back to article BlackBerry unveils bold new strategy: Suing the c**p out of Facebook

Smartphone market wraith BlackBerry has launched a legal offensive accusing Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram of patent infringement. In a chunky 117-page filing [PDF] to the Los Angeles US District court, the Canadian software house says that the three social media giants are all basing their messaging tools on technology …

  1. Throatwarbler Mangrove Silver badge
    Stop

    Enough, already

    Can we just have an end to software patents?

    1. Rob F

      Re: Enough, already

      It may take a case of this size for the software giants to force that kind of change.

      If it can't be removed, then reducing the term to a few years may be an acceptable compromise

    2. bazza Silver badge

      Re: Enough, already

      Can we just have an end to software patents?

      That's easy to say when your livelihood isn't dependent on you monetising your software innovation.

      A lot of big companies will always try it on. Apple got caught trying to patent software that some independent iOS developer had submitted for review prior to release on the iTunes store. The patent application even had a diagram of the user interface that was an exact copy of the UI in the guy's app. This story was covered by The Register some years ago.

      Patents are there to, in theory, allow the small guys to protect their livelihood against the big guys just ripping them off and out-marketing them. Without a working patent system there is no more innovation, there are just more ways in which big corporates rip off customers. Whether or not software patents should be part of a working patent system I don't know. What I do know is that a lot of patent systems around the world are pretty damned broken.

      A good example of a big company making things worse is Google, with their Travel offering. Worldmate, in the guise of BlackBerry Travel, had the concept of a decent manage-your-travel application pretty much perfect. Calendar/email integration, flight times data, group travel, hotel / hire car booking, the lot. It was really, properly good.

      They've withdrawn because Google are now trying (and not really succeeding) in doing the same sort of thing as part of Android. Worldmate have seen the way the wind is blowing and decided to bail out rather than fight. Google can give prominence to their product, everyone else will struggle to get a look-in. If that isn't an abuse of a monopoly position, I don't know what is.

      So we're now left with a solution from Google that is worse than the one we've had over the past 10, 15 years ago on BlackBerry. We're worse off, simply because a big Corporate is pushing a false message of innovation to its users and has got enough clout to make that stick.

      1. shedied

        Re: Enough, already

        I unfortunately have not had tried Worldmate; though I would add another brutish corporation as an example. None other than Microsoft, buying up all these little corporations that had briliantly executed Things That Work Exceedingly Well With a Stylus, so that when the tablet-convertible-notebook form factor had arrived, the light pen or stylus to make office suites take a back seat never really took off, thanks to MS' bungling a perfectly good idea with their embrace and extinguish -- never mind extending it.

        1. greenawayr

          Re: Enough, already

          "None other than Microsoft, buying up all these little corporations that had briliantly executed Things That Work Exceedingly Well With a Stylus"

          I'm not one to defend MS, but in fairness, buying up a corporation for millions is a bit different to copying their designs and claiming them as your own.

          The guys innovating are making money from their innovations. It's a good reason for a startup to exist if they create something innovative that will earn them millions.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Enough, already

            The problem then becomes which Globo-Corp with a near or actual monopoly position buys the small guy? When will these large corporations be broken up, again. Some have reached a point wherein they are hampering innovation, and have been for decades in some instances, not extending or encouraging innovation.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Enough, already

            MS has bought up little companies not to use or extend technology, but to deliberately kill it dead, in order to hobble the competition.

            Ageing nerds will shudder at the mention of "STNC".

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Enough, already

        "...monetising your software innovation."

        How about the Patent Office accept all the applications related to software "innovations" for a week, and then offer patent protection to just one per week. Whichever is the 'Most Innovative Software Innovation' for the week. The rest of the applications for the week are dumped into the public domain, or a dumpster. I doubt that there's actually more than about 50 *actually* patent-worthy software innovations per year. The rest are trivial rubbish.

        The bar has been set WAY too low. Negative value to society. Requires urgent corrective action.

      3. Tim Seventh

        Re: Enough, already

        That's easy to say when your livelihood isn't dependent on you monetising your software innovation.

        ...Patents are there to, in theory, allow the small guys to protect their livelihood against the big guys just ripping them off and out-marketing them.

