Microsoft Found Guilty of Patent Infringement 342
Spy der Mann writes "Microsoft has been found guilty of patent infringement and ordered to pay a Guatamalan inventor Carlos Armando Amado almost $9m in damages.
The US District Court of Central California court ruled that Microsoft had infringed on his intellectual property and ordered it to pay him $8.96m.
The patent in question is a method to transfer data between Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Access using a single spreadsheet."
Here's the reason ... (Score:4, Insightful)
You gotta have some sympathy for MS about this.
I bet he's thinking.... (Score:2, Insightful)
The cost of waging war on your own terms (Score:3, Insightful)
WHAT? (Score:4, Insightful)
Then he sued Microsoft???
I know.. i patent a way for Apple Intel to work with Apple PowerPC, no one would ever think of that.
I hate Microsoft, but I hate these guys more (Score:4, Insightful)
These companies sit around and brainstorm ideas without ever coming up with anything tangible, then they receive patents on their broad ideas. With the patent in hand, they can then sue anyone and anything that looks to be infringing. It's really sad.
At least when IBM or Microsoft or Sun patent something, they have some tangible product they look to implement. The patent leeches just look for traps they can set for big payoffs later on.
Re:David vs Goliath (Score:4, Insightful)
To Microsoft and the billions upon billions of dollars under their control, however, it's like trying to drain a lake by siphoning it through a straw.
Classic! (Score:2, Insightful)
Nandz.
Re:I hate Microsoft, but I hate these guys more (Score:3, Insightful)
It is like patenting how I make my breakfast in the morning. It's just stupid.
Re:umm... no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet.
wow.. silly patent (Score:2, Insightful)
so transfering data from an excel spreadsheet to an Access table is patented... Hmmm I've been using copy/paste to do that since forever. What "technology" is this? You've been able to export a spreadsheet to comma delimited and import to Access since forever as well... How do you get a patent on importing a comma delimited file?
Re:MS, good stuff? (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Poetic Justice. (Score:5, Insightful)
The only good that could come of this would be the remote chance that it could convince MS that software patents are a terrible idea and prod them into backing Red Hat and Oracle's push to reform patents in the US [yahoo.com] and Europe [reuters.com].
How Microsoft Sees This Fine (Score:2, Insightful)
No it doesn't (Score:1, Insightful)
I doubt the method was identical to his. It might have had similar elements, but I bet microsoft's was implemented in a much different manner.
Also, I believe that Microsoft began development of the idea in 1989 like they claimed. Its unlikely that anyone who delt with Armando had influence in the design plan.
So I think this is just an example of pattent misuse.
Would they notice it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sad state of affairs. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:WAIT WAIT READ WHAT HE DID, THEN SPEAK (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft built a suite of integrated Office applications with built-in functionality that allows seamless transfer of data between the apps. Amado uses the built-in functions to do exactly what those features are designed to do, receives a patent from the braindead patent office, then tries to present his "discovery" to the people who invented the thing in the first place.
There's nothing to understand here except that Amado's idea was exactly why Microsoft put those features into the applications in the first place.
If this doesn't push Microsoft to patent every single thing they ever do or plan to do, I don't know what will. How can they protect themselves from these fleas? The only way is to hold those patents.
These types of lawsuits are what is leading to the demise of intellectual property, not the other way around. It is when people abuse the system by applying for things that are either obvious or developed by someone else that this type of lawsuit occurs.
I hope Amado is happy with that money because he doesn't deserve it.
Hoist by they own petard (Score:3, Insightful)
Kind of ironic and strange that they can be sued for patents on interactions between their own software packages.
Could I patent, just as an example, methods for converting between PDF and PSD files, and then sue Adobe for infringing when they do the obvious?
Something not right about this; I guess it's just showing up yet another problem with copyright law. Pretty thorny one if you think about it.
Re:WAIT WAIT READ WHAT HE DID, THEN SPEAK (Score:2, Insightful)
Like little children... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WAIT WAIT READ WHAT HE DID, THEN SPEAK (Score:4, Insightful)
You need a look in the ol' dictionary (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:WAIT WAIT READ WHAT HE DID, THEN SPEAK (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, now every asshole CS student in the country is going to start patenting any tweak to MS software that they think might possibly be worthwhile.
Re:Like little children... (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason it's 'a good thing' is because the more small companies, in some cases companies who are little more then patent whores, can successfully sue the big companies who actually have a say in government policy the better chance we have of reforming the patent system. If this ruling leads to more and more ridiculous rulings costing MS and other big companies millions upon millions of companies, hopefully it will get to the point where the people in power will be hit hard enough in the pocket book to finally have the motivation to change software patents.
Re:Classic! (Score:3, Insightful)
"The slashdot patent in question" (Score:1, Insightful)
Well Slashdot has a patent on mis-describing stories, and no one else can mis-describe stories like we can. So pay up suckers.
