"Judge delays BlackBerry US shutdown"

Long live the 1802!

You can become an expert witness if the RIM/NTP case goes to appeal.

Yep. First CMOS processor that was sufficiently low power for portable use. However, I didn't have anything to do with the processor side of the puzzle. I just helped with the radio part. They had decided on a package size that was largely based on the size of the 1802 and 0.3" LED display. Whatever was left was battery and receiver. Of course the processor grew and the receiver was expected to shrink. By the time I got involved, the receiver was about 1" x 1" x 0.5" which was far too small for the 1978 technology. I managed to cram something together but it wasn't very good. They had an existing but much larger receiver from a different designer. It worked better, so they magically increased the available space. Oh well.

Despite problems with just about everything, the design went to the short run production stage and delivered to the initial very big customer. They liked it. They wanted to buy lots of them. Management decided that it would be better to lease it rather than sell it. The customer insisted on buying, not leasing, and eventually went elsewhere. Oh well (again).

That means I'll have to buy or rent a suit and tie. I donno if I can do that. Maybe if I drug myself, I can handle the uniform. It's much more profitable to hire a lawyer and sue. I could say that I was just reading this newsgroup and listening to RIM and NTP make fools of themselves. Then I realized that it was my prior art ideas that they're fighting over. Of course, my immediate reaction was to initiate litigation. Yeah, it's all a coincidence.

I think I still have some of both devices somewhere. The wind-up printer was always fun as the escapement made a horrible racket when it was printing. All the stock brokers would ask me why I was carrying a portable stock ticker and where they could buy one. I should have gotten the clue at the time. Sigh, the opportunities I've missed...

Then the attorneys shouldn't have put him on as one. It would have been a simple matter to have a real expert testify. Sorry, but that theory doesn't wash.

True or not, whether that really constituted prior art for the particular patents at issue was a question for the jury to determine; i.e., it's not that simple.

Then again, he shouldn't have been up there. Regardless, the RIM legal team showed terrible judgement and blew it badly.

Against which specific claims? What proof do you have?

Depends. Go for it.

Then don't put them on the stand as technical experts.

As for the NTP patents themselves, see :

... Patent analysis firm Ocean Tomo conducted a thorough review of NTP?s relevant patents and determined them to be top quality, says CEO Jim Malackowski. He attributed the USPTO?s review to disproportionate public scrutiny.

Nope. Findings of fact by the jury are settled. Only rulings and conclusions of law can be appealed, and then only on the existing record; i.e., no new testimony. RIM has had its day in court.

I just hate to agree with you, but you're correct. RIM blew it in court. So the jury ruled (in just 4 hours) that they had been tricked. Never mind that the evidence of prior art was probably true.

True. The decided on the basis of the wrong version of the demonstration software, not the merits of the evidence. It's not my courtroom, but I would have told RIM to go home and come back with either a working computer or a good excuse.

Yep. So did the judge when he lost his patience, so did the jury when they ruled on intent instead of what should have been evidence, so did both RIM and NTP but raising the stakes at every possible point, so did the US government by pressuring the USPTO to "save" RIM. Everyone seems to be having bad judgement problems.

Well, the patents for text messaging are rather complex. I'm sure I can find something that infringes. As for proof, I have some old photos, proposals, schematics, and a possibly a prototype.

Well, who has the biggest bank account? Yeah, I'll sue them. Just two problems. I don't own the patents and they're expired anyway. So much for my instant fortune.

I guess the jury was suppose to assume that the president knew everything. It's a common assumption.

I'm not qualified to judge the validity of the patents in question. See list near bottom of:

Got any idea what RIM is up to on the stock market? There's a new symbol called RIM-U.TO listed as RIM US Fund on the Toronto Exchange. It just appeared yesterday. I can't find any details:

My ancestors used a different method of torture and execution, especially for top posting.

I'll stand on my guesswork. Getting old machines working is a PITA.

It's not like the company president doesn't have problems with demos:

If I were the judge (be glad that I'm not), I would have told RIM to go away, and come back the next day with either a working demonstration or a very good excuse.

Sorry -- that was intended to be a private email -- hit the wrong key.

I respectfully disagree. My colleagues and I do it all the time. The necessary hardware, software, and qualified experts are readily available. That they weren't used suggests either incompetence or unethical conduct, or both.

