Microsoft's Patent Problem 712
pens writes "Microsoft suffered utter defeat at a crucial pretrial hearing in what appears to be the highest-stakes patent litigation ever--one in which a tiny company called InterTrust Technologies claims that 85% of Microsoft's entire product line infringes its digital security patents."
Oh great (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh great (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Oh great (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: what a mess (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the more likely possibility is that MS buys them out as part of the settlement.
Re: what a mess (Score:5, Insightful)
This actually sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
While i would like to hammer M$ as much as anyone, this is just the tip of the iceberg for litigation and everyone will feel the pain sometime soon..
Re:This actually sucks (Score:5, Interesting)
If I had mod points I'd mod the parent as "insightful"... I agree strongly with the sentiment expressed therein. I would love to see Mickeysoft go down, but not at the hands of a bunch of guys with an IP portfolio. A situation like that would further engender this whole miserable environment of "intellectual property" enforcement.
The ends don't justify the means, especially in this case!
Re:This actually sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
Wouldnt you seek legal redress if you could? There is a real difference between this and SCO, SCO hasn't shown us evidence of their ownership of code, these guys apparently have convinced a judge in 30 out of 33 cases that their patent should be enforced.
Re:This actually sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an excellent comment.
This is why I get sick of hearing the hyprocrites on /. who keep slavering for IBM to bludgeon SCO with its patent portfolio. You can't have it both ways. You either hate software patents in all cases or you don't, no matter who the defendant is.
Re:This actually sucks (Score:4, Interesting)
Though I agree the parent comment was very insightful, I think I could have it both ways. One of the reasons I dislike Microsoft (Or at least its business practices) is because of the degree they have egendered/exacerbated the very IP problem mentioned in the parent comment. I don't think it's the tip of the iceberg per se, since MS itself was the tip, middle, and a good portion of the bottom of the iceberg. It would be a pleasure to see them suffer the literal consequences of their actions and it would be (at least) poetic justice, with the added bonus of knowing they would be forced to at least partly aid the fight against such patents and similar ip claims.
Though I must admit I'm not too optimistic that it will necessarily turn out that rosy
-Chris
Re:This actually sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
With regards to software piracy, perhaps - although I tend towards Microsoft's side in that case. However, they have been relatively less agressive in enforcing patents. Bill Gates himself pointed out more than years ago that the growing patent frenzy would have prevented the past few decades of technical advances, if companies had been that zealous when the computer was invented. Thus, he said, Microsoft would have to be constantly on the lookout for other companies (specifically, large ones like IBM) who would try to screw it with patents - the solution being, therefore, for Microsoft itself to assemble a defensive patent portfolio.
Microsoft has definitely used the threat of litigation to scare off competition in a few cases, and they've made rumbling noises about various open-source projects that aim for compatability. However, they've never truly used their patents for outright extortion, unlike *cough* IBM and seem generally content to sit on their portfolio unless directly threatened. I don't trust them for a second, but I'm not going to attack them without cause.
Re:This actually sucks (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, right, Microsoft will see the error of their ways and defend Free Software from patents, because, well, they're moral beings and would never use double standards.
Re:This actually sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
You either hate shootings in all cases or you don't, no matter who the victim is.
When it's your grandma shooting someone who tries to mug her, you'd change your mind.
Overly-broad patents don't hurt people, people who use overly-broad patents as a weapon hurt people.
Re:This actually sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
As soon as a copyright or patent becomes just an asset on a balance sheet I have a problem with it. Companies buy patents to prevent anyone else from using them. They donate patents to universities at outrageous valuations to get tax write-offs, and like SCO, they use them to blackmail other companies.
The purpose of patent and copywright law is to encourage innovation. But why innovate when you can play the game like it is the stock market... buying, selling and litigating over technology that your company neither uses or understands?
It's easy to understand if you think about it: Patents are good when they reward innovation, they are bad when they punish or limit innovation, regardless of what companies are involved. Seems pretty easy to me.
Re:This actually sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
This may be a machiavellian idea, but if I had to pick a corporation to finally get in trouble because of this kind of nonsense, Microsoft is a good choice.
