Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Patents

Blackberry Blackout Threat to Software as Service? 156

TheIndifferentiate writes "In light of how CEOs are reacting to a possible court injunction which could shutdown their RIM BlackBerry service, what impact do you think this will have on the 'Software as a Service' business model? The conventional wisdom in some commercial software corners has it that the threat of patent litigation should stop Open Source Software development in its tracks. If my business depends on an OSS application, and it gets shut down, I can potentially go on about my business as I have the executables and wouldn't have to stop using them until someone came knocking at my door. If an SaaS application gets shut down and my business depends on it, I'm dead in the water. Seems like one of the prime arguments against OSS also takes out SaaS too. Rhetorically speaking, how could a commercial ISV in good faith talk any business out of an OSS application and into an SaaS application?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Blackberry Blackout Threat to Software as Service?

Comments Filter:
  • by Godeke ( 32895 ) * on Thursday January 26, 2006 @04:42PM (#14572234)
    Service of any kind can fail; companies should always have contingency plans in place in case of such failure. BlackBerry is a great tool, but there are other tools now that can do the same task and companies have known for some time the risk that existed to the service. Those who haven't a migration plan have simply failed to plan, but the loss won't be too grave as e-mail itself will continue internally and there are plenty of PDAs/Phones that can take over the workload.

    On the other hand, when a service is key to the operations of the company it is far more important to have solid contingency plans. We provide such a system and the big concern our large clients have is "how do we continue if your company fails". Even though we have escrowed code, it wouldn't do the clients much good as they would have to bring up servers, restore the data and understand the operations side. For that reason some clients are paying for "continuity insurance" which funds us for three to six months at a maintenance level to operate the system until the escrowed code running and ownership is transferred.

    We are handling this continuity by placing the funds in a reserve controlled by a third party that is releasable via the "triggering conditions" of a contract ending or our normal operations being threatened. Obviously, if our product was open source, there would still be the transfer concerns, so I don't think open source provides some magic bullet in the case of "software as service" since typically such arrangements include the hosting. It would provide the availability to continue development after the failure of the service, but again our code escrow and transfer effectively is the same thing (although the various clients would do so independently instead of under the banner of some foundation. I see the possibilities of a foundation that could better steer such development as perhaps the only real benefit to OSS, and frankly it isn't out of the question to BSD license the code upon failure (we don't but we could).
    • On the other hand, when a service is key to the operations of the company it is far more important to have solid contingency plans.

      Agreed. But remember the opportunity costs that come about from inaction. Too many people wait until things are "just right" to proceed, all the while losing the opportunities that could be gained by moving forward immediately.

    • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) * on Thursday January 26, 2006 @05:03PM (#14572505)
      The threat the article described is one of another company owning patents to the software used coming in and shutting down the company.

      The problem I see even if you have a code escrow agreement, if the company you have an escrow arrangement with is being shut down is doing so because of patents they may not be legally able to give you the escrowed code and it may be withheld from you! I would imagine the first thing a patent holder would demand from a company in violation is that no source could be released unless you paid them first, and furthermore that you cease using the software at once (if it's an application, not a service)

      Code escrow only addresses the financal, not IP risks of using proprietary software - service or deployed application. The great thing about OSS is no-one really tracks who has what - so even if a project is found in violation you can simply keep running it while you execute a migration strategy.
      • by Godeke ( 32895 ) * on Thursday January 26, 2006 @05:22PM (#14572721)
        That is an excellent point, but for services the financial risk is much greater than for applications. If Microsoft poofed off the planet tomorrow, I could continue to run my Windows based operating systems and applications for an undefined amount of time. If Google poofed off the planet tomorrow, I will be looking for a new search solution. Immediately.

        The issue of patents affects both applications and services fairly equally: if Windows was determined to violate a patent and was withdrawn, I'm either operating illegally the next day or am scrambling to migrate my data (and hoping it wasn't a file system patent, so I can actually read that data). If Google is found to violate a patent, I have a similar situation, except perhaps my data (say Gmail) is harder to get to (backups, backups, backups!). So while code escrow (and the continuation assurance that goes with it in the case of a service) only addresses company failures and not IP issues, I don't think it creates a *higher* risk of IP issues than applications sitting on disks.

