0) Kik is like cross-platform BBM for Blackberry, Android, and iOS users.
1) RIM had previously removed Kik from the Blackberry “App World” store.
2) Then two weeks later, they revoked Kik’s developer keys and crippled existing Kik installs by disabling Push support. This meant Blackberry Kik users (reportedly over a million of them) would start getting Kik messages up to an hour late. Link / discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1935093
Strikes me as evil and, as some of you are saying, a bad move politically for their platform. Even if only those 1,000,000 Kik on BB users care, and most BB users don’t, we developers generally give a shit, because this seems grossly uncalled for and anticompetitive.
I don't want to defend RIM, because I don't know anything about the lawsuit (other than it's likely to be a software patent for something relatively obvious).
But I don't see this as significantly more evil than "just removing them from the store". A lawsuit shows that RIM has a serious grievance (whether justified or not) and moves to settle the matter of competition through an official legal framework (whether flawed or not).
Unilaterally removing an application from app markets that are "open to all developers unless we say they're not" for competitive reasons strikes me as more evil in some ways. We are just a lot more used to it because of Apple's app store.
There is a significant increase in evil-ness between the two IMHO.
Banning them from the store/crippling their existing installs is basically: "we don't like you competing with our first party offerings, so get the hell off our platform"
Suing them now, given that Kik is still active on other platforms, is basically: "we don't like you competing with our offerings, so we're going to prevent you from operating anywhere, even on platforms we don't own or have any control over"
I don't know about you, but the second seems a bit more evil than the first.
But at least Kik has recourse in the lawsuit case. In the former they simply don't have the right to exist because the platform holder says so. It's not good for customers and it's sure as hell not good for developers.
I agree with the parent, simply booting someone from your walled garden is more evil in the sense that they can't do anything about it.
But that's exactly the point of patents. If there's evil here, it's because of using offensively a patent that should not have been granted, not because other platforms are also involved.
Google maps is a bit out of date, so it doesn't show that there is a RIM building literally across the street. Like, it's the main building in view out of the Kik offices windows.
I can't pretend to be well informed on this kind of business strategy, but wouldn't another option be to BUY Kik? Turn the iPhone and Android app into a RIM-branded, cross-platform BBM, and incorporated it into the BlackBerry client. Maybe risky, but it might help their platform more than a lawsuit... If it was a really solid app maybe iPhone or Android users would think of getting a BB for their next phone, and it might keep current BB users where they are.
I dunno, this whole affair definitely seems poorly thought out. BlackBerry app development is horrible enough as it is, and there are more and more things making it unappealing. (one of the CEOs said mobile apps are a fad a few weeks ago)
They don't under any circumstances WANT a cross-platform BBM.
BBM is the one killer-app keeping people using blackberries due to the network effect.
The only reason I still have a blackberry is because friends and family in far off countries also have them, and vice-versa - we cna talk to each other freely and easily on the run. BBM is really good at this.
We would all have to switch to something new, and just as reliable, at the same time to make jumping platforms viable.
As soon as there is something that works as well as BBM that's cross platform, lots of people will jump ship as soon as they are able, as long as they can reach their BBM friends (who will eventually jump ship too)
I hear this a lot about BBM, although I've never used it. I think you're right, of course, about them not wanting a cross-platform version. I just wondered if there was something other than a lawsuit they could have done, since a lawsuit seems so ill-fated from a PR angle... Android and iOS are going to continue eating their lunch whether Kik exists or not.
I agree with you, but trying to see it from BB's perspective: they make money from selling devices, that require BB services to do push.
Push email is now a commodity, via push IMAP, push Exchange, COMET webmail, and a bucketload of other apps.
BBM is one of the last things unique to BB. Of course it will inevitably be commoditized, but BB will try and delay this as long as possible using whatever tactics it can.
If you can get a nicer quality smartphone that does instant messaging, and push email, why would you want a BB with a poor quality web browser and a paltry few shitty quality apps?
Nothing says we want developers on our platform like suing the popular app makers. Even if there seemed to be some IP theft here, I think lawsuit is a horrible way to solve the problem. There is just no PR spin you could put here to fix this.
Not approving the app in the first place into their store, wait till they are popular and a threat.
If they are stealing IP then RIM should not have let them onto the store to begin with. RIM should know what their IP is.
