Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Patent Problem
pens writes "Microsoft suffered utter defeat at a crucial pretrial hearing in what appears to be the highest-stakes patent litigation ever--one in which a tiny company called InterTrust Technologies claims that 85% of Microsoft's entire product line infringes its digital security patents."
Here come all the knee-jerk rally-behind-Microsoft comments.
If settlement talks fail and InterTrust prevails in court, it would be entitled to a court order halting sales of all those products.
... but hey ... we can dream right?
It'll never happen
An investor group led by Sony Corp. of America and Royal Philips Electronics bought the company in January for $453 million, hoping to convince consumer electronics and tech companies--beginning with Microsoft--of the need to license its patents.
This eliminates the buy-out option.
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
...and rebuked the company's lawyers for wasting her time by promising proof that never materialized--legal vaporware, in essence.
As far as I can tell, the patents that InterTrust owns cover the technology; They don't go into details on accomplishing what they describe.
Q1. What if Microsoft developed a way to carry out their authentication (using these trusts) either
1. On their own or
2. Without even hearing about InterTrust's patent?
Q2.In the case of #2, everyone is probably saying "It doesn't matter..." but if this was the case, how would/did InterTrust find out about it? Microsoft doesn't leave their source code lying around the internet; Now they do give SDK's, but (at least prior to .NET framework), the SDK is vague on how things like authentication happen. If you want to learn about NTLM, you need to go to a site like Security Focus. The helpfile in any SDK that Microsoft releases will not talk about the underlying technology (or lack thereof...heh)
Of course, I'm not against suing Microsoft, but I'm just curious as to how this whole suit came up... Maybe someone else out there can enlighten me?
If this company holds patents on DRM, what does this mean for DRM in Linux?
.NET networked computing platform, to name just a few. If settlement talks fail and InterTrust prevails in court, it would be entitled to a court order halting sales of all those products. InterTrust CEO Talal Shamoon asks rhetorically, "How much would that be worth to Microsoft?"
I did enjoy reading the article. My favorite quotes are:
an Oakland judge resolved 33 of 33 disputed issues against Microsoft and rebuked the company's lawyers for wasting her time by promising proof that never materialized--legal vaporware, in essence -- ouch!!
InterTrust claims that its inventions cover technologies that Microsoft has been weaving into its Windows XP operating system, Office XP Suite, Windows Media Player, Xbox videogame console, and
Not that Microsoft would ever allow that to happen and could probably keep this in courts until either 1) The patents expire or 2) XP is no longer supported or sold anyways.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
because you KNOW bad news for MS is popular...
The Articleand no thanks, don't need the karma nor the flames.
Let there be singing in the street! MS could be struck down! Oh happy day! May their quivering entrails be picked apart by Sun, MS, and IBM.
May they eternally be peeing into the wind.
May the public works decree that the road never rise to meet them.
May MS's stock go so low that Billy Boy OWES money.
May we hear him utter the words, "Would you like fries with that?"
This presents quite a dilemma. Do I root for Microsoft and hope quell the tide of overly broad patents? Or do I root for InterTrust and hope this derails DRM for the time being? I guess I'm leaning toward the option where the trial drags out for two years, but MS eventually wins. That way at least the patent gets busted (because we know that MS would eventually license and implement DRM anyway).
While it's tempting to get a laugh out of a little company handing it to Microsoft for its use of DRM technology, of all things, this is yet another B.S. piece of patent litigation. InterTrust, according to the article, is now nothing more than "a patent portfolio, 30 employees, and this lawsuit." Microsoft, like all other technology corporations, has its own bulky patent portfolio --- which is useless defense against a company that makes no use of its own patents, much less anyone else's.
It'd be funny if Microsoft used its considerable political influence to fix this patent problem, and wound up killing SCO as a side-effect. Hey, it may be cheaper than licensing DRM from InterTrust...
Hey, this could be good either way it turns out. On one hand, if anybody has the legal/political muscle to reform software patent silliness it's Microsoft.
On the other hand, if InterTrust wins the patent licensing fees will probably make DRM much less of a nuisance, at least for another 14 years. And it will totally kick MS in the balls.
The requested URL
....that software patents are just a bad idea.
Hmmmm. Microsoft? The legal, leeches attempting to enforce software patents? A true /.er's Dilemma (tm)!
Roving Web-Teleoperated Robot
This suit deals with DRM, which I don't like in the first place, but it's backed by Sony and Philips. Sony isn't particularly fond of MS to start off. I think MS should settle this one out of court for say, $42B?
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
If you were a security software company, would you really want to advertise that you were at all responsible for the security behind any M$ product?
A patent might take out 85% of Microsoft's products? Ok, new /. motto: Information doesn't want to be free!! IP forever!!!
Microsoft's Patent Problem
.NET networked computing platform, to name just a few. If settlement talks fail and InterTrust prevails in court, it would be entitled to a court order halting sales of all those products. InterTrust CEO Talal Shamoon asks rhetorically, "How much would that be worth to Microsoft?"
In the biggest patent case ever, the tech giant is getting trounced.
FORTUNE
Tuesday, July 22, 2003
By Roger Parloff
Last month, when Microsoft announced its bellwether decision to award employees restricted stock instead of options, it also made news in a federal courtroom--the kind of news you keep quiet about.
Microsoft suffered utter defeat at a crucial pretrial hearing in what appears to be the highest-stakes patent litigation ever--one in which a tiny company called InterTrust Technologies claims that 85% of Microsoft's entire product line infringes its digital security patents. (See Can This Man Bring Down Microsoft?)
InterTrust's engineers developed and patented what they say are key inventions in two areas: so-called digital-rights management and trusted systems. The technologies are essential to the digital distribution of copyrighted music and movies, and to maintaining the security of e-commerce in general. At its prebubble height, InterTrust (founded in 1990) employed 376 people and marketed its own software and hardware products; today it consists mainly of a patent portfolio, 30 employees, and this lawsuit. An investor group led by Sony Corp. of America and Royal Philips Electronics bought the company in January for $453 million, hoping to convince consumer electronics and tech companies--beginning with Microsoft--of the need to license its patents.
