Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Government Microsoft The Courts News

Microsoft's Patent Problem 712

Posted by timothy from the halt dept.
pens writes "Microsoft suffered utter defeat at a crucial pretrial hearing in what appears to be the highest-stakes patent litigation ever--one in which a tiny company called InterTrust Technologies claims that 85% of Microsoft's entire product line infringes its digital security patents."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft's Patent Problem More

Microsoft's Patent Problem

Comments Filter:

  • Oh great (Score:5, Funny)

    by Frothy Walrus ( 534163 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:18PM (#6515459)
    Here come all the knee-jerk rally-behind-Microsoft comments.

    • Re:Oh great (Score:4, Funny)

      by SN74S181 ( 581549 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:27PM (#6515609)
      Oh, I forgot. Software patents are good on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Unless the entity enforcing the patent is suing a Free Software project...

      • Re:Oh great (Score:5, Interesting)

        by spirality ( 188417 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:58PM (#6515980) Homepage
        Actually in principal the whole patent/copyright system is a mess. This is just another symptom of it. What would be nice is if Microsoft woke up to that reality and began lobbying for some changes. Certainly they have some pull in Washington...

    • This actually sucks (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:36PM (#6515720)
      Ok, let me say first I hate all that Microsoft stands for. Having to use (and support) their software sickens me. However, this type of dispute is indicative of the major problems today with IP patents. Broad process patents such as these will hurt us all in the end, tying up the courts, infringing upon many "good" companies needs to innovate their software products.

      While i would like to hammer M$ as much as anyone, this is just the tip of the iceberg for litigation and everyone will feel the pain sometime soon..

      • Re:This actually sucks (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Paul d'Aoust ( 679461 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:51PM (#6515924)

        If I had mod points I'd mod the parent as "insightful"... I agree strongly with the sentiment expressed therein. I would love to see Mickeysoft go down, but not at the hands of a bunch of guys with an IP portfolio. A situation like that would further engender this whole miserable environment of "intellectual property" enforcement.

        The ends don't justify the means, especially in this case!

        • Re:This actually sucks (Score:5, Insightful)

          by sniggly ( 216454 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:18PM (#6516628) Journal
          What if you have a company with hundreds of workers, you developed a piece of code, you patent it, you show it to another company (assuming non disclosure and all). Then that other company won't buy or license it. But they use it anyway, and put it in most of their brand name products.

          Wouldnt you seek legal redress if you could? There is a real difference between this and SCO, SCO hasn't shown us evidence of their ownership of code, these guys apparently have convinced a judge in 30 out of 33 cases that their patent should be enforced.

      • Re:This actually sucks (Score:5, Insightful)

        by stwrtpj ( 518864 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @06:28PM (#6516252) Journal
        While i would like to hammer M$ as much as anyone, this is just the tip of the iceberg for litigation and everyone will feel the pain sometime soon..

        This is an excellent comment.

        This is why I get sick of hearing the hyprocrites on /. who keep slavering for IBM to bludgeon SCO with its patent portfolio. You can't have it both ways. You either hate software patents in all cases or you don't, no matter who the defendant is.

        • Re:This actually sucks (Score:4, Interesting)

          by orcrist ( 16312 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:51PM (#6516962)
          You can't have it both ways.

          Though I agree the parent comment was very insightful, I think I could have it both ways. One of the reasons I dislike Microsoft (Or at least its business practices) is because of the degree they have egendered/exacerbated the very IP problem mentioned in the parent comment. I don't think it's the tip of the iceberg per se, since MS itself was the tip, middle, and a good portion of the bottom of the iceberg. It would be a pleasure to see them suffer the literal consequences of their actions and it would be (at least) poetic justice, with the added bonus of knowing they would be forced to at least partly aid the fight against such patents and similar ip claims.

          Though I must admit I'm not too optimistic that it will necessarily turn out that rosy :-( Still, I don't see any moral ambiguity or double standard in my hopes.

          -Chris

          • Re:This actually sucks (Score:5, Insightful)

            by the gnat ( 153162 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @08:58PM (#6517470)
            One of the reasons I dislike Microsoft (Or at least its business practices) is because of the degree they have egendered/exacerbated the very IP problem mentioned in the parent comment.

            With regards to software piracy, perhaps - although I tend towards Microsoft's side in that case. However, they have been relatively less agressive in enforcing patents. Bill Gates himself pointed out more than years ago that the growing patent frenzy would have prevented the past few decades of technical advances, if companies had been that zealous when the computer was invented. Thus, he said, Microsoft would have to be constantly on the lookout for other companies (specifically, large ones like IBM) who would try to screw it with patents - the solution being, therefore, for Microsoft itself to assemble a defensive patent portfolio.

            Microsoft has definitely used the threat of litigation to scare off competition in a few cases, and they've made rumbling noises about various open-source projects that aim for compatability. However, they've never truly used their patents for outright extortion, unlike *cough* IBM and seem generally content to sit on their portfolio unless directly threatened. I don't trust them for a second, but I'm not going to attack them without cause.

        • Re:This actually sucks (Score:5, Funny)

          by JCCyC ( 179760 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:52PM (#6516970) Journal
          You either hate software patents in all cases or you don't, no matter who the defendant is.

          Yeah, right, Microsoft will see the error of their ways and defend Free Software from patents, because, well, they're moral beings and would never use double standards.

