The Dangers of a Patent War Chest 125
Timothy B. Lee writes "I've got an article in the New York Times in which I make the case against software patents. Expanding on a point I first made on my blog, I point out that Microsoft has had a change of heart on the patent issue. In 1991, Bill Gates worried that 'some large company will patent some obvious thing' and use it to blackmail smaller companies. Now that Microsoft is a large company with a patent war-chest of their own, they don't seem so concerned about abuse of the patent system. I then describe how Verizon's efforts to shut down Vonage are a perfect illustration of Gates' fears."
who's suing who? (Score:4, Insightful)
undisclosed balance-sheet liability .. (Score:4, Interesting)
How many companies apart from Microsoft make allegations that Linux violates their patents.
every Linux customer has an undisclosed balance-sheet liability [virtuallinux.org]
was Re:who's suing who?
Re: (Score:2)
Not nearly as often as they threaten and coerce, heck just look back a few years at Virtualdub 1.3 or
.asf sucked for most uses (looked good for what it did) and only .asf's into .avi's of your choosing/formatting.
so.
The gist was the streaming format
could be watched via WMP. Normal operation for Windows programs, save for Virtualdub could convert
those
Worked well, but the ability was removed after MS p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
In my opinion, it looks like Microsoft wants companies to think about what will happen
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
These two statements are contradictory.
How about we go with "Canonical"? Of course, Red Hat has patent idemnification as does Novell, so the answer for those distros is similar, but publically stated.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not in the USA they're not.
There's a HUGE difference between Amy Lee saying "Hey, that guitar solo's right out of The Open Door" and her saying "I'm suing you for making an unlawful derivative work." Or, to use physical law as a property, how about the difference between "You're on private property" and "I'm calling the Sherrif."
The victim of a tort, like patent infringement, always has the option of not going to court. The few apparent exceptions are cases where not
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I would have to disagree. If one has a reasonable apprehension of suit, one can file for declaratory judgment to invalidate the patent or in the hope that the court will declare the product non-infringing.The problem here is that what MS has done, so far, falls into the category of "oblique suggestion". That is probably part of the reason that MS has not and will not state which patents are believed to be infringed; doing so could be construed as a very specific threat.
Saying "that work may infringe my IP
Re:who's suing who? (Score:5, Insightful)
What are we doing? (Score:2)
I think software patents for the most part are bullocks, but given the system exists ...
If they are nonsense to begin with, why don't we just say so, change the laws to eradicate them and quit wasting time and money on them?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course they dont mind (Score:2, Flamebait)
MS is using its patent warchest defensively (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a poor assessment of this situation. MS is a bully but they are not using their patents. Their patent warchest seems defensive in nature. MS has deep pockets and is a prime target for the lawsuit happy patent portfolio companies that create nothing other than lawsuits. For a company with deep pockets, the patent warchest is an unfortunate necessity.
Re: (Score:2)
What was the 'linux violates our patents so pay up' statement from Balmer? Was i just dreaming?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But why did I read TFT as 'The Dangers of a Patent War on Christ'?
I mean, I'm not even Christian. Still, PP's comment still applies.
I am proud to be a European (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
That would be about minus 21 years [ffii.org] at the first glance. May I please borrow your time machine?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
F*** Microsoft. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Microsoft doesn't have to open source anything to show you what they have patented. All they have to do is show you the patent. In fact, they don't even have to do that. If the open source community were really that concerned, they'd hire a lawyer to dig through the patents that Microsoft controls. They are, after all,
Re:F*** Microsoft. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you misread the GP's point. He wants Microsoft to open their code base so other patent holders can pour through Microsoft's code to see if Microsoft is violating anybody else's patent. As in what's good for the goose is good for the gander Not that I agree with him, it is an extreme response, and he's kind of missing the point of the article which is that the current patent system actively punishes those who try to "remain pure" and not stockpile patents. But it does also seem a little unfair that it's easier to get away with violating a software patents by keeping your code hidden. After all, if you're going to own software patents, what's the point of keeping your code secret? You can sue for patent violation if anyone tries to steal what you've done. If you're going to do that anyway, maybe it's only fair that everyone else in the world who thinks you might be violating their patent can check it out before they decide to sue you.
