Slashdot Mirror

> Maybe I've missed something, but can you explain exactly where you and the OSI get the authority to define what the words "open source" mean?

Trademark law. You might want to look it up some day, but it grants the legal authority because they first came up with the term. I wonder if it hasn't become somewhat generic by now, but that's a legal worry and it's not mine.

The point of this would appear to be to avoid more crap like the "Office Open XML" which has nothing to do with Open Office and isn't really "open" in the sense many people might expect. Or at least to avoid people calling licenses "open source" that are anything but. To be honest, I'd have said that they'd do better to register free software as a mark, but that's just me.

In any event, trademark law really can give them that right. Period. End of story.

See also:
* http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmlaw2.html
* http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/US_Trademark_Law

Disclaimer: IANAL.

Yes, but interestingly enough, not by OSI. OSI owns Open Source Initiative Approved License mark and the 'OSI certified' mark.

IANAL, but I don't think OSI has a leg to stand on here.

Yes, but interestingly enough, not by OSI. OSI owns Open Source Initiative Approved License mark and the 'OSI certified' mark.

IANAL, but I don't think OSI has a leg to stand on here.

If you're going to attack someone for ignorance, at least specify a legitimate gap in their knowledge. I'll be the first to admit I don't have all the facts in this case, but nothing you said contradicts anything I said.

nearly 60% of their revenue comes from actual product sold, with less than 30% coming from licensing

That doesn't mean they aren't trying to leverage their patents beyond the scope of what was covered. I'm sure not everything a pickpocket does is bad either, but that doesn't mean we should overlook the fact that he steals wallets.

From their press releases, the licenses appear to be legit

Imagine that.

For the record, the patents in question are 6,275,213 and 6,424,333, neither of which, if you read the abstracts, seems to apply specifically to the generic rumble function of a controller -- they're both for special circumstances and/or methods to use the function. But here's the kicker: The earliest of those patents was filed in 2001, while the Dual Shock was released in '98, and the Nintendo Rumble Pak was introduced in '97 -- clear examples of prior art, and obviously why every console manufacturer tried to fight the case. Likely the patents were granted because the USPTO decided the patent was unique enough that it didn't pertain to standard rumble controllers, and the jury was too stupid to understand that.

Of course, I don't know a whole lot about what I'm talking about, so feel free to clue me in.

If you're going to attack someone for ignorance, at least specify a legitimate gap in their knowledge. I'll be the first to admit I don't have all the facts in this case, but nothing you said contradicts anything I said.

nearly 60% of their revenue comes from actual product sold, with less than 30% coming from licensing

That doesn't mean they aren't trying to leverage their patents beyond the scope of what was covered. I'm sure not everything a pickpocket does is bad either, but that doesn't mean we should overlook the fact that he steals wallets.

From their press releases, the licenses appear to be legit

Imagine that.

For the record, the patents in question are 6,275,213 and 6,424,333, neither of which, if you read the abstracts, seems to apply specifically to the generic rumble function of a controller -- they're both for special circumstances and/or methods to use the function. But here's the kicker: The earliest of those patents was filed in 2001, while the Dual Shock was released in '98, and the Nintendo Rumble Pak was introduced in '97 -- clear examples of prior art, and obviously why every console manufacturer tried to fight the case. Likely the patents were granted because the USPTO decided the patent was unique enough that it didn't pertain to standard rumble controllers, and the jury was too stupid to understand that.

Of course, I don't know a whole lot about what I'm talking about, so feel free to clue me in.

Please learn to use a database properly before you spread more FUD than MS. Note the difference between searching for Microsoft in the "Assignee" field and searching for Microsoft in ANY field.

Better yet, use a proper database.

Please learn to use a database properly before you spread more FUD than MS. Note the difference between searching for Microsoft in the "Assignee" field and searching for Microsoft in ANY field.

Better yet, use a proper database.

Certainly not! This is evidence that current IP laws are too lax! To ensure final victory we must protect valuable research. Only hardcore pinko communists and certain factions in Iran would disagree!

Thanks to all who replied and cleared this up! =) (The mix up of mine being the terminology "patent" and "copyright".)

According to the patent here HERE it looks exactly like a "Buy-Out Auction" but on a computah. Does this then imply that I can take any archaic process put it on a computah (or just say I can) and patent troll, too?

Sounds very Half Baked -- "... but have you seen it... on weed?

