BlackBerry Forums Support Community               

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 03-03-2006, 10:46 PM   #21 (permalink)
Talking BlackBerry Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Model: None
Carrier: Verizon/Sprint
Posts: 299
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Please Login to Remove!

Quote:
Originally Posted by roofus
Also NTP and Visto are hooked up so perhaps there was something in the deal to prevent Visto from suing RIM in the future!
Funny thing is that Good and NTP reached a licensing agreement as well, but that didn't stop Visto from going after Good.
Offline  
Old 03-03-2006, 11:30 PM   #22 (permalink)
Knows Where the Search Button Is
 
scaredpoet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: NJ
Model: iPhon
Carrier: AT&T
Posts: 47
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by penguin3107

Quote:
Originally Posted by nb_mitch
Quote:
Originally Posted by nb_mitch
I am sad they settled, I guess it is time to go look at a treo :(
HUH?
I agree with nb_mitch, actually.

First, let’s face it, NTP got away with stealing $612 million on an overbroad, overvague patent, which it never made its own products from. And the patents have been largely ruled invalid. Yet, thanks to our broken patent and court systems, the invlidation of those patents didn’t mean a thing in this case. I'm not at all happy with the notion that some of the money I pay each month is fattening some patent lawyer's pockets, and encouraging that lawyer to continue to screw it to someone else later on.

All this does is validate the brokenness of the US patent system and the broken legal processes surrounding it, making it ever harder for whoever gets sued next. Remember: Cingular has applied for patents on the smilie. If they get a patent, an even more absurd legal drama will unfold, and you can bet Cingular's lawyers (and Cingular) will get fat off of someone.

Second, this signals to me that RIM’s “workaround” wasn’t all it was cracked up to be. For the longest time we were fed a line that RIM had a workaround and that effectively, they didn’t need to settle. And when experts kept asking the same question we all were - why not just turn the workaround on now and end the case? - there was no answer from RIM. In effect, it feels a lot like Blackberry users were lied to, to give us a false sense of complacency and to prevent more people from researching alternatives. That doesn’t sit well with me.

This isn't going to make me go out and buy a Treo. For me Blackberry still is (unfortunately) the best device for what I need. even so, I don't like paying NTP, and I don't like paying a company that probably lied to me. I'm not nearly the loyal Crackberry addict I was this morning, and you can bet that if another device DOES emerge that does the job just as well, I'm going to seriously consider it.

Last edited by scaredpoet : 03-03-2006 at 11:39 PM.
Offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 12:24 AM   #23 (permalink)
Talking BlackBerry Encyclopedia
 
tregrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Tim Buck Too
Model: 7520
Carrier: nextel
Posts: 217
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

very well put, I have been seriously considering a Treo myself and with the light you put on the situation I just may.
__________________
7520 Blackberry Nextel
Offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 12:52 AM   #24 (permalink)
Retired BlackBerryForums.com Moderator
 
d_fisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Columbus, OH
Model: 9700
OS: SID 6.7
Carrier: AT&T
Posts: 4,455
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredpoet
First, let’s face it, NTP got away with stealing $612 million on an overbroad, overvague patent, which it never made its own products from.
I think you are misinformed. NTP never created any products, because the sole purpose of the company was to protect the patents that the orginal inventor filed. Also, if you read the story about the inventor he did in fact create a working prototype. He even took the demo to CES one year, but no one purchased it. Eventually he could no longer afford to continue development.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredpoet
Second, this signals to me that RIM’s “workaround” wasn’t all it was cracked up to be.
Once again, I think your misinformed. If your read the articles about the workaround it was not difficult to realise that it did work, but not nearly as well as the current method. The way I see it, if the work around had to be implemented, RIM would have lost a lot of current and new customers because the product being offer was not as good or mearly equal to the competition.
__________________
Doug

Remember, please try searching first!

Need a screenshot? ... Like JavaLoader?
Try using BBscreen .....Use JL_Cmder!
or BBScreenShooter!

