or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Patent holder sues Apple, Google, others over wireless e-mail
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Patent holder sues Apple, Google, others over wireless e-mail - Page 2

post #41 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

You are assuming that Apple and RIM implement email access the same on their devices. I believe this is incorrect. I believe the iPhone (and all other smartphones other than RIMs) allow you to access your email by directly contacting your email server. RIM, on the other hand, goes through an intermediary server run by RIM. This is why as recently as last December, a failure on RIM's part caused delays in sending/receiving emails on their devices. This couldn't happen on an iPhone (short of a OS update that breaks your email) because Apple plays no hand in the delivery of your email.

If the patents in question cover a technique where there is such an intermediary server, it could apply to RIM devices by not to Apple's devices which, as many have pointed out, are really no different than checking email on your home computer.

It could simply be that these guys are trying to leverage the fact that they won the RIM case to convince a judge or jury that there patent applies to all these other devices when if fact it may not.

EDIT: Link to story about the RIM email failure: http://www.crn.com/networking/222002584
EDIT2: Link on how Blackberry email works: http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4702806...lackberry.html

Ahhhh. Good point!

I guess when you have 617 million laying around, you're not worried about legal costs so you just go for it with other major companies LOL
post #42 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

So? Read my link above about how Blackberry email works. Even with Apple's push email, that's still just a connection between you and your email provider (just that in that case Apple is your email provider). RIM aggregates your email from all of your providers, compresses it, and then sends it to your Blackberry. All of those things would make sense when the patents were filed. Emails were mostly text and bandwidth was more scarce and expensive. Even with Apple's push, it's still your email client getting your messages from your mail provider. No intermediary server making periodic checks for new email, no reformatting/compressing, etc.

Until someone can examine the patents in question (I have not yet), I see no reason to assume that they apply to the iPhone simply because they applied to RIM.

Well, to be fair, MobileMe can also be configured to aggregate mail from your other POP accounts and then push them down to your iPhone too. Except for the compression, that would match your description of RIM's email to BB.

The NTP lawyers, don't seem so bogged down in implementation, as much as very broad coverage of wireless email.
"In view of the USPTO Board's ruling, the debate over whether Mr. Campana was an originator in the field of wireless e-mail is over."
-NTP cofounder Donald Stout

The are going after anyone involved in the "delivery of e-mail across wireless communications systems."

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #43 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Well, to be fair, MobileMe can also be configured to aggregate mail from your other POP accounts and then push them down to your iPhone too. Except for the compression, that would match your description of RIM's email to BB.

True, and that thought crossed my mind. But that is a fairly standard function of many email providers (gmail, Yahoo, etc), and so that aspect is hardly unique. And they'd be suing those other email providers if that was an aspect of their case. But the fact that they are doing it for the express purpose of transmitting it (via compression and using a specific set of protocols) wirelessly to a handheld device may be a more viable patent lawsuit when combined with the tranmission method.
post #44 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Well, to be fair, MobileMe can also be configured to aggregate mail from your other POP accounts and then push them down to your iPhone too. Except for the compression, that would match your description of RIM's email to BB.

The NTP lawyers, don't seem so bogged down in implementation, as much as very broad coverage of wireless email.
"In view of the USPTO Board's ruling, the debate over whether Mr. Campana was an originator in the field of wireless e-mail is over."
-NTP cofounder Donald Stout

The are going after anyone involved in the "delivery of e-mail across wireless communications systems."

Oops, you added more to your post after I replied. As to the end of your post, OF COURSE they are going to say that! But I'd bet if you ask the USPTO, they would disagree with the incredibly broad interpretation of their ruling by HTP!
post #45 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

True, and that thought crossed my mind. But that is a fairly standard function of many email providers (gmail, Yahoo, etc), and so that aspect is hardly unique. And they'd be suing those other email providers if that was an aspect of their case. But the fact that they are doing it for the express purpose of transmitting it (via compression and using a specific set of protocols) wirelessly to a handheld device may be a more viable patent lawsuit when combined with the tranmission method.

But few email providers also have handsets of their own (or platform) to push the email down to. Looking at the list in this suit (Apple, Google, HTC, LG, Microsoft, and Motorola) it seems they are going after any handset maker (or platform) that facilitates email delivery to wireless handsets, at least the big names.