Re:This actually sucks (Score:5, Interesting)
It's great when two evils decide to attack eachother.
This is why competition is good, and monopolies are bad.
The US Govt - by the way, has a monopoly on awarding patents.
Re:This actually sucks (Score:5, Funny)
That's not very fair. They make nice mice and keyboards!
Re:Oh great (Score:5, Insightful)
If this suit got MS into buying some patent reform I am completely behind their efforts. If it doesn't then let them hang.
Re:Oh great (Score:3, Informative)
Are you kidding me? (Score:3, Insightful)
This guy copied this exact comment from this post [slashdot.org], from the same article, and the mods didn't see it!
Re:Oh great (Score:5, Insightful)
To make it even worse (in my eyes), this is actually one of those good 'ol Microsoft things where a much smaller company shows the goods to Microsoft as part of a licensing partnership, and then Microsoft goes off and does it themselves. InterTrust and Microsoft *used* to be "partners".
Re:Oh great (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a thought.
Totally True (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Totally True (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent was modded Troll, and I can't help but wonder why. Was it an anti-Microsoft moderator or a pro-software patent moderator?
This particular thread might just be the Slashdot Singularity.
Kinda puts a whole new spin on "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"....who is my enemy in this case?
--K.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Pipe Dream (Score:4, Interesting)
It'll never happen
An investor group led by Sony Corp. of America and Royal Philips Electronics bought the company in January for $453 million, hoping to convince consumer electronics and tech companies--beginning with Microsoft--of the need to license its patents.
This eliminates the buy-out option.
Re:Pipe Dream (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but it doesn't completely eliminate the possibility of Microsoft buying the patent itself. If all patent rights are passed to Microsoft, they would have just the bargaining chip they need to prevent anybody else (including OSS) from developing competing security products. They'd just make the price tag for licensing use of the patented technology high enough to discourage people.
Re:Pipe Dream (Score:5, Insightful)
This eliminates the buy-out option.
Actually, not really. Sony and Royal Philips could use this to their advantage. We all know that Sony complained [yahoo.com] about microsoft trying to change their licensing deal after <cough> the settlement with the doj. Maybe they can use this as a bargaining chip with MS? They could haggle for a better OEM licensing deal and hold this over MS or they could possibly just force MS to license their IP. Or just force MS to pay (insert X billion here) for the company
OTOH what do I know :-)
2 Questions... (Score:5, Insightful)
...and rebuked the company's lawyers for wasting her time by promising proof that never materialized--legal vaporware, in essence.
As far as I can tell, the patents that InterTrust owns cover the technology; They don't go into details on accomplishing what they describe.
Q1. What if Microsoft developed a way to carry out their authentication (using these trusts) either
1. On their own or
2. Without even hearing about InterTrust's patent?
Q2.In the case of #2, everyone is probably saying "It doesn't matter..." but if this was the case, how would/did InterTrust find out about it? Microsoft doesn't leave their source code lying around the internet; Now they do give SDK's, but (at least prior to .NET framework), the SDK is vague on how things like authentication happen. If you want to learn about NTLM, you need to go to a site like Security Focus. [securityfocus.com] The helpfile in any SDK that Microsoft releases will not talk about the underlying technology (or lack thereof...heh)
Of course, I'm not against suing Microsoft, but I'm just curious as to how this whole suit came up... Maybe someone else out there can enlighten me?
Re:2 Questions... (Score:3, Informative)
That's what patents are for. They protect your "invention" against any other thing being developed that is the same. It doesnt matter if you never saw theirs, or even knew of a patent. The inventor is responsible for searching for pre-existing patents. A patent is different from a Copyright, where knowledge of existance might be important.
Tm
Re:2 Questions... (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, you are not correct, although your position is commonly believed by most people today. In fact, developing something without knowledge of a pre-existing patent _can_ be a legitimate defense in many cases. Specifically, if you can show that, by using a body of existing art/knowledge, the "logical/natural" conclusion would be your invention, then the pre-existing patent can be ruled invalid. Case in point, the infamous patenting of XOR as applied to mouse cursor graphics. Although some jackass patented it (was actually granted a patent through the US Patent Office), it was thrown out as a logical, natural, and foreseeable application of a commonly known concept.