"If the open source community were really that concerned, they'd hire a lawyer to dig through the patents that Microsoft controls. They are, after all, a matter of public record."
I also respectfully disagree with this point. You make it sound so simple. One of the basic complaints people have with the patent system in general and software patents in particular is based on the incredible amount of work involved with "digging through patents" owned by everyone in the world (cuz really, what's the use in just digging through Microsofts patents?) and making sure you're not infringing any. It's just horribly inefficient and bad for innovation if the man-hours involved in avoiding patent infringement are comparable to the amount spent just writing software in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I don't know. It could have something to do with the fact that some companies actually sell packaged software. Patents are used to keep other companies/organizations from stealing work and using it as their own. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they keep the software closed.
I know the argument that will come from someone on here - that nothing is stopping them from open sourcing the sof
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You make money with software by engaging in business where you use that software to do stuff. A to Z, get a yellow pages and find a business. Software as a stand alone business will be going the way of the buggywhip industry within this generation. Software will still be written, programmers will still be paid, but it won't be the business model of yore,nor the payscale t
Re: (Score:1)
Do you mean "copyright"? I can't see how you could look at a binary and determine that it violates a software patent. At least with a mousetrap, you can disassemble it and see that it does or does not violate a published patent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The OP doesn't want MS to open source its code,
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, we all know that "guilty until proven innocent" is the standard for Microsoft, never mind what the rules are for the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
First off, the poster said that Microsoft should be *forced* to "open up" everything that they make.
You may see a whole world of difference between that and open sourcing something, and you'd be partially right from a licensing standpoint. Open sourcing software is done voluntarily, and under an OSI approved license.
However, realistically, once the source code cat is out of the bag, it's effectively in the same state of exposur
Re: (Score:2)
Well, let's see... There are a few smaller apps on my site (with several more being worked on at the moment and several published articles on the subject.
Frankly, I'd say you're barking up the wrong tree, kiddo.
Re: (Score:2)
My favorite quote [quotationspage.com] regarding this:
Re: (Score:2)
I still think that open source can be a positive thing. Unfortunately the thing that is right about it (the community collaborating with each other) is very closely tied to the thing that is so very wrong about it (the gimmie gimmie people who think everything should be open).
Before, it was only a few people out there who behaved like that. Now it seems like more and more of them a
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If the open source community were really that concerned, they'd hire a lawyer to dig through the patents that Microsoft controls.
Why? The open source community just uses the same policy as Microsoft with regard to possible infringements. The policy reads something like this: "If you claim that we are infringing your patents, you are welcome to come to us with details of those claimed infringements, and we'll try to find a solution for your problems".
In other words, Microsoft always want people to come to them to negotiate, regardless of whether Microsoft is the infringer or the infringed. That's just hypocrisy, so the most reason
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the sheer number of instances where they make deals with other companies to share the use of patented ideas/technologies and the fact that their legal dept puts rather strict limits on what their developers can look at in the way of other source code, I'd say not horribly many.
Even when they are found to be infringing by a company that holds the patent, they are generally prett
Re:F*** Microsoft. (Score:5, Insightful)
Infringement is inevitable when people are allowed to patent vague concepts and intangible ideas. This practice has to be stopped.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that the software patent system is broken. However, that doesn't detract from my point.
Re: (Score:1)
Everyone can pore over it for months, find out which patents Microsoft infringes on (even though we all disagree with software patents right?). Of course, it is unlikely that the companies who own those patents will sue - the patent war that would arise from that would hurt all parties, so at most expect some token cross-licensing agreements.
Then later, when some developer implements something Microsoft had in the code that was
One of the big problems (Score:5, Insightful)
Patents should not be able to cover concepts only very specific processes. If Gene Roddenberry's heirs patent the "concept" of a teleporter, should that give them rights over someone who actually figures out the physics and machinery to make one? Even if the inventor got the idea from watching Star Trek?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
(It sounds like a rhetorical question, but technically it isn't because I don't actually know the answer)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Principals and Profits (Score:2, Interesting)
I mean I sure as hell don't think their ought to be a tax break for owning a home but you can sure as hell bet
Re:Principals and Profits (Score:5, Informative)
Hahahaha.