        Meanwhile, if an open source product is determined to violate patents, in theory using the software is no more legal than in either of the above cases. Sure, you might be able to operate below radar longer, but I would hate to have *that* as my contingency plan.
        • Meanwhile, if an open source product is determined to violate patents, in theory using the software is no more legal than in either of the above cases. Sure, you might be able to operate below radar longer, but I would hate to have *that* as my contingency plan.

          I do agreee that the "deeper sand to hide your head in" plan is not exactly the best idea... perhaps a better aspect to consider is that potential finanical liability would be lower if you were not paying for the software itself and only for services
          • by dgatwood ( 11270 )
            Except that, by definition, the owners of a patent do not have any right to claim liability by the users of a product that infringes the patents. The infringing party is the person or company that created it. Now, if you knowingly import or use a patent-infringing product with intent that the importation or use would circumvent a patent, you can be sued for contributory infringement. However, in practical terms, unless your reason for getting the open source software is because you tried to write your ow
      • The problem there is that YOU also often do not know if you are in violation. So you never think of a migration strategy until after the lawyers come knocking at your door.
      • It's not like this happened to Blackberry overnight. The suit and shutdown order have been years in the making. Even the absolute-final-obvious-to-a-blind-man writing on the wall of the coming shutdown has been around for many months. Businesses have had AMPLE time to migrate already. And they would have the same kind of timeframe with any other litigation which might shut down their use of software they had purchased.
        • I really doubt many companies look at every single vendor the purchase from all the time to look for news of impending or active suits against them, and I doubt a company under attack would seek to publicise it much.

          So even if a course of action takes a few years, it still could sneak up on some companies if they purchased before the lawsuit ever happened. Now if they purchased after the lawsuit started, then I have little sympathay for them...

          I agree that in the particular case of Blackberry, things have
    • If Blackberry really violates the patents with its text-messaging service. Who's to say sms and email doesn't violate too?

      I haven't gone into the details, but the claims looked pretty broad last time I read an article about it.
    • It's impossible and time wasting to have a contingency for every possible failure. Some things you just have to take a chance on and assume they will be there.

      What contingency does your company have if all your phone service were lost? Or if there were no electricity? Or how about the roads leading into your company having been washed away?

      Sure, you could probably string together some paper cups, and have people ride stationary bicycle generators and build a human bridge. But in reality, you probably do
      • What contingency does your company have if all your phone service were lost? Or if there were no electricity? Or how about the roads leading into your company having been washed away?

        The way to plan for this contingency is to assume that your data center has been vaporized by a nuclear blast. You have a hot or cold backup data center site that can build a copy of your critical infrastructure in a day or two.

        This covers loss of power to a city, quarantine because of plague, earthquakes, etc.

        We actually got t
        • We actually got to try out the earthquake contingency about four years ago. I was a help desk phone tech then, and we got shuttled over to a sort of "battle bridge" call center that had enough equipment for about 1/4 of the team to work normally until our main location was usable again.

          But the point is, you assume that your "battle bridge call center" will be there and that the equipment provided will be available. Do you have a contingency for if the equipment had to be seized for some official reason? P
      • The anologies are quite good;

        What if your software as a service company goes broke - you are in serious trouble until gain new software and port your data.

        What if your data line goes down - you are in serious trouble until gain new software and port your data.

        What if your software service companies data lines goes down - you are in serious trouble until gain new software and port your data.

        What if the electricity goes down - you are in serious trouble until you gain new software and port your data.

