Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Sun Microsystems Patents

Sun Files For Patent on Software Licensing Method 213

Posted by michael from the deep-sigh dept.
cft_128 writes "CNet writes that Sun Microsystems President Jonathan Schwartz has filed for three new patents, one of them on the companies per-employee software pricing plan. The pricing patent application was summarized: 'Method for licensing software to an entity, including determining a per-employee cost for the software, determining a number of employees of the entity, and determining a total licensing cost using the number of employees and the per-employee cost, wherein the total licensing cost comprises a software license for all employees of the entity and all customers of the entity.' The plan was introduced last year on Sun's Java Enterprise System, charging $100 per employee. Schwartz did say that any money the patents generate will be donated to charities."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sun Files For Patent on Software Licensing Method More

Sun Files For Patent on Software Licensing Method

Comments Filter:

  • But Sun is cool (Score:3, Funny)

    by Hot Summer Nights ( 771962 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @07:06AM (#10412465)
    Sun is allowed to do this.

    • Re:But Sun is cool (Score:3, Informative)

      by msobkow ( 48369 )

      No, a licensing model cannot be patented. Anyone who thinks it should be patentable is smoking crack.

      Even phone company pricing packages are often very, very similar with only the promotional name and actual values used for the billing calculations changing.

  • When Microsoft patented the double click. I really hope this isn't used to destroy single employee software companies.
    • this shouldn't have any impact on the open source world

    • Re:And I thought it was obscene... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Firstly, I do not wish to offend anyone with this post but I have had enough of the amount of mis-information floating around the net about patents.

      Most of you guys seem to be peddling the tired old mantra of 'all patents are bad! grab your pitchforks and burn all patent attornies at the stake!'. How much do any of you guys really know anything about the patent system and how it works? By reading these posts, it seems that very few of you seem to have real life experience with patents at all. Instead all m

      • Re:And I thought it was obscene... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by tsm_sf ( 545316 ) * on Saturday October 02, 2004 @12:32PM (#10413998) Journal
        - NO, Microsoft and Sun cannot magically 'bog you down with their legal team forever until you pay up'! With such an obviously invalid patent, the case is so ridiculously clean cut it will never ever stand up in court, even if they had a thousand lawyers trying to figure out a loophole.

        I think any prudent business owner would be wise to get a lawyer if MS or Sun or anyone came after them. This would cost money that a small business might not be able to afford. The implied threat of these lawsuits would be enough to keep a small developer far away from the broad area staked out in the patent.
      • THE TRIVIAL PATENTS ARE IRRELEVANT AND ARE NOT THE REAL ISSUE HERE!

        OK, we have one AC's opinion. Now, let's find someone from Barnes & Noble and ask them if they agree.
      • No, I don't think you really preemted the obvious replies. In short:

        If stupid patents can just be thrown out the instant someone challenges them, why is it the fights we hear about always seem to drag on. I agree it should be reasonably cheap for another big company to fight such a ridiculous patent, but that's not enough. It shouldn't be cheap. It should free, and it should cost the defendant no time at all. Otherwise it still disproportionately favors big business over small.

        If trivially stupid

        • Wrong.

          "It shouldn't be cheap. It should free, and it should cost the defendant no time at all. Otherwise it still disproportionately favors big business over small."

          And what if the positions are reversed? What if a small company wants to spank a large company? If you want to drag MS into this, they rip off everyone. Try to take them to court, and now they get a free defense? WTF? Bill Gates thanks you.

          "But your attitude seems to be don't worry if the patent office is too liberal, that's what the courts a

  • Patenting... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 02, 2004 @07:10AM (#10412469)
    I'm curious, when are they going to patent the rogue patenting method?

    • Re:Patenting... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 02, 2004 @07:36AM (#10412537)
      You mean; A method of subverting the USTPO whereby the patent system designed to spur innovation is co-opted by a handful of established corporations to prevent competition from innovative upstarts and retain their profitablity now they feel threatened?

    • Re:Patenting... (Score:5, Funny)

      by dead sun ( 104217 ) <[aranach] [at] [gmail.com]> on Saturday October 02, 2004 @12:16PM (#10413899) Homepage Journal
      I'm curious, when are they going to patent the rogue patenting method?

