Comments on: RIM’s Case The Catalyst For Patent Reform http://www.blackberrycool.com/2005/12/27/rim%e2%80%99s-case-the-catalyst-for-patent-reform/ The voice of the BlackBerry community. Wed, 19 Jun 2013 18:40:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Frank Mitchell http://www.blackberrycool.com/2005/12/27/rim%e2%80%99s-case-the-catalyst-for-patent-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-18099 Frank Mitchell Mon, 06 Feb 2006 13:57:49 +0000 http://www.blackberrycool.com/2005/12/27/001227/#comment-18099 Given the recent supreme court decision concerning imminent domain where a private individual can seize your property if they can get local government ok (generally showing more profitability and more tax revenue), why doesn’t Blackberry just seize the patent rights?

]]> By: Frank Mitchell http://www.blackberrycool.com/2005/12/27/rim%e2%80%99s-case-the-catalyst-for-patent-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-482075 Frank Mitchell Mon, 06 Feb 2006 13:57:00 +0000 http://www.blackberrycool.com/2005/12/27/001227/#comment-482075 Given the recent supreme court decision concerning imminent domain where a private individual can seize your property if they can get local government ok (generally showing more profitability and more tax revenue), why doesn’t Blackberry just seize the patent rights?

]]> By: Lawrence B. Ebert http://www.blackberrycool.com/2005/12/27/rim%e2%80%99s-case-the-catalyst-for-patent-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-15237 Lawrence B. Ebert Wed, 28 Dec 2005 04:36:20 +0000 http://www.blackberrycool.com/2005/12/27/001227/#comment-15237 Any idea that patent infringement affecting “everyday users” is a new thing is wrong. Think back to automobile buyers at the time of Henry Ford and the Selden patent, with ads like “Don’t buy a lawsuit.” And, in the copyright area, we have the RIAA and the Grokster decision.

Of the text –under enormous media pressure and most likely political, the USPTO had made the NTP patents priority, re-examining them and invalidating 3 out of 5, and most likely the other 2 very soon.– the re-examinations were initiated by RIM, and the initial results in non-final Office Actions are claim rejections. (information on IPBiz, including
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2005/04/smuckers-us-6004596-is-under-re.html) There are rejections under 112, 102, and 103.

However, recall that in the re-examination of the Eolas/Berkeley patent, there were two sets of USPTO rejections, both of which were overcome by the patentee, in large part through declarations made by university professors at Princeton and Michigan. And remember the Amazon one-click patent was never invalidated.

]]> By: Lawrence B. Ebert http://www.blackberrycool.com/2005/12/27/rim%e2%80%99s-case-the-catalyst-for-patent-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-482074 Lawrence B. Ebert Wed, 28 Dec 2005 04:36:00 +0000 http://www.blackberrycool.com/2005/12/27/001227/#comment-482074 Any idea that patent infringement affecting “everyday users” is a new thing is wrong. Think back to automobile buyers at the time of Henry Ford and the Selden patent, with ads like “Don’t buy a lawsuit.” And, in the copyright area, we have the RIAA and the Grokster decision.

Of the text –under enormous media pressure and most likely political, the USPTO had made the NTP patents priority, re-examining them and invalidating 3 out of 5, and most likely the other 2 very soon.– the re-examinations were initiated by RIM, and the initial results in non-final Office Actions are claim rejections. (information on IPBiz, including
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2005/04/smuckers-us-6004596-is-under-re.html) There are rejections under 112, 102, and 103.

However, recall that in the re-examination of the Eolas/Berkeley patent, there were two sets of USPTO rejections, both of which were overcome by the patentee, in large part through declarations made by university professors at Princeton and Michigan. And remember the Amazon one-click patent was never invalidated.

]]>