BlackBerry Sells Mobile and Messaging Patents For $600 Million (arstechnica.com) 55
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: BlackBerry is adding another sad chapter to the downfall of its smartphone business. Today the company announced a sale of its prized patent portfolio for $600 million. The buyer is "Catapult IP Innovations Inc.," a new company BlackBerry describes as "a special purpose vehicle formed to acquire the BlackBerry patent assets." BlackBerry says the patents are for "mobile devices, messaging and wireless networking." These are going to be the patents surrounding BlackBerry's phones, QWERTY keyboards, and BlackBerry Messenger (BBM). BlackBerry most recently weaponized these patents against Facebook Messenger in 2018, which covered ideas like muting a message thread and displaying notifications as a numeric icon badge. BlackBerry -- back when it was called RIM -- was a veteran of the original smartphone patent wars, though, and went after companies like Handspring and Good Technology in the early 2000s.
If the name "Catapult IP Innovations" didn't give it away, weaponizing BlackBerry's patents is the most obvious outcome of this deal. According to the press release, Catapult's funding for the $600 million deal is just a $450 million loan, which will immediately be given to BlackBerry in cash. The remaining $150 million is a promissory note with the first payment due in three years. That means Catapult is now a new company with a huge amount of debt, no products, and no cash flow. Assuming the plan isn't to instantly go bankrupt, Catapult needs to start monetizing BlackBerry's patents somehow, which presumably means suing everyone it believes is in violation of its newly acquired assets.
If the name "Catapult IP Innovations" didn't give it away, weaponizing BlackBerry's patents is the most obvious outcome of this deal. According to the press release, Catapult's funding for the $600 million deal is just a $450 million loan, which will immediately be given to BlackBerry in cash. The remaining $150 million is a promissory note with the first payment due in three years. That means Catapult is now a new company with a huge amount of debt, no products, and no cash flow. Assuming the plan isn't to instantly go bankrupt, Catapult needs to start monetizing BlackBerry's patents somehow, which presumably means suing everyone it believes is in violation of its newly acquired assets.
I miss Qwerty keyboards on phones (Score:5, Insightful)
I had a BB KeyOne and loved it, but of course 4g only and was forced to another generic black slab of a phone that had 5g, even though the carrier doesn't offer 5g in my area.
I looked into the Unihertz Titan, but it too is 4g only...
So much more productive with a real keyboard on my phone....oh how the mighty have fallen. You will be sorely missed BlackBerry.
Re: I miss Qwerty keyboards on phones (Score:2)
How were you forced to upgrade to a 5g phone if there is no 5g coverage in your area?
Re: (Score:1)
Probably because BlackBerry turned off all their services.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/end-of-a-smartphone-era-as-blackberry-phones-reach-the-end-of-the-line/
Re: (Score:2)
That had nothing to do with it.
That only applies to older phones using BB10, PlayBookOS, or earlier software. It didn't really impact much anyway. Playbook users lost access to Blackberry World, but BB10 users had already lost access to that years before.
If you have a KeyOne, it will still work just fine.
The 3G shutoff is forcing users off of the KeyTwo, which is strange as the KeyOne will not be affected. I have no idea why anyone would be "forced" to upgrade to a phone that supports 5G. That doesn't
Re: (Score:2)
The phone carrier I have told me they would no longer support it because the KO wasn't 5G compatible, despite the carrier not (yet, anyway) offering 5g...so I shopped around for another carrier and no go, 4g around here is dead dead dead, regardless of the status of 5g.
In the end, I had no choice
Great for tech another company (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Wrong. It's another philosophy of imagining a good enough sophistry allows one to steal and commit other even worse crimes. That isn't capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Using money to make money? If it quacks...
Re: (Score:3)
Unregulated or under regulated capitalism is incredibly dangerous. We've seen just a few of the horrors. If you think capitalism is always beneficial, you've been severely mislead.
Like it or not, patents are a large and essential part of our capitalist system. Patent abuse is a problem, but not one that's easy to solve. Rest assured, it is still part of capitalism. It's why companies build defensive patent portfolios, after all.
