Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Files Patent Infringement Suit Against Microsoft
wiredog writes "The suit alleges Microsoft infringed on a patent for technology that reduces the size of computer sound files that contain voice recordings. The story, from Reuters, at the Washington Post." Well, I'm posting this because apparently everyone and their brother has decided to submit it. But, well, yeah. It's a compression codec. That crap shouldn't be patentable in the first place. Of course, in the US you can patent math.
First, to the idiot who thinks it is okay to patent such things; consider this, some of the compression codec's that are REQUIRED and MANDATED by international standards are in fact patented. I do not like patents in general, and a mandated and required standard that in effect says you must pay X to Y seems as fundimentally wrong and decietful as what Rambus tried to do.
I also do not see any real good that could come out of this suit. If AT&T wins it could enforce or try to control which vendors can and cannot provide interoperable equipment, or extort even higher license fees. This does nothing for the developer wishing to create new and creative services that interoperate as may be mandated by law and treaty.
If Microsoft wins, it's just something else they embace and extend and one less company or entity that has any potential leverage with them.
Does anyone else benefit from this kind of nonsense? Where is the "to promote useful arts and sciences" means standard of the US constitution met by this kind of patent and nonsense?
once someone else has done it, yes.
Same thing with the shaving cream can. Other companies immediately came out with knockoffs and tried to invalidate the patent as obvious. THe ruling was that the amount spent by those companies, without success, in an attempt to develop a dispensor was sufficent proof that it *wasn't* obvious until seen . . .
hawk
--
--
--
> Get off this socialistic attitude people, if things lose their value whats the point of striving to make it better.
[Value == money, right, since socialism doesn't affect any other form of value?]
You strive to make it better because for the respect and honor of your peers, because the inperfections annoy you, because you want to help others, or just because it's in your heart and soul to make it better. Socrates, Jesus and Budda would all probably take umbrage at your suggestion that money is the only reason to make things better.
The problem is that no matter how well-trained the examiner, he is not allowed to use common sense to reject patent applications. Was there any prior art for one-click? Not in the way that the patent office understands it, although of course it was just applying an existing well-known idea to a new situation. But the fact that it is an obvious idea to any programmer, or that there is no economic justification for such business method patents, is not something an examiner can use to reject the application.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Specific patents are not subject to any economic test on an individual basis, and that is sensible. The patent office cannot make judgements like that, and the law must be the same for anyone. The point is to make the laws so that you get the best balance _in total_.
It is not a good idea, on balance, for the government to grant patent monopolies on computer program techniques. Some are economically beneficial, most are harmful. The net effect is negative.
What you say about the whole system of patents passing or failing is not true, because there is a clear distinction between physical goods and pure information. It is quite possible to make legal judgements based on this, as was and is done in many countries which don't allow patents on software. (Definition: if you can download it, it's software.)
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
I didn't mean 'will this company make more money by having this patent'. I was asking whether it is beneficial to the American economy for the US Govt. to hand out such a monopoly.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Absolutely. That's one reason why proposals to keep software patents, but somehow magically restrict them to 'difficult' inventions, are not sensible. The patent offices cannot reliably distinguish the two in the case of software, and certainly cannot work out the difference between those patents that are a useful reward for research, and those (the majority) that do not reward any real development but are just weapons to harass competitors. Not granting patents on _any_ programming technique or mathematical discovery would be more economically sensible than the current situation.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
But software patents work _against_ disclosure. Few swpat applications contain a working implementation, most do not even give enough information for a skilled programmer to implement what is described. Often nothing of value is disclosed.
Then you have to ask whether the information revealed would otherwise have been kept secret. Clearly this is not the case for cryptography or for anything which is intended for adoption as an Internet standard. Any useful discovery of a new algorithm will be published anyway - unless you think there could be 'secret' algorithms in use at some companies which programmers are somehow prevented from remembering when they leave the company.
In the case of file formats, the patent does result in disclosure, but how useful is the information? Without swpats you can at least reverse engineer the format and develop compatible software. If it is patented, you will not be able to do anything for the next 20 years. And how useful will information about an obsolete format be in 20 years time? Furthermore, often only a small part of the file format is patented (and thus disclosed), enough to stop anyone developing their own software to read it, but most of the format stays secret.