I would say that if they RIM already reviewed their app and let it onto the store, that is a tacit implication that they approved the app with RIM's (alleged) IP in it.
Perhaps RIM's IP attorney isn't working at the app store? Lucky for RIM though, I'm sure the app store legal agreements don't include anything silly like having an approval be a license for any RIM IP.
That’s a US patent and the lawsuit is Canadian, but I have to imagine they applied for a similar patent in Canada.
I hope they lose the case and their patent is invalidated. (Isn’t this system highly similar to how Napster messaging and AIM “direct connection” chats worked, before 2004?)
Anyway, here’s another US patent that could be relevant. Seems even weaker, though: “A method of displaying messages on handheld devices. The device displays messages in a scrollable viewport of vertically arranged fields. Date separators inserted into the vertically arranged list of messages to enable the user to associate the messages with a date. …”
This might be stupid/crazy, but might it make sense to have a DNS for phone numbers? Why not have 6464680751.cell resolve to a public IP address of my phone? If another phone wants to send it a text message or make a phone call, could it just use the variety of protocols on top of IP?
Yes, phone numbers are a legacy of the old telecom systems. SIP uses user@domain style URIs, and this can be mapped to a legacy number via ENUM, and vice versa.
4G cellular networks are all IP and use SIP for signalling. I doubt phones are publicly addresssable though, the telco probably NATs them.
I eagerly await a number-free, VoIP-enabled, IPv6 world.
As a founder of a Waterloo startup this pisses me off to no end. If RIM hadn't taken such hostile actions Kik may very well have been a Next Big Thing. I mean, Kik might still achieve that - and I damn hope they do - but it will be in spite of RIM's hostility.
Now for Waterloo region which has been trying to make a name for itself in the tech/startup world, having a Next Big Thing coming out of it would have been huge. It would have benefited the region from a financial standpoint (think PayPal mafia) and it would have benefited the region from a talent attraction standpoint.
RIM's actions are not only an assault on Kik they're an assault on Waterloo's startup community as a whole.
I would love to see the specific patent(s) Kik is infringing upon. It's a pretty standard IM client, if as the article says it is for: "sent, delivered, read, and even when a user is typing a message." then RIM has a lot of apps to go after.
Could be something more than that, as the CEO was a RIM employee at one point.
I'm sorry but how is this patentable : "I haven't read the Statement of Claim outlining RIM's allegations against Kik yet, but I suspect that the patent at issue covers a messaging platform that provides sent, delivered, read, and typing indicators."
Having family work at their Waterloo head office leaves me torn and full of questions. Even though I don't own a RIM phone, I handled their Storm and it's rock solid. The feel is much better my 3G test phone or couple of Android phones, but as a developer I choose to support companies based on merit. RIM just came down a notch in my book.
I compared Kik on my Android and the BBM on the Storm. I would be flabbergasted to find out the Canadian courts would allow this claim to play out.
I wonder when they will sue skype (which also has these indicators)...
Funny how RIM wrote an open letter (strangely removed from their site now) about how patents were a problem, and needed to be reformed. They got sued for similarly obvious patents not long ago, and had a very different attitude from the defendant's side of the argument.
Before invalidating kik's keys, they removed kik from the bb market once before, claiming battery drain as the problem. If that was honestly the problem they had with it, there wouldn't be a lawsuit now, or there would've been one earlier. This is most definitely an evil attempt at keeping bbm relevant which began with a pretty sneaky excuse.
I guess RIM went to the Oracle school of business. They're going to find out exactly why this is a VERY bad move. They're going to have an awful time trying attract developers for their platform.
The key viral feature was using the addressbook to populate the contact list, and you'd lose that, but still be able to implement a bunch of the other stuff. I can't tell from that browserdev page how much of the "widget API" is stuff that you'd need to get bundled up and signed, and how much is just available in the browser.
Either way, this is a pretty developer-hostile move on RIM's part. That's okay, though; all indications are that RIM is capable of developing a large selection of beautiful, compelling, worthwhile first-party apps for the Playbook. A third-party developer ecosystem would really just weigh the platform down.
While I agree with the consensus that this is evil (essentially cutting a start-up off at it's knees), RIM has a legal obligation to enforce that patent if they know someone is infringing or they risk losing it. The Kik founder should have been much more vocal about being booted and having his keys revoked; now he makes himself look like an easy target. He really needs to put PR pressure on RIM at this point if Kik is going to survive.