      Come now, there's way too much prior art for that to be patentable.

  • Bleh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mfh ( 56 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @07:11AM (#10412472) Homepage Journal
    Yeah who would have thought Sun would change their behaviour after that famous settlement [slashdot.org]? I mean this patent reads like, "we are going to calculate how to make lots of money and double it by preventing others from doing the same".

    Schwartz did say that any money the patents generate will be donated to charities.

    Yeah, sure. What percentage? There is absolutely no way to qualify that shit, so I don't buy it. Business plays the charity card when they know the public image will take a hit from a particular action. The Cnet title reads "Sun's Schwartz guns for patent glories", not Sun donates 100% of patent earnings to Cancer cure or anything like that.

    • Patent "sharing" with M$???? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mabhatter654 ( 561290 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @07:16AM (#10412485)
      unfortunately, don't they have a shiny new cross license agreement with MS? so this is entirely useless against the ONE company that's trying to ram per cpu/per user/per conection/per application/per "window" program fees up our collective arses!!!

      In other words they're patenting it FOR MS to use, not to prevent MS from using it!!!!

      • More importantly to Sun, that company is the ONE that has the resources to destroy their patents in court. With MS out of the way, they can move forward with other companies trying the per employee tactic. Unless you're gunning for IBM, nobody's in a condition to stand up.

        The end result is probably going to be less about charity donations and more about less pre user liscences.
    • The percentage doesn't matter. A charity can be anything these days -- A lobbying group, an antitrust legal action association, a scholarship fund for employees, a coushy job for a wife, etc.
    • If Sun really wanted to give something back, they would donate the patent directly to the public domain.

      No matter where the money goes, the fact is that Sun can still use this patent like a club to beat people into submission when and if they please.

  • Sigh :~ (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Greger47 ( 516305 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @07:13AM (#10412477)
    I dont know what saddens me most, that they have the balls to submit an application for something so old and obvious like per employee pricing, or the fact that it actually has a pretty good chanse of beeing granted...

    /greger

    • Re:Sigh :~ (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Tony-A ( 29931 )
      "wherein the total licensing cost comprises a software license for all employees of the entity and all customers of the entity." Emphasis added.

      Maybe not so obvious.

      Per employee pricing for all employees is obvious.
      Dunno what they're up to with extending it to all customers, somehow I expect it will turn out to be a very wise move.

      • Re:Sigh :~ (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Halo1 ( 136547 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @08:05AM (#10412607)
        Maybe not so obvious
        Who cares about obviousness here? The problem here is not in the first place novelty or obviousness, but subject matter. Why on earth should one be allowed to patent a licensing method? What's in that for the economy as a whole? Are companies not going to create new licensing methods if they can't "protect their investments" in "inventing" new licensing methods?

        How far are we still away from patents on investment methods, savings formulas of banks, etc? Patents were never intended for things like this. Not everything you do has to be monopolisable. A monopoly per definition has negative effects, so it's only justifiable to voluntarily give one if the positive effects of what you ask in exchange outweigh it.

        There is not even a hint of proof they do so in case of patents like this one.

        • We do have to wonder how long before someone patents a patenting method.

          • Re:Sigh :~ (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Halo1 ( 136547 )
            I don't think that will happen any time soon, because the lawyers won't shoot themselves in their feet. Generally they argue for patents on everything and anything, but you don't hear them arguing for patents on legal strategies, argumentation tactics or juri observation methods. In fact, they publish a lot about court cases, analysing them to the bone and sharing their experiences with colleagues.

            For some reason, they understand that in their own profession they have nothing to gain from monopolising gene

            • Re:Sigh :~ (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Tim C ( 15259 )
              For some reason, they understand that in their own profession they have nothing to gain from monopolising general methods, but they generally seem to assume it's necessary everywhere else.

              The lawyers argue for what they're told to argue for. Someone high enough up in a company says "argue for X", they do it - that's their job. So, the CEO says "defend our patent on $obviousThing", they do it. That doesn't mean that they agree with it, or think that patenting everything in sight is a good idea (other than

              • Re:Sigh :~ (Score:3, Interesting)

                by Halo1 ( 136547 )

                Or do you really think that it's the lawyers telling the commpanies what to patent?