        The thing is in the global world, it is pretty clear that patents no longer protect the small guys.

        In plenty of cases, it is used against the small guys, even when they were the ones who created the the product first. Part of the problem is to get patent to have effect, you need a lot of money for the patent and the lawyers, which small guys don't have from the start. The second problem is it is easier for someone or a large company to quickly rip off your software innovation, patent or not. Even worse, it is easier for them to quickly sue your software innovation the second you have some profit.

        So rather than keeping software patent at all (f*ck patent troll), it might as well be better to delete software patent as a whole.

        1. Arachnoid

          Re: Enough, already

          "it might as well be better to delete software patent as a whole."

          Not really as it can take a developer as long to design something in software as someone designing something actually physical i.e a round cornered mobile phone.The problem appears to be the way the system is implemented and corrupted by some to their own gain and not of that of the original developer.

          There was a patent war over hyperlinks only last year, yes its an patenable innovation but it seriously got scewed out of proportion much the same as we seem to be seeing here.

          1. Cuddles Silver badge

            Re: Enough, already

            "it can take a developer as long to design something in software as someone designing something actually physical i.e a round cornered mobile phone"

            Which is exactly why most of the world doesn't have any such thing as "design patents" either, contenting themselves with things like registered designs. Patents are generally reserved for actual inventions, not software and round corners.

      4. SquidEmperor

        Re: Enough, already

        The Apple Patent theft is a good story, but the facts don't appear to match your rhetoric....

        see: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/12/there_is_no_patentgate/

      5. fobobob

        Re: Enough, already

        https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/08/apple_copies_rejected_app/

        I believe this is what is being spoken of... that's messed up, yo.

    3. Blank Reg Silver badge

      Re: Enough, already

      The problem isn't with software patents, the problem is the entire US patent system that pretty much just takes the money and rubber stamps everything.

      I haven't read the patents in this case, they might very well be innovative and valid, but that just isn't the case for so many such patents. On at least a couple of occasions I've seen software patents for things I had done 20 years earlier, and they weren't necessarily innovative nor the first such implementation when I did it.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Enough, already

        > On at least a couple of occasions I've seen software patents for things I had done 20 years earlier, and they weren't necessarily innovative nor the first such implementation when I did it.

        It does happen that things are independently invented. The question here is then if what you did was published or not. Only if it was published could it be validly cited against their patent or application. Good commenting in the programmes would also assist in finding relevant prior art.

      2. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        Re: Enough, already

        the entire US patent system that pretty much just takes the money and rubber stamps everything

        That's simply false. In recent years the approval rate has hovered around 50%. I posted the statistics in response to another article, but they're trivial to find if you know how to use a handy research tool called "the world wide web".

        50% may still be too high, but it's certainly a far cry from "everything". And considering that the USPTO is a profit center for the federal government, and thus under pressure to please its customers (applicants), I think they're showing significant restraint.

    4. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: Enough, already

      "Can we just have an end to software patents?"

      I'd be happy to end patents on TRIVIAL and OVERLY-BROAD software patents, like THOSE appear to be.

      But, on occasion, a patent MAY be deserved, such as specific software patents related to a specific device, with the provision that the patents are NECESSARY for the device. I think a Blackberry works just fine without "those things", as do Android and iPhone.

      A valid software patent MIGHT include a method for error correction or data compression that's specific to a particular device, like a hardware decoder or demodulator that has microcode. But if someone were to implement the same algorithm in SOFTWARE, for a generic system, it shouldn't be covered by the patent. however, if someone else made another hardware decoder or demodulator, the patent MIGHT apply. And, THAT would be fair.

      An alternative might be to reduce the time period for any "generic device" software patent to something considerably shorter than 20 years. Or, just deny them outright.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "A user can select to silence a message thread. Once a message thread has been silenced, the user will no longer receive notifications of new messages added to the thread"

    So a bit like turning the device off? Are they going to sue for power buttons as well?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      re: So a bit like turning the device off?

      Yeah, just like that. I too have a different phone for each conversation I have. Not per person, that wouldn't be fine grained enough. No, I buy a new phone everytime I want to start a conversation with someone so I can get this fantastic "conversation silence" feature from a power button.

