Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Businesses Microsoft

Microsoft May Become Major Opponent of Patents? 184

Posted by Zonk from the birds-gotta-fly-fish-gotta-swim dept.
UltimaGuy wrote to mention a story positing that Microsoft may one day be a major opponent of over-reaching patents. From the article: "Speaking at the LinuxWorld conference in London on Wednesday, Mark Shuttleworth, founder of the Ubuntu Linux distribution, said that although Microsoft is seen as being very pro-patent at the moment, if every other software maker enforced its patents in the same way then Microsoft would find it very difficult and expensive to do business. 'I think in ten years you will see Microsoft become a major opponent of patents and we will see very large software vendors turn around their position on patents,' Shuttleworth said."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft May Become Major Opponent of Patents? More

Microsoft May Become Major Opponent of Patents?

Comments Filter:

  • Yeah, that's gonna happen... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fragmentate ( 908035 ) * <jdspilled.gmail@com> on Friday October 07, 2005 @12:12PM (#13740770) Journal
    Somehow I don't think money will speak any less loudly in ten years. I don't see Microsoft suffering terribly in the next ten years either.

    A company as litigious as Microsoft (themselves victims of the litigious) will just use the cost of litigation to stifle their opponents. Their opponents (the little guys) would have to first have something Microsoft was really interested in, and would have to have the financial wherewithall to pursue Microsoft.

    "...if every other software maker enforced its patents in the same way then Microsoft would find it very difficult and expensive to do business."

    That's a very big if...

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday October 07, 2005 @12:19PM (#13740840)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Microsoft is already anti-patent... sort of. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by museumpeace ( 735109 ) on Friday October 07, 2005 @12:38PM (#13741016) Journal
        In particular, MS is against patents held by other companies. Have we all forgotten that MS just lost its appeal on the Aoleas/UCB patent for plugins?
        they mounted an expensive legal effort because there's a 500 million dollar
        royalty overhead for their browser product. Thats just one patent, one product. there are so many more out there.


      • "You can't outdevelop Microsoft, but you can outinvent them."

        Nathan Myrvold, (cover) "MIT's Technology Review", May 2004
        former Microsoft employee (#5?) Microsoft's original CTO
        founder of Microsoft Research
        Ph.D., and now|new, J.D., specializing in....patent law, working now...buying strategic IP patents. ;)


      • It is beyond naive for him to assume that the law will be evenly-enforced with a monopolist like Microsoft, when we've seen how their antitrust case went. On balance, they win and the little guy loses. Given the level of corruption we now have in this country, MS's interests are probably better served with restrictive patent laws in place.

    • Re:Yeah, that's gonna happen... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hkmwbz ( 531650 ) on Friday October 07, 2005 @12:23PM (#13740888) Journal
      "Somehow I don't think money will speak any less loudly in ten years."
      That's the point of the story: Money will lead the way, and Microsoft would oppose patents if that had led to more money in their pockets. It's pure speculation of course.

      Microsoft will do whatever they think will make the most sense to keep the money flowing in. If that meant opposing patents, then Microsoft would naturally do so.

      • Re:Yeah, that's gonna happen... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Jason Earl ( 1894 ) on Friday October 07, 2005 @02:55PM (#13742170) Homepage Journal

        That's the reason that Microsoft is going to end up opposing patents. It used to be that large companies like IBM could use their patent portfolios against smaller companies. If a smaller company began to see some success a bunch of guys in suits would descend on them and demand a portion of the proceeds. That strategy worked fine as long as the basic strategy for getting rich involved releasing and distributing software, but that's not really the point any more. These days lots of companies are using patents as their path to fame and fortune. Instead of actually writing software these companies like Eolas (and others) simply patent ideas and then wait for someone else (preferrably someone wealthy like Microsoft, IBM, or Sun) to infringe on their patents. Eolas and friends can't be bullied in the traditional manner because they don't release software and aren't infringing on any of Microsoft's patents.

        Eolas' patent was recently held up in court, and that means that Eolas' $500 million lawsuit is that much closer to requiring a big fat check from Microsoft. Multiply that lawsuit times the 35 to 40 patent lawsuits that are filed against Microsoft each year and you start to see why it is that Microsoft (and IBM, and the rest of the large players software industry) want patent reform. Any lawyer worth his briefcase would give a large portion of his or her genitalia to get a shot at Microsoft's huge coffers.

        The best part is that these IP-only companies aren't more than a minor concern to Free Software projects. Eolas isn't going to go after Firefox because there simply isn't any money to be had.

