
“Campana’s particular innovation was to integrate existing electronic mail systems with RF wireless communications networks. See ’960 patent, col. 18, ll. 32-39. In simplified terms, the Campana invention operates in the following manner: A message originating in an electronic mail system may be transmitted not only by wireline but also via RF, in which case it is received by the user and stored on his or her mobile RF receiver. The user can view the message on the RF receiver and, at some later point, connect the RF receiver to a fixed destination processor, i.e., his or her personal desktop computer, and transfer the stored message. Id. at col. 18, ll. 39-66. Intermediate transmission to the RF receiver is advantageous because it “eliminat[es] the requirement that the destination processor [be] turned on and carried with the user” to receive messages. Id. at col. 18, ll. 44-46. Instead, a user can access his or her email stored on the RF receiver and “review . . . its content without interaction with the destination processor,” id. at col. 18, l. 67 – col. 19, l. 1, while reserving the ability to transfer the stored messages automatically to the destination processor, id. at col. 19, ll. 1-2. The patents-in-suit do not disclose a method for composing and sending messages from the RF receiver.”
Toward the end of the judgement there is an interesting section about AlohaNet. NTP convinced the court to throw out testimony from Dr. Reed about Norm Abramson’s first use of RF transmitters to facilitate computer networks in 1970.
Is that all there is in the patents?
So, what was the innovation that the patent is protecting? Is it simply wireless connectivity to a mailserver? That seems like a rather obvious technical innovation which means that the patent shouldn't be valid.
Of course, I thought the same thing with Amazon's one click buy button too, and that's a valid patent.
Maybe there's something deeper going on, but I can't see it.
Is that all there is in the patents?
No, you should take some time to read the patents......errrr.....let me guess, you don't have time?
Methinks you are not alone, I've read the full copy of two of the patents linked to above. Click on that last one, search for "lata 112". Now tell me if you really believe that our judicial system should be the final arbiter of software patents. I'd be surprised if any of the lawyers involved in the case could even come to a basic understanding of the technical aspects of this patent.
Is that all there is in the patents?
Never mind the lawyers - what about the Judge and jury? NTP made a submission to the USPTO asking for time because their expert was not available and said that it would take a new expert weeks or months to understand the patents and their relationship with the prior art.
If it would take an expert weeks or months what hope for the Judge or Jury during a one week trial - it reduces the whole process to a popularity contest.
Here the court has said "by the court's process, the patents have been determined to be valid". Since every engineer who has looked at the patents knows there was nothing new in the Camapana patents the only thing that has been proven is that the court process (rules of evidence and procedure made up by lawyers and judges) are profoundly misconceived.