    2. fishman

      "So a bit like turning the device off? Are they going to sue for power buttons as well?"

      It's more like the "mute" button on my TV's remote control. But it's ON A COMPUTER!!!

    3. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Devil

      "So a bit like turning the device off? Are they going to sue for power buttons as well?"

      I think HP and Apple have patents over the use of buttons, with respect to selecting from a menu and "hold time" having a different function... but they're specific to their own devices. HP's patents have to do with printers that have LCD displays, for example. Apple's patents are for things like the iPod. if you did a different type of device, you could [in theory] circumvent THEIR patents, and even get your own patents granted.

      but any patent is SUPPOSED to be specific to a device or narrow class of devices. So if you're not making an iPod clone, or a printer with an LCD-based menu system, you should be fine. With THOSE patents, anyway.

      Software patents MUST, at the very least, be specific to a device, and not "generic computing devices". Didn't anyone learn anything from Micro-shaft vs Apple back in the 90's ? Oh wait, they did... and they're forming PATENT TROLL portfolios now! [wrong lesson]

      1. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

        "HP's patents have to do with printers that have LCD displays, for example"

        Ive gotta say , those LCD dispalys are damn handy.

        A real step up from the single mystery flashing light and a button , which is your entire toolkit for config diag and repair that most printers had prior to that

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      >So a bit like turning the device off? Are they going to sue for power buttons as well?

      The scope of a patent is defined by the claims, which are not necessarily identical to the abstract. Did you read the claims? Each of the independent claims are rather long so it seems you can safely keep your power buttons.

  3. Jemma Silver badge

    Go for it BlackBerry

    Any one who sues arsebook is a friend of mine. Not to mention I would be entirely unsurprised if Facebook and the rest were guilty of dodgy practice - they helped elect Donnie Dickwit after all. How much dodgier can you get?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Go for it BlackBerry

      Seconded.

      It is notable how almost every OTT messaging app out there apes (in one way or other) BlackBerry Messager. Which undeniably existed before WhatsApp, Snapchat, Facebook Messager, iMessage, Skype, FaceTime, you name it.

      And given that BBM was in place a long time ago, was wildly popular and still is in existence (and quite big still), this suit is not in the category of a non-trading entity suing trading entities.

      As it happens I and my family use BBM, on iOS, BB10, Android. It works very nicely. WhatsApp's video call quality is crap. Skype is now hideously unreliable. Facebook Messager - eek. BBM just works, always has done, probably always will.

      The Merit of Software Patents

      That's an entirely different discussion. If we have to have them, this at least is a better example of them than a lot of the software patent infringement suits that have been raised in the past.

      Facebook Bollocks

      Paul Grewal's statement is bollocks PR fluff. There are no innovative features whatsoever in Facebook Messager. BBM did them all yonks ago, and was at its height (and oh so popular with the kids) back in the days before Facebook existed. In fact all those users who used it back then are now 30-something year olds who are exactly the sort of person Facebook would like to attract, but from what I hear is totally failing to appeal to.

      The only thing that Facebook innovate in is seedier ways to extract revenue from their atrocious social network platform.

      1. Rabbit80

        Re: Go for it BlackBerry

        "It is notable how almost every OTT messaging app out there apes (in one way or other) BlackBerry Messager. Which undeniably existed before WhatsApp, Snapchat, Facebook Messager, iMessage, Skype, FaceTime, you name it."

        I'm pretty sure ICQ was on the scene long before any of the messenger clients you mention! I can't remember what was before ICQ though, but everything since then including BBM was simply an evolution!

        1. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Devil

          Re: Go for it BlackBerry

          ""It is notable how almost every OTT messaging app out there apes (in one way or other) BlackBerry Messager."

          I think AOL's messenger, MSN's messenger, and ICQ preceded even blackberry...

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_messaging

          thread and sub-thread blocking have been implemented in some news readers for, like, EVAR.

