Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Government The Courts News

Start-up Granted Injunction Against Microsoft 247

Posted by samzenpus from the That-isn't-yours dept.
AustinSlacker writes " A San Jose, CA start-up, Alacritech Inc, was granted a preliminary injunction against Microsoft in a patent infringement lawsuit involving several patents related to Microsoft's implementation of "Chimney" TCP offload architecture."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Start-up Granted Injunction Against Microsoft More

Start-up Granted Injunction Against Microsoft

Comments Filter:

  • Watch out Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TimeTraveler1884 ( 832874 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @05:37PM (#12228391)
    FTA:
    "Microsoft rejected licensing terms that would be acceptable to us. We were forced to sue Microsoft to stop them from continuing to infringe, and inducing others to infringe, on our intellectual property rights. We are very pleased with the Court?s decision in this matter."
    What goes around comes around I say. While by no means I think everyone suing everyone is a good thing, it's refreshing to see that someone is taking on Microsoft for a change.

    What is unclear to me though, is if Alacritech really the first to use this technology. They don't explicitly say this in the article. The closest thing to indicate that Microsoft tried to steal their technology is the following time line:
    * 10/97--Alacritech files first provisional U.S. Patent application 60/061,809 on SLIC Technology
    * 09/98--Alacritech meets with Microsoft and describes patent-pending Dynamic TCP Offload architecture in detail under a non-disclosure agreement
    * 04/99--At Microsoft?s request, Alacritech delivers?detailed architecture document for integrating Alacritech SLIC Technology into Windows
    * 06/99--Microsoft ceases further communications with Alacritech?and subsequently proceeds to use Alacritech SLIC Technology without a license
    * 04/00--Alacritech ships first products based on SLIC Technology
    * 05/01--First Alacritech patent on SLIC Technology, U.S. Patent No. 6,226,680 issued
    * 07/02--Alacritech U.S. Patent No. 6,427,171 issued

    According to this, Microsoft met with them, asked them for the architecture details, the ceased contact 2 months later. Interesting.

    • Re:Watch out Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)

      by winkydink ( 650484 ) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @05:40PM (#12228431) Homepage Journal
      According to this, Microsoft met with them, asked them for the architecture details, the ceased contact 2 months later. Interesting.

      As dubious as it sounds, it can also be a matter of, after looking at it indetail, they discovered that there was nothing special about it.

      • Re:Watch out Microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)

        by klui ( 457783 )
        I suppose it can also be the case where it's not obvious until somebody shows you and then... "of course... a child could do it."

      • Re:Watch out Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Austerity Empowers ( 669817 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @06:30PM (#12228821)
        Or there was nothing there. I can't count how many start ups I've worked with that have shown me slideware of "patent pending" technology that was not implemented, not thought through or otherwise junk. Obviously if I'm looking to buy enough to sit through a meeting or sign an NDA, I understand what's needed and want someone to deliver. After said company then asks for an outrageous sum for their technology (usually a sum that equals or exceeds the cost for us to develop on our own) we'll tell them to shove it and develop it ourselves.

        I've never had (or wanted) to work for Microsoft, so no one has ever haunted me, but I can probably see where microsoft may just be victim of the patent system they themselves are abusing.

        That's even better than the david vs. goliath theme.

        • Re:Watch out Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Jason Earl ( 1894 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @08:46PM (#12229875) Homepage Journal

          Microsoft is currently defending itself in over 30 of these patent cases. Microsoft has huge piles of money, they talk to everyone, and they have a long history of shady dealings. Patenting a technology that Windows is likely to infringe in the future is the "new" way to make scads of money in the software business.

          It's truly ironic that Microsoft paints Free Software as having patent issues. Heck, even IBM is starting to realize that patent reform is probably in its best interest.

          • Re:Watch out Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Austerity Empowers ( 669817 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @09:21PM (#12230052)
            I agree mostly.

            Consider a historical invention that was truly worth patenting, like the transistor. By demonstrating and explaining the benefits of technology to any number of huge companies, most of them with R&D interests and good technical people would see how valuable the invention is. They'd also know that they may not be smart enough to invent it on their own and would pay.

            Consider on the other hand someone giving a power point presentation on the concept of one click shopping. I know that I could hire any given ambitious junior high school student a minimum wage job to build that for me if I describe it to him. To sue me for doing so because I didn't pay said presentor simply because he had a "patent" on this idea is pretty lame. If this is the case, I'm afraid I'm with Microsoft on this issue. MS is evil, I agree and they will burn in hell. But they do not have the market cornered on evil.

            It would be amusing if each MS hater went about patenting every single thing that crossed our mind and sued MS for infringement. We could "prosecute" on the cheap, and MS would be forced to fight us all off. Death by a hundred million mosquitos. Hey, the patent system might even get a much needed reform out of it.