But I said that swpats actively hinder disclosure. Why is this? Because publishing your source code exposes you to being sued for accidentally infringing on patents held by others. Swpats act as a major disincentive to publishing source code, which is by far the most important form of 'full disclosure' in the software market.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Do you think that there is a net economic benefit from allowing IBM to patent this algorithm? Would compression codecs not be developed if patents were not available? Do the increased incentives outweigh the effects on competition and the risks for smaller developers?
I'm not saying there isn't a case to be made, but you have to balance both sides. The patent system is there solely 'to promote progress in science and the useful arts' (as the US Constitution puts it), so any granting of patents on algorithms must pass this test.
And since patent offices are unable to distinguish between 'difficult' things like codecs and trivial things like one-click (the criterion of 'obviousness' is not something a patent examiner understands very well), you have to ask whether we wouldn't be better off without patents on any field of software. Sure, in some cases there might be an economic loss because codecs might not be developed - although projects like Ogg Vorbis show that patents are not necessary to finance such research. But on balance I think it's clear that swpats do more harm than good.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
You should see the patents on sex toys...
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
As far as I can see, they've actually manage the reach that point. It took lots of shear mindlessness, and occasional total idiocy (some of it on the part of congress), but I think the patent office has reached the point where even taken as a whole it does much more harm than good.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The "patent mentality", being the search for a monopoly, is inherently dangerous. When only small economic units are involved it can be easy to overlook the danger. In the current day, the only thing that blinds people to the danger is that they are used to it. Unless one believes that it is good to create and maintain monopolies, it is hard to justify supporting patents.
It is definitely true that the goal that patents were intended to accomplish is a good and worthwhile goal. But patents are an extremely flawed method of reaching that goal. A royalty based system, if one could design a good one, appears to me to be far superior. Still a bit dangerous, but it doesn't inherently create chokepoints in the system (depending on proper design).
OTOH, if I were pressed, I would have to admit that I haven't actually come up with a better system. Still, I would maintain that this is partially because I don't have any real hope of getting it enacted. But that there are certain design principles that need to be applied to any potential system. One of them is to discourage the formation of monopolies and cartels. We have ample evidence that those two economic devices are quite injurious to at least the economic health of the citizenry, and occasionally to their physical health as well.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Microsoft does indeed own 7% of AT&T, an investment worth $5 billion when it was first made.
AT&T sued Microsoft before, in 1996 or 1997, because Microsoft changed the terms of their NT source code contract. It was the same reason Bristol sued, except AT&T settled its suit out of court for an undisclosed amount of money before it got anywhere near a trial. (Bristol eventually settled as well, but only after it won the case and was awarded $1 by a jury).
Regardless of past settlements, its nice to see there's still one large company mostly outside the computer industry that has the balls to stand up and protect itself against these kinds of tactics.
== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ====
I would agree to the extent that the patent claim is specific to what was actually invented. Too often, some specific thing was invented, then the patent claim that is filed is written more broadly (and overlooked in a government office by people not smart enough to be doing the inventing), and finally, an even broader inter-corporate threat is made, with the likelihood that it will end up being settled in such a way (the claimed infringer preferring just to not go to court) that the patent owner now has even more weaponry to fight against more principled smaller firms and individuals.
The problem is that many of these codec inventions actually overlap so much, no one can tell what's what anymore. How do we really know that what AT&T is claiming is indeed infringed by Microsoft (even if we had the source code to check)?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
That's the theory, but there are many patents on purely mathematical transformations.
Wrong. The patent is on the application, not the transformation. I can sit down and use the LZW method by pencil and paper and avoid the patent completely.
Of course, in the US you can patent math
Slashdot scores a 10 again on its lack of knowledge on patent law.
From
http://www.contractedge.com/PatentTradeLaw.asp
Abstract ideas and mental conceptions are not patentable. Discoveries of scientific principles, laws of nature, and natural phenomena are not patentable (although applications of such discoveries are). Mathematical algorithms that have not been reduced to some type of practical application have been held to be unpatentable. However, a claim to a system or method that recites a mathematical algorithm and produces "a useful, concrete and tangible result" may be patentable. State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, 149 F3d 1368 (Fed Cir 1998), cert. denied, 525 US 1093 (1999). The software process involved in the State Street Bank case was used by a computer system to recompute the share prices of a pool of mutual funds after each day's trading activities ended, taking into account the day's gains and losses and expenses attributable to each mutual fund. The final share prices were the "useful, concrete, and tangible result."
