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.
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!
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.
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."
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!"
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.
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
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?
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]
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
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
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.
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...
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
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.
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.