Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Inside the BlackBerry Workaround

Posted by Zonk on from the what's-with-the-string-and-the-cans? dept.

pillageplunder writes "Businessweek has a pretty good FAQ-style article on the proposed workaround that RIM would implement if a judge upholds an injunction." From the article: "It would work by changing the part of the network where e-mails are stored. Right now, when someone is out of wireless coverage range and can't immediately get e-mail access, RIM's service stores incoming messages on computers at one of its two network operations centers, or NOCs. When you come back into coverage range, those e-mails are forwarded to you automatically. "

6 of 101 comments (clear)

  1. Why not store at the client end anyway? by lordkuri · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm kind of confused. Why would RIM not store the emails at the blackberry server to begin with? Surely that would have been less resource intensive on their part, and more comfortable to clients in regards to security.

    Someone who knows more about this care to clue me in?

    1. Re:Why not store at the client end anyway? by arivanov · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This will mean the blackberry server talking to the operator which in practice means the customer talking to the operator. The operators will not like it.

      The main reason for BB success is the fact that RIM talks to the operator, not the customer. As a result the operators have considerably less security hassle and most importantly no billing disputes. So no matter how much they dislike RIM they prefer to deal with them.

      While at it, I have always asked myself the question - is the encryption end-to-end or the messages are stored at RIM unencrypted. Or what are the possibilities for RIM to successfully escrow a key? After all all registration, pins, etc goes through it... All of the governmentcritter email in cleartext (or easily decryptable)... Interesting thought...

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  2. Re:Well If That Isn't Worthy Of A Patent... by Manhigh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And patent squatting, or whatever you care to call it when a company sits on a patent without utilizing it, simply to stifle competition, should be illegal.

    --
    "Open the pod by doors, Hal" > "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave" sudo "Open the pod bay doors, Hal" > alright
  3. Re:Explain this please by Raistlin77 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe it's just one of those "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" scenarios. Maybe they don't want to switch to their backup plan just yet because it's not going to be as smooth as they claim, and since the current system works rather well, why not fight to keep it.

  4. Re:Well If That Isn't Worthy Of A Patent... by terradyn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the patent system is too lax, and the criteria for offering patents is flawed, but the system does not hurt innovation. Not at all.

    The system is what is hurting innovation. It allows for companies like NTP to buy patents for the sole purpose of sueing people/companies that are actually innovating on the patent. My 2 cents is that patent law should require that any patents owned by individuals or corporation must be utilized for some product in the marketplace within an agreed upon timeframe. If it isn't, then it should go up for bid so that a person that wants to innovate using it can. If no one bids, it should just go into the public domain. Of course, there are lots of things that have to be worked out (timeframe, bid values, etc.), but you get the general idea.

  5. Another example of what patents really do by Chemisor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In another stunning example, the patent office is once again proven to be not the receptacle of revolutionary ideas or the catalyst of innovation, but rather the repository of ideas nobody is allowed to think any more. Or needs to.