The net economic benefit for allowing this patent is simple. It will show that there is profit to be made from designing better Codecs.
Had patents not been available, would we have WMA? MP3? And for that matter many of the other popular codecs we have become used to. I'm sure you'll spout some pithy comment that translates to yes, but the truth of it is that Frauhumper and Microshaft hired a bunch of people to design these coding algorithims, actively promoted them, and made them popular.
Projects like Bladeenc and Ogg Vorbis are a response to a proprietary codec. Not the origin. I mean no disrespect to any of the members of these projects, but the fact remains, that bladeenc was developed after many had put their paid work hours into defining how it should work. And more importantly, these engineers provided proof-of-concept, which as we all know, is really the most difficult part of any science.
How many times do we see someone say "That can't be done" until someone does it, and then the same person sits there and says, "I could do that." And really this sounds much the same.
Sure the GIF patent sucks, but the GIF patent is only a problem because the GIF format was designed well with a lionshare of features that were needed for an emerging new media. (Which was not new and emerging at the time.) PNG can come in and copy the functionality, but hats off to the original GIF team for creating the spec. So, does this mean that we should only be allowed to hold patents for things that are only useful to my clients, my apps, and my machine?? Horse Hockey.
projects like Ogg Vorbis show that patents are not necessary to finance such research
Odd... You mean after a proprietary company has come in and created demand?? This would be similar to saying "Linux shows that the personal computer is a marketable (or desirable) device." No, Apple and IBM/MS did that. Before then, the PC was dead in the water. (Yeah, you should know)
So sorry to tell you, the prospect of making money drives business to invest in R&D that creates products. When OSS comes along and actually furthers the software industry instead of copying the work and functionality of current systems, I'll begin to have less faith in patents.
Besides, look at Visi-Calc... Everybody agrees that this guy got screwed for not patenting the spreadsheet, most tell him it was a colossal blunder, but we all hate swpats, don't we??
Your reality check was returned for insufficient funds.
~Hammy
Does MS have to pay out billions and billions of dollars?
Or will ATT be happy with MS removing the offending code from all versions of windows present and past? (in addition to a "smaller" fine?)
I am particularly fascinated by the idea of punitary damages, which traditionally triple damages.
Or will AT&T settle for having a link to AT&T Worldnet (their on-line service), be placed on the desktop of all newly installed machines running Win2.002? And would microsoft love to let them, place their MSN icon next to them (and slightly higher of course), and then drop AOL from the CD, since they are obviously being pro-competition by letting AT&T have a place on the desktop (traddtionly an MS only space).
Sounds far-fetched, but eerily possible.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
The unfortunate flipside to this is that this creates a lawyer deficit, kids will go into law school because of the extra mad money to be made in the field, and when everybody gets their heads out of their exhaust pipes, we'll have more lawyers than before. And they'll be looking at us.
At that point, you could get sued by somebody you never met for strangermony.
--The basis of all love is respect
I think what I was missing was the surrounding the text...
The next site to slashdot will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and start slashdotting it early!
Patenting compression codecs protects the work and research of those who develop them.
That's nice, but has nothing to do with the reason that patents exist (or only a small amount).
Patents exist in the United States (where this patent is held) to promote the sciences and useful arts. Specifically, the promotion is not for the benefit of companies, but for the public good.
Early on, it was determined that mathematical laws and other aspects of nature should not be patentable because, unlike the safety pin, these are inescapable aspects of our world. If they are patented, the damage to the public good far outweighs the benefit that we derive by getting these laws to be public (again) in 20 years.
So, the bottom line is a) would compression research and development continue without patent protection (certainly, there are many benefits, and this research was very lucrative before it was patentable) and b) will the public be harmed by the lack of published results in such research? I think that the answer to the latter question is yes and no. Some compression will be done in embedded processors and marked as trade secrets, and this may be lost. On the other hand, we've seen that computer programs can be reverse engineered for their algorithms, so I don't think that anything ever implimented in software will remain secret more than 5 years.
What's more, most of the research in this area starts in the accademic circles, and that work is almost always public.
Math patents are bad for research, bad for business (even the ones that get some benefit from the patents that they hold) and bad for consumers. Please, can we move on as a culture to questions that make sense?
--
Aaron Sherman (ajs@ajs.com)
Would R&D stop without patents? I doubt it very much... there will always be a competitive advantage to being the first to market with innovative products,
Not even close. I used to work for one of those huge, evil drug companies.
