Feds Enter Blackberry Fray

Rick Zeman writes "Blackberry addicted US Feds have entered into the patent dispute between Canadian company Research in Motion and US patent-holders NTP. From the article: 'The Justice Department has filed a legal brief in a patent dispute, asking a federal court to delay any immediate shutdown of the popular wireless e-mail system to ensure that state and federal workers can continue to use their devices.' Apparently 10% of US Blackberry users are government users."

Comments

US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Tontoman]

One odd element of this dispute is this: Canada has also filed amicus brief in the case. http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2005/01/canada _challeng.html Canada argues that essential part of their system, the email relay operation, is located entirely in Canada. Therefore US government is saying they have put a foreign corporation (Blackberry LTD) in the critical path of essential government communication.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[slavemowgli]

What's your point, Mr. Xenophobe?

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, it's Canada. We'll just use eminent domain and take it. It's America Lite.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Cliffy03]

If this goes through, I hope RIM would bring up a lawsuit under NAFTA Regulations. I was under the impression they can't limit a foreign company from making profits.

For example, the transportation world has interstating laws limit a foreign investor from making a profit. This sounds similiar.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Doc Ruby]

The point is in the title: the US government is dependent on a foreign corporation for an essential infrastructure. That fact isn't "xenophobic", in the perjorative sense, just in the real sense of identifying the risk and threat from foreigners, which is completely established by millennia of history.

Canada is our ally, and a reasonable partner - usually more reasonable than we are. But a national security that's dependent on a foreign power is insecure. Exceptions can't be made on any basis, even including a hypothetical exclusive source for a useful technology. And Blackberry isn't the exclusive source for pushed mobile email - just the most popular, and maybe the easiest. This dimension to the conflict shows the security requirements of ensuring American tech is at the forefront. Even if just by ensuring an American company, entirely governed by the American government, has a license from the foreign supplier, and the means to produce independently if suddenly cut off. Of course, it also shows how the Feds mismanage national security, prioritizing fear and $BILLIONS in expenses, without identifying actual risks.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the US doing the same by demanding they keep exclusive control of the root DNS and the internet itself? (Read: having control over an infrastructure used world wide for econimocal and government purposes)

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[trollable]

But a national security that's dependent on a foreign power is insecure.

Agreed. No more Windows, no more Oracle, ... at least in the defense ministry. Only double-checked open-source for the software (or special development and terms if there is no FOSS equivalent). But what about hardware? IMHO, to have "trusted" hardware is as important as "trusted" software.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Therefore US government is saying they have put a foreign corporation (Blackberry LTD) in the critical path of essential government communication.

Actually, given the history, I don't see that as a problem. The Crackberries were supposedly the most effective means of communication between many Federal employees following the 9/11 disaster after many other means of communication had failed or was gridlocked. It was successful enough that they've expanded their purchasing of the devices.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[rikkards]

That was also the case with during the great Eastern Seaboard blackout in Ottawa. Blackberry coverage was still up here.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[ocelotbob]

This is patent law, which would be in place even if RIM were say a California company, thus, not a barrier to entry covered under NAFTA. Free trade agreements typically cover things like tariffs, not patents.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Doc Ruby]

Yes it is. National security is not a fair game - it's a nonstop battle to retain the advantage in protecting one's national resources, including technology. One reason the US has prospered has been general perception of it as a "fair dealer" that can be trusted to administer unique resources globally for fair access and mutual safety. Even despite many severe abuses by the US, it's generally been more fair and reliable than the other alternative governments.

Of course, the Bush administration has destroyed so much of that credibility that the US might never regain it. Other nations are certainly within their rights to try to grab their own national security interests from the US - even when there's no legitimate basis - especially when they're in fundamental conflict with the US, like China and even Brazil or Venezuela. But removing that control from the US creates an even more serious threat: the system will break more often, with a less manageable organization for fixing it, as well as include means for hostile attacks among conflicted nations.

The US can regain its credibility in Internet governance (damaged more by its other failures than any Internet problems) by fairly and firmly resolving the kerfuffle in the UN that threatens US control of the Net, and its perception of benevolence. Of course, Bush sending John "Blow Up the UN" Bolton to head our UN mission makes that even harder. These wranglings will probably boil for years, until we're rid of Bush and his criminally incompetent crew. And leave scars behind. By then perhaps the global Internet community will have developed technology that better models both mutual participation and self-determination than the current DNS tech, without risking fragmentation. We've all got a lot of work to do, motivated by enlightened self-interest.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[jmcharry]

There is a fairly long history of US dependence on Canada in national security matters. The DEW line springs to mind. Also, Northern Telecom supplied a fairly large number of military telephone switches and even some crypto gear. A fair amount of equipment used in our space program is of Canadian design. It seems to me government employees using a COTS communication device supplied by them is a much smaller risk. If the government isn't going to use things of foreign manufacture, it is likely to be much worse off considering the large amount of technological equipment that is only manufactured overseas.

Beyond that, Canada is probably the lowest risk non US supplier one can imagine. They are independent, and there are occasional squabbles, usually over arcane trade issues, but they are so like us and so tied to us economically and culturally it is hard to imagine a major meltdown that would be a serious impediment to US national security. On the other hand, the last time we did get into a shooting war with them, they came down and burned the White House.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Doc Ruby]

I'd agree - if you were talking about the defence ministry, and I were a foreigner. I still agree that defense dependence on multinational corporations, with no immediate replacement strategy in crisis, is bad for the US. What if the Microsoft strategy for actual enforcement of the US monopoly verdict was to "declare war", from foot-dragging, or even moving overseas and denying service? Open source is by far the most secure kind of tech, except perhaps the occasional "secret weapons" that can actually be kept secret - those are very rare.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd agree - if you were talking about the defence ministry, and I were a foreigner.

I'm not sure how to break this to you, but you are a foreigner.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Danathar]

Foreign? Canada is not foreign. It's just the unofficial 51st state.....

If you are Canadian and reading this.....stop holding your breath, it's a JOKE. You may laugh

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Anonymous Coward]

One reason the US has prospered has been general perception of it as a "fair dealer" that can be trusted to administer unique resources globally for fair access and mutual safety.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Best joke I've heard all week.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Kjella]

The point is in the title: the US government is dependent on a foreign corporation for an essential infrastructure. That fact isn't "xenophobic", in the perjorative sense

More like paranoia, in the non-sensical sense. A few government workers cut off from mobile e-mail access? Whoa, real threat to national security there. Tell me the military or critical infrastructure is running over this, not convienience functions for paper pushers.

This dimension to the conflict shows the security requirements of ensuring American tech is at the forefront. Even if just by ensuring an American company, entirely governed by the American government, has a license from the foreign supplier, and the means to produce independently if suddenly cut off.

Why yes, let's just force all companies to share their technology with the US government, and to be operated by American companies so that the US is never dependent on a foreign coroporation for essential infrastructure. Seemed to work out great for Soviet Russia and all the rest that tried this kind of forced nationalization and state-granted monopolies.

Of course, it also shows how the Feds mismanage national security, prioritizing fear and $BILLIONS in expenses, without identifying actual risks.

Oh, so Blackberry is a national security risk. Here's a few other suggestions:
1. Radical muslim terrorists
2. Vast national debt and production dependecy on China
3. Alienating many allies by the treatment of foreigners and foreign countries
4. Ongoing military operations in Iraq with little end in sight

I don't think the US realizes how much they've lost in standing in Europe over the last few years. It is no wonder the EU wants to take control of their DNS. How would you like it someone else was controlling the US internet? I'm sure you'd be spouting flames by then. People like you certainly don't help. Do you understand what it looks like when you want allies and trade partners, but at the same time you send the message loud and clear that we do not trust you, nor do we want to be dependent on trade with you? Good relations are built on commitments from both sides, do you ever wonder why the US has so few?

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[marcsherman]

You mean the Second Great Eastern Seaboard blackout. Blackberry coverage was still on the drawing board during the Great Eastern Seaboard blackout.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Doc Ruby]

You're talking about mutual interdependence. The DEW line offered no better alternative, and was a mutual compact. It is, in fact, also backed up by other border defenses. US security is increased by the Canadian DEW, but is not reduced to zero (or lower) by hypothetical Canadian subversion.

The other examples you mention are more serious. And do present national security risks, some severe. Especially as so much essential materiel is now produced by Communist mafia China, America's natural enemy (even if it's the natural ally of some of our richest Americans). The risk from Canada is not a priority, because Canada's threat is mitigated by their natural comity with America (and any other neighbor - they're nice), and their total dependence on trade with us. But security is a process, and threats are degrees of risk. The US national security would be higher if the government relied more on American tech, or at least reduced dependence risks from foreign tech with "failover" strategies of reverse engineering and cloning, with rapid domestic redeployment. We spend many $BILLIONS each year on strategic preparedness that usually doesn't otherwise improve our economy. If we spent some of that on domestic engineering and production, designed for rapid scalability, that risk mitigation would also build our economic strength and global competitiveness. As we've seen in eras where we're relatively at peace, national economic security is the fundamental basis for national military security.

FWIW, if Canada turns of Blackberry, we should finally reclaim "Occupied Northern Maine". C'est la guerre ;).

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[matt4077]

Firstly, it has been like that for a long time. There isn't a country in this world that does not rely on products from other countries. That kind of economic independence hasn't been around for 50 years. If you think the Blackberry is important in that context, just think of all the hardware that's manufactured in Asia.

Secondly, total economic independence shouldn't even be a goal. Cooperation is not only economically beneficial (economies of scale, specialisation etc.), but is also an important factor in stabilizing the world. The #1 reason why there will never be war again between France and Germany is that both countries' wealth depend on trade with the other.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[mmkkbb]

He's not talking about national disaster. He's talking about willful disconnection of service by a hostile nation. If we ever got THAT pissed off at Canada anyway

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[bofkentucky]

British and Northeast textile makers where the plantation's biggest allies pre-civil war, that didn't turn out real well for the southern slaveholders as I recall.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[qeveren]

Er... wait, I thought you guys were like the 3rd Territory?

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[TheSpoom]

Don't worry, we think of you as the 14th province we wish we didn't have. ;^)

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Doc Ruby]

Those priorities are of course higher than the risk from dependence on Canadian tech. But it's more than "a few government workers": it's many thousands, including most of Congress, concentrated towards the highest level of administrators. That's a real threat, even if lower than the others you mentioned, and still low enough that it's no emergency.

I haven't addressed any other security risks in my post, outside the scope of this relatively small Blackberry one. I even pointed out that Canada is a low risk among foreign dependencies. If you read my other posts, where the topic differs, you'll see that I highlight exactly those other threats (though I put the Muslim terrorists below those others - and I live where I can see where the World Trade Center isn't).

I didn't say the US should force other countries to share their tech with us. I suggested we protect ourselves merely by relying on tech licenses backed by the ability to replace it ourselves quickly in a crisis. I'd further require we depend more on open source across the board, if I were in charge.

And further, the principles I state are universal. Other countries' security is also threatened by dependence on any foreign country, just like the US. But the EU has for generations pursued a different strategy: dependence on the US, and mitigations of that risk through mutual interdependence. I'm American, so of course I argue forcefully for American advantages in national security. Including demands that the US stop its catastrophic "foreign policy" which includes torture, lies to war, unilateral invasions, ignoring international terrorists (including those who bomb NYC and DC), etc.

