Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents

Microsoft Researching Patent Law with New Experts 139

Posted by Zonk from the who-needs-experience? dept.
wikinerd writes "According to The Register, Microsoft seeks to hire new patent experts. In their words, patent experience itself "is helpful but not mandatory" and advance knowledge of patent law is not required. The applicants need only be Computer Science or Electrical Engineering PhD holders, without any qualification in law. They will be involved in prior art search, patentability research and technical analysis. The article outlines some of the most controversial MS patents, such as online bill payment."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Researching Patent Law with New Experts More

Microsoft Researching Patent Law with New Experts

Comments Filter:

  • When will we say "enough"? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sheetrock ( 152993 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @05:14PM (#11647203) Homepage Journal
    Software shouldn't be patented. It shouldn't even be copyrighted or trademarked. There is such a short shelf life on software and software companies that the impact of denying access to techniques and logarithms effectively shuts out competition and fair use not only for the life of a product but well beyond, negatively influencing people well beyond the useful scope of any novelty that could possibly be discovered.

    One only has to look at the rampant achievements and success of Free Software and Open Source to see how much the rest of the industry is being held back by software patents and other "intellectual property" restrictions.

    • Re:When will we say "enough"? (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I didn't know the logarithm market was so cutthroat, I mean, who even knew there was a logarithm market? Base e, by the way?

    • Re:When will we say "enough"? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by pete6677 ( 681676 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @05:19PM (#11647264)
      I don't know about you, but I'm not about to fund any massive development efforts if I have no recourse whatsoever should an employee of mine decide to sell my source code to a competitor. I agree that software patents in general are a bad idea, but there's no reason why someone should not be able to protect their proprietary work in any way, such as with copyrights.
      • Yes, copyright terms in general seem excessive and that's especially apparent in relation to software, but the general principal of copyrights still seems to be a good one.

        Basically, if free software takes off and provides all the software everyone needs then there would be no need to revoke copyright laws since they wouldn't be doing any harm. If free software doesn't provide everything but leaves gaps for proprietary systems to fill then we still need an incentive mechanism to ensure that those gaps are

      • Don't be silly (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        "but I'm not about to fund any massive development efforts"

        Don't be silly.

        Nobody funds R&D development just to find clever algorithms.

        Here's how 99% of all software (by volume) is coded:
        You work for a company. They say, "Bobby, we need you to write a front end to the payables system".

        So you code it, and if you're a programmer with half-a-brain, you come up with a few twists that make it run better/faster/nicer. The code is never sold, or used outside of your company. It exists, and probably nobod
    • How would that work? Would you have all your source code printed really small in a pretty logo which you register with the proper authorities?
    • Software shouldn't be patented. It shouldn't even be copyrighted or trademarked.

      That's like going to a murderer and saying killing isn't moral. Sure, it's true, but it ain't gonna do much.

      If patents pass in europe, i can predict it won't be as bad as in america. Corporate biggies like MS can easily put tons of money in useless crap.

      Heck, if the uspto accepts a patent on a bicycle [uspto.gov] filed in the year 2000, you know they'll accept any old crap from MS.
      • The worst thing about the bicycle patent is its name. It's not a bicycle, it's an exercise machine with a single flywheel. The novel aspect is the pedals - they are independent of one another rather than being connected by a crankshaft.
    • Software shouldn't be patented. It shouldn't even be copyrighted or trademarked. There is such a short shelf life on software and software companies that the impact of denying access to techniques and logarithms effectively shuts out competition and fair use not only for the life of a product but well beyond, negatively influencing people well beyond the useful scope of any novelty that could possibly be discovered.
      One only has to look at the rampant achievements and success of Free Software and Open Source
    • What happened to windows 3.1. I know it sucks but ut should be free. I used to be a hardcore win3.1 in 2000-2001. You might thing I'm stupid but I just like old stuff and it was on an old computer i had.

