Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Microsoft Patents Your Rights Online

Windows 7 Under Fire For Patent Infringement 241

eldavojohn writes "A patent issued in 2003 called 'Method and system for demultiplexing a first sequence of packet components to identify specific components wherein subsequent components are processed without re-identifying components' is now owned by Implicit Networks, who has recently claimed Windows 7 infringes upon it with its Filtering Platform. This is used in Vista, Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008. Implicit is seeking a jury trial and damages. A shocking turn of events; you actually want to cheer for Microsoft this time as Implicit is nothing more than a patent licensing company (troll) and has done battle with Sun, AMD, Intel and NVIDIA."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows 7 Under Fire For Patent Infringement

Comments Filter:
  • Patentable? (Score:5, Informative)

    by clone53421 ( 1310749 ) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @10:40AM (#30309970) Journal

    This doesn’t look substantially different from what any audio/video encapsulation format does, and plenty of those were around before December of ’99...

    Filing date: Dec 29, 1999

    What is claimed is:

    1. A method in a computer system for processing a message having a sequence of packets, the method comprising:

      providing a plurality of components, each component being a software routine for converting data with an input format into data with an output format;
      for the first packet of the message,
      identifying a sequence of components for processing the packets of the message such that the output format of the components of the sequence match the input format of the next component in the sequence; and
      storing an indication of each of the identified components so that the sequence does not need to be re-identified for subsequent packets of the message; and
      for each of a plurality of packets of the message in sequence,
      for each of a plurality of components in the identified sequence,
      retrieving state information relating to performing the processing of the component with the previous packet of the message;
      performing the processing of the identified component with the packet and the retrieved state information; and
      storing state information relating to the processing of the component with the packet for use when processing the next packet of the message.


  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03, 2009 @10:47AM (#30310064)
    According to [] Edward Balassanian founded BeComm Corporation in 1996. A privately held company, based in Redmond, WA, BeComm designs next-generation communications technology that focuses on delivering a broad range of Media Appliance solutions. The company’s vision is to create an operating environment that seamlessly manages the flow of media across disparate networks, processors, media types, applications and devices. Mr. Balassanian is responsible for the company’s long-term product, technology and marketing strategy as well as day-to-day operations. He also sits on the company’s board of directors. Prior to forming BeComm, Mr. Balassanian held engineering positions within Microsoft Corporation. He has over ten years experience developing networking software. Balassanian has a degree in Computer Science from the University of Washington. He has recently spoken to audiences at Princeton University, and was recently a featured speaker at DEMO 2000.
  • Re:Patentable? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03, 2009 @10:52AM (#30310112)

    LZ78. Dictionary header describing how to process the defined length subsequent sequential packets (nibbles, bytes, or double-bytes) in the decrypt mode, and in the encrypt mode, implementing the other portions of this patent. Itself patented quite some time ago. Nothing is new in computing.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03, 2009 @10:53AM (#30310132)

    "I hope microsoft wins this." I hope they lose. They trolled Tom-Tom for using the DOS filename patent

    ... right after TomTom tried to sue them for using navigation software to give directions. In the end, they both settled, and TomTom, the aggressor, didn't get its payday.

    And yet, Microsoft is somehow the bad guy in this. Yep. This is definitely Slashdot.

  • Re:Legal System Flaw (Score:1, Informative)

    by __aagbwg300 ( 1143477 ) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @12:00PM (#30311094)
    Mod parent down. Ha ha ha. I jest!
  • by Zordak ( 123132 ) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @01:26PM (#30312748) Homepage Journal

    I live and breathe patents every day, and I really don't think the system is as broken as its reputation. That's not to say there are no bad patents. I have personally defended several clients against patents that were almost certainly invalid, and that the clients almost certainly didn't infringe even if they were valid. I have been involved in some classic "patent troll" cases, and I think it's terrible that it's happened.

    But I've also seen clients work hard on new ideas and then have others just copy what they did. So I've got a sort of double perspective: on the one hand, defending against patents, where the motivation is to limit them, on the other hand, writing patents, where the motivation is to want broad protection.

    If we get too aggressive with the anti-troll backlash, we will throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think the only real answer is better examination in the first place, which means not only rejecting invalid claims, but rejecting them for the right reasons, and also allowing good claims (because both of those have been a problem). People on here complain about patents being rubber-stamped, but the reverse is actually true. There is HUGE incentive for examiners to reject, reject, reject. The problem is not that they're rubber stamping patents. It that they're issuing sloppy rejections on almost everything because that was the only way to keep their count up. And sloppy rejections means that you're usually arguing about the wrong stuff, which means bad patents. And it's not necessarily the examiners' fault. The whole system was broken.

    I didn't vote for Barack Obama, and I disagree with him a lot, but I have to give him credit for appointing David Kappos to replace Jon Dudas, who was one of Bush's political cronies and was not even statutorily qualified for the position. That by itself was a major step forward.

  • by Zordak ( 123132 ) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @01:44PM (#30313064) Homepage Journal

    As for me making more money on inventions than my clients, this is how it works. If you come to me with a real, legitimate innovation, a good business plan, a plan for raising capital, the motivation and energy to weather the storms that will inevitably occur, and maybe even a decent exit strategy, then your patent will be an investment in your business, and your profit just might dwarf whatever fees you pay me. But I will tell you up front that there is always risk. If it were safe and easy, we'd all be millionaires.

    On the other hand, if you come to me with a "clever" little gadget idea and your only business plan is "I want to file a quick, cheap provisional patent application, and then sell it to Big Box Retailer(R) and sit back in my easy chair and collect royalty checks," then you maybe have a 1 in 20 chance of ever making any money at all, and what you do make will probably not be a lot. In fact, if anybody buys your patent it will probably be one of these patent trolls, and they will buy it at a fire-sale discount, flat fee, no royalties, after you've invested all the money to get it issued. You'll be lucky to break even.

    If you're still willing to pay my fees after I give you that little lecture, I'll be happy to represent you, and I'll do my very best for you. But I will not promise you results. Clever little ideas are a dime a dozen. Good entrepreneurs aren't.

Nothing is finished until the paperwork is done.