Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Is Sued For Patent Violation Over .NET
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat Apr 21, 2007 04:12 AM
from the is-it-weird-to-root-for-the-megacorp-on-this-one dept.
from the is-it-weird-to-root-for-the-megacorp-on-this-one dept.
randomErr writes "As reported by Info World, Microsoft was issued a cease and desist order on February 7 of this year by Vertical Computer Systems. The order was for patent infringement by the current implementations of the .NET framework. Both the .NET framework and Vertical Computer Systems' SiteFlash use XML to create component-based structures that are used to build and operate web sites. Vertical Computer Systems is requesting a full jury trial. If VCS prevails, .NET technology implementations as we know them may completely change and Microsoft would probably have to pay out a hefty sum."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern? (Score:5, Insightful)
"A system and method for generating computer applications in an arbitrary object framework. The method separates content, form, and function of the computer application so that each may be accessed or modified separately."
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
I think I might buy some old IT books, move to America, then patent everything in them.
Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern? (Score:4, Informative)
A method for generating a computer application on a host system in an arbitrary object framework that separates a content of said computer application, a form of said computer application and a functionality of said computer application, said method comprising: creating arbitrary objects with corresponding arbitrary names of various object types for generating said content of said computer application, said form of said computer application, and said functionality of said computer application; managing said arbitrary objects in an object library; and deploying said arbitrary objects from said object library into a design framework to create said computer application. (emphasis mine)
What they've patented is the use of "design mode" with a "toolbox" of object types, in the specific way that visual studio does it.
Parent
Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course. Software patents are evil! Or do you really think it's more important to smack microsoft than to fight for principles?
Parent
Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern? (Score:5, Interesting)
If software patents are evil, then we shouldn't be rooting for Microsoft to win the case. We should be hoping they lose and it makes them start pushing for reform of the system.
Parent
Re:Huh? WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Software patents are written in obscure ways because they don't really exist. A software patent is always describing a system consisting of a computer and software, as only devices are patentable. And they have to make it sound complex, otherwise there would be nothing to patent. There are probably other workarounds the lawyers have to consider to make software patents possible. The legalese is there for a reason, it's because software patents aren't valid by law, only by some court decision made a long time ago, and every lawyer has to make their patent application look like that one!
You can't argue with common sense against stuff like this. That's why lawyers are paid to do the job for you.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Complex is the key word (Score:3, Informative)
Luckily everything I do is pretty simple. I guess complex would apply to
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern? (Score:5, Interesting)
Armchair strategists in the Free Software community have been concerned about Mono and patents from day one, but the reality is that Mono is probably the safest technology on the planet. The reason behind this is simple. If you were going to sue someone over patent infringement would you rather sue Microsoft with its billions of dollars in the bank and millions of customers that rely on every misfeature in its product, or would you rather sue the Mono project which has less money than your average chess club and would happily remove features rather than risk going to court.
The answer is so obvious that it is laughable. If you had a patent that both Mono and .NET used you would almost certainly go after Microsoft. That means that the only company that is likely to sue Mono over patents is Microsoft itself. Even Microsoft knows that if it started suing developers that it would be committing suicide. Ballmer was right when he pointed out that the game is all about developers, and only the stupidest of developers would use Microsoft's technologies for new projects if Microsoft starting suing groups that created technologies that integrated with its development stack. At a certain level everyone that programs is in competition with Microsoft. If Microsoft started throwing its patent weight around developers would flee to other stacks in a hurry.
So what does this mean for Mono? It means that, in this particular case hiding in Microsoft's big shadow is probably the safest place to be. The patent trolls will go after Microsoft and if it turns out that the patent troll actually wins then Mono can always remove the functionality in question long before they face a similar suit. Not that a company that takes a large bite out of Microsoft is going to want to waste money and time trying to shake down a Free Software project.
In the meantime Microsoft will continue to talk big words about Linux and problems with "intellectual property" and the money that is supposedly owed them by Linux users. Ironically this will likely help the patent trolls, like this particular company, in their quest to extract some of Microsoft's money, as it will make it very hard for Microsoft to argue against expensive damages in the case that they lose. After all, Microsoft's own executives have commented any number of times about the need to maintain proper patent licenses.
Parent
And you wonder (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And you wonder (Score:4, Informative)
They are not obliged, as you say, to patent trivial things. It is a clear business decision to take advantage of a terrible system
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
New ideas? This is Microsoft. The standard m.o. seems to focus on taking ideas that are readily available, modifying them in insignificant ways, and calling it "innovation," and then patenting it. This isn't unique to Microsoft, but it's sure a large part of their approach to R&D.
Re:And you wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be so brave to claim your world "the free world". Last time this happened to USA and see where they are now. Europe is on the track to follow them.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft patents a lot because they hope to be able to kill open source competition with it--open source competition they have not been able to outcompete otherwise and where their usual monopolistic tricks have failed as well.