Re:2 Questions... (Score:5, Interesting)
This guy is not claiming copyright infringement. Therefore he doesn't need to see the source code to determine whether or not infringement occurred. He simply needs to see a program which implements (via any source code) a technique that he's patented.
Let's use an example of what I mean. Mailblocks [mailblocks.com] claim that they have a patent on an antispam technique called "Challenge/Response". Then comes along Earthlink who implements a C/R antispam option for their customers. Mailblocks sues Earthlink. Now Mailblocks hasn't seen any of the source code to the software that Earthlink uses. But they know that they have a patent on what earthlink is doing, because they can interract with it and identify whether or not Earthlink's system implements all of the claims of Mailblocks' patent. Then they file suit.
BTW, I don't particularly like the patent claim that Mailblocks is using. I think that there is a *LOT* of prior art that can be demonstrated for this particular patent. However it is useful to illustrate the point: that this guy does not need to see Microsoft's source code to claim patent infringement. He only needs to play with the software and see if it does something that he's patented.
Re:2 Questions... (Score:5, Interesting)
If someone accuses you of infringing on their copyright by stealing sourcecode, you can disprove them if you show that your sourcecode bears no resemblance to theirs.
If someone accuses you of violating their patent, you must prove that your invention falls outside the scope of their patent OR that their patent is invalid due to prior art.
Therefore, your questions of how they got the code aren't terribly relevant. As for how InterTrust noticed that they were using patented techniques, well, I assume they probably keep up in the field and read some of Microsoft's whitepapers. Again, patents cover a scope of techniques, rather than an exact set of code instructions, so it's possible to gauge infringement without a sourcecode comparison in some cases.
Re:2 Questions... (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't this great? I didn't understand what everyone meant about all the oportunity here in America until I saw that just about anyone can claim ownership of any property, even Linux and Windows, just by leveraging the legal system.
I'll never have to work another day in my life.
WOW!! (Score:3, Funny)
May they eternally be peeing into the wind.
May the public works decree that the road never rise to meet them.
May MS's stock go so low that Billy Boy OWES money.
May we hear him utter the words, "Would you like fries with that?"
Re:WOW!! (Score:4, Funny)
Recursive MS?? Self-cannibalism? Or do you want MS to rise like a phoenix from it's ashes?
Lesser of two Evils? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Lesser of two Evils? (Score:5, Interesting)
At the same time, laugh at the irony
Re:Lesser of two Evils? (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, would wish that Microsoft would win this one, because I would prefer that they come up with a way to make patents less of an issue in the industry than to have the tempo of lame patents increase due to a jackpot payout. However, I suspect a license will be negotiated. It mare come dearly after this legal fumble however.
They had that option. Burn M$, burn! (Score:4, Interesting)
They could have done this from the start, but it's obvious that the company with a patent on a "secure operating system" has no respect for other people's "intelectual property". How absurd it was for them to argue that Intertrusts patents were, too vague to be enforceable, and that others required such narrow interpretation that they would have been hard for Microsoft to infringe.
One thing's for sure, neither Microsoft nor patent law can win. Without strong patent law, Microsoft will fall to superior free software. If Microsoft wins, patent law suffers. If they lose, they can be ruined and that would be shocking. It would be better for Microsoft to lose.
The absurdity of patent law must be demonstrated and this is a great way to do it. Patent law has worked to the disadvantage of others and should work to Microsoft's disadvantage too. Microsoft's defeat and ruin by forgein firms might just shock the US population into examining and overturning the laws that idiots like Bill Gates pushed for. Sony and Philips have invested more than half a billion dollar in this 30 person firm and patent portfolio. It is right and fitting that Microsoft be destroyed by the laws they helped create and then used to abuse others. It will be sweeter still if their destruction leads to the end of software patents.
Who am I kidding? Microsoft is going to win, patent law will continue to be available to the hightest bidder and US courts will still be the finest money can buy. It will be interesting but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Re:Lesser of two Evils? (Score:5, Funny)
Lighten up, Mr. Glass is Half Empty, look at it this way: in a battle between Microsoft and Trivial Software Patents 'r' Us, the bad guys will DEFINITELY lose.
