Microsoft Retracts Patent

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft has retracted their recent controversial patent application. The story was first brought to light by Slashdot on Saturday. Today, Jane Prey of Microsoft announced the retraction on the SIGCSE (Special Interest in Computer Science Education) mailing list. 'Many thanks to the members of the community that brought this to my attention — and here's the latest. The patent application was a mistake and one that should not have happened. To fix this, Microsoft will be removing the patent application. Our sincere apologies to Michael Kölling and the BlueJ community.'"

Moral is complicated

I have a tendency to believe that humans can err, but are basically good. And even Microsoft consists of humans. So my first reaction was "Oh good, they are not as soulless as we believe, this was an honest mistake." That option had already been pointed out during the discussion on slashdot as a problem within their process:

1. Microsoft collects suggestions from different sources
2. Someone suggests the BlueJ functionality
3. Someone extracts a list of features that should actually be implemented
4. Some developer implements the function, not knowing where it came from
5. At the end someone sees the function, attributed to the developer, does not see the BlueJ connection and suggests it for patent application, because this is the routine way to handle new ideas at Microsoft

So, an honest mistake. But this being Microsoft it took me seconds to fall into conspiracy mode. How could they have such mistakes in their process, if they care about intellectual property? Was the mistake that they didn't hide it well? Did they simply try if they can get through with this? Can an entity that consists of basically good humans be not good in the end? (I'm afraid yes). So I still cannot decide if I can trust them or not, they seem to have lied too often in the past.

Re:Moral is complicated

My cynical reaction: The patent application would not have been pulled except for the written admission on the part of a Microsoft developer that the feature was copied from BlueJ.

Re:Moral is complicated

So you know what happens now - MS issues a company-wide edict forbidding staff blog references to the possible origins of new functionality in their products.

Re:Moral is complicated

My cynical reaction: The patent application would not have been pulled except for the written admission on the part of a Microsoft developer that the feature was copied from BlueJ.

A week or so from now, a headless body will turn up floating in Lake Washington off Madina.

Re:Moral is complicated

Only for the autopsy to reveal decapitation by a flying chair

Re:Moral is complicated

But this being Microsoft it took me seconds to fall into conspiracy mode.

There's no "conspiracy" about it, this is now common among most big technology corporations: Throw buckets of patent applications at the Patent Office, and see what sticks. Often the "little people" they are ripping off don't have the means to fight it, and while the other big players know it's bullshit, they find it cheaper and quicker to just pay the license. It's not just Micorsoft, they all do it.

Re:Moral is complicated

Except that three people are listed as the inventors on the patent application.

So those three must have thought they'd invented something - otherwise they lied on that application.

Or is it legal to put people's names on a patent application without asking them if what they did is actually an "invention"?

The people at both 3 and 4 have to know they didn't "invent" anything and surely the people at 5 have to ask them at some point?

Re:Moral is complicated

Each inventor listed in a U.S. patent application has to sign an oath (declaration) that states that he believes that he is the first to invent what is claimed in the patent application. So you are correct in that these Microsoft inventors were either: (1) lazy (didn't read the patent application); (2) lying (knew of BlueJ and didn't care); or (3) incompetent (didn't know what BlueJ was).

Re:Moral is complicated

As a follow up to my own post, inventor oaths are typically made under penalty of perjury, so that if an inventor knowingly signs a false declaration, the inventor may be punished by fine and/or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 1001.

Re:Moral is complicated

I have to say, with all the legal loops that you have to hop to work with corporate lawyers just to get a patent to the submission stage, that this is not just a simple mistake.

In other words, I definitely heard "And I would've gotten away with it, if it weren't for these meddling kids!" running through my head. Zoinks!

In case you don't feel like clicking

Here is the description from the linked slashdot post, if you were wondering what this patent was about:

"BlueJ is a popular academic IDE which lets students have a visual programming interface. Microsoft copied the design in their 'Object Test Bench' feature in Visual Studio 2005 and even admitted it. Now, a patent application has come to light which patents the very same feature, blatantly ignoring prior art."

Re:In case you don't feel like clicking

In more detail this feature is something akin to an Object Inspector, something that has been a part of Smalltalk languages for probably 20 years in a GUI form. Funny thing, seeing how Visual Studio 2005 has an Object Browser, which is another throwback to the System/Object Browser feature of various Smalltalks dating back to Smalltalk-80 :-)

It's a good start...

but what we all really want to know is when MS will start calling for the abolition of software patents altogether. It's not this specific application, it's Software patents as a whole that should never have happened.

Re:It's a good start...

hey they have a lot of legitimate patents, like the one for the task scheduler (cron jobs). There is absolutely no prior art (UNIX) for that before MSFT came around. :-)

Companies like MSFT/IBM/etc shouldn't get patents, not because they don't invent anything, but because they invent so little and patent so much.

The hardware world scares me though. On the one had they collaborate as academics to share results, and on the other hand they patent everything in sight. No, you can't have an XOR gate, not yours!

Tom

Would it have killed the editor...

...to include half a sentence describing the basics of the patent in the hyperlink?