          (thunderbird has 'ignore thread' and 'ignore sub-thread' in its menu, for example)

          To say they were cloned from Blackberry might be a bit much. Perhaps they (including Blackberry) simply grew out of a large set of features implemented by MANY "old school UNIX" applications back in the day, maybe even as early as the old '$TALK' system on the California State University CDC Cyber timesharing computer. From the 70's.

        2. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

          Re: Go for it BlackBerry

          I'm pretty sure ICQ was on the scene long before any of the messenger clients you mention

          Yes, since it was released in 1996.

          SMS dates from the 1980s, and it's no so wildly different from the OTT messaging applications.

          There were many decentralized network-messaging applications long before BBM, of course. MIT's Zephyr (part of Project Athena), 1986, is one early example. BSD talk(1) got network capability in 1983. I don't know when VMS introduced its phone command, but that was network-capable as well. If memory serves, VM/CMS provided an instant-messaging service over IBM's HONE network (which was larger than the Internet in its heyday).

          I'm sure BBM innovated in various ways, but it was by no means entirely novel.

      2. Ken 16 Silver badge
        Meh

        Yes, but

        I'm conflicted here.

        I first tried Blackberry with a z10 on BB10 and grew to love it. It was thoughtful and well engineered. The whole package just worked for the user.

        I hate Facebook. I tried it for a few months when it launched then spent another few months getting my account deleted (it wasn't easy then).

        But, all these companies are not successful at the expense of Blackberry (you could argue that Google would deserve their ire but for Android not for Hangouts). I don't think the world becomes a more just place no matter who wins.

    2. Not also known as SC Silver badge

      Re: Go for it BlackBerry

      I'd love to see nearly every social media company put out of business. I think they are responsible for a large number of today's social problems. However in this situation a lot of the patents do seem something along the lines of the bleeding obvious. Consider a notification that an event has occurred / a message has arrived. Isn't this just an electronic version of a postman ringing the door bell to let you know you have a letter (title of a 1934 novel) or popping up a flag on a mail box (like they do the films)? Creating an electronic version of a physical action shouldn't be patentable (the actual code maybe but not the end result).

    3. Mage Silver badge

      Re: Go for it BlackBerry

      No, much as I despise certain companies we need the rule of law and an end to patent trolls.

      Absolutely none of these should ever have been awarded.

  4. Neil Barnes Silver badge

    It's hard to see why

    *Any* of those things are patentable.

    Software patents are an idiocy, and the sooner we do away with them the better.

    1. sabroni Silver badge

      Re: It's hard to see why

      The US issues software patents willy nilly, letting anyone get one and then expecting any conflicts to be resolved in court. That doesn't make the concept of software patents idioitic, it makes the American implementation of software patents idiotic.

      Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

    2. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: It's hard to see why

      "Trivial Software patents runnable on GENERIC devices are an idiocy"

      Fixed. you're welcome.

  5. Crypto Monad

    FTFY

    "We have a lot of respect for Facebook and the value they’ve placed on messaging capabilities, some of which were invented patented by BlackBerry"

  6. MiguelC Silver badge

    Before being called Blackberry

    They used to be known, to Reg readers, as Lawsuits-in-Motion

    They're ba-a-ack!

  7. DougS Silver badge

    No Apple or Google?

    They also have messaging apps, and surely lawyers would see them as potentially infringing on at least one of those rather broad patents.

    Apple may have already done some sort of licensing deal with them years ago that would cover it, but not so sure about Google...

  8. DCFusor Silver badge

    Seems to me

    @Jemma - you're saying FB is conservative or alt-right? I'm not sure I own language that could describe how ludicrous that idea is. Or that shitposting by a few with a tiny relative budget of a few mil swung a billion dollar election.

    Oh, you're just calling all voters, or most of them, morons. Perhaps more believable, but not a great way to make friends or influence people. Works about as well as calling them deplorables. They might not agree, and it might even motivate them further.

    A test myself and a Canadian friend did was to create new, fake accounts (using mac-scrambled raspberry pies to avoid the more subtle trackers) and test for the echo chamber effect. There is extremely strong evidence for that - if an account looks at alt-right content - everything else disappears and it's bombarded with more of the same. Ditto progressive content. If both in the same account, then all but politics takes a back seat - say if the account was interested in the Reg, tech, or fashion - all gone.