Another Fine Mess (Score:5, Interesting)
It'd be funny if Microsoft used its considerable political influence to fix this patent problem, and wound up killing SCO as a side-effect. Hey, it may be cheaper than licensing DRM from InterTrust...
Re:Another Fine Mess (Score:5, Informative)
Read the article, InterTrust is owned jointly by Sony and Phillips. This is NOT David vs Goliath. It states that Sony/Phillips bought the company with the explicit intention of going after companies armed with the patent portfolio. Call it what you will, but this is not Good vs Evil, this is Evil vs Evil.
Also, don't miss another statement made about Microsoft just being the first. They wanted to go after the big fish, so all the other fish will fall in line once the big one falls.
Re:Another Fine Mess (Score:5, Insightful)
That, my friend, is a question of perspective.
Sony and Philips are not exactly monolithic enterprises, but consist of two distinct competitors in anything with regard to entertainment products. However, Sony and Philips have always been interested in establishing firm and open standards, see DAT, see CD.
Them winning a case in DRM would mean nothing but a victory for the user, because they will not use the technique as their salespitch, but distribution of contents with open standards. I prefer that very much more than leaving all mechanisms with regard to DRM in the hand of one company that firmly believes in controlling and selling the patented mechanisms of enforcing DRM.
Evil vs. Evil?
Hardly.
Re:Another Fine Mess (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Another Fine Mess (Score:4, Insightful)
In the US, a highly prominent (and rich) company winning a lawsuit is what people expect to happen. It will create no kind of expectation that a smaller organisation could do the same.
Re:Another Fine Mess (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, they've been left with the choice of killing the patient OR killing the disease. They can't keep both.
InterTrust's suit is essentially identical to SCO's, and may well have been prompted by it. Either as a defensive strategy ("if they win, we win by default, and if we lose, so do they"), or it may be part of a simpler, more brain-dead, but ultimately more common strategy of "reap in the cash while pillaging is in style!".
Either way, it's going to get the attention of The Powers That Be, who really are faced with the nightmare scenario - to preserve Bill Gates' empire, they have to cripple the very mechanisms that Microsoft and other large corporations have used to create those empires in the first place.
Microsoft -could- pull another Windows 95 -> Windows 98 stunt, as they did with the first round of anti-trust action. But they'll have to be quick, and now that they've been found a monopoly, it might not be quite so easy.
Intertrust and SCO (Score:5, Informative)
Looks like a win-win to me (Score:5, Funny)
On the other hand, if InterTrust wins the patent licensing fees will probably make DRM much less of a nuisance, at least for another 14 years. And it will totally kick MS in the balls.
Re: Nope a lose-lose (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, it just means legit things like the iTunes Music Store and BuyMusic will have to charge more money to cover the licensing costs. It means that other attempts to figure ways to legitimatly allow users inexpensive online access to content will be stalled/aborted. It means that the RIAA and their ilk will continue to have a convenient excuse to go after file sharers because there STILL won't be a viable legal alternative.
Who to root for? (Score:4, Funny)
really... (Score:5, Funny)
Attack on software (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok, you have SCO attacking Linux over licensing code. You have this small company (but backed by larger companies SONY and Phillips) attacking Microsoft. Where does someone turn to get away from all the legal hassles?
Ignoring the trolls, would a *BSD system be better off, because SCO doesn't seem to be claiming anything related to BSD.
Also, could this be a nail in the coffin of DRM? Or, would MS just pay the license fee, and jack the consumers for it anyway?
Re:Attack on software (Score:3, Informative)
The only reason SCO isn't attacking BSD is that BSD isn't as popular. The Linux and OpenSource/FreeSoftware communities are bursting with energy, and have produced a product superior to anything SCO can possibly think of producing. SCO might be able to compete with BSD if BSD stays small and contained within a relatively narrow developer cabal. Linux is just too much, particularly with SCO licensees like IBM throwing down.
Re:Attack on software (Score:4, Informative)
BSD already went through this same thing a decade ago. The litigation that tied up BSD for years was actually one of the reasons that Linux became so popular to begin with.