                I definitely do think that in a lot of cases, lawyers simply try to make their department as important as possible to the company. Getting a lot of (software) patents and consequent licensing revenue and negotiation power is one way to do this. For example in Europe, a lot of corporate lobbying for software patents is coordinated by Tim Frain [ffii.org], the head of Nokia's patent department. Another active player is Fritz Teufel [ffii.org],

        • Re:Sigh :~ (Score:3, Informative)

          by mavenguy ( 126559 )
          The State Street decision. [findlaw.com]

          I know you are arguing against the merits of this, but this is the legal basis permitting such methods to be potential subject matter eligible for patent protection in the US under 35 USC 101.

          • Re:Sigh :~ (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Halo1 ( 136547 )
            Most of what people call "obvious" patents are also allowed under (US and other) patent law. As a law scholar once told me (in a discussion on the European directive on software patnets):

            "The law clearly says that inventions must be "non-obvious to a person skilled in the art". If you take those words literally, than that is a VERY LOW threshold: this "person skilled in the art" doesn't mean anything, of course you don't go from a layman's point of view, and obvious does mean obvious! I have even once hea

          • Re:Sigh :~ (Score:3, Informative)

            by Wolfbone ( 668810 )
            Yes and unfortunately the European patent establishment is trying to drag us all down into the swamp:

            "International efforts have been largely successful in creating a level playing field between the U.S. and Europe. While some differences in the application process and the granted rights remain, patentability is nearly uniform. Even modern technologies such as software are subject to widely unified treatment. Only when it comes to the very cutting-edge of the latest, controversial decisions can differenc

        • Who cares about obviousness here? The problem here is not in the first place novelty or obviousness, but subject matter. Why on earth should one be allowed to patent a licensing method? What's in that for the economy as a whole? Are companies not going to create new licensing methods if they can't "protect their investments" in "inventing" new licensing methods?

          You have a point here. Such a patent essentially is a patent about how two companies can interact.

          What will we see next? 10 patented ways to br
          • Sad part is, a challenge to this patent stands a good chance of winning - there must be prior art out there, but who wants to go to the expense of such a stupid exercies in the first place. Good job US Patent Office for granting this one.
            • they're only filed, so far. hopefully they won't be granted, and Jon will look like an ass for making an empty pledge to charitiy.
              • Hey! Maybe that's the 3rd patent, to be disclosed in a future filing.

                (I know, bad form self-replying, but...)

                "A method for filing frivolous patent applications such that the USPTO will feel guilty if they do not grant them."

                By associating the patent with raising money for charity, if the USPTO denies the patent, its like they're stealing money "from the children." Fucking brilliant!

        • Re:Sigh :~ (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Total_Wimp ( 564548 )
          Although you make very strong points on this, and I agree that it's a bad practice, I have to ask whether or not it matters in this particular case.

          Bare with me here. These guys have pattended a licensing method that does not conflict in any way with the licensing methodes used to promote free exchanges of information. The only people this affects is other proprietary information horders.

          It's kind of like if Microsoft's gaming division sued their office products division for a bullshit patent. It's bad

          • Re:Sigh :~ (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Halo1 ( 136547 )

            Bare with me here. These guys have pattended a licensing method that does not conflict in any way with the licensing methodes used to promote free exchanges of information. The only people this affects is other proprietary information horders.

            Speaking for FFII [ffii.org] (I'm board member of FFII), we have absolutely nothing against proprietary information producers or holders. In fact, we believe that some form of exclusion rights are beneficial to stimulate the production of more information and information pro

      • MS already do $30K licensing for sharepoint for all your non-employee customers.

        Sam
    • You can't really blame Sun for applying for this patent, considering that every other corporation patents whatever they possibly can too. It's an overall problem with the patent system.
  • I don't care if it is coming from Sun.

  • This is getting more ridiculous by the minute (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 02, 2004 @07:13AM (#10412480)
    Does anybody else have the feeling that just when you read a story about a patent claim that is so absurd that you can hardly believe anyone would come up with it, let alone grant the patent and you think that it simply can't get any worse one of our beloved IT companies comes up with a patent claim that is even more ridiculous?

    How on earth the EU can contemplate bringing this braindead patent system to Europe is beyond me.
    • How on earth the EU can contemplate bringing this braindead patent system to Europe is beyond me.

      Simple: they don't know this stuff. The ones who decide about this, get their advice from software companies. Software companies threaten to leave Europe if they don't accept software patents. They get their information from the wrong sources...

      Seperation between church and government has been there a long time ago (at least, over here in Europe), when will the seperation between businesses and government h

  • What next ! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dolphinzilla ( 199489 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @07:16AM (#10412484) Journal
    Heck - what next, someone getting a patent on the combover ? Patenting of the combover [uspto.gov]

  • Better than "CPU" licencing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by acomj ( 20611 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @07:17AM (#10412486) Homepage
    A large data base company gave use prices based on Mhz of CPUs on the machine running the database (with a multiplier for Risc Cpus.) I thought that was inovative!

    But seriously, if you install more copies you pay more. This is called selling and shouldn't be patented.
    • Don't forget the other possibilities:
      • additional $10 per KByte CPU cache (sum over all levels)
      • additional $1 per MByte RAM
      • additional $5 per GByte HD space (doubled if on RAID)
      • additional $1 per Mbps LAN transfer rate (sum over all installed network cards)
      • and, of course, limited number of updates (you can buy additional update licenses, of course, for $100/update)
      I think i should patent those :-)

  • Charities?!? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ultrabot ( 200914 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @07:17AM (#10412491)
    Schwartz did say that any money the patents generate will be donated to charities.

    Of course the money coming from licensing the patents doesn't matter - it's the chilling/killing effect it has on competitions that makes it sweet.

    MSFT could as well give all the patent revenue money to charities - hell, they could burn the money. The money from patents is peanuts, as long as it keeps the other guy down.
    • It's them trying to jump on the corporate responsibility bandwagon. Like tobacco firms sponsoring the creation of a new park: Totally unrelated but "kind" acts that can be seen right through.
  • The catering firm for the local hospital gets paid per per patient

  • Obviousness (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bfree ( 113420 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @07:21AM (#10412500)

    Has the test of obviousness just been forgotten? I don't know which is worse either, the per user licensing or using "extra" faces on 3d representations of 2d objects to provide additional interfaces.

    Seeing as though Sun are saying they will donate any proceeds to charity makes me wonder if this is in fact a deliberate attempt to attack existing patent database and in particular the US PTO's ability to grant patents. Could they really seriously think these can fly?

    Prior art anyone? I know I've seen software sold on the basis of the number of people, and surely some of the previous 3d desktop efforts have done something like the notetaking example given for the 3d patent I mentioned above?

    • WikiPriorArt (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Famatra ( 669740 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @08:09AM (#10412622) Journal

      "Prior art anyone?"

      We need a WikiPriorArt like Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]. So when you ask that you know where to go to check up. And if you do have prior art, you'd go there also and input the prior art.

      Also it could be used to publish ideas so they act as prior art against future patent ideas.

    • Patently Obvious (Score:3, Informative)

      by solprovider ( 628033 )
      Assuming you accept and obey the license terms, most home consumer software is sold for:
      1. You (one person),
      2. Your computer (one installation), or
      3. Your household (one business unit.)

      Sun is selling a per-business-unit license, but charging different prices for different number of people. A company believes it is licensing as #3, but they pay as if it is #1. The advantage is that Sun gets to charge for employees that will not be using the software.

      It was called a "volume discount" when the price was lo
    • Seeing as though Sun are saying they will donate any proceeds to charity makes me wonder if this is in fact a deliberate attempt to attack existing patent database and in particular the US PTO's ability to grant patents.

      My thought too.

      I've no 'prior art' knowledge of SUN being an amusing company but this might be a shot at it.

  • Sun, the charity from hell (Score:5, Funny)

    by fireman sam ( 662213 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @07:25AM (#10412508) Homepage Journal
    Quote: "Schwartz did say that any money the patents generate will be donated to charities."

    Translated: "We are evil, but we will do it in a good sort of way"

  • The ultimate in irony (Score:5, Funny)

    by m00nun1t ( 588082 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @07:26AM (#10412513) Homepage
    The ultimate in irony? Choosing EFF as the charity to donate the money to.

  • why not ? (Score:3)

    by l3v1 ( 787564 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @07:27AM (#10412516)
    Why not? I mean Microsoft patents so much sh*t in a year one could hardly count on thousand fingers. So what should keep anyone else, let that be Mr. Schwartz (whom I personally don't really like despite my long term respect for Sun), from doing if not the same then something similar ?

    It's just the most commmon businness (mal)practice these days. What can one do ? Not much besides watchin'a game and havin'a bud :P

    But - somewhat - seriously, patenting a software licensing methodology is so much really worse than a gazillion ridiculous patent filings of Microsoft ? I very much doubt that.

    • Re:why not ? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by coofercat ( 719737 )
      It looks like the US is falling to the lowest common denominator. If one big player does it, the others have to follow or lose out.

      If Sun are giving any patent royalties to charity, then I suspect they're saying "we don't want this, but we've got to do it". I'd sort of imagine they wouldn't need to bother collecting any money for the patent though, would they?

      It looks to me like most folks here have a problem with the fact that such a patent can exist, and can get past the utter stupidity of the USPTO, as
      • If one big player does it, the others have to follow or lose out.

        This and more. I mean despite some (?) MS's businness misbehaviour they became a major success story (more or less also because of the ignorance of average people). So MS as a company and as businness behaviour is a good or a bad example ? Do some follow their ways from free choice or from necessity ? Probably both.

  • from selling anything else. For millenia, when you went to the market and bought a bunch of the same thing, the vendor would charge per item. Why is software any different? How is charging a company a per employee fee for software any different from the per employee fee the company pays for health insurance, catered food at a meeting, desks, etc? If the patent office is going to treat software as a product and treat each copy of the software as a unique, saleable item, then they need to compare software p

  • I am missing out (Score:3, Funny)

    by localroger ( 258128 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @07:37AM (#10412540) Homepage
    I am going to patent a novel I dea I've had, "per unit" pricing: A method by which a retailer multiplies the "number of units delivered" by a "base price" to calculate a "total charge" to be paid for said delivery.

    If that flies, next I'll patent discounts off MSRP, that'll be really slick.

    • Re:I am missing out (Score:3, Informative)

      by Halo1 ( 136547 )
      If that flies, next I'll patent discounts off MSRP, that'll be really slick.
      You're too late, sort of. In Europe, there is already a patent on using rebate codes in Internet stores to give people discounts (see patent 19 of the FFII webshop [ffii.org]).

      • You're too late, sort of. In Europe, there is already a patent on using rebate codes in Internet stores to give people discounts (see patent 19 of the FFII webshop).

        ... which should have failed the "not innovative because it's obvious" test.

        Bad patent laws are like all other laws. If there are enough bad laws, it brings all law into disrepute, and people no longer feel obliged to obey them. We're seeing this with both patents and abusive copyright extensions.

        Historically, the best example of this was pr

        • Re:I am missing out (Score:4, Informative)

          by Halo1 ( 136547 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @08:44AM (#10412729)
          ... which should have failed the "not innovative because it's obvious" test.
          Actually, it should have failed the patentable subject matter test (which is performed before they look at novelty or obviousness), because it's either a business method or a computer program, neither of which is patentable according to the European Patent Convention.
          Bad patent laws are like all other laws. If there are enough bad laws, it brings all law into disrepute, and people no longer feel obliged to obey them. We're seeing this with both patents and abusive copyright extensions.
          The problem with being an outlaw is that it immediately weakens your position, even if you're "right". We need at least some respect for the law (even if it doesn't suit you), otherwise society as we know it would disolve into total anarchy. It's very hard to make it objectively clear that the law is plain wrong in a certain case as far as the general interest in concerned, and that you're not just promoting your personal (or small lobby group's) interests.
          Historically, the best example of this was probably Prohibition. It resulted in criminals becoming folk heroes (Bonny and Clyde, Al Capone, etc)... And we're going to see the same effect with patent laws. People WILL ignore them, because there will be so many bad patents, that there will be no moral imperative to toe the line.
          I hope that in Europe, we can prevent the legalisation of patents on software-implemented mathmatics and business methods so it doesn't have to come this far. And just maybe, it may help the push for a real reform in the US as well.