        • "Multiply that lawsuit times the 35 to 40 patent lawsuits that are filed against Microsoft each year and you start to see why it is that Microsoft (and IBM, and the rest of the large players software industry) want patent reform." (emphasis mine)

          Actually, this had me thinking. Certainly they would want the law changed to deal with the Eolas's of this world but I would be very surpised if they became totally anti-patent. More likely they would want the law changed in such a way to specifically remove the

          • What Microsoft and IBM want and what they are likely to get are two different things. For example, Microsoft and IBM would like there to be a cap on the amount of damages that can be assessed. Both of these companies are perfectly happy spending $100 million a year defending themselves against patents, but they neither want to see Eolas-style suits where $500 million is on the table for a single patent case. The problem is that the American Trial Lawyer lobby is unlikely to be happy with that, and those

    • Re:Yeah, that's gonna happen... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Iriel ( 810009 ) on Friday October 07, 2005 @12:28PM (#13740938) Homepage
      Here's another piece of kindling for your fire upon which the article rests:

      Microsoft has no foreseeable reason to ever become anti-patent. Even if the 'The big IF' situation you described (a little upstart having something Microsoft wants) comes true, then what will Billy do? Buy them. Microsoft has built an empire buying the technology they need to make them money. Any costs of subsuming smaller companies would become quickly overturned by the profits brought in by their newly acquired patents that came with 'the assimilated'
      • Even if the 'The big IF' situation you described (a little upstart having something Microsoft wants) comes true, then what will Billy do? Buy them.

        At $500m a pop, that could get expensive really, really fast. See Eolas for more information.

        • at only $500m a pop, they can do another 10-20 of them without even having to wait for next quarter's profits to come in.
        • Of this, I'm well aware. However, Microsoft's bean counters may find that that $500m may actually be a ripple in the pond compared to revenues generated by patents acquired from an entire assimilated company. Or, at nothing else, they would at least eliminate competition in some shady sense of 'business' and claim that they would increase their own product sales enough to compensate. Voodoo economics is a twisted thing my friend ^_^
          • A patent in Microsoft's hands may become a lot less valuable then it is in somebody else's. A company that focuses on obtaining patents for offensive use but does nothing else is not really vulnerable to retalliation in-kind, but a large tech company like Microsoft can't really litigate against other large tech companies (at least ones that hold their own useful patent databases) without risking Patent Armageddon. So while a small IP-only shop may be able to effectively extort large sums of money through

            • Bingo. Microsoft can't attack other large corporations with their patent arsenal because if they do they risk a patent war that they can't win. Any way you slice the pie Microsoft makes more profit distributing software than anyone else and so it will always be the primary target of offensive patents. What's more, Microsoft can't really go after smaller developers because Microsoft still depends heavily on the good will of the developer community. Many small developers and value added resellers would re

              • This is especially true since FOSS has gained momentum... lots of non-MS developers wanting to duplicate functionality. As for the MS developers, most of them are already alienated; I don't know any that like the company.

                I think at best we will see MS hold their tongue about patent law. Probably, they will push for 'reform' that favors entrenched conglomerates.
      • 'The big IF' situation you described (a little upstart having something Microsoft wants) comes true, then what will Billy do? Buy them.

        And if they refuse to sell? Just because Microsoft throws lots of money on the table, does not mean they have to sell. Some people have these things called 'principles' and will refuse to compromise on them.
      • Even if the 'The big IF' situation you described (a little upstart having something Microsoft wants) comes true, then what will Billy do? Buy them. Microsoft has built an empire buying the technology they need to make them money.

        That's not exactly true. Microsoft has bought many companies over the years for their technology, but there are plenty that they just 'borrowed' the technology from. Apple is one example, they didn't buy Apple out so they could make Windows. Microsoft has bought what's been
        • Then again without patents, you would have to assume that such a radical move would also kill off copyrights and trademarks. Without which MS would have never been able to file suit against 14-year old Micheal Rowe for www.mikerowesoft.com.</toungeincheek>
          • Don't get me wrong, Microsoft always plays both sides of the fence. They defend their trademarks, patents and copyrights because they can, but I'm guessing they would be the first to start buying up names like gogle.com and redirect to MSN if they weren't going to get caught.

      • Even if the 'The big IF' situation you described (a little upstart having something Microsoft wants) comes true, then what will Billy do? Buy them.

        In the long term, I would expect something more like the early days of electronics, and the price that little players can get for their patents will be quite small.

