[hf1khal]

Exactly. The judge is rushing such just to get it of his plate and if his rulling is not justifable where it takes into consideration of certain factors, then RIM will be able to appeal his rulling and will most likely ask for his rulling to be set aside pending the appeal of the case. May be the judge should just step down and assigne if he can not administer his judicial duties by talking all into consideration. He is acting like if one is found guilty and sentenced to the cahmber then even if a new clear evidence is shown of the person's innocence he will still not consider. Oh well. lets hope he gets it all together and come up with the right decision.

[mikegold]

Originally Posted by BBDummy

1) Up until recently, the CRAP said that you owned the land the tiny person is living on. They've only just now taken it away from you. Do you still want rent for everything happening before? Of course you do. (damages for past infringement)

What you want and what you are entitled to are two different things.

[stealthx32]

Originally Posted by jibi

At the time this went to trial, and over the last 3.5 years, the patents have been valid.

But using that logic, Cingular will be allowed to collect royalties on their recent application for emoticon patents until someone challenges the USPTO? Its a clear case of prior art while the RIM/NTP case is not, but they're both invalid nonetheless. If they're invalidated now, doesn't that mean that they shouldn't hold the ground in the past as well since it was not an original idea to begin with?

[BBDummy]

Originally Posted by mikegold

What you want and what you are entitled to are two different things.

Not in this case. The CRAP is the absolute arbiter of who owns what property. If they say you own it, you want rent, and you are entitled to rent, unless and until they change their mind.

[BBDummy]

Originally Posted by stealthx32

But using that logic, Cingular will be allowed to collect royalties on their recent application for emoticon patents until someone challenges the USPTO? Its a clear case of prior art while the RIM/NTP case is not, but they're both invalid nonetheless.

If they're invalidated now, doesn't that mean that they shouldn't hold the ground in the past as well since it was not an original idea to begin with?

No to the first question. You cannot enforce a patent application. Cingular can't do anything unless and until there is an issued patent. Further, if Cingular comes and sues you, they could lose on validity grounds--if accused of infringement, you ALWAYS assert BOTH non-infringement and invalidity. You don't need the Patent Office to declare a patent invalid--the courts can do that (in fact, the courts can do it on more grounds than can the PTO).

No to the second question as well, for the reasons I've outlined on here before.