Though I am a little curious. Why don't you think patent enforcement is pa
Re: (Score:1)
Patent trolling is what we're talking about here, not proper patent enforcement.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any way to tell the difference? It seems to be just about impossible to split that hair.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any way to tell the difference? It seems to be just about impossible to split that hair.
"Whether the plaintiff of the patent can show either recent history of the patent being leveraged for a commercially viable product or proof of intent to do so" seems like a pretty simple place to start. Not saying it's perfect in every case, but it'd make a dent in some of the low hanging fruit.
Re: (Score:2)
That's wrong though, isn't it? A lot of companies exist for the express purpose of licensing technologies that they've developed. There are a lot of markets that are very mature, and thus extremely difficult to break in to. Licensing is the only thing that makes sense.
Just as an example, someone who invents a new tire technology isn't going to start building manufacturing plants to compete with Good Year. That's a recipe for failure. Instead, they're going to license their tech to one of the existing p
Re: (Score:1)
No, you're totally off base. A patent troll collects patents, has created nothing, and generates all manner of lawsuits and threats of lawsuits off ridiculous claims, to see what sticks and to see who antes up. They are parasites on the system that need to be put down.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is how you can objectively identify patent trolls. I don't think it's possible, and what you offered clearly doesn't work.
Re: (Score:1)
You're wrong and ignorant, states have sued and punished patent trolls, the top court in the country has dealt serious blow to patent trolls with TC Heartland vs Kraft Heinz. Patent trolls are being identified and beaten down.
What's your agenda in siding with those parasites? What I am talking about is being done and is working.
Re: (Score:2)
I see. You're not interested in the actual question. Why not say so instead of wasting my time?
For the record, I'm not siding with anyone. That was all something you made up in your head. When you're ready to join the rest of us in reality, I'll be happy to try this again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh? Can you imagine a world without them? It would look very different from what it looks like today, and not in a good way.
Re: (Score:2)
What else would it be?
Re: (Score:2)
obvious (patent) troll (Score:2)
is obvious
Popcorn time! (Score:4, Insightful)
This one should be fun to watch because while this is obvious patent abuse, some of these are legitimate patents this one.
So while Catapult might be a troll organization, they might actually be really trouble. Certainly as the summary points they'll have a lot of incentive to move to quickly and aggressively twist arms for license revenue or file claims.
Om nom nom (Score:2)
So this is basically Blackberry cannibalizing itself. Extract as much capital as you can, then walk away.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's just great... (Score:2)
Another patent hoarding company.
They'll sue into submission anyone they can and that folks is their business model.
uh (Score:2)
Catapult needs to start monetizing BlackBerry's patents somehow, which presumably means suing everyone it believes is in violation of its newly acquired assets.
if there were people to sue for big money, blackberry would already be doing it in a desperate attempt to stay solvent.
Maybe not.. (Score:2)
A key facet of these is they have no product to worry about the target counter-suing over.
So BlackBerry tries to go after Apple or Google or whoever but gets slapped with a ton of counter-claims over BlackBerry products. At thte very least a nightmare to try to navigate.
But 'Catapult' can't be accused of violating phone patents, because they never made any phones!
It really sucks but this happens all too often. A sane reform might be for an IP holder to actually have credible product in the flied on offer b
Re: Maybe not.. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Often going after another company is a defensive move. It's may not normally be worth it to go on a fishing expedition to determine patents violated and sue, particularly Google versus BlackBerry where Blackberry barely has anything to take. If they did that now after the sale, then no skin off Catapult's back. A case against Blackberry would be wholly separate from the dealings with Catapult now, and thus things would be theoretically capped by what Blackberry has with no opportunity to eat into what th
Re: Maybe not.. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I understand the argument for "use it or lose it" on patents, but there are situations where the productization costs are enormous such as for medicine or space travel patents that would cut into research into those areas. The other question is how long do you have to go into production before it gets annulled? I'd rather see shorter patent durations, 20 year windows simply make no sense in the modern era. A brief 5 year window of exclusivity should be enough time to get a competitive advantage and would pu
Re: (Score:2)
There should be some means to distinguish the situation.