        A handful of large corporations -- RCA, AT&T, Zenith, etc -- held extensive patent portfolios. So large and broad, in fact, that it was difficult to build anything involving electronic circu

    • Shuttleworth has it all wrong (Score:4, Insightful)

      by kylef ( 196302 ) on Friday October 07, 2005 @12:31PM (#13740959)
      Mark Shuttleworth, founder of the Ubuntu Linux distribution, said that although Microsoft is seen as being very pro-patent at the moment, if every other software maker enforced its patents in the same way then Microsoft would find it very difficult and expensive to do business.

      What do you call the Eolas lawsuit [microsoft.com]?? Inexpensive? Give me a break! More than $500 million for one patent? And you don't think Microsoft is worried about patent disputes?

      In fact, why do you think that Microsoft patents so aggressively? To sue Linux? No! Historically, their extensive patent portfolio is used defensively. The problem is, defensive patents really only work against large corporations, who will usually settle rather than seeing all-out patent armageddon warfare, which just costs tons of money (e.g., Sun vs. Microsoft). Eolas is exactly the type of company that defensive patents don't work well against: small IP-holding companies looking to cash in by bringing targeted infringement lawsuits against the biggest money-makers. (Don't forget that every other browser on the planet was also infringing upon Eolas -- they just chose not to sue anybody else.)

      Paranoid Linux types are always worried about Microsoft using its patents to destroy things like FAT filesystem compatibility, but that has not happened. (If you recall, the recent activity surrounding the FAT patents were initiated by Microsoft competitors, not Microsoft.) That doesn't mean it won't, but it is an important distinction to make!

      • Historically, their extensive patent portfolio is used defensively.

        Gosh. So, if Microsoft realised that, why then they'd naturally oppose software patents. You see, they'd realise that if software patents were outlawed, then they wouldn't need the expanse of maintaining a large patent portfolio to defend themselves, and they'd be free of the threat of Eolas type lawsuits into the bargain.

        And Yet, here are Microsoft happily wasting time and money supporting software patents. What a bunch of Silly Billi

      • The problem is, defensive patents really only work against large corporations, . . .
        Actually, patents only work (as a counterstrike weapon) against those who make, use, or sell something. Companies small and large are equally susceptible. It's these patent pirates -- file-drawer companies that produce nothing -- who are immune to countersuit.

        (Of course, defensive patents work as prior art against anybody, but a journal article does that job just as well and is cheaper to write.)
      • "In fact, why do you think that Microsoft patents so aggressively? To sue Linux? "

        At this time MS seems perfectly happy to pay other people to sue linux. I suspect they will continue along this path. After SCO dies they will find another stooge to fund to attack linux.

        MS is smart, they know attacking linux from the front is a mistake but they have gotten a lot of mileage out of their funding of SCO.

    • It's about mutally assured destruction (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sterno ( 16320 ) on Friday October 07, 2005 @12:34PM (#13740984) Homepage
      The thing is the patent climate has shifted a lot in the last few years. Traditionally most patents were being developed by big industry players and there was a kind of mutually assured destruction involved. That is, IBM never sued Microsoft because Microsoft could sue them right back. They make deals to use eachothers patents and thus the industry heavyweights get to control the industry. Small time players get shut out because they don't have the leverage of their own patent portfolios and don't have the money to license them.

      In recent years though there have been a lot of people building patent portfolios as a business in itself. They don't put money into R&D and product development, they just have lawyers who are there to do nothing but enforce patents. No matter how many patents Microsoft has, they have no leverage against a company that doesn't produce anything. Given the rather low standards the patent office has held for innovation is software patents there are tons of ways Microsoft can get in trouble without knowing it.

      The big problem this poses for Microsoft is that it's an unmeasureable risk. They don't know at any given time how many patents they might be violating and how much the damages are that they might be liable for because of them. With many of the patents they can settle quickly for relatively minimal license fees. But if some people want to play hardball for a big settlement there's little MS can do about it.

      In the long run this problem is only going to get worse for them. There are a lot of people who recognize this as a viable business model. The risk is somewhat high, but the reward is huge if it works out. While any one of these may be small change to Microsoft, they can add up pretty quickly and put product releases at risk. With new software releases comign every couple of years but patents lasting almost 20 years, the pool of potentially violatable patents will only grow.
      • No matter how many patents Microsoft has, they have no leverage against a company that doesn't produce anything.

        While I despise the patent farmers of the world, it seems that they are only playing the same game. It's also pretty neat to think that some day, they might cause the big companies like MS, IBM, and Amazon, to go against software patents. That would be cool. The big companies start a game of patent hoarding to keep each other at bay, then small timers start doing it but have nothing for the b

      • The only way MAD makes any sense at all is if there is no other solution

        The analogy doesn't hold for patents. We can't amend the laws of physics to outlaw nuclear fission, but we can amend patent law to outlaw software patents.