            I hereby patent this process, but I grant each person license to use it against MS, free of charge.

            • The funny bit is that you don't need to prosecute "on the cheap." It's easy to find competent legal assistance when you are going after a cash-laden company like Microsoft. Eolas was awarded $500 million dollars for supposedly patenting web browser plugins. That decision is currently being appealed, but still that is a *lot* of money. Competent lawyers will find *you* if you have a chance at that sort of a windfall. As I said before, this is going to become the software industry of the decade. Unless,

      • Re:Watch out Microsoft (Score:2, Insightful)

        by wcdw ( 179126 )
        As dubious as it sounds, it can also be a matter of, after looking at it indetail, they discovered that there was nothing special about it.

        Dubious indeed, given MS's long history of screwing over their technology 'partners' in _exactly_ this way.

      • Re:Watch out Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)

        by wardk ( 3037 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @07:54PM (#12229494) Journal
        As dubious as it sounds, it can also be a matter of, after looking at it indetail, they discovered that there was nothing special about it.

        This certainly could be the case.

        I know they were so unimpressed with Stac's disk compression technology, that they quickly wrote their own from scratch in a clean room. wait, maybe that was Sybase SQL Server. No, that's not it.

        maybe the risk losing a suit in the end is cheaper than either paying legit royalties or investing the R&D to roll your own. I think maybe MS has so much money, they are willing to take these sorts of risks, it's only money...that stuff falls from the sky for them.

    • Re:Watch out Microsoft (Score:5, Funny)

      by bonch ( 38532 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @05:40PM (#12228439)
      I'm confused; I thought we were against software patents?

      • Re:Watch out Microsoft (Score:5, Funny)

        by dreamchaser ( 49529 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @05:44PM (#12228463) Homepage Journal
        Try to keep up. Software patents are a *good* thing when used against Microsoft!

        (for the humor impaired, that was meant to be tongue in cheek)

      • Re:Watch out Microsoft (Score:4, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @06:02PM (#12228602)
        It goes this way:

        patents == bad.
        patents used against M$ (must use the $ sign) == good

        copyright infringement == good
        using GPL code and not releasing source == copyright infringement == bad

        sharing music / movies != theft as nothing physical was taken
        using GPL code and not releasing source == theft as the source was 'stolen'

        SCO making unfounded claims that Linux poached SCO code == bad
        Linux zealots making unfounded claims that M$ uses GPL code == good

      • Re:We are (Score:5, Insightful)

        by symbolic ( 11752 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @06:04PM (#12228619)

        Well, let me speak for myself. I don't think they are a good idea...at all. The best thing about *this* case is that it could easily become a thorn in the side of one of the biggest patent whores in the US. I find it particularly amusing that the patent holder is under no obligation whatsoever to ensure that the terms are "agreeable" to whomever wants to license them.

        EAT PATENT, MICROSOFT!
        • > The best thing about *this* case is that it could easily become a thorn in the side of one of the biggest patent whores in the US

          How many patent lawsuits has Microsoft taken out?

          • Re:We are (Score:3, Interesting)

            by symbolic ( 11752 )
            Not the issue. How many patents does Microsoft hold? The distinction is important- the reason Microsoft hasn't initiated any patent suits (that we know of anyway), is because it hasn't needed to. Put the company in a position of financial stress, and you can bet they'll be looking at every possible way to take advantage of this massive portfolio.
          • how many patents has microsoft been hoarding lately?
            how many times has it threatened the linux kernel with litigation?

            (SPOILER!)
            answer 1:lots
            answer 2:more than 0

        • Re:We are (Score:3, Interesting)

          by dillon_rinker ( 17944 )
          I find it particularly amusing that the patent holder is under no obligation whatsoever to ensure that the terms are "agreeable" to whomever wants to license them.

          EXACTLY.

          So-called intellectual property is, in theory, a temporary monopoly granted for the sake of the public good. By granting the monopoly, the government provides economic incentives to creators. What, though, is the good to the public if the creators do not license their intellectual property?

          I would propose mandatory licensing of ALL int
          • Isn't this about pre-existing legislation already in place, that prohibits people from predatory practices? One case that comes to mind is Jim Fisk buying out the Red Line tram system in Los Angeles in the 20's and selling off the right of way piecemeal so it would never be in a position to infringe the revenue stream of Fisk Tires Corp. Use of purchasing power to deny access to competitors is a time-honoured practice of robber barons. IBM did it in the 70's and sent Memorex to the wall (bought out suppl

          • Re:We are (Score:3, Interesting)

            by back_pages ( 600753 )
            So-called intellectual property is, in theory, a temporary monopoly granted for the sake of the public good. By granting the monopoly, the government provides economic incentives to creators. What, though, is the good to the public if the creators do not license their intellectual property?