Could you give me even one reason why a drug company should spend the ~$250 million over 8-10 years it takes to get a drug approved, only to see a generic maker clone the drug the day it comes out at half the price?
That's only one example. There are tons of others. Without patent, you'll see huge sectors of R&D collapse overnight
Eric
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
Having said that, I think drug patents is one where reform is needed. You get the same protection for a totally new type of drug as for one which is a copycat of an existing one, with just enough changes to get past the original patent. The patent system should be jigged to encourange the new drugs, while currently it's better for comapanies to make the copycats.
If you are correct that the patent to which you refer claims a mathematical algorithm as an abstract idea, then you are, by definition, incorrect that it is valid.
The fact that an invalid patent had not yet been judicially declared invalid or subjected to reexamination has no bearing on whether the patent is, in fact, valid.
If you want to get into specifics, feel free to e-mail me and we can discuss the details of this particular patent off-line.
With all due respect, you appear to be relying upon the assertion of a non-legal academic in Croatia's view of United States law. I would prefer, instead, to rely upon the findings of the United States Court for the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive jurisdiction on such questions.
It is one thing to say that a patent is valid, it is another to determine whether it is so. It is one thing to say that the scope of a patent covers an algorithm, it is another to actually construe the claims to see that it does.
In short, United States Patent law is substantially more subtle than the average engineer's view of the subject. It is well-settled law that you cannot own a valid patent on a pure mathematical algorithm (with the caveats noted in my original post).
Someone who says differently is just selling something -- either overselling a patent he owns, or overselling a criticism of the patent system.
Although I am both an accomplished software engineer, programmer and patent lawyer, I'm just reporting my own study of the applicable law. Responsible readers should decide for themselves what is, the truth. But only after reading the primary source matter: the Patent Act and the relevant cases. (State Street Bank and the AT&T v. Excel cases are great places to start -- those would be the strongest from which I might argue your position if I had to do so. I suggest you review them and then consider how I might respond to that argument!)
This is a fine point, in practice, but a significant one at the end of the day. Notwithstanding the Federal Circuit's results in State Street Bank and AT&T v. Excel, it remains well-settled that you cannot patent a formula, mathematical algorithm or a law of nature. Each of these cases reaffirms this general principal of law.
That being said, it is likewise well-settled that the mere appearance or recitation of a formula, mathematical algorithm or law of nature in a patent claim does not invalidate the claim. What you can patent is a concrete application of these abstract ideas.
A patent directed to a novel catapult (assuming there were none in the prior art for the purpose of this example) can be described as a method for projecting massive objects through space with a parabolic trajectory. However, to be patentable, the claims must be directed to both the structure of the solution (the steps) and the context in which they are applied. A mere recitation of a method of using an inverse square law of physics would fail.
This is a fine point, of course -- good coverage can be obtained in practice going to the essence of the commercial benefit of a formula or law of physics. But the fact of the matter is that you can't patent math, even here in the United States of America.
Courts have always rejected the "sweat of the brow" argument for copyright and (IIRC) patents. Simply, "IP" (terrible term, I know) is not awarded on the basis that it is hard to develop. For patents, this is obvious, as a patent restricts even independent invention - if HP were to put all the CPU time and research into developing a codec that IBM had, and ended up with the same codec, they would still not be allowed to use it.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
Seriously though, having worked with numerous professors who get research grants I can tell you that it's all about approaching useful technologies, and developing intellectual property that is at least potentially useful for the corporation.
By the way, much of the Internet was developed by the government, for government use. This is a good thing, I agree. But it didn't become wide-spread until private corporations put in the money to connect the world. Before that, the connections only existed between specific Universities. I don't think you would want to leave the development of all future technologies to the government. And corporations are, and should be, motivated by money.
I know open source is a grand thing. But you'll find that open source programmers are either employed by corporations (who generally believe in IP), work for Universities (supported by corporate and government grants), or are still kids living off their parents (who work for corporations.) With the exception of a few open source based companies, everyone relies on intellectual property...
Thalia
It's not a requirement to sue that you have solid evidence of infringement. (For that matter, it's not even a requirement that you think they have.) If AT&T thinks MS might be infringing, they can sue and then find out -- civil litigants are required to make full disclosure of relevant information.
-Tom Duff
The safety pin is obvious to us because it's been in our culture for many years. The real question is how obvious was the safety pin at the time it was patented?