  • Heh. I hope they get it. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Flavius Stilicho ( 220508 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @07:38AM (#10412543)
    Let them win. Maybe it'll keep the other idiots from using the same scam.
  • It seems to me that they're trying to patent multiplication - eg., a license for Employee is $100, how much for 10 Employees? Answer: $100 x 10 = $1000. Surely this qualifies as obvious....
  • Last Gasp for reveleance in the Sun VS FOSS wars.. losing as usuall

  • You have 1 new message (Score:5, Funny)

    by maximilln ( 654768 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @07:44AM (#10412557) Homepage Journal
    Relationship Change

    User SUN.COM [sun.com] has made you their foe.

  • WTF (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Y-Crate ( 540566 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @07:45AM (#10412559)
    It seems Sun is attempting to patent multiplication.

    u * p = c

    U = # of users

    P = Price per user

    C = Cost

    It should be noted that a variation on this formula can also break any form of encryption on the net. :)

  • Is this possible? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by evil_one666 ( 664331 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @07:55AM (#10412583)
    Is it really possible to patent a legal contract? This is insane!!
  • What I want to know is, when is someone going to patent the process of patenting processes?
    That will really screw the USPO over. Unless they can prove prior art. Which they almost certainly can.
    (Although the way they issue patents these days they probably won't notice until it's too late).

  • Fight this! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by segmond ( 34052 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @08:08AM (#10412619)
    "Schwartz did say that any money the patents generate will be donated to charities."

    So what? If we support them even if all money goes to open/free software projects. What's bound to happen is that after they have established from various cases that the patent is valid. Management will one day say, "Fuck It, time to make some profit!" In the world of business, everything that is said means nothing unless it is written and signed! With that said, Let's fight this, it's utter ridiculous and at the same time disgusting to patent ideas on licensing.

  • It would be the ultimate "business method" patent, a patent on the creation of software patents. Whoever was the first company to create and file a software patent has a clear claim to this one. The holder of this patent on patent making could then sue all other companies for creating software patents and the software patent nightmare would be hoist on its own patented petard.
  • You mean each employee has more than one company?

    I presume the article submitter meant "company's per-employee". This is why just relying on a spelling checker isn't good enough.

  • MSDNAA...? Prior Art? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by graznar ( 537071 )
    I hope they know this is the same scheme that the Microsoft Academic Alliance uses...
  • "Schwartz did say that any money the patents generate will be donated to charities."

    Can I suggest www.ffii.org?

  • * It doesn't mean much to file for a patent.

    * we all know the Patent Office needs to figure out a way to stop issuing patent on things they shouldn't. Retoric is a big problem, as you can describe something normally not allowed to be patented (i.e. physical phenomenon, natural law, abstract ideas, algorythims, etc...) in such a manner to pass by a patent examiner (who might then figure they don't know so let the courts decide...)

    * there is NO SUCH THING AS A DEFENSIVE PATENT!!!! If you don't want someone

    • there is NO SUCH THING AS A DEFENSIVE PATENT!!!! If you don't want someone to come along behind you and patent what you do, then you publish it and establish authorship/inventorship

      Sure there is. A defensive patent is simply a patent you do not intend to enforce, except if someone else sues you over something else. You can then look which of your defensive patents the other party infringes on, and countersue (which usually results in a cross licensing deal in which only the lawyers of both parties are wi

  • who is this aimed at? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by zogger ( 617870 )
    looks to me it's aimed at suse/novell and redhat, and IBM for that matter. Anyone who's a customer of theirs care to comment? How are they priced now, what formula? Would this patent apply to their way of offering for-lease software?
  • "three new patents, one of them on the companies per-employee software pricing plan"

    "companY'S", dammit...
  • I may be wrong, but aren't some mail servers licenced like this - you pay for the number of mailboxes you want to have.
  • Looks fairly similar....

    http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5375206.html

    Method for licensing software
    United States Patent 5375206
    View Patent Images

    Inventors: Hunter; James D. (Ft. Collins, CO);Watkins; William H. (Ft. Collins, CO)
    Abstract: Disclosed is a system that provides a common application software interface for a variety of vendor supplied license servers. The system provides a single set of program calls and translates this single set of calls into a set of calls for each license server. Th
  • Such an obvious bunch of crock would not stand a chance in a proper patent office. This is patently a business method, not an industrial process!!!
  • It does not matter if Sun doesn't make a dime off such asinine patents. Sun will still be able to force anyone else from performing the same task. I.e., eliminate any new competition.

