ITC Judge: Motorola Mobility Infringed Microsoft Patent 141
chrb writes "An International Trade Commission judge has issued a preliminary ruling that Motorola Mobility infringed one of Microsoft's patents. The disputed patent covers storing a meeting request on a mobile device, and was rejected by the European Patent Office as being 'obvious.' The judge also ruled that six other Microsoft patents were not being infringed. Experts say that this will strengthen Microsoft's hand in collecting patent fees on Android. Microsoft recently claimed that it now collects patent fees on over half of all Android devices sold."
Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Truth (Score:4, Funny)
What? First post and not a troll? Damn... there may still be hope...
Re:Truth (Score:4, Funny)
Non-trollish first posts are actually patented, which is why you don't see many of them, since not many people are willing to license the technology.
Re: (Score:2)
InsightIn140Bytes either has the day off or is still hurtin' from the smack-down PopeRatzo gave him yesterday.
Re:Truth (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Right or not, the wording of the patent is pretty specific. It seems like it would be trivial to work around it.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, the patent is specific about using a unique id to transmit the meeting request. If you transmit the data it would seem that you are not infringing on any patents. That being said, using a unique id to represent a packet of data is already obviously prior use and obviously "obvious".
But this is how Microsoft earns their money. They don't make good products, they have a large legal team.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact is that their products are way ahead of the curve which is why KDE, Gnome and others are always playing catch-up.
That's why no one is buying Windows Phone and they have to make their money off of Android lawsuits.
This could be a way out... (Score:4, Interesting)
Let all those Android device makers under several patent assaults from the like of Microsoft and the like do this:
Remove the "infringing" functionality from your phones but create publicity that the features are available through an extension-like add-on like similar to Firefox or Google's Chrome browser.
Then let's see who these patent litigants will sue. How about that?
Re: (Score:3)
Hard when one of those infringing features is a touch screen.
I have no idea if that is actually the case at the moment, but just illustrating that not everything can be provided by third parties.
Re: (Score:1)
Hard when one of those infringing features is a touch screen.
What are you talking about? Read the patent, nothing about touchscreens other than that the device on which this would be implemented preferably contains a touchscreen. No patent claims to touchscreens.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, you clearly didn't read his entire post.
Re:This could be a way out... (Score:4, Informative)
The good news is that now that particular patent bullet has been fired, it won't be reusable for their standover team. One less round of ammunition for the rest of Microsoft's protection racket.
Re:This could be a way out... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fair comment. My point was that attempting to route around these silly patents is not the right way to go about it, because eventually some troll is going to come knocking on the door with a stupid patent for a core technology such as touchscreens, portable batteries or radio antennae.
The way to address these patents IMO is to fight the corrupt system that gave them validity in the first place. Yes, and I would like a pony.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you rather have the current situation where these hard working people who invent a way to use X to perform task Y are not allowed to take them to market because some CEO thought it would be a good idea to file a broad patent that covers all applications of X in the field of Y,Z and Q?
Also I hope you have never created anything, ever. Because unless you built it from first principles in total isolation then you are one of those "scum bags who just want to feed off the sweat of others" too.
I also take
Re:This could be a way out... (Score:5, Interesting)
Let all those Android device makers under several patent assaults from the like of Microsoft and the like do this:
Remove the "infringing" functionality from your phones but create publicity that the features are available through an extension-like add-on like similar to Firefox or Google's Chrome browser.
Then let's see who these patent litigants will sue. How about that?
6 of the Microsoft patents were thrown out and only 1 was upheld. The more Microsoft patents that can be identified as worthless the better. And the ones that are found to be infringing on their generic and prior art ridden patents they'll just work around it with another implementation of the functionality.
You're Coming At This All Wrong (Score:2, Funny)
The fact that Microsoft's cash register rings every time some "M$"-hating hipster buys a googlaphone because "It's Open and Free! Wheeee!" is friggin' hysterical.
Re: (Score:3)
Translation:
"But our tapeworms are longer!"