            The answer to that question is the public disclosure of the technology and the implicit offer of a temporary monopoly to anyone who can improve that technology in a non-obvious way.

            Regardless of whether or not you buy

          • Re:We are (Score:3, Insightful)

            by XorNand ( 517466 )
            If I invent something and don't want to do anything with it, why should the gov't have the right to force me to share it? And who gets to dictate the terms of the licensing? The patent office that we already love to call inept?

            I understand you're reasoning, but transfering power away from big corporations and giving it to big government doesn't really solve the problem, it just moves it around.

            • Re:We are (Score:3, Informative)

              by Lehk228 ( 705449 )
              the government is not forcing you to share what you invented, the government would be forcing you to sell at a reasonable price if you want to the government to prohibit others from inventing their own version very similar to yours
      • From the looks of things, this appears to be (at least partially) a hardware patent with software aspects to it. (which is quite different than a pure software patent).

        In any event, even if the work wasn't patented, it would have been subject to trade secret complaints (if you accept Alacritech's version of the story)

        So Microsoft is stealing someone else's Intellectual Property... Why aren't I shocked? I'm expecting that they figured that they'd get away with 4-5 years of slogging it thru a court befo

      • Think about it this way, if patents are used against the rich and powerfull, then there is more of a chance those same rich and powerfull who used to be for software patents will be against them in the future.

      • Re:Watch out Microsoft (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        It's called "blowback". Microsoft, IBM, etc. etc. have just realized that anyone with a smart patent attorney and a BS patent might get lucky filing against one of the big guys.

        Microsoft in particular has recently been calling for some "patent reform". If you're as cynical as I am, that means making it easier for Microsoft to use their patents and harder to be the target of patent attacks by less well financed entities. Pretty good summary of the MS position appears to be here:

        http://ipbiz.blogspot.com

      • Re:Watch out Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dnixon112 ( 663069 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @06:21PM (#12228740)
        We are against software patents. The reason this is a good thing is simple. Big companies have a lot of lobbying power with the government. The more big companies, like Microsoft, are getting screwed over by bullshit software patents (instead of just using them to screw others over) the more likely they will push for patent reform. If big companies, not just some open source junkies, are using their lobbying power to change software patents then it will be a lot easier to get the system changed.

        • The more big companies, like Microsoft, are getting screwed over by bullshit software patents ... the more likely they will push for patent reform.

          While I agree with this sentiment, it is more likely that any reform that happens will protect the position of big companies, but impair the ability of smaller companies to protect their patents.

          For instance, Microsoft could well lobby for "loser pays litigation costs" when patents are litigated. Such legislation would reward the big companies with large war
        • The more big companies, like Microsoft, are getting screwed over by bullshit software patents (instead of just using them to screw others over) the more likely they will push for patent reform.

          Just for argument's sake, what are you going to say if Microsoft loses the suit, exhausts the appeals process, and pays the damages saying, "Yeah, you caught us fair and square. Win some, lose some."

          It's only reasonable to expect Microsoft to fight an infringement suit tooth and nail. I'm afraid I don't see how t

        • We are against software patents.

          Please don't include me in your blanket statements. Likewise, I don't think the entire slashdot community wants you speaking on our behalf.

          I do, however, agree with you that there needs to be some MAJOR patent reform - and QUICKLY. IP, much like technology, grows at an extremely rapid rate.

      • HAhaha no dumbass. We're against whatever we don't like and for whatever we do like. But only on daily whims.
      • I'm confused; I thought we were against software patents?

        We are, if MS gets pissed off enough from this stuff they can afford to buy better legislation than we can.

        I personally like to see as many large corporations and companies get bit in the ass by this crap as possible.

      • Re:Watch out Microsoft (Score:5, Funny)

        by eraserewind ( 446891 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @07:04PM (#12229100)
        We are anti-patent, but we are pro-schadenfreude.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Watch out Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)

        by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @05:58PM (#12228581)
        (and most of them SHOULD fail, since they're 99.9% BS, like the Eolas case).

        Eolas is rather questionable but that doesn't mean this case is without merit. MS has done kind of thing before. For example, Stacker and Goldtouch.

        Goldtouch Tech makes peripherals and launched a lawsuit against MS. [senseient.com] After they shared a new mouse design with MS for licensing considerations, MS declined. 18 months later MS made a mouse that looked remarkably like theirs. This was around the 1999-2000 time frame. I don't put this past MS.

        As a whole, I don't think Ballmer and Gates are urging these tactics. MS is a big company. Their will be bad apples with power and influence in any organization that do things that are immoral or illegal.

    • Personally I hope microsoft takes this as an opportuity to reevaluate it's stance on software patents....

