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. "

4 of 101 comments (clear)

  1. Explain this please by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Interesting
    RIM is asking the court not to impose an injunction on devices that have already been sold. The Canadian company argues that it already has an implied license with NTP on these devices, and so they shouldn't be covered by an injunction.

    The reason: A jury found RIM guilty of infringing on NTP's licenses in 2002. RIM lost its bid to overturn that verdict. So, even if the Patent Office throws out NTP's patents, RIM still has to pay royalties for the time up until the patents are overturned.

    Okay, if RIM is:

    1: Having to pay royalties still on every unit sold.
    2: Has a workaround to avoid the patent they are paying royalties on.
    3: Says there's no difference to the end-user to use this workaround.
    4: Says all new *ackBerries have the new code in them already.

    Then why haven't they rolled out this workaround already ASAP. It would:

    1: Make any court injunction moot.
    2: Reduce the number of units that they owe royalties on.

    Methinks there's more to this that's not being told yet.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  2. Text Messaging? by cloudscout · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Maybe I'm completely missing the boat here, but I recall when I got my first cellphone capable of receiving text messages 10 years ago that those messages would be queued up on the carrier's servers until I turned my phone on or was in signal range. Would that not be prior art?

  3. Good example by slackaddict · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This is a good example of why you should not put all of your eggs in one basket. The US Federal Goverment uses Blackberries and this is a response to their mandate that no matter what happens to RIM over this patent dispute, Senators still need their Blackberries to work. Given other communication forms out there, I think it would be better for companies and governments to diversify or use an open standard for communication rather than relying on a single, vulnerable source for all of their commo needs.

    --
    ConsultingFair.com
  4. Re:Maybe I'm dense by jrumney · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It is different because the email is not stored on a standards based IMAP or POP server, it is stored on RIM's server which talks to your Blackberry using a proprietary protocol, and to your corporate email server using a proprietary plugin which works only on Exchange. RIM's protocol and server add the important feature of "lock-in" to the system. Yes, you could do it all with SMTP and IMAP, but "Blackberry and Exchange" sounds a lot more user friendly to the people who make purchasing decisions than "IMAP and SMTP".