BlackBerry Apocalypse: Soon?
The Supreme Court has refused to hear RIM's arguments regarding jurisdication of their BlackBerry service. Judge Spencer is now free to issue an injunction to shutter the wireless email service.
If RIM's BlackBerry is shut down, thousands of emergency responders will lose an important tool in their communication arsenal. Thousands of businesses will lose a tool that has become essential to their revenue.
You say you want a revolution? Well, it will be interesting to see how the masses respond if the trial judge carries through with his clearly stated intentions.
Previous coverage:
If RIM's BlackBerry is shut down, thousands of emergency responders will lose an important tool in their communication arsenal. Thousands of businesses will lose a tool that has become essential to their revenue.
You say you want a revolution? Well, it will be interesting to see how the masses respond if the trial judge carries through with his clearly stated intentions.
Previous coverage:
- The Wright Brothers & the BlackBerry
- BlackBerry Tiptoes
- BlackBerry with a Gun Against its Head
- Supreme Court to Reform Patent Law?
posted by Jackson Lenford at 11:16 AM
2 Comments:
Wrong message to a general public,
Jackson..
If you have a produce store at the nearest corner and they sell great stuff really cheap, and everybody is happy to buy it, but then one day this shop is shut down by the court order because it was selling stolen goodies...
And then people like you get unhappy.
May I remind you about the US Constitution and other laws governing this country ?
Get used to it, you'd better to...
Anonymous,
You're analogy to a produce store with cheap stolen goods is a bad one for numerous reasons (ideas aren't private property, for one), but I can fix it to make it better:
Suppose that the government granted a monopoly to a certain produce vendor (lets call him Joe), giving that vendor the exclusive right to sell apples. And suppose that the government went around shutting down all the other produce stores that sold apples, unless they had express permission from Joe, permission that Joe would only grant if given a large sum of money.
Doesn't such a system fit every definition of 'corrupt' that you can think of?
The US Constitution allows Congress to grant monopolies over inventions for the express purpose of "Promoting the Useful Arts and Sciences." Can you explain to me how writing up a patent application whose claims are as broad, obvious, and non-original as NTP's are promoting either of those things? To me, it is very clear that all they promote is greed and unjust monopoly power over the market.
And, lest you forget, the USPTO has decided that it will invalidate NTP's patents at the core of this case, but is waiting for the mandatory period of time to elapse before they can do so. These patent monopolies, specifically, are no more valid or just than the hypothetical apple-selling monopoly described above.
Read the linked articles, or do a google search on the issue -- if RIM is shutdown or forced to pay royalties, it will be the most glaring example of the corrupt nature of the patent system we have seen in a very, very long time.
Post a Comment
<< Home