SCO can't touch BSD because UC Berkeley and AT&T already went to court and settled on this matter.
Re:Attack on software (Score:3, Insightful)
If something is copyrighted, and not licensed with an open source license, you can get your ass sued for using it. This is exactly with SCO is suing over. If IBM had contributed to BSD instead of Linux, the
Lawsuits (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, your average investor isn't clued in enough to realize that InterTrust has a very good case while SCO has a very bad one. Thus, the recent runup in SCO stock.
Re:Lawsuits (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Lawsuits (Score:3, Interesting)
Privately held firms are where it's at. All the flexibility and simplicity of small business combined with the clout of big business.
Wait, wait (Score:5, Funny)
Damn you slashdot political climate, damn you!
It took me years to figure out all of the nuances, then they had to go screw it up again.
So, for the next 5 minutes, goofy tech patents rule!
Wouldn't it be ironic if (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds like judge Judy (Score:4, Funny)
How sad is that?
Just because it's Microsoft doesn't make it right (Score:4, Insightful)
Put if software patents are bad (and I believe they are) they're bad even when someone is putting the boot into Microsoft. Let's face it, this may be a 'small' company putting the boot in, but it's a 'small' company owned (mostly) by Sony. Patents still only help those with very deep warchests.
We must continue to oppose software patents and that means all software patents, because that's the only way we can maintain a playing field level enough for us small guys to play at all.
Re:Just because it's Microsoft doesn't make it rig (Score:5, Interesting)
Lots of different ways to look at this case, and frankly i'm not sure exactly where my opinion on it stands just yet.
But this idea you floated about the litle guy making nothing off patents is clearly wrong. These were little guys who came up with their patents a while ago, they later sold rights to them to Sony and Phillips for 453 million dollars who are now trying to make the "big score" on their investment. If you ask me, the 453 mill "sure thing" they got was far from a pittance to a company of their size (even if Sony does make billions off it, they took a gamble with that 453 that they could have possibly lost)
as said in the evangiles (Score:5, Funny)
(in fact, I'm not sure of the formulation, because I only know the french version : "celui qui tue pars l'épée périra par l'épée." French speaking people can get the word play between IP and épée)
.NET? I'd be worried... (Score:5, Interesting)
Patents are the greater evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about the implications if MSFT loses. Sure, the evil empire is bought to its needs. Meanwhile, Amazon's patent on "one click shopping" and other nasty tricks get support in federal court.
I want software patents stopped now. Let the demise of MSFT take care of itself.
Well here's an interesting patent... (Score:5, Informative)
Then all you water drinking pirates would have pay me royalties!
Stop whining and get specific (Score:5, Informative)
If you think a claim from a patent is valid, spell out the claim, offer a plausible construction of the claim and tell us what is the prior art. then we have a useful conversation going.
Anything else is sloppy demagoguery.
Microsoft == good guy in this case (Score:4, Insightful)
Great, an IP only company. Wonderful
"Microsoft argued in court that crucial phrases in InterTrust's patents were too vague to be enforceable, and that others required such narrow interpretation that they would have been hard for Microsoft to infringe."
Don't we claim stuff like this all the time about Patents. This is a test of someone with real money being able to say the USPTO is full of shit and these patents are vague adn useless.
Win or lose, the more of this crap the better. It will eventually get so bad that someone will change the USPTO.
Re:Microsoft == good guy in this case (Score:4, Insightful)
If you had a decent-sized company... and Microsoft basically took your product/ideas, stuck them in their product, and shipped it out everywhere, how would you end up?
You might want to focus on how InterTrust ended up as an IP-only company...
Let's call it like it is (Score:5, Insightful)
We're now seeing the inevitable result of a system wherein the unequal playing field forces companies to do battle in the intellectual property realm rather than in the marketplace. Rather than come to market first with the best products, it's now about building up an intellectual property portfolio and torpedoing whomever surfaces first.
The business climate that Microsoft helped to engender has rebounded back on them with a vengeance. But that doesn't make InterTrust the good guys. They're just slimy opportunists who have elected to go along with the prevailing attitude, which is "Build up a company the old fashioned way? Screw that! Let's sue instead!"