    Sun is essentially going on a murderous rampage, but claming that all bodies will be donated to science.

  • USPTO Patent Application

    Summary:
    The following are claimed in this patent:

    1. Patenting and Invention
    2. Sueing competitors that try to use similar technology as patented in paragraph (1).

  • the blatent grab for patents is a huge indication that IP is out of control. This one has HUGE prior art. Back in the 80's, I was going to pick up Word perfect for SCO (Yeah, at one time, I ran SCO, but that was 20 years ago). We have pricing based on volume.

    1. 1 user ~50.
    2. 2-10 users ~45.
    3. 11-50 users ????

    That was just on example of why it should not go through. The fact that they are wasting time on it, says that corporation believe that they can be granted for anything. I fear that they are right.

    This i

  • Is the claim that they will donate patent profits to charities supposed to somehow justify this anticompetitive abuse of the patent system?

    What Charity? They'll probably take a page from Microsoft's book and donate Sun hardware and software to schools or libraries. In other words, the money will still generate revenue for Sun!

  • Come out with your hands up!

    One company,
    two companies.

    The company's press statements demonstrate a wanton disregard for the rules of pluralization, so the other companies' representatives voted to sanction the editor for his mistake.

    Thank you.

    Carry on.
  • So if all the licensing schemes eventually get patented, does that mean a company cannot license its own software to users without having to pay a royalty fee to a patent holder to do so?

    This is not patent stuff. This sucks.

  • This leaves a great opportunity for those of us opposed to silly business process patenting: patent the process of licensing patents.

    If you can patent one licensing process, why not patent another? Let's patent the process of licensing patents in as many "novel" ways as possible. Then start patenting the licensing of a licensing patent. Or maybe we can "fractal patent" up the entire infinite patent-license-patent chain...dunno about that...

    Ya'll get my drift?
  • they've tried to patent charging people money. Still, I don't see how that'll stand, the IRS so has prior art...
  • Ok, so adding and multiplying is going to be patented.. I thought you couldn't patent mathmatical processes.

    I guess this licensing scheme is a little "new" but I've been doing it with customer service for 5 years (I started a business, and did per seat customer service), IE 15/mo/employee.

    Anyway, adding up employees and multiplying by $100 if this patent is accepted, is the most bizarre patent of all time.

  • How to challenge with prior art? (Score:3, Informative)

    by John Murdoch ( 102085 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @12:12PM (#10413862) Homepage Journal

    Several people have posted on this topic that the "innovation" that Sun is claiming is a seat license. That's not really correct--what Sun is claiming is that they are licensing software from a central source per-employee and per-month. That's (slightly) different from installing a copy-protected EXE and charging a fee for each install.

    But that doesn't mean Sun has an original idea.

    In the late 1990s I worked with a client to develop several web applications that were billed on a per-user/per-month basis. The applications identified users and installed copies, and permitted the end users to review their records before billing (so they could remove portions of the software from machines they weren't using, etc.). Without seeing the specifics of the Sun patent application, this sounds as though it would be a very credible example of prior art [badertech.com].

    Which brings me to my point:
    Does anyone in the community know how to provide examples of prior art to the USPTO examiner? Or is the best recourse to tell my client to call his lawyer?

  • "The food is bad, and the portions are small" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GunFodder ( 208805 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @11:22PM (#10417751)
    I love watching Open Source advocates rip into a licensing patent. It's like complaining that the food is bad and the portions are small. If the food is bad then what do you care how big the portions are? If proprietary software is wrong, then who cares what method is used to determine the cost?

    At this point it isn't even a proven business model. Microsoft sold >30 billion dollars worth of per-CPU, per-machine, and per-install licenses last year. Sun probably didn't sell more than a 1% of that total. I think the patent is silly, but it won't even be an issue unless it is proven successful.

Slashdot Top Deals

news: gotcha

Close