• Add to Collection
  • About

    About

    These links take you to documents that have been filed in New York for my cases against Research In Motion. I am claiming inventorship!
    Published:
Mahmood v. Research in Motion Ltd. - Document 71

Court Description: OPINION & ORDER: For the reasons set forth above, this Court finds that laches presents an entire defense to plaintiff's inventorship claim. Plaintiff's action is therefore DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate this action. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 5/16/2012) (pl) Modified on 5/16/2012 (pl).

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2011cv05345/382760/71
Mahmood v. Research in Motion Ltd. - Document 35

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER re: 11 MOTION to Dismiss the Complaint Pursuant to Rules 8(a) and 12(b)(6) of the FRCP filed by Research in Motion Ltd., 24 MOTION for Discovery Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) filed by Tahir Mahmood. P laintiff's motion for discovery pursuant to Rule 56(d) is DENIED. For the reasons set forth above, summary judgment is DENIED as to Count I, and GRANTED as to Counts II-IV. Counts II-IV are DISMISSED with prejudice. This action shall proceed solely with respect to Count I. The parties are directed to confer on a schedule for discovery and to submit a proposed schedule to the Court no later than February 6, 2012. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 1/23/2012) (mro)

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2011cv05345/382760/35
Who invented the "SINGLE MAILBOX"
 
VIS000F ::§  MS MailDON
MCMURTRYINTERNET:DMCMURT@rmotion.on.ca c ::MS MailDON
MCMURTRYINTERNET:DMCMURT@rmotion.on.caTahir Mahmood100103,1215
  2        195-31925                 §               Sender:
dmcmurt@rmotion.on.ca
Received: from seraph.uunet.ca by dub-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.941228sam)
    id VAA26342; Wed, 3 May 1995 21:42:04 -0400
Received: from rmotion by mail.uunet.ca with UUCP id <193434-4>; Wed,
3 May 1995 21:43:40 -0400
Received: from rimnet by rmotion.on.ca (4.1/SMI-4.1)
    id AA12971; Wed, 3 May 95 21:27:10 EDT
Received: by rimnet with Microsoft Mail
    id <2FA83046@rimnet>; Wed, 03 May 95 21:39:18 EDT
From: DON MCMURTRY <DMCMURT@rmotion.on.ca>
To: Tahir Mahmood <100103.1215@compuserve.com>
Subject: MS Mail
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 21:34:00 -0400
Message-Id: <2FA83046@rimnet>
Encoding: 59 TEXT
X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0
 
 
Tahir,
 
Tomorrow I will speak with the engineer who I asked to look at the
appliation.   There are a series of visitors through the office this week
(including tomorrow and Friday) so it will likely be Friday or Monday before
Barry gets to take a good look at the software.
 
MS Mail is certainly an important product in the LAN-based e-mail business.
There is a company which has claimed the ability to have a "good solution"
for wireless access to LAN-based e-mail, however we have not seen their
solutions yet.  "Good" solution is used to differentiate from the first
cc:Mail Remote and MS Mail Remote implementations based on a circuit
switched emulation using the AT Mobidem. MS Mail Remote over Mobitex
suffered from poor performance because the application was designed for a
low-latency connection where sending lots of small acks and packets was not
a problem.
 
The AT solution was very important two years ago when it jump-started the
ability of many popular applications to use Mobitex. RIM has been the
leading promoter of simplified Mobitex connectivity for many years. As you
may know, Ericsson contracted RIM to write the firmware inside the Ericsson
X.28 and AT Mobidem. We have been involved with connectivity solutions for a
variety of companies such as Compuserve, AT&T Mail, HP and many others.
 
The new RAD-Tools however take the connectivity one step further by allowing
multiple applications to have simultaneous access to the radio modem AND
using multple standard interfaces such as the older Hayes AT, as well as
DDE, DLL, WINSOCK, and the file-based facility of RAD-I/O that you have
used.
 
The critical issue has always been the "two mailbox problem".  The ideal
solution is being able to have all of your internet and LAN-based mail
coming into a single mailbox. When away from the office you simply retrieve
the messages desired. This seems to be exactly what you have implemented.
 
One year ago when we first introduced RAD-I/O we demonstrated three RAD-I/O
interface programs (we call them "agents" or "RIOs"). One of the programs
was for cc:Mail and one was for MS Mail and a third was for wireless fax.
Our implementations were not designed to be commercial releases, just to be
examples of what could be done with RAD-I/O.  The problem was someone on the
LAN was required to send a message to either "Tahir" or to "mobile_Tahir".
 
The overall objective was to demonstrate that existing applications could
quickly be created that were non-realtime interfaces to big-name
applications - and clearly that was achieved. Your work makes a clear
demonstration that the learning curve to Mobitex is very manageable. To
build your application two years ago would have required at least 6 months
and it would not be compatible with any other application.
 
So ........  to answer your question, MS Mail is the #1 LAN-based email
package. There are millions of users. System administrators understand it,
and are comfortable with the bridges and gateways that link it to the
Internet. Having a single mailbox which can be reached from anywhere is a
powerful and exciting idea.  Yes MS Mail is important in our opinion.
 
Sorry for making this e-mail a little long, but I thought the background
might be helpful.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Lazaridis and Mousseau invented and patented a method and the technology to solve the single mailbox challenge. This approach mirrored a corporate user's e-mail account, essentially making RIM's handheld an extension of the desktop inbox.
Recording of the Oral Argument that took place on 5 June 2013.  Part 1
Recording of the Oral Argument that took place on 5 June 2013.  Part 2