Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Electronic Frontier Foundation Patents The Courts Your Rights Online

EFF, Apache Side With Microsoft In i4i Patent Case 83

msmoriarty writes "Looks like Microsoft has gained some unlikely allies in its ongoing (and losing) i4i XML patent dispute: the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Apache Software Foundation. The reason? Microsoft has decided the strategy for its Supreme Court appeal will be to argue that the standards of proof in patent cases are too high — this from a company that has thousands of patents it regularly defends. The EFF explains in a blog post why it decided to file the 'friend of the court' brief on Microsoft's side."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EFF, Apache Side With Microsoft In i4i Patent Case

Comments Filter:
  • Re:EFF (Score:2, Informative)

    by binarylarry ( 1338699 ) on Friday October 01, 2010 @10:19PM (#33767588)

    I saw the Electric Frontier Foundation play at Madison Square Garden in 71'.

    Man what a groove fest baby

  • Re:Damn hippies... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Penguinisto ( 415985 ) on Friday October 01, 2010 @11:10PM (#33767808) Journal

    I think Microsoft and the rest of the software companies have realized that patent-trolls do more harm than good.

    I call bullshit [slashdot.org].

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 01, 2010 @11:44PM (#33767970)

    So is the EFF filing an amicus curiae or an amicus diabolus brief?

    That would be amicus diaboli.

    /Latin & legal pedant

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 02, 2010 @02:08AM (#33768546)

    Friend of Venus doesn't really have the same ring to it.

    Lucifer doesn't mean devil, it means Venus (the planet) when seen in the morning. It literally means "light bringer". The greeks knew it as phosphoros.

    The only place you'll find it in a bible (unless you have one of the lame post-KJV translations) is the book of Isaiah. Babylonian rulers (and Egyptian, and Sumerian, and...) tended to think of themselves as gods. So one that had held the jews captive in the old testament liked to refer to himself as the morning star, and the jews were mocking him for it as they left.

    How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! [biblegateway.com]

  • Re:Damn hippies... (Score:2, Informative)

    by symbolset ( 646467 ) on Saturday October 02, 2010 @02:58AM (#33768716) Journal

    Microsoft sued HTC before and got a settlement. They're trolling [google.com]. These lawsuits are nothing more than advertising for their Windows Phone 7 phone, which offers indemnification against lawsuits from... them [google.com]. "That's a nice phone you got there. It would be a shame if anybody sued you over it."

    Microsoft is suing their own customers here, and not retail customers, but billion-dollar manufacturing partners. That's not a good plan. SCO tried that plan and even with the Microsoft-backed investments from unsuccessfully indirect [groklaw.net] partners, it didn't work out for SCO.

    The patents are bullshit. They're software patents, and even Microsoft admits almost all [groklaw.net] software patents are bullshit. Microsoft is looking for help from all of us to solve this argument for them both ways in favor. It's a fool's game.

    If this is their plan to put Windows Phone 7 over then they're hosed. "Buy it or we'll sue you" never works.

  • Re:Fun times... (Score:5, Informative)

    by tinkerghost ( 944862 ) on Saturday October 02, 2010 @03:04AM (#33768736) Homepage

    Although if I were Microsoft at this moment, I'd be paying the lawyers overtime to find out why EFF thinks overturning this patent ruling is a good thing.

    Why pay the lawyers when you can just read the brief & they tell you? EFF thinks overturning the ruling because the ruling is based on "Clear and Convincing" evidence. In other words, a patent is given the same weight as a previous legal ruling - even though nobody is allowed to argue against the patent before it's issued.

    First off you don't come in on an equal footing - patents are assumed to be valid. Next, the level of proof required to set aside a patent is higher than in any other form of IP case. The only other time I can find "Clear and Convincing" as the standard is when the court is stripping someone of their parental rights.

    Between the 2 of them, it makes it almost impossible to invalidate a patent. When the standard was set, the Patent office was:

    • receiving 1/10th the number of patent application
    • Reviewing each patent by someone knowledgeable in the art.
    • reviewing patents involving physical products(items) & processes(chemical processes) not vague fragments of code & general abstraction (business processes)

    At that time, the standard made sense. Under the current process, where an intern with a chemistry degree is approving software patents, it no longer does. Currently, a patent clerk has less than 4 hours to determine if a patent application should be approved or not. Examine some of these patents -- many are upwards of 200 pages of legalese. Nobody can accurately determine the validity of a patent that complex in a few hours - and yet they are given the presumption of validity going in.

"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker

Working...