You really picked the wrong guy to attack with your preconceptions, straw men, and other words you put in my mouth. Partly since I frequently travel abroad, including Europe, and have lived abroad - including Canada - I'm sensitive to these issues. And I love America, having both experienced other countries, and retaining the option to move there. That's why I merely insist on America, my country, retaining its rightful control over its security. If you don't like that, well, I suggest you start cleaning up your own house before you undermine mine.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Chrispy1000000 the 2]

Go Jesusland!

If you are American and reading this.....stop holding your breath, it's a JOKE. You may laugh

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Doc Ruby]

Interdependence is our most important peacekeeping value. But dependence on one country without alternatives is risky. Dependence on two allied countries is less risky, but still risky. One reason international peace is so elusive is the unresolved tension between mutual interest and conflict - probably a persistent feature of human nature. When making actual national security policy, we have to weigh the cost:benefit*risk of each factor. In a Slashdot post, we can afford to talk about individual security policies in a vacuum.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Doc Ruby]

Ah, but then I'd be a native. Where do you think I got this outrageous accent?

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Doc Ruby]

Mr. Kadaffy, please report to the discoteque for your medication.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be pointed out that one of the reasons Canada was so concerned about the Patriot Act, is that the Canadian Government contracts out so many of it's sensitive databases to the American Companies, and they are stored in the USA. Of course with the Patriot Act, the current administration can order all this information be clandestinely turned over to them (go to prison it you mention you've given it too them). You can be sure Bush and Co. have already ordered it turned over to them, compromising all such Canadian data -- and I sincerely doubt (being Canada) it was worth *anything* intelligence wise. Certainly nothing worth pissing off our most reliable source of 'foreign' oil and resources, and our closest and probably most important ally (since Canada is also our most militarily ineffectual ally, the degree to which they support us in other ways tends to be overlooked. Fortunately for us, this relationship is doubly important to Canada, since the whole Canadian economy would fall to ruin without the USA). It also destroyed the chances of American companies getting these lucrative contracts with the Canadian Government (and companies) in the future.

Ironically Canada has no equivalent of the Patriot Act, and our data is probably much safer from prying eyes in Canada than in the USA.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[vijayiyer]

Well, it depends on what side of the fence you're on. To relinquish that control is to put critical infrastructure in the hands of a foreign entity, if you're the United States.
Nobody is stopping foreign governments from switching to alternate root nameservers, the same way nobody is stopping US government agencies from switching remote email providers.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Bezben]

"Of course, Bush sending John "Blow Up the UN" Bolton to head our UN mission makes that even harder." The people at the UN should have put his office on the top floor really. This whole blackberry thing smacks of double standards on the part of the US government really.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Excelsior]

The Crackberries were supposedly the most effective means of communication between many Federal employees following the 9/11 disaster after many other means of communication had failed or was gridlocked.

I really speak from ignorance, but someone please explain this. I own a Blackberry, and like all Blackberries, it runs on a wireless network. Mine is T-Mobile, but you can get them from almost any wireless provider. If the T-Mobile network goes down, so does my Blackberries wonderful wireless capabilities.

On 9-11, how did the networks gridlock but Blackberries keep working? Is it because they can communicate messages with short spurts of connectivity? Certainly the voice capabilities did not work any better than any other phone.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[(H)elix1]

On 9-11, how did the networks gridlock but Blackberries keep working? Is it because they can communicate messages with short spurts of connectivity? Certainly the voice capabilities did not work any better than any other phone.

I've gone through several models of blackberry devices - all of them (and it could have been our IS department) default to automagically connect to a network. T-mobile down, it will grab another. Data may or may not be available with all carriers, but they tend to just work. Email will queue until it gets a data connection - even if it is only good for a few seconds.

As a side note, I personally doubled the company record cell bill as a result of this. Was working in India, and rather than stay on the network that cost me one or two quarters a minute, it would continued to rotate through carriers that charged anywhere from 7-11USD a minute. Did not realize what happened until the *second* month...

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[beisbol]

it's not like generals at norad will be sending messages to the president via a blackberry saying "we're under attack!!" i wouldn't call it the "critical path of essential government communication." the government buys blackberries so that mike brown at fema could use one to make his lunch dates. the government owns so much spectrum that it can't be relying on RIM for essential government communication.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Excelsior]

But a national security that's dependent on a foreign power is insecure.
Agreed. No more Windows, no more Oracle,

Not the same at all. Windows and Oracle can't be "turned off" in a time of war. Blackberry's system's can. Further, with MS and Oracle being U.S. companies, the risk is also not comparable. By your logic, we shouldn't depend on Lockheed and Boeing for building the jets and missiles to defend our country.

I like OSS as much as the next guy, but you shouldn't be modded "Insightful" simply because you bash corporate software if your point isn't.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[rashanon]

Email is nothing. IF (and think how in the hell this would actually be a problem) Blackberry as a canadian company started to act against the security interests of the United States... Come on. If Canada ever wanted to stick it to the U.S. it wouldnt be via Email. Canada is a net supplier of Electricity, Canada is the single largest supplier of oil to the United States. They supply approximately 10 billion dollars in goods a month more then is bought back from the U.S. And on 9/11 when air traffic was closed in the U.S. all those planes headed for U.S. destinations, the all got rerouted and landed in Canada. Canada just helped. Canada and Canadian companies are not a security threat. These two countries haven't taken shots at each other since 1812. Trust me, Canada got over it. You want to worry about technology security. Stop manufactuing critial tech in China. They pilllage you IP rights, and U.S. companies do that simply because labour is cheaper, and you sell stuff another billion customers. This arguement shouldnt be about security. It should be about a broken patent system that hands out patents to people who patent concepts, not actual devices.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll, funny... troll, funny... I can't decide.

It's +0 Funny Troll!

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Agarax]

The UN is a waste of taxpayer dollars and SHOULD be gotten rid of.

They should get the hell out of NY and go back to the League of Nation's building in Geneva, might give them something to look up to.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[ppanon]

If we ever got THAT pissed off at Canada anyway

More like the other way around. After all, the USA are the ones holding on to $5 billion in lumber import surcharges that have been deemed unfair by the NAFTA trade dispute resolution process. And W wonders why latin american countries are reluctant to pursue an america-wide trading agreement when he refuses to honour the existing trade agreement! Actions have consequences. W's actions in only accepting the portions of international agreements in his favour and rejecting the portions that are inconvenient have the consequence that his word and agreement are worth less than spit.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[demachina]

One has to wonder about the security implications of government employees in sensitive areas, like the the White House, State, DOD, etc using email, cell phones and wireless in general. You figure they aren't putting intensely classified information on them but if a foreign power, if you can call Canada a power :), China, Israel, Russia etc intercepts all those emails and listens to all those calls, which must be trivial to do with some basic electronics gear, they could piece together a lot of valuable intelligence.

Does Blackberry employ encryption on emails being transmitted to a given user so only the user can read them, or make it easy to PGP encrypt emails you send? If not I imagine national security would be better off if Blackberry's got pulled out of the hands of government employees in sensitive positions.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[harmic]

Good thing other countries don't think like you then. Every country in the world has their government dependant on technology provided by foreign corporations - Microsoft, Sun, SAP, Oracle, HP, IBM etc etc etc... The US would be one of the few countries in the world where it would even be feasible to restrtict government agencies to using products of home grown corps.

Down here in Australia, I think we'd be lucky of 5% of the technology our society relies on comes from Aussie companies.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Doc Ruby]

Yep, when Dixie tried to erect international trade barriers by erecting an international boundary, they got their asses handed to them.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Anonymous Coward]

Does Blackberry employ encryption on emails being transmitted to a given user so only the user can read them, or make it easy to PGP encrypt emails you send? If not I imagine national security would be better off if Blackberry's got pulled out of the hands of government employees in sensitive positions.

Yes, the BlackBerry devices that the U.S. Gov't uses support S/MIME.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Anonymous Coward]

All BlackBerries on 9/11 (950's and 957's) where using the MobiText network. Which is an ancient paging network that works very well and has really good coverage. No celluar network access was needed for those devices.
I still can't figure out why the US Government does not want to use the far superior and less costly GoodLink system from Good Technology. Developed and hosted in the USA, you would think the governemnt would want to avoid the hostile Canadians. :-)

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Anonymous Coward]

And what's province #11, #12, and #13?

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[ces]

Canada is kind of a special case where this sort of thing is concerned. There have been any number of things used by the government or military where a key supplier was located in Canada or run by a Canadian company.

Far more troubling should be the fact that with almost any electronic device a large number of key parts are made in places like China or Taiwan. This even extends nowdays to some critical defense electronics like radios or radar sets.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Anonymous Coward]

So Nunavut is the 4th?

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[shawb]

This is actually more sensical than you make it out to be.

RIM, who makes the Blackberry, is a Canadian company.

NTP, who is the patentholder suing RIM, is based in the US.

The United States fed. is basically trying to give a foreign company temporary use of a US. held patent due to concerns over their own employees being able to get their job done.

Frankly, I hope more of this happens. That way maybe the patent office will be forced to actually follow the mandate that patents are non-obvious and not over-reaching. Maybe that would mean that the patent office will recieve enough funding to adequately determine if the patent should be valid. Or maybe the whole patent system will be analyzed to see if it does actually help innovation or even the united states economy in general (A man can dream.) I'd be willing to bet that an analysis would show that the patent system causes more harm to the US than good as it has been shown that people will just move their operations elsewhere to avoid patent and other IP litigation, such as the movie industry setting up shop in Hollywood to avoid litigation from patentholders on the east coast.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the US realizes how much they've lost in standing in Europe over the last few years.

There are currently riots in every major city in France, with no end in site. I think it's fair to say that bad relations with the governing elite there don't matter, because things are in for a huge change.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm American and I didn't laugh, even though I knew it was a joke.


Even more painfully, all of the stuff we do in the name of Jesus, is stuff Jesus tried to stop people from doing.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Wolfier]

Doesn't matter it is Canadian or not.

Had the US Government chosen a US company for its mobile email needs, in a patent dispute like this one the system STILL can be shut down.

Using technology from a US company probably will give you an even HIGHER chance of shutdown in case of a patent dispute.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[10101001 10101001]

Actually, given the history, I don't see that as a problem.

Just imagine this scenario. Imagine you have a security system on your property, but the actual security box is on your neighbor's property. Now, if someone decides to tamper with your security box, essentially leaving you wide open for a break-in, the best you can do is bitch at your neighbor and start a fight. You can't directly assess risk, since you're only an outside observer and will unlikely be fully told all your neighbor's activities, to plan ahead. And even if you could assess all risks, you can't do anything about it prehence except bitch at your neighbor to do something about it and pray.

So, not only does such a setup leave you very vulnerable to your neighbor, even if they have no ill will towards you nor use their position of power to bargain, but it also leaves you helpless when something eventually *does* happen. Now, having stated all this, I think it's a bit extreme to apply this to everything; for example, just because your neighbor is a plumber and you're a crappy one doesn't mean you spend tons of money learning to be a better plumber. You should learn to be a better plumber because it's cheaper in the long run, or you should just hire some other plumber. Trying to build up a wall of self-sufficiency doesn't make a lot of sense. Being *able* to build up a wall of self-sufficiency is another matter, but then market forces tend to take care of that sort of thing. Of course, the key part of any transaction is the long-term payment, so I'd surely prefer buying a service from someone I know can be punished in some way if they defraud me or fail to provide said service. It's just not an absolute preference.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada has to sell its military-tech to somebody ... it has no domestic market since it's own military can't afford any of the stuff (before you laugh, Canada ties with Germany at around the 5th largest weapons exporter in the world -- but it only sells to its allies: that is the USA. Check out the CRS Report for Congress: Comparisons of U.S. and Foreign Military Spending. Jan 28,2004).