        • Re:This actually sucks (Score:4, Insightful)

          by benjamindees ( 441808 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @08:02PM (#6517033) Homepage
          You either hate software patents in all cases or you don't, no matter who the defendant is.

          You either hate shootings in all cases or you don't, no matter who the victim is.

          When it's your grandma shooting someone who tries to mug her, you'd change your mind.

          Overly-broad patents don't hurt people, people who use overly-broad patents as a weapon hurt people.

      • Re:This actually sucks (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jonathanbearak ( 451601 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @06:35PM (#6516324)
        If a company as large as Microsoft suffers because of bullshit patents, maybe our legislators will finally do something about it.

        This may be a machiavellian idea, but if I had to pick a corporation to finally get in trouble because of this kind of nonsense, Microsoft is a good choice.

      • Re:This actually sucks (Score:5, Interesting)

        by jafac ( 1449 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @06:38PM (#6516339) Homepage
        It's like the end of Jurassic Park, when the kids and the scientists are all cornered by the Velociraptors, and suddenly, the T-Rex comes along, and tries to eat one of the Velociraptors, and then the other two attack the T-Rex, and the humans escape.

        It's great when two evils decide to attack eachother.

        This is why competition is good, and monopolies are bad.

        The US Govt - by the way, has a monopoly on awarding patents.

      • Re:This actually sucks (Score:5, Funny)

        by MyHair ( 589485 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:04PM (#6516542) Journal
        Ok, let me say first I hate all that Microsoft stands for.

        That's not very fair. They make nice mice and keyboards!

    • Re:Oh great (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Flower ( 31351 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @06:15PM (#6516133) Homepage
      The enemy of the enemy is my friend. I consider software patents to be a much higher order of evil than MS can ever be.

      If this suit got MS into buying some patent reform I am completely behind their efforts. If it doesn't then let them hang.

  • Pipe Dream (Score:4, Interesting)

    by (54)T-Dub ( 642521 ) * <[tpaine] [at] [gmail.com]> on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:18PM (#6515460) Journal
    If settlement talks fail and InterTrust prevails in court, it would be entitled to a court order halting sales of all those products.

    It'll never happen ... but hey ... we can dream right?

    An investor group led by Sony Corp. of America and Royal Philips Electronics bought the company in January for $453 million, hoping to convince consumer electronics and tech companies--beginning with Microsoft--of the need to license its patents.

    This eliminates the buy-out option.

    • Re:Pipe Dream (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GreyPoopon ( 411036 ) <[gpoopon] [at] [gmail.com]> on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:34PM (#6515697)
      This eliminates the buy-out option.

      Yes, but it doesn't completely eliminate the possibility of Microsoft buying the patent itself. If all patent rights are passed to Microsoft, they would have just the bargaining chip they need to prevent anybody else (including OSS) from developing competing security products. They'd just make the price tag for licensing use of the patented technology high enough to discourage people.

    • Re:Pipe Dream (Score:5, Insightful)

      by robinthecandystore ( 65190 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:39PM (#6515767)

      This eliminates the buy-out option.

      Actually, not really. Sony and Royal Philips could use this to their advantage. We all know that Sony complained [yahoo.com] about microsoft trying to change their licensing deal after <cough> the settlement with the doj. Maybe they can use this as a bargaining chip with MS? They could haggle for a better OEM licensing deal and hold this over MS or they could possibly just force MS to license their IP. Or just force MS to pay (insert X billion here) for the company

      OTOH what do I know :-)

  • 2 Questions... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by calebb ( 685461 ) * on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:19PM (#6515468) Homepage Journal
    2 Questions...

    ...and rebuked the company's lawyers for wasting her time by promising proof that never materialized--legal vaporware, in essence.

    As far as I can tell, the patents that InterTrust owns cover the technology; They don't go into details on accomplishing what they describe.

    Q1. What if Microsoft developed a way to carry out their authentication (using these trusts) either
    1. On their own or
    2. Without even hearing about InterTrust's patent?

    Q2.In the case of #2, everyone is probably saying "It doesn't matter..." but if this was the case, how would/did InterTrust find out about it? Microsoft doesn't leave their source code lying around the internet; Now they do give SDK's, but (at least prior to .NET framework), the SDK is vague on how things like authentication happen. If you want to learn about NTLM, you need to go to a site like Security Focus. [securityfocus.com] The helpfile in any SDK that Microsoft releases will not talk about the underlying technology (or lack thereof...heh)

    Of course, I'm not against suing Microsoft, but I'm just curious as to how this whole suit came up... Maybe someone else out there can enlighten me?

    • Re:2 Questions... (Score:3, Informative)

      by Tmack ( 593755 )
      Q1. What if Microsoft developed a way to carry out their authentication (using these trusts) either
      1. On their own or
      2. Without even hearing about InterTrust's patent?

      That's what patents are for. They protect your "invention" against any other thing being developed that is the same. It doesnt matter if you never saw theirs, or even knew of a patent. The inventor is responsible for searching for pre-existing patents. A patent is different from a Copyright, where knowledge of existance might be important.

      Tm

      • Re:2 Questions... (Score:4, Informative)

        by randolfe ( 73819 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:45PM (#6515843) Homepage
        That's what patents are for. They protect your "invention" against any other thing being developed that is the same. It doesnt matter if you never saw theirs, or even knew of a patent. The inventor is responsible for searching for pre-existing patents. A patent is different from a Copyright, where knowledge of existance might be important.