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 02:04 AM   #25 (permalink)
New Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Model: 7100t
Carrier: rogers
Posts: 4
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

RIM does have a working workaround. There's a leaked article describing exactly how it works somewhere in this forum. However, it is not as good as the original technology. So it is the best to keep the orginal design in the interest of people. It is unfortunate that some of the money we pay goes to NTP's pockets, but i think we still need to continue to support company like RIM because they did this settlement for the interest of people. Unlike NTP who just sits there and tries to squeeze every penny out of RIM. They could've settled for 450 million, but ended up getting 612.5. and I'm sure the reason why RIM didn't provide more info on the workaround is because of legal issues. maybe there'll be a patent for this workaround showing up at the patent office... I can never switch to a treo, especially when microsoft is putting their OS on it...
Offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 07:18 AM   #26 (permalink)
Thumbs Must Hurt
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Laurel, MD
Model: 8703
Carrier: verizon
Posts: 55
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckBB
And as soon as the USPTO gives the final ruling, RIM can sue the pants off NTP to get their money back.
I don't think people really understand. It doesnt matter what the USPTO does at this point...when NTP originally filled the law suit, their technology WAS under patent, so what the USPTO does now is irrelevant to that..that is what the judge has been trying to say for months...
Offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 08:11 AM   #27 (permalink)
Grumpy Moderator
 
NJBlackBerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Somewhere in the swamps of Jersey
Model: iPh6
Carrier: AT&T
Posts: 27,820
Post Thanks: 33
Thanked 442 Times in 382 Posts
Default

From today's NY Times:

"Research in Motion agreed that NTP would not have to refund the settlement money under any circumstances. Last week the Patent Office rejected the three patents that were still the focus of the case after the appeals. R.I.M. had insisted last year that NTP not be entitled to any money if it lost the appeal and was unable to save its patents.

For its part, NTP agreed that the settlement would include all of R.I.M.'s customers, particularly wireless carriers. A year ago, R.I.M. was concerned that it would settle the case only to find its service bogged down by lawsuits against the companies that deliver it."
Offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 08:24 AM   #28 (permalink)
BlackBerry Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Model: 8220
Carrier: WiFi hotspot
Posts: 1,009
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Good_Guy
As much as we would love to have the boys in Waterloo join us, I think that between suing Microsoft and Good, Visto's legal department is plenty busy. I don't see them suing RIM.
If it comes to the settlement between Visto and Good, how much money Good can afford to pay? We know that RIM could have gone up to $1.8 billion, but it is the public company for you.

Dare to share amount of Good's cash reserves with us?
Offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 08:31 AM   #29 (permalink)
New Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Model: Most
Carrier: NTT
Posts: 5
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredpoet
Second, this signals to me that RIM’s “workaround” wasn’t all it was cracked up to be. For the longest time we were fed a line that RIM had a workaround and that effectively, they didn’t need to settle. And when experts kept asking the same question we all were - why not just turn the workaround on now and end the case? - there was no answer from RIM. In effect, it feels a lot like Blackberry users were lied to, to give us a false sense of complacency and to prevent more people from researching alternatives. That doesn’t sit well with me.
I feel so strongly about this it made me come out of the shadows and register!

RIM DOES have a workaround. It just happened to inconvenience customers by making them load software on all of their BlackBerry's. RIM had to look at what was the better option: Force customers to "service pack" handhelds and STILL face a possible injunction and more litigation if NTP challenged the workaround too, which you know they would

OR

Settle and have it all over with?

I'd settle too given the situation.
Offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 08:31 AM   #30 (permalink)
Knows Where the Search Button Is
 
scaredpoet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: NJ
Model: iPhon
Carrier: AT&T
Posts: 47
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by d_fisher
I think you are misinformed. NTP never created any products, because the sole purpose of the company was to protect the patents that the orginal inventor filed.
I'm very well informed, thank you very much, and that was my whole point, as well as RIM's point at one time. The setting up of a company for the sole purpose of "protecting" a patent that it has no intention on creating a working product based on it is ethically just as bad as cybersquatting. I could have understood if NTP had hired an engineering and development team and was working on capitalizing on the product.

But, can you show me the URL to NTP's website? What kind of products did they come out with? Do they have a single engineer or product developer on staff anymore?

Quote:
Also, if you read the story about the inventor he did in fact create a working prototype.
Yes yes, I know the story, very very sad. Again, clearly push e-mail is workable technology and in the post-Blackberry environment, I'm sure NTP could have mustered enough capital investment to produce their own product. Good technology did it. Visto did it. Both ended up getting sued, with differing results.

And they couldn't muster this capital to produce something with their patents, yet somehow, NTP managed to pay a staff of lawyers. Very interesting, indeed.