      ...Hey, I can dream....
    • What goes around comes around I say.

      If you'd like to show us an example of Microsoft using patents this way *against* other companies, I'm all ears (or eyes).

      Much like IBM, Microsoft's patent portfolio is supposed to be defensive in nature. Again, if you have proof to the contrary I'd like to see it.

      OTOH, if these people's claims are truthful and this is another STAC case, then Microsoft should definitely be shafted, as I would expect anyone else to be.

      • While it wasn't a company, Microsoft did send the developer of VirtualDub a nastygram telling him to remove the ASF support from his program because they had a patent on it. If he did not, they warned that they would file against him. He, of course, caved into their pressure.
      • If you'd like to show us an example of Microsoft using patents this way *against* other companies, I'm all ears

        Of course they're not going to bother with enforcing their patents now. It's currently much easier for them to make money the way they've always made it.

        However, if the situation ever changes and they start to have disappointing quarterly earnings reports, then you can expect to see them trying new methods to keep the revenue flowing. They could become a monster version of SCO, but with compet

    • Re:Watch out Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)

      by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @05:50PM (#12228516) Homepage Journal
      Interesting

      Hardly, unfortunately. It's the same thing they did with Burst [burst.com] with whom they just settled for a paltry $60M. This is becoming modus operandi for Microsoft.

      It will be interesting to see if Microsoft destroyed evidence [computerworld.com] in this case as well.

      • Re:Watch out Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)

        by linuxtelephony ( 141049 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @06:05PM (#12228626) Homepage
        This is hardly "becoming" MO for Microsoft -- this HAS BEEN SOP for Microsoft for years. It's a practice that is, and has been, repeated numerous times by Microsoft, and reported on as well.

        The problem, is that it is cheaper for MS to continue with this practice, as well as paying off the settlements they end up having to pay, and to keep making money by selling these products.

        Just like it was (a while back) cheaper for MS to pay fines and keep violating a ruling or law (and pocketing money from sales) than complying.

        • Tell it, brother.

          If you have links to others besides STAC and Burst, please post.
        • The problem, is that it is cheaper for MS to continue with this practice, as well as paying off the settlements they end up having to pay, and to keep making money by selling these products.

          How is this a problem, exactly? A settlement is just that... a settlement. That means that the plaintifs are happy with the amount of money that MS is giving them to walk away without a lawsuit (which probably would be won, considering the amount of money MS is willing to pay.. That's how the system works.

          If I
          • How is this a problem, exactly? A settlement is just that... a settlement. That means that the plaintifs are happy with the amount of money that MS is giving them to walk away without a lawsuit (which probably would be won, considering the amount of money MS is willing to pay.. That's how the system works.

            If I had a startup, and I had a product that MS infringed would I A. Want to fight them, and take my chances with a startup, eating Ramen Noodles for several years, and living in my car with the *hope* t

    • Re:Watch out Microsoft (Score:3, Informative)

      by sconeu ( 64226 )
      May I suggest you read Startup - A Silicon Valley Adventure [amazon.com], by Jerry Kaplan, and you'll see that this is standard modus operandi for MS.

      That's exactly what they did to Go! Computer.

  • It's Alacritech, isn't it? (Score:5, Funny)

    by winkydink ( 650484 ) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @05:38PM (#12228396) Homepage Journal
    Alacritch sounds like something you need Tinactin to get rid of.

  • Patent Infringment spiderweb (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Bananatree3 ( 872975 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @05:39PM (#12228402)
    When will we finally settle all these Intelectual Property suits? My guess is probably never. Along the same lines, how could the USPO allow Microsoft to patent something that was already patented? This is screwy...

  • Mountain out of a molehill (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gbulmash ( 688770 ) * <semi_famousNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @05:40PM (#12228426) Homepage Journal
    Based on the press release, it seems more like Alacritech is trying to boost its own profile and try the case in the media.

    First, if it requires a much higher standard of proof to get a preliminary injunction than it does to win at trial, as they claim, how come there are trials where preliminary injunctions are granted and then the plaintiffs lose? They're trying to play up this minor victory in the opening salvo of legal maneuverings as if they've already won the trial. Their lawyers know that's not the case and so do Microsoft's lawyers and execs. So who are they tring to convince?

    And would Microsoft think a single networking technology would provide that much leverage? Seeing as the phrase comes from an Alacritech lawyer, it seems like just so much more hyperbole. If Microsoft "rules the world", it does so more because it owns the consumer/business desktop than because of huge wins in the server market. Microsoft has much more competition in the server OS world than it does in the desktop OS world.

    All, in all, I consider this non-news. Let's see if the injunction withstands an appeal or two, or if the case withstands some of Microsoft's early motions. Until then, IMO, this is all just a lot of preening by peacocks in suits.

    - Greg

  • Microsoft Chimney (Score:4, Funny)

    by techguy911 ( 672069 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @05:43PM (#12228459)
    And to think for all this time I thought Microsoft Chimney was going to be an addon to Longhorn to help cool down my new quad core Pentium 8 256 bit nano-processor, which is what will be out by the time they release it.

  • I'm starting to see the software patent problem. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Future Man 3000 ( 706329 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @05:44PM (#12228462) Homepage
    I can see how a small developer can infringe inadvertently on an existing patent, whether by happening across the same method or forgetting that he observed the method in an existing product.

    That said, if a company with the size, resources, and hipness to the patent system that Microsoft has still has problems with the patent minefield, clearly something's wrong and needs to be fixed. The patent system is there to protect innovators, not to pull the legs out from under existing and profitable companies -- the economic ramifications of permitting individuals to sink corporations over legal silliness are staggering.

    • I think in this case it seems relatively clear that Microsoft was aware of the patent, but chose to ignore it, and quash a smalltime innovator. Possibly they believed the patent would be invalidated in the long run, and therefore felt like the best way to proceed would be to violate and then litigate the patent.

      And just in case you weren't joking, this won't in any way sink microsoft. At worst they pay a penalty proportional to the damages, which would be quite small (for microsoft), and be forced to eit
    • That said, if a company with the size, resources, and hipness to the patent system that Microsoft has still has problems with the patent minefield, clearly something's wrong and needs to be fixed.

      Wha? There's no minefield here. Microsoft walked in and stole their technology and planned to use its wealth to fend off any litigation. (allegedly)

      The patent system is there to protect innovators, not to pull the legs out from under existing and profitable companies

      This is exactly why the preliminary injun

    • Re:I'm starting to see the software patent problem (Score:5, Interesting)

      by bonch ( 38532 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @05:54PM (#12228551)
      Wikipedia even has an entry [wikipedia.org] on the software patent debate.

      The amusing section is the list of quotes for and against software patents, both lead by a Gates quote:

      Quotes supporting patentability

      Bill Gates (Microsoft) 2005
      "...There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises. They don't think that those incentives should exist... I'd be the first to say that the patent system can always be tuned...the United States has led...because we've had the best intellectual-property system."

      Quotes against patentability

      Bill Gates (Microsoft) 1991
      Internal memo
      "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today...The solution is patenting as much as we can. A future startup with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price might be high. Established companies have an interest in excluding future competitors."
      • Those quotes are 14 years apart. It's not so strange that someone would change their mind on a subject over 14 years, especially considering that in '91 software patents were mostly not in Microsoft's favor, and now they are.
      • Part 1: If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today

        Part 2: The solution is patenting as much as we can.

        That's a very odd, but very true non sequitur. Well, unless you want the industry to be at a complete standstill. Which I guess they do; they have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

    • If you accept Alacritch's press reports at face value, this is not a patent minefiled problem. Microsoft went to the company and got details of their technology (probably under NDA). They then cut off communication with the company and implemented their idea without any sort of agreement.

      This is an example of the kinds of minefield a small startup faces when they try to deal with Microsoft. It would appear that MS simply intended to walk all over this company and suck them dry on court costs. It's actua

  • Good, but not for the obvious reason (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Verteiron ( 224042 ) * on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @05:45PM (#12228479) Homepage
    Every time something like this happens, it pushes large companies a step closer towards realizing that perhaps software patents are not an entirely Good Thing for the industry as a whole. And that means said large companies are one step closer to lobbying for software patent reform which, as we all know, is what it takes for any actual change to occur.
    • Every time something like this happens, it pushes large companies a step closer towards realizing that perhaps software patents are not an entirely Good Thing for the industry as a whole.

      Quite honestly, Microsoft doesn't give a shit about the industry as a whole. Microsoft cares about Microsoft, and overall software patents are a net gain for them. So they have to settle with some small company for pocket change - they win in the end, because they most likely got away with this behavior many times befor

    • You're not looking at it from a strategic perspective. Large companies (and smaller ones, too, if they're smart) know that every day they're in business, there's a risk that they're going to get sued, and try to act intelligently about that knowledge. It's called risk management. They also know that they might be able to sue another company/person, too.

      This means trying to minimize lawsuit losses (legal costs, judgements against, licensing costs, and bad PR) and maximize gains (judgements for, licensing

    • profit equation (Score:5, Insightful)

      by vlad_petric ( 94134 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @06:09PM (#12228651) Homepage
      Giving ~50 million dollars to a cocky startup: nothing.

      Preventing OSS adoption through patent/indemnization FUD campaigns: priceless

      Patents is really the only ace they have right now against OSS.

    • Every time something like this happens, it pushes large companies a step closer towards realizing that perhaps software patents are not an entirely Good Thing

      Don't hold your breath. Microsoft is probably one of the primary proponents of software patents -- and if the Eolas patent didn't get their attention (actually, I think it gave them the idea) I don't think anything will.

      Besides, I'm not even sure if this is a pure software patent. This appears to be at least partially a hardware patent (although al

    • Re:Good, but not for the obvious reason (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Shihar ( 153932 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @06:35PM (#12228868)
      I can't speak for software patents, but I can speak for other patents. I work in a nanotechnology startup firm with a very hot product. We have grand total of 30 or so guys working in this company, all of which are very smart people. We only really do one thing, develop technology. We develop the basic idea of a new technology, work out the initial kinks, then sell it to another company for scale up operations. Patents are all we have. Take away our patents, and we would close up shop tomorrow and let the technology sit there stagnant.

      What people don't realize is that often times the people that make the technology and the people that build the technology are two very different people. 30 guys can't run a semiconductor plant building enough memory to feed the global market. We can do all the R&D though. That means that we need to show our R&D to outsiders. We need to take our awesome idea, bring it to a company, and show them enough to convince them that we are not another crackpot startup. The only way to do this is to show them a lot... enough where they get a couple years leg up on reproducing what we have. The only thing that allows us to walk into companies and show them what we have is the protection of IP laws. Without those laws, we wouldn't be able to show off the technology, much less sell it.

      It is this very reason why our company won't even contemplate doing business in Korea or Taiwan. IP is the only thing we have, and those nations are not exactly know for their respect of ownership of IP. IP laws are what keep our business in existence and in the US.

      I am not a programmer, so I don't know how it works with software, but I wouldn't be surprised if something similar happens in that industry too. A small company develops an impressive bit of code, and the only way they can sell it is with the protection of IP to shield them while they show it off and sell it.

      IP laws are not the bane of creativity. The patent system has more then a few flukes and shitty patents handed out, but it is without a doubt needed. Kill patents and you better get cozy with universities and massive corporations, because without IP laws entrepreneurs and risk taking startups are SOL.
      • I am not a programmer, so I don't know how it works with software, but I wouldn't be surprised if something similar happens in that industry too. A small company develops an impressive bit of code, and the only way they can sell it is with the protection of IP to shield them while they show it off and sell it.
        • It's a bit different, software patents patent an algorithm generally. To put this in perspective, you know that 2 + 2 = 4 right? Well I can write a bit of code implementing an algorithm to add tw
      • Okay, patents create an eco-system that supports companies like yours. Your company would not exist without them. Why is that a better eco-system than one without patents? You say something particularly interesting:

        It is this very reason why our company won't even contemplate doing business in Korea or Taiwan. IP is the only thing we have, and those nations are not exactly know for their respect of ownership of IP. IP laws are what keep our business in existence and in the US.

        Korea and Taiwan seem t

      • Re:Good, but not for the obvious reason (Score:4, Insightful)

        by fcw ( 17221 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @11:52PM (#12230870)
        I am not a programmer, so I don't know how it works with software, but I wouldn't be surprised if something similar happens in that industry too.

        Time to be surprised. Economically, software is fundamentally different from all other technical fields because it is immaterial.

        We develop the basic idea of a new technology, work out the initial kinks, then sell it to another company for scale up operations.

        This is the kind of thing that patents can actually be good for.

        However, in software, there is no "scale up operation" that requires the incentive of patent protection -- once you've worked the kinks out of your software idea, you're done. By design, computers can generate unlimited, perfect copies of your software forever for free, and the standing infrastructure of the internet makes distribution to arbitrary numbers of customers effectively error- and cost-free as well.

        This is the reason we have free software, but not free drugs or free nanotechnology.

        And it's also the reason why patents for software are a mistake of the first order.

        Kill patents and you better get cozy with universities and massive corporations, because without IP laws entrepreneurs and risk taking startups are SOL.

        This is only true when there are significant financial risks associated with bringing a new invention to the marketplace. Remember that patents are solely an economic device to protect such investment, in order to encourage investors to pay for the new factories or processes or materials. If the inventors can do it by themselves, and can get started with the money in their pockets, what are the patents needed for?

        When such investments are not required to bring a new invention to the market, patents are an unnecessary burden, especially on the small company.

        For a real example, take Microsoft; they went from nothing to literally the richest company in the world in 20 years in software without patent protection. (They want them now because they see their lucrative business model threatened by free software, and so they are doing the business equivalent of running to Daddy for help by asking for government-sanctioned barriers to entry to the market.)

        Surely the prospect of creating fabulous wealth without significant cash outlay is sufficient incentive to innovate in software?

