Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
BlackBerry Sues Typo Again Over Second-Generation iPhone Keyboard Case
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
...not necessarily. I have invested most of my life to invention and innovation, and poured well over a million dollars down the drain of the utterly dysfunctional US patent "system". In a lot of ways, no patent system at all would be superior to what we have now, which is basically just a racket by and for lawyers to get rich with other lawyers at tremendous cost to everyone and everything else in the country while reducing the entire concept of intellectual property protection to nothing more than a spending competition on... you guessed it, more lawyers. In this system, wealthy established large companies almost always beat small innovative ones and drive them out of industry at a detriment to all.
The basic concept of a patent sounds good on the surface, but its implementation is where it fails catastrophically.
Blackberry absolutely dominated the market with their phones at first. Believe it or not they changed the game.
They made some very bad decisions that lead them to where they are today, but Blackberry has an impressive history.
Last edited by a moderator:
There's nothing special,about a physical keyboard with black keys and white characters.
----------
No they don't. They made a ****** little device that got email with a qwerty keyboard. Nothing else was around, so people took it up. But by no means was the BB a great device. It's UX was horrible.
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh hey, it's not like there are paricular design elements that are beyond that, right? I mean all cars are the same since they all have wheels.
----------
The special part is the design that associates a brand when someone looks at it.
I think that Apple should sue Blackberry for using the term "slavishly copied" since I'm pretty sure Apple already trademarked that phrase.
I used Blackberries until 7 years ago and their Email functionality has always been superior to anything I had after them, including my current iPhone 6.
And their keyboard was really good for typing and much less pain than today's virtual keyboards. Build quality was great: you could throw it across a hall and it wouldn't break.
Everything else but PIM sucked, though.
You need to learn how to use the internet, if that is what you truly believe.
Just to be clear, I agree on your basic idea. The problem is that it is only implementable for companies that have the resources to do so. These companies have reached their positions using the patent system to recover their costs from R&D.
What you seem to forget is that the small startups would stop investing in R&D. Two of these kind of companies I'm currently helping with a strategic business plan. Both have invested about 15 years of work in their technology. One of them a drug discovery software, and the other a drug delivery system using cyclosporins. They would stop today if their work was not protected. You cannot just argue that they should have chosen an idea that is more difficult to copy.
The problem is that even in a free world there will be elements and companies that take shortcuts. And a certain amount of regulation is needed to ensure a level playing field for all. That is why patents are there and also why they will remain in place. Open source initiatives will continue to grow in number, but they will not replace the basic principle and need of protecting your investment. As long as the companies are there that are willing to take shortcuts, the patents will be there.
Keyboard looks like a keyboard.
Even the keys seem to show a similar pattern of alphabetical letters following a similar pattern.
I propose blackberry sues all QWERTY keyboard manufacturers.
And maybe use my comment in their court documents as reference. - Maceumours review comment.
Even the keys seem to show a similar pattern of alphabetical letters following a similar pattern.
I propose blackberry sues all QWERTY keyboard manufacturers.
And maybe use my comment in their court documents as reference. - Maceumours review comment.
My apologies. I'm happy to debate this openly. Here's my view: I find it archaic that some groups of people think it's ok to force other humans to do things against their will by stealing physical labor to pay for the enforcement of their arbitrary rules.
All the posts on this forum saying "without patents then you only get big players with access to capital creating things!!!!" fail to realize that the "big players" of today exist largely because of patents and other government enforced "special rights" that don't exist in reality. The government artificially grants these privileges to certain groups which create huge inequalities in capital, and enormous bubbles in the marketplace.
Of course this is my personal opinion, but I believe in protecting things you own using rules that exist in reality. Not stealing from one group of people to give to a special class, that on your behalf bullies another person into not "copying" your intangible creations whether that was the person's intention or not.
It's not like there's anything else that goes into their design, right? Cars have wheels and a steering wheel and pedals so they are all the same, right?
It's similar to the idea, that you can't just boot everyone off welfare tomorrow. You can let people buy out of their social security, and roll back the taxes that inhibit job creation slowly to give people a chance to leave on their own.
I think as more companies like Tesla, SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, and Toyota, make their patents open-source, the culture will shift. From what I have seen in Silicon Valley, they are ready for a transition.
Computers have had QWERTY keyboards forever. They sit below the computer usually. There is nothing new there.
The only things I see about the Blackberry unit is the missing first digits row (combined with other keys) and the bottom space bar row that has some different markings. The apple screen keyboard is similar in that it too loses the digits row and uses other means for extra keys.