Ebay vs MercExchange http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBay_Inc._v._MercExch ange%2C_L.L.C. the patent they are apparently fighting over [US Patent 5845265] http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5845265.PN.&OS=PN/58452 65&RS=PN/5845265

Patents cover specific implementations, not general ideas. At least, that's the idea.

This is wrong:
1) You don't have to be a lawyer to sit for the patent bar. Hence the distinction between patent agent and patent attorney.
2) Even if your CS degree is not accredited, you can still sit for the bar provided you have taken 8 hours of chem or physics (like normal general education), and you have taken certain (typical) CS courses.

See: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/oed/grb .pdf

Timothy Lee (from the Cato Institute :) )titles his piece "Patent Lie", which is very accurate because he lies about the price of a patent. See http://www.uspto.gov/go/fees/fee2007february01.htm

small entity:
basic filing fee $150
fee after 3.5yrs: $450
fee after 7.5yrs: $1150
fee after 11.5 yrs: $1,900
total: $3,650

Is $3,650 spread over 12 years an onerous charge? :)
Can you write your own patent? absolutely. I've done it 5 times.

One thing that bothers me about this is that this examiner mad at least one comment on a board or mailing list that, IMHO, exceeded what is prohibited by PTO policy. Although the post has the typical disclaimer as a personal opinion and not an official PTO position it still violates this policy.

Although he appears to be defending the work of others (either on this application or others; the record shows lots of examiner reassignments on this one) it still comprises lots of statements concerning "the validity or invalidity" of a specific, or related group of application(s), and that's a no-no. There might be a lessened burden if he was not a PTO employee at the time he made the comment, but it would still be dicey to comment on any specific application in which one had a contribution, or on which one had obtained "inside information." I know I've been out of the PTO for over a decade and a half and I would never comment on any application that I had examined or had a substantive participation.

"The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently different from what has been used or described before that it may be said to be nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention."

These "developers" he spoke of, might they have "ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention."? I'm not sure. I am sure however, that anyone who starts bandying about terms like "fucking moron" better have a very clear argument ready to back himself up, or he might look like an uneducated, arrogant troll.

Instead of looking like a fucking moron, you might want to read what the patent office means by obvious:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/i ndex.html#novelty

Congress didn't buy Amazon's argument that the failure of a defunct Jeff Bezos-funded company to award a $10,000 bounty offered by Tim O'Reilly for prior art that could bust Bezos' 1-Click patent was proof of 1-Click's novelty. The Commissioner for Patents, on the other hand, was duly impressed. As was one of his patent Examiners, who broke ranks from a less-impressed fellow Examiner and re-Examiner, to push through last week's issuance of U.S. patent no. 7,222,087, a 'continuation' of 1-Click which adds innovative claims like contacting the recipient of an order via e-mail or a phone call to obtain additional info.

Uh, doesnt that seem rather overbroad? I mean, there's nothing about methodology, just 'we own any synthetic life.' What utter bullshit. Why dont they try to patent nonsynthetic life while they're at it?

Here's the patent application.

Wizards' patent was filed in October 2003, not 2002. When exactly did Selinker leave Wizards?

It wasn't. Wizkids released the Pirate game in July of 2004, while WOTC filed their patent application in October 2003.

No I'm not.

Owning copyright on Mickey Mouse gives me copyright on all derivatives of Mickey Mouse as they are based on my original idea. Actually, I'm the only one who can make derivatives since I own the copyright to the original.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html

Looks like I'm not the one who needs to study.

I brought up trademarks because they represent a separate threat in addition to copyright violation.
To reiterate my Spider-man example, here is the trademark registration for Spider-man:
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=6 d0u0u.2.14
Now if you use the term Spider-man to reference a comic strip character without getting the thumbs up from Marvel, you are open for trouble of the legal variety.

Well, Mr. Best apparently originally patented or invented a radiant heat apparatus in the 1960's (too lazy to do a search) for drying paint which would have expired no later than December 31, 1986 (17 years after being issued as patents did until June 8, 1995 after which it was changed to 20 years from the effective filing date (with some special extensions). As far as I have been able to research the patent at issue is 4,321,857, which issued on March 30, 1982 and thus expiring on March 30, 1999, not 2000. Searching under the name "Willie Best" brings up 17 issued patents, 14 of which are of utility type.

It is, apparently, this patent that expired, not the original concept that applied to paint drying.