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
That's right effectively immediately I'm going to sue everyone who uses the alphabet to type their letters to submit to the courts.
Ok enough fscking around. Of course someone shouldn't be able to sue for basic things like math, etc., but when someone creates something unique and patents it they should weigh the factors entirely and determine whether or not someone else is going to rip it up and use it on another product. Wait... That's stealing the entire concept isn't it? So what's the big deal about another company trying to protect something they've worked hard to invent.
Don't lose site of the issue by claiming that someone is patenting math because that's not the case so one shouldn't be so biased. If you invented something in a method previously unfound and patent it, you have every right to protect what is yours. If you don't like it, then you should set out to create something on your own without having to rip someone elses work plain and simple.
Too many people want to be legal experts here without looking at the full scope of a case, and often everyone gets it distorted for many reasons. So if you invent someone would it be right if someone infringes on something you worked hard to perfect? Place yourself in the same situation as the company who owns the patent.
Yes patents are meant to innovate ideas not duplicate them and rewrite your name over them.
Want Root?
They don't mean compression as in bzip or gzip, they've patented a method to lower the file size of audio which you can play on demand not bunzip or gunzip.
It's the comments like these that make me wonder how biased some people can be when dealing with reality surrounding these cases, so here's a scenario for you:
You create a file folder mechanism to store data. This system takes files and says stores them in the following order (using your login name) h a r d a k e r and by placing them this way saves x amount of space. Now you patent this since it saves space and is innovative. Along comes someone else and takes your entire idea and recreates it word for word except they don't use your name to store the data they use m i c r o s o m e t h i n g
Is it fair for them to take your work and do this? Sure they could create something similar but by ripping your work word for word without your permission their wrong plain and simply.
It's fun to have a laugh at the expense of others but in a situation like this where everyone is suing everyone else its only a matter of time before things become so full of misplaced regulations, someone will sue you literally saving a file. This is the scenario you want to avoid
Want Root?
Funny you should use this example. Reform of pharmaceutical patents is needed at least as bad as software patents.
Ken
Compression Codec's are absolutely something that should be patentable.
Yes, UniSys dropped the ball then behaved badly with LZW and GIF. Yes, it is often better to not patent a codec, and the Fauhenfoer (sp?) institute has a questionable claim on LAME because their patent only covers the aucoustic tables which LAME does not use, but that doesn't mean compression patents are bad.
Developing new compression codecs is hard work. It requires a great deal more mathematical ability than I or the general slashdot community posses. They are a form of math, but they are a form you must go looking for. You must run experiments, put in long hours, and do a lot of work to successful design a new compression codec. They do not jump out and say "here I am" to the causal practioner.
Patenting compression codecs protects the work and research of those who develop them. PhD. in computer science do not come cheap, and neither do grad assistants, sysadmins, numbers chruncers, and everything else required to keep a research institution operating. No patents, no more R&D. No more compression codecs. No nifty new toys like the web, 3D graphics, or most of the other major developments in computer science. No more Real or QuickTime because you could never recover your R&D investment. No more MPEG.
Are many, many software patents bad? Obviously. Are the all bad? Absolutely not. Not all code is obvious. Not all "simple" code is easily deduced. Research should be protected. The patent office is the problem, not the idea of software patents.
Jason Denton Colorado State University [Thoughs and comments are my own, and not reflective of CSU]
you seem to have a poor grasp of what patenting is, or rather, what it has become thanks to the ignorance of the USPTO.
what you seem to be trying to protect is the copyright of an owner over their work. this is not disputed. if someone, or a business, spends lots of time developing a compression algorithm (for instance), then their work should be protected from being stolen. i agree with you 100%.
however, taking out a patent on something like a compression algorithm (or rather, the USPTO being small-minded enough to grant it), is tantamount to "all your compression algorithms that you may develop in the future, regardless of whether they're based on this work or developed entirely from scratch, are belong to me." a patent protects the whole idea of something (eg, in these days i'm sure Ford would have tried to patent the car.)
the problem is the USPTO is awarding very vague patents, such as this one AT&T is claiming, not on the basis of doing groundbreaking work, but simply because they apply for it. it's like domain-squatting, but with intellectual property. and that's what's sick about it.
/fross
First the obvious... Which T or soon to be mini T is sueing. Also I would have thought this patent would have belonged to AT&T Labs (Lucent). Or Bell Labs (whoever they are now).