  • Absolutely (Score:5, Insightful)

    by monkeydo ( 173558 ) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @04:48PM (#14572307) Homepage
    This has been an issue in outsourcing deals since forever. If you put your eggs in someone else's basket, you have a stake in how they build that basket. If you are big enough, contracts can be structured to strike an acceptable risk sharing balance. If you're just Joe Customer, you might get screwed, but you might not have a choice.
    • You may write your own code, create your own processes, but if you happen to stumble on someone's patent, you'll still be in troble.
  • > how could a commercial ISV in good faith talk any business out of an OSS application and into an SaaS application? ...in a standard format (XML'd do). For example, Salesforce does this.
  • They should eminent domain his ass on that patent. It's not like he was using it. (Actually, yes, I am aware that the submitter of the patent has passed away and that it is his heirs that are pushing this. They have less of a legitmate claim than the original applicant did.)
  • Making Your Bed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Billosaur ( 927319 ) * <wgrother.optonline@net> on Thursday January 26, 2006 @04:52PM (#14572383) Journal

    RIM created this problem by not having the foresight when the whole thing with NTP first surfaced, to create a contingency system which avoided the systems in question. Lack of vision now threatens to destroy everything they've built up, if they're fix to this problem is not easy for Blackberry users to implement and use.

    That said, no one can truly anticipate where the attack is going to come from, but in developing a service you have to be prepared for anything to occur which may alter your service's operation. This doesn't mean just Business Continuity Planning for Katrina- and 9/11-type disasters, but the possibility of patent fights, industrial espionage, and just plain stupidity. It may add to lead times and slow production and upgrades, but more time spent up front will save a lot of time on the back end.

    • I've heard that RIM does have a backup plan in place, with different software that is non-infringing. I'm assuming it will just cost them some fixed amount to switch over, and it will be business as usual.
  • by digitaldc ( 879047 ) * on Thursday January 26, 2006 @04:53PM (#14572389)
    "After Angelina Jolie, the wireless portable e-mail device is the thing every business leader wants by his side at the annual World Economic Forum, where hundreds of chief executives, dozens of heads of state and the odd celebrity couple gather to discuss world woes and corporate trends."

    And some of those business leaders wanted Brad Pitt even more. Oh woe is the world.
  • Blackberry is not going to shut down and Toyota and Honda are not going to stop making hybrids. They're in business to make money, not to be martyrs for the anti-patent crowd.

    That said, obviously holding your own files, both applications and data, is safer (part of why I don't have the slightest interest in this supposed Google Office Suite) but not for any reason having to do with patents.

    • Sorry, couldn't resist :-)

      There actually is a very good chance that the BlackBerry network will shut down. RIM's position seems to be that the only deal they can get from NTP is too costly, time-consuming, or whatever, and that they'd rather go down in flames.

      If that's what RIM wants to do, that's what's gonna happen. And if they piss NTP off too much, it won't matter how deep their pockets are - NTP seems willing to deny RIM a patent license for spite.
      • Here went my moderation...

        Not for spite.

        Check the recent investors in NTP (or licensees - investment SCO style).

        Check the owners of alternative solutions to RIM which are at the moment bottom feeding on scraps from the edges of the market.

        Compare.

        Think.
  • by QuasiEvil ( 74356 ) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @04:54PM (#14572409)

    I'd have to say there's nothing I'd like better than a Crackberry network shutdown, at least for a week. It might actually wake up the execs to the mess the modern patent system has made.

    Also, probably some 80% of the people I know who have the damn things only have them to make themselves feel important, not because a life-and-death email could come in at any moment. It's very disruptive trying to talk to some ass who thinks every time his CB goes off he should pick it up rather than continuing the discussion with the real, live person in front of him/her, yet that's what most of them do... Plus, most of this 80% have increased their stress level unbelievably by destroying the greatest feature of email - the ability to get back to it when it doesn't disrupt things, unlike, say, phone calls.

    That said, redundancy is a good thing for those people where it really is an end-of-everything scenario to be out of touch with their email. There should be a backup plan, and this will be a healthy reminder. When I'm on call for production support, I have a cell phone and a pager at all times, and if I'm home, email and my land line work as well. Inevitably, at least one of these often fails to reach me, that's why there are backups.

    The rest of the people, the 80% above, well, they just need to pop a valium or two and realize that it doesn't matter that much...

    Nathan

    • I'd have to say there's nothing I'd like better than a Crackberry network shutdown, at least for a week. It might actually wake up the execs to the mess the modern patent system has made.

      Because this shutdown wouldn't affect the government members that might actually move to do something about it, it's not going to change anything there. If anything, with all the execs seeing how it could hurt their competition, it's going to fuel even more patent attacks.
    • Plus, most of this 80% have increased their stress level unbelievably by destroying the greatest feature of email - the ability to get back to it when it doesn't disrupt things, unlike, say, phone calls.

