Microsoft Admonished by U.S. District Court Judge

An anonymous reader writes "The Seattle Times reports that the judge in the z4 'product activation' patent infringement case has increased the jury's original $115 million verdict against Microsoft by $25 million. Both Microsoft and Autodesk (another defendant) were admonished by the judge for misconduct. The judge wrote 'The Court concludes that Defendants attempted to bury the relevant 107 exhibits ... in a massive pile of decoys' and called one failure to disclose evidence 'an intentional attempt by Defendants to mislead z4 and this Court.'"

Microsoft acting unethically?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

MS acting unethically? Willfully infringing on the patents of a small company? Engaging in litigation misconduct? Attemping to mislead the court?

I think Microsoft needs to read their own Put it in writing: Your business has ethics [microsoft.com] - particularly point 8:

Live it from the top down. It's critical that no one person in a company ever appears to be above a code of ethics. That means it's particularly important that executives and top managers also adhere to the guidelines of an ethics code. If managers say one thing but do something else, that's nothing more than a license for the rest of the company to follow suit. "Good role modeling by top managers is a must," Swanson says. "Without it, ethics codes can be seen as mere window dressing."

You ever read that Steve or Bill?

Mind you - I'm not exactly on z4's 'side' here - I don't like software patents (and it doesn't look like z4 have a product, but rather are an 'IP' company). That said however, live by the sword, die by the sword hey MS? Want to enforce your FAT patents? Expect more of this sort of shit in the future.

Re:

[schon]

You're misreading it...

It's critical that no one person in a company ever appears to be above a code of ethics.

Maybe MS's code of ethics doesn't cover lying and theiving...

Or maybe they're planning on adding it in MS Ethics 2.0.

Re:Microsoft acting unethically?

[struppi]

After installing update 919951 which patched a critical vulnerability in MS Ethics 1.0 service pack 1 some customers have reported problems when MS Ethics fails to detect lying and/or theiving. Microsoft has announced a new version of security update 919951 on August 22, 2006. This new version was to address this problem for customers who use MS Ethics 2.0 Service Pack 1.

Microsoft is also aware of public reports that this issue could lead to a buffer overrun condition for customers who use MS Ethics 2.0 Service Pack 1 and who have applied security update 918899. We are not aware of attacks that try to use the reported vulnerability at this point, nor are we aware of customer impact at this point. Microsoft is aggressively investigating the public reports.

-- original source: Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 unexpectedly exits after you install the 918899 update http://support.microsoft.com/kb/923762/en-us [microsoft.com]

I thought it was service pack 919913

[Ungrounded Lightning]

(giggle)

Re:

[gEvil (beta)]

MS Ethics for Workgroups 3.11

Re:

[MECC]

Microsoft - mislead a judge?!?!?

Preposterous!! Never in a million (well okay, ten) years!!

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe they're planning on adding it in MS Ethics 2.0.

Now you're just being silly.

Everyone knows that you should always wait for version 3 of any Microsoft product.

Re:Microsoft acting unethically?

[truthsearch]

Maybe MS's code of ethics doesn't cover lying and theiving...

That's not a bug in their code. It's a feature.

New software from MS:

[Burlap]

I can see it now...


NEW Microsoft Ethics 2.0! It's fully featured with an all new "don't lie" format, and add those little extra touches with the "don't steal things" toolbar.

And to make your ethical decisions simpler... use Clippy, the Ethics 2.0 help agent!

Re:Microsoft acting unethically?

[rizole]

I read it like this:

It's critical that no one person in a company ever appears to be above a code of ethics

It's okay to have no ethics, as long as no one notices.

Re:

[hey!]

It's okay to have no ethics, as long as no one notices.

Well, appearances are important. And in fact thinking about appearances is a way of looking at your behavior from other people's perspectives.

It's when you slip from managing your behavior to produce an appearance to managing appearances directly that you lose your way.

For example, the Catholic Church has a rule that clergy should not bring the Church into disrepute. What this means is that they shouldn't do anything that would be shameful if brought

Re:

[binkzz]

"You're misreading it...

It's critical that no one person in a company ever appears to be above a code of ethics.

" Nono, I think you're misreading it:

It's critical that no one person in a company ever appears to be above a code of ethics.

what this really means is...