    • Copyright is fine (Score:3, Insightful)

      by IBitOBear ( 410965 )
      There is nothing wrong with software copyrights because copyrights only cover that very literal piece of code and only factor in when that code has been copied. So if the code goes stale because of its short shelf life, then it doesn't matter if it cannot be copied.

      Remember, with copyrights, if you write a program and I write one "just like it" that isn't _actually_ it, then there really isn't a conflict. Especially if there was no way I ever saw your code.

      Also, you don't "own all code like yours" when
    • that the impact of denying access to techniques and logarithms effectively shuts out competition and fair use not only for the life of a product but well beyond

      I didn't know that I could stop competition by using logarithms.
    • Even if you have a point, the bottom line is that our current government system will never decide to stop providing at least some type of protection for software. So, which would you choose, a 20 year patent, or indefinete copyright? And regardless, if I HAD to choose a better method, I'd say that software fits better into patent than copyright anyways.

    • Here's something I wrote the other day:

      The Cast:

      • Mr. Gates
      • A European Commissioner

      The Sketch

      A `customer' (with brown envelopes and chequebook aready) enters the €C in Brussels.

      Mr. Gates: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.

      (The commisioner does not respond.)

      Mr. Gates: 'Ello, Miss?

      Commissioner: What do you mean "miss"?

      Mr. Gates: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!

      Commissioner: We're closin' for lunch.

      Mr. Gates: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain ab

      • The Sketch (contd...)

        Mr. Gates: Now that's what I call a dead patent law. The JURI is no longer out on that patent law...its most definitely deceased.

        Commissioner: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!

        Mr. Gates: STUNNED?!?

        Commissioner: Yeah! 'E was stunned by all the public backlash! Patent laws stun easily, major.

        Mr. Gates: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That patent law is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not two years ago, you assured me that its total

  • in other news, war is peace, hate is love, and microsoft ROXXORZZZZZ.

  • heh (Score:3, Funny)

    by sandstorming ( 850026 ) <johnsee@sLAPLACE ... m minus math_god> on Friday February 11, 2005 @05:16PM (#11647227)
    And soon microsoft shall hold patents to errors, bugs, patches and security updates.
    • It isn't even a bad idea: "method for making customers upgrade"

      "1: the invention contains a number of flaws that deteriorate over time, eventually coercing the customer to upgrade to a new version." etc. etc.

      Just imagine: you could sue anyone who creates a software product that has bugs in it!

      • No -- You couldn't sue, Microsoft could sue any competitor as soon as the competition released a product with anything resembling a bug.

        Microsoft, however, would be free to continue releasing buggy software to their hearts' content.
        • You couldn't sue, Microsoft could sue any competitor as soon as the competition released a product with anything resembling a bug.

          The idea was, of course, that I would get that patent and sue Microsoft instead.

          They will find it hard to argue prior art, unless of course they can cough up some corporate memo describing exactly this strategy. Wouldn't that be just great?

          Arguing that bugs are accidental rather than by design doesn't matter for patents. Besides, accidental theft of my invention is still t

    • Maybe they could patent FUD, then sue SCO for infringement?
  • This is one step to a Microsoft-dominated Tech Marketplace. Soon Microsoft will find every loophole there is to drive out competitors.

    • Re:MS Domination (Score:2, Interesting)

      by creysoft ( 856713 )
      As opposed to... what, exactly?

      It's already a Microsoft-dominated Tech Marketplace. Microsoft already uses every loophole there is to drive out competitors. It's not a step toward anything. They're just doing what's necessary to protect their investment.

      Meanwhile I, and other open source developers, are doing what's necessary to make sure their investment was a bad one.
    • Writers Cramp is very painful. What with writing patents all day long. Now the villagers of redmond have to find other sources of patent generation, or their whole economy of patent writing will spin apart.

  • Help Wanted Ad (Score:3, Funny)

    by bigtallmofo ( 695287 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @05:16PM (#11647232)
    "Microsoft, the world's largest software company is seeking all manner of Patent Attorneys with Freakin' Lasers on Their Heads to assist with plans of world domination."