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[fjf33]

I think the original poster has a point. The CIA upon finding out that the USSR was acquiring Western technology through a side deal, managed to convince the companies in question to go ahead with the deal but add a bit of tricquery so that the devices (I think they were computerized controllers of some kind), would pass inspection but fail early in service. These devices were used in a gas pipe and caused the biggest explosion outside of an atomic bomb and substantial cost and damage to a vital USSR infrastructure. If we can do it to them, can they do it to us? In particular if we have done it in the past to someone we don't like, why would anyone trust a closed product made by an american company?

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Rascally]

Oh, come on. In a time of war, do you really think all these government employees will have time to stand around using their damn blackberries?

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never trusted those Canadians. They've been quiet for too long.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Doc Ruby]

Well, Canadian policy is highly malleable to US influence, for good or ill. But Bush has certainly destroyed generations of accumulated value in international goodwill and trust.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Doc Ruby]

You're shouting dittohead nonsense. The relative peace and prosperity allowed by the UN forum alone is worth much more than we pay - more than we owe. And our dominance of it, the personal dependence on the USA/NYC by its representatives, is even more valuable. Plus, we get to keep them where we can keep our eyes on them.

Do you live in NYC, as I do? We love the UN, even though we know it's an extreme government bureaucracy. Where do you live, in Kansas? Aren't you satisfied to just get all that unjustified Homeland Security porkbarrel spending? It dwarfs our UN dues, and isn't nearly as valuable for national security, just a jobs program to keep your neighbors off the streets. Leave the international relations to people who can actually pull it off, instead of biting the NYC hand that feeds all of you.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Doc Ruby]

All of those things are correct. Except that we don't have to choose among all those security risks: they're all risks. And feel free to argue about the security risks from the patent system in other threads where they disagree - I don't. I do disagree with your assertion that we shouldn't think about the risk of US dependence on foreign essential tech, just because we've got other problems we're also ignoring. While we're at it, we should wind down the $300BILLION Iraq War that's increasing our risks just by starting it, the Afghan War which increases our risks by not winning it, and the rest of the divisive Terror War that's wasting money while endangering us. We could solve a lot of problems by redirecting that $500BILLION+ each year.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Doc Ruby]

Other countries aren't in a position to achieve independence of foreign suppliers, especially of American military support. But they're still at risk from it. That's why other countries have other strategies for mitigating the risk, like influencing the US (and themselves) to share interests with the US. But the US is in an unusual, if not unique position, which it must consider. Even though those foreign interdependence strategies can also work for the US.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[bill_mcgonigle]

Or if the Blackberry servers are compromised or a spy is hired into their workforce. It would make the Paris Hilton nudie pics seem trivial. This is probably RIM's biggest exposure. No matter what kind of encryption is in use at whichever layers, at some point there is a piece of code that's reading cleartext from the corporate e-mail server so it can do its business.

I have clients who are doing R&D that would be a treat to corporate espionage types so I recommend they use Treo 650's with an IMAP/SSL server. At least then they're responsible for their own security.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[welsh git]

You are American I assume ?

Any problems in the UN should be sorted out - however drastic that sorting out means.

I'm making no comment on the current state of the UN, but as a concept, it is a GOOD idea (to the rest of the world anyway)

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[lucifer_666]

But a national security that's dependent on a foreign power is insecure. Exceptions can't be made on any basis, even including a hypothetical exclusive source for a useful technology.

There are many, many essential US installations around the world constantly providing information you couldn't otherwise get. The installation in Pine Gap, Australia, provides missile launch monitoring and satellite relay for a part of the world the US has no claim on.

Rather than an exception, this seems to be the rule. There are only certain countries the US will not share technology with.

This Blackberry is also a commerical product. And your government is not dependant upon it. It's just they really, really like them. Other devices provide similar functionality; they could kick the Blackberry habbit if they had to.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[tarpy]

it is a GOOD idea (to the rest of the world anyway)

Not really. The UN is as effective as the League of Nations. Crap like this just doesn't work. As long as every nation acts in their own self-interest (as they should), nothing like the UN will ever work.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[welsh git]

Well, that's where we disagree.

I suppose to act in their own self-interest, governments should never give relief to other countries, should never help out when a disaster strikes in another country etc. ?

We shouldn't stop genocide in Bosnia ?

As I sorta said, most of these things aren't being done properly, now, but the IDEA I still think is sound.

Don't try to get all countries to be insular. Mistrust, paranoia, will just bring many more "cold wars", and with the improvements of technology since the last cold war, the world wouldn't be a very nice place to be in.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[SgtChaireBourne]

Not the same at all. Windows and ... can't be "turned off" in a time of war. Blackberry's system's can.

Wrong: Windows Product Activation.

If M$ can officially turn off the computer, then so can anyone that has cracked M$' product disactivation mechanism. Given the company's track record on both security and key managment, that's not a far fetched scenario. Another official entrance point would be the remote admin privileges granted by MS Window 2000 SP3, XP SP2 and later.

If it can happen it will happen. That's how things work.

Given the way MS has been flouting the law, maybe it's time for the US government to reconsider how much control it really has over MS and its products.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[Excelsior]

Wrong: Windows Product Activation.

Sorry, but you are wrong. WPA does not provide any mechanism to turn off the computer. Once activated, a computer is activated. Don't believe every rumor you read on Slashdot without investigating it.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[TheSpoom]

Territories. Yukon, NWT, and Nunavut specifically. Technically not provinces, but meh.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[umbrellasd]

Plus our huge trade deficit and dependency on foreign nations for things like--oh, I don't know--OIL, means we already have quite a few foreign interests in our critical path.

Talk about insecure. *chuckle* There are lower hanging fruit our there than the Blackberry.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[jayteedee]

Canada is treated differently from all other countries when it comes to defense department purchases. They are, for all intents and purposes, on the same footing at US based companies. Most all of our 120mm mortar manufacturing takes place in Canada for instance, and many small arms ammo too. The Brits have been trying to get the same status as Canada for years, but it has never been successfully pushed through congress. Canada is still subject to ITAR restrictions, but it is a pretty process to get the restrictions satified.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[SgtChaireBourne]

Quibbling over semantics. The effect is the same.

Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation

[SgtChaireBourne]

Here's an example. WPA is about the same as shutting down your computer. Triggering WPA takes the computer out.

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

This is getting ridiculous. The only ones who are really suffering from these patent battles are end users, who in this case will find their email inaccessible if the injunction goes through. I hope the government tells 'em the patent's invalid.

Ironic

[external400kdiskette]

that the governments broken patent system has come back to bite them. probably better they get the least desirable outcome in this case which may highlight the need for patent reform better when it's hurting them.

Re:Ironic

[nharmon]

The thing that bothers me is that the government which is supposed to be "of, by, and for the people" is not chiming into this lawsuit because of the effect it may have on its CITIZENs, but rather the effect it may have on its EMPLOYEEs.

Re:Ironic

[thebdj]

Not just its employees, but its military. I can honestly say that I believe most the Blackberry's I see in use on the commuter trains here in DC are being used by military personnel.

Re:Ironic

[ScentCone]

is not chiming into this lawsuit because of the effect it may have on its CITIZENs, but rather the effect it may have on its EMPLOYEEs.

How many government employees do you personally know? How many of them are not citizens? They also pay federal taxes, and are essentially their own employees. I just don't understand why people consider federal employees to be "thems," as if didn't suffer long commutes, bitch about their taxes, and dislike government waste just like the rest of us. There are definitely some sub-standard federal workers, but unfortunately it's almost impossible to fire them, and thus make their more effective co-workers more interested in sticking around.

Re:Ironic

[arivanov]

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal then the others.

George Orwell, The Animal Farm

Re:Ironic

[nharmon]

You're totally off the mark, man. I understand these government employees are still citizens, but if the government did not use Blackberries one bit, would they have still chimed in on this lawsuit? I don't think so.

They can do more if they want.

[Distan]

Since they are a department of the government, they can simply ignore the patent and indemnify RIMM from any patent liability as far as government workers go.

Patents don't apply to the government, unless the government wants them to. By extension, they don't apply to suppliers making things for the government.

Re:They can do more if they want.

[Deliveranc3]

Really? Even when they were granted to a company which is from another country?

Don't you think that's a little tiny bit dangerous?

Re:They can do more if they want.

[flazz]

Since they are a department of the government, they can simply ignore the patent and indemnify RIMM from any patent liability as far as government workers go.

parent may be right, but i think that would only apply to government issue equiptment. not equiptment that is popular with govnt employees.

Patents don't apply to the government, unless the government wants them to. By extension, they don't apply to suppliers making things for the government.

by the same logic, if its not govnt issue they are not making things for the government, they are making things for the market that govnt employees seem to make up 10%. to be govnt issued there probably needs to be a winning bid on a govnt contract.

Re:They can do more if they want.

[Rocketship Underpant]

"Really? Even when they were granted to a company which is from another country?"

No, because the status of any patent law in a country depends entirely on whether the local government wants to enact and enforce such laws. Clearly no government is going to see much benefit in enforcing a patent against its own interests.

Re:They can do more if they want.

[imkonen]

That seems a little simplistic. The government does actually rule against itself all the time. Even if you have the most cynical, Machiavellian view of the motivations and can't accept that anyone in government would do what's right just because it's the right thing to do, doesn't mean it's always in their interest to take for free what they should pay for. After all, the government is not a coorporation, and doesn't need to make a profit to survive. The outcome that worries me more here is that the feds will simply say "this is an essential service for our employees" and buy the patent rights or licence fee that the patent holder is demanding, thus ignoring the growing problem of submarine patents and rewarding the patent holder. Not that I really know that's the case here, but at least if some senators had their precious Blackberries screwed up by a licensing fiasco they might pay a little more attention to a problem that right now only techies seem to be aware of.

Re:They can do more if they want.

[hackstraw]

Patents don't apply to the government, unless the government wants them to.

AFAIK, patents don't apply to anybody unless the patent holder defends their patent. IE, its not a crime to use something patented by another, its just a civil matter. Patented technology can be used by anybody from no price to license fees of any creative amount.

Now, about:

Apparently 10% of US Blackberry users are government users.

Aren't 100% of US Blackberry users government users? If you have electricity to power a Blackberry, then you use government things like roads, buildings, or whatever in some form or another.

I'm guessing that the intended statement was, "Apparently 10% of US Blackberry users are government employees."

Re:They can do more if they want.

[Anonymous Coward]

But the problem with that is contractors. The US govt uses them extensively, but they aren't gov't employees. So they would lose their connectivity. In some cases, that could be a major problem.

Re:They can do more if they want.

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents don't apply to the government, unless the government wants them to.

True.

By extension, they don't apply to suppliers making things for the government.

Not true.

Re:They can do more if they want.

[Tellalian]

Do you have any case law supporting this? Common sense would seem to dictate that even the government has to obey its own laws, and that if they begin dismissing foreign patents then there's little to stop other countries from disregarding our own patents in return. The WTO has already ruled against the US on free trade issues. Indemnifying companies for patent infringement simply because its in the interests of the US government certainly isn't going to help matters.

Re:They can do more if they want.

[ces]

I believe just prior to WWI the US Congress invalidated all aircraft related patents due to the problems it was creating for military development of aircraft.

I think the patent holders got a one-time payout.

