RIM shows BlackBerry workaround plans

With the possibility of a court-ordered shutdown looming large, RIM has provided more details about the long-discussed workaround the company has come up with to keep the BlackBerry service up and running. According to the company, the workaround is a software update called BlackBerry MultiMode Edition, which can be downloaded and activated if service is suspended later this month. RIM says that MultiMode involves "significant underlying changes to the message delivery system" but that the switch should be transparent to customers. Which, of course, leads to at least one inevitable question: If RIM has a working solution that doesn't raise any patent issues, why not just roll it out now and be done with the whole matter?

[Via BBHub]

[YO @ Feb 9th 2006 8:53AM]

Here's why - it's not really transparent. The difference is that with the patch installed, the header and message aren't pushed (i.e. sent) to the device. What's sent to the device instead is a notification that *looks* like the header of the email (sender, subject, etc). Then, when you go to read the email itself, *then* the message itself gets pulled to the device. That takes about 1-2 seconds and is definitely noticeable . . . It workds, but not as nicely or quickly.

[buttbutt @ Feb 9th 2006 9:26AM]

The above is based on another rumor, based on the release info with this, the major change is that messages (or message notification if the above is true) won't be queued on RIMs servers but back on the customer's BES until they are back in range. Again a slight slowdown. I assume these docs don't tell all though.

[josh @ Feb 9th 2006 9:47AM]

One possible change (and reason they would want to avoid changing the system) is that BES communicates with the RIM servers constantly - thus it's very hard to pirate. Any change that involved dropping this aspect would open them up to being taken out of the equation.

[Tim Williams @ Feb 9th 2006 9:52AM]

I'm not a lawyer, but aside from the technical bits, I think if RIM rolls out the workaround it's tantamount to admitting that their claim on the existing process isn�t legitimate.

[martin Cinzar @ Feb 9th 2006 9:52AM]

What patents? I thought they were/are all being either reviewed or overturned. Why is there no clarity on this subject. Is NTP spin so great on this matter that people/companies have to change their way of business because of lawyers.

[Aaron @ Feb 9th 2006 9:55AM]

Why not write software that will have the blackberry request the message from the server as soon as the blackbery has notification that a message is waiting. Maybe this is how things currently work but I do think I have described 'pull' email not 'push'

[Jen @ Feb 9th 2006 10:03AM]

The legal world just likes to watch the corporate world squirm.

[Nick @ Feb 9th 2006 10:14AM]

I agree with (6). Couldn't the handheld do the pulling upon notification that new messages exist? Why wait until the user opens the message before downloading it?

[BTC @ Feb 9th 2006 10:44AM]

Tim: Not true. There's actually a rule of evidence that basically says you can't introduce corrective measures as proof that the previous measures were faulty. I think that's a rule of product liability, so it might not have anything to do with this case, but either way RIM fixing the system isn't going to be held against them.

Martin: There's two parrallel things going on - one is the lawsuit, the other is the patent review. My understanding is that the court has to go with the current state of the patents, so if the patent review is taking too long, the court can't overrule the patents.

Jen: This is the corporate world vs corporate world. The lawyers are on both sides, makin' money like they always do.

Aaron, Nick: I think that's the whole problem here - where's the push, and is it covered by the patent. Replacing the system with a different one that might be subject to the same restrictions would be really damaging. They want to distance themselves from anything that might be subject to challenge.

[Aaron @ Feb 9th 2006 10:50AM]

Yes, I realize if it were as easy a solution as I came up with, RIM would have probably done it already. Unless they are really numb.

[nial @ Feb 9th 2006 11:34AM]

I really doubt it matters how an email ends up on your BlackBerry, though I don't know how specific these patents are. When it looks to you like an email got "pushed" to your BlackBerry completely automatically, there is actually a somewhat complicated two-way transaction going on between the handheld and a server. I suppose the patent could cover exactly how this works, and in that case there must be dozens of ways to slightly vary it to escape the scope of the patent. What I'm thinking is that I would be really surprised if there were any significant changes to how BlackBerry's work, regardless of how this pans out.

[Bliss @ Feb 9th 2006 12:05PM]

#4 & 9 - Correct - Federal Rule of Evidence 407 (know it, live it, love it): "When, after an injury or harm allegedly caused by an event, measures are taken that, if taken previously, would have made the injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product, a defect in a product's design, or a need for a warning or instruction . . . ."

And an earlier rollout wouldn't likely have mooted the case - while it likely would resolve any injunction issues, any claim for damages based on the prior patent violations (if any) would probably still survive.

[badonkadonk @ Feb 9th 2006 12:47PM]

Aaron, what you're describing is "Push-Pull", where specifically crafted message or SMS is sent to the handset, which then pulls the message from the mail server.
And if RIM were to implement this, then they'd get sued by Visto, thereby trading one lawsuit for another.
I'd assume that the reason this has taken so long is that RIM has checked their methodology not only against NTP's patents, but also against everyone else in the mobile email delivery space. They are filing a new patent on it, after all.

[Andy K @ Feb 9th 2006 1:02PM]

Bliss: I think that only applies to negligence actions. Subsequent remedial measures, etc. (Not sure, but I have been practicing law for 15 years now and teaching.....) Evidence of subsequent remedial measures are admissible in certain situations.

[austinkennethlee @ Feb 9th 2006 2:53PM]

If RIM's method is found to infringe the patent, they will be liable for past infringement. This is why it's not worthwhile to change systems (they're going to have to pay anyway).

FRE407 only applies with respect to liability. A change in method can be used in calculating damages.

[T.McQ @ Feb 10th 2006 2:09AM]

Please someone help me out here, if this new work around software is for Blackberry, then will any older RIM or blackberry pager work with this new software upgrade?

[Daniel Taylor @ Feb 10th 2006 6:53AM]

What about BES? Won't this workaround require the installation of a patch on BES?

And if so, how long will it take for IT departments to test and debug the software?

My bet is that 30 days isn't enough.

[John @ Feb 11th 2006 11:54AM]

Most large scale IT departments will likely want 30-60 days to roll this out. Hopefully, IT managers are penciling in time in their budgets and project plans to do this.