Inside the BlackBerry Workaround

pillageplunder writes "Businessweek has a pretty good FAQ-style article on the proposed workaround that RIM would implement if a judge upholds an injunction." From the article: "It would work by changing the part of the network where e-mails are stored. Right now, when someone is out of wireless coverage range and can't immediately get e-mail access, RIM's service stores incoming messages on computers at one of its two network operations centers, or NOCs. When you come back into coverage range, those e-mails are forwarded to you automatically. "

Rule of Equivalents?

[AdolChristin]

Is RIM hoping to invent around and get off the hook by invoking the Rule of Equivalents with the PTO?

Why not store at the client end anyway?

[lordkuri]

I'm kind of confused. Why would RIM not store the emails at the blackberry server to begin with? Surely that would have been less resource intensive on their part, and more comfortable to clients in regards to security.

Someone who knows more about this care to clue me in?

Re:Why not store at the client end anyway?

[arivanov]

This will mean the blackberry server talking to the operator which in practice means the customer talking to the operator. The operators will not like it.

The main reason for BB success is the fact that RIM talks to the operator, not the customer. As a result the operators have considerably less security hassle and most importantly no billing disputes. So no matter how much they dislike RIM they prefer to deal with them.

While at it, I have always asked myself the question - is the encryption end-to-end or the messages are stored at RIM unencrypted. Or what are the possibilities for RIM to successfully escrow a key? After all all registration, pins, etc goes through it... All of the governmentcritter email in cleartext (or easily decryptable)... Interesting thought...
 

Re:Well If That Isn't Worthy Of A Patent...

[Manhigh]

And patent squatting, or whatever you care to call it when a company sits on a patent without utilizing it, simply to stifle competition, should be illegal.

Re:Explain this please

[Raistlin77]

Maybe it's just one of those "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" scenarios. Maybe they don't want to switch to their backup plan just yet because it's not going to be as smooth as they claim, and since the current system works rather well, why not fight to keep it.

Re:Explain this please

[dpilot]

It might look like admission of guilt, and thereby affect the court/patent cases?

Re:Well If That Isn't Worthy Of A Patent...

[terradyn]

the patent system is too lax, and the criteria for offering patents is flawed, but the system does not hurt innovation. Not at all.

The system is what is hurting innovation. It allows for companies like NTP to buy patents for the sole purpose of sueing people/companies that are actually innovating on the patent. My 2 cents is that patent law should require that any patents owned by individuals or corporation must be utilized for some product in the marketplace within an agreed upon timeframe. If it isn't, then it should go up for bid so that a person that wants to innovate using it can. If no one bids, it should just go into the public domain. Of course, there are lots of things that have to be worked out (timeframe, bid values, etc.), but you get the general idea.

Re:Explain this please

[darkmeridian]

The end-users still have to update the software on servers and perhaps individual workstations in order to implement the workaround. RIM is bettting everything on winning the litigation. If they lose and have to pay damages, the fines they could have avoided by implenting the workaround now is miniscule in comparison. Therefore, they have chosen not to burden their users until it is absolutely necessary.

Re:Explain this please

[Soybean47]

While I'm sure there are things that aren't being told, there are still fairly clear reasons for them to not implement this fix unless it's absolutely necessary.

In order for it to work, both the clients and the servers need to be updated with a patch. This is a manual process. If they say "roll it out now!" then all of a sudden, everyone who uses a blackberry is suddenly cut off until they AND their local server have applied a patch. And realize, the average blackberry user is at the executive level, and not the sort of person who applies patches. ;)

Interrupting blackberry service is something that I suspect they'd really really like to avoid.

Come again?

[rjstanford]

There really is no competitor to the BlackBerry when it comes to a complete solution. I realize that its trendy to be dismissive, but if you haven't at least played around with one, don't knock it until you do. If there was a true OSS or even standards-based alternative, that would be one thing - but there isn't. And the Feds really shouldn't be spending tons of money to develop solutions rather than buying COTS packages that work.

I'd love to see someone come up with a true competitor to the Blackberry. Hasn't happened yet...

Re:Well If That Isn't Worthy Of A Patent...

[rcpitt]

Shades of the old dial-up UUCP network.

Our computer system (wimsey.com, earlier known as !vanbc) was the portal through which over 400 local and regional BBSs sent/received e-mail to the rest of the world, including Fido-net.

They dialed in periodically - and if mail for them arrived at our location we stored it until they connected. Seems pretty straight forward to me as prior art. This was mid 1980s and the technology was fairly old at that time.

The fact that these patents cover wireless merely means that the "physical" network element was wireless, not landlines - but the technical purpose and basic methods are likely identical.