Now the less obvious, this patent actually has roots back to at least 1971 and the switched digital network (ESS). How long should a technology/math patent live? Should the exist at all.
Even less obvious, Micro$oft has unleashed a very expensive new license system in the XP model. T's suit may be an attempt to obtain a more favorable arrangement. MickySoft should prepare for more from other corperations, technology does not operate in a vacuum.
Sounds like a chicken & egg thing - are those companies making more profit mainly because they can take advantage of their government-provided monopoly on a concept to milk money out of consumers that they would not otherwise be able to get?
The REAL question is: does SOCIETY receive a net benefit by granting entities (either individuals or companies) these hopefully-temporary monopolies on ideas?
Of course, this is complicated by the idea that nobody can agree on a good, quantitative way of measuring the overall health of a society (I submit that simple macroeconomic numbers like GDP are probably too myopic to be good measures of the health of an entire society).
One example & an assertion doesn't prove a case. And I'd argue that the intellectual property environment today is not what existed when patents were generally perceived as "useful".
Part of the reason it has been difficult to challenge new types of patents is because of a ruling by the Supreme Court that specific patents are not subject to this constitutional restriction, only that the patent office on the whole must do more to promote business than to harm it.
I'm not saying there isn't a case to be made, but you have to balance both sides. The patent system is there solely 'to promote progress in science and the useful arts' (as the US Constitution puts it), so any granting of patents on algorithms must pass this test.
So this is unfortunately only true if you can argue that the whole system of patents fails the test, if I understand correctly.
IANAL by the way.
LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
Those are of course two disconnected statements. After they've been served they will say:
And after settlement they will write:
Just a guess ;)
LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
If you really think that you can prove to the satisfaction of a court that the net impact of software patents is negative, and that they can and should be distinguished from other sorts of patents (which flies in the face of established US legal history where software patents are permitted primarily because they are considered technically indistiguishable from a black box that performs the same function as the software program), then why not go ahead and appropriate a few US patents.
You should be able to use any software patents with impugnity. Apple in particular seems litigous toward individuals who borrow their IP.
Personally I think it would be both difficult and problematic to prove. The best chance for repealing software patents IMO is to lobby congress to specifically change the law to make software patents illegal. If on the whole they cause more harm then good, they should be willing to listen... of course major corporations might disagree with you on which way the balance should go. And in the US both the courts and congress tend to believe that business knows what it is talking about when determining what has a net positive impact on the economy.
LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
Sorry no. Apple and Micro$oft 'settled' the matter as part of the $150 million Microsoft 'invested' in Apple back in 1997.
Odds are this will get 'settled' in a similar way. AT&T will be given a 'special price' on some M$ technology. AT&T got paid $5 bil by M$ for the Windows CE based cable box, so this will happen again.
Not much to see here. Time to move to a safe distance and watch the titans dance.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
How absurd is it to make a patented codec part of the H.323/H.324 standard? In this case, Microsoft is wearing the white hats for a change... they needed to implemented patented algorithms to make their audio conferencing truly interoperable. And they, uh, gave that software away for free, didn't they? Sounds like Microsoft is now getting sued for doing exactly what they keep accusing Open Source of doing, doesn't it?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
No the patent still lasts for the rest of its 18 (or whatever that number is) years and the proceeds go to the estate. IP patents should be no longer than 2 years.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
Few swpat applications contain a working implementation, most do not even give enough information for a skilled programmer to implement what is described.
That may be true for some software patents, but (for example) the United States patent on Nintendo's Dr. Mario game gives a full description of every variable and subroutine. Of course, I stumbled upon this patent after I had worked it out in my head after about two days of non-stop Dr. M play and after I released my clones of Tetris and Puyo Puyo.
The first claim of the patent also seems to cover Tetris 2, Blastris B, and some popular variations on Columns and Klax. Prior art? Not only that, the recent Dr. Mario 64 doesn't mention a patent number on the box, in the manual, or in the credits. (Dr. Mario 64 sucks anyway.)
NINTENDO: THIS IS YOUR INVITATION TO SUE ME UNDER U.S. PATENT 5,265,888. HERE'S THE EVIDENCE!
Will I retire or break 10K?
Should my recipe for chocolate-chip cookies be patentable?
I haven't looked that deeply into it, but I'd think the food produced by following a recipe is probably a patentable composition of materials under patent law. Many materials patents include a recipe, that is, a method (methods are patentable) for producing the material.