[rajafarian]

It's critical that no one person in a company ever appears [emphasis mine] to be above a code of ethics.

What it really means is: DON'T GET CAUGHT LYING, CHEATING, BREAKING LAWS, etc.

Re:

[dunng808]

Mmmm, the rich scent of astroturf on a hot August afternoon sent roiling into the air by the power of mod points. What you have witnessed is the "slash" in slashdot. These zombies fail to grasp that modding down "funny" with "overrated" is in the same class as killing kittens.

Microsoft small business?

[Teun]

You ever read that Steve or Bill?

Did you miss that this article is directed at the leadership of small businesses?

Bill and Steve have nothing to do with it.

Re:

[babbling]

This sort of thing needs to happen more often to Microsoft. They need to be turned against software patents.

Re:

[toopc]

I thought software patents were bad?

And for anbybody searching - Autodesk - someone had to mention them here on Slashdot.

Re:Microsoft acting unethically?

[JustOK]

They have ethics. Just not ones you like.

software patents are just a bad idea

[TheLink]

Even if MS gets burnt by them doesn't make them good.

Plus "product activation" must have been reinvented a million times or something.

That said MS deserves to get smacked if they try to mess about with the courts.

Re:

[crucini]

If a court convicts Bob of infringing Alice's yodeling patent, this does not mean Alice invented yodeling. It means Alice invented a specific technique of yodeling and Bob used the technique.

Re:

[crucini]

If you object to the inventor claiming multiple embodiments of the invention, do you object to this only in software patents or in hardware patents as well? You seem to want the inventor to draft a "picture claim" - a claim that recites exactly the elements in the invention. Such a claim is easily worked around, and therefore valueless.

Re:

[Gnavpot]

Being reinvented-- that is, thought of independently-- only protects with respect to copyright, not patents. Copyright is about copying-- patents are about the thing or process. The thing or process is protected no matter how you came about producing it or thinking of it.

Did you hear the "whoosh" sound? I think the GP was talking about patenting a reinvention, not reinventing something which is patented by others.

Can chairs be thrown in court?

[alexandreracine]

I bet they can.

Re:

[jonwil]

That reminds me of the scene in Ghostbusters 2 where some chairs get thrown at a nasty judge by some ghosts.

So yeah, I guess chairs CAN be thrown in a courtroom :)

Re:

[OverlordQ]

What's the tag line going to be?

"I'm tired of these motherfucking chairs, on this mother fucking stage . . . . DEVELOPERS!"

Pile of decoys?

[krell]

"judge wrote 'The Court concludes that Defendants attempted to bury the relevant 107 exhibits ... in a massive pile of decoys'

I see that Microsoft is still retaining Elmer F.U.D. for his legal services.

Re:Pile of decoys?

[CheeseburgerBrown]

"I would like to introduce into the evidence, your honour, this wooden ducky. Let the wooden ducky be known as Exhibit FUD. See the ducky dance? Dance ducky, dance."

Less "activation"?

[mallardtheduck]

Hopefully these sorts of legal problems will discorage other companies from using annoying anti-customer "activation" schemes...

For a few dollars more....

[pottymouth]

I'm sure with for a few extra bucks MS can buy whatever legal resources (including judges, prosecutors, congressmen, lobbyists) it needs to make it all better. Ain't it great living in a society where money rules all....

"Money's like honey, my little sonny, and a rich man's joke is always funny"

Re:For a few dollars more....

[Red Flayer]

I'm sure with for a few extra bucks MS can buy whatever legal resources (including judges, prosecutors, congressmen, lobbyists) it needs to make it all better. Ain't it great living in a society where money rules all....

Funny how this system is so similar to the political/economic situations of nations of post-Colonial Africa, down to the massive trade imbalances, dependence on foreign loans, and abuse of power to make more money. The monied interests in the US are taking the money while they can, because there will be nothing left to take in 10-20 years... hell, even mainstream economists are estimating that US Treasury Securities will be considered junk bonds in the next 20-30 years.

Re:

[dave562]

hell, even mainstream economists are estimating that US Treasury Securities will be considered junk bonds in the next 20-30 years.

Can you share anything to back up that statement?

Re:For a few dollars more....