Yes, Gates *is* pushing for "patent reform". As in pushing *for* global software patents, in particular pushing really really hard to impose software patents in the EU. Microsoft is *the* 800 pound gorilla driving the entire international pro-software patent lobby. Microsoft has been caught literally authoring supposedly independent government patent legislation and other government documents (ironically leaked by the internal revision history data in Microsoft document formats). Microsoft has been extorting European governments into playing puppet waging Microsoft's political software patent battles in the EU governmental process, threatening to screw with their economy if they don't follow Microsoft's demands to fight for software patents. Things have been pretty quite the last few months, but when all the EU software patent battle stories were popping up here on Slashdot, Microsoft was constantly cropping up and always on the pro-software-patent side.
-
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of whether they will actually be upheld the point is that people think/fear they MIGHT be upheld. After all how did MS convince Novell and others to sign these deals if it wasn't fear of IP law
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it was. The market might have been much smaller then but the principle is the same. There would be zero patents applied for if they didn't give the patent holder a short-term monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
It's always the incumbant (Score:4, Insightful)
Not the Timothy B. Lee I thought at first. (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Call Microsoft's bluff (Score:5, Insightful)
http://digitaltippingpoint.com/wiki/index.php?tit
Of course, please consult with a lawyer if you are making serious plans to challenge Microsoft in court. Also, of course it goes without saying that you should probably consult other big players on the FOSS side, such as the Linux Foundation and the Open Innovation Network, etc. So while I can't give legal advice to anyone, really folks, I don't think there's any there there, to quote Gertude Stein. Just my two cents.
In fact, I believe that Microsoft is doing this patent stuff because they want to ease into distributing GNU Linux themselves, and they want to be the market leading GNU Linux distro. They really kind of are forced to do it. GNU Linux and FOSS are eroding their revenue base. They have read Clayton Christensen's work. They know what a disruptive innovation is. They know that the only market leaders to have survived disruptive innovations are those who spun off an independent separate little company that sold the disruptive products or services. As that spin-off grew, the companies who were smart enough to do it, like Quantum spun off Plus, eventually found that the disruptive little company grew to a point where the two companies could merge, and thus gracefully transition to the new disruptive market. Microsoft is planning to buy a distro, and they are insulating themselves from legal attack once they get there. They are also probably planning to try to bust the GPL in court, which is why they need this legal protection. They are looking to bust the GPL down to something that they like, such as a BSD or MIT or Apache-type license.
So in the meantime, let's make them earn their place. Let's challenge them. Let's unmask their FUD. Sign the list!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
> they want to ease into distributing GNU Linux themselves, and they
> want to be the market leading GNU Linux distro.
>
That's absurd! It would be like Apple starting to use Intel CPUs - and I think we all know how likely *that* is to happen!
Hey, wait a minute...
Re: (Score:2)
Mobster: Nice shop you have hear. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it.
Store owner: No way. I am not paying into your protection racket.
Mobster: Look, I have an image to maintain here. Don't get in the way.
Store owner: Then I will see you in court.
Mobster: Okay, okay.
Re: (Score:2)
GNU Linux and FOSS are eroding their revenue base. They have read Clayton Christensen's work. They know what a disruptive innovation is.
What's the "disruptive innovation" coming out of "GNU Linux and FOSS" ?
Re: (Score:2)
"High quality software for free" is the disruptive innovation. It is cutting into Microsoft's oxygen supply. When $100 computers become common (the OLPC is just the leading edge of a huge tidal wave), can any consumer justify spending $500 to $1000 on Windows and Office? The answer, of course, is no.
The future is in the little portables like OLPC, and Linux will dominate that market. Microsoft knows it too, which is why it has be
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't tried Ubuntu Feisty Fawn, the hottest Linux distro, have you? A hostile reviewer like yourself may find some flaws to carp about, but these flaws are shrinking year by year. Free software is growing up -- fast. At some point, Linux will be more than good enough for 99% of all computer users. When that happens, Microsoft will become largely irrelevant.
The actual answer, of course, is that no consumer is spending $1000 on Windows and Office
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't tried Ubuntu Feisty Fawn, the hottest Linux distro, have you?