        Mutually Assured Destruction is just the patent lobby trying to spin greed to make it look patriotic and essential. It isn't.

    • A company as litigious as Microsoft (themselves victims of the litigious) will just use the cost of litigation to stifle their opponents.

      The whole notion that Microsoft is a particularly litigious or patent-abusive company is complete nonsense. Certainly compared to that darling of the Linux set, IBM, they barely have a legal department at all. And if it was Microsoft patenting targeted ads in RSS feeds, we'd be hearing complete hysteria over it, but it's Google doing that, so never mind.

      For that matter,

    • A company as litigious as Microsoft (themselves victims of the litigious) will just use the cost of litigation to stifle their opponents. Their opponents (the little guys) would have to first have something Microsoft was really interested in, and would have to have the financial wherewithall to pursue Microsoft.

      Good point. However, with the increasing popularity of tech companies suing each other, Microsoft may have met it's match. You can fight off a 300lb. gorilla (ahem) with a huge legal hammer but you c
    • I think what will happen more and more is that Microsoft will simply create more and more cross-patenteing agreements. Instead of trying to settle everything in court, they'll just agree to share patents with other companies in exchange for the rights to use their patents. Whichever company has the smaller set of patents will pay a fee to the company with the larger set, and patent litigation will go away. Of course, if you're an independent developer with few or no patents, to get in on this you have to pa

  • And to think.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by BishonenAngstMagnet ( 797469 ) on Friday October 07, 2005 @12:12PM (#13740773)
    Microsoft was just about to submit a patent on hypocrisy...
    • Microsoft was just about to submit a patent on hypocrisy...
      Sadly the prior art stretches back to the dawn of time.

      I would gladly give the egregiously misnamed Microsoft the patent, especially if they sued all unlicensed practitioners.

  • In 10 years.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SoCalChris ( 573049 ) on Friday October 07, 2005 @12:13PM (#13740780) Journal
    I would think that almost all software vendors would be opposed to software patents. When every obvious method of doing something is patented, no one will be able to do anything.
    • The point is that the patents are used as ammunition to force other vendors into cross licensing their patents. It all looks like an expensive farce ... until you realise that small, up-and-coming potential competitors have no patents to use in cross licensing deals.

      Consequently, software patents seem to permit the creation of a "big boys club" that shuts out smaller competitors. The word "cartel" doesn't currently apply to the large commerical software industry, but I wonder how much longer that'll be true
      • How do you cross license with a company that doesn't do anything except buy patents and sue you over them? You have to pay them real protection money to leave you alone for a while. That's what might tip Microsoft away from patents. I don't think it will, but it's not beyond the realms of possibility.
    • In 10 years, the last 10 years of "obvious" patents will have expired, so I wouldn't get too worried.

    • Re:In 10 years.... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      We should be pushing for the opposite. Let's get every obvious software thing patented *now* so in 17 years we won't have to worry about this crap anymore.

  • Legal precedent (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tepshen ( 851674 ) on Friday October 07, 2005 @12:14PM (#13740788)
    IANAL but I belive that there is a more than substantial similarity to the Pot Vs. Kettle case of '72.
    • Don't blame the player, blame the game.

      Just because Microsoft is good at getting patents issued and defending them doesn't mean they like to allocate staff and resources to actually do it. In fact, they and a lot of other tech companies, could save a ton of money yearly on reduced legal staff if software patents were outlawed and more easily make use of new computing concepts at the same time. It's a win-win.
    • The 1972 US Federal district court Pot v. Kettle, or the 1672 case of the same name from the Massachusetts Colony under British colonial law?

      I expect a Coyote [cc.il.us] v. Acme [hosteny.com] comparison may be helpful and instructive as well....

  • Wrongo... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by It doesn't come easy ( 695416 ) * on Friday October 07, 2005 @12:15PM (#13740806) Journal
    Microsoft collects patents today in part to have ammunition to file countersuits when other companies sue them (that's big business 101). However patents are also good for Microsoft's twilight years, when the only thing they will have left of any real controlling influence will be their software patent portfolio. Then they'll be hell bent on collecting any and all royalties from said portfolio just to bolster their waning proprietary business. You can bet that part of the reasoning behind Microsoft securing so many software patents right now is to provide a "retirement plan" for the business once their software products no longer dominate the market (they've got the money now, why not buy a little "insurance" for the future?).
    • I'm kinda leaning towards the notion nowadays that Microsoft, unlike some other software companies out there, actually isn't intending upon suing anyone. For them I think, the fear would be if they used the nuclear option to knock out a competitor like, say, Linux, then someone would immediately turn around and come knocking on their door.