  • Which evil to support? (Score:5, Funny)

    by hellfire ( 86129 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [vdalived]> on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @05:47PM (#12228496) Homepage
    Patent lawsuits.... Microsoft.... evil quotient reaching infinity...

    cannot... decide... which to... cheer for... brain can't take... much more... **BOOM**
    • This is funny but also contains a valid point. If software patents are as evil as many Slashdotters claim, we should support neither side, and call a cease-fire in the M$ bashing while discussing the case.
    • For limits of the form infinity over infinity or zero over zero, you can apply L'Hopital's rule: the quotient of the infinities will be the quotient of their derivatives. (Simple calculus, really.)

      In this case, the derivitaves of this case are Microsoft, and Alacritech. Microsoft is all about money money money. Now, we know money is the root of all evil, so Microsoft = money * money * money = money ^ 3 = sqrt(evil)^3 = (evil)^(3/2). Software patents are also evil, though, and it seems Alacritech is after mo

    • Nobody (that matters) likes MS or software patents, but when MS gets hurt by the weapons it uses then a cheer goes up from the GoodSide.

      It's a bit like mean people using landmines. Both the people and the mines are nasty. When a mine layer gets his leg torn off by a landmine then there's some poetic justice.

  • Is Alacritch Inc, really a startup? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mcguyver ( 589810 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @05:48PM (#12228503) Homepage
    Alacritch Inc was founded in 1997. Google was founded in 1998. This is a david-vs-goliath story but certainly not on the scale that this article makes you believe...then again Alacritch did go through three rounds of funding for a total of only $35M.

  • the plan.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jspectre ( 102549 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @06:02PM (#12228604) Journal
    1. invent technology
    2. apply for patent
    3. show technology to microsoft (who then copies said technology)
    4. sue microsoft for infringing on patent
    5. wait for buyout settlement
    6. PROFIT!

    • 1. invent technology
      2. apply for patent
      3. show technology to microsoft (who then copies said technology)
      4. sue microsoft for infringing on patent
      5. wait for buyout settlement
      6. PROFIT!

      Six steps?! wtf?!
      My delusions of successful three-step business management have been quashed.
  • A start-up with a 10-year history ?!?

    Looking at their timeline does make Ms look a little suspicious. And while saying a prelim injunction is harder might be stretching it a bit, it certainly isn't easy.

    I'll have to side with the 'little guy' for now.

    Especially as we don't like submarine patents and they are acting before Ms sells a billion dollars worth of stuff using it, sounds like they are trying to be relatively fair (without knowing what those favorable terms are, of course)

    That and the fact they

  • Follow the money: Alacritech vs. Broadcom? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Wesley Felter ( 138342 ) <wesley@felter.org> on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @06:23PM (#12228757) Homepage
    Alacritech makes TCP offload engines (TOEs); so do several other companies. Notably, Broadcom has promised to commoditize TOE by including it in GigE controllers "for free". If this happens, Alacritech is out of business. These Broadcom TOEs rely on the Windows TCP Chimney API to work. If TCP Chimney has to be removed from Windows, then Alacritech is possibly the only TOE company left standing.

    • Re:Follow the money: Alacritech vs. Broadcom? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pavera ( 320634 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @06:46PM (#12228955) Homepage Journal
      Which of course is the point of patents.
      Alacritech "invented" the idea, so they get to be the only game in town for 20 years... This is the problem in my mind with software patents (the length of time not the monopoly granted).

      Software patents would be fine if they lasted 2 years, maybe 3 at the very most. I feel that software patents don't achieve their purpose of fostering innovation because if I patent process xyz, and no one else can use it except for pay me for it, well, someone is going to figure out how to do xqwz and end up at the same endpoint without violating my patent. So, in short the patent didn't make me any money, it just encouraged reinvention of the wheel, which makes all development slower.

  • SOP for M$ (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jwave ( 768379 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @06:25PM (#12228775)
    OK, at the risk of clobbering my newly grown karma, allow me to point out that this is a shining example of how Microsoft has grown to become the great behemoth it is.

    Below, find three sequential elements from the timeline in TFA [alacritech.com].

    • 09/98 - Alacritech meets with Microsoft and describes patent-pending Dynamic TCP Offload architecture in detail under a non-disclosure agreement
    • 04/99 - At Microsoft's request, Alacritech delivers detailed architecture document for integrating Alacritech SLIC Technology into Windows
    • 06/99 - Microsoft ceases further communications with Alacritech and subsequently proceeds to use Alacritech SLIC Technology without a license

    How many articles have we seen here on /. that duplicates this pattern? Who else has been stepped on by the giant in such manner? I'm sure somebody could find a fist-full of articles here in history that shows exactly that behavior pattern.