        Actually, you are not correct, although your position is commonly believed by most people today. In fact, developing something without knowledge of a pre-existing patent _can_ be a legitimate defense in many cases. Specifically, if you can show that, by using a body of existing art/knowledge, the "logical/natural" conclusion would be your invention, then the pre-existing patent can be ruled invalid. Case in point, the infamous patenting of XOR as applied to mouse cursor graphics. Although some jackass patented it (was actually granted a patent through the US Patent Office), it was thrown out as a logical, natural, and foreseeable application of a commonly known concept.

    • Re:2 Questions... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mjh ( 57755 ) <mark@ho[ ]lan.com ['rnc' in gap]> on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:34PM (#6515691) Homepage Journal
      Q1. What if Microsoft developed a way to carry out their authentication (using these trusts) either 1. On their own or 2. Without even hearing about InterTrust's patent?

      This guy is not claiming copyright infringement. Therefore he doesn't need to see the source code to determine whether or not infringement occurred. He simply needs to see a program which implements (via any source code) a technique that he's patented.

      Let's use an example of what I mean. Mailblocks [mailblocks.com] claim that they have a patent on an antispam technique called "Challenge/Response". Then comes along Earthlink who implements a C/R antispam option for their customers. Mailblocks sues Earthlink. Now Mailblocks hasn't seen any of the source code to the software that Earthlink uses. But they know that they have a patent on what earthlink is doing, because they can interract with it and identify whether or not Earthlink's system implements all of the claims of Mailblocks' patent. Then they file suit.

      BTW, I don't particularly like the patent claim that Mailblocks is using. I think that there is a *LOT* of prior art that can be demonstrated for this particular patent. However it is useful to illustrate the point: that this guy does not need to see Microsoft's source code to claim patent infringement. He only needs to play with the software and see if it does something that he's patented.

    • Re:2 Questions... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Meridun ( 120516 ) * on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:35PM (#6515711) Homepage
      This is not copyright infringement, this is patent infringement.

      If someone accuses you of infringing on their copyright by stealing sourcecode, you can disprove them if you show that your sourcecode bears no resemblance to theirs.

      If someone accuses you of violating their patent, you must prove that your invention falls outside the scope of their patent OR that their patent is invalid due to prior art.

      Therefore, your questions of how they got the code aren't terribly relevant. As for how InterTrust noticed that they were using patented techniques, well, I assume they probably keep up in the field and read some of Microsoft's whitepapers. Again, patents cover a scope of techniques, rather than an exact set of code instructions, so it's possible to gauge infringement without a sourcecode comparison in some cases.

    • Re:2 Questions... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Cyno ( 85911 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:57PM (#6515968) Journal
      Just watch for InterTrust's board of execs to start selling stock any day now. Can't wait 'til they start offering new licenses for Windows. I just might pick up a few if they give me a good discount.

      Isn't this great? I didn't understand what everyone meant about all the oportunity here in America until I saw that just about anyone can claim ownership of any property, even Linux and Windows, just by leveraging the legal system.

      I'll never have to work another day in my life. :)

  • WOW!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by JoeLinux ( 20366 ) <joelinux@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:21PM (#6515498)
    Let there be singing in the street! MS could be struck down! Oh happy day! May their quivering entrails be picked apart by Sun, MS, and IBM.

    May they eternally be peeing into the wind.

    May the public works decree that the road never rise to meet them.

    May MS's stock go so low that Billy Boy OWES money.

    May we hear him utter the words, "Would you like fries with that?"

  • Lesser of two Evils? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sleepingsquirrel ( 587025 ) * <{Greg.Buchholz} ... ingsquirrel.org}> on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:21PM (#6515499) Homepage Journal
    This presents quite a dilemma. Do I root for Microsoft and hope quell the tide of overly broad patents? Or do I root for InterTrust and hope this derails DRM for the time being? I guess I'm leaning toward the option where the trial drags out for two years, but MS eventually wins. That way at least the patent gets busted (because we know that MS would eventually license and implement DRM anyway).

    • Re:Lesser of two Evils? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Yohahn ( 8680 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:32PM (#6515675)
      Root for MicroSoft, if we get overly broad patents taken care of, MicroSoft will have one less weapon against Linux.

      At the same time, laugh at the irony

    • Re:Lesser of two Evils? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Godeke ( 32895 ) * on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:42PM (#6515797)
      In the long run Microsoft will simply license the patent. There is no way that they would allow themselves to be prevented from shipping product, and at the point that it is clear that the legal team has failed, a vast quantity of cash will appear.

      Frankly, would wish that Microsoft would win this one, because I would prefer that they come up with a way to make patents less of an issue in the industry than to have the tempo of lame patents increase due to a jackpot payout. However, I suspect a license will be negotiated. It mare come dearly after this legal fumble however.

      • They had that option. Burn M$, burn! (Score:4, Interesting)

        by twitter ( 104583 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @11:03PM (#6518154) Homepage Journal
        Microsoft will simply license the patent. There is no way that they would allow themselves to be prevented from shipping product

        They could have done this from the start, but it's obvious that the company with a patent on a "secure operating system" has no respect for other people's "intelectual property". How absurd it was for them to argue that Intertrusts patents were, too vague to be enforceable, and that others required such narrow interpretation that they would have been hard for Microsoft to infringe.

        One thing's for sure, neither Microsoft nor patent law can win. Without strong patent law, Microsoft will fall to superior free software. If Microsoft wins, patent law suffers. If they lose, they can be ruined and that would be shocking. It would be better for Microsoft to lose.

