Rex Ballard wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> > Palm says NTP is suing on 'patents of doubtful validity'
> >
> > ,----[ Quote ]
> > | It concluded: "Palm respects legitimate intellectual property rights,
> > | but will defend itself vigorously against the attempted misuse of the
> > | patent and judicial systems to extract monetary value for rights to
> > | patents that may ultimately have no value at all."
> > `----
> >
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/07/palm_fights_ntp_patent_claim/
>
>
> Blackberry paid $600+ million because the threat of service termination
> had cost them more than the amount paid to NTP.
>
> Keep in mind that NTP is essentially a legal firm (whiplash lawyers)
> protecting patents filed by "kitchen table software companies" - often
> individuals claiming that their software was original and unique, and
> simply not doing any research into "prior art" other than checking
> Patent Office archives at a time when the Patent Office prior art
> archives were grossly difeciant.
>
> Many companies, like IBM, Kodak, and even Microsoft, are listing as
> much prior art as possible in each patent application, even if that
> might mean that the patent will be rejected.
(Snips)
Short translation (if I may)....
Software companies have lots of patents. Some may seem ridiculous and
even frivolous. But in many cases the software companies do not get
these patents (patents are not cheap, even for a large company) so that
they can later sue someone. These patents are obtained as a *defense*
against future lawsuits that someone else like NTP might bring against
the software company. Because if they don't patent it someone else
will... and then they'll be sued. That's simply the world we live in.
|
|
