Mark Evans

The Wall Street Journal has done RIM has huge favor by publishing an editorial by co-CEO Jim Balsillie, who makes an impassioned argument for a revision of the U.S. Patent and Trade Office and his company's nasty patent dispute with NTP Inc. Balsillie believes the USPTO needs to be overhauled because it is being overwhelmed with applications and calls for reviews. Obviously, he is frustrated RIM's battle against NTP rumbles along even though the USPTO continues to reject many of NTP's patent claims. Despite this development, U.S. judge James Spencer chooses to ignore it. Instead, he grumbles that his decision will be based on what's being presented to him. It seems like a bizarre approach because what happens if he makes his decision, which could include an injunction in the U.S. that would ban Blackberry sales and services, only to see the USPTO reject all of NTP's patents. Then what? In the WSJ, Balsillie says what many others are now thinking: “Let the USPTO do its job and determine whether NTP's claims are sound or not.” His position is only bolstered by the USPTO's recent decision to accelerate the review of NTP's claims by creating a “dispatch team” of examiners. Why does Judge Spencer seems so gung ho to make a decision when there are clearly more facts to be examined? It's also like he's leaning so far in protecting the rights of the plaintiff (NTP) that he's oblivious to the reality an injunction will seriously harm RIM, which may, in the end, be in the right. One thing the USPTO and U.S. government need to examine is to what extent patents should be protected. It's one thing to infringe patents of a company that's a real business making real products to real customers; it's quite another to infringe patents owned by a shell with no operations other than suing people. At some point, a new benchmark has to be established that protects the rights of patent-holders while not     severely penalizing companies creating new, innovative products.