Microsoft argued in court that crucial phrases in InterTrust's patents were too vague to be enforceable, and that others required such narrow interpretation that they would have been hard for Microsoft to infringe. But in her July 3 ruling, an Oakland judge resolved 33 of 33 disputed issues against Microsoft and rebuked the company's lawyers for wasting her time by promising proof that never materialized--legal vaporware, in essence.
"This is simply another step in a long legal process," says a Microsoft spokesman, putting the best face on it. "Microsoft will continue to defend itself against what we believe are groundless and overbroad claims."
As agreed before the hearing, the parties now enter a round of settlement talks. Though InterTrust declines to place a pricetag on the suit, it's hard to imagine the company settling now for any sum that does not have a "B" in it. InterTrust claims that its inventions cover technologies that Microsoft has been weaving into its Windows XP operating system, Office XP Suite, Windows Media Player, Xbox videogame console, and
Alright slashdotters, who's the good guy? The one being bagged on in the software patent arena, or the one standing up to the 800lb gorilla?
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
If SCO and this company merged, they could rule the world..
The can of worms is finally starting to open completely.
Interesting days to come, no doubt.
The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
Since they are so interested in intellectual property, they must be overjoyed that the courts are protecting IP so zealously
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
So in this case, are we for or against software patents, and if we are for them, how is this not hypocritical?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Patents just screw everyone randomly.
No one knows what is patented. If you develop something, and someone has a patent on it, then you find out.
God spoke to me
Ok, you have SCO attacking Linux over licensing code. You have this small company (but backed by larger companies SONY and Phillips) attacking Microsoft. Where does someone turn to get away from all the legal hassles?
Ignoring the trolls, would a *BSD system be better off, because SCO doesn't seem to be claiming anything related to BSD.
Also, could this be a nail in the coffin of DRM? Or, would MS just pay the license fee, and jack the consumers for it anyway?
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation
Unfortunately, your average investor isn't clued in enough to realize that InterTrust has a very good case while SCO has a very bad one. Thus, the recent runup in SCO stock.
The cake is a pie
Hold on here. Are tech copyrights now good?
Damn you slashdot political climate, damn you!
It took me years to figure out all of the nuances, then they had to go screw it up again.
So, for the next 5 minutes, goofy tech patents rule!
if so, it would seem they'll expire...uh, approx never
Queens of the Stone Age - they rule
Intertrust won, and the courts found Microsoft guilty. This could potentially lead to every user of microsoft products infringeing IP! Their new licenseing agreements would totally backfire. Could be interesting...
Visualize the world of wine
MS will just wave a few bills in their face and say "shut up, go away." And they will. Either that or MS will take some of their $40B and just buy the whole company from them. Then the IP is theirs. This isn't that had of a thing to do for them...I mean, they're rich!
"All your bling-bling are belong to us."
-InterTrust Technologies, to Microsoft Inc.
"Do not hold strong opinions about things you do not understand."
InterTrust claims that its inventions cover technologies that Microsoft has been weaving into its Windows XP operating system, Office XP Suite, Windows Media Player, Xbox videogame console, and .NET networked computing platform, to name just a few. If settlement talks fail and InterTrust prevails in court, it would be entitled to a court order halting sales of all those products.
Talk about winnning the lottery. I bet SCO is envious as hell about this one because if Intertrust wins they are going to get paid beyond belief.
SCO in a last ditch attempt will try to claim Microsoft is stealing their IP also and fail miserably and slowly fade away into the abyss.
You aren't free to do anything, until you've lost everything.
I must watch too much TV, because when I read the part about the judge rebuking Microsoft's Attorney for promising to deliver proof and then delivering nothing but hot air, I could only see Judge Judy scolding some white-trash trailer park yokel who was mad at her mother in law for playing with her children on days ending in "-y".
How sad is that?
Maybe open source should be immune from patent infringement lawsuits, and only proprietary software vulnerable? Then I'd know who to root for here.
you are the reason for this site
Since there's not much to be done about it anyway, have a good long laugh about how a technique used as a bludgeon by megacorporations can come back and bite them.
Put if software patents are bad (and I believe they are) they're bad even when someone is putting the boot into Microsoft. Let's face it, this may be a 'small' company putting the boot in, but it's a 'small' company owned (mostly) by Sony. Patents still only help those with very deep warchests.
We must continue to oppose software patents and that means all software patents, because that's the only way we can maintain a playing field level enough for us small guys to play at all.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
And what kind of patents are they? Are they the
same old vague and inconsistent patents being
tossed around by Amazone or Divine Inc?
If so, then I have no sympathy for them, and I
hope MS crushes them as a warning to others.
I'm a Sun and Linux guy, not a big MS fan at all,
but bad patent schemes are just that, bad.
Vip
M$ bad. Patents bad. Digital rights managment bad.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
In my opinion, one word can pretty much sum up the whole of the my (and I'm sure, many others') feelings for this happy, happy moment. w00t.
You know you're a nerd when you can mathematically prove that you have no life.
The one who kill by IP will die by IP.
(in fact, I'm not sure of the formulation, because I only know the french version : "celui qui tue pars l'épée périra par l'épée." French speaking people can get the word play between IP and épée)
While I wouldn't mind seeing DRM or Microsoft take the hit in this case, I seriously hope that software patents take the biggest hit (Dare I hope for abolishment? One can dream, can't they?)
If they are claiming that the .NET framework somehow infringes on their patents I'd be really worried about whether those claims could be extended to Java and J2EE.
All patents are bad! Get it through your head!
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
If I was InterTrust, I'd be quiet about the patents. With as much "digital security" problems Microsoft has, I would find it rather embarrassing to say that they were mine. InterTrust, what integrity you may have had just went down faster than Jenna Jameson in a porno video.
Until Slashdot fixes the funny modifier, use insightful or interesting. The poster knows your intentions.
On the other hand, if InterTrust wins the patent licensing fees will probably make DRM much less of a nuisance,
Nope, it just means legit things like the iTunes Music Store and BuyMusic will have to charge more money to cover the licensing costs. It means that other attempts to figure ways to legitimatly allow users inexpensive online access to content will be stalled/aborted. It means that the RIAA and their ilk will continue to have a convenient excuse to go after file sharers because there STILL won't be a viable legal alternative.
But that's why I included question 2 ;-)
Lemme repost it for you:
.NET framework), the SDK is vague on how things like authentication happen. If you want to learn about NTLM, you need to go to a site like Security Focus. [securityfocus.com] The helpfile in any SDK that Microsoft releases will not talk about the underlying technology (or lack thereof...heh)
Q2.In the case of #2, everyone is probably saying "It doesn't matter...(insert Tmack's comment here)" but if this was the case, how would/did InterTrust find out about it? Microsoft doesn't leave their source code lying around the internet; Now they do give SDK's, but (at least prior to
That was really the point of my post... Q2.
Sure, we all like to see the little guy yank Micro$oft's chain. But software patents are an insidious practice, meant to stifle market competition and innovation.
Think about the implications if MSFT loses. Sure, the evil empire is bought to its needs. Meanwhile, Amazon's patent on "one click shopping" and other nasty tricks get support in federal court.
I want software patents stopped now. Let the demise of MSFT take care of itself.
... apoligize to Sony about the XBox and just drop it altogether in exchange for a favorable license?
I never knew you could patten "Bad"
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Intertrust Docbox.
As used in Adobe's PDF reader as a security module.
You remember PDF security?
The one which uses ROT-13?
That's Docbox.
Hello, Microsoft buyout.
MS will not be affected and will get out of this at the end, again with a slap on the wrists.
I hope i am wrong but i do highly doubt it, until it happens i'm not celebrating.
Jonathanjk.com
The real question is, what is the agenda of InterTrust Technologies?
If they have someone motivated by money, this will either be settles out of court or they'll get a fraction of all profits on the 85% of the MS products that infringe the patent. Or, they'll just sell the patent/company.
If they are motivated to protect what's theirs, they'll probably settle out of court.
If they are *nix users, perhaps they'll try to put a serious dent into M$.
I find the latter highly unlikely, though. If you throw enough money at any problem, you can make it go away. That's probably what will happen here.
"Do not hold strong opinions about things you do not understand."
I don't care if they're the evil empire (tm) or if their office suite is the biggest piece of crap on the market and people are so blind as to use it regardless...
1. If Microsoft loses and everyone supports it, MS buys the patents and locks everyone else out
2. This encourages software patents yet again for concepts that should not be patentable.
AC
"My pet peeves are politicians and people that use apostrophes incorrectly, eg. DVD's - what does the DVD own??"
Ok, let me say first I hate all that Microsoft stands for. Having to use (and support) their software sickens me. However, this type of dispute is indicative of the major problems today with IP patents. Broad process patents such as these will hurt us all in the end, tying up the courts, infringing upon many "good" companies needs to innovate their software products.
While i would like to hammer M$ as much as anyone, this is just the tip of the iceberg for litigation and everyone will feel the pain sometime soon..
Don't forget that the DRM Microsoft uses was cracked. InterTrust is suing over broken software.
It seems obvious to me that Microsoft sould sue InterTrust for patenting Microsoft's idea before Microsoft had a chance to think it up...
does this mean that Sony could end up making X dollars on every Xbox sold?
Intertrust's suit could hardly prompted by SCOs as it has been wending its way through the court system for two years now. It's a company that was trying to sell DRM "technology" but could not because of Microsoft's fun competitive tactics. It currently has no assets other than patents because it essentially ran out of money (at which point Sony and Philips bought it to keep this lawsuit going.)
The cake is a pie
Then all you water drinking pirates would have pay me royalties!
$8.95/mo web hosting
Before DRM was even heard of, MS did infact make a few visits to Intertrust and MS to remember the quote from teh article, "were given an education in DRM". Before that MS weren't doing this, after the many meetings, MS started to implement their own DRM solutions, similar to embrace and extend, however they didn't extend enough so much that they bought Intertrust when they had the chance. The first time i heard this story was nearly over a year ago and i thought this had died down, however since it has now gone to court, this all seems tangible.
Jonathanjk.com
I'm giddy with delight.
I wish the article had more information. I'd like to know whether or not this was a Markham hearing or a motion for summary judgment. A dismissal of motion for summary judgment might not be as big of a deal as the article seems. However, a Markham hearing decision could be big trouble for MS, as that is when the court decides definitions of patent claims as a matter of law, and takes said definititions out of the hands of juries.
Anyway, I'd be interesting in reading more about the case and more about the details of the hearing.
That's what a patent search is. You pay a lawyer and it's his job to see if someone's got it patented yet. If not, you patent it. This is standard procedure, even in college we're told to look around to see if the work we're doing has been done before to avoid wasting time on an already solved problem. Maybe not a full blown search, but you still have to cover your ass depending on what you're working on.
To all the slashdot readers jerking their knees with statements like "they say the SCO suit and..." need to look here first.
The cake is a pie
Outcome one
Microsoft agree to pay InterTrust BIGNUM dollars. Microsoft hurt badly and have their eyes on other things for a while. Open Source benefits.
Outcome two
Microsoft lean on the US Government and the WTO to outlaw software patents. Open Source benefits.
Let there be singing, rejoicing and dancing in the streets!
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
"At its prebubble height, InterTrust (founded in 1990) employed 376 people and marketed its own software and hardware products; today it consists mainly of a patent portfolio, 30 employees, and this lawsuit."
Great, an IP only company. Wonderful
"Microsoft argued in court that crucial phrases in InterTrust's patents were too vague to be enforceable, and that others required such narrow interpretation that they would have been hard for Microsoft to infringe."
Don't we claim stuff like this all the time about Patents. This is a test of someone with real money being able to say the USPTO is full of shit and these patents are vague adn useless.
Win or lose, the more of this crap the better. It will eventually get so bad that someone will change the USPTO.
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
If I had MS shares, i'd sell em now, because after Sony is done with them, they will only be making joysticks for the PS3.
"ADOT Troll"?
This guy copied this exact comment from this post, from the same article, and the mods didn't see it!
"those who live by the sword, die by the sword"
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
If you could just show me posts which advocate the end of the patent system (and copyrights). I feel like I'm the only one...everyone else wants some half-assed weakening of it, like lower copyright terms or no "software patents". Idiots.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
We're now seeing the inevitable result of a system wherein the unequal playing field forces companies to do battle in the intellectual property realm rather than in the marketplace. Rather than come to market first with the best products, it's now about building up an intellectual property portfolio and torpedoing whomever surfaces first.