    • Re:Wrongo... (Score:3, Funny)

      by nsayer ( 86181 )
      However patents are also good for Microsoft's twilight years, when the only thing they will have left of any real controlling influence will be their software patent portfolio. Then they'll be hell bent on collecting any and all royalties from said portfolio just to bolster their waning proprietary business.

      They'd better hire Daryl McBride now so they'll be prepared.

  • In other news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by pmike_bauer ( 763028 ) on Friday October 07, 2005 @12:16PM (#13740811)
    ...one day, the RIAA may become a major opponent of frivolous law suits.

  • Conversion to Buddhism (Score:5, Insightful)

    by anandpur ( 303114 ) on Friday October 07, 2005 @12:19PM (#13740848)
    Conversion to Buddhism

    As the legend goes, one day after the war was over, Ashoka ventured out to roam the city and all he could see were burnt houses and scattered corpses. This sight made him sick and he cried the famous quotation, "What have I done?" The brutality of the conquest led him to adopt Buddhism

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka [wikipedia.org]
  • ...and maybe someday Daniel Robbins will work for Microsoft.

    Oh, wait, that already happened.

    At least Shuttleworth won't join them due to lack of money. He's richer than coffee puree.

  • Maybe not so far fetched (Score:4, Informative)

    by thebdj ( 768618 ) on Friday October 07, 2005 @12:24PM (#13740897) Journal
    It is important to note that Microsoft was in support of KSR International in their case against Teleflex (wraiting on Writ of certiorari before the SCOTUS). This case is questioning the requirement for a statement explaining why a combination under 35 USC 103 is obvious. This standard was created by the CAFC (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). It would not be an overstatement to say that removal of this requirement would prevent countless patents and would possibly invalidate thousands more.

    So Microsoft definitely doesn't mind changing things that would hurt the issuance of patents, but I doubt they would go so far as to totally despise the patent system. The patent system can guarantee them money (well at least possibly) for years if they do have some horrific failure in the years to come. The 20 yr life of a patent might keep them afloat for a while if they ever need to use it.
  • I also think that the whole patent system will blow up in their faces. There was a recent case of someone suing a big company and winning (very recently, the details escape me at the moment, sadly). A few more of these cases, and they won't be supporting patents as much as they do now...
  • Not if they take all of the spoils first.

    Which leads me to another point: Why are the big software corporations so eager to walk this destructive path? Is it that they think there will be no software industry in twenty years, so don't care if they destroy it in ten as long as they can suck the corpse dry first?

    • Re:Doubtful (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Friday October 07, 2005 @12:34PM (#13740988) Journal
      I think what we're seeing is an example of self-reinforcing behavior. It's quite obvious that if software patents go on much further, you won't be able to do much else then printf("Hello world") without potentially infringing. What begins as a bad way to protect your rights suddenly becomes the necessity of a portfolio to fend off other threatening patents, and before you know it, it can't be stopped. It becomes a self-destructive cycle.

      The commercial software world won't stop itself. Even if it wanted to get off the train, no one would do it unless the others did at the same time. If even one guy is left whose business model involves software patent litigation, then no one else is going to take that big chance. In the end, the politicians are going to have to close the door on the lobbiests, stop taking the bribes that they are so accustomed to, and see that they are contributing to a major meltdown in a few decades.

      But human behavior is nothing if not predictable. Instead of fixing the problem now, everyone will wait until the whole thing collapses and then go "Hmmm, maybe patents aren't the best way to protect software".

      • It's quite obvious that if software patents go on much further, you won't be able to do much else then printf("Hello world") without potentially infringing.

        Nice try, but I'm here to inform you that you happen to be infringing on my Patent #271828182 "Printf without the terminating semicolon". As anyone can see, this is a great productivity booster for programmers. For that statement alone, you saved 5% of the keystrokes normally required. That's 5% less code to debug and maintain. Not to mention th

  • Windows and Office will get even more expensive for a while, and microsoft will say it's because of patents.

    But let's remember most other patent holders just want the recognition and time to go to market first, they don't grab the patent 15 years after the fact(FAT anybody?), after it's an industry standard to make money and force out competition.