      Good point. Another mistake is that the blackberry tries to turn email - a system designed for best-effort delivery with potentially hours before the mail reaches the recipient - into an instant messaging service. People have become too comfortable with fast email delivery, which was never a guarantee

  • I don't know much about the software infrastructure that RIM uses, but I would think that if the USPO gets them shut down in the US...just relocate their servers in Canada. It probably all goes out via TCP/IP and Cellphone systems, I would think. Probably add a few seconds of lag...

    ttyl

  • by Qzukk ( 229616 )
    I don't understand why this is "special" for either OSS or SaaS.

    If Microsoft Word infringed on patents and the patent holder refused to settle with Microsoft, and you relied on Microsoft Word, you're just as fucked as anyone using OSS or SaaS that got killed by patents.
    • And you better with OSS because in this case you don't only have the exe but the source as well!
      • And you better with OSS because in this case you don't only have the exe but the source as well!

        No, you aren't. In the case of a patent infringement problem, all the source gets you is an opportunity to be sued by the patent holder. And it's worse than that - at least here in the USA, you'd be subject to treble damages for knowingly violating the patent.

        • No, you aren't. In the case of a patent infringement problem, all the source gets you is an opportunity to be sued by the patent holder.

          Source or otherwise doesn't affect the effect of a patent. In any case, nobody is going to bother suing an individual open (or closed) source user. Having the source available just gives you a lot more flexibility in how you deal with it.

          Open source is everything that closed source is. Plus the source is available.

          And it's worse than that - at least here in the USA

    • No, because you would still have Word installed on your machine.
      • No, because you would still have Word installed on your machine.

        And unless you personally settled with the patent holder, you'd be infringing the patent if you continued to use it. Maybe you could get away with it, but then that still leaves "what's special about OSS"?
        • But that doesn't make it true. If my GM Celta has a part that was manufactured violating someone's patent, do you think I will have to replace said part when the patent holder wins their suit against GM? Nah, nah, nah. You can continue to use your copy of MSWord without problem. You will be what lawyers here call a bona fide third party, and your rights to use the software are assured.
    • This is why a thing like ODF is important.
  • When I think of "software as a service" I don't think of centrally-administered, service-providing software-based services like the Blackberry.

    Instead, I think of the millions of software developers who write code designed to provide services to some sort of business entity, without trying to sell the software per sae.

    As this software is never exposed (being that it is never sold as product) it is immune from patent protection. If you have invented and patented some widget, and I build a similar widget for
    • I build a similar widget for my own use (but never sell it) then I am not infringing your patent.

      Patents protect the holder from people "practicing" that patent, not just selling it. There is generally understood to be an exemption for research, but using the patent to make money even if you're not selling the actual implementation of that patent is most definitely infringing it.
    • And you are WRONG!

      The patent protects the patent owner EVEN if you never intend to sell the device. The monopoly granted is (almost) absolute. Government is exempt, and there are certain other minor exemptions. But, outside of those, the patent holder can tell you to cease and desist.

      Even if you have never sold a device.

      Ratboy.
      • I really don't know details of patent law in the USofA, but down here (Brasil) things are not like you describe:

        1. (L 9279/96, "Industrial Property Act") Actions performed by third parties without commercial goals and in private character are exempt from the patent monopoly (art 43, I);

        2. Actions performed by third parties in experimental character or in relation with scientific research are exempt (art 43, II);

        3. The preparation of medicine prescribed for a single person, made by a professional, and the re
  • Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @05:01PM (#14572479)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • NTP was at one time a real company that sold real products using the patent involved. They lost money and went out of business, in part because of competion with you guessed it, Blackberry. Now they have only one real asset, the patent that they claim Blackberry violated.

      However, I think their product failed not because of competition, but because it was an inferior product that cost too much.

    • All it took was one little patent holding company to bring down a legitimate product used by millions of business users. Does NTP even make a product of their own? The main reason that I see this as a problem is pretty simple: software patents' shelf-lives are too long to do anything but make them a pay day for the lawyers.

