Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BlackBerry Sues Twitter For Patent Infringement (reuters.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the bird-hunting dept.

BlackBerry has set its sights on Twitter in a new patent infringement lawsuit, accusing the social media company of illegally using technology in its mobile messaging apps that had been developed by the former smartphone maker. Reuters reports: The lawsuit said Twitter wrongly sought to compensate for being a "relative latecomer" to mobile messaging by co-opting Blackberry's inventions for such services as the main Twitter application and Twitter Ads, infringing six of the company's patents. Twitter "succeeded in diverting consumers away from BlackBerry's products and services" and toward its own by misappropriating features that made BlackBerry "a critical and commercial success in the first place," the complaint said.

The lawsuit resembles patent infringement cases that BlackBerry filed there last March and April against Facebook and Snap. Last August, U.S. District Judge George Wu allowed BlackBerry to pursue most of its infringement claims in those lawsuits, which according to court records remain pending. Wu may be assigned the case against San Francisco-based Twitter because federal courts often assign cases deemed "related" to a single judge. The Facebook and Snap lawsuits were deemed related.

18 of 49 comments (clear)

  1. Sad world by RuiFRibeiro · · Score: 1, Insightful

    When blackberry has to resort to copyright troll to survive.

    1. Re:Sad world by mysidia · · Score: 3, Informative

      Patent, not copyright.
            And Blackberry does not meet the typical definition of troll -- Blackberry was a practicing entity that was there first and patented some of the methods they were using, but they were then out-innovated by more software-heavy companies like Apple and Google...
      Twitter is not something Blackberry would have developed, because BB saw itself as a phone maker, at least until very recently.

      Anyways, they're not a "troll" per se, but in their desperate condition BB needs to maximize revenue from every source possible, so they turn to licensing their patent portfolio.

      "Troll" implies Blackberry is at fault, But in fact --- it is OUR patent system at fault: if companies like Blackberry are being allowed to hold patents on software system or feature designs that are broad or so obvious that its something any skilled developer would come up with when faced with a challenge, rather than only patentable substantial developments that significantly add to the state of the art.

    2. Re:Sad world by gl4ss · · Score: 1, Informative

      at this point blackberry is a patent troll quite typically. as this is a quite typical path to being a patent troll - maximizing revenue from every source possible is kinda the usual reason, when the method is riskily suing big money victims.

      it was a really hubris company that got into a market by sidestepping standards and providing a service that was doable with standard networks just a few years after and really they didn't have anything really special about it even. their thing was hacking their push email system into place just _before_ data networks made it unnecessary to hack such a system in place.

      I'm just surprised they didn't sue google for android along with sun since their earlier os had quite a bit in common with android being java and all - the reason is easily guessable though, since they tried making android based phones themselves.

      and fwiw they failed because they couldn't compete on price on open market. their key markets were _only_ operator subsidized markets and their devices were _actually_ hideously expensive for what they were. same for palm. made a lot of money for a short while though, but they thought they were just so special and good, when they just had a good deal going for a short while of price gouging markets where the price of the device was hidden in a 100 bucks per month fee of using the mobile service(of which 80 bucks was paying for the "free" phone and as there was no way to _not_ be paying for a "free" phone people went along with it).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Sad world by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Having briefly experienced the Blackberry UI during that critical period when Apple was first releasing the iPhone there's little doubt why Blackberry's market share collapsed. Simply put, the interface was awful compared to the simpler and more intuitive iOS interface. It's really that simple. We can debate all day which one of the companies was more innovative, what really counted was that the iPhone was easier to use, and it won the market based simply on that fact. RIM/Blackberry had no idea how to respond, and just kept plugging away for lack of any real response. By the time it finally figured out the market, it could do little more than either build in Android compatibility, and ultimately just release Android phones built by someone else. Their positive cash flow was largely manufactured by selling off assets, so there was a whole funny business going on at the corporate level. Then there was the whole "QNX will take over the embedded world", despite the fact that QNX had no lack of competitors, and Microsoft and Google were already pretty far ahead in such areas as embedded software for dashboard displays.

      Everything Blackberry has done over the last decade has either been idiotic, or outright malfeasance. That they'll likely end their days as a patent troll before the valuable assets like QNX get sold off was a foregone conclusion five years ago. They are the SCO of the mobile world.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Sad world by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Are the patents legitimate or did they sneak BS through the PTO?

      They have so many of them, and only a couple of their claims were invalidated or dismissed as
      patent-ineligible in the court cases with Snapchat/Facebook despite Snap/FB's arguments to dismiss many more of them : so its kind of a tough argument to say so many patents "sneaked" by the patent examiners.

      Snapchat v Blackberry - Ruling on Snapchat's motion to dismiss pursuant to frcp 12(B)(6) [24]:

      Defendants infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,301,713 (“the ’713 Patent”); 8,326,327 (“the ’327
      Patent”); 8,825,084 (“the ’084 Patent”); 8,209,634 (“the ’634 Patent”); 8,296,351 (“the ’351
      Patent”); 8,676,929 (“the ’929 Patent”); 9,349,120 (“the ’120 Patent”); 8,429,236 (“the ’236
      Patent”) and 8,677,250 (“the ’250 Patent”).

