Blackberry enters a new era, files 105-page patent lawsuit against Avaya

Armed with 38,000 patents, BlackBerry CEO says he's in "licensing mode."

Read the whole story

 

[corprebel]

Here we go again... <rolling eyes>

Can't compete then let's go sue someone.

 

[Chemical Tribe]

Yes, yes, they've been using your patented tech for 20 years, hmmm, and you haven't used one thing from them?

Dumbasses. Nobody learns.

 

[adipose]

corprebel[/url]":1cjo802d]Here we go again... <rolling eyes>

Can't compete then let's go sue someone.

Well, as long as patents are considered a valid source of revenue by our society, it's going to continue happening. BB is hardly a troll, but it may soon be an NPE!

 

[blobbel]

And here we have a perfect example for why patents should expire way sooner than they currently do.

 

[loquacio]

blobbel[/url]":31xcfqbp]And here we have a perfect example for why patents should expire way sooner than they currently do.

Hopefully Blackberry will expire before their patents do.

Also, why didn't they go for the Troll District of Texas? Surely they aren't so strapped for cash that they can't afford to rent a broom closet there.

 

[Dilbert]

sprockkets[/url]":342wx9ru]Yes, yes, they've been using your patented tech for 20 years, hmmm, and you haven't used one thing from them?

Dumbasses. Nobody learns.

Yep. Avaya countersues for something equally silly, because at this point why not? They need to defend themselves. They both win their own patent trials. Or they both lose. They both pay. The real winner is whoever's left with more money in the bank after. Can BB play that game? They are just about broke.

 

[Shmerl]

So, Blackberry decided, that protection racket of patent trolling is more lucrative than innovation. Someone should try to bust their patents. Unfortunately until software patents will be banned completely, such rogue companies will continue to wreak havoc and attack expecting victims.

 

[MisterGrumps]

Litigate when you can't innovate was supposed to be sarcasm, not a business strategy.

 

[amakula]

This will be long and drawn out Avaya has a whole ton of old voip patent's and I believe they acquired some in the Nortel buyout , in the end the only people that will win are the lawyers

 

[Shmerl]

adipose[/url]":14fdndck]

Well, as long as patents are considered a valid source of revenue by our society, it's going to continue happening. BB is hardly a troll, but it may soon be an NPE!

They are a troll as in patent aggressors / patent racketeers. Not every troll is an NPE. And claiming they invented what Avaya is doing, is surely trolling.

 

[trs8]

Well at least they're actually making products and services. So a step above a pure patent troll.

But not by much

 

[Doonga]

When your business model fails, start suing.

 

[snowcat-il]

"The '961 cryptography patent is allegedly infringed by a whole series of products that "include OpenSSL and Open SSL elliptic curve cryptography," including the Avaya CMS and conferencing systems."

So if use Open SSL in my video communication service to secure the communication in flight i'm violating their patent?

Considering SSL 3.0 draft came out in 1996 and this patent's filing date is 2001, prior art should be easy to find to defeat this patent....

 

[Dputiger]

I would love to see a survey on how many companies that go this route do so successfully.

There are plenty of tech companies that derive revenue from patent licensing. I remember reading stories about how MS made more money on its Android-licensed patents than it did on its phone business (back when it had a phone business, anyway). And there's the rampant growth in non-practicing entities that troll for relatively small amounts of money and try to build a business out of hitting dozens or hundreds of "infringers" for cash.

My question is this: How many tech companies successfully transition from one business model (hardware sales, BB network, associated services) and move to a different model (IP licensing, software development) successfully? Typically, patents are related to ongoing research, so however much money you can gin up over old developments, I'd expect them to fade in the not-so-distant future.

 

[truthyboy15]

Since BB cannot innovate good phones its turning to being a patent troll to bolster its coffins to keep itself from dying.

 

[jonah]

Armed with 38,000 patents, BlackBerry CEO says he's in "patent troll mode."

Fixed that for you.

 

[ackmondual]

Add that to the list of many business model's surprises...
--A supermarket makes enough from the data from club cards and their app that they can do fine without selling ANYTHING

--an old tymer who used to do the books for a burger joint noticed that soda is such a good profit margin that if everyone came in and only bought soda... they'd be jsut fine. They don't even need to sell any burgers nor fries

--extended warranties used to be a pretty good source of $$

--alcohol can make up to 80% of a restaurant's profits.

--now we got patents

 

[DaveSimmons]

snowcat-il[/url]":hlcwibku]"The '961 cryptography patent is allegedly infringed by a whole series of products that "include OpenSSL and Open SSL elliptic curve cryptography," including the Avaya CMS and conferencing systems."

So if use Open SSL in my video communication service to secure the communication in flight i'm violating their patent?

Considering SSL 3.0 draft came out in 1996 and this patent's filing date is 2001, prior art should be easy to find to defeat this patent....

Ah, but RIM patented using SSL ... on the Internet!


(yes, I know. it's a joke.)

