1. dalinxz's Avatar
    In the JC video with the chamber of commerce, he notes that the ECC patent will be expiring next year, quite disappointing, another case of BlackBerry holding something in their hand of cards, not monetizing it well and losing the competitive advantage. Sad times..

    Posted via CB10
    05-26-15 08:22 PM
  2. Shanerredflag's Avatar
    So OP...you posted on another thread but felt compelled to start one...please explain to the class how given the current focus and business strategy of the company they could have "monitized" this particular patent.

    Classically Posted.
    05-26-15 08:44 PM
  3. dalinxz's Avatar
    So OP...you posted on another thread but felt compelled to start one...please explain to the class how given the current focus and business strategy of the company they could have "monitized" this particular patent.

    Classically Posted.
    Because it's a relevant point deserving of it's own thread, and they may have monetized this in numerous ways, and put simply, licence the encryption, which is substantially more powerful than anything today.

    Posted via CB10
    05-26-15 08:54 PM
  4. Shanerredflag's Avatar
    Please explain...they (BB) already own this area.

    Classically Posted.
    05-26-15 08:56 PM
  5. dalinxz's Avatar
    Please explain...they (BB) already own this area.

    Classically Posted.
    Not to be rude, but how old are you?

    When the patent for ECC expires, other companies can readily use the encryption form and embed them to create their own applications, and as BlackBerry moves too slow in taking advantage of what they have full control over, they lose the same competitive advantage. Other companies will simply copy the encryption type, BlackBerry will have no leg to stand on here and yet again this 'priceless' encryption will be worthless.

    Posted via CB10
    05-26-15 10:24 PM
  6. AnimalPak200's Avatar
    The ECC IP is something that already ran its course. As JC states, at the time they didn't really see this type of stuff as their bread and butter revenue wise, they were a successful device maker, and so they probably just wanted to be 'a leader' in the encryption space, by providing the technology in a way that ensured it would get widely adopted.

    Of course, now they don't have a device business, so all this 'knowledged-based' revenue streams have to be exploited. Since the ECC patents are about to expire (and have been supposedly superceded as JC states), there is not much that can be done with that past decision.

    Posted via CB10
    Shanerredflag likes this.
    05-26-15 10:31 PM
  7. masterful's Avatar
    They can always renew another license. It's not like they don't think about it.

    #BBFactCheck
    05-26-15 10:42 PM
  8. dalinxz's Avatar
    They can always renew another license. It's not like they don't think about it.

    #BBFactCheck
    It's a patent, not something they can necessarily licence after it expires

    Posted via CB10
    05-26-15 10:44 PM
  9. Shanerredflag's Avatar
    It's a patent, not something they can necessarily licence after it expires

    Posted via CB10
    Seriously....a multi billion dollar company didn't explore the value of moving forward...really? (FYI....I am old and grumpy...so don't push it )

    Classically Posted.
    05-26-15 11:16 PM
  10. masterful's Avatar
    It's a patent, not something they can necessarily licence after it expires

    Posted via CB10
    Are you saying that ecc is no longer in used? As long as there are users then then can share apply their patents

    #BBFactCheck
    05-27-15 07:18 AM
  11. BACK-2-BLACK's Avatar
    Does anyone know if this patent holds any trade secrets?

    Saw this and wondering if this applies:


    "You dont necessarily have to leave your invention to the mercy of its expiring patent and USPTO rules. If you keep some factor of your invention secret, no one else can make the exact same thing. You do have to explain the process of your creation to the USPTO to get a patent in the first place, but you can hold back certain fine details that you keep to yourself. These are trade secrets; the USPTO cites Coca Cola's as the most well-known. For example, there are many brands of cola, but Coca Cola can claim its own somewhat unique recipe and taste to try to prevent consumers from switching to other, less expensive brands."
    Andy_bb_king and vanrickman like this.
    05-28-15 08:42 PM
  12. BACK-2-BLACK's Avatar
    JC also mentioned, (in same interview where he disclosed the info about the expiring patent), that they are continuing to invest and extend the patents....not sure if he was referring to solely new acquisitions/creations or modifying/enhancing current patent portfolio.
    05-28-15 08:55 PM
  13. AnimalPak200's Avatar
    Does anyone know if this patent holds any trade secrets?

    Saw this and wondering if this applies:


    "You dont necessarily have to leave your invention to the mercy of its expiring patent and USPTO rules. If you keep some factor of your invention secret, no one else can make the exact same thing. You do have to explain the process of your creation to the USPTO to get a patent in the first place, but you can hold back certain fine details that you keep to yourself. These are trade secrets; the USPTO cites Coca Cola's as the most well-known. For example, there are many brands of cola, but Coca Cola can claim its own somewhat unique recipe and taste to try to prevent consumers from switching to other, less expensive brands."
    I doubt it, the Coca Cola issue is more of a mixture. If they wanted to patent it, they would have to disclose the mixture (or at least using ranges).

