Slashdot Log In
Blackberry Blackout Threat to Software as Service?
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Jan 26, 2006 03:41 PM
from the executives-uncoupled dept.
from the executives-uncoupled dept.
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This discussion has been archived.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?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 156 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Contingency and continuity. (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Escrowed code does not address main threat (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Escrowed code does not address main threat (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Absolutely (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
By allowing data export... (Score:1)
you snooze, you lose (Score:1)
(http://127.0.0.1:82/ | Last Journal: Monday September 26 2005, @01:53PM)
Making Your Bed (Score:3, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Tuesday November 13, @10:52AM)
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.
Thumbs: 'Blackberry Blackout is OK with me.' (Score:3, Funny)
And some of those business leaders wanted Brad Pitt even more. Oh woe is the world.
Oh, c'mon... (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Monday November 12, @09:37AM)
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.
Nothing I'd like better (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Nothing I'd like better (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.fimble.com/)
1) For starters, it's more than email. It syncs Outlook contacts and calendar items, but yes - I know there are plenty of PDA/phone alternatives for those functions - but it's nice they sync wirelessly. If you make a change in Outlook, it syncs through the air. Very cool.
2) You said Webmail, which is nice when you turn it on and login to check yourself. The BB is nice because you don't have to check, it checks for you. It shows a message icon when you get a new one. It can also ring, vibrate, or light up when you get a new message. No webmail app is going to do that for you.
3) You can then email people just like you can with Outlook directly from your Address book / contacts, which I already mentioned sync wirelessly.
If somebody can come up with a good alternative to BB, let me know - I'm all ears.
Interesting... (Score:2)
(http://the49thparallel.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday October 03, @09:47PM)
ttyl
Huh? (Score:2)
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.
Wrong definition of "software as a service" (Score:2)
(http://farnorthracing.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday July 21, @10:50AM)
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 my own use (but never sell it) then I am not infringing your patent.
"Software as a service" refers to the concept that a coder is esentially a mechanic, not a producer of a physical good that can be bought and sold - much the same way that a musician *should* be a performer who is paid for performances, not the producer of a physical good.
DG
Another reason why patents are bad (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com/)
Software development is the cheapest type of engineering there is. Unlike other industries, it's far easier for a small outfit to grow on a small budget and see a return on its investment.
Loud bells (Score:2, Insightful)
(http://gostats.com/)
The case where a service is shutdown is most often due to bankruptcy. If your business relies heavily on a shaky or near bankrupcy service, I'd sugest seeking a backup plan or a escrow deal for the code from such service.
IANAL blah blah blah, but have some common sense!
Worried about SaaS ? Worry about MS Word, Excel! (Score:2)
(http://www.nosense.org/)
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)
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.
Proprietary is just as vulnerable (Score:1)
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 large companies.)
The point is, every business model is vulnerable. Just part of the risks of doing business.
Don't underestimate the power of marketing (Score:2)
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.
You're missing the big picture. (Score:2)
1) If a large company brings an IP claim of any sort against a small company, the large company wins.
2) If a sleazy patent holding company can manage to convince the USPTO that their lame-brained and/or overly sweeping patents are valid, everyone they choose to attack loses.
3) If a company succeeds in bribing politicians to changing laws in their favor, that company wins.
Rule #3 can override rule #2 or rule #1. Rule #2 can override rule #1.
whats the contigency plan??? (Score:1)
Anyone short their stock yet???
NSA in non-domestic telecommunications (Score:1)
Golden Egg Theory (Score:1)
Slightly OT, but.... (Score:1)
I admin both servers now (because people are hesitant to change), but I have to say from both a user and administrative point of view, Goodlink beats the PANTS off of Blackberry.
My biggest love from Goodlink... the lack of a "Reconcile Now" option. How lame is that?
Shutting it down would be stupid for all concerned (Score:2)
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". At that point, NTP would be stuck with a worthless patent. I suppose they could try to build their own network so they could practice their patent, or maybe shop it around to some other licensee, but neither one seems very likely.
A successful parasite never kills its host.
Noooooooo! (Score:1)
(http://home.primus.ca/~ronsharp/tororg.html)
It's local vs. remote! (Score:3, Insightful)
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--
Well I'd stop this shit easily. (Score:2)
(http://www.msbpodcast.com/)
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? Communication bandwidth allocated, etc..
I suggest that until you come up with such a plan, and not just to sell it to somnebody else, we continue operating exactly as we have without having to waste money on your lawsuit.
Then RIM comes off sounding good, maybe able to win for losing and fuck the consequences.
And the US Patent Office get a deserved black eye from the lawyers who just realised that being better is more important than being first, or even being "right."
Willful Infringement (Score:1)
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.
Do the terms "willful infringement" and "triple damages" mean anything to you?
If only (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Tuesday June 22 2004, @09:23PM)
Looks like the Supremes don't read SlashDot (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
why OSS? (Score:1)
This can just as easily happen with Microsoft, IBM, or any other big name. it is _JUST_ as likely that Apache violates a patent or right versus IIS violating such a right; windows -vs- linux; word -vs- openoffice. Whatever software there is, it can cause problems. This isn't an argument against or for OSS, so it's just flaimbait bringing that into it.
With paid software, they ?should? respond quickly (but keep in mind, they probably don't have to- it's the developers problem to pay for the rights to anything they already sold). With free software, you'll have tons of variations of workarounds and the ability to make one yourself.
-M
Service vs ownership (Score:1)
From an accounting standpoint, operational costs are handled differently than capitol expenses, and have different tax implications. From an IT standpoint, there are typically fewer resources required (if any) with software as a service. On the other hand, rich client applications typically still have better integration and reporting tools. Point being, there are many tradeoffs, and every business should check to see which fits best.
OSS isn't immune either! (Score:2)
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!). The simple fact is that many of the cellular providers will not take the risk of being dragged into this fight should it go against RIM, so they would probably shut the service provision down anyway, should it prove necessary. What we really need is a modern version of some of those old BBS networks, just based around VOIP and 802.11x technology. That way the software AND the infrastructure would both be free of central control! (Will the judges please pass out winners medals all around?)
Speaking of patents... (Score:1)
Sure hope there's not anything else in Office SP2 that's a problem... Sucks to be using closed-source software.
Don't Fear Door Knocks (Score:2)
> until someone came knocking at my door.
It's extremely unlikely that a patent owner would sue individual or small corporate users.
Canadian gov't trying to save Blackberry (Score:1, Informative)
Canada wants to save Blackberry
US Patent nonsense can't cross the border
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20924 [theinquirer.net]