Inside the BlackBerry Workaround

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. "

Comments

Rule of Equivalents?

[AdolChristin]

Is RIM hoping to invent around and get off the hook by invoking the Rule of Equivalents with the PTO?

Re:Rule of Equivalents?

[XMilkProject]

In my understanding, the rule of equivalents meant that an item could infringe on a patent if it was even remotely equivalent.

But this is no longer valid, see this article.

Why not store at the client end anyway?

[lordkuri]

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?

Re:Why not store at the client end anyway?

[arivanov]

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...

Don't NOC it until you try it

[digitaldc]

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.
Under the workaround, these waiting e-mails would be stored somewhere else -- on the servers that sit behind the firewall of a company or carrier network. A large part of the infringement of the NTP patents is based on the e-mails being stored at the NOC, analysts say.

They could have just renamed or recreated the NOC as something else like, 'HELL' - the Humongous Email Limbo Lockup.
This way, when NTP asks them how they did it, they can simply say 'Go to HELL.'

Re:Well If That Isn't Worthy Of A Patent...

[mopslik]

Since when can you patent guaranteeing delivery of a message?

Well, RIM had sent the Patent Office a message complaining about the "obviousness" of the patent, but somehow they never received it...

Re:Well If That Isn't Worthy Of A Patent...

[Manhigh]

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.

Explain this please

[Nom du Keyboard]

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.

Re:Explain this please

[Raistlin77]

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.

Re:Explain this please

[dpilot]

It might look like admission of guilt, and thereby affect the court/patent cases?

Re:Explain this please

[darkmeridian]

The end-users still have to update the software on servers and perhaps individual workstations in order to implement the workaround. RIM is bettting everything on winning the litigation. If they lose and have to pay damages, the fines they could have avoided by implenting the workaround now is miniscule in comparison. Therefore, they have chosen not to burden their users until it is absolutely necessary.

Re:Explain this please

[Soybean47]

While I'm sure there are things that aren't being told, there are still fairly clear reasons for them to not implement this fix unless it's absolutely necessary.

In order for it to work, both the clients and the servers need to be updated with a patch. This is a manual process. If they say "roll it out now!" then all of a sudden, everyone who uses a blackberry is suddenly cut off until they AND their local server have applied a patch. And realize, the average blackberry user is at the executive level, and not the sort of person who applies patches. ;)

Interrupting blackberry service is something that I suspect they'd really really like to avoid.

Text Messaging?

[cloudscout]

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?

Re:Text Messaging?

[GNU(slash)Nickname]

Well yes. It is prior art.

Prior art that NTP holds a patent on.

Re:Text Messaging?

[dgatwood]

Maybe I'm completely missing something here, but how is this substantially different from the U.S. Postal Service queueing up my mail when I go on vacation? We have three parties---the postal service (RIM), the carrier (T-Mobile), and the customer (me). If the carrier sees mail building up in my box unread, he/she could assume that I'm not in the area and take it back to the post office. I've seen this happen in smaller communities where folks actually know their postal workers....

Effectively, by checking the mail regularly, the customer is telling the carrier that he/she is still in the area, in much the same way that the handshake between a cell phone and a cellular carrier tells the cell carrier that the phone is in the area. When the carrier sees that the person is home, the carrier notes that the problem has been resolved, and the postal service gives the queued up mail to the carrier to deliver to the customer.

Thus, it would appear that there is, in fact, evidence of prior art for this technology, available from an entity of the U.S. government since July 26, 1775.

Ladies and gentlemen, "obvious".

Good example

[slackaddict]

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.

Re:Good example

[Emetophobe]

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. The option already exists. They could talk in person, on the phone, e-mail each other, use an instant messaging program, two cups and a string, etc.. They chose to use a blackberry because it is easy and convienent. If blackberry service ever did come to a halt, its like the people would be scratching their heads trying to figure out how to communicate. The fact is, blackberries work, so people use them, if they cease to work, people will switch to something else that works.

Re:Well If That Isn't Worthy Of A Patent...

[terradyn]

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.

Come again?

[rjstanford]

There really is no competitor to the BlackBerry when it comes to a complete solution. I realize that its trendy to be dismissive, but if you haven't at least played around with one, don't knock it until you do. If there was a true OSS or even standards-based alternative, that would be one thing - but there isn't. And the Feds really shouldn't be spending tons of money to develop solutions rather than buying COTS packages that work.

I'd love to see someone come up with a true competitor to the Blackberry. Hasn't happened yet...

Maybe I'm dense

[MichaelKaiserProScri]

How does what RIM is doing infringe on NTP's patent, but POP3 or IMAP does not? If you send me an e-mail and my laptop is "out of range", that is "off" or "not in range of a 802.11 gateway" it goes to my mail server and waits there until I log on. Then I retrieve the buffered messages and display them on my "wireless device".