[Red Flayer]

Here's (pdf) [stlouisfed.org] a tidbit. HTML version [64.233.187.104]

Believe me, Kolitkoff is not alone in his predictions, though of course the US could take action to forestall the bankruptcy and reneging on its debts.

Look to Anjan Thakor (Olin School of Business) to discuss Kotlikoff's paper in the next Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review.

Re:

[jelle]

I'm not an economist, but when somebody argues that adding a 33% tax will stave off economic problems, I can't help but doubt their credentials (short summary: it won't have the effect the author thinks it will, in neither of both intended ways (simplification and taxation on spending versus earning)).

I'm not saying everything is fine and dandy, but the article does not contain the answer.

Re:

[NaDrew]

hell, even mainstream economists are estimating that US Treasury Securities will be considered junk bonds in the next 20-30 years.

Can you share anything to back up that statement?

Sure. Bush: Social Security trust fund just IOUs [msn.com]

Note that the Social Security trust fund is comprised of US Treasuries. So while "mainstream economists" may not be saying this, our democratically elected government is certainly doing so.

Re:

[terrymr]

Yes I was amazed the market for treasury bonds didn't crash over night when the president called them "Just IOUs"

Re:

[Foobar of Borg]

hell, even mainstream economists are estimating that US Treasury Securities will be considered junk bonds in the next 20-30 years.

Great! I always had a historical interest in Weimar-era Germany. Now, I get to experience it first hand!

Seriously, though, I would be interested if you could cite an article or two. I actually agree with you from what I can see myself, but I would like to know what others have written on the subject.

Re:

[Overly Critical Guy]

You know what, I'm getting tired of this college-dorm-room Slashdot mindset that declares, as if based on research or experience, that all judges, prosecutors, and congressmen are bought and paid for and that money rules all. There is no evidence to back that, and in fact, we have the least corrupt legal system in the world. Our system sees more prosecutions for crimes than even the U.K. So could we please stop with the lame +5 upmodded throwaway comments about how evil and corrupt you think the American

Re:

[Red Flayer]

So, you subscribe to the Pie Theory of Economics, i.e., the Pie is fixed and after eaten, gone. Well, I guess we can all relax and wait for the end.

'Gone' is used metaphorically. To continue the comparison to post-Colonial Africa, when the bottom fell out of most of these nations, what happened? Cancellation of debt... there's a reason investors (including the World Bank and IMF) are hesitant to loan funds to central African nations. War. Famine. Economic collapse. It's hubris to believe the US can't

Re:

[rewt66]

Better, yes. But viewed objectively, our political infrastructure doesn't look so hot at the moment...

Re:

[Pollardito]

in this case it looks like $25M is the amount of money that "makes it all better", members of congress might charge more than that anyway

Re:

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Money, at least, has the virtue of flowing automatically to those who labor and innovate and create pleasure for others.

Then how do you explain the RIAA?

Re:For a few dollars more....

[IIH]

Ain't it great living in a society where money rules all....

By what other means would you have our society ruled?

Money, at least, has the virtue of flowing automatically to those who labor and innovate and create pleasure for others.

That is only true for small amount of money, for larger amounts of money, it is not labour that makes money, but money itself.

Take for example, landowners in the past. Even if a non-landowner worked hard, it was very difficult to become a landowner due to the power of landowners over their tenants.

Or, if a person/group own a sufficent amount of the businesses in a particular area, it's very difficult for a new person to challenge that, as the existing group can raise their prices to supply the new business, resulting in the existing group profiting off the work of someone else, which is why monoploys are harmeful.

Re:

[Chris Mattern]

>> That is only true for small amount of money, for larger amounts of money,
  >> it is not labour that makes money, but money itself.

Untrue. It is the intelligent management of money that makes money. Without the intelligent management, the money does not make money but instead disappears. Try Googling on the phrase, "Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations."

Chris Mattern

Re:

[Chris Mattern]

>> Not true! Suppose I mis-manage my billion trust fund that my Daddy left me,
>> and bungle things so badly that I make only 0.01% annual profit

You have a very mild definition of "bungle". In practice, it never works that way. Investments are made that *lose* money, hand over fist. It would seem that preservation of capital would be a simple concept to grasp, but in practice it's harder than it seems, especially with an inheritance baby who doesn't really understand the value of mone

Re:

[Richard Steiner]

By what other means would you have our society ruled?