Submarine patents usually hide for much longer than 2 years. Wikipedia has a good entry on them. One big reason submarine patents are less common now is that the term of a patent is reckoned 20 years from its filing date, instead of the previous method when it began with the date a patent is granted. If you take 5-10 years to go from filing to granted and the term of your patent is only 20 years, you're taking a big gamble.

I may be totally misunderstanding you, but I disagree that Target Technology has just let this patent sit. It can easily take 2 years to go from filing an application to being granted a patent. You can check out all the different stages this patent went through by going to the USPTO Transaction History for this patent. (If the link doesn't take you right to the patent, run a search for patent 7018696 and then click on the "Transaction History" tab.) They had to go through some revisions in their claims (I spot 2 non-final rejections, which isn't unusual), as well as go through all the usual forms.

They can't sue someone for infringing their patent until they are granted one. And they might have taken a little more time to build their case before they tried to tackle a big company like Sony.

Note that I'm not saying this patent is valid. I don't have the background in this field to say if this is sufficiently innovative, especially after the Supreme Court's ruling about obviousness in KSR v. Teleflex.

I agree that broad claims can be annoying, but it doesn't mean they've locked everything down. Fortunately, it's still possible to circumvent broad claims. For example, let's say you patent a material made of A, B, C, and D, and your claims cover all combinations of 1-90% A, 1-90% B, 1-90% C, and 1-90% D to give some kind of innovative performance. But now I find that the combination of 25% A, 25% B, 25% C, and 25% D works 10x better than the performance listed in your patent.

Although your patent claims included 25% A, 25% B, 25% C, and 25% D, I could still get a patent for this mixture, because your patent didn't anticipate the improved performance of this particular blend. And if you wanted to use this blend, you'd have to license it from me. :)

There isn't enough information here to form an intelligent position.

Given that Target is only suing Sony over Blu-Ray, and not suing any other organizations over CDs, DVDs, GD-ROMs, Game Discs, HD-DVDs, or FMD-ROMs (!), it's possible (however unlikely) that this is actually an example of patents working the way they should. That is, Target may have a patent on an actual technology; a specific method of producing a reflective layer that is superior and/or cheaper than other methods. If that's the case, then this is exactly how patents are supposed to work.

Alternatively, of course, Target may have patented an obvious evolution of well-established technologies, in which case this is just another patent troll. They could be holding off on suing other companies until they've set some sort of precedent with Sony.

The actual patent begins by specifying an alloy of silver an yttrium, but the further claims also (apparently) expand that claim by including alloys with other elements (such as bismuth and tin). I don't have the time right now to examine the patent in great detail; but a skim makes it look like they patented a specific method for a high-reflectivity layer thats cheaper than other methods of equivalent reflectivity. They then expand this idea to include all the derivative technologies of using this method (single & dual layer discs, write-only discs, write-once disc, re-writeable discs, etc).

The problem is I don't have enough familiarity with the technology to know if this is a non-obvious development or not. If it is non-obvious, then more power to them. Protecting your novel idea with a patent is fair play. If, of course, it's just the optical disc equivalent of "[X], but on the INTERNET and called i[X]," then I hope they get counter-sued into oblivion.

Why is this a bogus patent?

A silver-based alloy thin film is provided for the highly reflective or semi-reflective coating layer of optical discs. Elements that can be added to silver to produce useful silver alloys include zinc, aluminum, copper, manganese, germanium, yttrium, bismuth, scandium, and cobalt. These alloys have moderate to high reflectivity and reasonable corrosion resistance in the ambient environment.

The recording medium may be erased for re-recording by focussing a laser of intermediate power on the recording medium. This returns the recording medium layer to its original or erased state. A more detailed discussion of the recording mechanism of optically recordable media can be found in U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,741,603; 5,498,507; and 5,719,006 assigned to the Sony Corporation, the TDK Corporation, and the NEC Corporation, all of Tokyo, Japan, respectively, the disclosures of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.

The recording medium may be erased for re-recording by focussing a laser of intermediate power on the recording medium. This returns the recording medium layer to its original or erased state. A more detailed discussion of the recording mechanism of optically recordable media can be found in U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,741,603; 5,498,507; and 5,719,006 assigned to the Sony Corporation, the TDK Corporation, and the NEC Corporation, all of Tokyo, Japan, respectively, the disclosures of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.

