BlackBerry’s new round of lawsuits targets BLU—and Android

Struggling BlackBerry proves it's in "licensing mode," <em>serious</em> licensing mode.

Read the whole story

 

[lewax00]

Has going from making products to patent trolling every actually worked as a viable business strategy? Seems like that's always the dying gasps as a company collapses.

 

[THavoc]

Saikaici[/url]":3bsa5rbx]Annnnd there goes what good will towards Blackberry that was left.

I think most of that was gone when the CEO expressed support for encryption backdoors.

 

[Danrarbc]

TomXP411[/url]":ktsvja1m]How ironic. Blackberry was one of the first companies I was aware of that was hit by patent trolls (it involved forwarding email to a mobile device, a core part of BB's product.) Now they're patent trolling.

Lovely.

You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

 

[KiwiPhred]

TomXP411[/url]":dpf8k4ma]How ironic. Blackberry was one of the first companies I was aware of that was hit by patent trolls (it involved forwarding email to a mobile device, a core part of BB's product.) Now they're patent trolling.

Lovely.

Hang on, you see all over Ars negative comments about patent trolls because they don't use the patents they have in any products they produce. This is patently (couldn't resist) NOT the case for Blackberry.

C'mon Ars readers, show some consistency...

 

[AHvivere]

"Dick: The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

 

[truthyboy15]

bjf182[/url]":bzxk5m2v]I hope this doesn't spell the end for BLU. They are one of the few unlocked GSM phones I can run out and pick up at Microcenter when my wife breaks her current phone. You get a decent piece of hardware for the $100/$150 you're spending, and I don't feel bad if it does break. Even done a couple RMA's that didn't feel like the fifth circle of hell.

Why not just buy a couple of Blu's and just save them in your closet for when their needed? Then you don't have to worry about egomaniac BB.

 

[please explain]

AHvivere[/url]":yqeib47z]"Dick: The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

We don't actually need to kill them, we just need to set their maximum wage to the nation's minimum wage. Problem solved.

 

[AHvivere]

please explain[/url]":7lw4e9cc]

AHvivere[/url]":7lw4e9cc]"Dick: The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

We don't actually need to kill them, we just need to set their maximum wage to the nation's minimum wage. Problem solved.

I actually like that idea, might get more good public defenders besides the onsey, twosey zealots who genuinely care.

 

[joemullin]

theoilman[/url]":2j9vktjx]I'd love to see a summary article about the patents they're using and how legitimate they are.

So would I. Often it's so intricate, the language so (deliberately) opaque, and an analysis by a real pro so time-consuming and expensive, it's simply beyond the purview of journalism. That's especially true in a case with 15 patents.

Think about the situation with the Apple v. Samsung patents, reported and analyzed by many. Even after everyone looking at them, there was still a lot of "This side says X, this side says Y! Let's see what the jury says!" I felt it was impossible for me to even develop a personal, non-expert opinion until I watched the whole trial.

 

[DataMeister]

Imagine if someone patented building a house using walls with 2x4 studs on 16" centers. That's kind of what some software patents remind me of. Just because you are the first person to do something shouldn't automatically make it patentable.

The US patent office needs to get their act together and more carefully scrutinize whether software is truly inventive and novel or if it just happens to be an obvious solution that any engineer would figure out when presented with the same situation. I feel like they are missing this goal on a regular basis.

 

[smorkin]

KiwiPhred[/url]":1ytk9zbf]

TomXP411[/url]":1ytk9zbf]How ironic. Blackberry was one of the first companies I was aware of that was hit by patent trolls (it involved forwarding email to a mobile device, a core part of BB's product.) Now they're patent trolling.

Lovely.

Hang on, you see all over Ars negative comments about patent trolls because they don't use the patents they have in any products they produce. This is patently (couldn't resist) NOT the case for Blackberry.

C'mon Ars readers, show some consistency...

Well, they didn't sue others when they actually could sell phones and make money, but now that their products are almost completely gone they start suing. So yeah, they are very very close to entering the troll cave...

 

[please explain]

DataMeister[/url]":3vlygiow]Imagine if someone patented building a house using walls with 2x4 studs on 16" centers. That's kind of what some software patents remind me of. Just because you are the first person to do something shouldn't automatically make it patentable.