Internation Patent Reform goes both ways (Score:3, Insightful)
In capitalist America; after you beat the system, the system beats you.
Re:Like little children... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh wait. That's not a double standard, that's just us cheering when bad things happen to bad people. Whooddah thunkit?
No. (Score:5, Insightful)
No. What will happen is that big companies that have influence over government policy will lobby to have the bar raised so high that small patent holders ("whores", as you say) will not be able to prove a case in the first place.
Re:I bet he's thinking.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually it's more than OK, it's GREAT - but not for the reasons you think.
The patent system is completely screwed up. The only way it will ever get changed is if we see some negative effects on big industry as well as small. The way the US government currently works it will do anything to protect big business and the precious economy. If stupid patents start restricting big business rather than helping it Washington will sit up and take notice. On top of that, companies like Microsoft have the money and connections to make a lot of noise about stupid patents.
I hate the decision on an idelogical level, but appreciate it on a political one.
This is ridiculous. (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft obtains software product A.
Microsoft obtains software product B.
Microsoft begins making them work together.
Guy beats Microsoft to market.
Microsoft continues making their products work together.
Guy sues Microsoft, wins millions for being first to patent obvious method made "novel" by the fact that it works on those confusin' new computers.
This would work against Linux.
This crap would work on anything.
Microsoft did *NOTHING* wrong here. They didn't steal his stuff or anything. They just made their own products work together. It probably wouldn't even have been an issue if Excel and Access had been marketed under the same freaking product name.
Ludicrous.
Re:Does this mean patents are good? (Score:1, Insightful)
Just because a child molester gets his house robbed, that doesn't mean people who rob houses have moved up the social ladder. It's just that anything that hurts a child molester is worth celebrating, at least for a few moments.
Re:Like little children... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, if it is bad for a criminal monopolist who bought their way out of any punishment whatsoever for their knowingly illegal actions then odds are it *is* good for everybody (are you seriously saying criminals should never be punished for their crimes?).
That is the adult idea that people should be responsible for their actions combined with an honest approach to the attitude that honest people being able to have any sort of recourse to the law without billions of dollars in their pocket is an absolute good thing.
So it has nothing at all to do with your spoutings, does it?
Not exactly felled (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You did't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Dude, seriously, try to read once in a while before insulting people. Every software patent is a joke. This is not about the merits of a particular patent, this is about proving a deliberate attempt to profit from someone else's ideas when those ideas have been previously patented, and that makes a huge difference between this guy vs. Microsoft and SCO vs. IBM. SCO has no evidence nor argument whatsoever.
Re:Here's the reason ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but that's simply not the case, as I'm currently serving as an expert witness for a defendant in a patent case. It's not enough to have prior art, you must also convince a jury that you have prior art. Good luck getting a jury of everyday schmoes to understand some complex technical issue.
You see both sides will have expert witnesses, and they will both say how much they believe they are right. Both sides will spout technical jargon and the juries eyes will glaze over. And the jury will determine the winner based on things like who most likable. So if you can paint yourself as some poor schlub who got ripped off by MS, then the technical stuff really doesn't matter. Really. It's fucking sad, but that's how it works.
Re:WAIT WAIT READ WHAT HE DID, THEN SPEAK (Score:4, Insightful)
Your logic is invalid. Patenting stuff in no way defends you against getting nailed for patent infringment. If this guy came up with it first (which the court ruled he did) then Microsoft COULDN'T have patented it, and filing for other patents in no way helps Microsoft against this. If Microsoft had come up with it first, it STILL wouldn't matter if they patented it or not. Either this guy whould not have been able to patent it, or Microsoft could have gotten the patent tossed out as invalid simply by producing reasonable records documenting that they did it first.
The *only* time patents are useful for "defense" is if you can actually file a counter suit... and you could-have / should-have filed that "counter" suit even if you have never been sued in the first place. You could-have / should-have sued to obtain the money you were owed anyway. Moreover "defensive" patents are usless against "fleas" because the fleas is not offering any product themselves and therefor not infringing any patents at all.
The problem here is that the US SCREWED UP in REVERSING established patent law and EXTENDING patents to software. Math / logic / calculations / mental steps are not inventions.
If patents are going to cover software, well this guy's patent is valid. In fact this guy's patent is better than half the software patents out there. Better than many of the patents Microsoft is getting.
-
Re:WAIT WAIT READ WHAT HE DID, THEN SPEAK (Score:4, Insightful)
No, as far as software patents go this is about pretty average.
What about that "specially crafted" spreadsheet? Exactly how did he "craft" it? By entering a bunch of formulas or macros?
In other words ordinary programming. What you are pointing out is that he happened to do it in a spreadsheet programming language. No different than programming in C or machine language or perl or PHP. And yes, spreadsheet programming language generally is a univeral programming language capable of absolutely anything you can program in any other language. If you can program speach recognition software in C then you can program it in spreadsheet language. It will merely run more slowly in a spreadsheet.