"The patent discussed on saturday" isn't significantly shorter than "the patent on a copied IDE feature" but contains more useful knowledge and less useless knowledge.

Why does it not surprise me...

Why does it not surprise me that someone named Jane Prey is involved in a Microsoft patent SNAFU?

SIGCSE

Your acronym is missing a G. It took me all of 3 seconds to find out that SIGCSE is the Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education. You can even copy and paste from the first google result if you're feeling especially lazy. I'm guessing you are.

In recent news.

Microsoft recently retracted their patents on the internet and pants.

A microsoft spokesperson said 'Many thanks to the members of the community that brought this to my attention -- and here's the latest. The patent application was a mistake and one that should not have happened.'

Everyone knows Al Gore invented the internet...

Would they have withdrawn without the outcry?

I'd be a lot happier if the Empire's own minions had noticed the problem
and withdrawn the patent BEFORE the outcry arose. As it is:

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- Wendell Phillips, (1811-1884)

Modern addendum: "And the price of open software."

Don't celebrate

Watch now for patents that come as close as possible to stepping over the line, but stop just short. Microsoft easily has the resources to toss up nuisance patents that block possible future development of BlueJ.

Mistake?

Anyone who thinks this was an innocent mistake in "implementing a suggestion" probably hasn't seen the screenshots comparing The VS screens with BlueJ. ( http://www.bluej.org/vs/vs-bj.html [bluej.org] )

Personally, I'm convinced the most plausible explanation for the *extremely* close replication of the BlueJ screens in the MSFT product is that the BlueJ source was ported to C#, probably using an automated tool.

Re:Mistake?

Personally, I'm convinced the most plausible explanation for the *extremely* close replication of the BlueJ screens in the MSFT product is that the BlueJ source was ported to C#, probably using an automated tool.

That's a bunch of nonsense. I mean, it's not impossible, but it's ridiculous to jump to that conclusion. There are tons of workalike tools in Unixland that look and behave just like the programs they're knocking off. Does that mean they were developed by porting the original program? I just made some documents that look amazingly like some other documents in-house (I'm a graphic artist, and I needed some documents very similar to some old ones but with new graphical elements, and couldn't find the originals.) By your argument, the most rational explanation for the existence of these documents is that I loaded up the originals and altered them. The new document is just so similar!

Maybe the GNOME desktop is actually a port of Windows' source code, since it looks so much like Windows?

That's One

Now the slashdot echo chamber will have a moment of self-satisfaction while more theft, more corporate domination and fraud at the expense of consumers and entrepreneurs.

Most importantly: We don't have to get out of our chairs and participate in our political system to make the government we want. Woohoo!

Patent transparency is a good thing.

Did Microsoft employees lie about inventing this? Obviously, dishonesty in the workplace is a serious offense, and I'm sure Microsoft will severely punish employees who falsify invention claims. And no doubt the in-house patent attorneys failed to catch this serious error.... what's to become of them? Sounds like a few people might end up on the streets of Redmond.

I mean Microsoft wouldn't just want to file bogus patents ... Right?

Well, maybe Microsoft will now review all of the claims submitted by these bozos to make sure they didn't screw up before. Good thing these applications are all public - transparency is a critical part of the patent system.

Missing the point

Microsoft's apology changes nothing about the fact that all the original factors that caused this embarrassing mistake by them are still in play. It is very lucky that Microsoft's misbehaviour in the BlueJ example was quickly noticed, carefully documented and forcefully exposed by the BlueJ people themselves, but it is not and should not be an inventor's job to police the behaviour of big companies like Microsoft. The next time Microsoft misappropriates somebody else's invention, the problem is unlikely to be exposed so quickly. Microsoft should deal with the underlying factor behind this problem: Employees are still being encouraged to file as many patents as possible on the wrong assumption that it is a good indicator of employee merit. This is part of a deeper problem in the Microsoft executive which is fanatically pushing the meretricious concept of software patents around the world to places that have studied the idea and rejected it (EU) as harmful to the interests of small businesses.

patent first, ask questions later?

I disagree with the idea of just attempting to patent absolutely anything, and then only when the app comes back as "has issue", the company says, "Oops! heh heh, never mind that one..." and just keeps on going. It's pretty clear that even if the patent office was great at detecting dupe patents, prior art,etc., that if there are 10,000 patent apps a day or whatever coming in, how do you have time to check them all? Surely a lot are slipping through and being granted based on this "apply first, worry later" stuff.

Apology

Okay, this whole thing is not too surprising. The patent system is broken and all major companies end up using a shotgun approach to get as many, mostly invalid, patents as possible. They apologized publicly for this instance. That was the right thing to do, and MS did it for a change. Good job MS.

Prior art detected

(A)ssimilate? (Y/Y)

now if the scumpuppies at Rambus would do this...

and donate all their licensing income derived from patenting sync ram that was derivative of early standardization attempts in an industry technical committee, we might start getting someplace.

if not, hey, what the hell, it's only ethics and morals. I'm sure it did not influence any other large companies in the field, like HP and SCO.

if busted then issue appology

I still stand by my new sig:

Microsoft's new tag line for 2007: Pilfer, Plagiarize, Patent.