The US patent office needs to get their act together and more carefully scrutinize whether software is truly inventive and novel or if it just happens to be an obvious solution that any engineer would figure out when presented with the same situation. I feel like they are missing this goal on a regular basis.

It seems to me like the clusterfuck we have today is intentional. They aren't missing the goal at all, they are right on target to enrich lawyers at the expense of human sanity.

 

[lewax00]

theoilman[/url]":2e7lqc57]I'd love to see a summary article about the patents they're using and how legitimate they are.

So would I. Often it's so intricate, the language so (deliberately) opaque, and an analysis by a real pro so time-consuming and expensive, it's simply beyond the purview of journalism. That's especially true in a case with 15 patents.

Think about the situation with the Apple v. Samsung patents, reported and analyzed by many. Even after everyone looking at them, there was still a lot of "This side says X, this side says Y! Let's see what the jury says!" I felt it was impossible for me to even develop a personal, non-expert opinion until I watched the whole trial.

On that topic, I know someone who is currently in the process of having something he worked on being written up as a patent...he said he could barely recognize it after the lawyers got to it, and he invented the thing.

Kind of sad our system works this way. The point of patents is disclosure in exchange for temporary monopoly, so that after the exclusivity period, everyone could benefit from them. But now they're written to be legal booby-traps.

 

[DataMeister]

lewax00[/url]":2accly2x]

theoilman[/url]":2accly2x]I'd love to see a summary article about the patents they're using and how legitimate they are.

So would I. Often it's so intricate, the language so (deliberately) opaque, and an analysis by a real pro so time-consuming and expensive, it's simply beyond the purview of journalism. That's especially true in a case with 15 patents.

Think about the situation with the Apple v. Samsung patents, reported and analyzed by many. Even after everyone looking at them, there was still a lot of "This side says X, this side says Y! Let's see what the jury says!" I felt it was impossible for me to even develop a personal, non-expert opinion until I watched the whole trial.

On that topic, I know someone who is currently in the process of having something he worked on being written up as a patent...he said he could barely recognize it after the lawyers got to it, and he invented the thing.

Kind of sad our system works this way. The point of patents is disclosure in exchange for temporary monopoly, so that after the exclusivity period, everyone could benefit from them. But now they're written to be legal booby-traps.

Yep. I wish the patent office would start kicking them back with sticky notes attached saying things like "There's no way I could build this with the instructions you wrote. Rewrite this so it makes sense. Where did you learn English?"

 

[skyywise]

lewax00[/url]":ws2ynefx]

theoilman[/url]":ws2ynefx]I'd love to see a summary article about the patents they're using and how legitimate they are.

So would I. Often it's so intricate, the language so (deliberately) opaque, and an analysis by a real pro so time-consuming and expensive, it's simply beyond the purview of journalism. That's especially true in a case with 15 patents.

Think about the situation with the Apple v. Samsung patents, reported and analyzed by many. Even after everyone looking at them, there was still a lot of "This side says X, this side says Y! Let's see what the jury says!" I felt it was impossible for me to even develop a personal, non-expert opinion until I watched the whole trial.

On that topic, I know someone who is currently in the process of having something he worked on being written up as a patent...he said he could barely recognize it after the lawyers got to it, and he invented the thing.

Kind of sad our system works this way. The point of patents is disclosure in exchange for temporary monopoly, so that after the exclusivity period, everyone could benefit from them. But now they're written to be legal booby-traps.

Some things to consider about patents:

Technical English is not standard English.
Legal English is not standard English.
There are very good reasons when neither Technical English nor Legal English use simple English, mostly because of the need for precision and the need to account-for-all-variations in writing such documents.
Try combining Technical and Legal English into a single document that adequately represents both styles of writing which is not completely incoherent - it isn't easy.

Now, consider that patent applications are written for two audiences: (1) the Patent Examiner and (2) a hypothetical litigating attorney 5-20 years in the future. To satisfy the Examiner that the invention is new and not obvious, and to sufficiently teach the (technically educated portion of the) public how to practice the invention, you need to disclose enough details about the invention. However, every detail about the invention you disclose becomes a hook and weak spot that the litigator-in-the-future is going to misrepresent and attack in front of a non-technical jury. Nearly every decision made in writing the patent application for one audience weakens the matter for dealing with the other audience - IT ISN'T EASY.

