Talk:NTP, Inc.

"Conviction" used incorrectly
TFA states "conviction for patent infringement." Meh. This wasn't a criminal case. --Gtcaz 06:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've fixed it. In the future, if you see any mistakes in an article, you should be bold and just fix them. --Terry Carroll 15:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of patents
Is there a discussion of items in the patent somewhere? I can personally think of 3 prior art that could refute subsections of NTA patent. --Hans Schulze 2007/09/12
 * Hans, There are direct links to copies of the patents on the patents page.  What you need to do is look at the claims of each patent and the priority date.  If your references disclose all of the elements of any given claim and they are published earlier than the priority date of a given patent, then they could potentially invalidate the patent.--Nowa 11:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * To see the arguments that have already been presented to invalidate the patents, you have to go to and look up the PAIR site.  Once you are in PAIR, you can put in the serial numbers for the reexaminations and then view all of the documents and discussions that have been submitted.--Nowa 11:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

NTP Sues Verizon, AT&T, Sprint Nextel and TMobile
According to Slashdot,

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/12/1956202

"An anonymous reader writes to tell us that following in the wake of their patent suit against Research in Motion (RIM), NTP has filed suit against Verizon, AT&T, Sprint Nextel, and T-Mobile for infringing on several patents. All of the patents in question relate to the delivery of email on mobile devices. 'Five of the eight patents being used in the telco cases were the subject of NTP's 2001 patent suit against Research in Motion, the maker of the BlackBerry. In November 2002, a jury found that RIM infringed upon NTP's patents. The case continued to make headlines until 2006, when RIM agreed to pay NTP a settlement of $612.5 million, nearly four years after RIM had first been found guilty of infringing on NTP's patents.'"

Maybe someone should add this to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.39.78.68 (talk) 20:42, September 12, 2007
 * Done--Nowa 11:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Request: can someone figure out when the relevant patents were filed
I don't have the time or expertise (or energy) to go through the patents, but in the late 80s, the Los Angeles Fire Department was implementing a wireless email system (part of a wireless hookup of every fire department vehicle) to their central servers. That wireless system was based on a Motorola radio with antenna on Mt. Hollywood. Users could "email", or "chat", query a central server to query information about various LA addresses: hazardous waste manifests, reasons for prior paramedic calls, etc. At the time, I don't believe there was anything special about the LAFD system -- I believe it was mainly a cut and paste of what various police departments were doing.

It would be very helpful if someone could look through the various patents and let us know what years the prior art needs to come from. Maybe someone should add this to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.39.78.68 (talk) 20:42, September 12, 2007


 * The short answer is 1992. If you have prior art, however, that hasn't been considered by the parties involved in the lawsuits and you think said prior art might anticipate or make obvious the claims of any of the patents, you should consider contacting a registered patent attorney or agent.  He or she will help you determine if the prior art is important.  If it is, then your knowledge could be quite valuable.  There are hundreds of millions of dollars at stake in these lawsuits. --Nowa 11:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Telenor documents
The article appears to suggest the key issue of the Telenor documents is whether they can be considered publications but this is unsourced. Trying to find out what the Telenor documents are, I came across some sources albeit non RS   suggesting the key issue was whether the documents were authentic or had been modified. Nil Einne (talk) 09:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You can follow the cases directly on the USPTO's PAIR site.--Nowa (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Web site?
What is NTP's web site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.198.241.130 (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

www.patent-trolls-r-us.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.30.196.54 (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)