Intellectual property is a creation of the government and what the government giveth the government can taketh away when it suits them (though for political reasons it is best if there is a darn good reason for taking away and some form of due process is followed).

Re:They can do more if they want.

[fingerfucker]

After all, the government is not a coorporation, and doesn't need to make a profit to survive.

Yeah sure. And the government doesn't employee people. And the government doesn't earn money by collecting taxes. And the government doesn't need to pay its debts to avoid going bankrupt (payments on bonds that it issues). And of course, to overcome the huge spending "deficit" (=loss), the government doesn't need to have "fiscal responsiblity" (=raise extra revenue or cut costs).

Suuuure the government is not a corporation.

Especially when in case of the Blackberry issue, it first speaks out concerns for its "employees" and not "citizens"...

Re:They can do more if they want.

[imkonen]

Yeah sure. And the government doesn't employee people. And the government doesn't earn money by collecting taxes. And the government doesn't need to pay its debts to avoid going bankrupt (payments on bonds that it issues). And of course, to overcome the huge spending "deficit" (=loss), the government doesn't need to have "fiscal responsiblity" (=raise extra revenue or cut costs).

I think you missed my point, which was essentially what you are saying here. The OP suggested that the government would simply ignore the patent if it wanted to keep it's blackberries. My point was that the government might just as easily choose to pay for the royalties (whether bailing out RIM or waiting for NTP to license the technology and paying their license fee) and pass the costs on to us, in the form of either increased taxes, cutting other programs, or deficit increase. Any of those three is a win for govt. Blackberry users and NTP and a lose for the average taxpayer.

Suuuure the government is not a corporation.

Of course it's not a corportation. You may have misinterpreted that statement as my implying that corporations are evil and the government isn't. What I meant is that corporations have much more incentive to take for free things they might otherwise pay for if they think they can, because their existences (and therefore the employees' jobs) relies on their ability to make a profit (or at least the perception that they could make a profit). This simply isn't true for the government. Government job security sometimes coincides with running things efficiently spending wisely, but not always.

Re:They can do more if they want.

[fingerfucker]

Government job security sometimes coincides with running things efficiently spending wisely, but not always.

Not always spending wisely doesn't necessarily mean that you are not a corporation, it just means you can afford to run inefficiently.

Heck, if your corporation's revenues were virtually guaranteed ("what are the only two things that are certain...?"), you would also not sweat it when some inefficiencies popped up in your operations.

Take a look at IP law

[MobyDisk]

Ohhhhhh so what goes around comes around!!! Extend copyright = no problem. Allow stupid patents = no problem. "Oh wait... you mean, we have to live and work in this country where we made these stupid IP laws?"

I hope the injunction seeds and they all lose their blackberries to government folly. And hopefully the people will stand up and say this isn't fair. Maybe the fed will finally take a look at the state of patent law.

Re:Take a look at IP law

[thebdj]

By and large patent law is not the problem with the system. There are actually two glaring problem to which I will point you.
Problem 1: Congress takes a good chunk of the Patent Office's money to distribute to other government agencies. Unlike many of your government offices the USPTO actually makes money, not just spends it. I do not have the exact numbers available but for some reason it seems like there are quite possibly hundreds of millions or billions of dollars that the USPTO never sees of its own money. So we can all think of how this would help I am sure.

Problem 2: The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) created the requirement for a "motivation" when makinng a rejection on 35 USC 103(a). What does this mean? It simply means that if you had reference A that teaches a set number of elements in an invention and reference B which teaches another set of elements, you would then need a reason for combining the two references and preferably one from one of the two references. This requirement was not part of the SCOTUS ruling in Graham v. Deere which established the guidlines for making an obvious-type rejection, and it ignores the one of ordinary skill in the art (in my, and many other people's, opinion) as discussed in the SCOTUS ruling.

Here are a few reminders to people arguing that something is obvious:
1) Was it obvious when the application was filed and not just today?
2) Things, more often then not, always seem obvious in hindsight.
3) If it is obvious, where is the prior art teaching the references and what does it teach.
4) Remember the invention is in the claims, and the claims are actually narrower then many of you give them credit for.
5) Most patents never make anyone money, they are solely meant for protection of products, and nowadays protection from "trolls."

Is the system broken? Yes. Does the law need to be re-written? Not so much, only in the sense that it would bring a few things in line with the rest of the world.

Re:Take a look at IP law

[MobyDisk]

Yeah, there are lots of insane oversimplifications of Slashdot. And you are right that law, as it is written, is not that bad. The motivation for money makes the USPTO grant patents on stupid things, and recent court decisions (such as patenting business methods) has really screwed things up.

A few comments about your 5 points:

1/2( I don't think obviousness is the biggest problem we have today. It is the large mass of prior art that the USPTO doesn't seem to notice. I poke at the USPTO but it isn't just the US anymore.

3) There is lots of prior art and the USPTO seems to ignore it. As I understand it they don't even look for prior art when evaluating a patent. Now, I'm not a patent examiner so I don't know why they throw out or ignore most of what they do -- but if it is reasonably considered prior art by the practitioners and industry experts, it should be prior art to the USPTO.

5) This is really sad though. If inventors (companies really) request patents just to stop other offensive patents then the system isn't serving a purpose anymore.

Re:Take a look at IP law

[Stinking Pig]

Selfishly, I hope otherwise as my company relies heavily on Blackberries and would be set back measurably by a successful injuction. However, I do agree that this would make an effective catalyst for much-needed change.

Re:Take a look at IP law

[bill_mcgonigle]

I hope the injunction seeds and they all lose their blackberries to government folly. And hopefully the people will stand up and say this isn't fair. Maybe the fed will finally take a look at the state of patent law.

Amen. Let me know where to send $50 to the fund that will ensure this case gets in front of Justice Roberts before any such continuance is allowed (yes, I know he already denied a request for appeal).

Re:Government Spending

[caliph_salahuddin]

Overpriced technology? You should really know what you are talking about before posting. Are you basing this on any factual evidence, or are you just posting on a topic you are not familiar with?

No special treatment for government

[Anonymous Coward]

Let them suffer from their own patent laws.

It's the only way that things would get changed for the people.

In fact, I don't see why government should enjoy any special rights. Special rights distances them from the people they govern. Because they don't experience any real-life issues, they get out of touch and they don't realise when legislation and so on will actively affect the people they represent. It is best for standard government practices (not national security, etc) to have the same restrictions in law as the common citizen.

Re:No special treatment for government

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, like social security? It seems the more laws they pass that make them "exempt" from things us "commoners" have to do, the further away from reality they get. Like Social Security, the patent laws will not be reformed until it affects the lawmakers. As much the end users will suffer if RIM is forced to shut down its services, I hope it happens so at least the patent laws will be fixed (hopefully not just band-aided).

Re:No special treatment for government

[g2devi]

> Let them suffer from their own patent laws.
> It's the only way that things would get changed for the people.

Very true. In the computer world, that's called eating your own dog food.

There are definite exceptions but noncritical annoying bugs don't tend to get fixed until developers and managers are bitten by them. People don't tend to think any problem is very serious until they experience it. I explain to nontechies using this story:

There was once a small town that had a contageous itchy rash going around. The town doctor diagnozed that it wasn't serious and should go away within a month, so he told everyone to just put calamine lotion on it and wait 'til the rash disappeared. People grumbled, but since this was the only doctor in town, they could do little except complain. One week later, the doctor got the rash and the next morning, a cure was found.

maybe this is a really good thing

[tehwebguy]

sometimes it seems no one gives a crap about patent reform but us nerds, but now that some patent cases are hurting the government, maybe they will begin to listen?

Re:maybe this is a really good thing

[DustMagnet]

but now that some patent cases are hurting the government, maybe they will begin to listen?>

The government can't change this. The patent office, maybe, but judging by what they consider non-obivous, they certainly don't use much technology beyond a typewriter.

Only congress and the courts can change this system. Since congress accepted the courts changes (software patents), I don't expect the courts to do anything. What we need is some patents that really hurt companies with lobbyist. Until then, big companies will continue to love using patents to avoid competing and there is nothing anyone can do.

Re:maybe this is a really good thing

[mattkime]

thats how london got sewers. the thymes had been terribly polluted for years. there were designs and lobbying efforts for sewer systems. there were something like seven failed proposals before that shit stank so bad that the MPs got up and left town. the project was so successful that parts of it are still in use today.

Re:maybe this is a really good thing

[tehwebguy]

it is like the salem witch trials.

accusations and "trials" continued until one of the governors' wife was accused.

Does anyone know of a blackberry hack?

[SlashSquatch]

I searched around and could not find one. Can you suggest some blackberry hack options?

Re:Does anyone know of a blackberry hack?

[Anonymous Coward]

It uses end-to-end triple-DES encryption based on a secure key exchange. I highly doubt you will be able to break the encryption.

OTOH, if you own a Blackberry, you can probably run homebrew code on it in a variety of ways. Fun if you want to write your own games or something.

I can see it now...

[bashbrotha]

Step 1: Invent gadget
Step 2: Get the US Government addicted to it.
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit

Re:I can see it now...

[varmittang]

Actuallly, it more of:

Step 1: Patent something obvious
Step 2: Let other companies infringe on that patent for awhile.
Step 3: Sue.
Step 4: ??????
Step 5: Profit.

Re:I can see it now...

[IMustBeNewHere]

Step 1: Invent gadget
Step 2: Get the US Government addicted to it.
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit


I agree with you, but I don't think you need the ??? in step 3.

Step 3: Enjoy immunity from patent infringement lawsuits.

Re:I can see it now...

[saskboy]

" Step 1: Invent gadget
Step 2: Get the US Government addicted to it.
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit
"

Sorry doesn't work. It goes more like this:
Step 1: Cut down trees
Step 2: Get the US addicted to it.
Step 3: ???
Step 4: US charges illegal tarrifs and duties and ignores NAFTA rulings to pay them back to Canadians.

Re:I can see it now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 1: Be Halliburton
Step 2: Profit
Step 3: Go to Step 2

Re:I can see it now...

[Fussen]

Well you might as well get rid of Step 4 as well.. because government and profit don't co-exist in this universe. You'd have better luck making a cake with matter and antimatter frosting.

Re:I can see it now...

[Pollardito]

except that according to NTP, RIM didn't invent it

Re:I can see it now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 1: Invent gadget
          Bullets
Step 2: Get the US Government addicted to it.
          Check
Step 3: ???
          Start a war!
Step 4: Profit
          Hell ya!

Re:I can see it now...

[mOdQuArK!]

because government and profit don't co-exist in this universe.

You're kidding, right? All that "pork" must be my imagination.

Don't let them stop it!

[argStyopa]

Stop Blackberry service? Heaven forfend!

You mean I won't get any more cryptically abbreviated, nearly-meaningless replies to complex questions? How will I continue working?

Re:Don't let them stop it!

[SlashSquatch]

U gno I w0n't m9nd

Re:Don't let them stop it!

[Anonymous Coward]

How will I continue working?

Qt scrwng arnd! Gt bk 2 wrk!

D'Bos

Govt Users Exempt?

[nfsilkey]

It was my understanding that the last time I checked into the RIM v NTP dispute, the injunction exempted government Crackberry users from being shutdown. I work as a sysadmin at a large state university and all our campus and departmental PHBs have been warping their thumbs non-stop throughout the legal battle. They and I were under the impression that state and federal employees were not threatened by the suit/injunction/etc.

Am I wrong? Fill me in ...

Re:Govt Users Exempt?