On another note - in the mid '90s we had similar multi-jurisdictional (Vancouver, Kelowna, Beijing China, sites in USA) e-mail and dial-up cooperation where a central LDAP database identified which of the several regional servers any users' e-mail was on and no matter whether they dialed into their home system or one of the remotes, allowed them to retreive it directly. Similar to the work-around.

Maybe I'm dense

[MichaelKaiserProScri]

How does what RIM is doing infringe on NTP's patent, but POP3 or IMAP does not? If you send me an e-mail and my laptop is "out of range", that is "off" or "not in range of a 802.11 gateway" it goes to my mail server and waits there until I log on. Then I retrieve the buffered messages and display them on my "wireless device".

Re:Rule of Equivalents?

[XMilkProject]

In my understanding, the rule of equivalents meant that an item could infringe on a patent if it was even remotely equivalent.

But this is no longer valid, see this article. [eet.com]

Re:Maybe I'm dense

[witwerg]

IANAL, but one could argue that because the NIP stuff involves a PUSH delivery mechanism (if I understand everytihng correctly) to clients, POP is definitely not infringing(all PULL), and I don't think that IMAP would, (I don't recall pushed updates to client but it is possible). But otherstuff like certian RPC mail protocols really do push stuff out, IIRC (maybe just the headers though). so The REAL question is why doesn't _exchange_ infringe :-D.

It's probably not secure.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't say about the Blackberry, but they are probably like Good Inc.; and that I can speak about.

Don't count on the messages being secure. I interviewed there once, and spoke with the guy who was handling the security. He impressed me as your typical wanna-be; familiar with the standard tools, but not familiar with attack techniques. You know, the typical slap-it-together-to-meet-the-buzzwords approach.

Anyone who thinks their messages here are secure is deluding themselves.

As far as the interview went, I shut that down fairly quickly. They had an absolutely rediculous NDA to sign. That's always a tip-off that working at the company will suck, when they try to screw you over when you first meet them. Clearly management didn't give a damn about the employees.

Another example of what patents really do

[Chemisor]

In another stunning example, the patent office is once again proven to be not the receptacle of revolutionary ideas or the catalyst of innovation, but rather the repository of ideas nobody is allowed to think any more. Or needs to.

If Push is the problem then Pull

[tinkerghost]

If I read some of the posts and the junk surounding this issue. The big problem is that RIM holds the mail and pushes it as soon as you log back into the network.
If that's the case, just change it and have the BB specifically request the mail.
Current:

BB: Hello I'm back.

RIM: That's nice, here's your mail.

Non infringing:

BB: Hello I'm back, can I have my mail.

RIM: That's nice, here's your mail.

From what I saw of the workaround blurb, RIM is just going to store it offsite and then request it back so they can push it just like they do now.
By the way, IMO, if either of these things circumvent the patent then it's less useful than an equivalent weight of toilet paper.

Re:Good example

[Emetophobe]

This is a good example of why you should not put all of your eggs in one basket. The US Federal Goverment uses Blackberries and this is a response to their mandate that no matter what happens to RIM over this patent dispute, Senators still need their Blackberries to work. Given other communication forms out there, I think it would be better for companies and governments to diversify or use an open standard for communication rather than relying on a single, vulnerable source for all of their commo needs. The option already exists. They could talk in person, on the phone, e-mail each other, use an instant messaging program, two cups and a string, etc.. They chose to use a blackberry because it is easy and convienent. If blackberry service ever did come to a halt, its like the people would be scratching their heads trying to figure out how to communicate. The fact is, blackberries work, so people use them, if they cease to work, people will switch to something else that works.

Re:Text Messaging?

[dgatwood]

Maybe I'm completely missing something here, but how is this substantially different from the U.S. Postal Service queueing up my mail when I go on vacation? We have three parties---the postal service (RIM), the carrier (T-Mobile), and the customer (me). If the carrier sees mail building up in my box unread, he/she could assume that I'm not in the area and take it back to the post office. I've seen this happen in smaller communities where folks actually know their postal workers....

Effectively, by checking the mail regularly, the customer is telling the carrier that he/she is still in the area, in much the same way that the handshake between a cell phone and a cellular carrier tells the cell carrier that the phone is in the area. When the carrier sees that the person is home, the carrier notes that the problem has been resolved, and the postal service gives the queued up mail to the carrier to deliver to the customer.

Thus, it would appear that there is, in fact, evidence of prior art for this technology, available from an entity of the U.S. government since July 26, 1775.

Ladies and gentlemen, "obvious".