Canadian mobile e-mail firm Research In Motion (RIM), maker of the BlackBerry, has finally settled its dispute with its patent nemesis, NTP, for $612.5 million (£349 million).

But while the world concentrated on its patent spats with NTP and, in Europe, InPro, RIM has slowly sold its way to the top of the personal digital assistant (PDA) market.


RIM now rules worldwide sales of PDAs, beating traditional handheld makers Palm and HP, which produces the iPAQ, into the top spot for 2005, according to the latest numbers from research firm Gartner.


The settlement can only mean one thing - RIM can now pursue world domination without distractions. The firm is already the leader in the US and UK legal markets.


These two tales - RIM's ongoing fight with NTP and its concurrent sales hike - are related in various ways. Despite dire warnings in some quarters, many commentators wondered whether it was really possible to shut down the BlackBerry service in the US, as so many key elements of the US government depend on it, including the Department of Justice.


In Gartner's report, published before the settlement, principal analyst Todd Kort said RIM did not appear to be losing much momentum despite its legal problems and the threat of an injunction. 'Generally, BlackBerry users are staying put because of the high cost of switching, lack of suitable alternative devices, and the low probability of [the] BlackBerry service being shut down.' Mr Kort turned out to be right.


Not only had RIM announced that it had a technological 'workaround' in case it could not use the disputed NTP technology, but it also won its fight with InPro in Europe, neutering shut-off problems here.


The decision on 24 February by US Federal Judge James Spencer in Virginia not to rule on the RIM/NTP case and instead push the parties back to the negotiation table was hailed by legal commentators at the time.


James Hurst, a patent lawyer at leading Chicago firm Winston & Strawn, told reporters that Judge Spencer's decision to delay was designed to push the parties into a settlement.


He said the 'judge is obviously sending a strong message to both parties to think long and hard about whether they want to see his decision, because it might not please either party'.