        The absurdity of patent law must be demonstrated and this is a great way to do it. Patent law has worked to the disadvantage of others and should work to Microsoft's disadvantage too. Microsoft's defeat and ruin by forgein firms might just shock the US population into examining and overturning the laws that idiots like Bill Gates pushed for. Sony and Philips have invested more than half a billion dollar in this 30 person firm and patent portfolio. It is right and fitting that Microsoft be destroyed by the laws they helped create and then used to abuse others. It will be sweeter still if their destruction leads to the end of software patents.

        Who am I kidding? Microsoft is going to win, patent law will continue to be available to the hightest bidder and US courts will still be the finest money can buy. It will be interesting but I'm not going to hold my breath.

    • Re:Lesser of two Evils? (Score:5, Funny)

      by FauxPasIII ( 75900 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @06:11PM (#6516098)
      > This presents quite a dilemma.

      Lighten up, Mr. Glass is Half Empty, look at it this way: in a battle between Microsoft and Trivial Software Patents 'r' Us, the bad guys will DEFINITELY lose.

  • Another Fine Mess (Score:5, Interesting)

    by druske ( 550305 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:21PM (#6515503)
    While it's tempting to get a laugh out of a little company handing it to Microsoft for its use of DRM technology, of all things, this is yet another B.S. piece of patent litigation. InterTrust, according to the article, is now nothing more than "a patent portfolio, 30 employees, and this lawsuit." Microsoft, like all other technology corporations, has its own bulky patent portfolio --- which is useless defense against a company that makes no use of its own patents, much less anyone else's.

    It'd be funny if Microsoft used its considerable political influence to fix this patent problem, and wound up killing SCO as a side-effect. Hey, it may be cheaper than licensing DRM from InterTrust...

    • Re:Another Fine Mess (Score:5, Informative)

      by binaryDigit ( 557647 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:28PM (#6515613)
      While it's tempting to get a laugh out of a little company handing it to Microsoft for its use of DRM technology

      Read the article, InterTrust is owned jointly by Sony and Phillips. This is NOT David vs Goliath. It states that Sony/Phillips bought the company with the explicit intention of going after companies armed with the patent portfolio. Call it what you will, but this is not Good vs Evil, this is Evil vs Evil.

      Also, don't miss another statement made about Microsoft just being the first. They wanted to go after the big fish, so all the other fish will fall in line once the big one falls.

      • Re:Another Fine Mess (Score:5, Insightful)

        by DF5JT ( 589002 ) <slashdot@bloatware.de> on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:31PM (#6516772) Homepage
        " [...] InterTrust is owned jointly by Sony and Phillips. This is NOT David vs Goliath. It states that Sony/Phillips bought the company with the explicit intention of going after companies armed with the patent portfolio. Call it what you will, but this is not Good vs Evil, this is Evil vs Evil."

        That, my friend, is a question of perspective.

        Sony and Philips are not exactly monolithic enterprises, but consist of two distinct competitors in anything with regard to entertainment products. However, Sony and Philips have always been interested in establishing firm and open standards, see DAT, see CD.

        Them winning a case in DRM would mean nothing but a victory for the user, because they will not use the technique as their salespitch, but distribution of contents with open standards. I prefer that very much more than leaving all mechanisms with regard to DRM in the hand of one company that firmly believes in controlling and selling the patented mechanisms of enforcing DRM.

        Evil vs. Evil?

        Hardly.

        • Re:Another Fine Mess (Score:4, Insightful)

          by xigxag ( 167441 ) on Thursday July 24, 2003 @01:12AM (#6518723)
          Sony? Open? Sony makes good quality products but they love to push their proprietary technology. MagicGate Memory Sticks, MD, memory MagicGate Memory Sticks, Palm OS w/ proprietary extensions, DDCD (w/ Philips), 2.88Mb ED disks, etc. And I'm pretty sure they were among the first to massively copy protect their Japanese music releases. Their plan is world domination, just like Microsoft. They just do it with products that people love, instead of products that people hate but have no choice except to use.

    • Re:Another Fine Mess (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jd ( 1658 ) <imipak@yahoGINSBERGo.com minus poet> on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:31PM (#6515659) Homepage Journal
      Consider this. About the only way the Government can intervene and preserve Microsoft is to weaken patents, especially software patents.


      In other words, they've been left with the choice of killing the patient OR killing the disease. They can't keep both.


      InterTrust's suit is essentially identical to SCO's, and may well have been prompted by it. Either as a defensive strategy ("if they win, we win by default, and if we lose, so do they"), or it may be part of a simpler, more brain-dead, but ultimately more common strategy of "reap in the cash while pillaging is in style!".


      Either way, it's going to get the attention of The Powers That Be, who really are faced with the nightmare scenario - to preserve Bill Gates' empire, they have to cripple the very mechanisms that Microsoft and other large corporations have used to create those empires in the first place.


      Microsoft -could- pull another Windows 95 -> Windows 98 stunt, as they did with the first round of anti-trust action. But they'll have to be quick, and now that they've been found a monopoly, it might not be quite so easy.

      • Intertrust and SCO (Score:5, Informative)

        by ucblockhead ( 63650 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:36PM (#6515733) Homepage Journal
        Intertrust's suit could hardly prompted by SCOs as it has been wending its way through the court system for two years now. It's a company that was trying to sell DRM "technology" but could not because of Microsoft's fun competitive tactics. It currently has no assets other than patents because it essentially ran out of money (at which point Sony and Philips bought it to keep this lawsuit going.)