Justice would be nice. Perhaps also the lawful upholding of our constitution.

Money, at least, has the virtue of flowing automatically to those who labor and innovate and create pleasure for others.

Not in corporate America. Most of the money tends to flow to those in the org chart who are far above the actual producers.

Re:For a few dollars more....

[jthill]

Another advertisement for home schooling.

Re:

[Red Flayer]

Money, at least, has the virtue of flowing automatically to those who labor and innovate and create pleasure for others.

Hahaha, that's a good one. Money has the virtue of flowing to those who labor to accumulate it. It has the virtue of flowing fastest to those who innovate ways to take advantage of political systems.

Re:

[Red Flayer]

Good point about being applicable to any power structure.

Money, at least, brings with it an incentive to greater productivity. Contrast that to a quota-based economy -- assuming there are any around that have not yet collapsed. Or for some real fun, contrast that to the coming influence-based society.

Well, it boils down to the fact that human nature demands most people to act selfishly -- quota-based systems don't work because there is still some way individuals can game the system for selfish reasons.

Can't help but think of SCO

[Weaselmancer]

He cited several examples in which the defendants failed to fully and promptly disclose evidence, calling one instance "an intentional attempt by Defendants to mislead z4 and this Court."

Ok, so if this is an actionable item - why hasn't SCO been nailed with something similar? They've been doing the smoke and mirrors thing for years now.

What gives? Why can a judge nail MS with this, but not SCO?

Re:

[tbannist]

Apparently SCO is much better at the smoke and mirrors game. Also, Microsoft actually did infringe on the patent (regardless of the value of the patent) so it's much easier to get a judgement for specific claims that are trivially proven true, than to get one against nebulous constantly-shifting claims that are individually difficult to disprove. SCO should have a rather large slap down coming. I expect no less than "pay the defendants legal costs" which at this point may be more than the judgement again

Re:

[jackbird]

Roughly 2/3 of SCO's claims were recently thrown out by the magistrate judge for lack of disclosure - they have been nailed for something similar.

And when IBM's Lanham Act counterclaims start being litigated, there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth in Lindon. For now, the judges are bending over backwards and then some to make the case appeal-proof.

Re:

[asuffield]

There's numerous peripheral reasons... but mostly, the legal system is just very slow to begin with, and SCO's lawyers have been delaying the case as much as they possibly can. They probably can eventually get penalised like this, but it won't be seriously considered for a long time yet (maybe next year, maybe the year after).

Re:

[nickfrommaryland]

There are provisions that can restrict what the big guy can do during discovery, but these mechanisms are rarely used, mainly because it is difficult to see what is and is not a decoy. Judges prefer to wait until it is clear, and that usually means at the end of the case. These are covered by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g). It seems to me, however, that the judge added a bit more, just because it was Microsoft.

Long Trial

[neonprimetime]

The defendants marked 3,449 exhibits, but only admitted 107 of them at trial.

Does the defendant have to say "Your Honor, I'd like to admit exhibit X into the court records as evidence" for each one? That would be a long trial, even if only 107 were admitted!

Re:

[jkabbe]

Does the defendant have to say "Your Honor, I'd like to admit exhibit X into the court records as evidence" for each one? That would be a long trial, even if only 107 were admitted!

Typically yes. The attorney will also have to lay foundation for the exhibit, asking questions of the witness to establish what the exhibit is and why the witness would know something about it. Putting an exhibit into evidence might only take a minute or two. For 107 exhibits would probably be as little as 2-3 hours total. No

Re:

[kilgortrout]

In federal court, each side submits a pretrial statement to the court listing, among other things, the exhibits they intend to introduce at trial. Most of the time, the parties stipulate to the admissibility of most exhibits, or at least to the authenticity of the document exhibits in order to streamline the proceedings. These things are generally not in dispute and the court leans pretty heavy on the parties to enter into these stipulations unless there is a genuine dispute. Absent a stipulation, you must

Ooh, the irony

[zoeblade]

So a large corporation has ripped off a small company's software, which was specifically designed to stop people ripping off software. Somehow I doubt individuals sharing software is as big a threat as corporations cloning it.

Re:

[Haeleth]

So a large corporation has ripped off a small company's software, which was specifically designed to stop people ripping off software.