[technos]

The problem is RIM and the carriers have no real easy way to just keep government users on. In lots of cases, the only thing that says "this device is the property of the US Government" is the billing address. Sometimes even that isn't tell-tale, there are lots of smaller exempt agencies where the Blackberry bill is sent to the user and lots of cases where there are separate billing and mail-the-bill to addresses. Your billing address is used by some carriers to establish who you are, and that you are the user of the device calling them for support, so it's typically set to something friendly to the users, like the address of their office.

I mean, say you have a RIM device billing to Jane Doe, 18023 Aurora Ste E, Lynnwood, and another billing to Dave Martin, 18023 Aurora, Lynnwood, and a third, billing to Steve Ellis, 18023 Aurora Ste E, Seattle.

Which do you turn off? Which ones belong to WA State? If you can't tell easily, how can the carrier?

Re:Govt Users Exempt?

[topham]

Let's assume for the moment you're right.

Lets assume it is possible to identify which users are government employees, and which are not. (I don't think it would be all that hard, license keys are required for the blackberry services.).

What happens when 90% of U.S. business dries up? Shouldn't RIM just shutdown it's U.S. services and focus on foreign and domestic markets that are not closed off to it?

Of course, if it were up to me I'd stop all softwood lumber shipments to the U.S. entirely due to their illegal tariff.

Re:Govt Users Exempt?

[TykeClone]

What happens when 90% of U.S. business dries up? Shouldn't RIM just shutdown it's U.S. services and focus on foreign and domestic markets that are not closed off to it?

Dude - you don't know how to work with the government on service contracts. They'd have to just support 10% of their current users, and would sign a sweet federal contract for twice their current revenue.

I think the legal term for that is "laughing all the way to the bank"

Re:Govt Users Exempt?

[(H)elix1]

And that is just the half of it. Most folks 'working' for the government are not actually government employees. I'd guess fewer than one out of fifteen (or much higher) that I work with are Federal employees - the rest, contractors. You turn off service for Lockhead, SIAC, Northrop, EDS, etc, things will go to hell in a hand basket.

Re:Govt Users Exempt?

[fjf33]

Just like Microsoft threatend to leave the Korean market if laws were made that made it too complex for them to satisfy we would consider fair. Why can't RIMM do the same. Look I would love to give the government service but it makes it too complex give the results from our lawsuit. We unfortunately will have to turn off your service. Only fair.

Re:Government Spending

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? My Verizon 7250 (color, picture viewer, internet browser) cost $29 because of our "overpriced" Government discount. Verizon gives the old black and green models away FOR FREE. Brand new.

Hippo-crites

[Mr. Underbridge]

And government workers are special...why? In other words, if this screws your company who cares, but if it hurts bureaucracy, now we need to fix this.

Re:Hippo-crites

[shawnce]

Companies can file similar motions with the court to get the court to consider the impact of a shutdown on the company. With that said some government workers are special as are some public sector workers because the work in fields the are critical to the general public (emergency response, etc.).

Re:Hippo-crites

[khallow]

My thoughts exactly. There are some government agencies (eg, Air Marshalls) that appear to be performing an important public service that would be significantly impaired by loss of service, but I imagine there are critical private needs as well. But the division is strictly by government/nongovernment. It's clear the importance of the task isn't considered relevant here.

Further proof...

[dada21]

...that government as an entity cares for its existence first and foremost.

The citizens wants their Blackberries, yet government says the Blackberry is illegal. Yet they need it, so they trump the law.

Most guns are illegal. Government can use any gun.

Killing is illegql. Guess who can kill without worry?

Here's the catch: government is composed of people who want control. People. The worst kind of people.

Re:Further proof...

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you, some kind of nutty libertarian or something? There's no problem on earth that can't be fixed by a more expensive government program. As long as those programs are administered by Ivy League sociology grads, not some commoner from a flyover state.

Re:Further proof...

[Urusai]

No, no, the solution is a dictatorship of the proletariat, except you make a small group of people the stewards of the proletariat's will. And, BTW, it turns out the proletariat's will is to live like slaves while the Inner Circle of the Party live like kings. And you have capitalism, too, since capitalism is proven the most effective way of producing Rolls Royces.

Re:Further proof...

[MasterShake]

Corrections:

Blackberries are not illegal, they are currently in a patent disput. The issue has not been settled as to wether or not they infringe on the patents.

Most guns are not illegal (In the United States, local laws apply). If I feel like getting a Federal Firearms License I can legaly purchase and own fully automatic weapons. Many guns are RESTRICTED, that is not the same as illegal.

Killing is not illegal, I will ignore the trite answer of we kill farm animals all the time and restrict myself to members of the species Homo Sapien Sapien. Doctors pull the plug on life support all the time. Abortion, (depending on where you define the fetus as becoming human) happens every day. Killing someone in defense of your life or someone elses is not illegal. Murder is illegal.

I don't know about anyone else, but I am tired of catagorical(sp?) statements that are false on the face of them. This isn't to defend the US government, it is to try and increase the S/N. I know, its a loosing battle.

I've written on this before

[feijai]

RIM has gone over the judge's head before, appealing to congress to stop the judgement in the name of "national defense". Looks like they've gotten their wish.

Re:I've written on this before

[TubeSteak]

Before anyone resurrects the asshat response that Solandri (704621) gave you, I think its important to point out that your #1 point states that the patent includes the idea of a wireless handheld. Not just accessing e-mail from wherever. "There is nothing innovative nor original about losing the wires or shrinking the the computer down to the size of a handheld as it pertains to email." umm... yes there is. Up till that point, I assume no one had bothered to create such a device. Hence the innovation.

Re:I've written on this before

[Anonymous Coward]

umm... yes there is. Up till that point, I assume no one had bothered to create such a device. Hence the innovation.

The requirement for a patent is "non obvious to someone knoweledgeable in the field."

Email is just "data passing over a medium that conveys a message."
The medium is irrelevant. It's bloody obvious that if a new transmission medium comes along that forms of communication will move with it. So, the grandparent was right. There is nothing original and non-obvious about moving email to a wireless device. If they want to patent some of the hardware in the device that cleverly allowed them to get the portable power necessary to process email, fine. But nothing is non-obvious about using email on a portable computer.

Re:Government Spending

[mysqlrocks]

Last time I looked a the pricing of Blackberries they were very expensive (both the device itself and the service). Correct me if I'm wrong - but you can get pretty much the same service on your cell phone for a lot less money. I can send and receive e-mail with my basic cell phone service. I'd probably want to upgrade my cheap cell phone to something more conducive to typing and reading e-mails but that wouldn't cost me a lot of money.

Wirlelss Providders are in the Mix

[puto]

As I always say ad nauseam. I work for the largest wirless provider in the US.

All wirless providers derive a great deal of revenue from Blackberry services. Especially bolt on blackberry data plans.

I am sure Ma Bell has got her big swinging dick out on the government on this one. You think they are going to let it disruot this chunk of their cash flow?

And what about all other providers that provide this service?

Not only the cash flow, but I cannot imagine the day this happens and my desk becomes swamped with escalations with me having to explain to Joe Jr Excutive Online MBA why he is not getting his emails on his shiny device that doubles these days as corporate dick who got the biggest electronic dick competition.

Jeez, not to mention all the soccer moms who have them. And the psuedo techis.

My life ain't looking too good if this happens. But then again I doubt it will

Puto

Re:Wirlelss Providders are in the Mix

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean DISROOT. You are an American; speak American english.

Re:Government Spending

[smack.addict]

You're wrong.

This *IS* the government however...

[Nick Driver]

...so basically the rules (laws) apply to everyone, except for them whenever those rules get in thier way.

Re:This *IS* the government however...

[Solandri]

Nearly every piece of legislation passed by our illustrious lawmakers has a clause at the beginning saying that the provisions outlined in the bill do not apply to them. It's fairly standard (though I agree it's stupid).

Re:This *IS* the government however...

[ScrewMaster]

And also not what the Founders intended, given that the people that served in Congress were performing a public service and would then get out and have to live with the laws they had passed while in power. That simple feedback mechanism was meant to help dissuade lawmakers from creating bad law. The problem is the modern class of professional politicians who don't have to suffer the consequences of their actions, except in the indirect case where technologies and services that would have been available to all are not, because their stupid lawmaking squelched them.

Al Gore was once asked about his take on term limits ... without batting an eye he said, "But that would deny people the benefits of professional politicians" or words to that effect. Dubious benefits at best, I'd say.

Congress limited the President's term of office, largely in order to prevent a popular President from staying in office for a long time, thereby denying any interested Congressperson his or her chance to hold the highest office. Unfortunately, they got it backwards: a good President should be allowed to remain in office. It is the Congresscritters that should be rotated out on a regular basis, since they do most of the damage.

Why disabling non-government workers won't work

[Anonymous Coward]

Although 10% of US Blackberry consumers are government employees you cannot merely shut off the 90% non-govt workers. The reason is that it is a security risk for the remaining 10% - it would be easier to identify members of the CIA, FBI, federal, state and local officials as they would not blend in with the 90% of business Blackberry users. This would render the Blackberry service useless to many of the government workers.

A crime. Impeachment in order.

[CDPatten]

It really is a crime that the head of the legal system in this country is asking that the law be broken for a period of time. I am so irritated I'm practically speechless. The DOJ is so out of line here.

The law is the law is the law! I (honestly) believe we should move to impeach AT Alberto R. Gonzales. Any attorney general that abuses their power by trying to directly influence the legal system to delay their inconvenience should not be the head of our nation's law enforcement.

If we (as citizens) don't move to stop these types of injustices from our government, we will be no different then one of the war-lord run nations of Africa. This is a slippery slope, and make no mistake, this IS precedent setting.

For the same reason why

[hrieke]

The government bailed out Iriduim (sp?) satellite phone system- it was deemed too useful to let go.
So let this be a good leason here- make the government rely on your services and you'll never really go out of business.

Re:For the same reason why

[TykeClone]

So let this be a good leason here- make the government rely on your services and you'll never really go out of business.

1) ????
2) Get the government to rely on your service
3) Profit!

Re:For the same reason why

[gkuz]

The government bailed out Iriduim (sp?) satellite phone system

"Insightful"?! Inaccurate is more like it.

Your statement is factually completely incorrect. Read an economic analysis of Iridium here.

Iridium LLC, which set up the service at a cost of nearly $5B, filed Chapter 11 in 1999. In 2000, a private group bought it for $25M. They have a significant DoD contract at this time, sure, but that's not a bail-out. Ask the creditors in that Chap11 how much they got out of this.

blackberry shcmackberry

[Anonymous Coward]

i think the real issue here is softwood lumber so email me a billion on your damn blackberry

As a US Gov BlackBerry Admin...

[Anonymous Coward]

the US Department of **** would sooner have you pry their BlackBerries out of their cold dead hands than give them up. Several people (The Secretary of **** and dozens of appointees) with vast amounts of pull with the President wouldn't take kindly to their email not following them around like they're used to. I'm sure the EOP has even more influence and even more BlackBerries too.

What happened to the patrent review?

[davecb]

My leaky memory (and the Globe and Mail) says that the patent in question is failing its reconsideration in the actual patent office....

--dave

Re:US Government dependence - MOD Parent DOWN

[erbmjw]

How can you claim that 10% of government users having Blackberries constitute essential infrastructure? Are you trying to claim that the Blackberries are their only source of email service?

If a Canadian company was physically hosting a more significant percentage of US government email capabilities - or if it was really 10% of essential email { which you have not shown - just assumed} then I could understand your argument but to claim that 10% of handheld pushed email is essential infrastructure does not show a through understanding of the issue.

