http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/02/22/patent-office-issues-final-rejection-of-one-ntp-patent/ Engadget Mobile Comments for Patent office issues final rejection of one NTP patent http://mobile.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://mobile.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2009 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/02/22/patent-office-issues-final-rejection-of-one-ntp-patent/http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/02/22/patent-office-issues-final-rejection-of-one-ntp-patent/Feb 22nd 2006 2:08PMhttp://mobile.engadget.com/2006/02/22/patent-office-issues-final-rejection-of-one-ntp-patent/http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/02/22/patent-office-issues-final-rejection-of-one-ntp-patent/
Don't get me wrong, NTP are a bunch of opportunists in my book. That's not the point of the law (and I don't know the point of law they are pursuing). I do know that patent law is so arcane and detailed that only the very foolhardy indulge in trying to figure it out without at least 3 good patent lawyers on retainer.]]>Feb 22nd 2006 2:30PMhttp://mobile.engadget.com/2006/02/22/patent-office-issues-final-rejection-of-one-ntp-patent/http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/02/22/patent-office-issues-final-rejection-of-one-ntp-patent/Feb 22nd 2006 2:32PMhttp://mobile.engadget.com/2006/02/22/patent-office-issues-final-rejection-of-one-ntp-patent/http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/02/22/patent-office-issues-final-rejection-of-one-ntp-patent/]]>Feb 22nd 2006 2:49PMhttp://mobile.engadget.com/2006/02/22/patent-office-issues-final-rejection-of-one-ntp-patent/http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/02/22/patent-office-issues-final-rejection-of-one-ntp-patent/
How does Engadget explain that after running countless anti-NTP stories they run a story on a rather eye-opening piece regarding NTP, one that seems to shirk the "opportunistic assholes" image NTP has, saying in their very own post that it is eye opening and almost makes you want to root for NTP (a sentiment I share after having read some of the things coming from both sides, not the least of which being a few arrogant and choice remarks made by the RIM founder), and then follow it up a day or two later with another post blasting NTP and continuing that tradition right on up till today.

And NOW you are even insinuating that the judge is, for all intents and purposes, corrupt, and just using this incident to milk the spotlight.

Pretty bold claim from a bunch of blog writers who can't even keep their own site consistent.

Get any checks from RIM lately?]]>Feb 22nd 2006 3:01PMhttp://mobile.engadget.com/2006/02/22/patent-office-issues-final-rejection-of-one-ntp-patent/http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/02/22/patent-office-issues-final-rejection-of-one-ntp-patent/
At this point, most of them are geetting a good handle on the problem, created a plan, estimated a budget and timeframe for whatever is in their Plan B.

RIM's workaround is too vague right now compared with other available technology.

My guess is Windows Mobile devices and HP, with it's enterprise sales model, will do well here IF there is a shut down.

Of course, maybe RIM has a great workaround that is easy to put in place. I hope we never need to find out!]]>Feb 22nd 2006 3:36PMhttp://mobile.engadget.com/2006/02/22/patent-office-issues-final-rejection-of-one-ntp-patent/http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/02/22/patent-office-issues-final-rejection-of-one-ntp-patent/
If you want news, please see the Wall Street Journal or foxnews.com

If you want gadget news, see www.engadget.com, P Torrone never intended this site to be news..]]>Feb 22nd 2006 3:38PMhttp://mobile.engadget.com/2006/02/22/patent-office-issues-final-rejection-of-one-ntp-patent/http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/02/22/patent-office-issues-final-rejection-of-one-ntp-patent/
Like it or not they are helping spread that view of NTP, at some point when enough people start reading what you write some level of responsibility (or at the very least credibility) comes into play.

And might I remind you this site is billed (via the banner on engadget.com) as "NEWS and reviews".

Your right though, I apologize, I have no right to question your beloved. No right to ask what exactly is going on when a popular voice on the gadget scene (and this would seem to me to be directly applicable) seems to be snowing under NTP, accusing a judge of impropriety, and seemingly completely ignoring one of their own posted articles.

I'm a whackjob, I apologize.]]>Feb 22nd 2006 5:13PMhttp://mobile.engadget.com/2006/02/22/patent-office-issues-final-rejection-of-one-ntp-patent/http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/02/22/patent-office-issues-final-rejection-of-one-ntp-patent/
I think this is a little over the top, he is just trying to follow the law as written. That is what Judges do. The problem is that the law is broken and congress, to date has failed to agree on a new software patent law. The NTP patent should never have been given as I mentioned on my blog http://www.mydigitallife.us/2006/02/wireless_email_.html]]>Feb 22nd 2006 7:23PMhttp://mobile.engadget.com/2006/02/22/patent-office-issues-final-rejection-of-one-ntp-patent/http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/02/22/patent-office-issues-final-rejection-of-one-ntp-patent/http://mca.libsyn.com]]>Feb 22nd 2006 8:31PMhttp://mobile.engadget.com/2006/02/22/patent-office-issues-final-rejection-of-one-ntp-patent/http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/02/22/patent-office-issues-final-rejection-of-one-ntp-patent/
If the PTO says RIM isn't infringing on NTP ... how can there even BE a case??]]>Feb 23rd 2006 11:29AM