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. "

12 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. Don't NOC it until you try it by digitaldc · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.'

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  3. Re:Well If That Isn't Worthy Of A Patent... by mopslik · · Score: 5, Funny

    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...

  4. 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
  5. 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."
    1. 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.

  6. 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?

  7. 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
  8. 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.

  9. 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".

  10. 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.