    Other patent holders might start targetting Microsoft when these patents continue to stifle businesses, which will likely start the minute they get the FAT partiti

  • It could happen. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Our investors are pushing our small starup company to becomme a patent-farm in the hopes of getting a big settlement out of someone like Microsoft. We've got a bunch of XML-tricks not a whole much more innovative than Microsoft's patented OpenXML stuff -- and probably useful to them, and probably something they're going to step on down the road. It all seemed obvious to me; but then again so does all the trivial xml stuff Microsoft patented [microsoft.com], so perhaps it's not really obvious, just that we're really sma

  • Not. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RealProgrammer ( 723725 ) on Friday October 07, 2005 @12:32PM (#13740972) Homepage Journal
    Software patents are in the very fabric of Microsoft. They will no more oppose them than they would oppose advertising, exclusive OEM contracts, or no-compete clauses.

    The culture is built around selling software based on its features, and denying others the ability to have the features (whether developed internally or acquired). In order to sell the software they either have to copy the features of someone else, buy/coopt the inventor, or come up with the feature internally. They can't rely on trade secrets, contracts, or copyright to protect them from other people using the features Microsoft uses. They have to rely on patents for that.

    Being denied access to a software feature by a particular patent, Microsoft will attempt to cross-license it, buy the patent owner, convince the marketplace that the feature is useless or harmful, or ruin the patent owner.

    It's not in the nature of Microsoft simply to make their product and see who likes it. The company was built on having some useable product and _marketing_it_ with exquisite skill, timing, and ruthlessness. They have always used any tactic they could to lock in OEMs, consumers, and ISVs, while locking out competitors. It's their way.

    It would take a complete culture shift for them ever to oppose software patents. Instead, they will attempt to use the patents they have as leverage in whatever way they can, whether it's cross-licensing other patents, FUD, or to lock in whomsoever needs locking.

  • Right, but for the wrong reason (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nsayer ( 86181 ) <nsayer@MENCKENkfu.com minus author> on Friday October 07, 2005 @12:36PM (#13741008) Homepage
    No. Microsoft will start opposing patents because by then they'll have theirs, and will not want anyone else to be on a level playing field.

    And making sure the playing field is heavily slanted in their direction - by foul means more often than fair - is how Microsoft has always achieved success.

  • In Soviet Russia Microsoft oppose patents.

    Oh. Wait...

    Forget it.

  • Nuh-uh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Friday October 07, 2005 @12:40PM (#13741036) Journal
    So, in ten years, MS will become anti-patent? The logic behind this is that other companies will be enforcing their patents against Microsoft.

    You know why this hasn't happened in the past? Because MS has the kind of cash available to make selling out to MS a better deal for your shareholders than trying to enforce your patents against MS.

    MS will still be playing the "If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em" game.

    A question I see is whether developer/inventor ill-will against MS will outweigh the financial incentive for companies to sell out. Given that it is illegal to not act in the best financial interests of your shareholders, I can't see that happening.

    The other question I see is whether there will be a competitor with pockets deep enough to be a viable alternative to selling to MS... and I seem to recall a certain advertising/data mining company that's amassed a pretty big warchest...

  • I asked Bill Gates about exactly this, this summer (Score:5, Informative)

    by Jakob Eriksson ( 40438 ) on Friday October 07, 2005 @12:43PM (#13741059) Homepage
    I was at the Microsoft Research Intern BBQ at Gates' house this summer. Part of the time, a bunch of us were standing in a big nerd horde, with Gates in the middle, having a Q&A session.

    I asked him something like "What is your position on software patents? Specifically, do you think Microsoft would be better or worse off if software patents did not exist?"

    He went off on a 3-5 minute ranting monologue about how capitalism has been proven a better idea than communism, and that not having software patents is something that belongs in soviet russia, not in the U.S.

    I think it'll be a long time before Microsoft changes its position.

    • Re:I asked Bill Gates about exactly this, this sum (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ExoticMandibles ( 582264 ) on Friday October 07, 2005 @02:00PM (#13741692)
      Communism is an economic system in which the government regulates the market.
      Capitalism is another economic system, in which the market regulates itself.

      A patent is a statement from the government regulating the market.
      In which system does this belong?


      larry

      • When he doesn't understand basic economic principles, you have to wonder.
      • What's the opposite of insightful. Because that's what this post deserves. It is almost uncanny how very incorrect is the poster's understanding of the two systems.

        The main principle of capitalism, in fact the principle for which the system is named, is the concept of property rights. It is the idea that if a person can do what he pleases with what is his (land, items, money, etc.) he will direct its use toward profit which will benefit himself and ultimately society at large. The capitalist believes th
      • A patent is emphatically NOT a statement by the government "regulating the market."

        A patent is a statement by the government granting a property right. It is therefore a statement in fact creating a market, not regulating that market.