No, a large corporation has infringed on a small company's patent. The small company doesn't appear to actually produce any software or other tangible products; they just claim to own a bunch of ideas.

The software in question was written wholly by Microsoft, and probably without reference to anything owned or produced by z4 at all. Unfortunately for Microsoft, ignorance of

Yet again...

[Red Flayer]

We see that MS (and they are not alone in this) regard the law as something to be circumvented, something to play games with. Law is not absolute to them -- any risk of punishment is exactly that -- a possible risk to be weighed against the potential returns of a strategy or action.

Props to the judge for calling MS on its shenanigans; jeers for the penalty being insignificant to them.

These actions by MS are indicative of the collapse of the rule of law in the US. Without meaningful punishments for attempting to circumvent the laws and/or undermine the legal process, it will not change. $25MM is hardly a disincentive for MS.

IMO, the lawyers who used the obfuscatory tactic should be disbarred... and personally fined for contempt of court. And the executive(s) who authorized the tactic (or were responsible for the law team) should also be personally fined. And production of MS products should be halted until they can prove they are not still abusing the patent (by providing their code, in entirety, for review by the justice system, with any relevant sections clearly denoted).

Re:Yet again...

[deviantphil]

IMO, the lawyers who used the obfuscatory tactic should be disbarred.

At the very least they should be referred to the ethic's board in the jurisdiction. Another example of Corporate America (and their lawyers!) getting a slap on the wrists. Any other company sued by MS for infrindging patents would probably end up bankrupt by the fines (no less the court costs). $140M is a drop in the bucket for MS...much like $140 would be to me.

Re:

[Wylfing]

I agree that there is an imbalance in the treatment of "offenders" (civil or criminal) but that has always been the case. A black man who holds up a liquor store for $200 gets 5 years in jail, but a corporate executive who robs his company's shareholders for $40 million is likely to get no punishment at all.

However, depite that, what we do not want is a rigid legal system in which "offenders" are "reliably" punished. It is supposed to be a highly flexible system that thwarts the potential tyrrany of both C

Ethics boards a screen to defend profession

[swb]

They should be cited for contempt, fined some amount that is a multiple of what they billed their client assembling the dishonest materials (ensuring they don't profit from the behavior and in fact lose money), removed from the case and possibly jailed if the behavior was particularly egregious.

Most ethics boards for professions (law, medicine, etc) are just a BS screen to keep their members involved in theiving, drug use, sexual misconduct and other naughty behavior out of jail and not lose their professio

Software Patents = Welfare for Lawyers

[denis-The-menace]

Software Patents should never have existed in the first place.
They're basically patenting logic and Math equations.
All it's doing is making patent law more profitable.
Imagine how many lawyer would be out of work without Software Patents.
Software Patents = Welfare for Lawyers

Re:

[91degrees]

They're basically patenting logic and Math equations.

So why is this any worse than patenting physical and chemical effects?

Re:

[Mr. Underbridge]

Or machines? Gears are just physical manifestations of equations and math, as is amply pointed out by any book Stephenson has ever written.

Re:

[TekPolitik]

Or machines? Gears are just physical manifestations of equations and math

The difference is that many things that are not patentable are treated as patentable simply by adding the words "by means of a computer" at the end. That probably sounds like exaggeration, but it is the literal truth. You can quite literally submit one patent to the examiner describing everything that happens without explicitly mentioning the computer, and it will be denied. Amend the patent by adding "by means of a computer" to each

Re:

[Mr. Underbridge]

The difference is that many things that are not patentable are treated as patentable simply by adding the words "by means of a computer" at the end

To me, that's a problem with the patent system in general, not software patents specifically. I wouldn't throw the proverbial baby out with the 1-click patent.

Re:Software Patents = Welfare for Lawyers

[rolfwind]

I believe because you (used to) be able to only patent a specific implementation. Software patents is or comes too close to patenting the idea itself. Someone used to be free to build a better mousetrap, just not working exactly like the one you patented. Now the very idea of the mousetrap is effectively patented when we pursue software patents.

The US has started to rest to much of its laurels on "Intellectual Property." Some intellectual property, you used to be able sell (books, music) and make money off it that way. This property was protected by copyright. So someone can make a book with a world like "Lord of the Rings" (and many have) or a game like Doom or music like (in same genre) Michael Jacksons - they just can't reproduced the original and claim it as theirs. Ideas and culture freely circulated around this way.

