Slashdot Mirror
Blackberry Blackout Threat to Software as Service?
TheIndifferentiate writes "In light of how CEOs are reacting to a possible court injunction which could shutdown their RIM BlackBerry service, what impact do you think this will have on the 'Software as a Service' business model? The conventional wisdom in some commercial software corners has it that the threat of patent litigation should stop Open Source Software development in its tracks. If my business depends on an OSS application, and it gets shut down, I can potentially go on about my business as I have the executables and wouldn't have to stop using them until someone came knocking at my door. If an SaaS application gets shut down and my business depends on it, I'm dead in the water. Seems like one of the prime arguments against OSS also takes out SaaS too. Rhetorically speaking, how could a commercial ISV in good faith talk any business out of an OSS application and into an SaaS application?"
Service of any kind can fail; companies should always have contingency plans in place in case of such failure. BlackBerry is a great tool, but there are other tools now that can do the same task and companies have known for some time the risk that existed to the service. Those who haven't a migration plan have simply failed to plan, but the loss won't be too grave as e-mail itself will continue internally and there are plenty of PDAs/Phones that can take over the workload.
On the other hand, when a service is key to the operations of the company it is far more important to have solid contingency plans. We provide such a system and the big concern our large clients have is "how do we continue if your company fails". Even though we have escrowed code, it wouldn't do the clients much good as they would have to bring up servers, restore the data and understand the operations side. For that reason some clients are paying for "continuity insurance" which funds us for three to six months at a maintenance level to operate the system until the escrowed code running and ownership is transferred.
We are handling this continuity by placing the funds in a reserve controlled by a third party that is releasable via the "triggering conditions" of a contract ending or our normal operations being threatened. Obviously, if our product was open source, there would still be the transfer concerns, so I don't think open source provides some magic bullet in the case of "software as service" since typically such arrangements include the hosting. It would provide the availability to continue development after the failure of the service, but again our code escrow and transfer effectively is the same thing (although the various clients would do so independently instead of under the banner of some foundation. I see the possibilities of a foundation that could better steer such development as perhaps the only real benefit to OSS, and frankly it isn't out of the question to BSD license the code upon failure (we don't but we could).
Sig under construction since 1998.
This has been an issue in outsourcing deals since forever. If you put your eggs in someone else's basket, you have a stake in how they build that basket. If you are big enough, contracts can be structured to strike an acceptable risk sharing balance. If you're just Joe Customer, you might get screwed, but you might not have a choice.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
I'd have to say there's nothing I'd like better than a Crackberry network shutdown, at least for a week. It might actually wake up the execs to the mess the modern patent system has made.
Also, probably some 80% of the people I know who have the damn things only have them to make themselves feel important, not because a life-and-death email could come in at any moment. It's very disruptive trying to talk to some ass who thinks every time his CB goes off he should pick it up rather than continuing the discussion with the real, live person in front of him/her, yet that's what most of them do... Plus, most of this 80% have increased their stress level unbelievably by destroying the greatest feature of email - the ability to get back to it when it doesn't disrupt things, unlike, say, phone calls.
That said, redundancy is a good thing for those people where it really is an end-of-everything scenario to be out of touch with their email. There should be a backup plan, and this will be a healthy reminder. When I'm on call for production support, I have a cell phone and a pager at all times, and if I'm home, email and my land line work as well. Inevitably, at least one of these often fails to reach me, that's why there are backups.
The rest of the people, the 80% above, well, they just need to pop a valium or two and realize that it doesn't matter that much...
Nathan
All it took was one little patent holding company to bring down a legitimate product used by millions of business users. Does NTP even make a product of their own? The main reason that I see this as a problem is pretty simple: software patents' shelf-lives are too long to do anything but make them a pay day for the lawyers. A one or two year term would work, but the 17 year term makes the format/approach/algorithm completely unusuable to most competitors for derivatives, extensions, etc. for its entire useful life. Does anyone honestly think that a company in Microsoft, Apple or Oracle's position would license their patents to a small, but viable competitor without charging near bankrupcy rates?
Software development is the cheapest type of engineering there is. Unlike other industries, it's far easier for a small outfit to grow on a small budget and see a return on its investment.
The threat the article described is one of another company owning patents to the software used coming in and shutting down the company.
The problem I see even if you have a code escrow agreement, if the company you have an escrow arrangement with is being shut down is doing so because of patents they may not be legally able to give you the escrowed code and it may be withheld from you! I would imagine the first thing a patent holder would demand from a company in violation is that no source could be released unless you paid them first, and furthermore that you cease using the software at once (if it's an application, not a service)
Code escrow only addresses the financal, not IP risks of using proprietary software - service or deployed application. The great thing about OSS is no-one really tracks who has what - so even if a project is found in violation you can simply keep running it while you execute a migration strategy.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What's missed here is that NTP was formed largely because RIM was a first-rate jackass company.
Among NTP's primary shareholders are the actual inventors of the patents. Or perhaps I should say "were", as one of them recently died: RIM kept this bottled up in court that long. These inventors produced actual products at early computer tradeshows which ran email over a sophisticated wireless protocol to a PDA-like device. Sound familiar? The earliest such patents were filed in 1994 based on inventions several years earlier. Let's put this into context: the earliest Newton was in 1993, and the earliest similar device I am aware of was a PCMCIA pager card that could be put into the Newton circa 1995, enabling it to receive (but not send) messages over a pager network. This combination of technologies was both novel and original, and the inventors didn't just make them up to sell patents. But their company foundered.
Then came along RIM. RIM started selling the Blackberry and then started suing the daylights out of its competitors. Surely you remember this. RIM's nickname on The Register was "Lawsuits In Motion". When the original patent holders got wind of what RIM was selling, they realized it was largely a duplication of their patent. And so they contacted RIM and told them they were infringing. That's when RIM refused to return their calls. For a year.
This is not how ordinary companies operate. If someone owns a valid patent on your work, you don't refuse to even talk to them. So NTP was formed basically to force RIM to actually talk.
Legal battle ensues, and out come the slashdotters. NTP's patents are invalid and are getting all knocked down (um, the lynchpin ones are not). NTP is just a holding company to go after people (um, NTP was made to financially enable the original inventors to go after a specific company which was flagrantly violating their patent). Patents are evil (um, you know why patents exist, right? You're familiar with the evil that was the Trade Guild? No, I'm not talking about Star Wars).
RIM was repeatedly reprimanded in court by the judge for all sorts of obnoxious actions. And to top it off, RIM went to congress to ask them to override the judge because they'd given free blackberries to congress, and now wanted to claim that shutting RIM down would put the nation's security in jeopardy. I am not pulling your leg. Only Jack Abramoff could pull off a lobbying stunt more inappropriate.
And now the courts have sided ... against the slashdotters! How could the Supremes have not been reading the /. comment stream? What were they thinking?
Short answer: RIM is a nasty, obnoxious company which violated patents and sued people's pants off for things they didn't own. They got what they deserve. Too bad one of the original inventors didn't live long enough to see a dime from them.