The business climate that Microsoft helped to engender has rebounded back on them with a vengeance. But that doesn't make InterTrust the good guys. They're just slimy opportunists who have elected to go along with the prevailing attitude, which is "Build up a company the old fashioned way? Screw that! Let's sue instead!"
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
This guy merely copied this post from 4:21 pm: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=72205&cid=6515 503
The Adot Troll posted a copy at 4:29 pm.
These trolls suck.
Let's face it, this may be a 'small' company putting the boot in, but it's a 'small' company owned (mostly) by Sony. Patents still only help those with very deep warchests.
Lots of different ways to look at this case, and frankly i'm not sure exactly where my opinion on it stands just yet.
But this idea you floated about the litle guy making nothing off patents is clearly wrong. These were little guys who came up with their patents a while ago, they later sold rights to them to Sony and Phillips for 453 million dollars who are now trying to make the "big score" on their investment. If you ask me, the 453 mill "sure thing" they got was far from a pittance to a company of their size (even if Sony does make billions off it, they took a gamble with that 453 that they could have possibly lost)
Waiting to see if any potential settlement will be paid up in SW licenses....
Now we return to your daily deposition..
I know the subject seems to be DRM, or copyrights, or whatever else we see in the geek news each week. However I still believe the real issue lies with the legal system as a whole.
Civil lawsuits are spreading like wild fire, in many cases a plantiff will launch litterally dozens of suits, drowning the opposition in paper!
To make matters worse, many lawsuits have no real foundation in logic or fact. Try it out! Gain access to a couple of civil suits where you know the underlying facts and logic, then try and make sense out of the suit.
It's a real sobering exercise, and one that will leave you praying you never get caught up in this world.
.
I'm against most modern uses of patents, and generally against the idea of making property out of ideas, but if it's going to happen, and someone's going to get screwed by it, well, this could almost make it worth while.
Still, if I got to choose between (a) a sane papent and legal system and (b) a ssytem which gouges Microsoft the way they deserve, I think I'd take (a). I think option (a) would include (b).
See what I've been reading.
Some hacker took over your box and made someone with a phat line mad.
Pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
Perhaps you missed the part of Sony and Phillips owning this company. Sony would like nothing more than to make Microsoft go byebye .. And Microsoft cant buy Sony.. These patents aren't simple broad things they made up, they are very clear and concise which the judge pointed out. There is no one to blame for the demise of Microsoft other than themselves.
Realize that it would not be in Microsoft's best interests to reform patent laws--do not forget the nice sizeable patent portfolio that they have (including 2 patents of their own for a DRM OS).
No, the likely outcome of this is that MS will settle this out of court for a nice big fat fee from its cash horde, and patents will continue to stifle competition and innovation, and MS will not be delayed in implementing DRM (likely that, as they did with the anti-trust suit, they will most likely continue implementing DRM as this goes along regardless of the court action).
"Life is tough but we're tougher. You only get what you give, so give all that you've got." --Tony LaRussa
I wonder when they will send their FUD letters to every MS customer telling them that they may be using improperly licenced code, and may be required to destroy all copies of their MS software, or start cutting checks to Intertrust?
No matter which side you are on, it is hard not to appreciate the irony of it.
My rights don't need management.
Hell ya, you go Intertrust!!!!
The feds couldn't beat them, AOL is spreading it's legs while Mozilla is 6-feet under and half the content sites are requiring IE on Windows for media downloads!
But SCO/Caldera/whatever (Who kicked ass on MS over Dr. DOS) succedded in winning actual damages, and I sure as hell hope these guys do too, though I hope they don't succumb to the dark side of litigation as SCO has.
But it might just be that the little guys will be the Achillies heel for the Redmond Goliath in the end and do what the Fed could not.
I hope to god Intertrust stakes the farm on this and refuses settlement. Lord knows a product pull + rewrite + damages would set this DRM crap back to the stone age.
I think I just found my own personal Jesus Christ and Savior in InterTrust!
"Yes, but why have billions when we could have---millions?"
Isn't the majority of this post a copy-and-past job from ADOT Troll (687975) above?
Right after Microsoft offers to pay for anyone intellectual propery claims against it's users, someone comes along and claims that MS is violating their IP rights. Theoretically, this company could send out cease and desist letters to all users demanding that they stop using all MS products containing the infringements, and then we could all hand our legal bills to MS to pay off for us, per their new program
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
That's exactly the piece of information I was looking for. Thanks mjh. All these "intellectual property" disputes seem to be resolved in a very subjective manner; I guess that's why we pay lawyers so much $$$.
Caleb
The Intertrust patents are pretty specific. They lost their business because Microsoft used their patents and essentially gave them away for free in their products, destroying the value for Intertrust in selling their technology. Though all that remains of Interust are patents and lawyers, at one point they had almost 400 employees. 400 employees worked for several years to produce technology that was co-opted by Microsoft. All of those employees lost their jobs because Microsoft used their patents.
Though the majority here just say that 'software patents are bad' , there is some justification for patents. The main problem with software patents is the USPTO and it's inability to properly check patents; issuing overbroad patents that cover overly generic stuff.
These aren't submarine patents or anything else as Intertrust sued Microsoft shortly after talks between the two companies broke down when Microsoft was first introducing DRM into Windows Media Player.
Gee, I must be such a numbnuts that I just imagined the cash I made on "INTR" in the year before Sony and Phillips bought them out, taking them of the market. (A year in which their stock value went up by a factor of four.)
The cake is a pie
Or they could just say fuck it and delete the DRM. We all knew it was crap anyway. Then RIAA member and Intertrust shareholder Sony would have no choice but to shove its patents firmly up its ass.
"How much would that be worth to Microsoft?"
.22 shorts. subsonic, real quiet, and close in, does what needs to be done. yeah, that's the ticket.
about $2, or the cost of a box of
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
A description in an abstract has no legal bearing on the scope of the patent granted, nor does excerpts of language drawn from the specification. The claim is the thing. Arguing in general terms from a broad sweeping apprimation of the patent craft is simply quibbling about a straw man. As to your conclusion, you might be right, you might be wrong -- but you haven't come anywhere near making a slightly credible case.
If you think a claim from a patent is valid, spell out the claim, offer a plausible construction of the claim and tell us what is the prior art. then we have a useful conversation going.