Using an argument similar to yours; the rest of the world's governments should ban Microsoft Windows, write the own OS's, as well as the majority of their own server & database software.

Oh and they should also each have their own internet!

As for your statement about "Of course, it also shows how the Feds mismanage national security, prioritizing fear and $BILLIONS in expenses, without identifying actual risks." Canadain companies that work on/or assist with US national security infratructure products are required to provide easy access and explanations to code, not just the services and programs but actual code.

If you can show that the US Feds have given over control of essential handheld pushed email services to a foreign company then I will be willing to listen but please don't try arguing that all government email is essential either!

Think about the essential service allies provide you by being your allies then think about how that truly rates against 10% of {hypothetically by most likely non-essential} handheld email service!

Re:US Government dependence - MOD Parent DOWN

[mmkkbb]

How can you claim that 10% of government users having Blackberries constitute essential infrastructure? Are you trying to claim that the Blackberries are their only source of email service?

Re-read the summary. 10% of Blackberry users are in the US government.

Re:A crime. Impeachment in order.

[Bob(TM)]

Um ... what law?

At issue is the violation of a patent - ostensibly a private matter. It is perfectly reasonable for interested parties affected by a inforcement of a patent to ask that their impacts be considered.

Somebody didn't RTFA

[TubeSteak]

From TFA

"NTP already assured that it would continue service for government agencies, but Justice said in its filing that "there does not appear to be a simple manner in which RIM can identify which users of BlackBerr[y]s are part of the federal government."

Anyways, I'm not sure your characterization is 100% correct. The gov't can appropriate patented technologies for National Security reasons, but I'm not sure that translates into indemifying companies who're using patented technologies without a license.

The ruling class

[LaughingCoder]

Yet another example of how the rules are different for the ruling class. How many times have we seen this type of thing? Of course none can top the Social Security hypocrisy (federal workers do not have to participate - they have their own retirement plan that, guess what, allows them to invest in the *dangerous* stock market) as we in the unwashed masses are taken for the big ride.

Re:The ruling class

[hwstar]

How many C-level corporate types, lobbyists, and IP lawyers use their blackberries to send their orders^H^H^H^H^H^H messages to the government types? Maybe they should push for a patent examption for all the C-levels, lobbyists, lawyers, and high level government officials?

Having a blackberry and a lot of money is the sign of someone who is in the ruling class.

Blackberry+Money==Well_Connected

Re:US Government dependence - MOD Parent DOWN

[Doc Ruby]

10% of the US government, by one gross measure, is $350BILLION of annual operations. If they lost their email, the government would be crippled.

And yes, as I've said elsewhere in this thread, other governments' security is at risk through their dependence on foreign technology. The principle is universal, but I'm American, and most essential tech is American, so that's not really my problem. If they want to increase their security, they can apply the same principle. But since so many countries' national security depends on America in so many essential ways, they obviously have a different strategy for reducing their risks.

Since I've delivered large software products to Canadian federal and provincial governments, as well as American state, federal and military government customers, and have clearly stated the simple principles, I'll continue to operate under my limited, but sufficient understanding of the issue.
When you present "a thorough understanding of the issue", I'll listen. But when all you're doing is asserting disagreement, and demanding that others suppress my post, all I can do is shrug off your ineffectual attacks.

Re:What happened to the patent review?

[davecb]

[Apologies for answering my own question, but I found it on groklaw minutes later]

Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, November 10 2005 @ 03:45 PM EST
Judge James Spencer presiding over NTP's legal battle with Blackberry maker Research in Motion (RIM) this week said it was "highly unlikely" he would wait for a US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) verdict on the validity of NTP's intellectual property before making his own judgement on the matter.
This makes no sense. There is only one patent remaining of the eight that the USPTO has yet to rule invalid.
Articles at http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2005/11/10/rim_vs _ntp/ and http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/24/uspto_null s_ntp_patents/

Re:US Government dependence - MOD Parent DOWN

[discojohnson]

Oh and they should also each have their own internet! We do, it's called the SIPRNet. A complete network infrastructure that is physically isolated from the rest of the world on which each terminal has a two piece encryption system (box and removable hash key).

blackberry users speak out

[sweatyboatman]

wirless

clearly posted using a blackberry.

Re:blackberry users speak out

[puto]

Not at all. Clearly posted typing with one hand and hamburger in another. I do not own a Blackberry.

Puto

Re:US Government dependence - MOD Parent DOWN

[Elm Tree]

Unless I'm mistaken the claim isn't that 10% of government workers have blackberries, but that 10% of blackberries are used by government workers. Significantly different.

Re:Government Spending

[parcel]

I don't know about other groupware systems, but my favorite thing about my blackberry is its integration with Lotus Notes. If I set up or accept a meeting in Notes or on the BB, it shows up on my calendar (relatively) immediately on both. No manual synching is necessary. I can also look up people's phone numbers, locations, etc. on the BB using my company's Notes global address book. IIRC this is all done through the BB server software. The point being.. it's more than mobile e-mail, it's a mobile carbon-copy of my existing Notes system.

Unless you are referring to private (as opposed to corporate) ownership of BBs, in which case I 100% agree with you... I'd take a regular phone (or maybe one of those sidekick deals) over a BB for private use any day. Seems to me like they're cheaper and better than BBs for personal use.

I hope the government's argument fails

[c]

The U.S. government will have no incentive to fix the horribly broken patent regime until it repeatedly experiences the same harm that the rest of us have to endure. I find it unjust that the goverment can sometimes exempt itself from patent action when the rest of us don't have that option.

Re:A crime. Impeachment in order.

[shawnce]

Umm... They are playing within the legal system here. They are asking the court that is considering an injunction against blackberry to consider the impact it would have to government operation. Companies and the public sector can do similar filings.

The main issue is what type of shutdown/shipment stop, if any, should happen for a system that has become critical to many folks knowing that the resolution of the patent dispute will take a decently long time (appeals and all). In my opinion no shutdown should take place but some type of escrow setup that Blackberry has to pay fines into. If in the end the patent holds this money would then go to the patent holder... or something like that.

Re:US Government dependence - MOD Parent DOWN

[TykeClone]

10% of the US government, by one gross measure, is $350BILLION of annual operations. If they lost their email, the government would be crippled.

That depends upon which 10% depends upon the blackberry - if the right 10% loses their e-mail, no one may notice.

Blackberry fray?

[alan.briolat]

And there I was thinking the feds joined in some kind of fruit fight...

I think I need to get more sleep...

Re:US Government dependence - MOD Parent DOWN

[mmkkbb]

What? and admit error?

Hypocritical

[Stupor Man]

Since the Feds are using these devices, they are trying to maintain their service. That's understandable. On the other hand...... Who wants to bet if the Feds weren't using them, they wouldn't give a damn about the other end users and just let it play out - in complete silence.

Time for eminent domain

[JeffTL]

This sounds like a good excuse for the federal government (or whatever state(s) would have jurisdiction) to see if the courts will go for eminent domain on intellectual property.

I had no idea...

[bananahead]

I had no idea I was so far out of the mainstream and working with an antiquated and inefficient, yet overpriced technology. I have been using my Blackberry for several years, and quite happy with it, until now. I find out that the federal government is using Blackberrys. These are the same guys that designed and launched a space shuttle with 8-bit processors, run Amtrak and the US Mail, and I suspect are responsible for the hidden mess we call the Internal Revenue Service. They have NEVER used current, mainstream, efficient technology in the history of man. Therefor I must draw the conclusion that the Blackberry is 1980's technology that has somehow been kept alive through government contracts 20 years past its useful life. I must also assume it is WAY overpriced, non-compatable with any other known technology and incapable of performing any useful function that might somehow cause productivity gain. I feel sick. I need a Smart Phone...

Re:Government Spending

[caliph_salahuddin]

OK, so you clarified your position - you don't know the subject in hand. There is a *huge* difference between the email you receive on your standard cell-phone compared to the services provided on a BlackBerry. If all you want to do is make phone calls and take grainy pictures, a regular cellphone is all you need. However, if you need any of the following: 1. Integration with your corporate mail system (Exchange, Notes or Groupwise) 2. The ability to open multiple attachment types (PDF, DOC, XLS, TXT etc) 3. Push-based email (i.e. you don't need to request email from your Mail Server) 4. Ability to integrate your own internal applications on a Handheld that can be accessed anytime 5. Ability to enforce IT Policies 6. Much better than average battery life (I can go for around 3 days without having to charge, and I receive over 70 emails a day) 7. Internet/Intranet browsing 8. Message reconciliation (moves, deletes, read/unreads) Then you need a BlackBerry. Joe Public never really understands the importance of a BlackBerry but speak to any corporation that uses them extensively, and they'll paint a very different picture.

Nationalize it

[eagl]

If it's that important to the workings of the govt, it sounds like a critical piece of national security infrastructure. That makes it a potential Nationalization candidate.

Now if we could just get the govt to nationalize and release every software patent in existence since both the govt and global economy needs computers to function...

Re:Nationalize it

[Anonymous Coward]

Please explain to me how the US government can nationalise a Canadian company?

Re:Nationalize it

[eagl]

Who said the US govt would be the one to nationalize it?

Plus, any soverign state can identify technology in their national interest, and within their own borders pretty much ignore any intellectual property rights. That's pretty much the useful definition of "soverign", meaning a country can do pretty much whatever it wants within it's own borders. Case in point - imagine a country or company holding a patent for a revolutionary new kind of weapon (such as nukes). Even if such a patent were internationally recognized, would any survival-oriented nation feel compelled to honor such a patent? I think not.

Any technology critical to national infrastructure or survival is going to be used regardless of intellectual property rights. The only variable is whether or not anyone bothers to pay the license fees. If the owner won't license it (a legal way to look at classified technology), there isn't much anyone can do to prevent another nation from declaring it a matter of national interest and using it anyhow. Yes that is an example of an anarchic model of international politics, but it's not very productive to assume any state will subordinate it's welfare to a legal construct (a patent) benefiting an individual or one company.

Re:Government Spending

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I looked a the pricing of Blackberries they were very expensive (both the device itself and the service).

They are the same price, $250-300, that a normal cell phone is provided you pay retail. Throw in coupons from sellers and subsidizes from carriers and they are about the same ($0-50) as any other phone

  Correct me if I'm wrong - but you can get pretty much the same service on your cell phone for a lot less money.

I pay around $80 to tmobile for my 7100t phone's service which includes air time, email, and web traffic. That's going to be about the same for any phone out there, but with BB you get a vastly superior phone as the keypad is much better (the 7100 has 2 letters per key in a QWERTY format) and the scroll wheel is extremely handy.

I cringe everytime I had to use another phone as the UI was so terrible

According to my BlackBerry rep....

[acoustix]

Everyone in the Senate has a BB. The VP has one as well as the President's entire cabinet. Basically everyone has a BB except the President.

-Nick

Re:According to my BlackBerry rep....

[multipartmixed]

Hmm, RIM should buy Texas Instruments, then George's "PDA" woudl be a Blackberry too!

(Hey, if it's good enough for ET, it's good enough for GB!)

Re:According to my BlackBerry rep....

[Anonymous Coward]

The President isn't allowed to have a BB. In fact his brother (Jeb) said he would never want to be President because he'd have to give his up.