They have invented the way all software is installed, of course:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6618857.PN.&OS=PN/66188 57&RS=PN/6618857

they also claim to have invented archived files:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,594,674.PN.&OS=PN/6,5 94,674&RS=PN/6,594,674

And last but not least, they have also created game scoring for computer games:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,604,008.PN.&OS=PN/6,6 04,008&RS=PN/6,604,008

They have invented the way all software is installed, of course:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6618857.PN.&OS=PN/66188 57&RS=PN/6618857

they also claim to have invented archived files:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,594,674.PN.&OS=PN/6,5 94,674&RS=PN/6,594,674

And last but not least, they have also created game scoring for computer games:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,604,008.PN.&OS=PN/6,6 04,008&RS=PN/6,604,008

They have invented the way all software is installed, of course:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6618857.PN.&OS=PN/66188 57&RS=PN/6618857

they also claim to have invented archived files:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,594,674.PN.&OS=PN/6,5 94,674&RS=PN/6,594,674

And last but not least, they have also created game scoring for computer games:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,604,008.PN.&OS=PN/6,6 04,008&RS=PN/6,604,008

I actually think the fix is kinda simple. Simply ban "trade secret" patents (patents where you don't have to demonstrate an implementation). Since software is implemented in the form of source code, you should have to show the source code (implementation) in order to get a patent on it. This would protect specifically written software as if it were an invention, but would not be so broad that it could stop someone from implementing the basic idea (algorithm - I suppose we need a legal definition for that too), which should not be patentable in the first place, which uses a different implementation (meaning different source code).

From the uspto faq:

Titles are not copyrightable

The author is making a philosophical argument, not a legal one. So the fact that titles happen, currently, not to be copyrightable is irrelevant. If you follow the author's reasoning, then every idea under the sun ought to be indefinitely copyrightable, whether it be a book, a song, a title, a slogan, a recipe, or the barest concept. After all, what is the moral justification for protecting the livelihood of an author and not that of a slogan-maker? Besides which, titles and slogans can to some extent be trademarked if defined as part of a brand (e.g. Conan(TM)the Barbarian) and perpetually with the proper forms and fees.

I suppose under this argument, fair use is likewise an abomination. Why should critics and satirists be allowed an easement over property they can just as easily avoid?

It's easy to say "look! prior art", but what I'm getting at is to prove it in court it takes a lot more of an argument, since the video game example doesn't specifically show combining all those aspects together.

So essentially you have the uphill battle of showing me as a judge or jury something that proves that the idea of a single click to order something has been published before, all the aspects of the client-server communication have been published before, and that those documents have hinted that they could be combined. Essentially you have to show it should be unpatentable because it has been anticipated these could be combined to make a one click ordering system. Take a look at 35 USC 102 (the best kind of reference) vs. 35 USC 103 (a lot harder to prove in court)

I think it's awesome that people are interested in finding prior art for patents like this... But you have to be careful when doing so that you can demonstrate every single phrase in the claim language of the patent you're trying to kill is covered in your references. In the case of the video game, since it presumably doesn't show all the intermediary steps, you have to demonstrate quite a bit more to be able to use it effectively as prior art, and there are probably better examples out there... it's just a matter of finding them.

It's easy to say "look! prior art", but what I'm getting at is to prove it in court it takes a lot more of an argument, since the video game example doesn't specifically show combining all those aspects together.

So essentially you have the uphill battle of showing me as a judge or jury something that proves that the idea of a single click to order something has been published before, all the aspects of the client-server communication have been published before, and that those documents have hinted that they could be combined. Essentially you have to show it should be unpatentable because it has been anticipated these could be combined to make a one click ordering system. Take a look at 35 USC 102 (the best kind of reference) vs. 35 USC 103 (a lot harder to prove in court)

I think it's awesome that people are interested in finding prior art for patents like this... But you have to be careful when doing so that you can demonstrate every single phrase in the claim language of the patent you're trying to kill is covered in your references. In the case of the video game, since it presumably doesn't show all the intermediary steps, you have to demonstrate quite a bit more to be able to use it effectively as prior art, and there are probably better examples out there... it's just a matter of finding them.

I posted something about this on the last thread - SMB/CIFS has a couple of obsolete Microsoft patents that Samba implements, but not as documented in the patents themselves (they would not work in a UNIX-like OS). The main part of Samba is based on specs designed by the Storage Industry Network Association, which MS used more as a guideline than how they implemented it. Here's an article about it, and also see Samba's web site.

