Monday, February 27, 2006

Research in Mockery (of Patent Law)

"When they took their final position on here's what we'll do it wasn't about money, they wouldn't give us terms that would allow us to carry on our business," RIM Co-CEO Jim Balsillie told an RBC Capital Markets communications, media and technology conference. See BlackBerry maker calls NTP's settlement terms 'crazy' (Accessed through Good Morning Silicon Valley blog entry RIM to NTP: Appease you we tried, now screwed you all will be)

Why should this company be allowed to carry on business? First, it violates the patents awarded to someone else to develop and market a product, then it uses the resulting revenues to start a legal fight to invalidate original patents. This case shouldn't be about whether NTP patents were valid or not. This case should be about whether RIM violated the awarded patents or not.

If RIM wins the patents battle with NTP, the loser will not be NTP only, the real losers will be startups, small companies and individual inventors. What prevents any company with deep pockets to violate patents of anyone?

Violate Patent + Make Money + Invalidate Patent = RIM

No comments:

Post a Comment