Typo is clearly similar to the Blackberry approach. Im not sure I see that as an IP area, but thats beyond my legal knowledge. If Typo wants to continue, they need to change two things:
1. DONT cover the home button. This is beyond dumb
2. Do your own design that is distinct, digits and bottom row.
Blackberry was a great product in its day, but that time is passed. They dug their heals in and technology passed them by. They now revert to lawsuits rather than innovation.
The only things I see about the Blackberry unit is the missing first digits row (combined with other keys) and the bottom space bar row that has some different markings. The apple screen keyboard is similar in that it too loses the digits row and uses other means for extra keys.
Typo is clearly similar to the Blackberry approach. Im not sure I see that as an IP area, but thats beyond my legal knowledge. If Typo wants to continue, they need to change two things:
1. DONT cover the home button. This is beyond dumb
2. Do your own design that is distinct, digits and bottom row.
Blackberry was a great product in its day, but that time is passed. They dug their heals in and technology passed them by. They now revert to lawsuits rather than innovation.
The TYPO is Blackberry's only shot at immortality, and yet they're trying to kill it!
With their ship going down so fast, you'd think they'd try to salvage something! But no, they stubbornly think they'll still be viable 5 years from now. At least they and their legacy could live on through these keyboards. But no, instead they say "shoot my only son, because he's a bastard!"
With their ship going down so fast, you'd think they'd try to salvage something! But no, they stubbornly think they'll still be viable 5 years from now. At least they and their legacy could live on through these keyboards. But no, instead they say "shoot my only son, because he's a bastard!"
Using that logic, the whole Apple vs Samsung ordeal should never have happened. If you can't patent a keyboard design, how the hell are you meant to patent a grid of virtual icons and a phone shaped as a rounded rectangle?
Last edited:
If there is nothing special about it, then Typo should have managed to make a keyboard that isn't a copy of the BlackBerry keyboard, at least in their second attempt.
And what you think about the quality of BlackBerry's products is totally irrelevant. What matters is that someone copied the very distinctive looks of their keyboard. Typo's problem is also that they have been convicted already over their first keyboard, and the second one is quite obviously just the first one with some slight modifications, so a jury might see that again as copying with the changes made only to confuse a jury while still copying Blackberry.
Quite possible. But now a jury will likely find that Typo 2 is a small modification to Typo 1 which was a copy of BlackBerry and conclude that therefore Typo 2 is also a copy of BlackBerry.
----------
And as history has shown, Apple made the right decision and had the last laugh.
Both Xerox vs Apple and Apple vs Microsoft had in common that someone entered a deal that turned out to be not so clever, regretted it afterwards, tried to undo the deal in the court and failed.
Sooooo basically this shows us that the only pony Blackberry still believes it has in its stable is a physical keyboard.
That's literally the only reason I've ever heard from anyone as to why they've chosen to stay with a piece of tech that was designed so long ago. It's certainly not for the apps, ecosystem, or experience. And no, I've NEVER had someone in the wild mention security. (which VS the progress Apple has made isn't even arguable at this point)
That's literally the only reason I've ever heard from anyone as to why they've chosen to stay with a piece of tech that was designed so long ago. It's certainly not for the apps, ecosystem, or experience. And no, I've NEVER had someone in the wild mention security. (which VS the progress Apple has made isn't even arguable at this point)
I see your point, but I question the effectiveness in reallife. There will always be elements that will use the open system to createadvantages for themselves. This means there will be companies that takeadvantage of small startups or individual innovators and bring the technologyto market using a head-start in technological or financial capability. That isalso the reason why Tesla et al can choose to open source (some) of theirpatents. They have the means and the capability to protect their business inanother way. So a certain amount of regulation is needed to protect those thatcannot protect themselves: small startups and innovators.
The bad elements will win in a completely open source environmentand smaller inventors and startups will have no chance against big corporationsor developers that are just a bit more wealthy or experienced. And we cant askanyone to just invent something that is more hard to copy, as everyone knowsit doesnt work that way.
I also think it is not sensible to discuss the removal ofthe patent system just because it has grown into an ineffective system. Atleast not in favor of a completely unregulated system where the bad ones wouldultimately win. I think it makes much more sense to take a good look at what is needed in terms ofprotection of R&D and innovation activity in different industries and then modifythe existing framework to suit the need.
One of the relatively new buzzwords is open-innovation. Iwork with some companies that are trying to move into this direction to accessa larger innovation platform. What deters most companies though is that thereare as yet no well established way to regulate who will benefit from generatedIP and how profits are distributed. It is a nice example where opening up oropen-sourcing exposes the issues of having well defined methods of IPprotection.
The lawsuit has nothing to do with what BB may have up its sleeve for new products or what it thinks is the best design to move forward with but rather BB protecting its IP on a company that copied the design (or at least BB believes it copied it).