Vertical's patent is, of
A few billions here, a few billions there (Score:4, Funny)
I'm not anti-Microsoft... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm not anti-Microsoft... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's going to reach the point where no software company in america will be able to create anything original at all. That will open the stage for new players, like China, India or the middle east (yes, shock horrer they do have smart people there, and software companies too, amazing isn't it...).
I think that's why microsoft is bricking over Linux et al. While Microsoft is being drown in a shitpool of its own making, Open Source is powering ever onward.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How long until... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How long until... (Score:5, Informative)
Their last 10-K contained a couple of zingers.
"As of the date of the filing of this Report, the Company does not have sufficient funds available to fund its operations, invest in additional resources for growth and repay its debt obligations. Therefore, the Company needs to raise additional funds through selling securities, obtaining loans or increase sales. The Company's inability to raise such funds or renegotiate the terms of its existing debt will significantly jeopardize its ability to continue operations."
"The Company has incurred significant losses from operations for the year ended December 31, 2006. In addition, the Company had a working capital deficit of approximately $10.3 million at December 31, 2006. The foregoing raises substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern. Management's plans include seeking additional capital and/or debt financing. There is no guarantee that additional capital and/or debt financing will be available when and to the extent required, or that if available, it will be on terms acceptable to the Company. The accompanying financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty. Our auditors have included a going-concern paragraph to their audit report."
The entire 10-K makes for interesting reading.
See http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/fetchFilingFr
Parent
Re:How long until... (Score:5, Informative)
Slashdot is based in the US, but it has readership from around the world. Feel free to bitch about actual grammatical or stylistic errors (such as the over-abundance of parenthetical clauses in this post), but don't expect anyone to take you seriously if you try to tell everyone that they have to use your dialect.
Parent
location to develop? (Score:2)
Re:location to develop? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Look, up in the sky (Score:4, Funny)
OMG It's flying chairs from Redmond!
Shut up! It is so old! (Score:2, Insightful)
And we all change our tune... (Score:3, Funny)
Patents: From bad to worse. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Patents: From bad to worse. (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason for this is that if you do, infringement becomes easier to prove for anyone who does happen to sue you, because they can point at you and say "See, these programmers did patent research in this area, then produced a product and/or filed a patent on stuff that does what my stuff does" and if they win, then they will do better in the damages phase because they can present evidence showing willful infringement.
The bottom line was, leave any patent research, including the decision of whether or not to do it, up to the legal department. Don't get anywhere near it yourself.
Parent
The whole concept (Score:5, Interesting)
One problem is that patents are filed and granted for "inventions" that has too low technical merits. By raising the standard requirements for patents this may help things a bit. One problem is also that the patent offices gets their revenue from the patents, and that doesn't help a bit. Instead that causes the patent offices to grant patents based on the fact that they get the money from it!
In today's world with software development it's a complete minefield to have patents on software. In the end it will limit the functionality of the software we use and require us to pay more for less.
When it comes to copyright, the issue is a bit more complicated. Movies and music has a rather long market lifetime, so a decades issue shouldn't be a problem here. When it comes to computer software the issue is different. In my opinion the copyright should be rendered invalid for commercial software packages whenever support for it is terminated. (Think MS-DOS, CP/M etc.) Even on movies and music there should be a "bail-out" option that allows for the copyright to be released. E.g. when the copyright holder no longer can be located with reasonable efforts.
Other affected (Score:5, Insightful)
Adobe's FLEX platform (the XML language being MXML)
Sun's Java JSP
W3C (the language being.. XHTML)
as well as smaller players like Laszlo and a myriad of other platforms with a procedural part and declarative part in XML (including platforms I've written myself for PHP and Java).
It's laughable, I hope the court acknowledges the loads of prior art. Few years ago someone patented interactrive CMS system (i.e. web appsf or managing sites) and the community was outraged, as the patent was directed straight at everyone using Java/Flash/JS for creating online CMS systems in the form of rich internet applications. The "reference" implementation used Flash.
Nothing came out of it. My advice is don't worry and let Microsoft take care of those clowns (hopefully this doesn't pan out like the Eolas case).
Kodak vs. Sun set a precedent for this (Score:4, Interesting)
Kodak won $1 billion from Sun [com.com] for (spurious?) patent violations in Java. I would not be surprised to see MS lose this fight.
And considering how similar C# and Java are, I'm surprised Kodak isn't alleging the same patent violation.
Not anywhere near a billion (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Can't Microsoft fight back? (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's propagate some FUD (Score:5, Funny)
LEGAL WARNING:
If you use
Using Microsoft products is a legal minefield!!!
You should consult your legal department before purchasing any Microsoft product.
Does this affect Mono? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I assume from the description that this is referring to XAML, which is a format for expressing an arbitrary heirarchy of objects usually GUI controls in XML. This was introduced in .NET Framework 3 as part of the new Windows Presentation Foundation. The Olive project [mono-project.com] over at Mono is aiming to implement this new stuff, and reportedly does have a XAML implementation, but they don't yet have any completed implementations of the GUI widgets XAML is usually used for.