Good start, but

To fix this, Microsoft will be removing the patent application. Our sincere apologies to Michael Kölling and the BlueJ community.

What about listing BlueJ in Visual Studio credits?

I'm sure there are more ....

just yesterday I decided to check out googles new patent search engine.
I typed in "Virtual Interaction Configuration" and up pops a patent.

I'm very anti-patent when it comes to software and the virtual interaction configuration is my own project that started back in 1988. I've only glanced over the patent so far and I intend on addressing each claim and explaining how each does not qualify for patent consideration. I intend to explain it in terms of Abstraction Physics, the common human characteristic in creating and dealing with abstraction.

At some point software patents will come to their end.

Off to the next one

So, Microsoft admitted it, no problem, let's try it again with another program!

They will keep trying with lots of these totally unfair patents, and when people respond too late, or too weak, the previous prior-arts will have to go to the court, and because of Microsoft's money and lawyers, you're risking a hell of a lot cash to guarantee something you made up, so you probably won't or have to invest a ridiculous amount of time and effort into it. Yet another new patent for Microsoft.

They will keep trying...

Should've assigned it

Microsoft could have assigned the application to the EFF or something like that. There might have been something patentable in their application and it might as well be patented as protection against some other evil empire. They already paid to have it examined, so let the examiner decide. They would have to disclose the prior art though, which is easy using an IDS (invention disclosure sheet). Still, microsoft did right by abandoning. They could have done better by assigning. Oh yeah - I am a lawyer. A patent lawyer in fact. (flame on)

"nothing to see here"

Move along... It was "just a mistake".

What about the zillions of other patents just like this one that they apply for every day? Is the burden really on ME to make sure that Microsoft hasn't been attempting to patent stuff I've clearly got "prior art" for?

This is terrible. Stop acting like "The system works". This is one example where a prior-art holder had the means to notice someone's faulty patent claim.

I'm not even sure where the burden of proof should lie. When you hire a patent attorney to do a "prior art search", they just give you a pile of existing patents that matched some keywords. How do you do a _real_ prior art search, beyond just what has already been patented? Its not even possible. The system is so hosed that every patent that resulted from it should probably just be thrown out.

I can't believe people are buying this "It was a mistake" B.S.

patent application spree

you see, this is exactly the problem with patents
companies just try to patent ANYTHING, because if the patent is bullsh*t, then they don't have to be afraid of any harm, except losing the patent application fee (peanuts)

if you really want to stop companies from going on crazy patent application sprees, you have to make them pay big time for trying to patent obvious or non-innovative ideas

I mean a patent gives you a lot of power on a market - if you try to get that much power without really doing something for it, it should be punished like a white-collar crime...

And would've gotten away with it too...

If it wasn't for those meddling F/LOSS kids!

*ducks*

Brought to light *by* /.?

I call BS on that, especially seeing that the submission on /. included two links to stories related and neither was a direct link to an application. Brought to light to Slashdot? Yes, that I can believe.

Feel free

to give credit to Microsoft for retracting the patent application. Your credibility is nil if you bash them for submitting the application (erroneously) and then don't at least acknowledge the retraction. It is stuff like this that drive people away from our good work like Linux, Firefox, etc. It makes us look like zealots.

Thank you Microsoft

Regardless of why they did it, they backed off, apologized and cancelled the application. I know I'm coming close to invoking Godwin's Law here, but imagine if Mr Bush were to back off, apologize and cancel the invasion. As in this case, I wouldn't even care why he started the process, I would simply be impressed that he had what it takes to say "whoops" and then stop it.

Retract one, file another...

Microsoft has retracted their recent controversial patent application.

Only to apply for another [www.idg.se] (sorry, only in Swedish). According to the article, Microsoft has applied for a patent for modular operating system upgrades, which sound quite similar to the various package management schemes (Yum, Apt, etc) used in Linux and other Unix-like operating systems.

Re:Um...what did Slashdot have to do with it?

When Slashdot did the 'bringing to light', it was Saturday. The developers 'brought it to light' for their crowd on Friday. To 'bring it to light' means that you've made some portion, usually a significant portion, of a group of people aware of it. The majority of the Slashdot crowd did NOT know about this before it was announced on Saturday, so it WAS 'brought to light'.

Happy?

Re:Um...what did Slashdot have to do with it?

The story was first brought to light by Slashdot on Saturday.

Um...what did Slashdot have to do with it? It looks like this fellow started complaining on Friday: http://www.bluej.org/mrt/?p=21 [bluej.org]

Obi-Wan: "The article that I'm looking for should be right ..." (points at screen) "here."
Librarian: "If an article is not on Slashdot, then it does not exist." (Turns abruptly and walks away)

Re:Um...what did Slashdot have to do with it?

Erm, there's a good chance it would have gone largely unnoticed for months if the story hadn't made /.

To be fair, months can mean the difference between sinking thousands of dollars into a patent and deciding to defend it, or cutting it loose.

Re:Um...what did Slashdot have to do with it?

what did Slashdot have to do with it? It looks like this fellow started complaining on Friday:

      Ahh, you see - but he only saw the light when his server crashed from a decent slashdotting... ;)