The only other patent I know of on CIFS is not owned by Microsoft, it's a Cisco patent

MS probably still argues that those two patents are being violated and MS even spread some FUD by issuing a license for using CIFS on other OS's but excludes the GPL (Samba's license).

Things that are obvious, but Microsoft has patents on, that I'm aware of (thank you, bookmark file):
patent on RSS feeds
FAT patent 5579517 (which I believe has now been rejected as obvious after appeal and my ref was link-dead)
Spam filtering
IsNot in BASIC
or how about this one, which is basically sudo
or this one which would be violated as far as I can tell by a Linux OS module updated over an https connection, though I think it would also need to include verification like an md5 checksum to fall under that patent.

and a couple that I don't think would affect Linux:
a patent that is basically the same as XUL, but for Windows only.
a patent on this one on learning, which is broad and vague - see this guy's response I found in a search which explains the stupidity better than I could (my original link is again dead - I need some housecleaning).

I posted something about this on the last thread - SMB/CIFS has a couple of obsolete Microsoft patents that Samba implements, but not as documented in the patents themselves (they would not work in a UNIX-like OS). The main part of Samba is based on specs designed by the Storage Industry Network Association, which MS used more as a guideline than how they implemented it. Here's an article about it, and also see Samba's web site.

The only other patent I know of on CIFS is not owned by Microsoft, it's a Cisco patent

MS probably still argues that those two patents are being violated and MS even spread some FUD by issuing a license for using CIFS on other OS's but excludes the GPL (Samba's license).

Things that are obvious, but Microsoft has patents on, that I'm aware of (thank you, bookmark file):
patent on RSS feeds
FAT patent 5579517 (which I believe has now been rejected as obvious after appeal and my ref was link-dead)
Spam filtering
IsNot in BASIC
or how about this one, which is basically sudo
or this one which would be violated as far as I can tell by a Linux OS module updated over an https connection, though I think it would also need to include verification like an md5 checksum to fall under that patent.

and a couple that I don't think would affect Linux:
a patent that is basically the same as XUL, but for Windows only.
a patent on this one on learning, which is broad and vague - see this guy's response I found in a search which explains the stupidity better than I could (my original link is again dead - I need some housecleaning).

I posted something about this on the last thread - SMB/CIFS has a couple of obsolete Microsoft patents that Samba implements, but not as documented in the patents themselves (they would not work in a UNIX-like OS). The main part of Samba is based on specs designed by the Storage Industry Network Association, which MS used more as a guideline than how they implemented it. Here's an article about it, and also see Samba's web site.

The only other patent I know of on CIFS is not owned by Microsoft, it's a Cisco patent

MS probably still argues that those two patents are being violated and MS even spread some FUD by issuing a license for using CIFS on other OS's but excludes the GPL (Samba's license).

Things that are obvious, but Microsoft has patents on, that I'm aware of (thank you, bookmark file):
patent on RSS feeds
FAT patent 5579517 (which I believe has now been rejected as obvious after appeal and my ref was link-dead)
Spam filtering
IsNot in BASIC
or how about this one, which is basically sudo
or this one which would be violated as far as I can tell by a Linux OS module updated over an https connection, though I think it would also need to include verification like an md5 checksum to fall under that patent.

and a couple that I don't think would affect Linux:
a patent that is basically the same as XUL, but for Windows only.
a patent on this one on learning, which is broad and vague - see this guy's response I found in a search which explains the stupidity better than I could (my original link is again dead - I need some housecleaning).

I posted something about this on the last thread - SMB/CIFS has a couple of obsolete Microsoft patents that Samba implements, but not as documented in the patents themselves (they would not work in a UNIX-like OS). The main part of Samba is based on specs designed by the Storage Industry Network Association, which MS used more as a guideline than how they implemented it. Here's an article about it, and also see Samba's web site.

The only other patent I know of on CIFS is not owned by Microsoft, it's a Cisco patent

MS probably still argues that those two patents are being violated and MS even spread some FUD by issuing a license for using CIFS on other OS's but excludes the GPL (Samba's license).

Things that are obvious, but Microsoft has patents on, that I'm aware of (thank you, bookmark file):
patent on RSS feeds
FAT patent 5579517 (which I believe has now been rejected as obvious after appeal and my ref was link-dead)
Spam filtering
IsNot in BASIC
or how about this one, which is basically sudo
or this one which would be violated as far as I can tell by a Linux OS module updated over an https connection, though I think it would also need to include verification like an md5 checksum to fall under that patent.

and a couple that I don't think would affect Linux:
a patent that is basically the same as XUL, but for Windows only.
a patent on this one on learning, which is broad and vague - see this guy's response I found in a search which explains the stupidity better than I could (my original link is again dead - I need some housecleaning).

I posted something about this on the last thread - SMB/CIFS has a couple of obsolete Microsoft patents that Samba implements, but not as documented in the patents themselves (they would not work in a UNIX-like OS). The main part of Samba is based on specs designed by the Storage Industry Network Association, which MS used more as a guideline than how they implemented it. Here's an article about it, and also see Samba's web site.

The only other patent I know of on CIFS is not owned by Microsoft, it's a Cisco patent

MS probably still argues that those two patents are being violated and MS even spread some FUD by issuing a license for using CIFS on other OS's but excludes the GPL (Samba's license).

Things that are obvious, but Microsoft has patents on, that I'm aware of (thank you, bookmark file):
patent on RSS feeds
FAT patent 5579517 (which I believe has now been rejected as obvious after appeal and my ref was link-dead)
Spam filtering
IsNot in BASIC
or how about this one, which is basically sudo
or this one which would be violated as far as I can tell by a Linux OS module updated over an https connection, though I think it would also need to include verification like an md5 checksum to fall under that patent.

and a couple that I don't think would affect Linux:
a patent that is basically the same as XUL, but for Windows only.
a patent on this one on learning, which is broad and vague - see this guy's response I found in a search which explains the stupidity better than I could (my original link is again dead - I need some housecleaning).

7,219,352 has some likely prior art (to the date of filing at least) in xine's video_out abstraction and I wouldn't doubt if mplayer had deinterlacing support abstracted to "device driver"-esque libraries before this patent. The patent itself seems to only cover hardware or driver based deinterlacing anyway (no description of what a device driver actually is in this context, whether it includes extensions to window manager interfaces or not, etc.), which means it is probably narrowly limited to drivers where all graphics card functionality must be tied to a single video driver, e.g. not things like Xv or shader applications. I can't imagine the idea being innovative either, because it's just a method for deciding what the best way to display interlaced video on a progressive scan device is, something that is a natural extension of playing any made-for-tv video on any computer made after CRTs became common.

The problem with this approach is that most of them are gibberish.

I have a PhD in computer science and I have two patents (one accepted 1992 and one applied 2005) on my own, but when randomly grabbing a MS patent it often just doesn't make sense.

MS has been spamming USPTO with completely ridiculus patent applications. An example is this famous "IS NOT" operator patent, this is not gibberish but it is like a bad pub joke
MS USPTO patent application of the IS NOT OPERATOR

An application like this should of course not be accepted, but when they abuse the system with this kind of applications as well as the gibberish applications, there is a high probability that some of these will slip through in the process and, voilà, they have yet another patent that can be used to attack anyone.

OK, In one way one can claim that Microsoft is doing us a favour, to show us how ridiculus the system is, to create arguments for abolishing the patent system, but I have hard to imagine that Microsoft would have an idealistic approach here. They are just plain evil!

So I read partway down the list and every patent I looked lies somewhere between completely worthless and awfully dubious. For example, in this patent Microsoft claim rights over the concept of a tree which contains different kinds of trees.

Maybe there is a defensible patent in there somewhere but I only saw garbage so far. Yes, somebody needs to sift through the whole lot and perhaps post a selection of the more preposterous claims publicly, but that will not be me. My time is better used developing software.

You only read patents to read the obvious.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.h tm&r=7&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&p=1&p=1&S1=Microsoft.ASNM.& OS=AN/Microsoft&RS=AN/Microsoft :) How in the world did they get patents for such a silly and obvious thing.

"System and method for implementing a client side HTTP stack". How in the world did they get a patent for this?

This is an innocent question. If the OSS community is ready to debunk these patents, do we really need Microsoft to reveal which of the 235 patents/infringements they're talking about? Couldn't we start a site/database that organizes all of Microsoft's patents and start documenting prior art and such for each. The patents themselves aren't hidden :

Microsoft's patents (6723 patents)
Microsoft's UI patent (155 patents)
(for example)

Why not start debunking the FUD to prove how spurious their claims are? Is it because this would be too much work? (Admittedly, 6723 >> 235)