Fortunately, that's not how the law works. The judge can't afford to take sides. The burden is on the litigant (RIM). Likewise the consequences. I shed no tears.

They presumably actually ruled that the preponderance of actual evidence favored NTP. That's how civil patent law works.

I'll remain unconvinced until you can show me the specific claims you believe to be invalid, and the basis for that belief. Regardless, law is decided on actual evidence, not what is allegedly true or false.

You don't know that. I think they probably ruled on the preponderance of actual evidence.

Fortunately, that's not how the law works. The judge can't afford to take sides. The burden is on the litigant (RIM). Likewise the consequences. I shed no tears.

I see no relevance.

Again, you don't know that.

RIM has been playing hardball after having lost. That's just plain stupid.

Huh?

Nothing else even comes close to RIM.

As I said, it's not that simple.

Actually do so and I'll be the first to congratulate you. Until then, it's just speculation.

The jury just looked at the evidence, included the fact that part of it was faked by RIM.

No, sorry.

Won't matter if RIM is shut out of the US market.

Instead, the judge went non-linear. Spencer's behavior reminds me of the behavior of Judge Thomas Pennfield Jackson, who was at least criticized by the U.S. Court of Appeals for his public disparagement of Microsoft.

OTOH, RIM is being disingenuous when they state that they have a workaround, but that lifting the stay will cause major disruption. Obviously they don't want to bear the cost of the software workaround, since all the patents are on the verge of being invalidated anyway.

We already know that there is not going to be a shutdown. The judge has it in for RIM because RIM has made him look foolish by their successful attacks on the patents. He'll do whatever he can to hurt them, but his options are getting more and more limited, because he also doesn't want to give them a way to restart the appeals process.

..

Just as a heads up in case you ever find yourself in a similar situation to RIM; NEVER go to an appeals court with the claim 'if my deception had worked in the trail court...' The appealette judge(s) will take a seriousily dim view of this line of reasoning.

This btw is what I have refering to in the thread about RIM lieing in front of the jury. While techically not purgery (thus why I haven't called it that) it was intentionally deceptive. Another good rule, don't try to trick a jury unless it is as certain as the ten commandments that the deception won't be uncovered in front of the jury.

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

Rightfully so, had they been upfront to begin with, it they likely could have gotten away with it, but they tried to hide the fact. They got caught and the reason the judge lost his temper was the idea that the defense was on the edge of purgery and contempt of court. You just don't do what RIM did in front of a jury. For all the judge knew at that point was RIM was trying for a mistrial in order to add yet another delay to the process.

I think in all seriousness the trail judge here showed great restraint not putting someone behind bars for a night or two.

Well the Washington crowd (in particular Congress) will have to rewrite the law and make it retro-active to several years in the past. The can of worms (not regarding RIM and NTP) this effectively opens will serve to rein in Congress in an election year. Back dating a 'new' law to 4 years ago has some very very serious implications. It just isn't done.

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

Wrong! What legal error are you claiming the trial judge has made that are the basis for an appeal? What the pateint office is doing has no bearing in law at this point (what they are doing is opening the playing field for competitors to RIM). What I think you are not understanding is the jury has already decided the facts of the case. The trial judge appears to have made no errors regarding the application of the law (all appeals lost, SCOTUS refuses to hear appeal).

On what basis?

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

Where were you in 2002 when RIM needed you :-)

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

It is this last point that I think people in the thread keep not grasping when they continue to talk about appeals.

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

Key here is RIM failed to prove/demonstrate the prior art. The jury based on the evidence made the right decission. When you actually stop and look at what happened, I suspect you would agree. Remember the jury is only as knowledgable as the lawyers for both sides make them. RIM did a really really poor job when it was shown they were to put it mildly tricksters.

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

Without a doubt he was thinking jack pot, but what got the wheels in his mind turning was reading in the newspaper about RIM after some little guy. At least that is his story, no reason seriously to doubt it.

The judge and jury would have understood I suspect had RIM been up front about the technical problem(s). However, RIM decided to try and cover up. That is lieing, not purjury (the legal term), but lieing.

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

Exactly, we might well not be having this discussion today had RIM just acknowledged upfront the technical problems getting an old DOS program to work in Windows. Say wonder if VMWare could have come to the rescue?

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

And NTP would have had extremely good grounds for a successful appeal for that ruling. You don't get to bite from the tree a second time if you screwed up the first time.

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.