what is the opinion here on the NTP/RIM problem ?

[Evan Leibovitch]

William O'Higgins Witteman wrote:

>Two things - something existing as a precedent of a patent does not
>prevent the patent from being filed.
>
True, but existence of prior art does make it possible to invalidate the
patent.

>Furthermore, a patent can be (and routinely is) granted without any implementation at all.  There are
>patents based on technologies which do not yet exist.
>  
>
That's not supposed to happen. The traditional definition of patents
required creation of a prototype, or at least a current real-world
implementation.

>The patent system in the United States is famously broken, but most intellectual property regimes have been subverted to be legal mechanisms
>for the well-funded to destroy the less-well-funded in the business arena.
>  
>
Sure, because even an invalid (or improperly obtained) patent still
gives the holder the ability to claim rights. You may be able to prove
the claim wrong, but go bankrupt in the process. In addition to draining
your bank account on lawyers, often injunctions prevent you from using
the contentious technology while you're challenging its patent.

Evan Leibovitch
Co-inventor, US Patent * 5,579,117*

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml