Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Handhelds Patents United States Hardware

Feds Enter Blackberry Fray 226

Posted by CowboyNeal from the say-it-ain't-so dept.
Rick Zeman writes "Blackberry addicted US Feds have entered into the patent dispute between Canadian company Research in Motion and US patent-holders NTP. From the article: 'The Justice Department has filed a legal brief in a patent dispute, asking a federal court to delay any immediate shutdown of the popular wireless e-mail system to ensure that state and federal workers can continue to use their devices.' Apparently 10% of US Blackberry users are government users."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Feds Enter Blackberry Fray More

Feds Enter Blackberry Fray

Comments Filter:

  • US Government dependence of foreign corporation (Score:5, Informative)

    by Tontoman ( 737489 ) * on Saturday November 12, 2005 @10:04AM (#14015246)
    One odd element of this dispute is this: Canada has also filed amicus brief in the case. http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2005/01/canada _challeng.html [typepad.com] Canada argues that essential part of their system, the email relay operation, is located entirely in Canada. Therefore US government is saying they have put a foreign corporation (Blackberry LTD) in the critical path of essential government communication.
    • What's your point, Mr. Xenophobe?

      • Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @10:28AM (#14015338) Homepage Journal
        The point is in the title: the US government is dependent on a foreign corporation for an essential infrastructure. That fact isn't "xenophobic", in the perjorative sense, just in the real sense of identifying the risk and threat from foreigners, which is completely established by millennia of history.

        Canada is our ally, and a reasonable partner - usually more reasonable than we are. But a national security that's dependent on a foreign power is insecure. Exceptions can't be made on any basis, even including a hypothetical exclusive source for a useful technology. And Blackberry isn't the exclusive source for pushed mobile email - just the most popular, and maybe the easiest. This dimension to the conflict shows the security requirements of ensuring American tech is at the forefront. Even if just by ensuring an American company, entirely governed by the American government, has a license from the foreign supplier, and the means to produce independently if suddenly cut off. Of course, it also shows how the Feds mismanage national security, prioritizing fear and $BILLIONS in expenses, without identifying actual risks.

        • Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Isn't the US doing the same by demanding they keep exclusive control of the root DNS and the internet itself? (Read: having control over an infrastructure used world wide for econimocal and government purposes)

          • Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @11:12AM (#14015517) Homepage Journal
            Yes it is. National security is not a fair game - it's a nonstop battle to retain the advantage in protecting one's national resources, including technology. One reason the US has prospered has been general perception of it as a "fair dealer" that can be trusted to administer unique resources globally for fair access and mutual safety. Even despite many severe abuses by the US, it's generally been more fair and reliable than the other alternative governments.

            Of course, the Bush administration has destroyed so much of that credibility that the US might never regain it. Other nations are certainly within their rights to try to grab their own national security interests from the US - even when there's no legitimate basis - especially when they're in fundamental conflict with the US, like China and even Brazil or Venezuela. But removing that control from the US creates an even more serious threat: the system will break more often, with a less manageable organization for fixing it, as well as include means for hostile attacks among conflicted nations.

            The US can regain its credibility in Internet governance (damaged more by its other failures than any Internet problems) by fairly and firmly resolving the kerfuffle in the UN that threatens US control of the Net, and its perception of benevolence. Of course, Bush sending John "Blow Up the UN" Bolton to head our UN mission makes that even harder. These wranglings will probably boil for years, until we're rid of Bush and his criminally incompetent crew. And leave scars behind. By then perhaps the global Internet community will have developed technology that better models both mutual participation and self-determination than the current DNS tech, without risking fragmentation. We've all got a lot of work to do, motivated by enlightened self-interest.
          • Well, it depends on what side of the fence you're on. To relinquish that control is to put critical infrastructure in the hands of a foreign entity, if you're the United States.
            Nobody is stopping foreign governments from switching to alternate root nameservers, the same way nobody is stopping US government agencies from switching remote email providers.

        • Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation (Score:4, Insightful)

          by trollable ( 928694 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @10:43AM (#14015392) Homepage
          But a national security that's dependent on a foreign power is insecure.

          Agreed. No more Windows, no more Oracle, ... at least in the defense ministry. Only double-checked open-source for the software (or special development and terms if there is no FOSS equivalent). But what about hardware? IMHO, to have "trusted" hardware is as important as "trusted" software.
          • I'd agree - if you were talking about the defence ministry, and I were a foreigner. I still agree that defense dependence on multinational corporations, with no immediate replacement strategy in crisis, is bad for the US. What if the Microsoft strategy for actual enforcement of the US monopoly verdict was to "declare war", from foot-dragging, or even moving overseas and denying service? Open source is by far the most secure kind of tech, except perhaps the occasional "secret weapons" that can actually be ke
          • But a national security that's dependent on a foreign power is insecure.
            Agreed. No more Windows, no more Oracle,

            Not the same at all. Windows and Oracle can't be "turned off" in a time of war. Blackberry's system's can. Further, with MS and Oracle being U.S. companies, the risk is also not comparable. By your logic, we shouldn't depend on Lockheed and Boeing for building the jets and missiles to defend our country.

            I like OSS as much as the next guy, but you shouldn't be modded "Insightful" simply because

        • Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation (Score:5, Interesting)

          by jmcharry ( 608079 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @11:14AM (#14015524)
          There is a fairly long history of US dependence on Canada in national security matters. The DEW line springs to mind. Also, Northern Telecom supplied a fairly large number of military telephone switches and even some crypto gear. A fair amount of equipment used in our space program is of Canadian design. It seems to me government employees using a COTS communication device supplied by them is a much smaller risk. If the government isn't going to use things of foreign manufacture, it is likely to be much worse off considering the large amount of technological equipment that is only manufactured overseas.

          Beyond that, Canada is probably the lowest risk non US supplier one can imagine. They are independent, and there are occasional squabbles, usually over arcane trade issues, but they are so like us and so tied to us economically and culturally it is hard to imagine a major meltdown that would be a serious impediment to US national security. On the other hand, the last time we did get into a shooting war with them, they came down and burned the White House.
        • How can you claim that 10% of government users having Blackberries constitute essential infrastructure? Are you trying to claim that the Blackberries are their only source of email service?

          If a Canadian company was physically hosting a more significant percentage of US government email capabilities - or if it was really 10% of essential email { which you have not shown - just assumed} then I could understand your argument but to claim that 10% of handheld pushed email is essential infrastructure does not

          • Re:US Government dependence - MOD Parent DOWN (Score:4, Informative)

            by mmkkbb ( 816035 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @11:27AM (#14015575) Homepage Journal
            How can you claim that 10% of government users having Blackberries constitute essential infrastructure? Are you trying to claim that the Blackberries are their only source of email service?

            Re-read the summary. 10% of Blackberry users are in the US government.

            • ...for RIM to announce a one-day shutdown of all US service as a "test measure" prior to the injunction?

              What sort of contractual problems would RIM face in selectively shutting down the US market before the injunction takes effect? Would the resultant uproar be sufficient for a more flexible stance from the judiciary? Might the supreme court decide to get involved after all?

          • 10% of the US government, by one gross measure, is $350BILLION of annual operations. If they lost their email, the government would be crippled.

            And yes, as I've said elsewhere in this thread, other governments' security is at risk through their dependence on foreign technology. The principle is universal, but I'm American, and most essential tech is American, so that's not really my problem. If they want to increase their security, they can apply the same principle. But since so many countries' national sec
          • Oh and they should also each have their own internet! We do, it's called the SIPRNet. A complete network infrastructure that is physically isolated from the rest of the world on which each terminal has a two piece encryption system (box and removable hash key).
        • The point is in the title: the US government is dependent on a foreign corporation for an essential infrastructure. That fact isn't "xenophobic", in the perjorative sense

          More like paranoia, in the non-sensical sense. A few government workers cut off from mobile e-mail access? Whoa, real threat to national security there. Tell me the military or critical infrastructure is running over this, not convienience functions for paper pushers.

          This dimension to the conflict shows the security requirements of ensuring
          • Those priorities are of course higher than the risk from dependence on Canadian tech. But it's more than "a few government workers": it's many thousands, including most of Congress, concentrated towards the highest level of administrators. That's a real threat, even if lower than the others you mentioned, and still low enough that it's no emergency.

            I haven't addressed any other security risks in my post, outside the scope of this relatively small Blackberry one. I even pointed out that Canada is a low risk
          • This is actually more sensical than you make it out to be.

            RIM, who makes the Blackberry, is a Canadian company.

            NTP, who is the patentholder suing RIM, is based in the US.

            The United States fed. is basically trying to give a foreign company temporary use of a US. held patent due to concerns over their own employees being able to get their job done.

            Frankly, I hope more of this happens. That way maybe the patent office will be forced to actually follow the mandate that patents are non-obvious and n
        • Firstly, it has been like that for a long time. There isn't a country in this world that does not rely on products from other countries. That kind of economic independence hasn't been around for 50 years. If you think the Blackberry is important in that context, just think of all the hardware that's manufactured in Asia.

          Secondly, total economic independence shouldn't even be a goal. Cooperation is not only economically beneficial (economies of scale, specialisation etc.), but is also an important factor i
          • Interdependence is our most important peacekeeping value. But dependence on one country without alternatives is risky. Dependence on two allied countries is less risky, but still risky. One reason international peace is so elusive is the unresolved tension between mutual interest and conflict - probably a persistent feature of human nature. When making actual national security policy, we have to weigh the cost:benefit*risk of each factor. In a Slashdot post, we can afford to talk about individual security p

        • Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          It should be pointed out that one of the reasons Canada was so concerned about the Patriot Act, is that the Canadian Government contracts out so many of it's sensitive databases to the American Companies, and they are stored in the USA. Of course with the Patriot Act, the current administration can order all this information be clandestinely turned over to them (go to prison it you mention you've given it too them). You can be sure Bush and Co. have already ordered it turned over to them, compromising all
        • Email is nothing. IF (and think how in the hell this would actually be a problem) Blackberry as a canadian company started to act against the security interests of the United States... Come on. If Canada ever wanted to stick it to the U.S. it wouldnt be via Email. Canada is a net supplier of Electricity, Canada is the single largest supplier of oil to the United States. They supply approximately 10 billion dollars in goods a month more then is bought back from the U.S. And on 9/11 when air traffic was c
        • Canada is kind of a special case where this sort of thing is concerned. There have been any number of things used by the government or military where a key supplier was located in Canada or run by a Canadian company.

          Far more troubling should be the fact that with almost any electronic device a large number of key parts are made in places like China or Taiwan. This even extends nowdays to some critical defense electronics like radios or radar sets.

    • Re:US Government dependence of foreign corporation (Score:4, Informative)

      by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @10:45AM (#14015395) Homepage Journal
      Therefore US government is saying they have put a foreign corporation (Blackberry LTD) in the critical path of essential government communication.

      Actually, given the history, I don't see that as a problem. The Crackberries were supposedly the most effective means of communication between many Federal employees following the 9/11 disaster after many other means of communication had failed or was gridlocked. It was successful enough that they've expanded their purchasing of the devices.
      • That was also the case with during the great Eastern Seaboard blackout in Ottawa. Blackberry coverage was still up here.
      • He's not talking about national disaster. He's talking about willful disconnection of service by a hostile nation. If we ever got THAT pissed off at Canada anyway
        • If we ever got THAT pissed off at Canada anyway

          More like the other way around. After all, the USA are the ones holding on to $5 billion in lumber import surcharges that have been deemed unfair by the NAFTA trade dispute resolution process. And W wonders why latin american countries are reluctant to pursue an america-wide trading agreement when he refuses to honour the existing trade agreement! Actions have consequences. W's actions in only accepting the portions of international agreements in his favour and
      • The Crackberries were supposedly the most effective means of communication between many Federal employees following the 9/11 disaster after many other means of communication had failed or was gridlocked.

        I really speak from ignorance, but someone please explain this. I own a Blackberry, and like all Blackberries, it runs on a wireless network. Mine is T-Mobile, but you can get them from almost any wireless provider. If the T-Mobile network goes down, so does my Blackberries wonderful wireless capabilities
        • On 9-11, how did the networks gridlock but Blackberries keep working? Is it because they can communicate messages with short spurts of connectivity? Certainly the voice capabilities did not work any better than any other phone.

          I've gone through several models of blackberry devices - all of them (and it could have been our IS department) default to automagically connect to a network. T-mobile down, it will grab another. Data may or may not be available with all carriers, but they tend to just work. Email
    • Foreign? Canada is not foreign. It's just the unofficial 51st state.....

      If you are Canadian and reading this.....stop holding your breath, it's a JOKE. You may laugh
    • One has to wonder about the security implications of government employees in sensitive areas, like the the White House, State, DOD, etc using email, cell phones and wireless in general. You figure they aren't putting intensely classified information on them but if a foreign power, if you can call Canada a power :), China, Israel, Russia etc intercepts all those emails and listens to all those calls, which must be trivial to do with some basic electronics gear, they could piece together a lot of valuable in
    • Doesn't matter it is Canadian or not.

      Had the US Government chosen a US company for its mobile email needs, in a patent dispute like this one the system STILL can be shut down.

      Using technology from a US company probably will give you an even HIGHER chance of shutdown in case of a patent dispute.

  • Good (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 12, 2005 @10:05AM (#14015252)
    This is getting ridiculous. The only ones who are really suffering from these patent battles are end users, who in this case will find their email inaccessible if the injunction goes through. I hope the government tells 'em the patent's invalid.

  • Ironic (Score:5, Interesting)

    by external400kdiskette ( 930221 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @10:06AM (#14015253)
    that the governments broken patent system has come back to bite them. probably better they get the least desirable outcome in this case which may highlight the need for patent reform better when it's hurting them.

    • Re:Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nharmon ( 97591 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @11:01AM (#14015447)
      The thing that bothers me is that the government which is supposed to be "of, by, and for the people" is not chiming into this lawsuit because of the effect it may have on its CITIZENs, but rather the effect it may have on its EMPLOYEEs.
      • Not just its employees, but its military. I can honestly say that I believe most the Blackberry's I see in use on the commuter trains here in DC are being used by military personnel.

      • Re:Ironic (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ScentCone ( 795499 )
        is not chiming into this lawsuit because of the effect it may have on its CITIZENs, but rather the effect it may have on its EMPLOYEEs.

        How many government employees do you personally know? How many of them are not citizens? They also pay federal taxes, and are essentially their own employees. I just don't understand why people consider federal employees to be "thems," as if didn't suffer long commutes, bitch about their taxes, and dislike government waste just like the rest of us. There are definitely so
        • You're totally off the mark, man. I understand these government employees are still citizens, but if the government did not use Blackberries one bit, would they have still chimed in on this lawsuit? I don't think so.
    • They is us. Something that disrupts government operations, or drives up its costs, is impacting every citizen and taxpayer. To the extent that Blackberries have been improving internal communications or making it easier for federal employees to get certain tasks accomplishsed, that's a good thing. I sincerely doubt, though, that many (any?) mission-critical activities now rely on Blackberry service access. Suddenly being without would feel like a big pain in the ass to underpaid people already working withi

  • They can do more if they want. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Distan ( 122159 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @10:07AM (#14015257)
    Since they are a department of the government, they can simply ignore the patent and indemnify RIMM from any patent liability as far as government workers go.

    Patents don't apply to the government, unless the government wants them to. By extension, they don't apply to suppliers making things for the government.
    • Really? Even when they were granted to a company which is from another country?

      Don't you think that's a little tiny bit dangerous?
      • "Really? Even when they were granted to a company which is from another country?"

        No, because the status of any patent law in a country depends entirely on whether the local government wants to enact and enforce such laws. Clearly no government is going to see much benefit in enforcing a patent against its own interests.

        • Re:They can do more if they want. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by imkonen ( 580619 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @11:36AM (#14015618)
          That seems a little simplistic. The government does actually rule against itself all the time. Even if you have the most cynical, Machiavellian view of the motivations and can't accept that anyone in government would do what's right just because it's the right thing to do, doesn't mean it's always in their interest to take for free what they should pay for. After all, the government is not a coorporation, and doesn't need to make a profit to survive. The outcome that worries me more here is that the feds will simply say "this is an essential service for our employees" and buy the patent rights or licence fee that the patent holder is demanding, thus ignoring the growing problem of submarine patents and rewarding the patent holder. Not that I really know that's the case here, but at least if some senators had their precious Blackberries screwed up by a licensing fiasco they might pay a little more attention to a problem that right now only techies seem to be aware of.
    • From TFA

      "NTP already assured that it would continue service for government agencies, but Justice said in its filing that "there does not appear to be a simple manner in which RIM can identify which users of BlackBerr[y]s are part of the federal government."

      Anyways, I'm not sure your characterization is 100% correct. The gov't can appropriate patented technologies for National Security reasons, but I'm not sure that translates into indemifying companies who're using patented technologies without a license.

    • Patents don't apply to the government, unless the government wants them to.

      AFAIK, patents don't apply to anybody unless the patent holder defends their patent. IE, its not a crime to use something patented by another, its just a civil matter. Patented technology can be used by anybody from no price to license fees of any creative amount.

      Now, about:

      Apparently 10% of US Blackberry users are government users.

      Aren't 100% of US Blackberry users government users? If you have electricity to power a Blackberry,
    • Do you have any case law supporting this? Common sense would seem to dictate that even the government has to obey its own laws, and that if they begin dismissing foreign patents then there's little to stop other countries from disregarding our own patents in return. The WTO has already ruled against the US on free trade issues. Indemnifying companies for patent infringement simply because its in the interests of the US government certainly isn't going to help matters.

  • Take a look at IP law (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @10:09AM (#14015267) Homepage
    Ohhhhhh so what goes around comes around!!! Extend copyright = no problem. Allow stupid patents = no problem. "Oh wait... you mean, we have to live and work in this country where we made these stupid IP laws?"

    I hope the injunction seeds and they all lose their blackberries to government folly. And hopefully the people will stand up and say this isn't fair. Maybe the fed will finally take a look at the state of patent law.
    • By and large patent law is not the problem with the system. There are actually two glaring problem to which I will point you.
      Problem 1: Congress takes a good chunk of the Patent Office's money to distribute to other government agencies. Unlike many of your government offices the USPTO actually makes money, not just spends it. I do not have the exact numbers available but for some reason it seems like there are quite possibly hundreds of millions or billions of dollars that the USPTO never sees of its ow
    • Selfishly, I hope otherwise as my company relies heavily on Blackberries and would be set back measurably by a successful injuction. However, I do agree that this would make an effective catalyst for much-needed change.

  • No special treatment for government (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 12, 2005 @10:12AM (#14015279)
    Let them suffer from their own patent laws.

    It's the only way that things would get changed for the people.

    In fact, I don't see why government should enjoy any special rights. Special rights distances them from the people they govern. Because they don't experience any real-life issues, they get out of touch and they don't realise when legislation and so on will actively affect the people they represent. It is best for standard government practices (not national security, etc) to have the same restrictions in law as the common citizen.
    • ...so basically the rules (laws) apply to everyone, except for them whenever those rules get in thier way.
      • Nearly every piece of legislation passed by our illustrious lawmakers has a clause at the beginning saying that the provisions outlined in the bill do not apply to them. It's fairly standard (though I agree it's stupid).
        • And also not what the Founders intended, given that the people that served in Congress were performing a public service and would then get out and have to live with the laws they had passed while in power. That simple feedback mechanism was meant to help dissuade lawmakers from creating bad law. The problem is the modern class of professional politicians who don't have to suffer the consequences of their actions, except in the indirect case where technologies and services that would have been available to a
    • > Let them suffer from their own patent laws.
      > It's the only way that things would get changed for the people.

      Very true. In the computer world, that's called eating your own dog food.

      There are definite exceptions but noncritical annoying bugs don't tend to get fixed until developers and managers are bitten by them. People don't tend to think any problem is very serious until they experience it. I explain to nontechies using this story:

      There was once a small town that had a contageous itchy rash going

  • maybe this is a really good thing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tehwebguy ( 860335 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @10:12AM (#14015283) Homepage
    sometimes it seems no one gives a crap about patent reform but us nerds, but now that some patent cases are hurting the government, maybe they will begin to listen?

  • I can see it now... (Score:4, Funny)

    by bashbrotha ( 41617 ) <todd@NOSPAm.toddg.net> on Saturday November 12, 2005 @10:13AM (#14015289) Homepage
    Step 1: Invent gadget
    Step 2: Get the US Government addicted to it.
    Step 3: ???
    Step 4: Profit
    • Actuallly, it more of:

      Step 1: Patent something obvious
      Step 2: Let other companies infringe on that patent for awhile.
      Step 3: Sue.
      Step 4: ??????
      Step 5: Profit.
    • " Step 1: Invent gadget
      Step 2: Get the US Government addicted to it.
      Step 3: ???
      Step 4: Profit
      "

      Sorry doesn't work. It goes more like this:
      Step 1: Cut down trees
      Step 2: Get the US addicted to it.
      Step 3: ???
      Step 4: US charges illegal tarrifs and duties and ignores NAFTA rulings to pay them back to Canadians.

  • Don't let them stop it! (Score:5, Funny)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @10:14AM (#14015292) Journal
    Stop Blackberry service? Heaven forfend!

    You mean I won't get any more cryptically abbreviated, nearly-meaningless replies to complex questions? How will I continue working?

  • Govt Users Exempt? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nfsilkey ( 652484 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @10:15AM (#14015294) Homepage
    It was my understanding that the last time I checked into the RIM v NTP dispute, the injunction exempted government Crackberry users from being shutdown. I work as a sysadmin at a large state university and all our campus and departmental PHBs have been warping their thumbs non-stop throughout the legal battle. They and I were under the impression that state and federal employees were not threatened by the suit/injunction/etc.

    Am I wrong? Fill me in ...

    • Re:Govt Users Exempt? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by technos ( 73414 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @10:36AM (#14015360) Homepage Journal
      The problem is RIM and the carriers have no real easy way to just keep government users on. In lots of cases, the only thing that says "this device is the property of the US Government" is the billing address. Sometimes even that isn't tell-tale, there are lots of smaller exempt agencies where the Blackberry bill is sent to the user and lots of cases where there are separate billing and mail-the-bill to addresses. Your billing address is used by some carriers to establish who you are, and that you are the user of the device calling them for support, so it's typically set to something friendly to the users, like the address of their office.

      I mean, say you have a RIM device billing to Jane Doe, 18023 Aurora Ste E, Lynnwood, and another billing to Dave Martin, 18023 Aurora, Lynnwood, and a third, billing to Steve Ellis, 18023 Aurora Ste E, Seattle.

      Which do you turn off? Which ones belong to WA State? If you can't tell easily, how can the carrier?
      • And that is just the half of it. Most folks 'working' for the government are not actually government employees. I'd guess fewer than one out of fifteen (or much higher) that I work with are Federal employees - the rest, contractors. You turn off service for Lockhead, SIAC, Northrop, EDS, etc, things will go to hell in a hand basket.
    • Let's assume for the moment you're right.

      Lets assume it is possible to identify which users are government employees, and which are not. (I don't think it would be all that hard, license keys are required for the blackberry services.).

      What happens when 90% of U.S. business dries up? Shouldn't RIM just shutdown it's U.S. services and focus on foreign and domestic markets that are not closed off to it?

      Of course, if it were up to me I'd stop all softwood lumber shipments to the U.S. entirely due to their illeg
      • What happens when 90% of U.S. business dries up? Shouldn't RIM just shutdown it's U.S. services and focus on foreign and domestic markets that are not closed off to it?

        Dude - you don't know how to work with the government on service contracts. They'd have to just support 10% of their current users, and would sign a sweet federal contract for twice their current revenue.

        I think the legal term for that is "laughing all the way to the bank"

  • Hippo-crites (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Mr. Underbridge ( 666784 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @10:24AM (#14015321)
    And government workers are special...why? In other words, if this screws your company who cares, but if it hurts bureaucracy, now we need to fix this.
    • Companies can file similar motions with the court to get the court to consider the impact of a shutdown on the company. With that said some government workers are special as are some public sector workers because the work in fields the are critical to the general public (emergency response, etc.).
    • My thoughts exactly. There are some government agencies (eg, Air Marshalls) that appear to be performing an important public service that would be significantly impaired by loss of service, but I imagine there are critical private needs as well. But the division is strictly by government/nongovernment. It's clear the importance of the task isn't considered relevant here.

  • Further proof... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Saturday November 12, 2005 @10:26AM (#14015328) Homepage Journal
    ...that government as an entity cares for its existence first and foremost.

    The citizens wants their Blackberries, yet government says the Blackberry is illegal. Yet they need it, so they trump the law.

    Most guns are illegal. Government can use any gun.

    Killing is illegql. Guess who can kill without worry?

    Here's the catch: government is composed of people who want control. People. The worst kind of people.

  • I've written on this before (Score:3, Interesting)

    by feijai ( 898706 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @10:27AM (#14015336)
    RIM has gone over the judge's head before, appealing to congress to stop the judgement in the name of "national defense". Looks like they've gotten their wish [slashdot.org].

  • Wirlelss Providders are in the Mix (Score:3, Interesting)

    by puto ( 533470 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @10:34AM (#14015353) Homepage
    As I always say ad nauseam. I work for the largest wirless provider in the US.

    All wirless providers derive a great deal of revenue from Blackberry services. Especially bolt on blackberry data plans.

    I am sure Ma Bell has got her big swinging dick out on the government on this one. You think they are going to let it disruot this chunk of their cash flow?

    And what about all other providers that provide this service?