Some intellectual property (University research, public domain data) you used to be able to share freely and it enriched the whole economy -- helped your company manufacture better things or things cheaper, etcetera.

Patenting ideas themselves does nothing but stifle all innovation as ideas get owned. Common approaches to problems are now infinitely patentable to every new medium. Ad infinitum.

The US (and the West) will perish under a burden of its own making if we continue down this path. Patents of this type punish the innovative companies and breed hyenas that do nothing but litigate the rest of us into submission and poverty.

Re:

[the eric conspiracy]

I believe because you (used to) be able to only patent a specific implementation. Software patents is or comes too close to patenting the idea itself. Someone used to be free to build a better mousetrap, just not working exactly like the one you patented. Now the very idea of the mousetrap is effectively patented when we pursue software patents.

That is generally true because of the ubiquity of computers. Patenting implementing an encryption algorithm in a computer is pretty much equivalent to patenting the

Funny you should mention LotR and copyright...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

So someone can make a book with a world like "Lord of the Rings" (and many have) or a game like Doom or music like (in same genre) Michael Jacksons - they just can't reproduced the original and claim it as theirs.

Funny you should use Lord of the Rings in a copyright example. The first US publication of LotR was in violation of copyright: Somebody ripped off a copy of an early version of the manuscript and took it to a US publisher, purporting to be doing so as an agent of Tolkein.

Those editions are collec

Book 'Em

[Doc Ruby]

Now that the z4 case is wrapped up, can we get that judge to take over the blatantly abusive SCO vs IBM case, and wind it up this weekend?

Too bad...

[Bones3D_mac]

... this won't stop the practice of product activation using the internet. The whole process makes it a pain in the ass to migrate to new hardware and, it could eventually render the software you paid for today unusable tomorrow once these companies decide to cut support for it. I'm just waiting for the day large numbers of people find their software suddenly refusing to run because the activation server never responds, or fails to recognize the software/serial number due to the older versions' databases be

Judge still clueless

[Locutus]

$25m is like $0.25 to Microsoft. If he thinks it'll even matter to MSFT then he's not aware of Microsofts monopoly position and their profit levels. If he'd asked around, he would have known that $125 - $250 is the standard payoff for stealing someones tech. Playing 'games' in court is also SOP for these guys. And payoffs are probably even built into their budgets. You know, the Payola Dept. IMO.

LoB

MS

[rice_burners_suck]

MS is always causing problems. How is it possible that a "small" company (in comparison to MS) like Apple is able to produce an incredible operating system and entire suites of applications for home, work, and pro, and it is incredibly stable, while MS, with significantly more resources and market share, and a more powerful position in the industry, cannot make something half as good?

Re:

[failure-man]

Apple a) gets a lot of code for free, b) has a small hardware set with tightly controlled drivers to support, and c) isn't afraid to break native API compatibility and shove users into a VM when they need to.

a massive pile of decoys

[rs232]

I would be suprised if they didn't try and bury the relevant exhibits in a massive pile of decoys. They are lawyers after all. It's up to the plaintiff to unbury them.

As for the patent it is of course totally uninventive, obvious, there is prior art and any skilled person would have come up the the same thing without reading the method [uspto.gov].

A method and apparatus for securing software .. requiring .. a .. password obtained from the.. authorized representative of the software after exchanging registration information.

When are they going to fix that crock known as the US patent system?

Re:

[UnknowingFool]

I would be suprised if they didn't try and bury the relevant exhibits in a massive pile of decoys. They are lawyers after all. It's up to the plaintiff to unbury them.

There's a difference between volunteering damaging evidence and trying to bury it. You don't have to give the opposition additional help, but if you've been ordered to divulge something, you have to do it.

The harm to microsoft ...

[Spiked_Three]

ok let's see, that $140 mil divided by Microsoft's cash on hand =
underflow error

nevermind.

Re:

[BodhiCat]

I agree, why is everyone against software patents except when the judgement is against Microsoft?

Re:Everyone has to pay Royalty Eh?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I agree, why is everyone against software patents except when the judgement is against Microsoft?