    This is both facebook and youtube (and included directed adverts, but we had to block those to avoid overloading the pies). And it became obvious that everyone is selling to everyone else by doing this test.

    So the "Russian meddling" appears to be the result not of any Russians - it's the advertising characterization algos, deep learning - creating those echo chambers - and you can prove this at home pretty easily, don't take my word for it.

    We did it to ourselves over greed in marketing.

    Now let the down votes roll, as I just called everyone idiots who didn't even realize you were being silo-ed into echo chambers as long as they fit your confirmation bias - a well known cognitive issue of we lousy humans.

    When I grew up we could agree to disagree and even be civil about it. Think about why that's changed...

    1. Jemma Silver badge

      Re: Seems to me

      Do you not watch tv. Facebook executives flat out *admitted* and were proud of the fact they helped elect Donnie Dickwit, if it's still on BBC iplayer a documentary called "Trump voters: 1 year on" - which showcased a whole bunch of quite frankly meatspace Cuylers and closet racists. The model girl was the highlight - about as self obsessed as a spinning top and not all that bright.

      Course I doubt the arsebook executives are quite so proud now.. FBI investigations tend to dent the ego.

    2. Raphael

      Re: Seems to me

      Have you ever read David Brin's book Earth?

      In it he is this prediction of what the internet would become like (written in 1990)

      <blockquote>Holospere: The problem usually wasn't getting access to information, it was to stave off being drowned in it. People bought personalised filter programs to skim a few droplets from that sea and keep the rest out. For some, subjective reality became the selected entertainments and special interest zines passed through by those tailored shells...

      ...Here, a man watches nothing but detective films... Next door, a woman reads and hears only opinions that match her own, because other points of view are culled by her loyal guardian software.</blockquote>

      It is remarkably close to what those algorithms are now doing.

    3. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Seems to me

      (sub-thread already degraded to politics)

      1. 404 Silver badge
        Childcatcher

        Re: Seems to me

        LOL! Of course it did - no one teaches 'Don't discuss politics or religion in polite company' any longer. Those two things poison any conversation and prevent actual results/anything getting done.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I don't profess to understand the technical details but I would think its extremely likely that WhatsApp etc has poached ideas etc from BB messenger. Its certainly a very similar idea. Good luck to BlackBerry. I have a BlackBerry Priv. Deeply unfashionable, but a great phone! Love BB.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "...plurality..."

    When the revolution comes, anyone using the word "plurality" in a patent application will be the first against the wall.

    1. Blank Reg Silver badge

      Re: "...plurality..."

      I don't know that I've ever seen the word "plurality" used anywhere other than in a patent. And it seems to come up in almost every one that I read, is it mandatory?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "...plurality..."

        >I don't know that I've ever seen the word "plurality" used anywhere other than in a patent. And it seems to come up in almost every one that I read, is it mandatory?

        No, it is not mandatory, you can also write at least two. Using a number of is a beginner's mistake since zero is also a number.

        1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

          Re: "...plurality..."

          No, it is not mandatory, you can also write at least two.

          Or "two or more", etc.

          There's long been a "plain English" movement among US lawyers. (See also e.g. Kevin Underhill's relentless mockery of the habit of putting "(henceforth FOO)" after every proper name, and writing numbers in both numerals and words.) Alas, its proponents are swimming against the tide.

          Any patent application containing the phrase "at least 2 (two)" should be immediately rejected, of course.

      2. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        Re: "...plurality..."

        I don't know that I've ever seen the word "plurality" used anywhere other than in a patent.

        It's used in political science, for example, to distinguish among other kinds of voting results (simple majority, etc). Also in grammar, religious studies, etc. But obviously it's a term of art and not often found in casual conversation, except in jest.1

        If the Google Ngram Viewer is to be believed, its popularity held relatively steady over the late modern period, then started climbing in the mid-1980s. It's now up about 30% from its long-term average, and the first page or two of results from that period don't appear to be patent-related.

        1"Why did the chicken cross the road? To join the first chicken and achieve a plurality." Thank you, you've been a great crowd.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    When you can't compete based on the merit of your product

    Your only remaining option is to be a litigious patent troll/whore and extricate the wealth from others.

