SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Today on this March 6, 2018, this Reuters article describes:
BlackBerry Ltd on Tuesday filed a patent infringement lawsuit against social media platforms Facebook Inc and its units WhatsApp and Instagram.
BlackBerry said Facebook and its companies developed "competing applications that improperly used BlackBerry's mobile messaging intellectual property".
There are more details on the lawsuit at Ars Technica:
BlackBerry, the once-great smartphone maker that exited the hardware business in 2016, is suing Facebook for patent infringement. BlackBerry owns a portfolio of broad software patents that cover some of the most basic features of modern smartphone messaging services—and the company says it wants Facebook to pay up.
[...] BlackBerry began its own campaign of patent litigation in 2016, suing the little-known Android phone maker BLU and the Internet telephony company Avaya. BLU agreed to pay up last year, and BlackBerry is now moving on to Facebook—potentially a much more lucrative target.
BlackBerry is asserting seven software patents against Facebook, and they're remarkably broad:
- Patent 7,372,961 covers the concept of generating a cryptographic key by choosing a pseudorandom number and then checking if it is "less than order q prior to reducing mod q." If it is, the key is used. If not, another key is chosen at random and the process repeats.
- Patent 8,209,634 covers the concept of using icons with numeric badges to signal the arrival of new messages.
- Patent 8,279,173 covers the concept of tagging people in photos using an auto-completing search box.
- Patent 8,301,713 covers the concept of marking a significant lull in a text message conversation by inserting a timestamp reflecting the time of the next message.
- Patent 8,429,236 covers the concept of changing how a mobile device sends messages depending on whether they're being actively read by the recipient's device. For example, if updates aren't being read in real time, then the sending device may be able to conserve power by sending messages in batches rather than one at a time.
- Patent 8,677,250 covers the concept of tying a messaging service and a game application together so that a user playing a game can send messages to contacts on the messaging app that includes updates on the player's progress in the game.
- Patent 9,349,120 covers the concept of muting a message thread.
How fitting it is that today is the 15th anniversary of the SCO vs IBM lawsuit.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Wednesday March 07 2018, @08:32PM (1 child)
I hate to argue in favor of software patents, but let me play devil's advocate here for a bit.
You're absolutely right about patents where it's "something we've been doing for ages + 'on a computer'": those are total bullshit, and the USPTO is negligent in allowing these broad and obvious patents.
But what if your software really is an invention, and not something obvious like a graphical slider on an iPhone? For an example here, I'll point to the infamous MP3 patents. Devising and implementing the MP3 codec was not a trivial task: it required an extremely advanced understanding of mathematics, and the "invention" of an algorithm to use math to lossily compress musical data. I doubt most people on this site could come up with something similar on their own, myself included. Should this be patentable? Why or why not?
Mind you, I never liked the fact that (until recently when the patents expired) you couldn't legally use MP3 on a Linux system without going to the hassle of buying a license, and because of this a lot of distros didn't have it included by default. But I also can't really put it in the same category as these bullshit software patents like those about online shopping carts or whatever.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday March 08 2018, @05:25PM
I can't really disagree with that, on it's face. But stick with me.
1. Suppose someone writes their own implementation of mp3 codecs. Should that be an infringement?
2. Suppose someone devises their own codecs (say ogg-vorbis). Should that be an infringement?
To 1 I would say Maybe.
To 2 I would say Not infringement.
Those answers lean towards only reluctantly allowing patentability. Sadly, my answers here might lead to the situation that you and I both hate: that people can't independently implement their own open source codecs without obtaining a license.
And THAT is why I think all software patents need to go. It brings us right back to the situation where I cannot write software without a lawyer. Who knows what submarine patent is lurking out there somewhere. Even worthless patents in big bundles like Intellectual Vultures. You are forced to pay handsomely to buy a big bundle of worthless patent licenses -- because the cost of litigation and the potential liability are too high.
You bring up an interesting situation where maybe there should be some patent protection. But it's like opening the door just a crack to the devil who has a wedged foot. Or the camel's nose under the tent. Or the slippery slope. Once you allow software patents, even a little bit, you end up with the current mess we presently have.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.