  • Killer Patent Idea (Score:3, Funny)

    by CheeseburgerBlue ( 553720 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @05:18PM (#11647245) Homepage Journal
    "Application for a patent that covers the act of patenting software intellectual property."

    That that, logic!

  • yuppers... (Score:1, Funny)

    by radiumhahn ( 631215 )
    looks like the classic "If you can't work with them then work around them" trick. 2nd only to "If it aint solved throw more money at it."
  • They'll keep hiring new patent "experts" until they get the answers they want.

  • What's the big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mrighi ( 855168 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @05:20PM (#11647271) Homepage
    As much as I like to poke fun at Microsoft, I don't see anything wrong with this job posting.

    Performing a prior art search requires 95% technology knowledge and 5% patent knowledge. The little patent knowledge their employees will need I'm sure they'll learn on the job. Come on, we've all sold ourselves during job interviews as being "fast learners."

    In my opinion, this is just a silly reason to ridicule Microsoft.
    • Come on, we've all sold ourselves during job interviews as being "fast learners."

      Oh. Is that what you guys have been doing? That's so much better than the "I'm the best an asshole like you is gonna be able to get," that I've been using.
    • You're right! There is nothing wrong with the job posting. It's the agenda behind the job posting that is suspect. In this particular case the problem is their past track record with respect to respect other companies' IP.

    • I'm kind of with you, here - it seems to me that they're actually trying to take a measured, reasonable approach to software patenting by making sure that they're not stepping on anybody's toes. They're doing this to CYA (such that Y=T), but it seems like, if there are going to be software patents, this is a good thing.

      • I'm curious too. What is their motivation here? Do they gain any sort of legal benefit out of being able to point to dedicated prior art researchers? I mean, they're spending the money -- why?
        • I'd imagine that they plan to be searching through prior art before they try to license or sue another company. Its a painful process to get all ramped up to litigation only to find that your opponent is holding a crucial piece of art. With the number of patents that Msft holds, it surely is a full-time job to try to attend to this work.
      • This isn't just useful to ensure they aren't infringing. That's even kind of hard, because you're dealing with a huge space of potential patents.

        What's useful about hiring a bunch of people to look for prior art is when you're trying to invalidate a patent being cited against you. Then you have a specific set of claims for which you can search for prior art. Of course, in the end, I like this, because it means stupid crappy patents will get weeded out by being invalidated at trial (if things go to trial
    • What's wrong with this job posting is that it means MS is gearing up for a patent assault.

      It's not good news for OSS.

  • I can do that job (Score:4, Funny)

    by peragrin ( 659227 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @05:22PM (#11647292)
    I promise not to look for prior art or question the validity of any mouse click you want patented.

    I wont be bothered to see if anyone else is even trying to do something similar, and will push to patent using keyboards to input data, using a pen on the screen to push objects, and even patent running software on something called a processor.
  • Maybe they'll patent their vulnerabilities so it will be illegal to exploit them. That'll make Windows secure. Kind of like what the cel phone industry did to full spectrun scanners. They had them banned instead of providing secure communications for their customers.
  • Does that mean I can be a criminal lawyer and not know criminal law?

  • What PhD would do this? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 314m678 ( 779815 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @05:29PM (#11647353)
    Why would anyone devote the 10 years of intense study to become a PHD in a hard science like CS or CE just to do research to see if something someone else has done is similar to something that someone else has already done.


    Wanted: PHD in physics to serve fast food through drive through window.

  • Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Pan T. Hose ( 707794 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @05:33PM (#11647376) Homepage Journal
    Condidering the fact that getting a PhD in CS and EE is fairly easy these days, we should expect a lot of idiotic "methods and aparatii" from those new kids. Then couple of frivolous lawsuits against small corporations as a testing ground and finally against free software will follow during the next decades (probably some easy target, ala bnetd [slashdot.org], so people will boycott Microsoft for few ours and then start buying new products, like with Blizzard) but it will result in very bad PR and counterclaims from IBM so the practice will probably be terminated after two (three at most) low-priority lawsuits from the top levels of the management, those new kids will get fired and everything will go back to normal. It will be certainly interesting to watch, but devastating to the US industry which will obviously benefit EU who will rather choose progress than software patents. It will mean stronger domination of Microsoft in the US and weaker in Europe. That of course means that it is a good time to buy stock of SuSE and Mandrake, and sell Red Hat.
    • > Condidering the fact that getting a PhD in CS and
      > EE is fairly easy these days

      Nice troll, but I'll bite.