  • Looks like a win-win to me (Score:5, Funny)

    by Thoguth ( 203384 ) * on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:22PM (#6515504) Homepage
    Hey, this could be good either way it turns out. On one hand, if anybody has the legal/political muscle to reform software patent silliness it's Microsoft.

    On the other hand, if InterTrust wins the patent licensing fees will probably make DRM much less of a nuisance, at least for another 14 years. And it will totally kick MS in the balls.

    • Re: Nope a lose-lose (Score:5, Insightful)

      by binaryDigit ( 557647 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:32PM (#6515673)
      On the other hand, if InterTrust wins the patent licensing fees will probably make DRM much less of a nuisance,

      Nope, it just means legit things like the iTunes Music Store and BuyMusic will have to charge more money to cover the licensing costs. It means that other attempts to figure ways to legitimatly allow users inexpensive online access to content will be stalled/aborted. It means that the RIAA and their ilk will continue to have a convenient excuse to go after file sharers because there STILL won't be a viable legal alternative.

  • Who to root for? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Hayzeus ( 596826 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:22PM (#6515507) Homepage
    Hmmmm. Microsoft? The legal, leeches attempting to enforce software patents? A true /.er's Dilemma (tm)!

  • really... (Score:5, Funny)

    by lurgyman ( 587233 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:22PM (#6515509)
    If you were a security software company, would you really want to advertise that you were at all responsible for the security behind any M$ product?

  • Attack on software (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mhesseltine ( 541806 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:24PM (#6515561) Homepage Journal

    Ok, you have SCO attacking Linux over licensing code. You have this small company (but backed by larger companies SONY and Phillips) attacking Microsoft. Where does someone turn to get away from all the legal hassles?

    Ignoring the trolls, would a *BSD system be better off, because SCO doesn't seem to be claiming anything related to BSD.

    Also, could this be a nail in the coffin of DRM? Or, would MS just pay the license fee, and jack the consumers for it anyway?

    • Re:Attack on software (Score:3, Informative)

      by jonabbey ( 2498 ) *

      The only reason SCO isn't attacking BSD is that BSD isn't as popular. The Linux and OpenSource/FreeSoftware communities are bursting with energy, and have produced a product superior to anything SCO can possibly think of producing. SCO might be able to compete with BSD if BSD stays small and contained within a relatively narrow developer cabal. Linux is just too much, particularly with SCO licensees like IBM throwing down.

      • Re:Attack on software (Score:4, Informative)

        by tres ( 151637 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:19PM (#6516639) Homepage
        um, sorry?

        BSD already went through this same thing a decade ago. The litigation that tied up BSD for years was actually one of the reasons that Linux became so popular to begin with.

        SCO can't touch BSD because UC Berkeley and AT&T already went to court and settled on this matter.

    • BSD would have no protection from either. First, just being "open source" yourself gives you no protection from patented technology. None. Zip. If someone has a patent on X, and you go write "GnuX", you'll get your ass sued. (I'm not saying that's how it should be. I'm saying that's how it is.)

      If something is copyrighted, and not licensed with an open source license, you can get your ass sued for using it. This is exactly with SCO is suing over. If IBM had contributed to BSD instead of Linux, the

  • Lawsuits (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ucblockhead ( 63650 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:25PM (#6515564) Homepage Journal
    This lawsuit is one of the things that is causing investors to be so pro-SCO. People have made a bundle on Intertrust stock as this lawsuit made its way through the system. This gave people the idea that they could make a bundle buying into tiny little companies trying to enforce patents on corporate giants.

    Unfortunately, your average investor isn't clued in enough to realize that InterTrust has a very good case while SCO has a very bad one. Thus, the recent runup in SCO stock.

    • Re:Lawsuits (Score:3, Informative)

      by nelsonal ( 549144 )
      Happily there are a few investors savy enough to realize these things, that's why Sony and Phillips bought this company for a half a billion, and SCO is still public (meaning that noone belives they have enough of a case to buy them out).

    • Re:Lawsuits (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dasmegabyte ( 267018 )
      Intertrust is a privately held firm, numbnuts. "Investors" haven't made anything -- just its parent companies.

      Privately held firms are where it's at. All the flexibility and simplicity of small business combined with the clout of big business.

  • Wait, wait (Score:5, Funny)

    by Obiwan Kenobi ( 32807 ) * <(evan) (at) (misterorange.com)> on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:25PM (#6515567) Homepage
    Hold on here. Are tech copyrights now good?

    Damn you slashdot political climate, damn you!

    It took me years to figure out all of the nuances, then they had to go screw it up again.

    So, for the next 5 minutes, goofy tech patents rule!

  • Wouldn't it be ironic if (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mjmalone ( 677326 ) * on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:25PM (#6515571) Homepage
    Intertrust won, and the courts found Microsoft guilty. This could potentially lead to every user of microsoft products infringeing IP! Their new licenseing agreements [slashdot.org] would totally backfire. Could be interesting...

  • Sounds like judge Judy (Score:4, Funny)

    by _Sambo ( 153114 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:27PM (#6515593)
    I must watch too much TV, because when I read the part about the judge rebuking Microsoft's Attorney for promising to deliver proof and then delivering nothing but hot air, I could only see Judge Judy scolding some white-trash trailer park yokel who was mad at her mother in law for playing with her children on days ending in "-y".

    How sad is that?
  • OK, OK, I'm laughing too. I'm laughing pretty hard because this is so much the biter bit. It's a great story.

    Put if software patents are bad (and I believe they are) they're bad even when someone is putting the boot into Microsoft. Let's face it, this may be a 'small' company putting the boot in, but it's a 'small' company owned (mostly) by Sony. Patents still only help those with very deep warchests.

    We must continue to oppose software patents and that means all software patents, because that's the only way we can maintain a playing field level enough for us small guys to play at all.

    • Re:Just because it's Microsoft doesn't make it rig (Score:5, Interesting)

      by martissimo ( 515886 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:46PM (#6515854)
      Let's face it, this may be a 'small' company putting the boot in, but it's a 'small' company owned (mostly) by Sony. Patents still only help those with very deep warchests.

      Lots of different ways to look at this case, and frankly i'm not sure exactly where my opinion on it stands just yet.

      But this idea you floated about the litle guy making nothing off patents is clearly wrong. These were little guys who came up with their patents a while ago, they later sold rights to them to Sony and Phillips for 453 million dollars who are now trying to make the "big score" on their investment. If you ask me, the 453 mill "sure thing" they got was far from a pittance to a company of their size (even if Sony does make billions off it, they took a gamble with that 453 that they could have possibly lost)

  • as said in the evangiles (Score:5, Funny)

    by lfourrier ( 209630 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:28PM (#6515625)
    The one who kill by IP will die by IP.

    (in fact, I'm not sure of the formulation, because I only know the french version : "celui qui tue pars l'épée périra par l'épée." French speaking people can get the word play between IP and épée)

  • .NET? I'd be worried... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by alyandon ( 163926 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:29PM (#6515633) Homepage
    If they are claiming that the .NET framework somehow infringes on their patents I'd be really worried about whether those claims could be extended to Java and J2EE.

  • Patents are the greater evil (Score:5, Insightful)

    by basho3 ( 660338 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:33PM (#6515689)
    Sure, we all like to see the little guy yank Micro$oft's chain. But software patents are an insidious practice, meant to stifle market competition and innovation.

    Think about the implications if MSFT loses. Sure, the evil empire is bought to its needs. Meanwhile, Amazon's patent on "one click shopping" and other nasty tricks get support in federal court.

    I want software patents stopped now. Let the demise of MSFT take care of itself.

  • Well here's an interesting patent... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Custard ( 587661 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:37PM (#6515741) Homepage Journal
    While searching for InterTrust's patent, I found this one, entitled Regulating access to digital content [uspto.gov].
    Digital content such as text, video, and music are stored as part of a compressed and encrypted data file, or object, at a client computer, such as a personal home computer. The content is inaccessible to a user until a payment or use authorization occurs. Payment or use authorization occurs via a real-time, transparent authorization process whereby the user enters account or use data at the client computer, the account or use data is transmitted to a payment server computer, the account or use data is preprocessed at the payment server computer and if payment information is required and is present, the payment information is transmitted to a payment authorization center. The payment authorization center approves or rejects the payment transaction, and bills the corresponding account. The authorization center then transmits an authorization signal to the payment server computer indicating whether the transaction was approved and if not, which information was deficient. In response, the payment server computer transmits a token to the client computer, and if the token indicates approval, an installation process is initiated at the client computer whereby the object is activated and locked to the particular client computer. The object can be reopened and reused at any time on that particular computer. If the object is transmitted or copied to a different computer, the required payment or use information must again be tendered for access to the content.
    Every time I find one like this, I wonder why I haven't patented a method of sustaining life by diluting ionized liquids in the human body by transferring di-hydrogen oxide from a residential source, via a smoothed glass semisphere, through the esophogus and into the human Gastrointestinal subsystem.

    Then all you water drinking pirates would have pay me royalties!

    • Stop whining and get specific (Score:5, Informative)

      by werdna ( 39029 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:56PM (#6515957) Journal
      A description in an abstract has no legal bearing on the scope of the patent granted, nor does excerpts of language drawn from the specification. The claim is the thing. Arguing in general terms from a broad sweeping apprimation of the patent craft is simply quibbling about a straw man. As to your conclusion, you might be right, you might be wrong -- but you haven't come anywhere near making a slightly credible case.

      If you think a claim from a patent is valid, spell out the claim, offer a plausible construction of the claim and tell us what is the prior art. then we have a useful conversation going.

      Anything else is sloppy demagoguery.

  • Microsoft == good guy in this case (Score:4, Insightful)

    by asscroft ( 610290 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:44PM (#6515818)
    "At its prebubble height, InterTrust (founded in 1990) employed 376 people and marketed its own software and hardware products; today it consists mainly of a patent portfolio, 30 employees, and this lawsuit."

    Great, an IP only company. Wonderful

    "Microsoft argued in court that crucial phrases in InterTrust's patents were too vague to be enforceable, and that others required such narrow interpretation that they would have been hard for Microsoft to infringe."

    Don't we claim stuff like this all the time about Patents. This is a test of someone with real money being able to say the USPTO is full of shit and these patents are vague adn useless.

    Win or lose, the more of this crap the better. It will eventually get so bad that someone will change the USPTO.

  • Let's call it like it is (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Infonaut ( 96956 ) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:45PM (#6515838) Homepage Journal
    I've never liked Microsoft or their tactics. But this is nothing more than extortion by weasels who want a slice of the big Microsoft money bag.