If they win or settle, they become a multibillion dollar company overnight...that produces absolutely nothing.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #46 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

... You don't patent wireless email or multitouch. You patent a specific implementation. While the patent system has some major flaws, they do not generally allow something as broad and unpatentable as 'wireless email'. In reality, the patent almost certainly covers one specific implementation of how you do email wirelessly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

You are assuming that Apple and RIM implement email access the same on their devices. I believe this is incorrect. I believe the iPhone (and all other smartphones other than RIMs) allow you to access your email by directly contacting your email server. RIM, on the other hand, goes through an intermediary server run by RIM. This is why as recently as last December, a failure on RIM's part caused delays in sending/receiving emails on their devices. This couldn't happen on an iPhone (short of a OS update that breaks your email) because Apple plays no hand in the delivery of your email.

This is going to be critical here.

On my Droid, for instance, the mail program uses the same POP3, IMAP, SMTP and Exchange protocols that desktop e-mail clients use. These protocols run off of the same TCP/IP protocol stack that desktop computers use. The fact that the IP packets are carried over Wi-Fi or a cell phone's wireless data network doesn't magically convert those generic protocols into new unique items.

If NTP is allowed to win this suit, then that would be tantamount to claiming ownership of all forms of e-mail, wired and wireless.

I haven't read NTP's patents, and I don't think anybody else outside of the suit has either. I would like to assume the USPTO didn't grant a patent on the nebulous concept of receiving e-mail on all forms of wireless networking, but that's what NTP is claiming in their press releases.
post #47 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Suggestion:
First read and understand the patents and THEN tell us whether you think they're valid (and why).

No.
post #48 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Your first point is absolutely correct. The patent system is a great enabler for small inventors to benefit from their invention - even if they don't have the ability to compete with GM or GE or Apple. It is designed to protect the intellectual property even if you're not making a product -- and that's the way it should be. If it required you to be making a product, let's say you invent a new process for making integrated circuits and it works well in the lab. But you can't afford $1,000,000,000 to build an IC fab. Should that mean you don't benefit from the invention?

The second point indicates a major misunderstanding of the patent system. You don't patent wireless email or multitouch. You patent a specific implementation. While the patent system has some major flaws, they do not generally allow something as broad and unpatentable as 'wireless email'. In reality, the patent almost certainly covers one specific implementation of how you do email wirelessly.

That's not to say that the specific implementation is patentable - I haven't read the patents and don't know the technology well enough to say even if I had. But much of the complaining here (and elsewhere) is uninformed ranting. As soon as someone says "you can't patent wireless email", you know that they don't know what they're talking about. No one is trying to do that.

What I always find fascinating is forum trolls who feel they have a better insight into how patents/copyright should work, than Benjamin Franklin. Kind of a big gap in competency even for a 200+ year old guy, then again I'm pretty sure his day wasn't filled with WoW and masturbation. It's kinda like Quantum Physicists using anomalous readings from imprecise, touchy test equipment (or totally baloney equation fudges) to argue with Einstein.

However, in this case, the protocol for getting email to an iPhone is either wifi or AT&T's 3G/edge network. NTP should be suing the appropriate party if there is some issue. I think if there is a breakdown in the justice system, it's expecting political appointee judges to understand technology beyond a paperclip. Recent Senate confirmation hearings can demonstrate the competency of judicial candidates in understanding anything of complexity. However if legal battles are more expensive than a settlement, I think a nice way to curtail these stupid suits would be for the losing side to pay all legal costs.

No better way to clean up the legal system short of replacing lawyers with easy software a la TurboTax. Lawyers are less critical than accountants, but how come there's not an app for that?
post #49 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post

No.

What he said!
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
post #50 of 59
US legal system - half of the worlds laywers feed off it.
Anyone wonders why?
post #51 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

So? Read my link above about how Blackberry email works. Even with Apple's push email, that's still just a connection between you and your email provider (just that in that case Apple is your email provider). RIM aggregates your email from all of your providers, compresses it, and then sends it to your Blackberry. All of those things would make sense when the patents were filed. Emails were mostly text and bandwidth was more scarce and expensive. Even with Apple's push, it's still your email client getting your messages from your mail provider. No intermediary server making periodic checks for new email, no reformatting/compressing, etc.