Oh the irony... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Oh the irony... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not neccesarily a bad patent (Score:5, Interesting)
Though the majority here just say that 'software patents are bad' , there is some justification for patents. The main problem with software patents is the USPTO and it's inability to properly check patents; issuing overbroad patents that cover overly generic stuff.
These aren't submarine patents or anything else as Intertrust sued Microsoft shortly after talks between the two companies broke down when Microsoft was first introducing DRM into Windows Media Player.
Re:Not neccesarily a bad patent (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Patents are meant to advance the sciences and when it comes to business model patents and especially software patents they are not working as expected. To paraphrase Newton minus the implied snide, software stands on the shoulders of giants. Patents, by design, kill this. Where do you think networking would be today if SPF had been patented?
Sorry but I have no problems throwing this baby out with the fetid bathwater.
Like a football game between two hated teams (Score:3, Interesting)
I detest this concept of overly broad patents, I only dislike Microsoft extremely. I can't say I really want to see Microsoft win, but I *definately* don't want to see the mis-application of patents continue.
Ultimately I think overly broad patents and the mis-use of the patent system constitute a far greater threat to Linux and Open Source than anything Microsoft could do. In fact they constitute a huge threat to the entire concept of freedom.
InterNonsense... (Score:5, Interesting)
Head hurts.. (Score:4, Funny)
Damn cognitive disonance always gives me an ice cream headache...
Time to try again to answer that age old question. (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, for those new to the debate, lets go over the simple reason why software patents are categorically, provably, and obviously insane.
Assume that the patent office is adequately staffed with an army of geniuses with eiditic memories, who never make poor judgements about what is patent-worthy and what isn't.
Anyone writing code must have to know the entire patent database - millions of patents. They would also have to stay current - thousands of new applications a day, on a slow day.
Impossible? Duh.
"Uh, now what?"
Every piece of software is a ticking patent time bomb - a multi-million dollar civil litigation waiting to happen.
Big players enjoy (and lobby for) patent systems like this because its another tool in the toolbox. You build a portfolio, and it's a great way to cost your competitors millions, threaten their business, their reputation, create FUD, etc. The cases drag on for decades, and hey, it's interesting how whoever has more money to fight them seems to always come out on top.
My greatest dream is that a giant like Microsoft will get snared in its own net, and actually start fighting to end software patents, so at least there'll be one less absolutely awful piece of economy-destroying legislation for our children to enjoy.
I don't know about anybody else... (Score:4, Funny)
Check it out (Score:5, Informative)
You can find specific patent numbers they claim MS is in violation of, such as US Patent No. 5,940,504 which I guess is about product activation. (I'm to feeling lazy right now so you go look up the patents.)
I'm not feeling that lazy so here's a quick cut and paste of MS's stuff they claim is violating their patents.
# Xbox
# My Services
# Windows Hardware Quality Lab and Windows Logo Certification
# Windows File Protection System
# Windows XP Home
# Windows XP Professional
# Windows ME
# Windows XP Embedded
# Windows CE.NET
# Office XP Standard
# Office XP Professional
# Office XP Professional with FrontPage
# Office XP Developer
# Access 2002
# Excel 2002
# FrontPage 2002
# Outlook 2002
# PowerPoint 2002
# Project 2002
# Publisher 2002
# Word 2002
# Windows Media Player
# Microsoft Reader
# Digital Asset Server
# Internet Explorer 6.0
# ASP.NET
#
#
# Visio 2002
# Visio Enterprise Network Tools
# Visual Studio
# Visual Studio
# Visual Studio
I wonder if they missed one?
Re:Check it out (Score:4, Funny)
Ridiculous! (Score:5, Funny)
To do that, they'd have to implement some kind of security!
Why Patents Are A Good Thing (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Without patents, the little guy who invents something new won't be able to compete against the big corporations who copy his idea.
2. Patents are REQUIRED to describe sufficient details so that any reasonably skilled person in the "art" (computer science, electrical engineer, etc.) can actually use the patent to build the invention. This means rather than keeping useful inventions secret, the inventor benefits for about 17 years after which the general public can benefit too by having details available.