    1. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: When you can't compete based on the merit of your product

      "Your only remaining option is to be a litigious patent troll/whore and extricate the wealth from others."

      And, SCO is the undead horse of this particular trope

  12. shedied

    There is a better smartphone, and i for one wish BB all the luck that David had when he faced whatshisname. The Porsche Design BB is forever on my wishlist, and could be your next upgrade.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Whatsapp

    Last I remember, Facebook didn't know how to monetize it. Since the app is still free and has no ads, they could still say it generated zero money from it. What does Blackberry want with all that zeros?

    1. seven of five

      Re: Whatsapp

      Just because they do not charge currency for their messenger does not (for the greatest possible meaning of "not") mean you do not pay for using it. And don´t be mistaken, facebook does very, very well know how to "monetize" their app.

    2. Roj Blake Silver badge

      Re: Whatsapp

      Facebook bought WhatsApp not because they wanted a new messaging platform, but because because they wanted access to billions of address books.

      That's where the value is, and that's the data they monetise.

    3. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: Whatsapp

      Faece-book can monetize anything that's "free" as long as it ONLY works with Faecebook. It becomes a 'feature". Like the 'Edge' browser, which ONLY works on Win-10-nic. If you want to run the Edge browser, you need to have Win-10-nic.

      It used to be (back in the day) that the applications you ran determined the platform you used. That's the kind of thinking _I_ am thinking of. It's how Faece-book "monetizes" something that's "free".

      And, there's also the data slurping mentioned earlier)

  14. Lord_Beavis
    Linux

    Blackberry

    is turning in to SCO...

  15. quattroprorocked

    Obvious

    I rest my case, in most of these cases.

    $10,000 bucks if you want to use it :-)

  16. Ralph B

    The Reg called it

    The Register called it in August 2016! Lawsuits In Motion are back!

    1. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: The Reg called it

      "Lawsuits In Motion"

      Law-Motion?

      L'Motion?

      Law-Mo-suits?

      Lotion?

      Lawtion?

      Motion-Lotion?

      LIM?

      Fred?

  17. Velv Silver badge
    Holmes

    Prior Art

    A quick check on the dates of the patents and I'm fairly sure if I was a lawyer on $x00 per hour I could find more than enough prior art to invalidate every single patent. But since they're not paying me, I'm off to read something else

  18. erst

    I appreciate the reference to original patents and lawsuits that the reg includes in the article, as opposed to all other “journalists” copying of Reuters completely uninformative newsflash. Thumbs up!

  19. SiFly

    The patent system is just there to make lawyers rich, if you look at how the patent office it pretty much rubber stamps anything bar the most outrageous patents and then approves them.

    If you want to fight/defend a patent then you need a lawyer.

    Quad Erat Demonstrandum

  20. doublelayer

    Blackberry should sue every tech company ever

    Clearly, I'm missing something. I don't think any of these are new, or were new fifteen years ago. Please tell me what I'm missing with these interpretations:

    Number: 7,372,961

    Description: Method of public key generation. Described as "a potential bias in the generation or a private key is avoided by selecting the key and comparing it against the system parameters. If a predetermined condition is attained it is accepted. If not it is rejected and a new key is generated."

    Meaning:

    do {

    key=make_key();

    while (!WeLikeThisKey(key));

    Number: 8,279,173

    Description: User interface for selecting a photo tag. "There is disclosed a user interface for selecting a photo tag. In an embodiment, the user interface embodies a method of selecting a photo tag for a tagged photo, comprising: providing a tag entry field for entering a photo tag; in dependence upon a string entered by a user, displaying in a matching tag list any tags from one or more selected tag sources matching the entered string."

    Meaning: A search box with a list of results. And tags, of course.

    Old alternative: Google image search.

    Number: 8,209,634

    Description: Previewing a new event on a small screen device. "Individual applications are each represented by an application icon on a screen of a graphical user interface for the device. When a new event occurs, particularly when the new event relates to a specific one of a plurality of similar applications, the invention provides a convenient way to denote which application relates to the event. In response to a new event of a one of the applications, the application's icon is visually modified to notify of the new event."