      I agree that software patents are bad for programmers, but this isn't a software patent case. And despite what some folks would have you believe, NTP isn't some patent troll. Yes, th

      • I don't know about you, but if I invented a better mousetrap (or hey - intermittant windshield wipers, the canonical patent infringement example) and died, I'd like my wife and kids to get paid for my work.

        As long as we're just talking about what we'd like, then hey, I'd like not to die in the first place.

        But if you're talking about what they deserve, then no. Your wife and kids don't deserve the ability to shut down a useful tool used by thousands of businesses just because you filed a patent several years
        • But if you're talking about what they deserve, then no. Your wife and kids don't deserve the ability to shut down a useful tool used by thousands of businesses just because you filed a patent several years earlier - especially a patent on something as obvious as wireless email.

          Sir, the law disagrees. If you take issue with the letter of the law, write your Congressperson. Also, I mean no disrespect, but I have no faith whatsoever in your ability to judge what is or is not legally obvious under 35 USC 10

          • Sir, the law disagrees. If you take issue with the letter of the law [...] I have no faith whatsoever in your ability to judge what is or is not legally obvious under 35 USC 103. [...] I'm merely skeptical that your expertise supercedes the legal expertise that can be bought for millions of dollars.

            You seem to have gotten the impression that I was talking about what is or isn't legal. In fact, I was talking about what is or isn't deserved - a moral judgment. Unfortunately, your entire response is based on t
            • You seem to have gotten the impression that I was talking about what is or isn't legal. In fact, I was talking about what is or isn't deserved - a moral judgment. Unfortunately, your entire response is based on that misunderstanding, and is therefore irrelevant.

              That's exactly what I would say if I had nothing to back up my point but the supposed moral high ground.

              Aside from making moral judgements about the patent system, do you complement attractive women on their functional efficiency or comparison sho

              • Aside from making moral judgements about the patent system, do you complement attractive women on their functional efficiency or comparison shop computer processors based on prettiness?

                Gosh, you're right; I see it now. No one should ever complain about a law on any grounds except its own constitutionality, or complain about the enforcement of a law on any grounds except its own legality, because laws exist independent of human society and decency.

                There's no point in discussing what the law should be, or whe
                • Gosh, you're right; I see it now. No one should ever complain about a law on any grounds except its own constitutionality, or complain about the enforcement of a law on any grounds except its own legality, because laws exist independent of human society and decency.

                  Sarcasm aside, let's take a look at your suggestion.

                  Your wife and kids don't deserve the ability to shut down a useful tool used by thousands of businesses just because you filed a patent several years earlier

                  This is merely recitation of the

                  • This is merely recitation of the principles of utilitarianism. Oh my, how can I possibly respond to a knockout argument like that?

                    Not quite. I didn't say they don't deserve to shut it down *because* it's useful. They don't deserve to shut it down whether or not it's useful, because they didn't invent anything themselves - if anyone deserves to (which is questionable in itself), it's the actual inventor.

                    The CAFC has repeatedly ruled that obviousness under 35 USC 103 is a matter of law, yet you're so quick to
                    • They don't deserve to shut it down whether or not it's useful, because they didn't invent anything themselves - if anyone deserves to (which is questionable in itself), it's the actual inventor.

                      Your argument implies that an inventor cannot transfer the rights to his intellectual property. It's an absurd argument that falls to pieces under any scrutiny at all. It would mean that your employer cannot use the invention that you developed for them, while employed by them, while spending their R&D dollar

                    • if he does not own the capital and manufacturing facilities to see his invention to market - without those, he'd have to transfer his patent rights to (*gasp*) some totally unrelated third party that had nothing to do with conceiving of the invention!

                      Or (*gasp*) he could grant that third party a license to use his patent.

                      Further, your argument hinges on equivocation - "obviousness" in conversational English is an entirely different concept from "obviousness" under 35 USC 103, which is what we are discussing
                    • Or (*gasp*) he could grant that third party a license to use his patent.

                      Yes, like his wife and children. I'm beginning to think that you honestly do not understand what a patent is. I'm not trying to be insulting, but it's the only way to make sense of your various statements. A patent is nothing more than the right to exclude others from practicing your invention.