    In the case of things like technology, very (most) often the patent disclosure does not include the actual program/code listing, mostly because there are so many ways of coding things in different languages. So I guess you could consider the withheld code a 'trade secret', although it doesn't mean much as long as the algorithm is disclosed in enough detail to satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of the patent statutes.

    Posted via CB10
    BACK-2-BLACK likes this.
    05-28-15 09:40 PM
  14. BCITMike's Avatar
    Does anyone know if this patent holds any trade secrets?

    Saw this and wondering if this applies:


    "You don’t necessarily have to leave your invention to the mercy of its expiring patent and USPTO rules. If you keep some factor of your invention secret, no one else can make the exact same thing. You do have to explain the process of your creation to the USPTO to get a patent in the first place, but you can hold back certain fine details that you keep to yourself. These are “trade secrets;” the USPTO cites Coca Cola's as the most well-known. For example, there are many brands of cola, but Coca Cola can claim its own somewhat unique recipe and taste to try to prevent consumers from switching to other, less expensive brands."
    Always provide your source when quoting, please.

    I don't think this is true. I believe Viagra's patents were invalidated because they intentionally mislead about the actual active ingredient that does the magic.

    In a cautionary tale to be heeded by patent drafters, the Supreme Court of Canada held that Pfizer’s patent directed to sildenafil, better known as Viagra, is invalid for failing to meet the disclosure requirement of section 27(3) of the Patent Act. An attack on the validity of the patent by the generic company, Teva, in the context of a section 55.2 proceeding under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations was unsuccessful before both the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal.
    https://www.gowlings.com/KnowledgeCe...asp?pubID=2857

    (note, there is more to this with appeals and what not, but I'm limited my search for the *V* word...).

    I think you can have trade secrets in food and not have to list it as an ingredient. But I'm pretty sure a patent needs to be fully disclosed to get protection.

    IANAL
    05-28-15 11:45 PM
  15. BCITMike's Avatar
    I doubt it, the Coca Cola issue is more of a mixture. If they wanted to patent it, they would have to disclose the mixture (or at least using ranges).

    In the case of things like technology, very (most) often the patent disclosure does not include the actual program/code listing, mostly because there are so many ways of coding things in different languages. So I guess you could consider the withheld code a 'trade secret', although it doesn't mean much as long as the algorithm is disclosed in enough detail to satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of the patent statutes.

    Posted via CB10
    I think the algorithm/process/method is patented, code can only be copyrighted (complex discussion).
    05-28-15 11:48 PM
  16. BACK-2-BLACK's Avatar
    Always provide your source when quoting, please.

    I don't think this is true. I believe Viagra's patents were invalidated because they intentionally mislead about the actual active ingredient that does the magic.



    https://www.gowlings.com/KnowledgeCe...asp?pubID=2857

    (note, there is more to this with appeals and what not, but I'm limited my search for the *V* word...).

    I think you can have trade secrets in food and not have to list it as an ingredient. But I'm pretty sure a patent needs to be fully disclosed to get protection.

    IANAL
    Sure thing:

    http://info.legalzoom.com/happens-pa...res-20317.html
    BCITMike likes this.
    05-29-15 06:55 AM
  17. AnimalPak200's Avatar
    I think the algorithm/process/method is patented, code can only be copyrighted (complex discussion).
    Exactly, but it can still be included as part of a patent's disclosure to show the public a preferred way of carrying out the claimed method (after all, that is the altruistic purpose of patents--to show the public how to use or make the invention).

    Posted via CB10
    05-29-15 08:22 AM

Similar Threads

  1. Apple patents track pad...now that's funny
    By tmf06 in forum News & Rumors
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 05-27-15, 02:40 AM
  2. New patents from Blackberry...Very Exciting!!
    By Anthony Roberts5 in forum Rumored Devices
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 05-23-15, 09:43 PM
  3. I WANT a Z30 and my contract with VZW is expiring.
    By dbollman423 in forum BlackBerry Z30
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 04-24-15, 10:55 PM
  4. Sony Z3 & BlackBerry Z3 - No patent lawsuit??
    By CrackBerry Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-18-15, 01:15 AM
  5. 90 day exclusivity expiration
    By hybrid1976 in forum BlackBerry Passport
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-19-15, 08:22 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD