Microsoft Nailed by Software Patent 668
An anonymous reader writes "It was just announced that Microsoft lost the case where it was accused of violating Eolas' patent on embedded applications in the Internet Explorer browser. They have been fined $521 million in damages."
So Eolas invented COM and ActiveX (Score:5, Interesting)
I have my feelings against Microsoft, but this smells like being in the right place at the right time, and PTO's own trademarked brand of ignorance.
Re:Another Reason? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Peanuts (Score:5, Interesting)
Like someone else said, that's more than the Justice Department was able to do in 5 years.
So (Score:4, Interesting)
Just look at the political careers of all the *major* politicians that were invloved in the original MS anti-trust case. If they didn't politically stagnate then MS made them go away - quietly, and expensively.
Monopolies can not be brought down with small lawsuits anymore. It will take a vast reversal in public opinion, many brave and ambitious politicians, and some fierce competition. So far we have 1 out of 3.
Great News (Score:4, Interesting)
Why, you ask?
Because, my friends, Microsoft is now going to spends billions to kill the current patent system. They're going to buy every Congressman from Alaska to Puerto Rico to shut this scam down. Bill Gates is going to spend so much on politicians that they'll still be standing in line to give him blow jobs twenty years from now. After Microsoft is finished, the only debate will be whether to use the patent authority building for Total Information Awareness Headquarters or turn it into a Fritz Chip manufacturing plant.
Re:Another Reason? (Score:4, Interesting)
bummer (Score:2, Interesting)
It's a shame they don't step up to the bat and actually speak out against stupid IP patents, and how they can be harmful to the developer's community. It would certainly look good for them, and if there's anyone who can sway opinion with the government, it's Microsoft.
Re:Bad precedent (Score:3, Interesting)
About the free software/patent issue you said: There is plenty the free software community can do to protect themselves. All they have to do is publish their work before any of the "megacoporations" go out and file their patents. The problem is that as far as I have seen the free software community doesn't care much about actual innovation, all they want is a free version of the products that every other company sells. If the free software community would stop trying to copy everything that Apple/Microsoft/Sun and countless others have made they wouldn't have to worry about nearly as much about patents.
Umm...hang on a sec... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds like they were doing commercial work without a commerical licensee to the code. The code to NCSA was freely distributable, but to do commercial work with it, it had to be licensed.
Re:It's amazing.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if they feel like it was worth it. Billion is pocket change to MS but still it would have been cheaper to just license the patent.
Re:Great News (Score:5, Interesting)
What in the world makes you think that? MS has a lot more to gain from patents then they do from them going away.
Sure MS isn't as big a patent player as some of the other companies, but if some of their recent patents hold up the Computer and Electronics world will be paying MS royalties for the next 20 years.
No MS isn't killing anything, especially the golden goose which is going to ensure they get paid.
What the goddamn fuck? (Score:1, Interesting)
Microsoft should wiggle out of this one... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not a big fan of Microsoft, but I think they have plenty of room to wiggle out of this one on appeal.
Microsoft's ActiveX plug-in technology, or whatever it's called today, is pretty much a direct descendent of OLE (Object Linking and Embedding) which allowed applications to be embedded within Word, Excel and any other GUI application that cared to implement the correct APIs. I'm fairly certain OLE and the enabling COM technology predates 1993 in some form or another. Embedding mini-applications within the context of a web browser hypertext document seems a pretty straightforward and obvious extension of embedding mini-applications within the context of other GUI based applications such as Word and Excel.
Within the actual patent there seem to be descriptions about the embedded application within the browser viewing data created by a remote server with computational power exceeding what is available to the browser or media terminal. Perhaps this is what differentiates browser plug-ins from standard application plug-ins, but even this seems like a direct and obvious extension of thin-client/server computing reaching back to the days of X Window terminals or before.
What amazes me are the legal hacks that Microsoft must have hired to royally botch this case. I can only imagine they were arrogant SOBs the jury couldn't wait to stick-it to when it came time for deliberation.
Re:Before you start bitching about slashdot users. (Score:5, Interesting)
Patents or just software patents?
Software patents are bad because their lifetime is an eternity in the software world, giving them undue monopolistic power. This is exacerbated by the fact that most of the patent examiners don't seem to have the direct knowledge or the familiarity with computing history to differentiate between trivial ideas and really unique, innovative stuff.
(And then there's also the problem of idiots flooding the patent office with ridiculous patents.)
However, the patent system as originally envisioned by the U.S. forefathers was a pretty good idea. It gives inventors an incentive to fully disclose the workings of their inventions to the public in exchange for a limited-time monopoly.
that's like what (Score:3, Interesting)
MBA on Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
- Making $1 is good.
- Making more is better.
- Losing $1 or more is bad.
Period.I'm not trying to shift discussion away from whether Microsoft's actions were ethical, whether patents are good, or any really relevant and interesting discussions.
However, everything else we discuss here is, at best, philosophy to a creature like Microsoft. When you are talking about $billions in revenue, and if you are trying to "get into Microsoft's head", you need to shift perspective a bit. I, personally, think patents have been abused in many ways in the last decade. However, a company like Microsoft only evaluates things like this on one basis - money. Think like that, and you'll practically be in Bill's head.
Re:A Half Billion: (Score:5, Interesting)
This is exactly what I'm afraid of. If Microsoft's fortunes in this matter don't change it may be a little embarassing and a bit painful to pay damages and license fees to Eolas, but it will surely be fatal to any other unfortunate victim caught in this sinister patent trap.
Also, if Microsoft does ultimately lose the appeal, one can be certain Microsoft will do everything in their power to be sure the heads of other infringers are served on a silver platter to Eolas with garnish on the side.
What's really sad is by losing the infringement case, Microsoft still wins big time. All other current and future browser competitors would be instantly eliminated as viable alternatives. Furthermore, the vast majority of the public wouldn't even notice or care thanks to the Microsoft monopoly on browsers.
(the bucket, a drop in) | (perspective) (Score:3, Interesting)
Okay, so MS currently has nearly $50 billion.
50,000,000,000 / 521,000,000 ~= 95.969289
So... if this happened to MS like maybe 50 or 60 more times, they'd be hurting. yeah.
whimper/sigh.
Quarterly PROFIT vs. REVENUE (Score:4, Interesting)
Their quarterly PROFIT is around $1.5 billion. They just lost 1/3rd of their quarterly profit in one fell swoop. Think that might affect them coming in below estimates this quarter??
We should take the opportunity... (Score:3, Interesting)
At least this frivolous lawsuit will get a lots of publicity. Now everyone with a trivial patent up their sleeves can go about suing everyone.
I assume the SW patent thing has not yet been ratified by the EU? This might be something to show your MEP...
Microsoft on side of patent reform? (Score:3, Interesting)
Note the wording of Microsoft's official statement: "the accused feature in our browser technology was developed by our own engineers based on preexisting Microsoft technology." From what I understand of patent law, whether the technology was developed independently by Microsoft's engineers was irrelevant.
If Microsoft wins on appeal, that could set a precedent in favor of everyone who gets hit with a patent lawsuit when they developed the technology independently. This could help to weaken software patents.
Then again, if Microsoft ultimately loses its appeal, they could end up helping to reform patent law. I may get modded down for this, but I honestly don't think Microsoft is evil - just greedy. And $521 Million is a serious chunk of change, even for Microsoft. They may be better off convincing a few congresscritters to invalidate stupid software patents, and that's good for all of us.
What happened??? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's amazing.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's amazing.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It's amazing.. (Score:5, Interesting)
The current way to avoid patent lawsuits is to patent in the USA (so you can sue people) but make nothing (so you can sue ibm and they cant nuke you), then sell rights to a "random" chinese or similar company to make them on a royalty and have a third "unrelated" grey import company ship zillions of them into the USA. If anything nasty occurs (patent lawsuit, class action, even safety) then the grey importer folds and everyone else gets to keep all the money.
Great for everyone who is rich and doesn't care about unemployment in the western world, or especially in the USA about health and safety issues given the lack of state/national health care.
How, exactly, does it show silliness? (Score:3, Interesting)
In what way does it manifest silliness? It would seem to me to be a case entirely free from vapid claims of validity (microsoft hit with a full court press, and lost) or infringement (likewise, microsoft threw full guns at it, and lost).
To the contrary, the case shows the seriousness of these law and their claims when properly applied.
Who's going to risk developing stuff when you're sued left and right before you even know somebody filed a patent for it while you RDed?
Everybody. The patent system has driven R&D in the United States for more than two hundred years.
This can potentially kill off alot of inventing.
There is lots of evidence to the contrary. What do you have to support your proposition.
Without somebody with lots of money backing you up, it's a risky business.. Which is what the big corporations want anyways, so maybe Microsoft will settle this one in the end.
If you say so. Odd how many inidividual inventors seem to make the biggest political push for stronger patent laws, with large companies tending to push for more relaxed "patent harmonization" approaches.
Re:It's amazing.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I think these "IP" companies are among the greatest dangers our technology-driven world faces today, because there is no effective remedy against them, short of legislation. And we all know how likely it is that that will be of overall benefit.
What if the system was changed so that once you have filed a patent and it is accepted by the U.S. patent office, you get a year (or some specific time period) to implement the patented concept in a product, or the patent expires? Would that not sufficiently defend the industry against patent portfolio sharks?
Re:Hard to know what to feel. (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure there would still be advancements in science/technology without patent protection. You can bet your life that certain sectors will be hit harder than others.
The resources required to spur development in different industries is not the same. The equipment required to produce new medicines is MUCH more expensive than the software industry with the exception of super computers.
The fact that the entry barrier is lower does not and should not mean that a crafty inventor of software should be treated differently than the crafty inventor of hardware.
I am not sure of the original purpose but I know one current benefit of patents. The little guy or company can enjoy protection from the big guy. I don't see how you can argue that idea as bad. Until you can make the food on my table free and the roof over my head free I will not work for free. Neither will those that their job is to develop new ideas and processes.
I wish you luck in your project
Re:How, exactly, does it show silliness? (Score:2, Interesting)
This is kin to Amazon.com and all there stupid patents. Next thing you know someone is going to sue for a patent of using English on a Computer.
I had a little more faith in Slashdot users this is a greater abuse then even what SCO is doing. Yet because its against Microsoft most of you are all happy. Blind Bias is crap I don't care who you are if you are wronged then your wronged. This is a bullshit lawsuit.
This company now has Leverage so now any company that makes a browser and does not pay them will then be liable. So Opera, Apple and any other company out there making a browser that has any kind of Money will be a target if they haven't bought a licsence to use there patent. Not to Mention they might Sue Sun for even making Applets.