                      Continuing to enforce it serves the financial interest of a few people who had nothing to do with the creation of this so-called invention,

                    • Yes, like his wife and children.

                      I meant, of course, that he could grant a third party the right to use his patented invention. Do you think the inventor's wife and kids would have a use for such a license? Or might such a license be more useful to, say, someone who can actually manufacture and market the product that he designed?

                      Please try to remember the context: you suggested he'd have to transfer the patent in order to get his invention manufactured. That isn't true if he can just grant the manufacturer
                    • I meant, of course, that he could grant a third party the right to use his patented invention. Do you think the inventor's wife and kids would have a use for such a license? Or might such a license be more useful to, say, someone who can actually manufacture and market the product that he designed?

                      I reiterate that you're suggesting that we mandate what he should do. How does it become a legal issue who could make more use of his invention? What about laziness in general? Make that illegal? What if I s

                    • I reiterate that you're suggesting that we mandate what he should do. [...] What about laziness in general? [...] What if I save my money instead of spend it [...]

                      Wow. Could you at least try to stay on topic? I was talking about how a small inventor could get his invention produced without having to transfer the patent, not laziness or investing. I'm not mandating that he do anything; he can license his patent to whomever he wants.

                      you can make this statement all day long and people will get patents for thin
                    • Wow. Could you at least try to stay on topic? I was talking about how a small inventor could get his invention produced without having to transfer the patent, not laziness or investing. I'm not mandating that he do anything; he can license his patent to whomever he wants.

                      Now you're clearly contradicting yourself. In this case, he left the patents to his wife and children, and they chose to license the patents to nobody. Skip the part about the wife and kids - he licensed the patent to whomever he wants

                    • You've already argued that 1) you will not allow people to license the patent to whomever they like, and 2) people are allowed to license their patent to whomever they like.

                      Nonsense. I don't know where you got (1) from, but I sure never said it. There's a difference between transfering a patent to someone else and granting them a license to use the patented invention, yes?

                      If the prior art does not teach the combination, then making that combination is indeed something new, no matter how slight or "easy to c
                    • Look, let's say I stack 65 pennies on top of 15 nickels, put them all inside a cardboard box, and then put a cat on top of the box. Has anyone ever done that before? Possibly, but let's say no. Do I deserve a patent on it? Of course not.

                      You are clearly unfamiliar with 35 USC. Your example would not be patentable under 35 USC 101. Assuming for the sake of argument that your invention meets the requirements of section 101, and presuming (as you have) that nobody has done it before, then it meets the requi

                    • Even the example you give, "Of course [it's not patentable]," is factually incorrect.

                      I didn't say it wasn't patentable. I said I don't deserve a patent on it. There's a big difference.

                      Do you--as a human being capable of holding your own opinions, not a robot applying laws that have been written by others--think I (or anyone else) deserve the exclusive right to make, say, a ham and peanut butter sandwich, or a box of coins with a cat on top? Would granting that patent benefit society in some way? Would the r
                    • I know that. Please, stop wasting my time and yours by explaining what the law currently is.

                      And this is when I realize I've been casting pearls before swine.

                      So what level is your D&D magic user?

                    • I'm a little surprised that you didn't answer my questions. Is it really so hard for you to express your own opinion on an issue instead of merely explaining what the law says about it? Or does your work as (I presume) a patent attorney bind you to some code of ethics where you aren't allowed to comment on such things in public?
                    • I'm a little surprised that you didn't answer my questions.

                      You didn't ask any questions.

                      I'm using a different definition of question than you are, so I am by definition right.

                      Is it really so hard for you to express your own opinion on an issue instead of merely explaining what the law says about it? This is a declarative statement.

                      I've redefined the question mark to indicate a declaration, therefore I am, once again, right.

                      Or does your work as (I presume) a patent attorney bind you to some code of eth

      • publishers produce actual product which they ship and sell to consumers.