Re: (Score:2)
Apple pays licensing fees to Microsoft too - there's quite a bit of MS tech in the iPhone.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but they're paying for the tech (aka an implementation of ActiveSync and an Exchange CAL). Through software patents MS gets a couple of dollars every time an Android sells even though they do not have any MS software. I read somewhere that the revenue from Androids is actually rivaling MS'es income on it's licenses for the aberration that's called Windows Phone.
Re: (Score:3)
And Apple gets counter-sued out of existance (Score:3)
Best Christmas present ever.
Re:This could be a way out... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that this ratio still sucks, because there are thousands of patents in play. Thousands might be invalidated, but the ones that are upheld are still idiotic and still cost the industry and the consumer billions.
Re: (Score:2)
Truly patentworthy. Doh.
Re:This could be a way out... (Score:4, Informative)
"6 of the Microsoft patents were thrown out and only 1 was upheld."
Yes, I'm not sure why some people are saying this ruling strengthens Microsoft's hand. The ruling only effects sales in America, and only applies to one patent. Companies aren't going to be willing to pay Microsoft as much for one patent only valid in the US as they would've been for 6 patents valid worldwide. If anything I think this will lessen the amount Microsoft will be able to get out of companies over Android - no one's going to pay what they were paying for just a single feature in the American market.
Sure it strengthens Microsoft's hand in getting other companies to license that patent, if they want it, but it doesn't strengthen their hand in the amount they can extort, it weakens their bargaining chip dramatically. Companies wont even be willing to pay Microsoft full stop for their patents on handsets sold outside the US, and they'll only be licensing at most 1 patent for handsets sold inside the US.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, Microsoft almost certainly did not bring their whole war chest to the table. They only needed 1 patent to win. So they probably brought 2 of their strongest, and threw in a few others hoping they would survive.
Now they can bring a suit against anyone else with that one patent, and a handful of others they aren't sure about. Even if they ultimately lose this 1 patent somehow, they can start over with a new batch.
It's called throw something to a wall and see if it sticks. That's how they f
Re: (Score:3)
Well of course, but if they put forward 7 patents, presumably ones they felt were strong enough to hold at least some merit, and 6 were overturned, and one was validated in the US, but invalidated in Europe then do they really want to keep spending money on court cases that ultimately invalidate more of their patent warchest than it validates?
I doubt they'd have gone in with weak patents from the outset, because if you're going to spend money on this sort of litigation you might as well go in with the inten
Re:This could be a way out... (Score:4, Informative)
Then let's see who these patent litigants will sue.
The developer who wrote the "extension-like add-on" for creating it, Google for allowing it to be implemented, and everyone that distributes it. These are patent lawyers we are talking about. If they can think of someone to sue, they will sue.
Another simple solution (Score:2)
File thousands of silly patents, and sue MS right back. For major companies, like Motorola, that should not be a problem. Maybe several companies could sue MS at the same time - sort of MS, Apple, and Oracle, and suing Android companies at the same time.
Maybe, when the court are completely clogged with silly patent lawsuits, the government will fix the broken system. But, frankly, that is unlikely. For US politicians, campaign contributions from MNCs are their life's blood.
Microsoft is now the cancer (Score:2)
How ironic [theregister.co.uk]
Slashdot: now part of Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
Both of those are evasions at best, and very ugly examples of media spin.
This decision is exactly the opposite of success for Microsoft.
Just another example of Slashdot astroturf from the acknowledged masters, I guess.
Re: (Score:1)
Reread the first sentence then get back to us!
Re:Slashdot: now part of Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
Reread the first sentence then get back to us!
I'm back.
Some balance from the Wall Street Journal:
Motorola Mobility Claims Patent Win Against Microsoft
Judge rules in favor of Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc on six of seven Microsoft Corp patents
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20111220-716842.html [wsj.com]
Microsoft has had six patents invalidated and will be forced to provide clarity on patent 566 (sharing calendar events). That means other companies will be able to work around the patent without paying Microsoft's extortion fee. It's an excellent first step in pulling the fangs of their patent trolling.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. IANAL but we get a lot of lawyerly types on Slashdot saying that precedent is everything.