    Am I correct in recalling that Novell got stung? IBM? I know those are giants themselves. I'm just glad to see that a little David has been able to sling his stone bullet into the face of the Goliath. Now, let's see if they can make it really count.

    I'm not asking to shut down Microsoft. Just have them play fair.

    Is that too much to ask, Bill?

    (Bill: "Why, yes. It is.")

    - - -
    When you say that you agree to a thing in principle, you mean that you have not the slightest intention of carrying it out in practice. -- Otto Von Bismarck
    (this sig stolen from /.)

    • Wasn't this basically the same pattern reported for Microsoft's arrangements with a cellphone OS company (was it "Orange"?) "Partner" with them, starve them to death and let them die, then walk off with their "Intellectual Property"?

    • Uh, I hate to point out the obvious, but the timeline you quote is according to Alacritech. Assuming that the timeline is correct, complete and factual is well, is now a subject for the courts.

      It is quite possible that the TCP offloading APIs and code do not infringe, and the courts rule that way. Sure, it's /. and we all assume that Microsoft is evil and dumb (and it can be), but we'll probably never know.

  • Obvious?? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @06:42PM (#12228920)
    I read TFP (The Fine Patent), or at least a good part of it.

    It seems to be nothing more than the specification of the interface to an I/O processor. There have been I/O processors since the 60's.

    I couldn't find anything that was at all innovative about.

    I think M$ probably looked at what they had, said "So what? How does this help us?" and proceded to go ahead and implement what they had already envisioned.

    If a patent doesn't have something in it that causes you to say "Why didn't I think of that?" or "Why did the aliens contact that guy instead of me?" it probably shouldn't be granted.
  • Ok, lemme get this straight...

    Alacritech "shows" MS this technology back in 98
    MS breaks communication in 99 and starts to use the technology without license
    4 years later Alacritch then "tries" to offer a license.
    One year later they sue

    Why did they wait 4 years if they knew MS was using it without a license? Sounds like a Phishing scheme at the corporate level to dig into some pockets.

    • Re:Smells Phishy (Score:3, Informative)

      by Maestro4k ( 707634 )
      Why did they wait 4 years if they knew MS was using it without a license? Sounds like a Phishing scheme at the corporate level to dig into some pockets.
      • It's not clear from the article when Alacritech found out MicroSoft had continued to use their technology. If they didn't find out until four years later, it would make sense that there's a gap there before they offered them a license. If all happened as Alacritech says it did, it's to their credit they tried to get MS to do the right thing and offered

  • Wow, My mind just went *ping*... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pla ( 258480 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @07:41PM (#12229404) Journal
    While reading through the posts on this topic, I noticed the same patterns I always do, how patents for the most part seem to get granted at the drop of the hat, and both big and little players can use them to very carefully target and cripple the opposition.

    But then I had a thought... We should FULLY, ABSOLUTELY support the granting of insanely over-broad patents for every trivial little thing any company can think to sue over.

    Why, you might ask, would I suggest such a seemingly abhorrent idea?


    Simple: Because, in 20 years, it means that we'll all have the current batch of insanity to point to and excuse our "infringement" of then-current patents with "see? I implemented that, now out of patent."

    "Why yes, it would appear that I violated your patent on 3rd-harmonic quantum eigenreplication, but as you can see from this now-expired-and-thus-fair-game 2002 Microsoft patent, I did nothing more than implement their 3rd claim, which covers ''the use of numbers to do stuff''. So, if we can dispense with the debate over such highly-technical language, I'd like to move for dismissal."

  • That Disturbance You Felt in the Force (Score:3, Funny)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @08:32PM (#12229781) Homepage Journal
    Is the impending Microsoft buy-out of the company. We've seen this exact pattern repeated any of number of times in the past with Microsoft and I'm sure we'll see it again in the future. In the business world, meeting with Microsoft to divuldge your technology secrets is the same as a sorority girl yelling "I'm soooo drunk!" at a frat party. Suing them is the the foreplay to some hot Microsoft buy-out action!

  • funny thing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dbrower ( 114953 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @11:06PM (#12230674) Journal
    is that the TOE concept seemed to have been invented a long time ago. The "Excelan" tcp/ip ethernet from around 1984 comes to mind. See for example, this [clusterworld.com], which says,
    what about TOE?

    TCP offload is an old answer,
    - 1983 : Excelan i186-based "smart adapter"
    - 1986 : CMC 68020
    - Early 1990's : SGI
    - Late 1990's : Adaptec, Alacritec ...
    Hey, there they are! Wonder what their "innovation" was that made it a better idea than the first few incarnations?

    -dB

Slashdot Top Deals

Real Programs don't use shared text. Otherwise, how can they use functions for scratch space after they are finished calling them?

Close