For example, original inventors may get a pass (they generated the idea but lack the means to produce), but if the patent is sold, the purchaser would then be subject to 'use it or lose it', to avoid patents being sold and sat on (which is absolutely not what we want to encourage).
Or at least some indication the patent holder makes an earnest attempt to bring their portfolio to market.
Or even if a specific patent isn't brought to market, that at least
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Were you suggesting that a patent that was used by a company making a product can only be sold to another company making something only?
Well, kind of. I suppose I would be fine if some organization bought and was entitled to license agreements already in place at time of sale under the terms they were under, but to sit on them and go fishing for lawsuits when there's no good faith attempt to otherwise bring patented material to market is not something we should encourage.
Re: (Score:2)
if there were people to sue for big money, blackberry would already be doing it in a desperate attempt to stay solvent.
We do not know and should not underestimate the greed and/or idiocy of the new owners. After all Caldera buying out the Santa Cruz Organization (SCO) and renaming themselves the SCO Group [wikipedia.org] did not seem a big deal. Then CEO Darl McBride thought he could make a quick buck if he sued other companies like IBM for coping Unix, the other companies would settle quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not in any danger of insolvency.
They lived long enough to become the villian (Score:2)
I remember the days when Blackberry (RIM in those days) was on the other side of the fence, fighting against [slashdot.org] the patent trolls. Ironically, the amount they eventually forked over to make NTP go away is about the same as what they're getting now for selling their souls.
Too bad... I kind of liked them at one point.
Yep, sell 'em now before they expire (Score:1)
Afterward they can sell them as NFTs
Currently typing (Score:3)
*Currently typing has entered the chat*
I wonder if that is a patent-able feature....?
Invalidation time (Score:2)
And the fun beings as those patents are asserted and people start the process of invalidating them due to prior art.
Re: Invalidation time (Score:1)
Ramifications (Score:2)
So let's go down the list, here:
* Catapult quite possibly also already has a modest revenue stream, as perhaps a few cell phone manufacturers were already paying some sort of licensing fees... so maybe they really are good for it, even i
US9349120 Makes me ANGRY (Score:2)
Patents like this give Big Corporations the ability to threaten an enslave the general population of the United States and the world at large. They are clearly frivolous under any sane standard for patentability, yet the courts continue to grant them. This is a form of wage enslavement tyranny.
The complete disaster of the U.S. Judicial System, and our congress for failing to remedy these blatantly ridiculous forms of wage enslavement, make it clear to me that the polit
sad (Score:2)
I used to respect Blackberry. The Curve had the best keyboard. You could actually touch type on it. And BES actually WORKED, at a time when a lot of other wireless solutions wouldn't do much more than frustrate the hell outta you.
I'm truly sorry that the industry passed them by. Their products were truly business workhorses, and current products still don't measure up in some respects.
That said, this current move reminds me a lot of the creation of SCO.
QNX is their future (Score:2)
https://www.newswire.ca/news-r... [newswire.ca]
I miss the real keyboards on Blackberry devices, but progress dictates that all space is needed for screen space and touch keyboards will just have to do.
Re: (Score:2)
I expect things to swing back the other way. Phones will have proper keyboards before the decade is out.
They're old (Score:3)
I'm looking for a replacement (Score:2)
My BB Q10 is now EOL and I bought a Pine Phone to see if that held hope of breaking the Apple/Google duopoly and their ever tightening control.
The problem with the Pine Phone is that it is an Arm based tablet talking to a Android computer in the chipset hiding behind the ATDT commands.
And the Pine's GPS antenna design is broken bad...
Shelf life (Score:2)
Why would anyone pay that much money for patents that are going to expire in a few years?
Maybe a little Bankruptcy "fraud", also (Score:2)
I think if you get over 3 years from when money was conveyed it is more difficult for bankruptcy court to claw back money. If the patent trolling isn't sufficiently lucrative, Blackberry gets to keep the $450 million and leave the lender holding the bag. Also, being a creditor in the bankruptcy might give them some leverage also.
Scare quotes on fraud because it might not technically be legal.