 

[Shmerl]

Dputiger[/url]":6f3cgihk]
My question is this: How many tech companies successfully transition from one business model (hardware sales, BB network, associated services) and move to a different model (IP licensing, software development) successfully? Typically, patents are related to ongoing research, so however much money you can gin up over old developments, I'd expect them to fade in the not-so-distant future.

It's funny you are calling protection racket a "business model". Your question can be translated to "how many succeed at being crooks and thugs". That depends on those, who become them and on how many holes the legal system has. So far it still has many, but it got a bit better after Alice v. CLS case.

 

[JamesHulsmann]

"BlackBerry CEO says he's in "licensing mode.""

Well then... that is... wow.


If you didn't think patents and copyright went full-on ludicrous before... this quote sort of confirms it. (he would never make that statement otherwise, IMO)

 

[Tubamajuba]

News like this is so disappointing. Had Blackberry taken the iPhone seriously from the start, I'm confident that they wouldn't be reduced to glorified patent trolls.

 

[The Ogre]

Sad to see what was one of our (Canada's) greatest tech success stories lose its place in the world and now devolve into being a patent troll.

 

[Bernardo Verda]

News like this is so disappointing. Had Blackberry taken the iPhone seriously from the start, I'm confident that they wouldn't be reduced to glorified patent trolls.

I'd already concluded that Blackberry was ultimately doomed, when they started trading privileged access to / decryption of BB secure communications, in exchange for access to various national markets. Bullet-proof secure communications privacy was essentially the last thing Blackberry had that set Blackberry apart, that Apple and Android didn't (and at the time couldn't) offer their customers.

Blackberry, in the struggle to survive, lost its its principles, and its perspective. So this turn towards patent-trolling strategies is a new low for Blackberry -- but I don't think that it's actually much of a surprise...

 

[_SFF_]

Dilbert[/url]":2y2sq5bf]

sprockkets[/url]":2y2sq5bf]Yes, yes, they've been using your patented tech for 20 years, hmmm, and you haven't used one thing from them?

Dumbasses. Nobody learns.

The real winner is whoever's left with more money in the bank after.

So, the lawyers then.

 

[jballou]

If you cannot innovate, you must litigate. Johnny Cochran would be proud.

 

[diaphanein]

RIM has been doomed for a while now. Apple wasnt a huge threat. Android is where they started to lose. They stopped inovating, and if anything regressed. My first blackberry was rock solid. It did 2 things great: handled email and made calls. I can't remember the model number, but it was a monochrome w an indiglo back light. Battery would even last a whole week with constant usage. Each blackberry i had after that (maybe a total of 8 models) got progressively worse. More unstable, less battery life. Messages wouldnt be received or sent. Got bad enough at one point, i threw one against a wall while at a pub because the POS wouldnt work at a critical time.

 

[Snarky Robot]

adipose[/url]":3cdx64hq]

corprebel[/url]":3cdx64hq]Here we go again... <rolling eyes>

Can't compete then let's go sue someone.

Well, as long as patents are considered a valid source of revenue by our society, it's going to continue happening. BB is hardly a troll, but it may soon be an NPE!

Honest question: does re-skinning another companies' phone count as "practicing"? Because if no, they might just be an NPE on the hardware side.

 

[lobo76]

loquacio[/url]":ggvvrti7]
Hopefully Blackberry will expire before their patents do.

Also, why didn't they go for the Troll District of Texas? Surely they aren't so strapped for cash that they can't afford to rent a broom closet there.

No use. The patent will be sold to a troll, and the troll will then initiate the lawsuit.

 

[aleph_nought]

Chen killed BB10, put out some overpriced and underwhelming Android phones, couldn't make money off MDM products and now wants to turn BB into a patent troll. Even Nokia wasn't this bad when it was on its last legs pre-MS takeover.

 

[nibb]

I hope the CEO is reading this.

Android was a good move, yes, but its not a great one if your Android implementation is buggy, uses more battery and has extra unwanted software. Either way, at least that can be fixed with updates and its not a non stop buyer.

All Blackberry needs to do is focus on a phone that is secure, in order to attract the business market.

1. Make it premium, something a CEO would buy

2. Make it small. PLEASE. Why did people love BB? Extremely long battery and a very small pocket phone. There is no small Android phone today. This is a huge gap in the market. Mini Android phones are 5 inches !!! If BB can make a small Android phone but with the decent performance it's a killer phone. Sony almost had it right with their Compact edition which was just as powerful as the normal phone but was not small enough.

3. Put a damn keyboard on it. This is what made BB so loved.

So, lets see:
- Android
- Small
- Powerful
- Premium materials
- Hardware keyboard
= killer phone !!!

A small phone will outperform bigger phones in battery and will not only be preferred by women but also by a lot of people that actually care about having a phone in the pocket while on the go.

I'm not saying as small as the Xperia Mini, but maybe something like the Bold.

Just make a Bold running Android and you will have huge amount of sales. That phone was extremely loved and some people still don't want to replace it.

