ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Intellectual Property - Important to Protect (for some)

It seems that the Research In Motion (the maker of the Blackberry) may finally have to deal with the fact that their technology may be infringing on Intellectual Property rights of NTP. And it seems that government doesn't want to have to deal with the possible repercussions of said infringement:

BlackBerry Blackout - November 30, 2005

There's a chance, albeit a small one, that sometime this week BlackBerries around the country could go quiet. Depending on where you stand on these pervasive email handheld devices, that may or may not seem like a good thing. But it's a sign of how quickly our economy adapts to new technologies that a BlackBerry service break would prove highly inconvenient to many businesses and positively disruptive to some. Whatever happens, however, the U.S. government wants to make sure its "crackberry" addicts still get their fix.
If the [original lawsuit] settlement is not enforced, an injunction could be placed barring RIM from providing service in the U.S. until RIM licenses NTP's patents. That's a chance the feds don't want to take, so earlier this month the Justice Department filed a statement of interest in the case, requesting that any injunction exclude the government's 300,000 or so users. NTP says the technology exists to do so fairly easily.

We don't know who's right on the technical point, and this is not the place to delve into the mess that is the U.S. patent system. What caught our eye, however, was the government's claim that it is "imperative" that its use of BlackBerries not be interrupted.

Blackberries for the government... I just love the fact that the government will rule that RIM is infringing on someone elses intellectual property, but give an exception to the government to continue infringing on that intellectual property. I wonder why the government didn't seek an exemption when Grokster was forced to close its doors?

It seems that protection of some intellectual property is more critical than others. It's a shame that NTP doesn't have overpaid rockstars and movie stars to champion its case.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Comments (1)
Monterey John said...

I had not heard about this governmental exception. These guys have absoilutely no shame. The law is for those "other folks," not them.