Anything else is sloppy demagoguery.
I suspect that you are retarded. But even if I'm wrong, it's clear to me that you are deeply ignorant of anything that's being discussed in this forum, or in the original article which either you did not bother to read, or you were unable to understand.
But don't worry too much about it, because you're obviously the majority, and there's safety in numbers here on Channel Slashdot's Fun-Time Circus Show.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Because, what if they bought it for $5 billion?
Would they have a lock on all digital distribution?
On another note, this is hilarious:
Here is the company, MS, that said some weeks ago when they licensed SCO code for NO REAL PURPOSE AT ALL that "Microsoft respects intellectual property and other people's rights"
They are so full of it.
I use FreeBSD and MacOS X. None of this shit bothers me one steenking bit.
LoL!
Bwahahahahaha!
Mwuhuhuhuhuhu!
I am so sick of this esoteric patent corporate raider bullshit. I hope MS fucks them up!
Not only is this true, but also if 85% Microsoft's products are in violation of these patents, then Linux and other free products are also threatened too. These patents could apply to much more than DRM. What about certain encryption and authentication methods, for example. This case sets a dangerous precedence for the whole industry, especially with the SCO vs IBM thing looming.
It means that the transaction costs (pure economic waste) of "secured" bits get even higher, pricing "secured" bits even farther out of the market relative to rational systems like Baen's WebScriptions.
And that's a Good Thing.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Since, as the article pointed out that an injunction would essentially kill Microsoft, Microsoft will obviously seek to setlle if it looks like things are going badly for them. But, for a minute imagine that InterTrust was out to get Microsoft, and was not going to settle. It seems that a number of branches of the government, determined to rely on Microsoft software for their security, view Windows as crucial to National Security. Therefore, is it even possible for Microsoft to lose this case?
...whoever's trying to screw Microsoft!
However, my gut feeling is that Microsoft will simply funnel money to the weasels so as to shut them up. They'll continue to push DRM as long as they see profit in it. After all, it is never about the technology approach with them. They'll use whatever technological approach is most convenient, which means they'll either pay off the weasels or they'll buy competing technology from someone else, and shift their approach accordingly.
You can do that sort of thing when you have more money than God.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
embrace Linux if they can't sell XP anymore...
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
Why, I was telling a friend just the other day that there is no such thing as a Slashdot double standard. Never. Na-ha. No way.
When I got to the page with the article there was a big ad for Windows Server 2003.
No electrons were harmed creating this post, though some may have been subjected to electrical and/or magnetic fields.
claims that 85% of Microsoft's entire product line infringes its digital security patents
Patents aren't the only thing Microsoft is known for infringing. But you already knew that.
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
...would never, ever violate someone else's Intellectual Property? was I mistaken?
According to this article from PCWorld Microsoft has agreed to pay for its customers' full legal bills if they get sued over intellectual property issues relating to its products.
My bet is that Microsoft agreed to that as a statement in the SCO battle. I'm wondering if they may soon be regretting that.
In the political world it's the ridiculous cases that often drive forward change, and in the legal world they help flesh out the vague boundaries of the law.
Whether it's the cost of AIDS drugs in Africa or some patent portfolio company pulling the rug out from Microsoft, it's things that this the illustrate the societal implications of patent silliness and make people question whether the status quo is desirable. The more big headlines get generated by ridiculous patent cases the more likely it is for something in the patent world to change.
Bring on the comedy!
Should we start practicing disparaging remarks about $nterTrust Technologies?
This reminds me of watching a Dallas Cowboys vs. Oakland Raiders game. The only thing I can root for is injuries.
I detest this concept of overly broad patents, I only dislike Microsoft extremely. I can't say I really want to see Microsoft win, but I *definately* don't want to see the mis-application of patents continue.
Ultimately I think overly broad patents and the mis-use of the patent system constitute a far greater threat to Linux and Open Source than anything Microsoft could do. In fact they constitute a huge threat to the entire concept of freedom.
Doug Tolton
"The destruction of a value which is, will not bring value to that which isn't." -John Galt
I have not been DoSsed lately, but upon reviewing my connection logs, I see there has been a substantial effort to connect to me on port 1214.
It did not trigger any alarms to me, as knowing this is only Kazaa clients out there querying me to see if I play. I expect to see a lot more internet "cold calling" to start up as the **AA's begin to force additional measures of anonymity and cryptography technologies as a result of their massive lawsuiting operations.
I stealth all ports I am not actively using, but log any connection attempt to them. Thank goodness for open source, where things like this can be verified and known honest, unlike that crap businessmen buy and have no idea what it may be doing behind the scenes.
I can appreciate the ideal-world spirit of the desire to have no slavery. Unfortunately, it doesn't jibe with a cotton economic model, and cotton seems to be the most effective model out there right now. Uncreative moron. You fear change because you are...stupid!
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
Timeo idiotikOS et dona ferentes
"This is simply another step in a long legal process," says a Microsoft spokesman, putting the best face on it. "Microsoft will continue to defend itself against what we believe are groundless and overbroad claims."
And from the comments that Microsoft has made concerning the SCO vs IBM situation they also are very committed to respecting other people's IP rights.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
So, since MS is bad, and patent system is hurting MS, then patent system is good, right? But patent system is bad, so MS is good?
Damn cognitive disonance always gives me an ice cream headache...
You think Sony is going to sell a patent to Microsoft!? I suppose you figure Sony'll just sell them the rights to the Playstation 3 next...
The cake is a pie
...so why should we?
The fact is patents exist, and if there's an advantage in using them for some good (I'm not sure this is so good, but we can let the bullies fight each other for a few rounds), then it should be done. Yes its a bit of moral greyness if you are so blindly against patents, but those larger companies would use the law against you.
I liken it to playing a game of Tekken, or Starcraft, or whatever your favorite multiplayer game is. You may not like an aspect of the rules and wish them to be changed, but if you're in a tournament theres nothing keeping your opponent from using 'exploits' or 'cheese' or whatever you wanna call it. The point is when you're playing to win, all avenues must be considered and also what your opponent is capable of must be considered as well.
Microsoft would be doing the same thing to much lesser software companies so it only serves them right that it's happening to them. I dont think any business is playing to be fair, but they are playing to win. Moral grey area or not, this could be a good thing.