Re:Maybe I'm dense

[witwerg]

IANAL, but one could argue that because the NIP stuff involves a PUSH delivery mechanism (if I understand everytihng correctly) to clients, POP is definitely not infringing(all PULL), and I don't think that IMAP would, (I don't recall pushed updates to client but it is possible). But otherstuff like certian RPC mail protocols really do push stuff out, IIRC (maybe just the headers though). so The REAL question is why doesn't _exchange_ infringe :-D.

Re:Maybe I'm dense

[jrumney]

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".

Re:Maybe I'm dense

[Bravoc]

Here's an idea:

We could write our messages down on paper and pay a bunch of people with psycotic tendencies to run around and deliver them to each us.

If they can find us and hand us the "en-vel-opes" (we'll call them), Done! Message delivered, no patent violation! It would clearly be a problem if we just had these people like, leave them in a nearby box or something for us. So, instead, until they find the actual hand of the recipient of the "en-vel-opes", they can just take the messages back to their warehouse - patent problem solved

woo-hoo!

Re:Well If That Isn't Worthy Of A Patent...

[planetmn]

Problem is, now you have to define utilizing. What if I patent a part of a larger system, but the rest of the system isn't ready for market yet. Does designing a system that would use that patent constitute utilizing it?

Personally, I think a system like this would work better:
Allow for an easier to get, low cost, shorter term patent (think helping the little guy) - Say less than $200 (no lawyer needed) and 2 years
Require that a prototype demonstrating the patent (not necessarily the end item) be required in order to upgrade the above patent to a full protection patent
I don't see that the problem is that patents are too easy to get. I think they are too easy for the wrong people, and too hard for the right ones. I don't have the $10k+ required to file a patent for something I want to develop in my garage. But I also don't want to spend two years developing it, and then get nailed for patent infringement because a year ago somebody patented something similar.

-dave

Another example of what patents really do

[Chemisor]

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.

Re:Well If That Isn't Worthy Of A Patent...

[31415926535897]

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.

I would tend to agree, especially based on our current patent climate, but here is my concern:

I, personally, have several ideas that I think are "patent-worthy". I cannot afford a patent let alone the costs of (pre-)production. So let's say I scrape together enough cash to make a patent ($400-$5000 depending on the route you go), now what do I do with it? My options are to produce the product (I have already established that this is out of question financially), wait for someone to infringe on my patent and sue them (expensive and risky, especially for an individual trying to feed a family), or sell my patent to someone else.

If I sell the patent to someone else, I have a couple of options. One, I can try to sell/license it to a company that is in business related to the patent. So for most of my ideas, I could try to sell it to IBM, MS, Sandisk, etc., but the chances of them buying the patent are pretty slim. The other option I have is to sell the patent to a company that holds patents, like Invention Submission Corporation or perhaps a company like NTP. So I have an agreement with them that they either pay me a lump sum (far less than the value they see in the patent), or a percentage of profits from the patent. So they take on the risk and the financial burden, and I as a small player am pretty happy with my payout (perhaps I have enough now for one of my other ideas, to patent and then even start small-scale production).

I'm not saying that we have to protect the likes of NTP because of what I've just said, but I think there is some validity in these kind of companies that help out an individual. I don't know what that balance is or what kind of rules you would create to make sure that the system doesn't eventually kill innovation (especially from the small-time guy).

Operators = Cellular Network Providers

[Kadin2048]

When you get a Blackberry, you don't get it just from RIM.

RIM makes the devices themselves, but not the networks that they access. If you wanted to get a BB today, you'd go down to your local cellphone company of choice (well, of the ones that support the device you want to buy), and buy the handset and service from them. You might be able to buy the BlackBerry itself separately, but you're still going to need to go to a cell phone company to get service.

So you go to TMobile or whatever. They are the "operator." They have a system, also purchased from BlackBerry, which handles talking to your handheld device through their cellular network, and sending it email. When somebody sends an email to your BlackBerry's address, it goes first to RIM, and then to the cell-phone company's system, and then to your device. I'm not too familiar with how the BlackBerry system works (the changes in response to the patent involve where the email is being stored), but basically one of the reasons why RIM has been so successful, is that they make life pretty easy for the cellular carriers to offer BB service to their customers.

So the GP was speculating that this change might make life more difficult for the cellular carriers.

If Push is the problem then Pull

[tinkerghost]

If I read some of the posts and the junk surounding this issue. The big problem is that RIM holds the mail and pushes it as soon as you log back into the network.
If that's the case, just change it and have the BB specifically request the mail.
Current: BB: Hello I'm back. RIM: That's nice, here's your mail. Non infringing: BB: Hello I'm back, can I have my mail. RIM: That's nice, here's your mail. From what I saw of the workaround blurb, RIM is just going to store it offsite and then request it back so they can push it just like they do now.
By the way, IMO, if either of these things circumvent the patent then it's less useful than an equivalent weight of toilet paper.