      It's easy, but depends entirely on your school & your advisor. I'm fairly certain that places like Stanford or Caltech aren't gonna let you wrap up your PhD in anything less than 5+ years. And that too, not before making sure you worked your butt off.
    • I'll bite too.

      I spent 4+ years, 80k words (not including rewrites), major stress attacks and had no money to get my PhD. It was not fucking easy.

  • IP law is very different (Score:5, Interesting)

    by plopez ( 54068 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @05:33PM (#11647377) Journal
    I hope some of the real lawyers that read this site can confirm or discredit this.

    Anyway, a friend of mine who happens to be a lawyer, when I asked what she knew about IP law stated that is so different from other types of law it has its own bar exam. Unless you actually pass that exam you are not really qualified to work on IP cases or to give legal advice. She said she will not touch IP law in any form because, in effect, it would be malpractice (I, of course, was hoping for some free advice :). Lawyers who work on IP issues tend to be very specialized and the firms they work for tend to be specialized as well.

    I have to wonder if by hiring unqualified people MS is heading for lots of problems.
    • I'm not 100% certain, but I believe I heard this somewhere before too. My senior design professor (for computer engineering) actually encouraged any of us who were planning to be lawyers to work to put an end to the patent madness. In class he showed us a patent that some young punk made for caller ID or something, then re-constructed the device in the patent and showed us that it didn't work at all.
    • when I asked what she knew about IP law stated that is so different from other types of law it has its own bar exam. Unless you actually pass that exam you are not really qualified to work on IP cases or to give legal advice. She said she will not touch IP law in any form because, in effect, it would be malpractice

      What I know is that:

      1. you don't have to be a lawyer to file a patent.

      2. you don't need to be a lawyer to do research on prior art.

      3. you don't even have to be a lawyer to work in the patent

    • Re:IP law is very different (Score:4, Informative)

      by angle_slam ( 623817 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @06:28PM (#11647881)
      Well, you shouldn't use the generic term "IP". IP encompasses many different areas of law, including patents, trademarks, and copyrights.

      There is a separate exam to become admitted to the Patent Bar. You can get more information at the PTO website [uspto.gov]. You do NOT have to be a lawyer to take the Patent Bar Exam. If you pass it and are not a lawyer, you are called a "patent agent." If you pass the patent bar and are a lawyer (admitted to practice law in any state or D.C.), then you are called a "patent lawyer." In order to take the patent bar exam, you must have a technical degree (engineering, science, etc.) Detailed info is linked to above.

      To file a patent, unless you are the inventor, you have to be admitted to the patent bar (patent agent or patent lawyer).

      There are no such restrictions on copyrights or trademarks. However, you need to be an attorney to file trademarks on behalf of another. (I don't know about copyrights).

      For litigation purposes (suing other people for patent infringement), you have to be a lawyer, but you do not have to be admitted to the patent bar. You only need to be a patent lawyer to prosecute (obtain) patents.

    • There *IS* not legal category called IP.
      You can have patents.
      You can have copyrights.
      You can have trademarks.
      You can have trade secrets.