Certainly have. Linux has come a long way and has a _lot_ to be thankful to Apple (and Microsoft, for that matter) about.
A hostile reviewer like yourself may find some flaws to carp about, but these flaws are shrinking year by year. Free software is growing up -- fast. At some point, Linux will be more than good enough for 99% of all computer users.
You can't displace another product by being "good enough", because there is no inc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Reasonable quality + rock bottom price = winner. Rugged, reliable $100 machines of all kinds will take over, leaving little room for Microsoft's $800 software bundle.
1. As previously noted, no-one who cares pays full price for Microsoft's software.
2. By the time a $100 machine is as capable as today's $300 - $500 machines, there will be $30 machines that are like today's $100 machines and the relative situation will remain unchanged.
Re: (Score:2)
Irrelevant. Microsoft's revenues are $50 billion per year, which means that plenty of people are paying plenty. These revenues will shrink to nearly nothing in the world of $100 computers running very high quality free software. And this world is coming -- count on it.
Your second point is even more of a non sequitur.
Re: (Score:2)
Irrelevant. Microsoft's revenues are $50 billion per year, which means that plenty of people are paying plenty.
This is a very, very different argument. You've gone from "people are paying Microsoft $1000 for Windows and Office" to "Microsoft are making lots of money" (with the clear implication that you think it's "too much").
These revenues will shrink to nearly nothing in the world of $100 computers running very high quality free software. And this world is coming -- count on it.
We've been told to "c
Re: (Score:2)
No, you have missed the point. It is completely irrelevant whether people can or cannot get Windows and Office for list price. Microsoft cannot sustain a $50 billion/year business unless it is getting roughly $100 to $200 dollars a year per customer, on the average. (Business customers pay
Re: (Score:2)
In a world where ultra cheap computers are normal, Microsoft will not be getting anywhere near $100 per customer per year, not when excellent, featureful, reliable software is available for free. Conclusion: while Microsoft may never completely disappear, the company is due for a massive shrink.
There's a mighty big elephant in your living room that you're ignoring.
The laws of economics are inexorable: reasonable quality + low price = winner.
What's your point ? As I keep trying to point out, and you ke
Re: (Score:2)
Yes: Microsoft could cheat, and I have little doubt they will try.
What's your point ? As I keep trying to point out, and you keep ignoring, to the vast majority of Microsoft's customers, *their software isn't expensive*.
What you refuse to understand is this: when a normal computer with all the software trimmings costs a hundred dollars, how much do you think Microsoft will make from it? And will that be enough to continue feeding
Re: (Score:2)
Yes: Microsoft could cheat, and I have little doubt they will try.
Indeed, they could lower prices. The scoundrels !
What you refuse to understand is this: when a normal computer with all the software trimmings costs a hundred dollars, how much do you think Microsoft will make from it? And will that be enough to continue feeding a $50 billion/year monster? Of course not. Microsoft is due for a massive shrink.
I understand it perfectly well.
What *you* don't seem to understand is:
* The $100 PC isn't like
Re: (Score:2)
Lowering the price is hardly cheating (usually). I would love to see Microsoft permanently cut the true prices of Windows and Office to 50 cents a copy. I dare them to shrink their company voluntarily!
Corruption is the form of cheating I expect Microsoft to try.
I understand it perfectly well.
You certainly haven't shown it.
The $100 PC isn't likely to take over the world. Expand it ? Yes. Replace the significant proportion of machines that sit into
Re: (Score:2)
Corruption is the form of cheating I expect Microsoft to try.
What, exactly, do you expect them to "corrupt" ?
You certainly haven't shown it.
Why ? Because I have come to a different conclusion ?
What you consistently refuse to understand is that technology does not stand still.
On the contrary, it appears I understand it vastly better than you do, since you seem convinced that the computing requirements of today are going to remain static while the "per-$100" specifications of computers rise to meet (
Re: (Score:2)
You are just hoping. What evidence do you have that business computing requirements will explode? (No, 3D eye candy is not a "requirement".) We should be seeing some hints of any such demand today. If you are betting on some software breakthrough that is far be
Re: (Score:2)
You are just hoping. What evidence do you have that business computing requirements will explode? (No, 3D eye candy is not a "requirement".) We should be seeing some hints of any such demand today. If you are betting on some software breakthrough that is far beyond the horizon, then you are really dreaming.