I Prefer GoodLink

[fdiskne1]

If someone is in the market for Enterprise wireless email, if you ask me, GoodLink is a better choice. People I know who have used both prefer the way GoodLink looks and works. It appears very similar to Outlook on your handheld and it synchs with your email server. When you delete an email on your handheld, it's gone from your mailbox and vice-versa. The part I like best is that if a handheld is lost or stolen or someone quits or gets fired, I can, with just a couple of mouse clicks (confirmation), do a hard reset on any handheld set to access our email system. No, I don't work for Good and I don't get anything for saying this. I'm just happy with their setup.

Re:I Prefer GoodLink

[Registered Coward v2]

I use Goodlink, and while it is good, it has several flaws taht need to be addressed (IMHO):

It is a memory hog on the Treo - it uses 50% of the available memory and can't run from a card
It doesn't paly nice with other aps - either crashing or preventing them from functioning (such as voice activated dialing)
It uses a proprietary data store - so normal Palm aps can't read the calender / contact info - which also means if it crashes you have no way to get your calender / contact info until you fix the problem with Goodlink

Re:I Prefer GoodLink

[Anonymous Coward]

Every feature offered by Goodlink is offered by Blackberry. Good as a company came into existence with the idea to run a service in direct competition with RIM on RIM's hardware (and subsequently Palm, Symbian, etc). AFAIK there is no mobile OS supported by Goodlink that does not also support BlackBerry through BB Connect. Though try getting that on a device in the US :P

Sidebar: What I find particularly funny about claims that Microsoft's new "push" mail service is "the BlackBerry killer" is that no one seems to have caught on to the fact that Good, Seven, and other push-services (that only support Exchange) will be the first to fall under that particular sword, well before it ever gets near RIM.

Re:I Prefer GoodLink

[SlashingComments]

You are TOTALLY NUTS to use anything other than blackbery. And BTW, deleting from handheld MUST not delete it from my emailbox. anyway there was on good thing going on here, now that will be gone too.

There is no "them," dammit.

[ScentCone]

They is us. Something that disrupts government operations, or drives up its costs, is impacting every citizen and taxpayer. To the extent that Blackberries have been improving internal communications or making it easier for federal employees to get certain tasks accomplishsed, that's a good thing. I sincerely doubt, though, that many (any?) mission-critical activities now rely on Blackberry service access. Suddenly being without would feel like a big pain in the ass to underpaid people already working within a clumsy-by-design system, but it probably doesn't rise to the level of a security risk. How about just using T-Mobile sidekicks? They're groovier anyway, right?

Re:US Government dependence - MOD Parent DOWN

[Bad D.N.A.]

There is a very big difference between

10% of the US government are blackberry users

and

10% of blackberry users are from the US government

Re:A crime. It is allowed IF...

[canuck57]

The law is the law is the law!

If the law is the law then how come Microsoft executives are not in jail for anti-trust, bundling, extortion and predatory pricing?

Here is a hint. The government does not want to prosecute companies unless they are foreign, and that is why 90 days and not indefinite. If it were Microsoft in this lawsuit NTP would still be spinning from how fast this would have got tossed out of court. Why?

Mail and writen communications have been sent over wireless long before NTP patents were even filed. In fact, NTPs sole reason for existence is to quietly file patents, wait until a productive company is successful then pounce on companies who deliver a product or service. Purely a predatory practice that serves no beneficial purpose for consumers or society. In fact I am surprised RIM has not made this case to the US courts that NTP practices are predatory and hurt the consumer by reducing competition and thus should be tossed out on that basis.

And NTP, with zero employees can't claim it is developing it's patent to a product. Americans should be appalled at how this is unfolding as it raises consumer costs, will reduce competition and innovation. Americans employed to support the system may well get laid off as a result.

Business are going to start to ask if they should sell in the US and if so, raise their prices in advance anticipating law suits from scrupulous paracites like NTP.

This ís an idea..(perhaps slightly off-topic)

[plankrwf]

But this might actually be an idea...
You would need only ONE killer patent, say a patent that could be 'upheld' in a court of law, and which presents REAL added value.
Say 'using tabbed windows within your webbrowser' (for arguments sake, let's assume it ís a 'must-have'). And then of course, the party that owns the patent, allows ONE single 'gnu-licence-policy' club to use that patent.
Say for instance the KDE browser. Now, as KDE is GPL, every other 'freesoftware' group, could use THAT part of the software, as it is GPL...
Of course, that 'freesoftware' group would have to GPL it's software too...
In that way, that patent is FREE to the GPL-guys, and to nobody else?! Now, just wait till some non-GLP company, say Microsoft, invades the patent, and let it go to court...
If a large part of government used that software...
As the patent-owner doesn't make software itself, it is not open to counterclaims?!

modus vivendi

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apparently 10% of US Blackberry users are government users."
awesome! now what?
no wonder my adsl is so slow. my isp's employess are
downloading all their base pr0n ...
whatz a funny times dude! /me wonders if s0ny employees also have r00tkitz installed,
free of course, yah know demo.!
r00tkitz rul3z!

No the cat does not "got my tongue".

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> 'The Justice Department has filed a legal brief in a patent dispute,
> asking a federal court to delay any immediate shutdown of the
> popular wireless e-mail system to ensure that state and federal
> workers can continue to use their devices.' Apparently 10% of US
> Blackberry users are government users."

No, I said you can't use it, not me. It's good to be the king.

Re:A crime. Impeachment in order.

[argoff]

The law is the law is the law!

The only law that is law, is natural law. Everything else is just humans telling other humans what to do, and has no more barance than if I wrote a set of rules telling you what to do. The fact that a mob of humans might get together, and vote on a law is just a technicality difference. Of course that mob might have more coercive power, but then again it might vote itself orders to jump off a cliff and fly away. In the end natural law always wins out. Laws that match natural law are good laws, laws that don't are bad laws and always have bad consequences.

Would it be wise...

[emil]

...for RIM to announce a one-day shutdown of all US service as a "test measure" prior to the injunction?

What sort of contractual problems would RIM face in selectively shutting down the US market before the injunction takes effect? Would the resultant uproar be sufficient for a more flexible stance from the judiciary? Might the supreme court decide to get involved after all?

Re:Would it be wise...

[TerryMathews]

I don't really understand the hoopla. Microsoft has developed a push e-mail system for their PPC phone handhelds.

I know USAF is Exchange on the backend, I believe all of DoD is. All they have to do is switch out Blackberries for PPCs and they're done. Plus, they'll save a bundle on SMS messages.

Re:US Government dependence - MOD Parent DOWN

[pookemon]

Dyslexia for cure found?

Shut it down and put me out of my misery

[gone.fishing]

I support a number of Blackberry users. A couple of them who live in major metro areas are very satisfied with them and evangilize them to others who do not live in such populated areas. These guys buy them and then I have to support them. Blackberry coverage outside of metro areas is spotty at best.

Then come the complaints. I tell them yep, you won't get messages out in the country. Then they ask me why they spent hundreds of dollars for it? I tell them because they did not ask me first, I would have told them.

I also tell them that a shut down may be coming soon. That RIM, the manufacturers of the device have lost a patent infringment suit and a subsiquent appeal and that the Supreme Court has already refused to hear it. But these guys are like addicts. The prefer a service that barely works for them to no service what so ever.

I don't get it. Being connected is important but not that important. I'm afraid that if and when the Blackberry is shut down that I will have to deal with the fall out - but at least I won't have to deal with them after that!

Re:What happened to the patent review?

[SpaceLifeForm]

This story has legs. It's interesting that Mathew Ingram writes in that RIM should give in:

RIM is a proud company, and rightly so. It has issues with the way NTP's patents were awarded, and some of those criticisms likely have merit. But it has to find some way to get the patent-infringement monkey off its back, and a settlement is the fastest way to do that.

Of course, this was before he was aware of the USDOJ action, so he may feel otherwise today.

Re:A crime. Impeachment in order.

[CDPatten]

"The only law that is law, is natural law. Everything else is just humans telling other humans what to do, and has no more barance than if I wrote a set of rules telling you what to do."

Wow, that may be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Clearly you never have studied history. The only societies that have been successful in the history of world have had man made laws. Many of which are designed to specifically counter "natural laws" or instinct of mankind.

"Laws that match natural law are good laws, laws that don't are bad laws and always have bad consequences"

Ok let's take your premise: Ever hear of Survival of the fittest? Well there is no compassion in that "natural law" is there? Should the laws against killing handicap children/adults be thrown out the window because conflict with "natural law"? Stephen Hawking would have died long ago if left to "natural law".

How about pedophiles? Does the "Natural Law" of reproduction apply to them when they like a 14 year old girl? How about marriage, that's another law made by man. You wouldn't mind me banging your wife right? I'm confident that she would be willing... its only natural law that she wants the best mate isn't it? So we should also assume you are into polygamy? How about someone coming to your house and taking it? You try to defend it, but they are bigger, stronger and kill you instead. "Natural Law".

Look at how animals act; they take what they want when they want. It was once thought animals only take what they need, but that was proven utterly wrong. Many species kill for sport, entertainment. Killer whales for instance torture seals and then leave them to die.

Without man made laws you have anarchy. Your premise is based on the assumption that human nature is kind and not violent. That is wrong. Human nature is aggressive, selfish, and that leads to violence. That is reality. I know it doesn't fit into the liberal hippy mantra, but it is undeniable fact.

It is only when human nature is denied that we see civilized nations that are productive and successful. When human nature is indulged you see what goes on in the nations of Africa. You should be grateful for man made laws. I'm sure many people would have beaten the S*** out of you for being stupid/irritating if it weren't for the man made law protecting you.

People like you think they are so clever and smart. You don't offer an intellectual argument or thought provoking perspective; you offer a naive and ignorant premise on par with an undeveloped child's mind. You spout cliché nonsense trying to make yourself feel like an intellectual, but at the end of the day, all you are is a fool.

Re:A crime. It is allowed IF...

[CDPatten]

"If the law is the law then how come Microsoft executives are not in jail for anti-trust, bundling, extortion and predatory pricing?"

Actually the law was followed. The penalty under the LAW was they were fined. So far billions of dollars. In some cases the law is jail time, but that is not mandatory. So you are wrong.

"Here is a hint. The government does not want to prosecute companies unless they are foreign, and that is why 90 days and not indefinite. If it were Microsoft in this lawsuit NTP would still be spinning from how fast this would have got tossed out of court. Why?"

Actually, it was 90 days to get a list of who uses it. MS losses more in court then anyone else. Come join reality with the rest of us. It has become nation and international sport to just sue MS whenever your company is doing badly. IE, Windows Media, were good cases, but the rest are crap.

"Business are going to start to ask if they should sell in the US and if so, raise their prices in advance anticipating law suits from scrupulous paracites like NTP."

You truly are smoking crack. The US economy is the most lucrative economy in the world. It's the largest, even larger then the hog-pog of nations trying to unite as the "EU". If you take the US out of the equation RIM would fade away in less then a year. Your statement is as absurd as saying business won't do business in china because they repress their people. Maybe you should take an economics class.

Now, I personally disagree with our patent laws, however, until the LAW is changed, it should be followed. Certainly the body responsible for enforcing law should not be asking Judges to break it! Over an inconvenience!

Re:A crime. Impeachment in order.

[CDPatten]

"Um ... what law?" Um ... Patent Law, as it has been applied and upheld by a number of courts.

"At issue is the violation of a patent - ostensibly a private matter. It is perfectly reasonable for interested parties affected by a inforcement of a patent to ask that their impacts be considered."

Huh?? "a private matter". The DOJ is responsibly for enforcing the patent laws. Seriously, are you just baiting me?

