Talk:Research In Motion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Moved to this capitalization; company policy is to capitalize the 'I'. Radagast
[edit] My reversion
I reverted the change to this article because it is a cut and paste from current event news. That is against the Copyright Policy of Wikipedia.--Adam 
(talk) 23:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Patent Litigation
Added section on earlier history of RIM patent litigation. See links for sources.--Nowa 16:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Can someone put reference tags on these, and put the links down in the reference section? I would do it, but I am bogged down at the moment. --Adam (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Good suggestion. Links put in reference section--Nowa 22:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, the history of the litigation between RIM and NTP needs to be in one place. The addition of a paragraph to this page detailing one particular bit of it gives a very point of view feel to it - there is also huge amounts missing, and now there is no link to the location of the full detail on the litigation (at NTP, Inc.) as there was before. I'd suggest moving all the material related to the NTP litigation to NTP, Inc. and putting a link across to it. Kcordina Talk 08:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. however, the last 'litigation conclusion' paragraph sould remain and a link added to NTP. PDAgeek 18:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree with PDAgeek's edits. There may be milder ways to express it, but it appears that Nowa's edits are all factually correct. Perhaps if someone could edit to remove inflamatory language without diminishing content, that would be acceptable to all.--Glin 21:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I still agree that the story of the litigation should go in one place and I'll lend my support to those that take it on. In the meantime, I think PDAgeek has a good point about POV. I've tried to remove it, but if those interested still see some in there, please remove without diluting content. I also split out the case of RIM v Glenayre. Even if the NTP case is moved out, I'm not sure the Glenayre case should go with it.
I probably got a little wordy with the reexamination so feel free to trim. The basic point I was trying to make is that a reexamination goes on even after two parties settle. NTP, therefore, could still loose the patents despite the settlement. It is normal in these cases to have clauses in the settlement that state that NTP doesn't have to give the money back, even if the patents are held invalid. I didn't want to put that in, however, without a source. Otherwise it would just be speculation--Nowa 00:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've reworked the litigation section a fair bit, and I think it's now neutral and more readable. Nowa, I was perhaps a bit merciless in editting your reexam bit, but I do think it fits far better in the NTP article (I've moved it there) - particularly since now the case is settled, it is, as you say, very unlikely to affect RIM. Kcordina Talk 08:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Kcordina, No problem. I like what you've done.--Nowa 17:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality Concerns
I have to say, having just read this and the NTP Inc. articles, I'm worried about some possible neutrality issues. While I know the obvious reply is "fix it yourself", I think I ought to mention it to everyone else too. Between the raving of how RIM invented the Blackberry which was a "great product" and "killer app", and description of NTP as a "patent troll" with no qualification, perhaps we're taking an excessively pro-RIM approach here? Plasma 10:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