    We're now seeing the inevitable result of a system wherein the unequal playing field forces companies to do battle in the intellectual property realm rather than in the marketplace. Rather than come to market first with the best products, it's now about building up an intellectual property portfolio and torpedoing whomever surfaces first.

    The business climate that Microsoft helped to engender has rebounded back on them with a vengeance. But that doesn't make InterTrust the good guys. They're just slimy opportunists who have elected to go along with the prevailing attitude, which is "Build up a company the old fashioned way? Screw that! Let's sue instead!"

  • Oh the irony... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Oliver Wendell Jones ( 158103 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:50PM (#6515912)
    Right after Microsoft offers to pay for anyone intellectual propery claims against it's users, someone comes along and claims that MS is violating their IP rights. Theoretically, this company could send out cease and desist letters to all users demanding that they stop using all MS products containing the infringements, and then we could all hand our legal bills to MS to pay off for us, per their new program [slashdot.org]

  • Not neccesarily a bad patent (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Hamfist ( 311248 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:52PM (#6515932)
    The Intertrust patents are pretty specific. They lost their business because Microsoft used their patents and essentially gave them away for free in their products, destroying the value for Intertrust in selling their technology. Though all that remains of Interust are patents and lawyers, at one point they had almost 400 employees. 400 employees worked for several years to produce technology that was co-opted by Microsoft. All of those employees lost their jobs because Microsoft used their patents.

    Though the majority here just say that 'software patents are bad' , there is some justification for patents. The main problem with software patents is the USPTO and it's inability to properly check patents; issuing overbroad patents that cover overly generic stuff.

    These aren't submarine patents or anything else as Intertrust sued Microsoft shortly after talks between the two companies broke down when Microsoft was first introducing DRM into Windows Media Player.

    • Re:Not neccesarily a bad patent (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Flower ( 31351 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:45PM (#6516906) Homepage
      Nope. Software patents are bad. Period. EOF. I will never be convinced otherwise. I've listened to the RSA patent debacle, have heard Radia Perlman speak and say she was interested in pursuing research in certain applications of cryptography but wouldn't because that area was currently littered with a minefield of patents, and I've seen the USPTO not only botch the job with patent after patent but then have the gall to say they are doing a good job.

      No. Patents are meant to advance the sciences and when it comes to business model patents and especially software patents they are not working as expected. To paraphrase Newton minus the implied snide, software stands on the shoulders of giants. Patents, by design, kill this. Where do you think networking would be today if SPF had been patented?

      Sorry but I have no problems throwing this baby out with the fetid bathwater.

  • Like a football game between two hated teams (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dtolton ( 162216 ) * on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @06:11PM (#6516100) Homepage
    This reminds me of watching a Dallas Cowboys vs. Oakland Raiders game. The only thing I can root for is injuries.

    I detest this concept of overly broad patents, I only dislike Microsoft extremely. I can't say I really want to see Microsoft win, but I *definately* don't want to see the mis-application of patents continue.

    Ultimately I think overly broad patents and the mis-use of the patent system constitute a far greater threat to Linux and Open Source than anything Microsoft could do. In fact they constitute a huge threat to the entire concept of freedom.

  • InterNonsense... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hysterion ( 231229 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @06:14PM (#6516123) Homepage
    InterTrust CEO Talal Shamoon asks rhetorically, "How much would that be worth to Microsoft?"
    Hey this rings a bell... it's the SDMI watermark company and guy! [salon.com] Kind of nice to see how that all ended:
    At its prebubble height, InterTrust (founded in 1990) employed 376 people and marketed its own software and hardware products; today it consists mainly of a patent portfolio, 30 employees, and this lawsuit.

  • Head hurts.. (Score:4, Funny)

    by FurryFeet ( 562847 ) <joudanxNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @06:16PM (#6516141)
    So, since MS is bad, and patent system is hurting MS, then patent system is good, right? But patent system is bad, so MS is good?
    Damn cognitive disonance always gives me an ice cream headache...

  • Time to try again to answer that age old question. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Featureless ( 599963 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @06:33PM (#6516299) Journal
    Can patents make it more convenient for big wealthy people to fuck the little guy? Or do they create too big of a risk that some big guy might actually get in trouble themselves?

    Now, for those new to the debate, lets go over the simple reason why software patents are categorically, provably, and obviously insane.

    Assume that the patent office is adequately staffed with an army of geniuses with eiditic memories, who never make poor judgements about what is patent-worthy and what isn't.

    Anyone writing code must have to know the entire patent database - millions of patents. They would also have to stay current - thousands of new applications a day, on a slow day.

    Impossible? Duh.

    "Uh, now what?"

    Every piece of software is a ticking patent time bomb - a multi-million dollar civil litigation waiting to happen.

    Big players enjoy (and lobby for) patent systems like this because its another tool in the toolbox. You build a portfolio, and it's a great way to cost your competitors millions, threaten their business, their reputation, create FUD, etc. The cases drag on for decades, and hey, it's interesting how whoever has more money to fight them seems to always come out on top.

    My greatest dream is that a giant like Microsoft will get snared in its own net, and actually start fighting to end software patents, so at least there'll be one less absolutely awful piece of economy-destroying legislation for our children to enjoy.

  • I don't know about anybody else... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Struct ( 660658 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @06:42PM (#6516384)
    But my office is in an uproar! This news has our execs discussing our future rollout plans for Microsoft products. In fact, five huge projects are already on hold because the legal department is afraid Windows is stolen technology. None of our business partners are comfortable with the shakey legal ground Microsoft is standing, and they're taking a wait-and-see approach. We've begun evaluating Plan 9 for the desktop.