        IP holding companies like NTP produce nothing, and sell nothing to consumers. they extort fees from companies who actually do the producing and selling. it's basically a free ride, totally parasitic in nature. they get someone else to do all the hard work for them.
  • Loud bells (Score:2, Insightful)

    by gostats ( 647325 )
    It seems to me that alarms are sounding a little bit too loudly here. For IP cases where licensing is the issue and a settlement is imminent; Prudently the company would pay the fine in lieu of a forced service shutdown. Case closed. Is it reasonable for the BlackBerry to be shutdown? No. Will it happen? No. Think like a reasonable judge would: punish the company not the users who use the service.

    The case where a service is shutdown is most often due to bankruptcy. If your business relies heavi
  • Same thing could happen with them, and the impact would be far greater. Read your EULA, MS reserve the right to revoke your license without any explanation or compensation. This is the reason why 'proprietary file formats considered harmful.'

  • Not equivalent (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tlosk ( 761023 ) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @05:03PM (#14572502)
    As much as I support OSS and I think the argument that commercial software is just as vulnerable to the risk of patent infringing, I disagree that they are comparable in likely outcomes. A business that sells the software under their own liscence has the option of settling with the patent holder, paying liscence fees, mounting a legal challenge that invalidates the patent, etc. That none of these things happened in the Blackberry case is more the result of factors unique to this particular conflict and the players themselves.

    But take an OSS software that is distributed for free. Most if not all of these options are off the table, meaning they are much more likely to get shut down as a result of an infringement case. Hence more risk. Though in a shutdown situation I agree that OSS would be preferable as it would at least allow individual users to continue in-house development until they were able to move on to something else instead of potentially facing an overnight shutdown situation.
  • Anything can "fail", whether OSS, SaaS, or proprietary software.

    Companies which develop and sell proprietary software can run afoul of IP protections also. They may annoy someone enough that a lawsuit is filed. They may have underestimated their potential market share, and have gone out of business due to insufficient revenues. It may be a private company and the owner dies suddenly with no provisions to what happens to the company after he's gone. (After all, not all software is developed by and for lar

  • There is an endless list of useless and/or misused software products being purchased by business today. If your SaaS can get some cool buzzwords and lots of hype, the PHBs will line up to buy it, nevermind the risk.
     
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • If a company succeeds in bribing politicians to changing laws in their favor, that company wins.

      To bring this back on-topic, I should point out that the newly-elected Prime Minister of Canada is very chummy with a certain American president/party - and he has a vested interest in seeing that this dispute is resolved in RIM's favour. So Rule #3 may be invoked by RIM :) (Not by bribes, though, just by simple requests)
    • 1) If a large company brings an IP claim of any sort against a small company, the large company wins.

      The problem with these patents isn't so much a big versus small as a holding company versus a company that is actually making a product. This sort of action has not only hit a company the size of RIM, but also has been used against Microsoft (Eolas vs Microsoft), in a "David vs. Goliath" case, where David has managed a couple of wins.

      Eolas has not gone after any other browser makers, but that doesn't mean

  • It is almost inconceivable that the service will get shut down, for the simple reason that it would hurt NTP as much as it would hurt RIM (and their customers). Some patent suits are about keeping a somebody from competing with your business, but RIM isn't NTP's competitor. NTP has no business other than (trying to) license their patent(s).

    Imagine if you will, the (absurd) situation of RIM throwing up their hands and saying, "OK, you win, we'll stop infringing, shut it all down, and go out of business".

  • by sillivalley ( 411349 ) <.sillivalley. .at. .comcast.net.> on Thursday January 26, 2006 @05:39PM (#14572918)
    Look at it as local control vs. remote. If I have the application and the data on my local machine, what do I care if another company gets an injunction against the manufacturer of something? I can still do what I need to do.

    But if things are remote -- Blackberry, remote storage, remote applications such as SaaS are examples -- then I'm far more vulnerable.

    Not just to injunctions shutting down the service, "upgrades" that go wonky, but to idiots with backhoes!

    It comes down to that risk - benefit analysis. Am I willing to risk having key parts of my infrastructure in the hands of someone else, or do I want it local, where I can see it (and screw it up myself, but that's another part of the equation).

    Do I want to put myself in the position where someone can say, "Sorry, you don't have permission to open that document any more."

    Nope, I want things where I can see them. Remote backup is another story, but I want the primaries under my control.