In other words, patents CAN help the lone inventor protect his invention and it helps foster an environment where inventors are incented to SHARE details about their invention with the public.
Like anything else, there are abuses and extreme cases but it doesn't mean there are no benefits.
The reareason MS is indemnifying their customers? (Score:4, Interesting)
This threatens us all, not just MS. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm no Microsoft lover, but I don't like seeing software patents abused in this way.
GJC
Re:No, and you're assuming facts not in evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
As one of the named inventors on a pending software patent application, I call BS on this. The patents you usually hear about, particularly on Slashdot, are bad. But that doesn't mean that "almost all" software patents are for stuff that was obvious when they were filed. In 1999, was the use of stego to encode digital watermarking information really obvious? The first academic conference on stego-related issues wasn't even created until 1996 [springer.de]. I know some of the people who worked at Intertrust during its heyday - and they're damn smart crypto and security researchers. Look at some of the research papers from Intertrust [intertrust.com]. If you know anything about security, you'll recognize some very good computer scientists in there. Martin Abadi invented the logic used to analyze security protocols. Robert Tarjan quite literally wrote the book on advanced algorithms and data structures.
Now, contrast that with something like "a patent on the use of a web server to sell things" -- well, duh. But a patent that describes the method by which you use the high frequency components of an audio signal to digitally watermark an audio sample? It sounds kind of obvious in 2003 because that's how everyone's doing it, but the technology was quite new five years ago, and Intertrust was doing some of the preeminent research on it.
Don't blast all software patents because some are stupid. The system has a problem - a big one - but the fundamental concept of software patents isn't as silly as you might believe.
Consumer electronics kings vs. Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree that software patents are a pain and are unethical.
But it's interesting to note who is attacking MS here and in what context. Philips and Sony are two of the greatest consumer electronics companies on the planet. Sony is an archfoe of Microsoft since Redmond released the XBox. Several large Japanese companies recently made a lot of noise about standardizing on Linux for consumer electronics, which is pretty bad for WindowsCE. Some observers wondered if the goal of that publicity wasn't just to score a marketing point against WinCE.
So this is the next episode in this war. This patent lawsuit is a single battle in a larger fight.
Watch for more blows exchanged between MS and consumer electronics companies.
One good thing about this result ... (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, they may decide that they'll need to accumulate the most massive patent portfolio in order to have ammunition if faced with something similar again.
On the other hand.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Computers are a waste of time (Score:5, Insightful)
I think I've had it. Let the indians have all these headaches.
Re:50 Billion in the Bank (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who are we siding with today folks? (Score:5, Informative)
Neither.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Re:Implications? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, I think Microsoft's future plans depend on this technology. Even if the patent expired tomorrow, they'd still owe a BUNCH of back payments should the case be decided in favor of Intertrust.
Re:scratch out software... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, God forbid anyone should actually be able to recover the costs associated with researching and developing new technology, let alone be able to profit from it. Patents are not inherently evil. They provide inventors an incentive to spend their time and money developing inventions. If patents didn't exist, inventors would be screwed if they spent their whole lives and fortunes inventing a new widget only to have it copied by a million competitors as soon as it hit the market.
There is a balance, however, between giving the inventor the ability to benefit from their invention, and giving that benefit to society, which is why patents expire. I think if you want to complain about patents, you should complain that they don't expire quickly enough for your tastes. Although, I think patent expirations are a godsend compared to the current expirations on copyrights.
Re:scratch out software... (Score:4, Funny)
Why are monopolies so evil?
Re:Where to find the patents? (Score:5, Informative)
Search results from USPTO [uspto.gov], or go to the USPTO homepage and do it yourself.
Re:Oi Vague (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet the term Windows is specific enough to be a strong trademark. Ummm...
Re:Anyone remember STAC? (Score:4, Interesting)
Quarterdeck STAC wasn't bogus at all. It actually worked, while Disk Doubler was nothing but trouble. AFAIK, the lawsuit wasn't about patents, but that MS had verbatim copied code from STAC into DD.
Se eg. http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/12684.html
MS never bought Quarterdeck (of QEMM and Desqview fame). MS hated Quarterdeck with a passion, probably because of Desqview.