Of course, nothing you read on Slashdot is legal advice.Will I retire or break 10K?
What (specifically) was the patent about?
What did microsoft put in to Windows 95,98,ME,NT, etc.?
How about mp3/ra/ogg? Are they subject to this patent as well?
I would suspect AT&T will not be looking for cash from Microsoft (OK maybe a little cash) but the REAL thing they have to gain is influence. AT&T having a voice in the future evolution of Windows. Imagine how AT&T must salivate when they think they might have a voice in MS architecture, networking, etc...
Also, AT&T Worldnet might enjoy embracing, extending, and engulfing MSN. The idea of becoming a real competitor to AOL gives AT&T a woody.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
The issue is, software is easy to duplicate and an algoithm, once described, is usually "easy" (meaning "possible") to implement. So in a purely free-market world, you could never make much money from an algorithm: Someone else would use your research to make whatever product, and, since they don't need to do the R&D, they'd sell it cheaper than you could.
Patents are a direct governmental intervention into the free market (take that, all your uber-Libertarians) that artificially enhances the value of an algorithm by artificially restricting supply to the discoverer. Artificial scarcity works just as well as real scarcity, in that it pushes the price up. The theory is that this actually promotes more innovation because now people can reasonably expect to make a living at the R&D.
But there is no inalienable "right" to be rewarded for hard work. It only makes sense in IP law due to the secondary effects.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
After all, would PNG exist if Unisys hadn't tried to kill GIF? Would the zlib compress algorithm be developed if it weren't for software patents on other alogrithms? (From RFC #1951, "The format can be implemented readily in a manner not covered by patents," and, later, in the purpose section "The purpose of this specification is to define a lossless compressed data format that ... [c]an be implemented readily in a manner not covered by patents, and hence can be practiced freely[.]" And Ogg Vorbis is an attempt to create a audio codec not covered by the ... um, Fraven.. Frahuen... uh, the F whatever Institute's patents.
So it would seem that these patents do encourage innovation... to get around them!
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Research grants to universities, be they government grants or private grants, are not provided to purchase intellectual property. They are provided to advance the state of human knowledge.
It's interesting that you cite the web, for instance. Was the web developed in the course of establishing a patent? Hell no! How about the web browsers? NO again. How about other internet applications: email, netnews, file transfer, file sharing protocols like NFS or AFS. Are these patented? No. no, non, nyet. And yet they were developed anyway. Curious, isn't it?
It is not at all clear that even a perfectimplementation of the patent model would generate innovation in software more fairly and rapidly than would be the case if there were no software patents at all. When you consider that the patent office is so badly broken as it is, well, throwing the baby out with the bathwater is justified if I can't get rid of this fetid bathwater any other way.
"That crap shouldn't be patentable in the first place. Of course, in the US you can patent math. " That's like saying that you shouldn't be able to patent a new pharmaceutical becuase you think it's silly to patent chemistry. Allan
--
< )
( \
X
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
It's mostly subjective whether a software patent is obvious or not, and what's obvious to a technical employee may not be to a patent worker.
I think you misunderstand how the patent process works. The patent office pretty much bypasses the issue of obvious being subjective by replacing it with an objective measure instead via insane reasoning along the lines of "if there is no prior art, it can't be obvious".
This works just fine with the sort of things a garage inventer might come up with - a new type of child-safe latch f'instance, but in computer tech, the result is an economic disaster. it's obvious to all that when technology X achieves speed Y, then it can be used in conjuction with technology A to make product B. Yet obvious as this is, there usually won't be any prior art until X is about to achieve Y, at which point, a bunch of companies start working on the idea (it's obvious to all, eg one-click shopping) but the first to the patent office gets to strangle competition, because as there is no prior art, there is no "objective" proof that it's not obvious and without that objective proof, you better have something absolutely amazing up your sleeve to get the patent office to do anything about the damper they've just imposed on the eonomy, but of course, you don't. Thus one-click shopping is not obvious.
N.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
- Ed the Sock
If you have problems with that just go to http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html and search on American Telephone and Speech Coding for 1988.
Heh... now that's funny... oh wait... it's true...
Doh!
I am become Troll, destroyer of threads
Does MS have to pay out billions and billions of dollars?
Or will ATT be happy with MS removing the offending code from all versions of windows present and past? (in addition to a "smaller" fine?)