"As a trademark must be used to maintain rights in relation to that mark, a trademark can be 'abandoned' or its registration can be cancelled or revoked if the mark is not continuously used. By comparison, patents and copyrights cannot be 'abandoned' and a patent holder or copyright owner can generally enforce their rights without taking any particular action to maintain the patent or copyright."
IANAL, but does that make what I said wrong? He didn't say anything about setting precedent, he said they risk "losing" the patent if they do not enforce it, which is just not true. If you have a source saying otherwise, I'd love to see it.
IANAL, but I have a vague memory from a patent talk. So, I can't disprove you, but I can remain more skeptical of your claim, unless you're an IP lawyer -- in which case I'd assume you know something I don't.
Regarding the semantics of "lose" -- why does it matter in any discussion of real-world actions or motivations?
Even if I don't lose something, if I do things to erode its usefulness, I've essentially lost its functionality. Therefore regardless of whether I legally lose the thing or not, I'm going to resist doing things that (possibly) reduce its effectiveness -- the result (in terms of my actions) is the same.
You can't lose you patent by ignoring an infringer you know about. However, there are potentially bad consequences for the patent holder.
1. There's a thing called "laches", which basically makes it so you can't recover damages from before the time you file the suit if you waiting too long to file the suit. There's a rebuttable presumption that six years is too long.
What that means is that if you find out about the infringement and wait six or more years to file, you will get no damages from before the date of the suit unless you can prove to the court that there was justification for waiting so long.
If you file before six years, there is no presumption of laches, but the plaintiff can try to prove to the court that your delay was unreasonable.
Note that even if the plaintiff gets no damages, he can still get an injunction to stop continuing infringement regardless of how long he delays. Thus, in a case like this where RIM's likely goal is to kill the infringing product rather than to collect money for past infringement and perhaps license the product going forward laches is no problem.
2. I believe in some cases, the courts have used "equitable estoppel" to prevent the patent owner from taking any action against a particular defendant. For this to happen the patent would have had to do something that reasonably gave the defendant reason to believe they had permission to use the patent and the defendant would have had to rely on that.
Equitable estoppel doesn't necessarily involve a delay in suing, but a long delay would be a factor I'd expect the court to look at as it provides at least some support for the claim that the defendant reasonably thought they had permission.
An example of where I'd expect equitable estoppel to play a role would be if Microsoft ever decided to sue over the parts of Mono that are not covered by either the Community Promise (which covers the ISO/ECMA version of .NET) or the Apache license (which they have released much of the mobile .NET stuff under). Microsoft has ignored the potentially infringing parts of Mono for a long time, and has actively encouraged the Mono project as a whole and even made changes on Microsoft's end to make some of their stuff work better with Mono. I think the Mono people could make a good case that Microsoft's action gave them a reasonable belief that they were OK, and Microsoft knew that the Mono people thought that.
My take: RIM saw the violations and the threat to BBM and decided to ban Kik. Apple saw the violations and the threat to BBM and decided to leave them alone. Makes sense in both cases
> I haven't read the Statement of Claim outlining RIM's allegations against Kik yet, but I suspect that the patent at issue covers a messaging platform that provides sent, delivered, read, and typing indicators.
So the guy admits to not reading the statement outlining the allegation, but he will comment on it anyway.
How else would you expect RIM to react to a product that infringes on one its core features? It's been pushing BBM heavily in its marketing campaigns, and can't afford to have that exclusivity taken away.
So should Apple drop all the lawsuits it has pending against other companies so it can focus more on competing?
What I'm saying is that it doesn't seem unreasonable, as others are making it out to be, for RIM to sue a company for making a product that's nearly identical to its own.
0) Kik is like cross-platform BBM for Blackberry, Android, and iOS users.
1) RIM had previously removed Kik from the Blackberry “App World” store.
2) Then two weeks later, they revoked Kik’s developer keys and crippled existing Kik installs by disabling Push support. This meant Blackberry Kik users (reportedly over a million of them) would start getting Kik messages up to an hour late. Link / discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1935093
⁂
A week ago, we discussed the possibility of a lawsuit. Discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1935182
⁂
Strikes me as evil and, as some of you are saying, a bad move politically for their platform. Even if only those 1,000,000 Kik on BB users care, and most BB users don’t, we developers generally give a shit, because this seems grossly uncalled for and anticompetitive.