Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

BlackBerry Limited Message Board

  • datadriven2 datadriven2 Jan 1, 2006 6:32 PM Flag

    could rimm launch workaround invisibly?

    It occurs to me that during this next three months, while the judge is pondering, and the negotiators are negotiating, and the media is lagging behind the story by several weeks, that Rimm could be losing the public relations battles. They would need to do something to boost their image lest they lose new corporate customers - and the workaround may be their trump card. Could they launch behind the scenes, and announce that it was done? One of you tech wizards may know......

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • in the link you provided, did you happen to note the definition of "public interest" in the original Final Order?

      http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/ip/ntpvrim80503ord.pdf

      top of Page 2, "...;(3) an injunction in this case is in the publiic interest as it promotes protection of the rights gained through the patent process; ..."


      looks like this judge believes that patent holders are part of "the public" also. :-)

    • Thank you for that. I haven't looked in detail, but I notice at first blush it does not include:

      - BlackBerry Enterprise Server for Novell� GroupWise�

      - BlackBerry Internet Service� to get wireless access to communications and information with no server software

      - NONE of the hardware devices RIMM sells these days http://www.blackberry.com/products/handhelds/index.shtml

    • Well this is similar to the assumption I think a reasonable managament team would take - as I've said. But RIMM has stated in the court documents that it can't. And believe me even when you use patentable componets in your final product (with deals in place with those patent holders), you patent the whole device. You should scan RIMM's patent portfolio.

      I really believe that RIMM fully intended for any legal proceedings to take longer then the value of the BB or the patents. Is the only reason I can see for why they did not handle this as a going-concern in the first place.
      Mary

    • Well I'm assuming that while there are MANY patentable components or features in the "BB system", only a FEW would need to be changed to avoid infringement, since there is only a handful of surviving claims ..... the protections on everything else in the "BB system" should remain intact.

    • Because if it's not patentable then it's clonable (can't protect against everyone making them). Meaning that unless RIMM can compete on raw materials with NOK or MOT and make the cheapest version then they aren't going to sell any.
      Mary

    • "Also, then when I started following the stock I looked pretty closely at what I would consider the responsible management course in designing a true workaround; but if RIMM did this they haven't patented the process (something that would be beyond stupid)."

      Depends on what it is, surely. If all changes are based on public domain stuff then why would they need to?


      BTW, we're hearing about big grass fires one state to the south of you .... are you having any, or do you get their smoke? Grass fires are one thing we don't have to worry much about this time of year.

    • Hi Inpath,
      Vacated, just repeating what the analyst and expert were saying this meant when it happened. It just clears the current court from being bound by awards or punishments envoked by prior courts. It's more a technical clean-up to make sure that objections aren't raised based on "you, meaning court, didn't do what another court decided". At least this is my understanding.

      I agree that court will consider new arguments, and assume RIMM's will be the patents have been rejected; and NTP's will be we are appealing and it was decided RIMM was in volation.

      My guess is that if court rules with RIMM then NTP will proceed with futher appeals. If RIMM loses then it will launch the workaround as a "new and different" to continue it's sales in the US. It would then be up to NTP to rechallenge the workaround as an infringment of it's patents. It's not to RIMM's benefit to have the courts rule at this time if the workaround is NTP-free. My guess on the secretcy. That's not voliating full-disclosure as the workaround isn't tied to RIMM's arguement of PTO rejecting patents.

      As for sales and services included in the injunction then you are the first person I've heard in three years to think it wasn't all inclusive. Wahoo who I would consider an expert also said it was sales and services.

      As to why that happened then there are court documents that go through all this but the bottomline is that handheld were considered in violation of NTP patents.

      On why assume still in violation then for sure at the trial then were because RIMM got slapped addition fines for continuing to infringe. Also, then when I started following the stock I looked pretty closely at what I would consider the responsible management course in designing a true workaround; but if RIMM did this they haven't patented the process (something that would be beyond stupid). RIMM also has said they won't try (why they got willful added to infringment).

      Again I don't expect this to play out one way or another for years. There is just too much room for everyone to wiggle around the legal system.

      Hope this helps.
      Mary

    • >>>I've been going back over material and for the life of me, I can't find the specific terms of the injunction.<<<

      Original injunction is:

      http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/ip/ntpvrim80503ord.pdf

      RIm enjoined from:
      1. selling listed devices;
      2. offering listed software;
      3. infringing listed patent claims.

      New devices,new software and avoidance of those patent claims (some of which did not survive the Court of Appeal anyway) and the injunction has no effect.

    • Mary: Thanks - Two comments:

      - "Vacated" - maybe it doesn't mean "do whatever you want" in this case, but a "stay" would have meant that Spencer had to stick with the original injunction if he decided to lift the stay. This now gives him the opportunity to consider new factors such as the USPTO work in determining whether a new injunction is appropriate and its terms.

      - Original Injunction was for sales and services. I noticed you leapt to sales as referring to sales of hardware and therefore there was something about the hardware itself that violated NTP's patents. I've been going back over material and for the life of me, I can't find the specific terms of the injunction. However, without them, I challenge the leap that hardware sales were to be stopped BECAUSE the hardware violated NTP patents.

      First - did sales mean hardware or new subscriptions.

      Two - if hardware was included was it to make the terms of the injunction more restrictive and not because the devices themselves were in violation.

      Three - if the devices themselves were in violation back in 2002 is there any reason to beleive that the new crop of BBs have the same violation built in. I doubt it. RIMM would not have raised the issue yet because they want to delay NTP coming up with counter arguments. (For the same reason as not realeasing the work-around details.)

    • >>>Regarding the work around solution, RIMM will not reveal unless injunction is imposed/enforced/implemented/deems it necessary/balls to the walls, etc.. <<<

      Understand that I come at this from the point of view of a Canadian lawywer. On January 17 RIMM has to file its brief saying why an injunction should not be imposed. In Canada there is a general expectation from the Courts that you will make full disclosure when dealing with an injunction application. You are certainly not allowed to mislead the court. In this case, it seems to me that RIM cannot make any arguments based on the possible hardship flowing from an injunction unless it discloses the existence of the workaround and what would be involved in implementing it. If RIM doesn't want to disclose anything about the workaround then they will have to, in effect, take the position that an injunction would not impose any hardship - at least that is how it would work in a Canadian court.

    • View More Messages
 
BBRY
6.68-0.08(-1.18%)May 5 4:00 PMEDT