    Not only the cash flow, but I cannot imagine the day this happens and my desk becomes swamped with escalations with me having to explain to Joe Jr Excutive Online MBA why he is not getting his emails on his shiny device that doubles these days as corporate dick who got the biggest electronic dick competition.

    Jeez, not to mention all the soccer moms who have them. And the psuedo techis.

    My life ain't looking too good if this happens. But then again I doubt it will

    Puto

  • For the same reason why (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hrieke ( 126185 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @11:00AM (#14015442) Homepage
    The government bailed out Iriduim (sp?) satellite phone system- it was deemed too useful to let go.
    So let this be a good leason here- make the government rely on your services and you'll never really go out of business.
  • My leaky memory (and the Globe and Mail) says that the patent in question is failing its reconsideration in the actual patent office....

    --dave

    • [Apologies for answering my own question, but I found it on groklaw minutes later]

      Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, November 10 2005 @ 03:45 PM EST
      Judge James Spencer presiding over NTP's legal battle with Blackberry maker Research in Motion (RIM) this week said it was "highly unlikely" he would wait for a US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) verdict on the validity of NTP's intellectual property before making his own judgement on the matter.
      This makes no sense. There is only one patent remaining

  • The ruling class (Score:3, Interesting)

    by LaughingCoder ( 914424 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @11:33AM (#14015601)
    Yet another example of how the rules are different for the ruling class. How many times have we seen this type of thing? Of course none can top the Social Security hypocrisy (federal workers do not have to participate - they have their own retirement plan that, guess what, allows them to invest in the *dangerous* stock market) as we in the unwashed masses are taken for the big ride.
  • The U.S. government will have no incentive to fix the horribly broken patent regime until it repeatedly experiences the same harm that the rest of us have to endure. I find it unjust that the goverment can sometimes exempt itself from patent action when the rest of us don't have that option.
  • This sounds like a good excuse for the federal government (or whatever state(s) would have jurisdiction) to see if the courts will go for eminent domain on intellectual property.

  • I had no idea... (Score:3, Funny)

    by bananahead ( 829691 ) * on Saturday November 12, 2005 @12:48PM (#14015932) Journal
    I had no idea I was so far out of the mainstream and working with an antiquated and inefficient, yet overpriced technology. I have been using my Blackberry for several years, and quite happy with it, until now. I find out that the federal government is using Blackberrys. These are the same guys that designed and launched a space shuttle with 8-bit processors, run Amtrak and the US Mail, and I suspect are responsible for the hidden mess we call the Internal Revenue Service. They have NEVER used current, mainstream, efficient technology in the history of man. Therefor I must draw the conclusion that the Blackberry is 1980's technology that has somehow been kept alive through government contracts 20 years past its useful life. I must also assume it is WAY overpriced, non-compatable with any other known technology and incapable of performing any useful function that might somehow cause productivity gain. I feel sick. I need a Smart Phone...
  • If it's that important to the workings of the govt, it sounds like a critical piece of national security infrastructure. That makes it a potential Nationalization candidate.

    Now if we could just get the govt to nationalize and release every software patent in existence since both the govt and global economy needs computers to function...
  • Everyone in the Senate has a BB. The VP has one as well as the President's entire cabinet. Basically everyone has a BB except the President.

    -Nick

  • I Prefer GoodLink (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fdiskne1 ( 219834 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @01:46PM (#14016193)
    If someone is in the market for Enterprise wireless email, if you ask me, GoodLink [good.com] is a better choice. People I know who have used both prefer the way GoodLink looks and works. It appears very similar to Outlook on your handheld and it synchs with your email server. When you delete an email on your handheld, it's gone from your mailbox and vice-versa. The part I like best is that if a handheld is lost or stolen or someone quits or gets fired, I can, with just a couple of mouse clicks (confirmation), do a hard reset on any handheld set to access our email system. No, I don't work for Good and I don't get anything for saying this. I'm just happy with their setup.
    • I use Goodlink, and while it is good, it has several flaws taht need to be addressed (IMHO):

      It is a memory hog on the Treo - it uses 50% of the available memory and can't run from a card
      It doesn't paly nice with other aps - either crashing or preventing them from functioning (such as voice activated dialing)
      It uses a proprietary data store - so normal Palm aps can't read the calender / contact info - which also means if it crashes you have no way to get your calender / contact info until you fix the problem

Slashdot Top Deals

You are always doing something marginal when the boss drops by your desk.

Close