I can't think of a good sig...
It's the DRM components in .NET. I don't believe Java and J2EE contain the same sorts of things.
The cake is a pie
Word of the day
Ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!!
Isn't it funny that Sony, of all companies, one that BUYS DRM from M$ is the one behind this? Ha ha ha ha ha!
Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of assholes.
I was referring to the encryption components you jackass.
This is extremely bad. This case basically means that being a software company that actually produces products is very risky in the current environment. A non-producing company can abuse the patent system and take away a good deal of your money.
This is not encouraging research -- the only legitimate reason for patents -- rather this sort of regulation may be enough to sink the entire software industry if left unchecked.
First the Hussein brothers, now this. Did Hammurabi just get promoted or something?
FLAC - Free Lossless Audio Codec
I liken it to playing a game of Tekken, or Starcraft, or whatever your favorite multiplayer game is. You may not like an aspect of the rules and wish them to be changed, but if you're in a tournament theres nothing keeping your opponent from using 'exploits' or 'cheese' or whatever you wanna call it. The point is when you're playing to win, all avenues must be considered and also what your opponent is capable of must be considered as well.
All well-and-good, but the difference between the game of Real Life and Tekken or Starcraft is this: we influence the rules. And if the rules are stupid, we can (hopefully!) do something about it.
Until such time as the rules are fixed, then yes: you are correct. Use the rules against them. But that shouldn't stop us from striving with every available erg against Rank Stupidity.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Ha-Ha!
I am not a lame poster...
I am really not a lame poster...
I am certainly not a lame poster...
I am most definitely not a lame poster...
I am in no way a lame poster...
I am not even related to a lame poster...
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
Snarf
Microsoft is despicable, but this litigation lunacy is hurting us all. I won't do the mindless "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" bit.
It's about time Microsoft finally looses at something. BTW Neil Peart is the king of drums.
Bananas?
Though InterTrust declines to place a pricetag on the suit, it's hard to imagine the company settling now for any sum that does not have a "B" in it.
So that would be about twenty bucks, then?
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
If DRM was dropped, wouldn't that mean the major labels would drop the service?
----- "Blame the guy who doesn't speak English." -- Homer J. Simpson
This isn't going to stop microsoft. They'll pay this company off and contine on unabated.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
With the blind (re, unthinking) anti-Microsoft and anti-software-patent fervour on Slashdot, it should be interesting to see which one is more detested here. Am I the only one that gets bored by the constant rehash of these and a couple of other (SCO for one) subjects here? And the only one stupid enough to keep coming back just because one out of ten posts here are actually interesting and original?
While I am not in favor of companies using broad patents to sue other companies, I hope that MS might learn a lesson. While I am not commenting about the merits of InterTrust's case since I don't know anything about it, MS has knowlingly infringed on patents before: Stac Electronics, Goldtouch. Maybe this will change their mindset that smaller companies can't fight them.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Can patents make it more convenient for big wealthy people to fuck the little guy? Or do they create too big of a risk that some big guy might actually get in trouble themselves?
Now, for those new to the debate, lets go over the simple reason why software patents are categorically, provably, and obviously insane.
Assume that the patent office is adequately staffed with an army of geniuses with eiditic memories, who never make poor judgements about what is patent-worthy and what isn't.
Anyone writing code must have to know the entire patent database - millions of patents. They would also have to stay current - thousands of new applications a day, on a slow day.
Impossible? Duh.
"Uh, now what?"
Every piece of software is a ticking patent time bomb - a multi-million dollar civil litigation waiting to happen.
Big players enjoy (and lobby for) patent systems like this because its another tool in the toolbox. You build a portfolio, and it's a great way to cost your competitors millions, threaten their business, their reputation, create FUD, etc. The cases drag on for decades, and hey, it's interesting how whoever has more money to fight them seems to always come out on top.
My greatest dream is that a giant like Microsoft will get snared in its own net, and actually start fighting to end software patents, so at least there'll be one less absolutely awful piece of economy-destroying legislation for our children to enjoy.
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
No it doesn't. Does he need to post the question a THIRD time? The core of his question was "how would/did InterTrust find out about it". Talking about what patents do and don't cover doesn't answer that. He's curious, did they get ahold of the source somehow? Did a former employee break an NDA and blab? Is this going to turn out the be something as shady as the SCO situation? I think that's what he was asking.
Yup, that covers it. Thanks, LK
After reading about some major courtroom losses suffered by MS over the last few years, I wondered if they'd had any major leadership changes in their legal team.
o v0 1/11-21NeukomPR.asp
A quick search found the following article documenting Bill Neukom's departure at the end of 2001. Is it possible that he was really *that* good of an attorney? He beat the Apple case (or settled for a couple of bucks), he beat anti-trust, he beat Sun, he beat a class action racial discrimination, etc. After his departure, MS lost big to AOL, lost a class action brought by permatemps and lost in this hearing... Maybe Neukom's replacement sucks?
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2001/n
While your idea about BSD being "safe" from SCO because of a lack of popularity is interesting, I think that the real reason is that, BSD derived from a different code base than that of AT&T, which IIRC became System V Unix. Since BSD isn't derived from the AT&T code, things like the SMP etc. will be handled differently, and thus not infringe on SCO's IP.
Of course, I'm no Unix historian, so I could be wrong.
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation
While many of us have feared that GNU/Linux and other free OSs will be targets of patent infringement lawsuits when they start to take Microsoft's core desktop market share, Microsoft has probably not considered that their business could be severely hampered by the same sort of litigation. Of course that's probably not what will happen. In all likelihood Microsoft will settle this out of court, and it'll result in a licensing deal with InterTrust. Either that or Microsoft will countersue for an unrelated patent infringement on InterTrust's part, and cross-licensing will commence. It's predictable, like clockwork. But there is a small chance that InterTrust will not go down easily, and that must have Microsoft execs worried.
In the long run it's best for Microsoft, as for the rest of us, that software patents be abolished. Microsoft would balk at the idea right now, but after a suit like this - or years of similar suits - they might be convinced it's not productive. They'd make a good ally if convinced.
Words can't come clos eto describing the joy I take in this news!
I hope bill drinks the kool-aid over this....
HAHAHA!!!
