Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft, Others, File "Stealth" Patents

Posted by timothy on from the on-padded-feet dept.

bobwyman writes "Microsoft and others seem to be filing large numbers of "stealth patent applications" that hide the identify of the "assignee", or owner, of a patent application even though the legal principle of 'Duty of Candor' may legally require them to disclose their interest in the patent. Concealment of patent assignees permits a number of opportunities for fraud in the patent process while also making it more difficult to study patterns of application activity and 'inventiveness.' If not already illegal to conceal assignments, there should be laws written to make it illegal in the future."

6 of 26 comments (clear)

  1. Great point... by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Since the patent process confers upon those with an interest in a patent an exceptional economic benefit in the form of a legal monopoly, it is particularly important for competitors to be aware when companies who already enjoy an effective monopoly are to augment their monopoly with patents. This is very much the case with a company such as Microsoft that has been ruled, in court, to have an effective monopoly. In such cases, one would assume that practices that might be forgiven others would not be forgiven to the monopolists. Such companies should be expected to have, if anything, an augmented duty of candor when pursuing the legal monopolies granted by the patent process.

    If Microsoft can continue to perpetuate their monopoly vis-a-vis managing content and applications for their platform (e.g. MSN appearing broken to Opera users, or in the more distant past with modifications to Java), their patents will not only be another slap in the face to competition, but will work with other unfair practices for a synergistic effect. They will use their platform to make standard their own quirks and extensions which are either closed-source, or too dynamic to follow; their patents can and will make it effectively illegal to try.

    --
    Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
  2. Oooh, now there's a punishment by freerangegeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A proper punishment for illegal abuse of monopoly power could be that you have to surrender all patents granted during the period of abuse to the public domain?

    I know, I'm way off topic....

  3. Not fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    As a patent attorney, I read this post with interest. However, the opinion expressed about Microsoft "fraudulently" hiding its ownership of a number of patents is simply not correct. There is no requirement to provide assignee information. When you pay the issue fee, there is a box where you can enter information about the assignee. If you leave the box blank, the assignee name is not printed on the patent. Even if a patent is printed with an assignee, the patent can be re-assigned. However, the Patent Office does not re-print the patent. While the Patent Office has a system for recording assignments on microfilm, recordation is not a requirement. The fact that government agencies are required to promptly forward assignments for recordation does not mean that private entities must do so. Although it may be in the "public interest", it is not a legal requirement. The fact that foreign patents list the name of the assignee is because, in most other countries, the assignee is the applicant. In the U.S., the inventors are always the applicant, regardless of whether the application has been assigned. The duty of candor relates to actions during prosecution of the patent. For example, if you become aware of relevant "prior art," you have a duty to disclose it to the patent office. I could see one scenario where someone filed a continuation application and falsely claimed that it was commonly assigned. That could be a duty of candor problem. However, that is not the situation here. The bottom line is that there is no "fraud" if Microsoft chooses not to identify its ownership of a patent.

  4. Re:Whazzat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The point of the article isn't that filing without an assignee is fraudulent. The point is that not disclosing who the patent is assigned to makes it hard to discover who has the duty of candor. If you don't know who has the duty, the duty is meaningless since you can't enforce the duty of an unknown person. The ability to hide who has the duty of candor encourages or enables fraud. Makes sense to me. It ain't academic.

  5. An abuse company that sometimes supplies software by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Interesting


    Often it seems that Microsoft is not a software company that is sometimes abusive, but is an abuse company that sometimes supplies software.

    For example, Microsoft keeps control describes ways in which Microsoft has made Windows XP more difficult for the customer.

    Earlier on Slashdot today there was an article about Microsoft deliberately trying to sabotage the Opera browser.

  6. Free software needs a patent portfolio by thogard · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What needs to happen is someone like the FSF or EFF need to set up a patent application for something about as generic as the pattent lawyers can think of. Then add every neat trick in the linux kernel and other free software as claim. Provide a database of "prior art" since the patent office can't disclose what you tell them is prior art, I would recomend finding a way to send them a copy of google's archives as a source for prior art. Once this nonsense has happend, it will be impossable for the patent office to issue a patent on it or any other software or business methods patent for at least a decade while they try to fiugre out whats going on. It will cost a bit of money (there may be a charge per claim)

    Whne I was a student working at a goverment office, one of the long time engineers told me that changing the goverment was like tring to stop a boulder rolling down a hill, you can't stop it but you can nudge it in a better direction. The problem is this nudge will cost a fortune but is worth it.