Lets take out the conflict of interest with the DOJ asking for the laws they are suppose to enforce be broken so they can keep using the technology that is in violation. You don't see anything wrong with the body responsibly for enforcing US LAW asking for the law to be "bent" so they can still use the technology? No state secrets are at stake, it's just a matter of avoiding an inconvenience.

Come on man. You can't possibly believe that. Don't get me wrong, I strongly disagree with the patent law, but until it is changed, it should be enforced.

And the lesson learned is ...

[Tjp($)pjT]

If you are the government it is OKAY to violate patents or uphold the interests of those who do. The Feds should "belly up to the bar" and put up some cold hard cash to NTP to allow the system to continue and require (if feasible) all non-government users shutdown, and only, and this is a big one, only those government officials blackberries should be left functional if their use is in the interests of national security. Let the rest of the Fed-o-crats suffer like the rest of us. If the government does not respect the rights of intellectual property holders what does this say to the citizens and ip creators in this country about how to behave or what they can expect.

Berry Picking

[Doc Ruby]

Sure, I'd like to send texts to the "B Ark" civil servants, instructing them to board the ark. But the ones who rate a Blackberry are typically the ones with power. Maybe beaming them all down to the garbage planet would improve things, but it certainly would paralyze the government.

Re:Berry Picking

[TykeClone]

And the downside to that is what, exactly?

Re:Berry Picking

[Doc Ruby]

There is an "A Ark", too. Or do you really believe, jokes aside, that we're better off with *no government*?

Re:Berry Picking

[TykeClone]

I believe that we're probably better off with less government and that if 10% (not including the military) were suddenly unable to perform their jobs, no one would notice.

Re:Berry Picking

[Doc Ruby]

Except you, when the wheel of fortune excised the people on whom you happen to depend for the services the government delivers to you. Everyone's negligible 10% is different.

Re:Berry Picking

[TykeClone]

To be honest, most services that people should depend upon should be state and local.

The federal government has a national wildlife refuge a few miles from where I site (Union Slough) - it is a 3000 acre (not terribly big) swampy grassland. It takes 6 people to administer and costs the feds more than $600K/year. 15 years ago, it was run with a staff of 2. Is there room to cut there?

The federal government is so big, that I think that there is plenty of things that can get cut and very few would notice.

Re:Berry Picking

[Doc Ruby]

I dunno - that wetlands includes 20K acres of wetlands under management, 13K annual visitors, and several management, restoration and interpretation activities. All while such wetlands are under increasing stress from nearby development, which of course still depend on such wetlands for environmental processing. I expect the management and restoration are new since its 1937 staffing, and likely overdue. Of course,

I'm just guessing from the webpage you supplied, and don't know the details. I don't think you know the details either, but I'd be mildly curious to learn them. Of course, you just might be sitting on some porkbarrel site, just as there are many. For example, I'd cut the SUV tax subsidy that's propped up the car business and the oil business with corporate welfare. I'd drop the pharmaco prescription handout. I'd revoke the millions in "Homeland Security" pork spent in Minnesota. Yeah, there's surely a lot to cut from a $3.5TRILLION budget, part of a $45TRILLION debt committment for the US. But I don't know that arbitrarily cutting 10% of the most active workers in the government will do anything but bring the other 90% crashing down on our heads.

More than 10% of Feds

[Doc Ruby]

Blackberry has over 3M users, maybe 3.5-4M. 10% is over 300K. The Federal employees union represents 600K people, plus postal and military workers. Even with another 2.5M workers, we're talking about more than 10% of Federal employees. So it's an bigger slice, if anything.

Re:A crime. Impeachment in order.

[Bob(TM)]

From the USPTO web site:

If a patent is infringed, the patentee may sue for relief in the appropriate federal court. The patentee may ask the court for an injunction to prevent the continuation of the infringement and may also ask the court for an award of damages because of the infringement. In such an infringement suit, the defendant may raise the question of the validity of the patent, which is then decided by the court. The defendant may also aver that what is being done does not constitute infringement. Infringement is determined primarily by the language of the claims of the patent and, if what the defendant is making does not fall within the language of any of the claims of the patent, there is no literal infringement.

I don't get it

[The Cookie Monster]

You seem to be the one to ask...

What's so special about these things having email on a phone? I've had this for years with a normal nokia (it just uses GPRS), and my phone isn't even a smartphone - the phone I had before that could do email too, and it didn't even come with a camera in it.

I presume Blackberrys must have some kind of value adding email interface, which is why I'm asking (cos my old phones just do vanilla pop/imap). Does it poll in the background (but I presume any old smartphone could do this), or the carrier pushes new mail notifications to it?

Re:I don't get it

[gone.fishing]

I've asked myself that too. But if you pull up Cingular's web site and look for Blackberry coverage anywhere west of the East Coast, you will see large areas not covered. The maps seem to be reasonably accurate too. Usually the coverage of a metro area will be good out through say the second tier of suburbs and it drops off pretty quickly after that. Larger outstate cities, of say 20,000 or more will have coverage but it will just be in the city itself.

There are a couple of things that Blackberry does differently than regular email phones - for instance the Blackberry will synch up with an enterprise email system using the "BES" or "Blackberry Enterprise Server." There is also a "desktop redirector" that I am aware of but do not have to hassle with.

The Blackberry does all of it's wireless work in the background and it is fast (not instant though). The way we have it set up, it only does email and calendar items wirelessly (I don't know if that is a config & bandwidth issue or a limitation of the system). The Contacts, Notes, and so on are synched by wire.

If I want to stay that much in touch, I'd be happy to set up a rule that would forward email to my cel phone. There are limits to the length of these messages though. That is SMS for ya. Oh well. I'm too cheap to enable Web 2.0 on my phone - if I did that I could use web mail and have a little better way of checking email.

There is one solution

[terminal.dk]

Remove the software license crap.

I also think it is out of the question to make special exceptions from the law because some users are government employees. Everybody is equal for the law.

Blackberry Users Are very Powerful People

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no doubt the feds love their Blackberrys, many powerful people use them. Here's proof: Picture of feds

Two sets of rules makes it Them and Us

[heybo]

Yes they are Citzens like myself. So why all the bitching for goverment employees and not everyone? Or do they rate a higher level of Citzenship? If they do pass the law where they get to keep their service and service to the general public is cut off then isn't it a case of "Them" against "Us"? Isn't their job if they work for the goverment to be looking out of us (The People) first?

If they are going to shut it down because of the patent then shut it down completely. That way there is no "them and us". Any other way makes it where they are above the law, and this makes them "Them" and us on the outside.

Two sets of rules when will it stop? Ponder that.

Re:Two sets of rules makes it Them and Us

[ScentCone]

My point is not that some federal nerd-employee gets to have his Blackberry and you don't... my point is that even if it takes a while for everyone else using them to get things straightened out, you (as a taxpayer) should at least be glad that something helping government to run more efficiently can still be used. You're paying those people to work for you. If they can get more done in less time, or with fewer resources, that's a good thing. They're not competing with you, they're just using technology (in your service) under different legal circumstances.

Re:Two sets of rules makes it Them and Us

[heybo]

My point was there should not be a different legal circumstance. Laws are not ment to be bent for one group and not for another. It not a matter of competing. Besides it will take a hell of a lot more than a Blackberry to make the goverment to run more efficiently. Yes I have worked for the goverment and I have seen the waste that goes on all the time. It makes me sick. Still the point you seems to not want to talk about is laws are for everyone and a select few are not above the law. Or at least that was the way the Bill of Rights was orginally written. Yes I know good old George W. has done away with most of those rights now.

Re:Two sets of rules makes it Them and Us

[ScentCone]

Besides it will take a hell of a lot more than a Blackberry to make the goverment to run more efficiently.

No, but efficiency across the board is made up of the some of its parts. The feds don't pay telecom taxes on their phone lines, either... not just because it would be taking it from one pocket and putting it in the other, but because it would waste that much more bureaucratic horsepower to treat federal use of commodities the same way that we treat the private sector's use. Same can be said of the loosening of rules that allows government procurement officers to use high-range credit cards to make quick purchases of needed items... it cuts down enormously on the overhead (both for the buyer and seller).

If every federal facility or tool was used exactly the same way as it was for the rest of us, even less would get done.

the point you seems to not want to talk about is laws are for everyone and a select few are not above the law

Not at all. My point is that in carrying out the mission of a government agency, the circumstances simply aren't the same as in the private sector. That's why government employees can shut down a poisonous restaurant, inspect/regulate a nuclear power plant, or carry handcuffs/guns to put teeth behind things like smuggling laws. It's simply a different walk of life, but once those people punch out for the day, they're back with the rest of us, subject to exactly the same potential Blackberry limitations and the inability to shoot someone that cuts them off in the parking lot.

Re:Two sets of rules makes it Them and Us

[heybo]

Ok we are both smart people here so stop the dancing. We are not talking about laws that arm the police nor laws that give the goverment rights to say shut down a restaurant that is selling bad food. There are laws that GIVE that right to the goverment and rightly so. My point is the exculsion of the goverment from the law.

This thread is about stupid patent laws. If we as "The People" must abide by stupid patent laws then they must do the same. If they don't want to abide by them then change them for everyone! This has nothing to do with laws to carry firearms. It has to do with a stupid patent on and "idea" this patent is not for a real device or process but a vauge idea on transfering mail.

Why don't they follow your idea in the other post and just get T-Mobile Sidekicks hell you even said that they were cooler and we all know goverment officals want the coolest of cool.

It is VERY apperant that you have never been personally under the thumb of this goverment or you would not be carrying on about how gloris this goverment is. You've never been the the one oppressed. I guess that torture camps and punishment without a trial is ok by you too! Yea it will be ok until it is the day that you are dragged off and tortured

Remember what happened to the orginal People that lived here. Or did you forget that this land was inhabited before your ancestors got here?

Re:A crime. Impeachment in order.

[argoff]

Natural law doesn't mean the survival of the fittest, strongest, or do whatever you naturally feel like. Natural law makes an underlying assumption that individuals have a certain nature and rights which are assumed as a premise. Just as scientific method has an underlying assumption that existence is rational, natural law assumes that individuals are endowed with certain rights that exist above government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Re:A crime. Impeachment in order... wtf

[MasterShake]

The DOJ is not asking that a law be broken. The case (which decides whether or not infringement is actually occuring) hasn't been settled. The people doing the suing have asked for an injunction (basicly stop what you are doing until we figure this out, no implication of guilt or innocence). The Federal government, as a major user of the service, has filed a brief with the court that basicly says "This will inconvienence a lot of people and the case hasn't been decided yet, lets not inconvienence them until it is". Anybody can file such a document, if IBM had all its employees on Blackberries, they would be as justified and capable of doing so.

Re:What happened to the patent review?

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt it... He never seems to have anything good to say about RIM. And really, he's right. RIM needs to settle. RIM *wants* to settle. RIM just wants to sign one really big cheque and say "now toss off"; NTP rather wants RIM to hand it a big cheque, then bend over and take it in the pooper (by paying royalties, retroactive, as a percentage of the profit of BlackBerry, and also to not allow RIM to sublicense its patents).

Also, it should be noted that just because the NTP patents have been ruled invalid does not mean they are to be ignored; they are currently being reviewed as a normal patent application would, and likely will be resubmitted with i) more claims or ii) better claims that will then be enforceable (or they won't be accepted at all). However, even one patent is enough for NTP to at least swindle a little cash out of RIM's 1.8B reserves.