Re:Slashdot: now part of Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft has had six patents invalidated
Nope. The judge ruled the Motorola didn't infringe on six patents. He didn't rule then invalid.
Also of note is that Microsoft has brought suits against Motorola for over 30 patents, so this is just the beginning.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot: now part of Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, one hit.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot: now part of Microsoft (Score:5, Funny)
Did MSFT get rid of WinPhone 7
Not many of them, no.
The fanboy stuff cuts both ways (Score:4, Interesting)
Even the reviews that sing the praises of WP7 go on about how it "holds promise for the future" which looks to me to trying very hard to say something good about it without anything concrete to suggest.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How many factories does Microsoft own? And, what physical products do they sell? In view of their vast financial empire, they own very few physical assets, and produce even fewer. The vast majority of Microsoft's "products" are Imaginary Property. Or, what elitists tend to refer to as "Intellectual Property".
I say MS is a patent troll, along with Apple, and a lot of other companies. They aren't quite as repulsive as some of those east Texas companies that have never marketed a damned thing in their his
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How many factories does Microsoft own? And, what physical products do they sell? In view of their vast financial empire, they own very few physical assets, and produce even fewer. The vast majority of Microsoft's "products" are Imaginary Property. Or, what elitists tend to refer to as "Intellectual Property".
I say MS is a patent troll, along with Apple, and a lot of other companies. They aren't quite as repulsive as some of those east Texas companies that have never marketed a damned thing in their history, but they are still patent trolls.
If you had half a brain and read Jobs Biography you'd discover that Apple has paid and built factories in China to have their products manufactured. How that does or does not validate their research is still your own idea of what is or is not engineering. Whip out your credentials and your patent portfolio or shut the hell up.
Microsoft == East Texas (Score:2)
I say MS is a patent troll, along with Apple, and a lot of other companies. They aren't quite as repulsive as some of those east Texas companies that have never marketed a damned thing in their history, but they are still patent trolls.
I think that several of those east Texas companies work for MS, like Acacia.
Re: (Score:2)
How many factories does Google own? And, what physical products do they sell? In view of their vast financial empire, they own very few physical assets, and produce even fewer. The vast majority of Google's "products" are Imaginary Property. Or, what elitists tend to refer to as "Intellectual Property".
I say Google is a patent troll, along with Apple, and a lot of other companies. They aren't quite as repulsive as some of those east Texas companies that have never marketed a damned thing in their history, but they are still patent trolls.
FTFY. See how dumb it sounds.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft is a software company that makes great hardware.
If only they had the courage to keep their software people out of the groups that write drivers for their hardware... But then, hardware people aren't any better writting them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
> How is it patent trolling? I was always told patent trolling is done by those that don't actually have a product
Welcome to the new era.
We could try to come up with a new term for patent abuse but why bother. Patent Troll is the perfect metaphor. Why bother with inventing a new (and potential confusing) term when the current term accurately reflects what's going on?
Some ugly creature lurks beneath a bridge that they don't own and then try to rob people by charging them a toll to cross the bridge. These
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft are still the same. Trolling, extortion, dirty tricks. Just because Apple have now become the most despised company in the world doesn't mean Microsoft has changed its spots. From funding SCO to close down Linux, to threatening potential Linux users with patent litigation whilst refusing to reveal a single one of their patents they believe may be relevant, to extortion on handset manufacturers via Android. The fact all but one of their patents were thrown out, and one accepted by the ITU but rejec
Re: (Score:3)
It says:
Note the italicized part. Also, the text of the blurb appears to have been written by chrb, who himself is paraphrasing "Experts," referring to an ill defined 3rd party.
Not at all. Microsoft doesn't need every patent to make it, they just need a handful. That's why these suits involve several patents, to increase the likelihood that something will stick. And now they have a patent t
Re: (Score:1)
It says:
Note the italicized part. Also, the text of the blurb appears to have been written by chrb, who himself is paraphrasing "Experts," referring to an ill defined 3rd party.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, the patents that Motorola and Samsung use as a weapon against Apple you mean?