    Meaning: Visually indicating something, as long as it's a small screen.

    Old alternative: The flag icon on a mail program meaning you have unread mail. If this doesn't count as small screen, the same thing on a laptop.

    Number: 8,301,713

    Description: Handheld electronic device and associated method providing time data in a messaging environment. "An improved handheld electronic device and an associated method are provided in which time data regarding certain aspects of a messaging conversation on a handheld electronic device are made available to a user. Such time data is provided, for instance, in situations where an interruption has occurred during a messaging conversation."

    Meaning: Knowing what time a message was sent.

    Old alternative: Any SMS system ever that allowed the phone to store the messages for any length of time. Alternatively, e-mail (we find that e-mail clients were brazenly violating patents by displaying the received date and time of e-mail messages. The culprits were so evil as to do this even before the filing of the patents by the plaintiff. We sentence all involved to having to clear out their inboxes and then their spam folders.).

    Number: 8,429,236

    Description: Transmission of status updates responsive to status of recipient application. "During one mode of operation, a mobile communications device transmits status messages using a conservative message transmission mode. This allows the mobile communications device to transmit a greater number of status updates for future processing by the recipient application while conserving resources."

    Meaning: Data compression before you send data on a network.

    Old alternative: Data compression on a modem from the 90s.

    Number: 8,677,250

    Description: System and method for switching between an instant messaging conversation and a game in progress. "Enabling a game application on the electronic device to utilize a contact list for an instant messaging application, during a game in progress with a particular contact in the contact list, preparing game messages to be sent to the particular contact by including game progress data, communicating at least one game message during the game in progress with the particular contact using an instant messaging system used by the instant messaging application; displaying at least one instant message in an instant messaging conversation user interface; and displaying a game in progress user interface associated with the game play, after detecting a selection in the instant messaging conversation user interface to switch to the game in progress."

    Meaning: So ... basically any multiplayer game ever?

    Old alternative: Any game with built-in chat, or, given that this patent also mentions "System and method for switching", any multiplayer game ever + any instant messaging system ever + alt tab.

    Number: 9,349,120

    Description: System and method for silencing notifications for a message thread. " A user can select to silence a message thread. Once a message thread has been silenced, the user will no longer receive notifications of new messages added to the thread."

    Meaning: Mute button

    Old alternative: Close the IM program handling that thread, or focus on a different thread, or press mute button on messages. Also, they don't mention the unmute button. Give me a minute--I'm just off to patent the unmute button and sue every messaging company ever. And that includes blackberry! The world of messaging shall be mine!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Blackberry should sue every tech company ever

      >Clearly, I'm missing something. I don't think any of these are new, or were new fifteen years ago. Please tell me what I'm missing with these interpretations:

      You and 99 percent of everyone here, are missing the fact that the scope of the patent is not defined by the abstract, it is defined by the claims.

      >Number: 7,372,961

      >Description: Method of public key generation. Described as "a potential bias in the generation or a private key is avoided by selecting the key and comparing it against the system parameters. If a predetermined condition is attained it is accepted. If not it is rejected and a new key is generated."

      And that is the abstract paraphrased. It is not the claim.

      >Meaning:

      No. Go to claim 1 and the other independent claims. That is what you have to demonstrate lacks novelty and inventiveness if you are to demonstrate the patent is invalid.

      1. A method of generating a key k for use in a cryptographic function performed over a group of order q, said method including the steps of:

      generating a seed value SV from a random number generator;

      performing a hash function H( ) on said seed value SV to provide an output H(SV);

      determining whether said output H(SV) is less than said order q prior to reducing mod q;

      accepting said output H(SV) for use as said key k if the value of said output H(SV) is less than said order q;

      rejecting said output H(SV) as said key if said value is not less than said order q;

      if said output H(SV) is rejected, repeating said method; and

      if said output H(SV) is accepted, providing said key k for use in performing said cryptographic function, wherein said key k is equal to said output H(SV).

