🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <t756g.21969$Fs1.21112@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>VISTO WINS MOBILE EMAIL VERDICT AGAINST SEVEN NETWORKS,
>FILES ACTION AGAINST RESEARCH IN MOTION (RIM)
><http://www.visto.com/news/releases/06_05_01_seven.html>
>
>   A jury has overwhelmingly found in favor of Visto Corporation in a 
>   long-running intellectual property lawsuit between Visto and Seven 
>   Networks. The jury found that Seven�s mobile email service infringes 
>   on the system that Visto created over the past decade. They further 
>   found this infringement to be willful on all claims brought to trial.
>
>   Immediately following their victory over Seven Networks, Visto 
>   attorneys filed a similar suit against BlackBerry provider Research 
>   in Motion (RIM). Visto is seeking an injunction and monetary damages 
>   against RIM.
>
>   "Friday�s sweeping decision against Seven Networks validates our 
>   claims that Visto�s intellectual property serves as the basis for 
>   this industry�s birth," said Brian Bogosian, Visto�s Chairman, 
>   President and CEO. "There was no ambiguity in the jury�s decision. 
>   Likewise we believe that RIM�s infringement of Visto�s technology 
>   will be halted. Our case against RIM is based on similar technology, 
>   law and patents as the case we have just won in federal court against 
>   Seven Networks."
>
>   "Based on Visto�s sweeping victory in court against Seven Networks on 
>   Friday, RIM must understand that there is no place in the mobile 
>   email space for this sort of behavior," continued Bogosian. "Under 
>   the law, which protects consumers from products that contain 
>   infringing technology, RIM should not be able to sell the BlackBerry 
>   system." 
>

I read somewhere (boy is that a good source) that vs RIM the Visto claims 
maybe a bit more tenuous. Of course time and a trail will tell us how valid 
that observation is.

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

Rico wrote:
  > I read somewhere (boy is that a good source)

HAHAHAHAH...works for someone here.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <9h86g.27768$iB2.5506@bignews4.bellsouth.net> on Wed, 03 May 2006 20:24:45
GMT, rico_001@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote:

>In article <t756g.21969$Fs1.21112@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>VISTO WINS MOBILE EMAIL VERDICT AGAINST SEVEN NETWORKS,
>>FILES ACTION AGAINST RESEARCH IN MOTION (RIM)
>><http://www.visto.com/news/releases/06_05_01_seven.html>
>>[SNIP]

>I read somewhere (boy is that a good source) that vs RIM the Visto claims 
>maybe a bit more tenuous. Of course time and a trail will tell us how valid 
>that observation is.

That the patents have been upheld in court would seem to put Visto in a very
strong position, since the most common defense against patent infringement is
to claim that the patents are invalid.  RIM would thus seem to be left with
the usually harder argument that it's not actually infringing the patents.

-- 
Best regards,        SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas          <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> 
> In <9h86g.27768$iB2.5506@bignews4.bellsouth.net> on Wed, 03 May 2006 20:24:45
> GMT, rico_001@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote:
> 
>> In article <t756g.21969$Fs1.21112@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> VISTO WINS MOBILE EMAIL VERDICT AGAINST SEVEN NETWORKS,
>>> FILES ACTION AGAINST RESEARCH IN MOTION (RIM)
>>> <http://www.visto.com/news/releases/06_05_01_seven.html>
>>> [SNIP]
> 
>> I read somewhere (boy is that a good source) that vs RIM the Visto claims 
>> maybe a bit more tenuous. Of course time and a trail will tell us how valid 
>> that observation is.
> 
> That the patents have been upheld in court would seem to put Visto in a very
> strong position, since the most common defense against patent infringement is
> to claim that the patents are invalid.  RIM would thus seem to be left with
> the usually harder argument that it's not actually infringing the patents.

As I understand it, US courts initially do not look at the patent as 
such, they look only at the patenting process. If that follows the 
rules, then the patent is "valid." Whether the patent covers a 
patentable process is a different issue, and one that the courts may 
rule on only if the alleged infringer brings non-patentability as a 
defense. Moreover, AFAIK even if a patent is eventually declared invalid 
by the Patent Office, and that ruling is used as a defense, the courts 
generally deem the patent was valid until the time the Patent Office 
said otherwise. Which IMO is absurd.

There is a wrinkle on which I would like some clarification. Suppose RIM 
could show that it used the allegedly patented process(es) prior to the 
filing or granting of the patent: would that not be prima facie evidence 
that Visto did not invent the process(es), and therefore has no claim?