        Furthermore, regulation is required for smoothly functioning capitalist markets, in order to prevent self-dealing, asset substitution, etc., etc. Simply put, regulation is required to create the level playing field we need for people to trust in the market.

        Patents merely crea
  • The problem with the US patent system in general, and software patents in particular, is that the whole system is setup to protect the big. Patents are being issued with limited to no validity. This fails to protect anyone who doesn't have a large enough stockpile lawyers and money and time -- and makes it hard for anyone else to challenge patents held by those who do.

    The only way I see Microsoft opposing patents is if it becomes in their competitive interest to do so. This is unlikely to happen if they'
    • Better to offer open source implementations to the public as
      early as possible that can later be used as prior art.

      That way everyone benefits from the idea and no one can come
      in later and try to monopolize it.

  • That won't happen in the foreseeable future (Score:4, Informative)

    by FlorianMueller ( 801981 ) on Friday October 07, 2005 @12:50PM (#13741125) Homepage
    It's always appealing to the media if such daring predictions are made, but that doesn't necessarily make them realistic.

    Here in the EU, Microsoft sponsored about every pro-swpat lobbying entity: ACT, CompTIA, "Campaign for Creativity", EICTA, BSA, and additionally, various national organizations throughout the EU. They also had their own lobbyists running around in the European Parliament. I ran into them more than once. But they mostly tried to hide behind so-called industry associations.

    Microsoft will try to modify patent law in the US and elsewhere to the effect that smaller players (trolls as well as truly productive companies) can't use patents too effectively against big ones, by limiting the amount of indemnities (at a level that gets 99% of the businesses in the industry bankrupt but is small change for MSFT), doing away with injunctive relief (which really hurts even the largest players because it disrupts revenue production and can lead to incalculable liabilities vis-a-vis customers) etc. If you look at what the BSA tries to achieve with respect to that U.S. patent reform bill, then you'll get the idea.

    Funnily enough, Microsoft is one of the three main sponsors of the "EV50 Europeans of the Year" awards this year. However, the jury is perfectly independent, and they nominated me, as a representative of the anti-swpat movement in Europe :-) I'm running in the EU Campaigner of the Year catgory as well as for the overall European of the Year award. If I win that award, then the Microsoft-sponsored prize money will go to the FFII, an anti-swpat NGO. For more information (including on how to cast your vote against software patents, even if you're not based in Europe), please look at these two earlier slashdot postings:
    Links to the ballot and general information [slashdot.org] (scroll down to the final part of that posting, that's where the information on the EV50 awards is)
    Specific list of voting recommendations [slashdot.org] (since it's mandatory to make one choice in each of the ten categories, and most of the names there will be unknown to most people)

  • "Intellectual Property" companies are the driver (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Friday October 07, 2005 @12:56PM (#13741197) Homepage

    Traditionally, companies made things and filed patents. When two companies crossed paths, they waved their stack of patents at each other much like two stag beetles comparing the size of their antlers. The company with the larger stack obliged the smaller company to pay up to continue making things. That situation suited Microsoft, IBM, Sun et al rather well, as they had a lot of patents which gave them leverage over each other.

    Now along comes a rash of companies who exist for no other reason than to buy patents and use them to sue people. They don't make anything, and so they never infringe anybody else's patents. Now Microsoft finds itself with a jillion patents to Bucaneer Holdings Corp's one patent, but none of those jillion are relevant, while Bucaneer only needs their one patent to sue Microsoft with.

    We joke that someone should patent the business practice of piratical patent abuse, but in truth, it's the only thing that could be used defensively against these leeches.

  • Patent the thinking process thereby eliminating even the thought of using our code. Then you won't even have to worry about infringement.
  • companies patented technology for their benefit.

    Patents hurt MS's ability to 'innovate'

    I'm sure that Eolas's case has struck a blow into Balmer's strategizing. I'm sure that MS is extremely fearful of IBM patenting a bunch of technology, and than opensourcing those patents via license, something like: "You may use such and such technology IF and ONLY IF it is used in opensource software under the following set of approved licenses"

  • Well, (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Skiron ( 735617 ) on Friday October 07, 2005 @01:10PM (#13741293)
    What is not mentioned yet is MS get so much hassle from patents due to them ripping people off/copying and claiming as their own - we have all seen it over the years - entering an agreement, signing NDA, getting the IP, then shitting on the [usually small] Company so they go out of existance.

    Also, why are MS patenting over 3000 'patents' a year, if they do not like them/use them? It is their arsenal, and with the cash pile they have, over time nobody else will be able to compete, even if the IP is original - as MS will have some fingers in the that patent pie already.