But my office is in an uproar! This news has our execs discussing our future rollout plans for Microsoft products. In fact, five huge projects are already on hold because the legal department is afraid Windows is stolen technology. None of our business partners are comfortable with the shakey legal ground Microsoft is standing, and they're taking a wait-and-see approach. We've begun evaluating Plan 9 for the desktop.
So, next action item... InterTrust Technologies should write letters to all Microsoft users offering to license its technolgy or face possible litigation... Someone's got to learn from SCO, right?
You can find specific patent numbers they claim MS is in violation of, such as US Patent No. 5,940,504 which I guess is about product activation. (I'm to feeling lazy right now so you go look up the patents.)
I'm not feeling that lazy so here's a quick cut and paste of MS's stuff they claim is violating their patents.
# Xbox
# My Services
# Windows Hardware Quality Lab and Windows Logo Certification
# Windows File Protection System
# Windows XP Home
# Windows XP Professional
# Windows ME
# Windows XP Embedded
# Windows CE.NET
# Office XP Standard
# Office XP Professional
# Office XP Professional with FrontPage
# Office XP Developer
# Access 2002
# Excel 2002
# FrontPage 2002
# Outlook 2002
# PowerPoint 2002
# Project 2002
# Publisher 2002
# Word 2002
# Windows Media Player
# Microsoft Reader
# Digital Asset Server
# Internet Explorer 6.0
# ASP.NET
#
#
# Visio 2002
# Visio Enterprise Network Tools
# Visual Studio
# Visual Studio
# Visual Studio
I wonder if they missed one?
>
I am quite surprised.
:
/.
Lot's of "Urah" and "that's good"...
But just remember
1/ if InterTrust succeeds who's coming next on their menu ? However I do not think the future will take this path.
2 / remember, InterTrust is backed up by Sony & Philips. That is not David against Goliath as some are thinking. That is Mamoths against Mamoth.
They will probably settle an arrangement. It is not good for Sony & Philips to test the validity of the copyright up to its end. It is far much better to let the shadow of it, in order to scare others. That is much better in order to force others into complying with their own agenda. Remember who are Sony & Philips ? They are not FSF advocates but music & multimedia devices suppliers... Remember who are their friends ?
Their agenda (InterTrust agenda) is probably to give Sony & Philips leverage on MS in order to implement THEIR technology into Windows. That will make money (licence + standard devices & albums disks) for them and cost nothing (no market to penetrate, MS does it & no trial for years). After that their technology will be all over the rest of the world.
The best thing (the worst ?) of all 3 is that it can even be good for MS who might end with 2 allies in order to propagate its technology (CE in Philips & Sony devices ? MS DRM in Sony albums ?).
Indeed that is very very bad for all of us.
We are living is a very sad world guys. Depressing to read
The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then
This reminds me of something that is happening right now in the paintball industry. Click here for an explanation Then if you want, go here: http://www.petitiononline.com/sppet888/petition.ht ml
I have a question about this kind of patent that no one have yet to get a good answer too.
(I'm a bit off topic i suppose but i really do want to know the answer.) In a case like the mailblocks patent. if earth link
1) implemented there own solution and
2) did not sell the source code or executables
derived from it.
then how is there patent infringement?
I mean if you have a patent on the wheel.
my understanding is that you are granted sole right for making money by selling wheels. Not sole right to make money by using wheels? You can sell a wheel to the truck driver, but if he makes his own wheel and never sells them to anyone you aren't owed anything, and he hasn't broken any law. Maybe that was the original intent of the words non-trivial in the patent law.
do i not have the right concept here?
I mean just because earth link internally uses a process developed by someone else that doesn't mean they are infringing on patent law does it?
unless they try to sell the process?
this is of coarse NOT what microsoft is being
accused of since they are making AND selling
the thing that infringes, but earthlink doesn't sell it, do they?
sincerely confused
You run THIS story because it's anti-Microsoft and completely ignore the story that a company in the US claims to have a patent on all possible methods of streaming media of any type on the internet. Which would of course affect Linux and Linux based servers, ISPs and broadcasters.
That's objective journalism for you. Not.
They hold patents on DRM and claim 85% of microsofts product lines?
Um Visual Studio, MS Golf, MS Flight Sim, MS Office, heck 90% of windows has nothing todo with DRM I'd say.
Oh, and since no secure DRM exists how can you hold a patent on it? It's like holding a patent on cold fusion because your design "almost works but doesn't at all."
Not that I care one way or another about MSFT but this sort of shit has to stop. And if MSFT can put weight behind it I hope they squash it.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
This is why Microsoft collects patents. It's not to litigate against other companies (although the conspiracy-theory, marijuana paranoia fueled guys will claim otherwise)... it's to get them out of holes like this.
They can now turn around and tell said company "Hey, we might infringe this one... but you infringe this one, this one, oh! and this one".
One cross-patent licensing deal later, and everyone's happy.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
MS just announced they would pay a corporation's legal bills if you are sued for using a Microsoft product. Now we know why they did this!
I like to see Microsoft cut down to size in court just as much as most Slashdot geeks, but this is not good. Microsoft is right: InterTrust's patents are vague. One might also add that they are pretty obvious, like InterTrust's patent Systems and methods using cryptography to protect secure computing environments, for example.
So you know the history of this company? Hell even the article states that before the technology bubble shakeout, this company was around 400 employees strong.
So here's some of what your "slimy opportunits" were busy doing before you heard about them...
From Fortune:
Or just go to this article directly.
Or perhaps see this reference...
1999
Now considering Intertrust filed their 1000 page vision of how DRM would work back in 1995, after several years of research, how does this make them weasels?
You incorrectly assume that they merely applied for a patent after there was prior art (which is common nowdays, albiet unreasonable), with the single goal being litigation.
They instead appear to have made a real attempt at business, perhaps a little before the market was ready. But in their foresight they did apply for patents.
What typical /. crap.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
Let's see MS losing a patent battle. This is great Windoze sucks.
Amazon licenses a patent. Patents are evil!!!
The US patent office is stupid and sucks.
Moral nothing else matters as long as MS goes down.
I said patents are. You can make money just fine without patents, ask any restaurant. And again, I'm one of very few advocating abolishment of patents/copyrights, even here. Most people are just stupid/afraid of change.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
Approximately 7 unique sentiments, and not one of them original. So much for a dignified death.