Another wrinkle: Suppose RIM could show that the processes it uses, and 
which Visto claims are their property, were in fact widely known and 
understood before RIM itself applied them to its technology, would that 
not be prima facie evidence that Visto's claims are void?

I'm waiting for some leech to patent the answer to a first year 
electronics course problem -- if that hasn't been done already.

In article <58q6g.25691$Fs1.11021@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <9h86g.27768$iB2.5506@bignews4.bellsouth.net> on Wed, 03 May 2006 20:24:45
>GMT, rico_001@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote:
>
>>In article <t756g.21969$Fs1.21112@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, John
> Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>VISTO WINS MOBILE EMAIL VERDICT AGAINST SEVEN NETWORKS,
>>>FILES ACTION AGAINST RESEARCH IN MOTION (RIM)
>>><http://www.visto.com/news/releases/06_05_01_seven.html>
>>>[SNIP]
>
>>I read somewhere (boy is that a good source) that vs RIM the Visto claims 
>>maybe a bit more tenuous. Of course time and a trail will tell us how valid 
>>that observation is.
>
>That the patents have been upheld in court would seem to put Visto in a very
>strong position, since the most common defense against patent infringement is
>to claim that the patents are invalid.  RIM would thus seem to be left with
>the usually harder argument that it's not actually infringing the patents.
>

Again from vague source, I think the arguement is that the technology RIM 
is employing is not exactly a match here. Not a case of the patents are 
invalid, but aren't being infringed here. Again Visto has a different 
opinion.

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <u6s6g.1829$VV2.136900@news20.bellglobal.com> on Thu, 04 May 2006 14:58:28
-0400, Wolf Kirchmeir <wolfekir@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:

>> That the patents have been upheld in court would seem to put Visto in a very
>> strong position, since the most common defense against patent infringement is
>> to claim that the patents are invalid.  RIM would thus seem to be left with
>> the usually harder argument that it's not actually infringing the patents.
>
>As I understand it, US courts initially do not look at the patent as 
>such, they look only at the patenting process. If that follows the 
>rules, then the patent is "valid." Whether the patent covers a 
>patentable process is a different issue, and one that the courts may 
>rule on only if the alleged infringer brings non-patentability as a 
>defense. Moreover, AFAIK even if a patent is eventually declared invalid 
>by the Patent Office, and that ruling is used as a defense, the courts 
>generally deem the patent was valid until the time the Patent Office 
>said otherwise. Which IMO is absurd.

"Frequently Asked Questions: Patent infringement"
<http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/faq/infringement/>
"Frequently Asked Questions: Determining the validity of patents"
<http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/faq/validity/>

>There is a wrinkle on which I would like some clarification. Suppose RIM 
>could show that it used the allegedly patented process(es) prior to the 
>filing or granting of the patent: would that not be prima facie evidence 
>that Visto did not invent the process(es), and therefore has no claim?

That would be a "prior art" showing to render the patent invalid.

>Another wrinkle: Suppose RIM could show that the processes it uses, and 
>which Visto claims are their property, were in fact widely known and 
>understood before RIM itself applied them to its technology, would that 
>not be prima facie evidence that Visto's claims are void?

That would be an "obvious" or not "novel" showing to render the patent
invalid.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_infringement>

   Patent infringement

   Defenses

   The single most common defense to patent infringement is a 
   counter-attack on the patent itself, i.e., the validity of the patent 
   and the allegedly infringed claims. Even if the patent is valid, the 
   plaintiff must still prove that every element of at least one claim 
   was infringed and that such infringement caused some sort of damage.
   ...

-- 
Best regards,        SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas          <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:

> There is a wrinkle on which I would like some clarification. Suppose RIM
> could show that it used the allegedly patented process(es) prior to the
> filing or granting of the patent: would that not be prima facie evidence
> that Visto did not invent the process(es), and therefore has no claim?

No.  It certainly hampers the patent holder if that's shown, but the law is
supposed to uphold the right of the inventor to patent at any point.  The
patentor needs to demonstrate that they've tried to protect their process,
though - and suing at this late date might be a problem.
 
> Another wrinkle: Suppose RIM could show that the processes it uses, and
> which Visto claims are their property, were in fact widely known and
> understood before RIM itself applied them to its technology, would that
> not be prima facie evidence that Visto's claims are void?

That's the heart and soul of most patent cases - "prior art".  You can
patent a process that is _mostly_ well known, but there must be a
significant improvement on your part.
 