 

[simonbp]

skyywise[/url]":35xl0l03]... Nearly every decision made in writing the patent application for one audience weakens the matter for dealing with the other audience - IT ISN'T EASY.

Yes, and that's why their default answer should be no. Given the massive volume of software patents, it clearly is not.

 

[beebee]

vital[/url]":2joiut6j]If you can't innovate, litigate.

You mean Apple, right?

 

[ToolGuy3]

If someone else is making more money than you, doing something that you claim to have "invented", then your "invention" is not the important part and should never have been patented.

 

[bjf182]

PatrickBateman[/url]":3v6pi7j3]I have a general question about how parents are supposed to work:

If I patent the idea of a basket as "a method of transporting goods with a method of tagging the transport vessel and a method of holding said vessel" does that mean no one else can create a basket with a tag and handle, regardless of shape, size, and other features?

He's asking about 'parents' here, not patents. Amazing someone has gotten this far in life without 'the talk'.

 

[beebee]

DataMeister[/url]":sgli1wii]Imagine if someone patented building a house using walls with 2x4 studs on 16" centers. That's kind of what some software patents remind me of. Just because you are the first person to do something shouldn't automatically make it patentable.

The US patent office needs to get their act together and more carefully scrutinize whether software is truly inventive and novel or if it just happens to be an obvious solution that any engineer would figure out when presented with the same situation. I feel like they are missing this goal on a regular basis.

The patent SHOULD be novel. Your analogy isn't valid.

 

[beebee]

joemullin[/url]":1vy59cb9]

theoilman[/url]":1vy59cb9]I'd love to see a summary article about the patents they're using and how legitimate they are.

So would I. Often it's so intricate, the language so (deliberately) opaque, and an analysis by a real pro so time-consuming and expensive, it's simply beyond the purview of journalism. That's especially true in a case with 15 patents.

Think about the situation with the Apple v. Samsung patents, reported and analyzed by many. Even after everyone looking at them, there was still a lot of "This side says X, this side says Y! Let's see what the jury says!" I felt it was impossible for me to even develop a personal, non-expert opinion until I watched the whole trial.

I can't count the number of patent lawsuits I've seen with what I think of is obvious prior art only to see them succeed.

Doing your own analysis is a huge was of time.

 

[beebee]

lewax00[/url]":724rmzso]Has going from making products to patent trolling every actually worked as a viable business strategy? Seems like that's always the dying gasps as a company collapses.

If you read Chen's comments, BlackBerry still makes money from software/services. It is the handset business where they lose money.

Next time you step on the brakes, consider the reliability of QNX.

 

[Deleted member 192806]

beebee[/url]":1yd3sywm]

lewax00[/url]":1yd3sywm]Has going from making products to patent trolling every actually worked as a viable business strategy? Seems like that's always the dying gasps as a company collapses.

If you read Chen's comments, BlackBerry still makes money from software/services. It is the handset business where they lose money.

Next time you step on the brakes, consider the reliability of QNX.

Tesla runs QNX then?

 

[lewax00]

lewax00[/url]":1wujzke5]Has going from making products to patent trolling every actually worked as a viable business strategy? Seems like that's always the dying gasps as a company collapses.

If you read Chen's comments, BlackBerry still makes money from software/services. It is the handset business where they lose money.

Next time you step on the brakes, consider the reliability of QNX.

Well, then replace "company" with "division" or w/e. I mean, the point is, it's never a good sign, and it never seems to lead to sustainable business.

 

[Snarky Robot]

please explain[/url]":112jtsh8]

AHvivere[/url]":112jtsh8]"Dick: The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

We don't actually need to kill them, we just need to set their maximum wage to the nation's minimum wage. Problem solved.

Ah yes. Lets remove the right to contact for an entire group of people because of their job. I assume you're okay with us doing for your job, too?

 

[Chemical Tribe]

Mr. Chen: "We want to do the patent trolling, and not wait for the time that usually happens, when patent trolls buy our IP at our bankruptcy auction."

 

[psycros]

Where was this litigious fervor when the Motorola Admiral ripped off the Blackberry keyboard's look and feel verbatim? You know damn well that BB would never have licensed their crown jewels back then. I doubt Samsung has paid a cent for its keyboard cases, either, which are absolute clones of the BB keyboard layout. Man, how the mighty have fallen - and just like Microsoft they have only themselves to blame. All Blackberry had to do was release a f**king BB Classic with a heavily modified version of Android. It could have ran the apps AND had a full BB experience. But no, they kept right on living in a dreamworld where they could still be a real player, just like those morons in Redmond. And now its too late.