      Each one of those is really quite separate in legal requirements, but patents have so divorced themselves from the rest of the legal system that they (I have heard) DO have a separate bar exam (sort of a post-bar), and if you aren't qualified under it's terms, it would, indeed, be malpractice to talk about what the law means. (And though a layman could get away with doing
    • Your friend may have been a bit hyperbolic. :) First of all, IP issues in general come up very often in a non-IP lawyer's work: it comes up when a company is trying to hire somebody, when a company wants to purchase or license a product from someone, when a company wants to merge or acquire another company, etc. etc. These things happen all the time. Though we non-IP attorneys would never give anyone IP advice of the sort that addresses whether something is protectable or infringing, we do deal with IP i
    • Hello
      I do not like this "empty" academic talks about is IP a real term for copyright, patents etc. or it is not. This term is in use and there is no need to discuss about it, unless You are a law professor and got a lot of free time to spent for such polemics ;) Yes it covers copyrights and industrial property rights (industrial property term was taken from French law doctrine and covers patents, utility designs, industrial designs trade marks, geographical indications etc. depends on which legal system we

  • And when you can't innovate... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 11, 2005 @05:42PM (#11647449)
    Litigate.

  • Getting it backwards? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Zocalo ( 252965 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @05:43PM (#11647455) Homepage
    I think maybe someone has the wrong end of the stick here. Microsoft's job ad states quite clearly that wants these people for the purpose of hunting for prior art. What possible use is that in the filing of patents when the accepted practice is to file anyway and let the USPTO and (if necessary) the courts decide whether it's valid or not.

    I think it's far more likely that the purpose of these new employees is to help Microsoft invalidate patents that may be used against it such as the bogus Eolas patent a few months back. That of course begs the question, why do they think that this is going to be an issue since they also think that software patents are such a good idea? Unless, perhaps, they *know* they are invalidating patents, are afraid they will get sued and feel that the best defense is a good offense...

  • Not an attractive job (Score:3, Interesting)

    by batemanm ( 534197 ) <batemanm@gGAUSSmail.com minus math_god> on Friday February 11, 2005 @05:47PM (#11647490)
    I recently finnished reviewing a few patents because of a grant application I've made, they were mainly to do with commercial detection routines some of which have expired so the free PVR guys might want to have a look at those :-). They are the most boring and badly written crap that I've ever seen. The entire purpose is to make sure that you can't understand what the hell is going on in them. The patent lawyers make sure they are as broad as possible just to see if they can get away with it, I ask my patent lawyer about that and she confirmed it. They are annoying and sometimes very sparse on the technical details so you just have to guess what is meant. I don't think that reviewing patents is a job that I could do for very long while staying sane.
  • Why don't Microsoft patent spam, trojans, viruses, malware, spyware and genomes of script kiddies. That will send shivers down the spines of the miscreants, and we will all be FREE of the crap :)

  • I fail to see... (Score:4, Funny)

    by catdevnull ( 531283 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @05:57PM (#11647572)

    I fail to see how this differs from any of their own in-house attitudes towards patents, prior art, or the property of others.

    It's kind of like the Mafia putting out an ad that looks like this:
    Wanted: Large, ugly males of Italian/Sicilian heritage.
    Duties include helping proprietor(s) enforce business agreements.
    No business degree/experience required.

  • Sounds like fun is a comin'! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @06:00PM (#11647614) Homepage
    If I were to guess about what is about to come about, I'd say they are about to make some tests for their patents to see how well they will stand up against counter claims to invalidate their patents when they start lawsuits for usage.
  • I've been a lurker here for a few months, and while there's sometimes really intelligent stories, why is it that anytime someone mentions Microsoft we feel they've done something wrong?

    Shouldn't we be happy that they're hiring PhD's to do their patent work, and not patent lawyers with no understanding of computer science?

    And, after all, what is so evil about Microsoft? All that money that they make (mostly off of large corporations) does end up in the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; yes, charity. I
    • Like them or not, software patents encourage incredible innovation in the field.

      No they don't. Software patents are an anathema to innovation. Think about the case of solo inventor who comes up with what he believes is a brilliant new concept in software. If he wants to start a new business, and take his idea to market, he has a few choices: file for a patent himself, or go to market without a patent. If he does the former, it's going to take considerable money and time, which he may not have. And ev
    • ...Like them or not, software patents encourage incredible innovation in the field...