      713 : Handheld electronic device and associated method providing time data in a messaging environment
      327 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
      084 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
      634 : Previewing a new event on a small screen device
      351 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
      929 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
      120 : System and method for silencing notifications for a message thread
      236 : Transmission of status updates responsive to status of recipient application
      250 : System and method for switching between an instant messaging conversation and a game in progress

      Facebook brings this action against BlackBerry for infringement of

      U.S. Patent No. 8,429,231 (“’231 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,567,575 (“’575 patent”),
      U.S. Patent No. 6,356,841 (“’841 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,228,432 (“’432 patent”),
      U.S. Patent No. 6,744,759 (“’759 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,302,698 (“’698 patent”) (collectively “the Patents-in-Suit”).

      231: Voice instant messaging
      575 : Personalized multimedia services using a mobile service platform
      841: G.P.S. management system

      432: Method and apparatus for providing security for a computer system

      759: System and method for providing user-configured telephone service in a data network telephony system

      698 : Operation of trusted state in computing platform

    5. Re:Sad world by sjames · · Score: 1

      At one time, they were a practicing patent holder. Now they are a troll.

      No excuses unless you also believe that pick pockets are blameless because it's not their fault pockets are made so easy to pick. Bank robbers are also blameless. Banks shouldn't be so easy to rob. Serial killers are blameless, people shouldn't be so easy to kill...

    6. Re:Sad world by sjames · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, if people are stepping on patent landmines, it should actually invalidate the patent. After all, how non-obvious could it be if people keep stumbling over it?

    7. Re:Sad world by mysidia · · Score: 1

      At one time, they were a practicing patent holder. Now they are a troll.

      BB are still a practicing patent holder. They have products such as Blackberry Connect and
      BlackBerry Spark Communications Services -- that provides APIs for developers to build instant messaging and collaboration applications, etc.

      Part of the whole point of patent exclusivity is to provide protection for the fact that once people saw and interacted with BB's software, "once people knew of the product", the operation and aspects of functional user interface were easy to re-create.

      Fact of the matter is BB created one of the first instant messaging apps (BBM), which still exists (albeit in evolved form) to this day,
      and patent protection provides for preventing people from using their app --- apprehending how such an app likely works, and then creating and selling their own version, which seems like what Twitter mobile functionality does.

    8. Re:Sad world by sjames · · Score: 1

      At one time, Blackberry's tech was the only game in town, but these days, apps like Twitter are just a combination of common technologies that happen to be available on mobile phones now. Nobody needed (or wanted) to study how Blackberry did it to implement the newer services. Just because both are interfaces to make your vehicle go, the gas pedal and the buggy whip have little in common.

      For the most part, Blackberry itself ditched their old tech and replaced it with common and widely available G3/G4 and Android.

      They had a good run back when one-way pagers were the big thing, then they could no longer answer the question "what's next". Now they're running on momentum only and it's winding down.

    9. Re:Sad world by mysidia · · Score: 1

      these days, apps like Twitter are just a combination of common technologies that happen to be available on mobile phones now

      That does Not mean those companies are in the clear -- the technologies putting them in the clear would ONLY happen if BB had exhausted their patent rights by licensing those "common technologies" to Apple/Google Android/etc for use on their phones ---- since use is unlicensed, BB have the option to pursue anyone who uses those technologies instead. The "common" technologies available on mobile phones can be a copy of Blackberry's inventions, and those companies building on top of them would then be responsible to know and license the tech from the patent holder before building a product that utilizes those technologies.

      Nobody needed (or wanted) to study how Blackberry did it to implement the newer services.

      Also irrelevent.... the patent protects the invention, which can be "obvious" to other people AFTER they have seen the invention or a derivative of the invention in action or learned about the basics of what the invention achieved. In any case, the ability of other people to re-create an invention without studying its implementation does not render the invention or its implementation non-patentable.

    10. Re:Sad world by sjames · · Score: 1

      You're stretching desperately, much like Blackberry is. RIM did not invent G3, G4, TCP/IP or the concept of delivering a message over those technologies. They don't even use the technologies they invented anymore.

      They invented a now obsolete method of delivering messages to a small device that fits in your pocket, but you can't patent a CONCEPT, only a particular way of reducing it to practice. In this case, a way that is long obsolete.

  2. My phone invention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A systematic system to systemize systems systematically.

    Taking input a and storing as b and reproducing as returned output C. Whether by manual input, human interface or automatic machine, creates a system that dynamically adapts to both increased and decreased levels of input and output. Stores in a variety of ways capable of being sorted by lateral patterns and numeric lists.

  3. ofcourse! by sad_ · · Score: 1, Troll

    "Twitter "succeeded in diverting consumers away from BlackBerry's products and services""

    Yes, because every time when i use twitter, i keep thinking - man, this sure looks & feels a lot like my blackberry.

    When i think blackberry, i think of a stupid enterprise phone of yesteryear used for exchange mail, not twitter.

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  4. Darl? Is that you? by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

    Did Darl McBride put together a group of investors and buy Blackberry recently? No? Ok, just wondering.

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
  5. Sue Sue Sue by quanminoan · · Score: 2

    When you can't innovate, litigate!

  6. I think you actually mean... by N_Piper · · Score: 1

    ...That a grinning ghoul, puppeteering an ill-fitting suit made from the skin of BlackBerry, is suing Twitter.
    you know just like Atari or THQ or so many more it hurts.

  7. âoeillegally using technologyâ... by Izhido · · Score: 1

    Repeat after me:
    Software patents are morally and ethically wrong.
    Anyone enforcing them should be ousted from the industry.

  8. Actual patents in question? by lokedhs · · Score: 1
    Searching for the case reveals nothing but publications reposting the Reuters article. There is a site where the actual case details can be downloaded, but it requires an account that they apparently charges for,

    Does anyone have the actual filing?