Comments on: Bridge to the 20th Century http://techliberation.com/2006/01/24/bridge-to-the-20th-century/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:51:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Tim http://techliberation.com/2006/01/24/bridge-to-the-20th-century/comment-page-1/#comment-32565 Tim Wed, 01 Feb 2006 18:11:30 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/01/24/bridge-to-the-20th-century/#comment-32565 <p>Even if RIM's argument is right, wouldn't that still mean BlackBerrys wouldn't be able to recieve emails? Sending and recieving email are conceptually distinct operations. If you have a patent on recieving emails with a mobile device, it doesn't seem like you'd be able to evade that patent simply by adding sending functionality.</p> Even if RIM’s argument is right, wouldn’t that still mean BlackBerrys wouldn’t be able to recieve emails? Sending and recieving email are conceptually distinct operations. If you have a patent on recieving emails with a mobile device, it doesn’t seem like you’d be able to evade that patent simply by adding sending functionality.

]]> By: Tim http://techliberation.com/2006/01/24/bridge-to-the-20th-century/comment-page-1/#comment-54119 Tim Wed, 01 Feb 2006 18:11:30 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/01/24/bridge-to-the-20th-century/#comment-54119 <p>Even if RIM's argument is right, wouldn't that still mean BlackBerrys wouldn't be able to recieve emails? Sending and recieving email are conceptually distinct operations. If you have a patent on recieving emails with a mobile device, it doesn't seem like you'd be able to evade that patent simply by adding sending functionality.</p> Even if RIM’s argument is right, wouldn’t that still mean BlackBerrys wouldn’t be able to recieve emails? Sending and recieving email are conceptually distinct operations. If you have a patent on recieving emails with a mobile device, it doesn’t seem like you’d be able to evade that patent simply by adding sending functionality.

]]> By: Solveig Singleton http://techliberation.com/2006/01/24/bridge-to-the-20th-century/comment-page-1/#comment-32564 Solveig Singleton Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:35:31 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/01/24/bridge-to-the-20th-century/#comment-32564 <p>RIM's argument (and I do not mean to side with them, necessarily, as they have been rather naughty) is that NTP's patents contemplate only one-way rather than two-way paging systems. The anonymous work-around blogger claims:</p> <p>"The NTP patents have (at the very least) a singular weakness. They are all limited to a one-way (push) email systems. At the time the NTP Patents were filed, two-way pagers had yet to be invented and they were not contemplated by the NTP patents. Hence, NTP's inventions do not cover a two-way pager or system that would be required to push only the header (not the actual email message) to the pager and enable retrieval of remotely stored email based on a transmission from the pager -- One-way pagers cannot transmit anything."</p> <p>In time, all will be revealed. Perhaps I place undue weight on the assurances of the anonymous blogger. Hey, I didn't catch any spelling errors.</p> RIM’s argument (and I do not mean to side with them, necessarily, as they have been rather naughty) is that NTP’s patents contemplate only one-way rather than two-way paging systems. The anonymous work-around blogger claims:

“The NTP patents have (at the very least) a singular weakness. They are all limited to a one-way (push) email systems. At the time the NTP Patents were filed, two-way pagers had yet to be invented and they were not contemplated by the NTP patents. Hence, NTP’s inventions do not cover a two-way pager or system that would be required to push only the header (not the actual email message) to the pager and enable retrieval of remotely stored email based on a transmission from the pager — One-way pagers cannot transmit anything.”

In time, all will be revealed. Perhaps I place undue weight on the assurances of the anonymous blogger. Hey, I didn’t catch any spelling errors.

]]> By: Solveig Singleton http://techliberation.com/2006/01/24/bridge-to-the-20th-century/comment-page-1/#comment-54118 Solveig Singleton Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:35:31 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/01/24/bridge-to-the-20th-century/#comment-54118 <p>RIM's argument (and I do not mean to side with them, necessarily, as they have been rather naughty) is that NTP's patents contemplate only one-way rather than two-way paging systems. The anonymous work-around blogger claims:<br><br>"The NTP patents have (at the very least) a singular weakness. They are all limited to a one-way (push) email systems. At the time the NTP Patents were filed, two-way pagers had yet to be invented and they were not contemplated by the NTP patents. Hence, NTP's inventions do not cover a two-way pager or system that would be required to push only the header (not the actual email message) to the pager and enable retrieval of remotely stored email based on a transmission from the pager -- One-way pagers cannot transmit anything."<br><br>In time, all will be revealed. Perhaps I place undue weight on the assurances of the anonymous blogger. Hey, I didn't catch any spelling errors.</p> RIM’s argument (and I do not mean to side with them, necessarily, as they have been rather naughty) is that NTP’s patents contemplate only one-way rather than two-way paging systems. The anonymous work-around blogger claims:

“The NTP patents have (at the very least) a singular weakness. They are all limited to a one-way (push) email systems. At the time the NTP Patents were filed, two-way pagers had yet to be invented and they were not contemplated by the NTP patents. Hence, NTP’s inventions do not cover a two-way pager or system that would be required to push only the header (not the actual email message) to the pager and enable retrieval of remotely stored email based on a transmission from the pager — One-way pagers cannot transmit anything.”

In time, all will be revealed. Perhaps I place undue weight on the assurances of the anonymous blogger. Hey, I didn’t catch any spelling errors.

]]>