Until someone can examine the patents in question (I have not yet), I see no reason to assume that they apply to the iPhone simply because they applied to RIM.

No, you're wrong. Both Apple and Google now have push E-mail similar to the way a BB does. Now they're either paying RIM licensing fees or because they only push their emails and not those of the other providers can they get away with using RIMs technology. BTW all the reformatting/compressing patents are owned by RIM.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #52 of 59
Exchange ActiveSync.

Licensed from Microsoft.

Handset makers have licensed Microsoft's software implementation and Microsoft will be drawn in to protect their IP and their software sales.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

No, you're wrong. Both Apple and Google now have push E-mail similar to the way a BB does. Now they're either paying RIM licensing fees or because they only push their emails and not those of the other providers can they get away with using RIMs technology. BTW all the reformatting/compressing patents are owned by RIM.

Last time I looked Infra Red is just light at a different wavelength to the radio frequencies used in the "wireless" you are referring to and as it doesn't require wires it is indeed wireless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by JBFromOZ View Post

i recall sending and receiving email wirelessly on my newton messagepad wirelessly (ir port) in the late 80's, how old is ntp's stuff?

Are you sure? It's been a lot of years, but I don't recall my 2100 having wireless networking.

Edit: I guess if you had a PCMCIA card.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #53 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by jouster View Post

Of the patent system, right? Nothing idiotic about suing if you already won $600m.

They didn't win they settled.

Thing is wireless e-mail doesn't exist. You have e-mail that is being transmitted over wireless frequencies. The only thing that could be valid is if this company invented 3G or WiFi and e-mail.

The e-mail is being transmitted over standard TCP/IP so they would had to have invented that also.

We're talking about three very separate things here not one. I don't see how this patent can be valid.

They're going to get a fight going after Apple because they don't roll over like others.
post #54 of 59
Suing RIM into a $600M settlement is one thing. Going in against Microsoft, and Apple, and Google at once to claim that you own wireless email?

NTP, prepare to see what "army of lawyers" means.
post #55 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

While this specific case is a complete crock, I can't agree with that as a general statement. How does that work for the little guy who invents something but doesn't have the resources to create a product? You think people with deeper pockets should be able to just come along and steal his idea just because they can better afford to implement it? People should be able to invent things and then license those patents to companies that are interested.

Actually in most countries around the world the patent requester has to provide a working prototype in order to get the patent looked at. Some amazing things have come from people who have not had resources to mass produce things.

For example how many of you have heard of the Britten motorcycle? John Britten was a genius who built a motorcycle that was so lightweight and so powerful that at Daytona the rider was pulling wheelies at below 3/4 throttle beside a Ducati that was maxed out throttle. It wasn't the bike that was special it was the carbon fibre process that Britten invented that allowed him to make parts of the engine carbon fibre as well as the fairing and suspension system making the bike so lightweight and nimble.

Today most people using carbon fibre to make pretty much anything are using Britten's patent although he's been dead a few years now. Everything from car panels to lightweight artificial limbs use the processes he developed. But did he just come to the patent office in New Zealand and show them some drawings? No, he provided product. Same for the New Zealander who at the turn of the 20th Century invented the water powered combustion engine that got patented and then promptly bought out by you know who.

Just because someone doesn't have the resources to mass produce doesn't mean they don't have the resources to produce working prototypes and to be honest I don't see any reason why this can't be the case with software because it should be infinitely easier to produce a working patent than a process for manufacturing carbon fibre.
post #56 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by lowededwookie View Post

Actually in most countries around the world the patent requester has to provide a working prototype in order to get the patent looked at. Some amazing things have come from people who have not had resources to mass produce things.

For example how many of you have heard of the Britten motorcycle? John Britten was a genius who built a motorcycle that was so lightweight and so powerful that at Daytona the rider was pulling wheelies at below 3/4 throttle beside a Ducati that was maxed out throttle. It wasn't the bike that was special it was the carbon fibre process that Britten invented that allowed him to make parts of the engine carbon fibre as well as the fairing and suspension system making the bike so lightweight and nimble.