  • Check it out (Score:5, Informative)

    by Treeluvinhippy ( 545814 ) <liquidsorcery.gmail@com> on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @06:47PM (#6516416)
    At Intertrust's Site [intertrust.com], there is a whole section about the law suit and it gives a little more info, here's a quick link [intertrust.com]

    You can find specific patent numbers they claim MS is in violation of, such as US Patent No. 5,940,504 which I guess is about product activation. (I'm to feeling lazy right now so you go look up the patents.)

    I'm not feeling that lazy so here's a quick cut and paste of MS's stuff they claim is violating their patents.


    # Xbox
    # My Services
    # Windows Hardware Quality Lab and Windows Logo Certification
    # Windows File Protection System
    # Windows XP Home
    # Windows XP Professional
    # Windows ME
    # Windows XP Embedded
    # Windows CE.NET
    # Office XP Standard
    # Office XP Professional
    # Office XP Professional with FrontPage
    # Office XP Developer
    # Access 2002
    # Excel 2002
    # FrontPage 2002
    # Outlook 2002
    # PowerPoint 2002
    # Project 2002
    # Publisher 2002
    # Word 2002
    # Windows Media Player
    # Microsoft Reader
    # Digital Asset Server
    # Internet Explorer 6.0
    # ASP.NET
    # .NET Framework
    # .NET Common Language Runtime (CLR)
    # Visio 2002
    # Visio Enterprise Network Tools
    # Visual Studio .NET Enterprise Architect
    # Visual Studio .NET Enterprise Developer
    # Visual Studio .NET Professional

    I wonder if they missed one?

  • Ridiculous! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:04PM (#6516539)
    How could MS possibly violate a security patent?

    To do that, they'd have to implement some kind of security!

  • Why Patents Are A Good Thing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SilentMajority ( 674573 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:05PM (#6516546) Homepage
    Couple reasons:

    1. Without patents, the little guy who invents something new won't be able to compete against the big corporations who copy his idea.

    2. Patents are REQUIRED to describe sufficient details so that any reasonably skilled person in the "art" (computer science, electrical engineer, etc.) can actually use the patent to build the invention. This means rather than keeping useful inventions secret, the inventor benefits for about 17 years after which the general public can benefit too by having details available.

    In other words, patents CAN help the lone inventor protect his invention and it helps foster an environment where inventors are incented to SHARE details about their invention with the public.

    Like anything else, there are abuses and extreme cases but it doesn't mean there are no benefits.

  • The reareason MS is indemnifying their customers? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by univgeek ( 442857 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:06PM (#6516555)
    While we all thought that MS was indemnifying their customers in order to present Linux in a bad-light, might that have been to assuage customers against this ruling? This news seems to be put MS WindowsXX in a much worse position than Linux/IBM is now. There is already a ruling against MS, as opposed to only 'legal vaporware' against Linux. Convince your company to stay away from MS based on this!!

  • This threatens us all, not just MS. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by borgheron ( 172546 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:40PM (#6516868) Homepage Journal
    Software patents are wrong in general. It seems as though this company has become a litigation engine for finding infringements of it's patent anywhere it can, even if it's a stretch.

    I'm no Microsoft lover, but I don't like seeing software patents abused in this way.

    GJC

  • Consumer electronics kings vs. Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SysKoll ( 48967 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @08:14PM (#6517128)

    I agree that software patents are a pain and are unethical.

    But it's interesting to note who is attacking MS here and in what context. Philips and Sony are two of the greatest consumer electronics companies on the planet. Sony is an archfoe of Microsoft since Redmond released the XBox. Several large Japanese companies recently made a lot of noise about standardizing on Linux for consumer electronics, which is pretty bad for WindowsCE. Some observers wondered if the goal of that publicity wasn't just to score a marketing point against WinCE.

    So this is the next episode in this war. This patent lawsuit is a single battle in a larger fight.

    Watch for more blows exchanged between MS and consumer electronics companies.

    -- SysKoll

  • One good thing about this result ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rollingcalf ( 605357 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @08:30PM (#6517238)
    Microsoft may now decide to harness some of its billions to lobby for laws *against* software patents.

    On the other hand, they may decide that they'll need to accumulate the most massive patent portfolio in order to have ammunition if faced with something similar again.

  • On the other hand.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jav1231 ( 539129 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @08:46PM (#6517375)
    Look, baseless claims are often made in IP cases. But who's to say that InterTrust didn't come to M$, layout it's proposals and say "This would be a good integration into your software" M$ says "We'll get back to you on that" and simply takes the idea and runs!? If that's the case, and it certainly is viable, then that puts a whole other angle on this. It certainly would be typical M$ fashion, no? JAV

  • Computers are a waste of time (Score:5, Insightful)

    by theolein ( 316044 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @09:25PM (#6517638) Journal
    After having busted my balls in this industry for years and effectively getting nowhere, I sit back and take a look at the POS that is the computer world. We have a huge monopoly on the one hand which knows no tactics dirty enough to gain marketshare. We have tiny little desperate companies such as SCO and Intertrust using the law to effectively cripple any wish to innovate in anything. We have an open source movement on the other hand that can't agree on the colour of it's desktop that spends a lot of effort in talking when threatened, but much less in actually defending itself.

    I think I've had it. Let the indians have all these headaches.

Slashdot Top Deals

Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes. -- Mickey Mouse

Close