So I guess the answer is "maybe". :)
Re:Does this affect Mono? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Does this affect Mono? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
MVC? (Score:3)
Sounds like Smalltalk and a serialised Model View Controller to me. Using XML for the resource file isn't exactly rocket science either since that's the sort of thing XML was designed for.
TWW
This is why GPLv3 encumbers patents (Score:4, Insightful)
Open source developers have no such protection. It's exactly why Sendmail rejected using Microsoft's patented "SenderID", as described by Eric Allman here . And it's exactly why GPLv3 has all this complex and oddly writtten patent material (at ), as mentioned in other old Slashdot stories. Even if you think it's silly, or think that software patents are a burden to the market that should be thrown the heck out. it's a necessary licensing step to protect us from this sort of whackiness.
I hope the Mono project can be re-licensed under GPLv3 to avoid repercussions from this sort of suit.
Some basic background information (Score:5, Informative)
Claim 1. A method for generating a computer application on a host system in an arbitrary object framework that separates a content of said computer application, a form of said computer application and a functionality of said computer application, said method comprising: creating arbitrary objects with corresponding arbitrary names of various object types for generating said content of said computer application, said form of said computer application, and said functionality of said computer application; managing said arbitrary objects in an object library; and deploying said arbitrary objects from said object library into a design framework to create said computer application.
This grants the patent owner all rights to royalties to a system that any third party brings to the market within the time frame of validity of this patent, and that uses this method.
In technical terms it is obvious; and probably anticipated a few hundred times. In legal terms this is different. As patent examiner you'll find yourself in a quagmire: you may have prior art for the concept, but not for the wording. I agree, that anticipating the concept should be enough. But the vultures of lawyers will pull you apart within minutes, and the chambers and courts of appeal will usually folllow (and your bosses rebuke your rejection of the application). You will be asked for a document to anticipate the wording, and that might not exist.
Only in high-profile cases will the parties drill down to the concepts. Why ? Because that is very costly, and if nobody forks out these costs, the average examiner will have to grant.
Of course, the wording is overly broad. But try to cite a 'library' against it: would it be a 'object library' ? Is pulling in a function ('printf') pulling in a function of a 'object library' when C is doubtlessly not object oriented ? Let us continue with the 'object framework'; more so one that separates: content - form - functionality. Where in the 'prior art' cited here can we make out 'various object types' (not one, that is !). How do you anticipate the 'managing
FYI: All this would have to be anticipated in a (usually) single document, before October 1, 1999.
No, I am not all trying to defend the vultures of applicants. This patent ought to never have been granted.
But one should keep the following in mind as well: The USPTO was never willing to grant software patents, actually refused to do so, but was - in the 1981 case of Diamond v. Diehr - forced to do so by the U.S. Supreme Court. It was not the - then - P.T.O. that started the insanity. It wasn't your House of Representatives or the Senate. Though the House would be very much encouraged to change the legal framework
Re:Some basic background information (Score:5, Interesting)
There are three things one must keep in mind in figuring out exactly what is covered by a patent. Fundamentally it is the claims that measure the invention, not the title or abstract, or random pieces of the specification. However, the language and terms in the specification must be interpreted in light of the description given in the specification. So, if a term in a claim is an "object library", for example, it wpould be interpreted as this term is discussed in the description. Finally, and relevant to the failing pointed out in the previous paragraph, the scope of the claims is further qualified by the back and forth of the comments and arguments made by the examiner and the applicant. If the applicant tries to avoid a rejection by arguing that a prior art reference feature is not covered by some limitation in the claim the applicant will be bound to this interpretation in any infringement action should a patent be issued. One of the purposes of making rejections, even if it might not be spot on a limitation is to flush out and clarify such possible ambiguities. This is particularly applicable here where an examiner decides to allow a claim previously rejected with no further limitation added. If an applicant is going to squeeze through a narrow "hole" in the prior art not coverable by an obviousness rejection it is important to make sure it is as narrow as possible. By failing to engage the attorney's arguments in the following rejections here the examiner weakened this aspect of prosecution. Instead it looks pretty much like set arguments back and forth, with the examiner essentially saying "OK, I give up, you win" with no further comment.
Fianlly, I see that a continuation [uspto.gov] has been filed, but, so far, has been stripped to just claim 1 of the issued patent (with one misspelling). There will clearly be a preliminary amendment filed with claims applicant wants to prosecute, but have no idea what this might be.
Parent
What about WSC (Windows Script Components)? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like any application framework to me. Just because the language syntax is different, why should it be patentable just because it's XML? This was granted in 2004, what about MS's own WSC (Windows Script Component) component architecture fro mth lat 1990's? Isn't that the predecessor to
I love software patents (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone should take this opportunity let's just have ideas of how to combine the different available technologies with different objectives and PATENT THEM! I don't even think we have to produce anything.
Let's patent "A method to sort an array by swapping specific indexes"
This becomes interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
New patent used, can't see (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Whichever view you take, everyone can appreciate the irony. Haha indeed!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)