I am particularly fascinated by the idea of punitary damages, which traditionally triple damages.
Say the damage is assesses at 10 billion. times three is 30 billion, larger than their (MS) current cash on hand.
this is going to be fascinating to watch. After all ATT has enough money to feed the lawyers. And there could be a side effect to this in terms of ATTs ability to retain control of other market sectors.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Um, Xerox knowingly and willingly gave away their GUI to Apple. It was MS that came in and stole it. Apple already tried to kick M$ in the can for that infringement and was soundly beaten down for the attempt.
---------------------------
Pooty tweet
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Algorithms/Designs (unlike ideas like "hey, i'm gonna patent that single-click online ad idea even though it's plainly obvious to everyone") have always been patentable and should remain so.
Hey, we live in a capitalist society (or at least we hope we do) where we get paid for our labor. If you spend 10 years developing a really cool and original sound compression algorithm, like Fraunhofer Institute's MPEG Audio Layer-3 (MP3), which becomes really popular, why shouldn't you patent it and make some profit for all the work that you had put into creating it? We all have to make a living...
Did you know that the safety pin was patented? A ridiculously simple device, a metal coil with a protective clasp at one end. Mindlessly obvious. But it's an invention, and patentable, and very profitable (at least, for the guy who owned it.)
It's mostly subjective whether a software patent is obvious or not, and what's obvious to a technical employee may not be to a patent worker.
IBM has also filed a lawsuit against all Operating Systems for infringement of their second patent.... deleting data from a hard drive.
OK it wasn't funny but it's not far off.
Pinky: "What are we going to do tomorrow night Brain?"
Pinky: "What are we going to do tomorrow night Brain?"
Brain: "I would tell you Pinky but this 120 char limi
That "crap" should be patentable, especially when it cost years and millions of dollars to develop. Without those patents, we wouldn't have had mp3, and you wouldn't have been able to run all those stories on Napster versus the RIAA and linux-based mp3 players.
Yes, some software patents are silly (I mean, XORing a cursor? Come on!), but some are genuine inventions, and should enjoy protection similar to what a physical invention would enjoy. Perhaps not as long as physical devices though, since time seems to run much faster in the software industry.
Ok...so this might sound like a dumb question, but how did AT&T go about figuring out that MS infringed on their patent. Did they take some audio, put it thru the MS code and look at the output to see if it was similar to an output of the AT&T codec ? Or did they dis-assemble the MS codec and compare it to their own ? If the did dis-assemble the codec, didn't they break the EULA ? R
"Um, Xerox knowingly and willingly gave away their GUI to Apple."
This is not true. Xerox actually considered taking legal action against Apple.
Its easy to be a Socialist with other people's stuff.
I have no problem with someone making a profit off an new computer program or even a codec. If it is that good then they deserve to get paid for it. If that means requiring a patent then so be it.
Life isn't free, and just because you want something doesn't mean you deserve access to it for free.
Get off this socialistic attitude people, if things lose their value whats the point of striving to make it better.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Think about all the CPU time IBM had to devote, and all the research on the part of scientists to come up with the perceptual encoding and other technologies involved in creating that codec. That wasn't free CPU time and those salaries didn't magically appear. IBM owns that codec, and should be protected by patent law.
And since patent offices are unable to distinguish between 'difficult' things like codecs and trivial things like one-click (the criterion of 'obviousness' is not something a patent examiner understands very well), you have to ask whether we wouldn't be better off without patents on any field of software.
Or, er, better trained and more clued-in patent examiners? I mean, throwing out patents because they restrict freedom or whatever is one thing, but throwing them out just because the process needs to be improved a bit is another.
--
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
- Nietzsche
So was barbed wire, I think. The idea had been around for a while, but the manufacturing process was the clever part.
"What are we going to do tonight, Bill?"
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
No it's not
Lawsuits cost money. They get their money from selling their products. If everyone keeps on suing each other, only the public will pay the price.
If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
"Microsoft said it had not been served with the lawsuit and could not comment."
Yeah, see, they don't even recognize the fact that it exists yet, something tells me not much is going to come out of this. But still, there's nothing more exciting than a big fight between corporations that nobody seems to like, am I wrong? Maybe once AT&T loses, they'll try to get back at microsoft by stealing their patents, and it'll start a vicious war, we'll eventually be getting blue screens of death on our cell phones and getting calls during dinner time asking us to switch to Windows ME.
spacefem.com