 

[SDBud]

TomXP411[/url]":3hrr4tae]How ironic. Blackberry was one of the first companies I was aware of that was hit by patent trolls (it involved forwarding email to a mobile device, a core part of BB's product.) Now they're patent trolling.

Lovely.

We can ONLY HOPE that the trend of Courts invalidating stupid patents continues here.

 

[AnchorClanker]

"A means of conveying information from one person to another through the aether."
I'll be rich! RIch, I tell you!

 

[Chemical Tribe]

psycros[/url]":26md3s1z]Where was this litigious fervor when the Motorola Admiral ripped off the Blackberry keyboard's look and feel verbatim? You know damn well that BB would never have licensed their crown jewels back then. I doubt Samsung has paid a cent for its keyboard cases, either, which are absolute clones of the BB keyboard layout. Man, how the mighty have fallen - and just like Microsoft they have only themselves to blame. All Blackberry had to do was release a f**king BB Classic with a heavily modified version of Android. It could have ran the apps AND had a full BB experience. But no, they kept right on living in a dreamworld where they could still be a real player, just like those morons in Redmond. And now its too late.

Funny, but back then, I had no clue who BB was. If anything, people said the Samsung Blackjack copied the Moto Q, but I don't think either of them have the old BB form factor really.

 

[lewax00]

Mr. Chen: "We want to do the patent trolling, and not wait for the time that usually happens, when patent trolls buy our IP at our bankruptcy auction."

Of course not, because this way they can do both!

 

[shevaberg]

10thDoctor[/url]":2078o7vj]

THavoc[/url]":2078o7vj]

lonewolfe2015[/url]":2078o7vj]Quick, someone go patent other dynamic shapes to compete against Blackberry's dynamic bar. I have dibs on the dynamic octagon user interface.

I'm going to lay claim to the dynamic circle user interface.

You can keep your "dynamic bar", "dynamic octagon", and "dynamic circle". They all bow before my Dynamic Triangle!

You triangle will fall to the glory of my Dynamic Dodecahedron

 

[Ozmodan]

I personally view all software patents as invalid since the Supreme Court said you cannot patent logic and all software is just logic.

 

[vani77a]

Too bad, I really like my Priv. Business must be really bad for Chen to resort to this.

 

[Seraphiel]

Does this company even have enough money left to pay its lawyers?

 

[diaphanein]

I did a super quick skim of the claims of the patents BLU allegedly infringes, and I don't think any of them would hold up to the Alice test. Except of "on a computer/on the internet", it's "on a mobile device".

'868: software code-signing on a mobile device
'384: notifications on a mobile device (prior art: MS's Clippy. He displayed notifications of sort, and his speech bubble could be argued to be bar like - or least drive one to the bar).
'845: call log on a mobile device. Even wired or cordless phones had call history when this patent was filed. And it's no different than an electronic version of a secretary writing down a call log.
'605: pretty sure you would get status updates on a laptop in '99 when you disconnected the power - and that the laptop would continue operating just fine (assuming sufficient charge in the battery). So again, this is on a mobile device. Which is also funny because laptops are also mobile devices.
'149: time-stamping messages? Seriously, pretty sure all of the described functionality was available in GTalk, Hangouts, various IM clients on various OSs (desktop & mobile) for at least a decade or more by the time this one was filed in 2012.
'449: a system for making composite images from multiple applications. Reading the abstract and the first several claims leads me to believe they patented a window manager. Prior art on this one is easy: Windows, OS/2, BeOS, X-Windows, Unity, OS X and on and on.

I don't see a single claim in the first lawsuit holding up. I predict that all 7 patents will be found to be invalid.

The second lawsuit looks more troubling. The patents there look to be of a far more technical nature and I don't have the expertise or desire to dig into those deeper.

 

[J.S.Bach]

Good for BlackBerry. All they get is grief from pretty much everyone so f@$*k it, start cashing in on their work, it's not like it's gonna hurt their reputation or anything.

 

[Seraphiel]

Thanks for that meticulously neutral analysis, new poster...