Quote:
Once again, I think your misinformed. If your read the articles about the workaround it was not difficult to realise that it did work, but not nearly as well as the current method. The way I see it, if the work around had to be implemented, RIM would have lost a lot of current and new customers because the product being offer was not as good or mearly equal to the competition.
Let me quote RIM, from the press releases they worked so quickly to obliterate once the settelement was announced. Fortunately, Google doesn't forget so quickly:

Quote:
Although RIM has made
significant underlying changes to the message delivery system and BlackBerry Multi-Mode Edition requires customers to install a software update on
BlackBerry devices and BlackBerry Enterprise Server, customers in the US will not see any changes from current BlackBerry functionality:
• Users will not see any changes in the way they use the BlackBerry device.
• Service providers and IT managers will not see any changes in BlackBerry service or administration.
But, as you say, the workaround wasn't as good as the real thing. Clearly I *was* misinformed, by RIM. So you must agree with me that RIM lied, then! Good!

Something tells me that RIM may not be done with litigation over this matter, as clearly its conduct and representations to users and investors were false and misleading.

Last edited by scaredpoet : 03-04-2006 at 08:35 AM.
Offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 09:15 AM   #31 (permalink)
Thumbs Must Hurt
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Model: 9530
PIN: 30184580
Carrier: Verizon
Posts: 84
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by roofus
Your handle sez it all!
That's an interesting concept. I may not know much about Blackberries, but I'm pretty good when it comes to the law...especially patent law.

We'll leave it at this: You're wrong as a matter of law. If you brought such a lawsuit, you wouldn't survive summary judgment, and might get hit with Rule 11 sanctions.
Offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 09:21 AM   #32 (permalink)
Thumbs Must Hurt
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Model: 9530
PIN: 30184580
Carrier: Verizon
Posts: 84
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by auser
I don't think people really understand. It doesnt matter what the USPTO does at this point...when NTP originally filled the law suit, their technology WAS under patent, so what the USPTO does now is irrelevant to that..that is what the judge has been trying to say for months...
And what I've been trying to explain on here as well. All this talk about suing NTP to get the settlement money back may make you feel good, but it wouldn't go anywhere. I can't even think of a theory on which to proceed. Maybe roofus, esq. can englighten us...

The term permitting NTP to keep the settlement regardless of the USPTO outcome is a contractual term--adding it prevented the settlement from going south like it did a few months ago. Think about it this way: if you knew you were figuratively speaking about 5 minutes away from a judge entering a final order awarding you some huge sum of money and potentialy enjoining the defendant, would YOU sign a settlement dismissing your case that specified you'd give the money back if the USPTO reexam certificate removed the infringed claims?
Offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 09:33 AM   #33 (permalink)
Talking BlackBerry Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Model: 7130e
Carrier: VZW
Posts: 444
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredpoet
But, as you say, the workaround wasn't as good as the real thing. Clearly I *was* misinformed, by RIM. So you must agree with me that RIM lied, then! Good!
Regarding the workaround, you're quoting how an upgraded device will appear to end-users and administrators, but you're being totally ignorant of the fact that the workaround has to be loaded on the BES and all of the devices.

Sure, once loaded, a users device may look/act exactly the same as it did before the workaround was loaded. Neato. Corp. development doesn't have to send a memo out explaining to everyone how to use their "new" BlackBerry.

The fact that the workaround has to be loaded is the real issue. Some folks here administer THOUSANDS of BlackBerrys that would have had to have been reloaded (by hand) to get the workaround installed.

And besides, carriers were testing it, so if it sucked or wasn't all that, someone would have called bullshit by now.

Last edited by aristobrat : 03-04-2006 at 09:38 AM. Reason: I can't spell for crap during single digit hours.
Offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 11:50 AM   #34 (permalink)
Talking BlackBerry Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Model: None
Carrier: Verizon/Sprint
Posts: 299
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Berry One
If it comes to the settlement between Visto and Good, how much money Good can afford to pay? We know that RIM could have gone up to $1.8 billion, but it is the public company for you.

Dare to share amount of Good's cash reserves with us?
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), I don't have access to that information. I know we recently received $20 million in funding, so my thought is that investors aren't too concerned with the lawsuit.
Offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 05:07 PM   #35 (permalink)
Talking BlackBerry Encyclopedia
 
tregrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Tim Buck Too
Model: 7520
Carrier: nextel
Posts: 217
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Who Cares Its Over Lets Get On With Life!!!!!!!!!!