Because anything, at all, that hurts Microsoft is good for the rest of the industry. Period.

Look, I despise software patents; I think they're one of the worst hindrances to technological progress ever devised in modern times.* But one of the main reasons these bullshit patents are so prevalent is because the 900 lb. gorillas of the industry always have thousands of them, and aren't shy about using them to threaten competitors. If the largest and strongest of those gorillas (the 1000 lb. gorilla, let's say, which is currently Microsoft) can be forced on occasion to, um, slim down a little, that makes things just the teeniest bit easier for the rest of us. And it brings us closer to a truly competitive marketplace in which, just maybe, we'll see the conditions for the growth of a significant lobby, made up of companies that have suffered from the absurdity of the current patent laws, to try to do away with the stupid things entirely.

*Qualifier added because software patents, as onerous as they are, don't compare to, say, burning people at the stake. It's important to keep things in perspective.

Re:

[gutnor]

"Because anything, at all, that hurts Microsoft is good for the rest of the industry. Period."

You mean like a sort of "Think Of the Children" applied to /. ?

Re:

[tcc3]

Thats bullshit. You either stand by a principle or you dont. Thats like saying its ok to undermine civil liberties as long as we're "fighting terrorism."

This principle is also known as two wrongs not making a right.

Re:

[tbannist]

Because we love to see Microsoft slapped down regardless of the reason. We're still against software patents, we just want to spent a few minutes shouting "ha-ha" at Microsoft. Maybe even shout a few "If you'd done a better job of stopping software patents, this wouldn't have happened!" at them.

Re:

[JimDaGeek]

I agree, why is everyone against software patents except when the judgement is against Microsoft?

Not just Microsoft, but all large companies with enough money to actually change the patent system. See, here in the USA our crooked politicians only bow down to one master. The mighty US dollar (or not so mighty). Mega-corps have enough money to bribe politicians to actually get laws made and/or changed.

I personally hope to see tons of software patent suits against Microsoft and other big corps with a

Re:

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

Microsoft are claiming that this is a bad patent because of prior Art. Is this really the case?

I remember an encrypted CD back from the mid 90s containing all sorts of expensive software where you paid to get the various encryption keys. Someone cracked it. I suppose that approach was different enough to the sort of activation scheme XP uses as to not be covered by it.

Re:

[Monkelectric]

Early 90's... Quake CD. You could go out, buy the quake demo for $10 and unlock EVERY id game there was at the time. I think tehy deserved it though, $10 for a DEMO CD?

Re:

[nxtw]

I remember this now-defunct store, possibly called "Media Play" that sold shareware on floppy disks for $5 ea. One of the games was Wolfenstein 3D... in 1996.

While it seems like Media Play went out of business recently, that store closed at least eight years ago...

Re:

[fishybell]

Funny thing is, the Media Play where I lived was always busy. During store hours there were never less than 15 cars in the parking lot, usually more like 30. Considering that the neighboring fabric/craft store still exists with a perpetually empty parking lot, everyone was quite surprised when they closed up shop.

On the bright side the new FYE mega store (or whatever they call it) has essentially the same stuff, more cashiers on staff, and lower prices. For roughly 3 months of no place with a good selecti

No, no, no... "on the internet"

[Overzeetop]

You mised the part of the patent application that specified "on the internet." That makes it both unique and non-obvious, because doing anything on the internet is completely different than doing it off the internet. Hasn't /. taught you anything about the USPTO this past decade? ;-)

Re:

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

Ah, of course, that was the essential difference I was missing.

Wait a minute, doesn't the Internet consist of a set of tubes? With little postmen pushing all those emails around? Microsoft should have gone for an email based authentification system - then they would have been safe.

Re:

[ozmanjusri]

Product activation over the internet has been having some success with regards to checking piracy.

No, it isn't. There's not a single activated product I can think of that hasn't been cracked and made freely available to software pirates.

Where activation has been extremely successful is in forcing honest customers to buy the same product over and over again as their hardware fails or is replaced. That's its real function - to artificially obsolete software so developers can get more money for less effor

Re:

[ZachPruckowski]

There are instances where obscure Star Force titles haven't been cracked - because it's too much work for little gain with smaller titles, but anything you or I have heard of in any form of mainstream game press has almost certainly been cracked. And it only takes one cracker to get it cracked for good.