This is exatly why programmers are almost univerally opposed to software patents. They directly SEE that it is the exact same thing, that programming in ANY computer language is no different than filling in equations in a spreadsheet or writing a complex math equation on a sheet of paper. If one is patentable then they all are. Any program is nothing but a fancy math equation. Numbers come in, you do a long list of basic math steps, and numbers go out.
*If* software is a patentable invention, *if* doing math calculations is a patentable invention, well.... then this guy has a perfectly valid patent.
he just used existing features built into the software
Just like any programmer writing in BASIC or any other language is just using the "existing features built into the [compiler or interpreter] software". It's merely writing instructions in a different language to be run on top of a different host system. No difference.
This is why software patents are fundamentally broken.
-
Re:You need a look in the ol' dictionary (Score:1, Insightful)
Microsoft was guilty of this violation.
I'm guilty of taking the last cookies.
Just because you know one definition for one context doesn't make the rest of us bound to your specific world.
Re:This is ridiculous. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure they have. Not only do they actively support and defend this sort of patent as valid, they are actively pressuring and extorting other countries to change their laws to make this sort of patent valid.
As far as software patent go, this one is pretty typical. He wrote some software to transform data in a new and useful way. He merely wrote it in spreadsheet programming language rather than BASIC or C or perl.
I agree this should not be a valid patent - NO software patets shoudl be valid. But so long as Microsoft wants a FUBARed patent system then they deserve what they get when they are forced to live inside that system.
-
Re:I bet he's thinking.... (Score:3, Insightful)
It reminds me of a scene from a movie. I forgot what movie, and I'll have to make up some details, but it goes something like this...
You have one person (the shark) being very freindly and helpful teaching someone else (the victim) "how to play poker". They of course are playing for money. The shark is being particularly helpful, even placing the vitim's money into the pot for him... helping him bet.
As the poker lessons go on, the shark starts making up rules so that he wins every hand (and taking all the money). One hand the victim gets all excited... "Oh look! I have a full house! That means I win this time, right?" The shark then says no, I have a pair of threes... that's called a tripple wammy and it beats a full house. Of course the victim is all sad, but completely clueless.
Then of course two hands later (with a huge pot holding ALL the money) the shark lays down a full house and reaches towards the pot... and the victim lays down a pair of threes and shouts TRIPPLE WAMMY BEATS A FULL HOUSE! The victim innocently scoops up all the money and scampers off.
Well if Microsoft wants broken patent law and software patents... if Microsoft is going to try to EXTORT other countries into imposing these same broken rules... well no one is going to shed a tear when someone jumps up and yells TRIPPLE WAMMY and walks off with Microsoft's money.
-
Re:Most amazing thing is... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think Microsoft really lost here.
Think with me: if Microsoft really wanted to win this case, they would just appeal. They've got the money, they've got the lawyers, there is NO WAY Joe Smallpotatoes would win in the end. Especially not this ridiculous patent, which should be easy to overthrow on the grounds of obviousness.
So, I can only conclude that Microsoft is actually happy to lose this one. And why would that be? My guess is that they simply have lots of these obvious patents themselves, which they hope to apply tactically in the near future to bring down small entrepreneurs. Since they now lost this case, in the future, when someone they sue tries to tell the judge that a Microsoft patent is obvious, Microsoft can reply by pointing out the historic case in which a judge upheld a similar patent, which is therefore non-obvious.
This is a tactical loss for Microsoft. And I see a bleak future.
Re:WAIT WAIT READ WHAT HE DID, THEN SPEAK (Score:4, Insightful)
They deserve no sympathy, and besides, adding value to existing implementations is all the patent system is about. You cannot invent something in vacuum, it HAS to be built on top of existing technology.
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Unfortunately if you look (Score:3, Insightful)
No - if MS patents everything it can, then there's less chance of such a parasite from obtaining a patent that it can use against MS. Hence, it *is* (or at least *can be*) a defensive measure.
Denying your would-be attacker any way of attacking you is just as effective as being able to retaliate, if not more so.
Uhh, they were not an integrated suite of products (Score:5, Insightful)
Bzzzzzzt. They were not an integrated suite in 1990. They were separate products. What allowed them to be integrated into a suite? Maybe ideas like the one this guy patented and Microsoft infringed upon.
Re:One small step for small business... (Score:3, Insightful)
However, small buisnesses don't have the resources to fight for years on end in court. A legal battle going on for two years can easily cost you a million dollars. And they don't have a large enough customer base to pass the charges on to their consumer.
People are so rabidly and mindlessly anti-Microsoft, that they are willing to have draconian patent enforcement that will destroy small buisness, just to see Microsoft lose a tiny amount of money that they will make back in less that one hour. Software patents are killing small software developers.