      Please, please, post one credible link stuffed with quality facts that proves this assertion.

      I have asked for this information many times and have received not one single reply. In fact, all the info I've seen on patents and especially software patents, always show the opposite.
  • Other recent filings include attempting to patent the "y-axis", the "IS NOT" operator in Basic, interactive test feedback, and reading ahead 20 records at a time in a database, when the user clicks the Previous or Next buttons.

    I'm surprised they haven't already patented the use of the Q-dimension to predict future technology developments.
  • ... the concept of security holes. :D

  • A different view (Score:2, Interesting)

    by HogynCymraeg ( 624823 )
    Given that in other news, the collapse of Microsoft is near, perhaps Microsoft will turn into a canopy type group? Perhaps they were funding SCO for R&D rather than FUD?
  • MS has to stop Linux at all costs, and the cost will be the end of MS. I predict they are going to sink so low that the top brass at MS will end up in jail over Linux. You heard it here first.
  • I believe that Microsoft is only good for two things: gaming and grandpa. Smarter, more capable people are really gaining control of the Computer industry, and it won't be long until Linux will overtake Microsoft simply because of Linux's broader range of functions. If Microsoft would spend more time creating more flexable OS's and less time creating more 'MSNTV' Services, we would all be in a better boat. http://www.enstimac.fr/~alaouimd/linux_penguin_suc k-microsoft.jpg [enstimac.fr]

  • Oh boy. (Score:3, Informative)

    by LawGeek ( 104616 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @09:35PM (#11649143)
    I can't believe this post has been up for a day and not a single person has actually checked in with the following info:

    Law firms and companies with patent lawyers routinely hire non-lawyer technical experts to help them with patent work. In law firms, these people are typically called "technology specialists" or something similar. Often these people simultaneously go to law school, with the idea being that they will eventually turn into lawyers.

    Additionally, there are many people out there who are called "patent clerks." What this means is that they have studied for and passed the US Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) examination. Once you have passed this exam, you are qualified to help people obtain patents, regardless of whether you have a law degree. Now, you obviously can't practice law, so you're quite limited if your only a patent clerk and not a patent lawyer, but you can still be quite helpful to someone who just wants to obtain a patent or two.

    Bottom line: law firms and legal departments routinely hire tech/science people to help them with their patent work. I honestly can't believe this made it into a story. Next week there will be a post about Microsoft hiring SECRETARIES. I mean, they're a software company!! They're supposed to be writing software and they're out hiring secretaries!?!?

  • The other kind of MS patent litigation (Score:3, Interesting)

    by po8 ( 187055 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @10:12PM (#11649290)

    Keep in mind that Microsoft is also the deepest-pocket target for every crank with their own crazy patent. I know of several cases in the past few years where Microsoft spent a lot of money defending themselves in infringement suits against completely frivolous patents. Be glad that these patents were trashed, and hope that's how Microsoft continues to do its patent litigation.

  • ... PhD? (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by tomstdenis ( 446163 )
    Must be a PhD? Oh... because we know that's gonna be a sign of an intelligent person... not like the previous "Doctors" who have basically put us in the mess we are currently.

    I so hate degrees being toted as the be-all of the fucking world. From what I've heard talking with various schools my LibTomMath project [and book] would qualify as a Masters level thesis undertaking. Yet I wrote the bulk of it in a couple of months FOR FUN!!!

    Not trying to put down the "educated" just saying that you can get by th
  • They sure did get a lot of free advertising here at least. :P
  • face it MS's recent craze of Patents is their effort to stamp out any other operating systems and soon to be hardware. The PC makers that drool over the Windows OS as their os of choice should have saw the writing on the wall when MS released the xbox. All MS has to do now is make their own Windows Media Center computer and their total monopoly will be complete - oh wait! they have its called the XBOX-2! They should have been busted up into many pieces when they were found guilty of monopoly but too many

Slashdot Top Deals

"The great question... which I have not been able to answer... is, `What does woman want?'" -- Sigmund Freud

Close