Re:

[crucini]

Classic binary geek thinking. Business does not work that way. If a restaurant has too many flies in its kitchen, it can hang up flypaper, cover garbage cans, and patch insect screens. If a geek were present, he'd point out that this is useless, since a single fly can fly in when the back door is opened.

Enough robber-baron worship

[spun]

Please, you act as if that money would not have existed if Billy hadn't of pulled it out of his ass. If Microsoft had never of existed, others would have stepped in. Perhaps there could have been real competition and we would all be better off. Perhaps we would all be just a little richer, with software that works better, if this man had never built his little empire on theft, coercion and deceit. So now that he's essentially stolen so much money that it doesn't matter how much he gives away, we're supposed

Re:

[spun]

It's not bitterness. It's a desire to live in a just world. There are plenty of people out there who have done something really positive with their lives. I just don't like to see Bill Gates confused for one. I also don't like the illogical line of reasoning that ignores opportunity cost. I'm more upset at the system that created Bill Gates than I am at Bill Gates himself. Sycophantic hero worship is part of that system.

Re:

[spun]

You aren't getting my meaning. I'm talking about the opportunity cost [wikipedia.org] of Bill Gates wealth. Because this obscene level of personal wealth was concentrated solely in his hands, it was not available to others. Because his company played dirty, the opportunity to innovate was denied others. The free market doesn't operate efficiently without real competition. Bill Gates dirty tricks have kept the free market from working correctly in the software industry, harming us all. Without him, the world would probably

Re:Keep it in perspective

[spun]

Grow up. (1) Naturalistic fallacy. Just ebcause something is a certain way does not mean it should or must be that way. (2)I agree. So? (3)Straw Man. I'm not saying anyone is a saint. Some people are better than others. (4) If you were good at debate, you'd be a master debater.

Gates would never have been in a position to do good if he hadn't done evil to get there. If he didn't do that evil, others would have prospered and perhaps contributed more than Gates ever could. We'll never know.

In terms of percentage of income given to charity, I spent over four years of my life working exclusively for charity, 100%. No income, lived on savings. So you can take your straw man, shove him where the sun don't shine and light him on fire for all the good he's doing you in winning points in this debate.

This last bit is just nonsensical, a complete non-sequiter. Was it just an excuse to quote Godel? It barely even qualifies as a straw man. Here's what Godel would say: "Yes, Bill Gates proves my point about how easy it is to become a dictator in America." I'm an anarchist, my friend, and not one of those libertarian types, either. So I speak of the free market and competition not as some end-all, be-all, greatest system in the world, but as the system of rules we all have to fucking play by.

So far, you've done a piss poor job of convincing me that I should be licking Bill Gates twat, and you have exhibited substandard reading comprehension skills. Either that or you are deliberately not understanding my point in order to better convince the feeble minded of your own. So let me try again.

Bill Gates got rich by fucking over the world. Had he not done so, we would likely all be better off. So there would be more money spread amongst more hands, possibly leading to even greater relief of suffering. There would be less poverty, less people in need of his fucking charity. More people, giving more money, to less needy people. So it's not very insightful to just look at Billy's charity and say, "ooh, look at all the good he's done." The question is, does it outweigh the bad? I say no, it doesn't.

Re:

[spun]

I lived on the streets in San Francisco, not my parents basement you condescending fuckwit. I volunteered with Food Not Bombs, Earth First, and the IWW five days a week. You can shove your cookie up your ass. I've made a difference, what have you done you pathetic sack of shit?

You still haven't made a cogent point. You have fuck all for karma here and no friends. We are from roughly the same era, yet I have excellent karma and hundreds of friends. Not that that means anything definite, but it's interesting.

Re:

[cyber-dragon.net]

Seeing how many sys/network admins are on this board I find this statement hard to believe. Fixing Windows issues is a whole industry. Do you really think they would need so many of us at our salaries if everything worked perfectly the first time? :)

Re:

[Venik]

I think you are failing to see the problem here. We are talking about Microsoft's patchy business ethics; not about Bill's admirable charity work. These are two completely different subjects. I think the biggest problem most people have with Microsoft is the company's lack of innovation set against the background of its more than ample resources. We are talking about the world's leading software developer with a multi-billion budget. And the crap it produces.