Today most people using carbon fibre to make pretty much anything are using Britten's patent although he's been dead a few years now. Everything from car panels to lightweight artificial limbs use the processes he developed. But did he just come to the patent office in New Zealand and show them some drawings? No, he provided product. Same for the New Zealander who at the turn of the 20th Century invented the water powered combustion engine that got patented and then promptly bought out by you know who.

Just because someone doesn't have the resources to mass produce doesn't mean they don't have the resources to produce working prototypes and to be honest I don't see any reason why this can't be the case with software because it should be infinitely easier to produce a working patent than a process for manufacturing carbon fibre.

Not to get too off topic, but your facts are slightly askew. I have been working in the composite industry for 25 years with people who have been working in the industry for 50+ years. None of the ideas that Britten used on his original chassis (1987) were even remotely original or unique. If he did own patents on processes, they weren't new and they weren't his. The composite industry is a cut throat business. Our company was even infiltrated by a competitor masquerading as engineering students. They filed for a patent for a product that we were developing for years. We were awarded the patent, but were told that our competitor had an identical patent filed just days after they had visited our facility. No, they did not have a working prototype or anything physical. Just stolen intellectual property and more money for patent attorneys.

It's hard to be an inventor these days. You either get sued by people that are in the business of suing, or the big boys intimidate you into submission. Once in a while, somebody gets lucky and builds a better mousetrap. Good luck to all of us.
post #57 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by chasejk View Post

Not to get too off topic, but your facts are slightly askew. I have been working in the composite industry for 25 years with people who have been working in the industry for 50+ years. None of the ideas that Britten used on his original chassis (1987) were even remotely original or unique. If he did own patents on processes, they weren't new and they weren't his. The composite industry is a cut throat business. Our company was even infiltrated by a competitor masquerading as engineering students. They filed for a patent for a product that we were developing for years. We were awarded the patent, but were told that our competitor had an identical patent filed just days after they had visited our facility. No, they did not have a working prototype or anything physical. Just stolen intellectual property and more money for patent attorneys.

It's hard to be an inventor these days. You either get sued by people that are in the business of suing, or the big boys intimidate you into submission. Once in a while, somebody gets lucky and builds a better mousetrap. Good luck to all of us.

The processes for making carbon fibre at the time prevented him from building the bike the way he wanted to so he came up with a better method for making the carbon fibre that allowed it to be stronger and lighter. That's what he patented. Yes there were other means of making the carbon fibre but his was sufficiently different enough to warrant a patent.

Either way he had was able to show the process by use of prototypes which is required by New Zealand patent law.
post #58 of 59
I have a patent for sending an Email from an internet connected device, Email on a device that runs on batteries, and using a CPU to send an Email. I'm going to sue too.

The prototype requirement would be great for some things. It is not clear how well it would work for things that are less visible. Personally I think that only exact duplication should be enforceable by patents. Exact duplication is basically theft. Engineering and building a product from the ground up takes work and shouldn't be subject to other peoples patents. The scope of litigation should also be limited. If someone makes a wireless chipset that involves Nokia's patents then Nokia shouldn't be able to sue both the chipset company and Apple (for using the chipset) for instance.
post #59 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Wrong. That's not the way patents work.

After a company has received a large judgment in a patent case, it's almost impossible to lose future cases. You can be 100% sure that Apple's lawyers are discussing "how much are we going to have to pay to settle this without going to court?"

If Apple has a smoking gun that can absolutely prove prior art, it is remotely possible to kill a patent after they've received a large judgment, but if they had such a smoking gun, it would probably have come out earlier. It would have been in Apple's best interest to bring it forward for RIM.



Suggestion:
First read and understand the patents and THEN tell us whether you think they're valid (and why).

Yup, to come against the patent would mean basically arguing that the judge in the previous case was wrong, never goes over well with judges to attack their profession. The only way to discredit the previous ruling is usually to present a similar case that was decided differently, then it's not technically discrediting the prior case.

Remember that judges were once lawyers. There was a time when lawyers were very respected, but things have changed a lot. I wish tort reform was enough but the real issue is that the whole profession is now filled with greedy scoundrels or arrogant prigs. Too few of the good ones left and it has become sort of respectable in the law community to be able to win the unwinable case, so basically it's become honorable to be able to manipulate a case and win it without enough facts.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Patent holder sues Apple, Google, others over wireless e-mail