Woo Hoooooooooooo
__________________
7520 Blackberry Nextel
Offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 05:16 PM   #36 (permalink)
Thumbs Must Hurt
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Model: 8300
Carrier: AT&T
Posts: 152
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry7250/4.1.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)

No offense to good guy, but 20 million... Not all that impressive when you consider 600 million or 1.8 billion... Reminds me of when mike myers asks for 1 million dollars.... .
Offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 06:14 PM   #37 (permalink)
Knows Where the Search Button Is
 
scaredpoet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: NJ
Model: iPhon
Carrier: AT&T
Posts: 47
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aristobrat
Regarding the workaround, you're quoting how an upgraded device will appear to end-users and administrators, but you're being totally ignorant of the fact that the workaround has to be loaded on the BES and all of the devices.
Actually, I think I'm taking that into account VERY well. Rim stated it very clearly: neither end users NOR adminsitrators would see adifference in operation. Yet it was said earlier in this thread: "If your read the articles about the workaround it was not difficult to realise that it did work, but not nearly as well as the current method."

Taht signals to me that there significant operations hurdles to overcome. If service would be degraded and "not work as well," I think I'd notice that.


Quote:
And besides, carriers were testing it, so if it sucked or wasn't all that, someone would have called bullshit by now.
Some critics did call bullshit, actually. And the proof is in the pudding: if the workaround really "worked around" the problem, then RIM never would have needed to settle; they could have just flipped it on, and they would no longer be infringing.

RIM is not a charity; they didn't just pay $612 million to NTP's battery of lawyers out of the goodness of their hearts. They paid it because they didn't have a viable option, regardless of them claiming they did.
Offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 07:55 PM   #38 (permalink)
Knows Where the Search Button Is
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: USA
Model: 7250
Carrier: Earthlink
Posts: 28
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Post

Scaredpoet:
Just a few observations -

“For the longest time we were fed a line that RIM had a workaround…”You can’t possibly be saying that they didn’t have a workaround, so it was no “line”.

…and that effectively, they didn’t need to settle.”
Who said that, effectively, RIM didn’t need to settle, based solely on the existence of a workaround?

“In effect, it feels a lot like Blackberry users were lied to, to give us a false sense of complacency and to prevent more people from researching alternatives. That doesn’t sit well with me.”
The irony here is that you are castigating RIM for not sticking to its principles (ie: refusing to settle), despite the many obstacles that, by your own admission, it faced (broken court system, fractured patent system, etc.). According to you, RIM should have sacrificed itself on the altar of business principle, allowing unit sales to continue to fall, stock prices to continue to drop, and customer anxiety levels to continue to climb, just to appease those few customers who would be disgruntled by a settlement with NTP. You demanded (emotionally) such sacrifice from them, yet, highly principled as you claim to be, you refuse to sacrifice anything yourself. I submit,
“For me Blackberry still is (unfortunately) the best device for what I need.”
The Blackberry is the best device for what you need, but it is not the only device that can meet your needs. The other devices just don’t meet your needs as well. Applying your mantra of principled behavior, your next course of action should be to sacrifice your need for the best operational device, and supplant with your need to use a lesser device produced by an altogether more principled company. Get rid of your Blackberry - NOW! Unless you do this, your diatribe against RIM appears to be a bit sanctimonious.

“…and you can bet that if another device DOES emerge that does the job just as well, I'm going to seriously consider it.”Again, principle dictates that you absolutely should not wait. Why line the pockets of a bunch of thieving, lying scumbags? You know, the lying charlatans at RIM, and the thieving magpies at NTP.

Something tells me that RIM may not be done with litigation over this matter, as clearly its conduct and representations to users and investors were false and misleading.
You’re joking, right?

Am I happy that RIM settled? Yes. It puts an end to the anxieties felt by the vast majority of their users. Would I have been happier if circumstances had allowed them to play out the entire patent infringement scenario to the bitter end, without the threat of injunction placing extraordinary demands on the process? Of course. But, such is life. Circumstances dictated another path. I have learned something that, just maybe, hasn’t quite sunk in for you yet.

Life is never all about you.

They paid it because they didn't have a viable option, regardless of them claiming they did. If this was truly the case, I suspect that NTP would have gotten a settlement figure a lot closer to its billion dollar demand. But, who knows? The truth is, neither one of us do.
Offline  
Old 03-05-2006, 09:17 AM   #39 (permalink)
Knows Where the Search Button Is
 
scaredpoet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: NJ
Model: iPhon
Carrier: AT&T
Posts: 47
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

[quote=Silentknight]Scaredpoet:
Just a few observations -

“For the longest time we were fed a line that RIM had a workaround…”You can’t possibly be saying that they didn’t have a workaround, so it was no “line”./[quote]

So why did they need to settle? If this woraround was so darned great and would save the company, why even bother talking to NTP? Why even bother arguing before the court that "2 million man-hours" and approximately $840 per user would be required to make this switch work, why feeding everyone else this line that they actually wouldn't feel a thing?

