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?"
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).
Re:Contingency and continuity. (Score:2)
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.
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.
Yes, good point... (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Yes, good point... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Escrowed code does not address main threat (Score:2)
Nah, the best solution is to hedge your bets by migrating to a platform that can never be shut down. Open source, baby!
Re:Escrowed code does not address main threat (Score:2)
Re:Escrowed code does not address main threat (Score:2)
Re:Escrowed code does not address main threat (Score:2)
Re:Escrowed code does not address main threat (Score:2)
How would you know though? (Score:2)
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
What contingency? (Score:2)
I haven't gone into the details, but the claims looked pretty broad last time I read an article about it.
Re:Contingency and continuity. (Score:2)
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
Re:Contingency and continuity. (Score:2)
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
Re:Contingency and continuity. (Score:2)
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
Re:Contingency and continuity. (Score:2)
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.
Re:Contingency and continuity. (Score:2)
Re:Contingency and continuity. (Score:2)
If I'm not mistaken, you cannot be selective about who you go after with patent issues - its an all or none type of thing.
Re:Contingency and continuity. (Score:2)
Yes you can. Other companies do this all the time. You go after the weaker "infringers" first. Build a war chest and tackle the tough nuts. They saw RIM as being in a weak position since RIM's entire business relies on the technology being claimed by NTP.
This is not like Trademark. There if you don't go after *all* infringers, you can (and most likely will) lose any right to that trademark. The wo
Re:Contingency and continuity. (Score:2)
Your scenario seemed so believable until that line. Now you're dreaming.
Absolutely (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Absolutely (Score:2)
By allowing data export... (Score:1)
Re:By allowing data export... (Score:1)
you snooze, you lose (Score:1)
But it's better then getting killed for a patent (Score:2)
Making Your Bed (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Making Your Bed (Score:2)
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)
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.
Are too! (Score:2)
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.
Re:Are too! (Score:2)
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.
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:2)
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.
Re:Nothing I'd like better (Score:2)
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
Re:Nothing I'd like better (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
ttyl
Re:Interesting... (Score:2)
Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Informative)
Eric
Sign up for my free AdSense newsletter [memwg.com]
Re:Interesting... (Score:2)
2) Companies usually file patents simultaneously in Canada & the US through the Patent Cooperation Treaty
Re:Interesting... (Score:2)
And the patent's in question have not been filed for anywhere else but the US, as far as I can tell. Furthermore, currently all of NTP's patents but one have been rejected by the US Patent office.
RIM has good reason to stonewall NTP.
ttyl
Farrell
I believe... (Score:2)
Re:I believe... (Score:3, Informative)
ttyl
Farrell
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.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Nope! You're a lawsuit target! (Score:2)
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.
Re:Nope! You're a lawsuit target! (Score:2)
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
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
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"?
Lots of people stated this, ... (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Wrong definition of "software as a service" (Score:2)
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
Re:Wrong definition of "software as a service" (Score:2)
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.
Re:Wrong definition of "software as a service" (Score:2)
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.
Almost absolute? (Score:2)
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)
Re:Another reason why patents are bad (Score:2)
However, I think their product failed not because of competition, but because it was an inferior product that cost too much.
Re:Another reason why patents are bad (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Another reason why patents are bad (Score:2)
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
Re:Another reason why patents are bad (Score:2)
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
Re:Another reason why patents are bad (Score:2)
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
Re:Another reason why patents are bad (Score:2)
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
Re:Another reason why patents are bad (Score:2)
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
Re:Another reason why patents are bad (Score:2)
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
Re:Another reason why patents are bad (Score:2)
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
Re:Another reason why patents are bad (Score:2)
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
Re:Another reason why patents are bad (Score:2)
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
Re:Another reason why patents are bad (Score:2)
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,
Re:Another reason why patents are bad (Score:2)
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
Re:Another reason why patents are bad (Score:2)
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
Re:Another reason why patents are bad (Score:2)
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
Re:Another reason why patents are bad (Score:2)
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
Re:Another reason why patents are bad (Score:2)
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
Re:Another reason why patents are bad (Score:2)
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
Re:Another reason why patents are bad (Score:2)
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
Re:Another reason why patents are bad (Score:2)
And this is when I realize I've been casting pearls before swine.
So what level is your D&D magic user?
Re:Another reason why patents are bad (Score:2)
Re:Another reason why patents are bad (Score:2)
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
Re:Another reason why patents are bad (Score:2)
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.
Re:Another reason why patents are bad (Score:2)
Loud bells (Score:2, Insightful)
The case where a service is shutdown is most often due to bankruptcy. If your business relies heavi
Re:Loud bells (Score:2)
> suffering irrepairable harm...
They don't have to. Irreparable harm is presumed. RIM must rebut that presumption.
Worried about SaaS ? Worry about MS Word, Excel! (Score:2)
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 lar
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You're missing the big picture. (Score:2)
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
Re: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.
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
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".
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--
Re:It's local vs. remote! (Score:2)
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!
Well I'd stop this shit easily. (Score:2)
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
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.
Mod parent up (Score:2)
Re:Looks like the Supremes don't read SlashDot (Score:2)
(srsly tho, nice post; i'm enclined to beleive much, but links would help)
Re:Looks like the Supremes don't read SlashDot (Score:2)
This combination of technologies was both novel and original,
You had to sneak that in didn't you? Those patents (5,625,670 [uspto.gov]; 5,631,946 [uspto.gov]; 5,819,172 [uspto.gov]; 6,067,451 [uspto.gov] and 6,317,592 [uspto.gov]) are completely and utterly obvious to somebody versed in the art at the time, despite what the airheads at the patent office might like to claim. Those patents do not protect innovation or hard work in any shape or form, they just protect the USPTO's, and assorted other parasites', gravy train.
Just because RIM might be an obnoxious
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!
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.