Why is it so hard to take the model of the BB Bold and put Android on it? Of course with newer hardware specs as well.

The only garbage BB always had was the camera, everything else was actually great.

 

[nibb]

aleph_nought[/url]":1fy7v8bp]Chen killed BB10, put out some overpriced and underwhelming Android phones, couldn't make money off MDM products and now wants to turn BB into a patent troll. Even Nokia wasn't this bad when it was on its last legs pre-MS takeover.

He should be fired. He had the chance, several actually.

Blackberry is in the position its currently because the CEO has absolutely no clue what the consumers wants or needs or what made BB loved by people in the past.

Why Chen is still CEO is beyond me. He should go home.

Chen is EOL for some time now.

He now claims the Priv was a mistake and BB should focus on cheap Android phones. That alone shows he has absolutely no clue.

Blackberry phones where never cheap in the past. They where business phones.

The Priv failed for a lot of reasons, and price was not one of them.

All he will end up doing now is ruining the BB brand with cheap phones which are worse than any other Chinese Android device you can get. The market is flooded with cheap Android phones. I'm not sure why he thinks BB will better at that.

He can't get any decent phone out and now blames it on the price. He is just trying to trow everything into the wall and see whats sticks. That alone means he should be fired as he has no vision for the company.

I'm afraid BB is in a point of no return now.

 

[aleph_nought]

nibb[/url]":3v3psrdd]

aleph_nought[/url]":3v3psrdd]Chen killed BB10, put out some overpriced and underwhelming Android phones, couldn't make money off MDM products and now wants to turn BB into a patent troll. Even Nokia wasn't this bad when it was on its last legs pre-MS takeover.

He should be fired. He had the chance, several actually.

Blackberry is in the position its currently because the CEO has absolutely no clue what the consumers wants or needs or what made BB loved by people in the past.

One word: prosumer. Whatever the heck that is. He should have done a complete lineup of hardened Androids for the corporate and government set who don't believe in BYOD. Doing that would also have resulted in a much smaller BlackBerry because its products wouldn't be interesting to normal consumers.

Damned one way or another...

 

[renny]

No. 8,116,739, describing methods of displaying messages

I've read the abstract THREE times now, I've looked at all the images. I'm still not entirely sure what it claims it does, but it appears to just be describing setting a cookie to track the state of a conversation.

Which a) is an insane "invention" claim and b) the way they worded it is just pure audacity.

I hate this system. I hate the people who participate in it. I hate the people that perpetuate it. As a developer I'm sure I violate at least a few dozen patents every day.

I can be vigilant about robbers or burglars, if I fall victim I can call the police and my insurance company. Robbers and burglars who get caught are sent to prison. Their moms are disappointed by them, society looks down on them.

People who file for this kind of patent are no better. But I can't be vigilant about them, police won't help, no insurance covers me, they won't go to prison and they present themselves as successful businessmen and engineers.

If they come after me, the best thing I can hope for is spending a lot of money to make them go away.

 

[FightApathy]

The Ogre[/url]":2m241uu3]Sad to see what was one of our (Canada's) greatest tech success stories lose its place in the world and now devolve into being a patent troll.

Everything comes to an end. I bet Apple will collapse too one day.

 

[wk_]

DaveSimmons[/url]":3lbxemvg]

snowcat-il[/url]":3lbxemvg]"The '961 cryptography patent is allegedly infringed by a whole series of products that "include OpenSSL and Open SSL elliptic curve cryptography," including the Avaya CMS and conferencing systems."

So if use Open SSL in my video communication service to secure the communication in flight i'm violating their patent?

Considering SSL 3.0 draft came out in 1996 and this patent's filing date is 2001, prior art should be easy to find to defeat this patent....

Ah, but RIM patented using SSL ... on the Internet!


(yes, I know. it's a joke.)

At least it is not "on the computer".

 

[atechfan]

Dilbert[/url]":2hohcpsx]
The real winner is whoever's left with more money in the bank after.

ie. Lawyers.

 

[bongbong]

Patent Office should be sued too for not doing their jobs, they are the real source of all the patent problems we have today.
It is like they are willingly sabotaging the economy.

 

[JimmiG]

Just what we need - yet another shell of a former company patent trolling everyone...

 

[CaffeinatedNoms]

renny[/url]":s9ly1mwz]

No. 8,116,739, describing methods of displaying messages

I've read the abstract THREE times now, I've looked at all the images. I'm still not entirely sure what it claims it does, but it appears to just be describing setting a cookie to track the state of a conversation.

Which a) is an insane "invention" claim and b) the way they worded it is just pure audacity.

From what we can work out, yeah, this is about the iconography displaying the read, unread and sent status of a message. In which case I call Prior Art; from RiscOS, from the earliest incarnations of Outlook, PINE, ...I could go on but what's the point? If you were beaten to it by PINE then you're not going to win any awards for "innovation of the century".

Oh, scratch that, ELM had it in '86. Even PINE has prior art now!