> I'm waiting for some leech to patent the answer to a first year
> electronics course problem -- if that hasn't been done already.

Similar things have certainly been done.  I should be able to dig up the
(recent) patent for the rubber tire swing... (apparently filed as a
demonstration of just how simple it is to get "prior art" past the patent
office).
-- 
derek

In article <2Ss6g.42972$eR6.17197@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <u6s6g.1829$VV2.136900@news20.bellglobal.com> on Thu, 04 May 2006 14:58:28
>-0400, Wolf Kirchmeir <wolfekir@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>
>>> That the patents have been upheld in court would seem to put Visto in a very
>>> strong position, since the most common defense against patent infringement
> is
>>> to claim that the patents are invalid.  RIM would thus seem to be left with
>>> the usually harder argument that it's not actually infringing the patents.
>>
>>As I understand it, US courts initially do not look at the patent as 
>>such, they look only at the patenting process. If that follows the 
>>rules, then the patent is "valid." Whether the patent covers a 
>>patentable process is a different issue, and one that the courts may 
>>rule on only if the alleged infringer brings non-patentability as a 
>>defense. Moreover, AFAIK even if a patent is eventually declared invalid 
>>by the Patent Office, and that ruling is used as a defense, the courts 
>>generally deem the patent was valid until the time the Patent Office 
>>said otherwise. Which IMO is absurd.
>
>"Frequently Asked Questions: Patent infringement"
><http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/faq/infringement/>
>"Frequently Asked Questions: Determining the validity of patents"
><http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/faq/validity/>
>
>>There is a wrinkle on which I would like some clarification. Suppose RIM 
>>could show that it used the allegedly patented process(es) prior to the 
>>filing or granting of the patent: would that not be prima facie evidence 
>>that Visto did not invent the process(es), and therefore has no claim?
>
>That would be a "prior art" showing to render the patent invalid.
>
>>Another wrinkle: Suppose RIM could show that the processes it uses, and 
>>which Visto claims are their property, were in fact widely known and 
>>understood before RIM itself applied them to its technology, would that 
>>not be prima facie evidence that Visto's claims are void?
>
>That would be an "obvious" or not "novel" showing to render the patent
>invalid.
>
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_infringement>
>
>   Patent infringement
>
>   Defenses
>
>   The single most common defense to patent infringement is a 
>   counter-attack on the patent itself, i.e., the validity of the patent 
>   and the allegedly infringed claims. Even if the patent is valid, the 
>   plaintiff must still prove that every element of at least one claim 
>   was infringed and that such infringement caused some sort of damage.

It is on this last point that I think (implied) RIM has a better case this 
time around, that they are not doing quite the same thing in the same way 
as the Visto patent. Again though the validity of this is to be seen in 
court/pre-trial.

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

Derek Broughton wrote:
> Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
>> I'm waiting for some leech to patent the answer to a first year
>> electronics course problem -- if that hasn't been done already.
> 
> Similar things have certainly been done.  I should be able to dig up the
> (recent) patent for the rubber tire swing... (apparently filed as a
> demonstration of just how simple it is to get "prior art" past the patent
> office).

Of course you know that someone patented the "process" of using a laser
pointer to play with your cat.

-- 
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
 -- Solomon W. Golomb

clifto wrote:

> Derek Broughton wrote:
>> Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
>>> I'm waiting for some leech to patent the answer to a first year
>>> electronics course problem -- if that hasn't been done already.
>> 
>> Similar things have certainly been done.  I should be able to dig up the
>> (recent) patent for the rubber tire swing... (apparently filed as a
>> demonstration of just how simple it is to get "prior art" past the patent
>> office).
> 
> Of course you know that someone patented the "process" of using a laser
> pointer to play with your cat.
> 
No, I didn't - but if you'd asked me "Has someone patented the process of
using a laser pointer to play with a cat", I'd have had to guess the answer
was "yes" :-)
-- 
derek

Derek Broughton wrote:
> clifto wrote:
>> Of course you know that someone patented the "process" of using a laser
>> pointer to play with your cat.
>> 
> No, I didn't - but if you'd asked me "Has someone patented the process of
> using a laser pointer to play with a cat", I'd have had to guess the answer
> was "yes" :-)

<http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US05443036__>

-- 
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
 -- Solomon W. Golomb

More info:
"Mobile e-mail minnow stalks big beasts"
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4760727.stm>

-- 
Best regards,        SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas          <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>