What's this "explode" ? I'm simply observing that over time, the baseline PC specification has risen, and I am predicting it will continue to do so. A decade ago a 486 provided enough power for "busin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't necessarily so. More often than not so called 'disruptive technologies' are not higher quality at all. Their real benefits are cost and production efficiency, not higher quality.
I'd qualify the same functionality at a significantly lower price "much better". It's not just about the specifications sheet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Software is provably not patentable...but... (Score:2)
So instead we end users are forced to watch this insanity as we are prevented from doing things for ourselves that we would otherwise be able to do, as the proof would most certainly expose such a great deal of false constraints imposed upon the users that it would then be considered illegal consumer deception/fraud.
In short, proof of the non-patentability of software would in part come from non-novel and obvious solution direction of anyone within the given field, not just
A different threat, though (Score:4, Insightful)
Back when BillG made that comment, the primary threat to a company was another company who made things. In that environment a patent war chest is a defense: since that other company makes things, if they sue you you can search your war chest for patents they might infringe upon in return. Today, though, the primary threat is from IP holding companies. Against them, the size of your patent war chest doesn't matter. They don't make anything, they don't do anything, therefore there's nothing you can go after no matter how many patents you hold (unless you happen to be the lucky soul holding the patent on sueing people for patent infringement). I think even Microsoft is slowly coming to the realization that patents pose a greater threat to them than their value as a weapon.
Actually, a patent costs $3,650 over 12 years (Score:1, Interesting)
small entity:
basic filing fee $150
fee after 3.5yrs: $450
fee after 7.5yrs: $1150
fee after 11.5 yrs: $1,900
total: $3,650
Is $3,650 spread over 12 years an onerous charge?
Can you write your own patent? absolutely. I've done it 5 times.
Re: (Score:2)
To which countries does this apply anyway? (Score:1)
I would normally agree, but ... (Score:2, Interesting)
After my problems with Vonage I did some research and found countless complaints against Vonage and there deplorable behavior in there t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"...patient war chest..."
Why do I picture Bart Simpson in front of a blackboard writing now?
We need Gates' idea from 1991 (Score:3, Insightful)
I've commonly pointed out that if the hammer was patented any other idiot could make hammers but they would be forced not to. However even that doesn't sell people on why patents are useless because people also see a need for patents. What needs to happen is people to realize exactly what can be patented, and how much you can charge for the use of a patent. We don't need to make them worthless, but litigation over them is easy because you don't have to make your patent available at a reasonable course, and you can infringe on a patent with out realizing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Take a look at this patent (2007) http://www.freepatentsonline.com/RE39660.html [freepatentsonline.com] (Surface mounted four terminal resistor - United States Patent RE39660). The organisation
You have to realize... (Score:4, Interesting)
The American dream (Score:4, Insightful)
how ironic (Score:2)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=microsoft+%2
The Indians call this "speaking with a forked toungue". I wonder how they say "fuck you, bill" in Commanche.
Re: (Score:2)
Since "fuck you" is an idiomatic expletive that cannot be translated, I'm pretty sure they'd just say "Fuck you, Bill."
But the best way to say it is Apache ;^)
--
Microsoft blah blah blah (Score:2, Interesting)
Regardless of what Microsoft's escaped zoo animals say, it has absolutely no interest in interoperability, their interest is to remain the only desktop and server software vendor, and NOTHING else.
I would also suggest that open source developers don't actually need Microsoft's help or money, but if Microsoft
Was it an epiphany (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you suppose when Bill though "'some large company will patent some obvious thing' and use it to blackmail smaller companies" it was one of those evil moments of clarity, like when L. Ron Hubbard thought "The way to make real money is to invent a religion".
OK (Score:1)
And keep software under Copyright? If so, I agree. As long as software authors can protect themselves for whatever their reasons: keeping it open to getting rich.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Even for you, twit(ter) that is a pretty bold self-contradictory sentence.
karma whoring and a grain of salt (Score:2)
So anyone outside of the FSF that writes about patents should be automatically dismissed, correct?