SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
BlackBerry has filed a patent lawsuit (PDF) against Internet telephony firm Avaya. The dispute marks a turning point for Blackberry, which pushed into the Android market last year but has been struggling.
In making its case that Avaya should pay royalties, BlackBerry's focus is squarely on its rear-view mirror. The firm argues that it should be paid for its history of innovation going back nearly 20 years.
"BlackBerry revolutionized the mobile industry," the company's lawyers wrote in their complaint. "BlackBerry... has invented a broad array of new technologies that cover everything from enhanced security and cryptographic techniques, to mobile device user interfaces, to communication servers, and many other areas."
Out of a vast portfolio, BlackBerry claims Avaya infringes eight US Patents:
The patents have various original filing dates, ranging from 2011 back to 1998.
Accused products include Avaya's video conferencing systems, Avaya Communicator for iPad, a product that connects mobile users to IP Office systems, and various IP desk phones. 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.
[...] A patent cross-license that BlackBerry executed last year involved Cisco paying a "license fee," although the amount was confidential. In May, BlackBerry CEO John Chen told investors on an earnings call that he was in "patent licensing mode," eager to monetize his company's 38,000 patents.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Saturday August 06 2016, @04:55PM
It's a shame that no graceful exit is possible. Blackberry lost the initiative to competitors, and it has been clear for a few year now that the company is dead. It's just too big - like a dinosaur - and the message hasn't reached the brain yet.
So now they are trying to monetize their IP, before all of the patents expire. As usual, this seems to have almost nothing to do with the actual applicability of the IP - instead, it's the usual extortion game: settle, or else we'll cost you millions in legal fees. They can't really sell the IP, because it's not actually worth all that much. But it will keep the executives and lawyers rolling in the dough for another couple of years, and the shareholders can continue to deny reality a bit longer.
It's a shame that there is no way for companies in this situation to exit the world gracefully.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Saturday August 06 2016, @05:08PM
But!?
What about the need for a chicklet QWERTY!
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Saturday August 06 2016, @05:55PM
Apparently those of us who like to type aren't all that far away from laptops and desktops.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Saturday August 06 2016, @05:28PM
Exactly. All we got left is lawyers, let's sic em on those other bastards.
A lot of this reads like other "with a computer" patents. (Seems to me Nortel did most of the telephone over IP work in the latter half of the Pleistocene.) And suing someone for using am encryption standard published by the government. Wow.
I suspect this opens these patents to a great deal of "obviousness" challenges, but even if the defendants win, what will be the cost those companies? Their business is ruined, and Blackberry is still in its death throes. Then the patents get invalidated, but Blackberry never has to give back a single red cent.
We've seen this movie before.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Sunday August 07 2016, @12:45PM
They can't really sell the IP, because it's not actually worth all that much.
Some of it is actually worth nothing. For example the '961 patent mentioned above is completely bogus, they just took someone else's work from years earlier and patented it. The USPTO followed their usual rigorous standard of examination ("your check's cleared, here's your patent"), however getting it overturned would still probably be more expensive than just licensing it. Or at least RIM can drop their licensing cost to where it's cheaper to license it than to get it struck down.