Re:Slashdot: now part of Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft doesn't need every patent to make it, they just need a handful.
No. Microsoft needs the "valid" patents to remain unidentified, so they can be used as a vague threat. Once patents are identified, it is possible for Microsoft's enemies (all 7 billions of them) to focus on invalidating the ones successfully used in such litigation. With enough effort applied all such patents can be proven to be invalid -- the problem is, Microsoft, just like many other companies, owns shitloads upon shitloads of crappy patents, and no one has resources to track down all the reasons why they are crap, and sue Microsoft over each and every of them.
Re: (Score:2)
But lets not let facts get in the way of your FUD. I just invalidated every single ignorant thought that you decided to dump on us.
No you didn't (Score:5, Informative)
You totally miss the implications of his post (possibly because he forgot to add the phrase "all of" to "Once all of the patents are identified"). Just because Microsoft decided to use X numbers of patents against Motorola doesn't mean they don't have another Y waiting in line for the next court case. So your quoted source makes no difference.
Since there is no legal way to require Microsoft to reveal all of the patents they think might infringe on Android, his post is, rather than FUD, merely fantasy. The fact that it is fantasy showcases a major problem with the patent system. The law should be that if someone pays licensing fees, they can require the party they are paying to reveal all of their patents which they feel are infringed (by that particular technology), and any patents which are not revealed are automatically rendered toothless (against that particular technology), even against third parties. (Now I'm fading into fantasy... <sigh/>)
> no one has resources to track down all the reasons why they are crap, and sue Microsoft over each and every of them.
You also missed a second major problem with his post: there is no legal penalty for filing an invalid patent. Or at least, for all practical purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
No.
If enough Microsoft lawsuits will fail, no one in his right mind would want to accept licensing fees or settle. Ex: SCO and its famous $699 licensing of Linux. Companies started to reject SCO demands long before the related part of SCO lawsuit ended, because SCO was clearly losing all other arguments, and there was a reasonable expectation that everything else is invalid, too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not like Microsoft gets really penalized for every patent suit that fails. From reading the article they managed to get one patent to stick, and that's all they need to collect royalties from whoever they sued. Sounds a lot like success to me. The only way that Microsoft or any other patent troll could really fail is if all their claims are thrown out.
Re: (Score:2)
And that is the problem. Perhaps a rule should be added that says if I prove one of your patents is invalid, I get to pick one that has been validated that is now marked available to all for free.
Re: (Score:2)
Preliminary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Experts say that this will strengthen Microsoft's hand in collecting patent fees on Android.
I wonder who those experts were?
Re:Preliminary (Score:4, Insightful)
Florian, maybe?
The ITU was foolish (Score:2)
Patent trolls in the social networking age (Score:5, Insightful)
It makes waves over at Facebook and Twitter. For example lots of former Apple drones and die-hard fans are now turning away from the once idolized company. Open and friendly competition is gaining traction (the green robot stamped devices come to mind) because of this bad behavior. You accumulate patents to prevent Texan patent troll to abuse you, that is fine, but you can't use them offensively to prevent market entry for others, specifically using broadly applicable text hyperlink patent or some other creepy software pantent, that is just plain evil.
Re: (Score:2)
For example lots of former Apple drones and die-hard fans are now turning away from the once idolized company
Clearly they're not dying fast enough or hard enough for management to notice.
Re:Patent trolls in the social networking age (Score:4, Insightful)
MS and also Apple think their trollish patent practices will strengthen them, but it is already apparent this whole patent bullying of late is turning into one big PR nightmare.
No, it is not a nightmare. If it were, the press would not be using the language it does to describe the situation. MS, Apple, HTC, Samsung, and a host of others have experienced no measurable consumer backlash as a result of these squabbles. The average citizen is blissfully unaware, and few technophiles give more than a fleeting thought about it when they buy their next bit of hardware.
For example lots of former Apple drones and die-hard fans are now turning away from the once idolized company.
That's an easy claim to make, but you do not provide any evidence, and I am sure that none exists.
Open and friendly competition is gaining traction (the green robot stamped devices come to mind) because of this bad behavior.
Competition that actually fuels this sort of behavior. MS gets royaltes from all Android manufacturers save one. So this bad behavior is being rewarded by Andriod, not punished.
You accumulate patents to prevent Texan patent troll to abuse you... 1) Few of the patent trolls are Texans, they simply file in East Texas. 2) That tactic has never been used, because patent trolls do not have a product to which a cross license may be applied.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Patent trolls in the social networking age (Score:4, Insightful)
Andriod is gaining traction because it's given away free.
Not to Android users, it isn't.
Android users are buying Android phones because they're nice toys/tools. Easy to use, clever and fun. Pretty much exactly the same reasons they'd buy an iPhone.
There's plenty of reasons they'd choose one over the other, but given that some Android devices cost as much or more than iPhones, the price of the OS is unlikely to be a factor..
Re: (Score:2)
My phone would have been $550, with Android. If they licensed another operating system, it would still have been the same price, because that's what the market would pay for it. Of course mine was subsidized by several incentives.
Andoird being free (or $5 if you pay Microsoft's protection money) means it's more profit for the maker. It is entirely possible to argue that it being free makes it an attractive option for manufacturers. Throw in a little in-house customization like HTC's Sense on top of it,
If it's obvious, why not here? (Score:2)
I know, it's probably deemed as a baited question but I asked it anyway. Why is the patent not overturned in the US when it's turned down in the EU as to obvious?
I'm not looking for the "Because they have money and can pay people off" answer, or the "they suck and are the Debil answer".
Should not the EU patent finding be valid evidence to the USPTO that the patent should be invalidated therefor Android vendors do not have to pay Microsoft any fees?
Really we need to get a movement together and get the issu
Re: (Score:2)
The "obvious" ruling in the EU isn't going to trigger anything because the that is very subjective and a reaction from t
Re: (Score:2)
Motorola's lawyers failed, there blunder was in how the defined what the patent really meant.
The real story here is that M$ was able to file a bullshit patent that basically patented calling a database base table a calender and a record an event, and using standard database query tools, when that database is accessed by a mobile device.
Basically what the US patents office has done here is set a precedent that every database schema imaginable can be patented, based upon table names, field and record na
Re: (Score:2)
The other five (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well... (Score:2)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
They are facing the very real reality that Windows 8 will flop. Tens of thousands of PC's are being replaced with ipads both at home, and in the enterprise.
Windows 7 and Windows 8 are not going to disappear until desktops and laptops disappear. How likely is that?
Enterprise lives and dies by spreadsheets, MS Word documents, custom software tools, and expensive 3rd party applications. Those are not manageable on "mobile devices." Besides, why an enterprise would want its workers to work while mobile? Most of them are hired specifically to sit in cubicles and work, not to relax in bars. Most work can't even be taken out of the company.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get your cubicle, you get some smaller shared space where you can sit with your tablet, talk with your coworkers, move around and make instant meetings. Nobody owns a specific chair or couch. You'll get some docking stations to do the heavy work with mouse and keyboard. You boss w
Re: (Score:2)
Enterprise lives and dies by spreadsheets, MS Word documents, custom software tools, and expensive 3rd party applications.
See. This is the irony from hell. Xwindows allows one to run GUI applications remotely. On a phone with XMPP the office application can be on the phone. A thin client with a big screen could connect to the phone, bring up the desktop version of the application, and the document is still living where all your other data is -- OTFP (on the f*** phone). If Linux phones with X would sta
Re: (Score:2)
With web based applications, and a LAMP/LAPP server (Or windows/MSSQL) you can get the same functionality that the AS-400 provides, pay the price of one PC, and either purchase an already complete software package or pay a far more reasonable developer fee for your custom software- AND everyone with a web browser can access it; which includes all those ipads and even mobile phones.