    Of course, money to buy what you need from Government etc. needs to be said no more.

    The guy from Ubuntu is dangerously mistaken (Neville Chamberlain: "I have here in my hand a piece of paper...")

  • Well of course they would be against patents... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ThaFooz ( 900535 ) on Friday October 07, 2005 @01:30PM (#13741425)
    afte all, where would MS be if Apple patented its UI's for the past ten years?

  • Closed on account of patents (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07, 2005 @01:41PM (#13741537)
    At least that's what I should post on my FOSS project page which is curently closed for that reason. Obviously you can't have software that is free if it's encumbered with patents (not mine). And no, they cannot be worked around. Trust me, I'm one of the experts in this area.

    The big problem is working up a strategy to deal with this problem. The FOSS community doesn't seem to have a strategy in this area based on their opinion that patents aren't valid and therefore a strategy isn't needed.

    I'll probably have to negotiate with some corporate lawyers on this one all by myself so I'll be at considerable disadvantage. If I get anything out of it, it will likely be highly restricted as to its area of application (problem is it's platform independent) so I'm betting it won't have a GPL license that allows GPL 3 to be applied when that comes out. The corporation will want to reserve it's right to sue for violations of the restriction.

  • if the eolas patent for browser plug-ins wasn't upheld as valid, this slashdot entry wouldn't be here.

  • wishful thinking (Score:3, Interesting)

    by idlake ( 850372 ) on Friday October 07, 2005 @02:26PM (#13741924)
    Microsoft has cross-licensing agreements with many of the major players in the software industry. Minor players can be coerced by Microsoft to license whatever patents Microsoft wants because any small software company likely violates many of Microsoft's patents and can be shut down by the mere threat of a Microsoft lawsuit. The only people who can claim infringement against Microsoft are patent lawyers and IP firms with no product, and there aren't enough of those around.

    Open source probably comes out best in this regard. Open source projects generally don't infringe deliberately and have licenses that expressly prohibit the use of patented technologies. They also usually have no direct revenue stream against which to assess damages. Except in really unusual circumstances, a FOSS project will just fix infringement upon notification and go on as if nothing has happened. Hopes by Microsoft to be able to shut down or significantly affect FOSS projects through patents are a pipe dream.

    Microsoft may eventually lose interest in patents because they are only effective tools against smaller competitors and there aren't a lot of those around anymore, but I doubt Microsoft will ever actively oppose patents.

  • FUD (Score:3, Insightful)

    by idlake ( 850372 ) on Friday October 07, 2005 @02:34PM (#13741998)
    There has been concern that if the FAT patents are upheld, Microsoft may claim that Linux infringes on Microsoft technology and will seek a royalty. Any monetary compensation could threaten the operating system, which under GPL terms may not be distributed if it contains patented technology that requires royalty payments.

    That's pure FUD. Even if Microsoft's preposterous claims were upheld, the FAT file system would simply be removed immediately from the default kernel installation and the Linux kernel distribution would continue unchanged otherwise. Anybody who needed FAT access would have a variety of short-term workarounds available, and in the long term, there would be some non-infringing implementation, at least for reading the format.

    Painful though this would be in the short term, I would consider it a good thing in the long term: FAT really deserves to be shot and killed, and Microsoft patent claims on it are just the thing to do it.

  • The problem... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by GWBasic ( 900357 )
    The problem with today's bad patent laws is that the only way to protect yourself is to patent everything. Saying "I don't believe in software patents, so I won't patent my program," won't work because someone else will patent your idea and sue you.

  • This Makes Sense (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Gnpatton ( 796694 )
    To me this makes 100% sense. I once had the very nice pleasure of talking to a Software patent lawyer. We talked all kinds of things and the basic underlying point is this:

    Companies like microsoft are for patents but against companies that make buisness modles out of patent infringement.
  • ...you read that as "Microsoft May Become Major Opponent of Pants". Finally, I can side with them on something.

  • I think in ten years you will see Microsoft become a major opponent of patents

    I think in 10 years MS will be reduced to a position similar to Novell was 5 years ago. They'll be doing little more than grubbing for pennies on the measly Vista support contracts they trick people into signing over the next 4 years. And because all the top brass there are such greedy egomaniacs, they will refuse to adapt like IBM did. MS will be so stressed out about losing market dominance(s) that they won't have time to rec

Slashdot Top Deals

"Being against torture ought to be sort of a multipartisan thing." -- Karl Lehenbauer, as amended by Jeff Daiell, a Libertarian

Close