Quote:
…and that effectively, they didn’t need to settle.”
Who said that, effectively, RIM didn’t need to settle, based solely on the existence of a workaround?
http://canadaeast.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...30572/-1/MONEY

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=969048863851

Lazardis and Basille have both said it. Rim is "prepared for any contingency." Including not settling and having an injuction.

And the fine people here have said it too:

BlackBerry Contingency Plans -- NTP Issue.
1. As mentioned, RIM has developed a workaround already. They can keep running. NTP is out of luck, they can only sue for retroactive damages -- and the network keeps running."

Quote:
“In effect, it feels a lot like Blackberry users were lied to, to give us a false sense of complacency and to prevent more people from researching alternatives. That doesn’t sit well with me.”
The irony here is that you are castigating RIM for not sticking to its principles (ie: refusing to settle), despite the many obstacles that, by your own admission, it faced (broken court system, fractured patent system, etc.).
No, I'm castigating RIM because they lied, and the sooner you accept that, the better off you'll be. They insisted a settlement wasn't necessary to continue operations. Evidently, it was necessary. Please try to keep up.

Quote:
According to you, RIM should have sacrificed itself on the altar of business principle,
Not at all! They only had to do one thing: turn on the workaround, pay retro damages, and walk away. If RIM was telling the truth, the injunction wouldn't have meant a thing. No one would have sacrificed anything except NTP.

Quote:
allowing unit sales to continue to fall, stock prices to continue to drop, and customer anxiety levels to continue to climb,
None of that would have happened at all if RIM actually did have a viable workaround and just turned it on, announcing to users, shareholders and the government that RIM did indeed have the situation well at hand.

Why didn't they just turn it on? I keep asking that question and no one seems to have an answer except that maybe the woraround would have caused serious inconvenience. Which means that when RIM announced that users and administrators "would not notice a change in operation," they lied.

Quote:
just to appease those few customers who would be disgruntled by a settlement with NTP.
Settlements don't disgruntle me. Lying vendors do. I spent an afternoon on Friday decertifying a vendor at work for misrepresenting their capabilities, claiming they perform certain functions for the organization I work for, and later admitting they could not.

In my opinion, RIM very nearly did the same thing. And I know in your fanboy li'l eyes, RIM is the savior and is all knowing and can do no wrong, and that's fine. But the facts bear themselves out.

Quote:
You demanded (emotionally) such sacrifice from them,
You seem to be showing far more emotion than I. All I want to know is how people can tolerate being lied to. because see, in the business, when vendors lie about their capabilities, it hampers the work of the business contracting that work out. And if RIM hadn't blinked, I get the impression that a service we rely on would have either been degraded, or nonexistent.

Quote:
yet, highly principled as you claim to be, you refuse to sacrifice anything yourself.
If your local power company claims that it's disaster-proof, and the next day, a natural disaster wipes out the power grid for three days, are you going to continue to sit there in the dark after the grid's been re-established, on "principle?" Probably not.

If the people you vote for in an election lose, are you going to move to another country, on principle? And if you can't get a Visa or can't afford to move, are you going to shoot yourself, on principle? Probably not.

Unfortunately, RIM provides a service that a lot of corporations and government entities rely on, and they are sadly, best at the game.

I don't like Microsoft either. Unfortunately, the applications I use are not available on Mac or UNIX. That doesn't mean I'm going to not use those apps, like apparently you expect I should.

That said, if something comes out that the does the job equally as well or better, I'm GOING to switch to it.

Quote:
Life is never all about you.
This isn't about life. It's about business. And the last time a business lied to 3 million+ people about its viability, the company was forced into bankruptcy and its corporate officers are on trail now. *shrug* RIM got very lucky. And the next time they get in a bind like this and claim that everything is okay and the world of RIM is all sweetness and mirth, I'm not going to be so naive, that's all. You, evidently, will. Good luck with that!

Last edited by scaredpoet : 03-05-2006 at 09:34 AM.
Offline  
Old 03-05-2006, 09:56 AM   #40 (permalink)
Talking BlackBerry Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Model: 7130e
Carrier: VZW
Posts: 444
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredpoet
They only had to do one thing: turn on the workaround, pay retro damages, and walk away.
How much do you think the retro damages would have been?
Offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On





Copyright © 2004-2014 BlackBerryForums.com.
The names RIM © and BlackBerry © are registered Trademarks of BlackBerry Inc.