Although I was expecting a settlement in this case, I wonder if our own Intellectual Property Law hasn't turned into a mandatory licensing system via the courts. Is that really what IP is about? Protecting the economic interest of corporate entities? Apparently, in this case the Judge questioned whether NTP was acting rationally in refusing to settle. That was enough to spur a settlement. Does it really matter whether they were acting rationally? Isn't it their perogative not to settle? NO. It isn't, they have to answer to sharholders as does everyone else these days.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/1700AP_BlackBerry_Battle.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I must say I was anticipating a settlement on this one, as well.
The question that the judge asked is definitely an interesting one. I don't see the point of questioning the rationality of the bahavior, either.
I confess to not following this issue. I don't have a Blackberry, and still make notes to myself on scraps of paper. If you have time, can you give us a 1-minute recap of the main issue involved?
sorry EP, the case had to do with the underlying software technology that powers blackberry devices. Another firm claimed blackberry had been infringing on their patent and had won several early victories in the case, but didn't appear to want to settle.
Post a Comment