That only includes scenarios when a large group of people needs to do similar actions, like filling time cards or booking tra
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are facing the very real reality that Windows 8 will flop. Tens of thousands of PC's are being replaced with ipads both at home, and in the enterprise. This trend is likely to explode in 2012, when a large enough portion of the non developer population will be using them to matter. Sure, they're doing extremely well in video games, but their own mobile efforts haven't panned out, and probably won't. If Microsoft loses the Enterprise to Apple, they will be effectively marginalized in their core business. So what do you expect them to do? Those that can't make an honest living litigate. If the entertainment industry has taught us nothing, it's that.
Apple isn't going to win the enterprise space any time soon. Sure they will get companies who buy iToys for their employees, but let's face it, iPads are an unmanageable mess for an IT organisation. How do you effectively manage the data held on them, and the security on them? If big organisations can't control laptops, how do you think they will control iPads?
I know of a lot of large organisations who would like to use tablets but won't go near Apple because they don't understand corporates. Sure they're s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tens of thousands of PC's are being replaced with ipads both at home, and in the enterprise.
I doubt a single PC has been replaced in the enterprise. Many things have been replaced, notepads (the paper kind), books, manuals, stock readers, PDAs, and special single purpose devices like GPS units and barcode scanners.
But until I see a receptionist cranking out 80wpm on a touchscreen, a stock broker staring at 4x iPads rather than 4x 23" monitors, an engineer preparing complex designs, or a drafter running AutoCAD I doubt you can claim the PC's place in the enterprise has been offset even in the sligh
It's a Meeting Request, But... (Score:2)
It's a meeting request, just like any other meeting request, but now we do it on your cell phone -- PROFIT!
Prior Art? (Score:2)
DEC's ALL-IN-1 had meetings (calendar management via email) in the 1980s.
Re: (Score:2)
DEC also had a handheld device, called the Itsy, back before Compaq bought them. It became the iPAQ.
It makes no sense (Score:2)
Oh fuck it (Score:3)
Why don't we just have Apple, Google & Co., Microsoft and all the mobile manufacturers just exchange a billion dollars with eachother every other week and just skip the lawyers. I didn't even read the article or the summary because I just don't care anymore. Everybody's wrong, software patents and at this point any patent dealing with mobiles or phones is bullshit, and the whole process of suing everyone who even approaches the market will just stifle innovation and kill good ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't we just have Apple, Google & Co., Microsoft and all the mobile manufacturers just exchange a billion dollars with eachother every other week and just skip the lawyers.
In this tough economic situation, we can't afford to get rid of jobs than Americans need so hard to make ends meet. ~
Re: (Score:2)
Zing! Nice one. And by some amazing coincidence the quote that is coming up at the bottom of the page as I type this is:
"Q: What do you have when you have a lawyer buried up to his neck in sand? A: Not enough sand."
Radical to max.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is an amazingly accurate observation. I feel both enlightened to the reality of the situation and further depressed by the realization it's basically not going to end until everyone gets punished.
"Ultimately, that's a good path for everyone." (Score:1)
Where "everyone" == "the lawyers" and has nothing to do with either businesses or consumers.
Do people at Microsoft honestly believe they are better off in a litigious software hell than if software patents were abolished? I'm sure Microsoft's lawyers believe they are better off, but what about everyone else?
Re: (Score:2)
Get ready for more from M$ (Score:2)
I think patent trolling is Microsoft's long term strategy in the mobile market. No one want Windows Phone 7. Or 8, or 9 or that matter. They aren't stupid in Redmond, just evil. I think planting Elop in Nokia is part one in the plan to first destroy Nokia's stock price, then either have Elop just sign over Nokia's patents, or buy Nokia cheap. Nokia has a truly giant war chest of mobile patents. Microsoft, once in control of those can just sit back and make everyone, Apple included pay them more that those c
Note: this guy is not a judge in a court of law. (Score:2)
He's just a bureaucrat issuing an administriative ruling. He can decide whether or not a patent is being infringed by an import but is not empowered to question it's validity. The ITC has a history of favoring protectionism. This decision can be appealed to a real judge in Federal court, of course.