      1. doublelayer

        Re: Blackberry should sue every tech company ever

        Thank you for the clarification. I agree that I haven't looked at the greater content. Therefore, my descriptions may have lacked necessary details. However, my protest remains. First, I claim that the description you have provided from the patent body is unoriginal, and is essentially identical to my meaning--the description of the generation is basically saying "we use a random number generator to generate a key using a seed", I.E. not at all new. Therefore, it mostly hinges on whether anyone else had checked two values for complexity before. This is a basic cryptographic concept. Even if nobody had thought of that, you can hardly claim invention of a cryptographic challenge. The high-level code you provided all fits into my facetious function "weLikeThisKey", but would require about three lines of code assuming I write it nicely:

        bool weLikeThisKey(key k, key q) {

        keyComplexity ck=complexityOf(k);

        keyComplexity cq=complexityOf(q);

        return ck.isAppreciablyBetterThan(cq);

        }

        Perhaps blackberry could patent the content of their complexity checker (I'm giving them a lot of the benefit of the doubt here), but not the process of using a complexity checker. If that were the case, it would functionally limit any comparison of values with some function, as that function could provide a benefit for a cryptographic key.

        In addition, a patent's content is supposed to be summarized in its abstract. You have not yet told me why all of my quick descriptions of patent contents are incorrect. If any of them are correct, then blackberry has patented something that already existed. At the very least, blackberry entirely failed to explain the new concept in their abstracts. I believe that perhaps that is because there is no new concept in most of these patents. My point, therefore, remains unchanged.

  21. HmmmYes Silver badge

    Strange one.

    I rember reading the whatsapp founder admiting the idea was from bbm.

    The early versions were just bbm redone in erlang/otp.

    Im not keen on software patents.

    The patent infringements look weak. And, we are what, 22 years in from the first sms, which is basically what whatsapp/bbm is.

  22. HmmmYes Silver badge

    Theres not a single one of those patents where id not be able to find prior art.

    I mean, comparing crpyt keys!

    1. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Meh

      comparing crpyt keys

      When certain keys (or key 'signatures') had known vulnerability problems, such as multiple keys could resolve the decryption, I think every key generator had its list of "poor crypto" key signatures to avoid. Or something like that. I remember seeing an update to Debian and/or FreeBSD for something similar, probably more than 10 years ago. It might have even been done to OpenSSL [I just don't remember the details, that's all].

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      >Theres not a single one of those patents where id not be able to find prior art.

      Very good. Please try. Pick any patent on that list and provide the fatal relevant prior art. I like your bold approach. I like even better people who can follow up their promises.

  23. DCFusor Silver badge

    Misquoting

    Doesn't make the misquote true, or even relevant. Yes, I saw what FB said, and how fast the admission that it probably had zero effect was rolled back. Not because it was untrue - no one said it was, but because it didn't justify the owner's narrative.

    They didn't say they helped elect the orange one - that's a flat untruth, dunno where you got that, maybe your own echo chamber.

    A tiny number of cheap ads were sold to Russians - Billions were spent by the campaigns. And one wonders who put all that divisive stuff into even foreign media. Though we can guess it was probably a certain hungarian PNG in his own country who likes to fund subversion at one level remove via foundations with nice names and bad behavior - he admits to "hungarian hacking" - and it's a heck of a lot more dough.

    I suspect Jill Stein's investigation into voting irregularities had the opposite effect intended, it sure didn't look good - and was stopped right away "for some reason".

    The point being, it's bad enough without making stuff up - and I haven't even gone to that depth yet. Let's don't....

  24. Voyna i Mor Silver badge

    No good actor

    Patent trolls are bad

    Sueing Facebook good.

    Lawyer orders a new yacht.

  25. BradJensen3

    1. Displaying error messages in confusing jargon to cause user to assume delightful cross-eyed expression

    2. designing unusable tiny keys to enhance appreciation of auto-correction feature

    3. raising the device in your hand to enhance viewing the screen

    4. producing loud error tones to cause embarrassment and Stockholm-syndrome-like loyalty in users with low self-esteem

    5. humiliating peers with crass comparisons to farm animals having sex

    6. plugging in to wall connected device to enhance battery charge

    7. changing center of gravity of device to make sure it lands face down on the screen enhancing maintenance opportunities and revenue

    I rmember all of this was in there somewhere....

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019