    And saying this is another death-blow to OSS is just more FUD.

    Namaste--

    • Not just to injunctions shutting down the service, "upgrades" that go wonky, but to idiots with backhoes!


      Funny you mention this. The water main to our building went down at 11AM (for "two hours"), and now we are told it's out for the rest of the day. No water, no coffee, no restrooms... It's 2PM and I just finished lunch a few hours ago with a large soda and I'm feeling pretty screwed right now.

      So I know exactly what you mean!
  • Basically, you have to say "Fine you say we've violated your patent." The courts are backing you.

    Now how do you propose to handle the transition?

    We'll be shut down as of .

    If you're not up and completely able to pick up the service seamleassly as of , you've essentially told all of your customers: "Oops. RIM were supposed to blink, roll over, and shove lots of lovely money at us. We never intended it to go this far. Sorry."

    What is your plan for taking it from us? Do you have a capital plan? Resources? Commun
  • by feijai ( 898706 ) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @07:11PM (#14573963)
    Every time an RIM story gets posted here, all we hear about is how evil NTP is, how its patents are going to be invalidated, how the patent system is evil, etc.

    What's missed here is that NTP was formed largely because RIM was a first-rate jackass company.

    Among NTP's primary shareholders are the actual inventors of the patents. Or perhaps I should say "were", as one of them recently died: RIM kept this bottled up in court that long. These inventors produced actual products at early computer tradeshows which ran email over a sophisticated wireless protocol to a PDA-like device. Sound familiar? The earliest such patents were filed in 1994 based on inventions several years earlier. Let's put this into context: the earliest Newton was in 1993, and the earliest similar device I am aware of was a PCMCIA pager card that could be put into the Newton circa 1995, enabling it to receive (but not send) messages over a pager network. This combination of technologies was both novel and original, and the inventors didn't just make them up to sell patents. But their company foundered.

    Then came along RIM. RIM started selling the Blackberry and then started suing the daylights out of its competitors. Surely you remember this. RIM's nickname on The Register was "Lawsuits In Motion". When the original patent holders got wind of what RIM was selling, they realized it was largely a duplication of their patent. And so they contacted RIM and told them they were infringing. That's when RIM refused to return their calls. For a year.

    This is not how ordinary companies operate. If someone owns a valid patent on your work, you don't refuse to even talk to them. So NTP was formed basically to force RIM to actually talk.

    Legal battle ensues, and out come the slashdotters. NTP's patents are invalid and are getting all knocked down (um, the lynchpin ones are not). NTP is just a holding company to go after people (um, NTP was made to financially enable the original inventors to go after a specific company which was flagrantly violating their patent). Patents are evil (um, you know why patents exist, right? You're familiar with the evil that was the Trade Guild? No, I'm not talking about Star Wars).

    RIM was repeatedly reprimanded in court by the judge for all sorts of obnoxious actions. And to top it off, RIM went to congress to ask them to override the judge because they'd given free blackberries to congress, and now wanted to claim that shutting RIM down would put the nation's security in jeopardy. I am not pulling your leg. Only Jack Abramoff could pull off a lobbying stunt more inappropriate.

    And now the courts have sided ... against the slashdotters! How could the Supremes have not been reading the /. comment stream? What were they thinking?

    Short answer: RIM is a nasty, obnoxious company which violated patents and sued people's pants off for things they didn't own. They got what they deserve. Too bad one of the original inventors didn't live long enough to see a dime from them.

  • If my business depends on an OSS application, and it gets shut down, I can potentially go on about my business as I have the executables and wouldn't have to stop using them until someone came knocking at my door.
    Having the source code is one thing (hurrah for OSS!) But even if RIM software was Open Source, you still wouldn't have the infrastructure to deliver the service anyway.
    Although I am looking forward to LinNETs, your friendly Open Source/GNU cellular provider. (actually I would love to see this!
  • > ...I have the executables and wouldn't have to stop using them
    > until someone came knocking at my door.

    It's extremely unlikely that a patent owner would sue individual or small corporate users.

"Conversion, fastidious Goddess, loves blood better than brick, and feasts most subtly on the human will." -- Virginia Woolf, "Mrs. Dalloway"

Working...