Oops
Well if SCO slays Linux, and InterTrust Technologies slays MS. The rusult will be two redundant companies that will rule the OS world! (insert evil tyranical laugh here).
As a die-hard Linux user (nothing else in my house for the last 6 years):
I hope these guys have something damn good to show, for such a large claim.
Sort of like SCO vs. ???
Just an attempt at being fair here, you understand. I expect fairness given for fairness offered. I'm not young really, and it's not naive to expect fairness: it depends on how badly an individual or company desires my respect and business, 20 years later even.
This points up the larger problem, IMHO: There is this new idea that:
Ethical ! == Legal
Business_good ! == Individual_good
or vice-versa even. I've made my choices, but it sure looks like a few trend-setters and business people need to go back to the 80's/90's (USA) and look in the mirror again.
Again, just IMHO. And yes, I'm US native (just for the curious).
C|N>K
How could MS possibly violate a security patent?
To do that, they'd have to implement some kind of security!
Couple reasons:
1. Without patents, the little guy who invents something new won't be able to compete against the big corporations who copy his idea.
2. Patents are REQUIRED to describe sufficient details so that any reasonably skilled person in the "art" (computer science, electrical engineer, etc.) can actually use the patent to build the invention. This means rather than keeping useful inventions secret, the inventor benefits for about 17 years after which the general public can benefit too by having details available.
In other words, patents CAN help the lone inventor protect his invention and it helps foster an environment where inventors are incented to SHARE details about their invention with the public.
Like anything else, there are abuses and extreme cases but it doesn't mean there are no benefits.
While we all thought that MS was indemnifying their customers in order to present Linux in a bad-light, might that have been to assuage customers against this ruling? This news seems to be put MS WindowsXX in a much worse position than Linux/IBM is now. There is already a ruling against MS, as opposed to only 'legal vaporware' against Linux. Convince your company to stay away from MS based on this!!
All bow to his Noodliness!! His Noodle Appendage has touched me!
omg, if i ever saw someone living in his parents basement, it's the author of that site. thnx, lol
If I actually try and understand that, it seems to read like this:
"Send something to somewhere. If it is One Thing, do something. If it is Another Thing, do something else". Now throw the words electronically and secure in there somewhere, and you get Instant Software Patent(tm) Just Add Lawyers(tm).
This whole system is really fucked.
I asked for a refund - and got my monkey back.
In spite of the belligerent tone, your post did make me look into InterTrust in more detail. They may not be the weasels I made them out to be in my original post. However, the fact that they were engaged in DRM research doesn't mean that Microsoft's DRM implementation is at all related.
I do stand by my statement that the very tactics Microsoft has used over the years have helped create this poisonous business climate, but I suppose we'll have to wait until all the evidence is out to see if InterTrust has a viable claim.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
[an Oakland judge] rebuked the company's lawyers for wasting her time by promising proof that never materialized--legal vaporware, in essence.
MS Exec: What? That's not allowed in court? We do it all the time in the real world!
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Okay... on one side, there is the use and abuse of software patents. On the other side, there is pain and agony on Microsoft. I'm kinda torn here but let me imagine some possible outcomes:
... there is dust blowing and occasional tumble weeds rolling about.
(Note: there are probably more than I can think of, and most likely, none of the ones I can think of will actually come true... I just like coming up with this crap so I can get modded up to "insightful" and get my ego boost 'cause let's face it, I'm a geek and this is all I've got in the world.)
1. Microsoft buys the company and everything within a 10 mile radius of it... because they can. This will kinda validate software patents and Microsoft gets to keep on doing what it does.
2. Microsoft could be forced to close its doors making whole bunches of people unemployed... the world turns to a kind of grey color
3. Microsoft successfully lobbies to get software patent law revised or even erased. Most likely they would get it changed in a way that says something like "software patents cannot be used against companies who own a monopoly..." or something like that.
4. I am trying to avoid thinking of how this could affect my dear precious Linux... but it might... *sigh* First SCO and now this?!
A copyright applies only to the specific wording of a program, does it not? If you want to protect the algorithm, does that not require a patent, or is there some other legal mechanism which should be being used?
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
Software patents are wrong in general. It seems as though this company has become a litigation engine for finding infringements of it's patent anywhere it can, even if it's a stretch.
I'm no Microsoft lover, but I don't like seeing software patents abused in this way.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Microsoft argued in court that crucial phrases in InterTrust's patents were too vague to be enforceable
Bwaa haa ha ha, like that ever mattered to the courts
Table-ized A.I.
In Stupid White Men, he prays for those in power to afflicted with ills and disease, because nothing reforms legislation like the stricken rich. This applies equally here.
http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
Can anyone point out info on the limits of Patents?
I mean as long as there hasn't been prior art, can I more or less patent anything no matter how silly or broad the topic? I can see how this is a money maker.. just think of a general idea, not knowing any specifics or maybe even use, then when someone comes up with something maybe even by chance that resembles it, voila you get $$..
(Posting as AC to conserve karma)
I should point out, for the record, that I may be biased, due to my ownership of a patent on Canning The Man Ham.
-Tom St. Denis
who am I rooting for? Scumbags with no product other than lawsuits? Or scumbags like Microsoft? Shit, I think my head is going to explode....
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
Stuck keys?
;)
Quit Sperming On It!!!
Somebody with mod points, mod up the parent please.
Also, while this was just a skirmish, MS has already lost a real one in Timeline vs. Microsoft.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
Karma + 70 sextillion
I agree that software patents are a pain and are unethical.
But it's interesting to note who is attacking MS here and in what context. Philips and Sony are two of the greatest consumer electronics companies on the planet. Sony is an archfoe of Microsoft since Redmond released the XBox. Several large Japanese companies recently made a lot of noise about standardizing on Linux for consumer electronics, which is pretty bad for WindowsCE. Some observers wondered if the goal of that publicity wasn't just to score a marketing point against WinCE.
So this is the next episode in this war. This patent lawsuit is a single battle in a larger fight.
Watch for more blows exchanged between MS and consumer electronics companies.
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
It strikes me as hypocrisy that every time an IP shakedown is committed against Microsoft everyone cheers while you guys continue to condemn the SCO affair. Either you condemn IP shakedowns or you don't. This is total hypocrisy.
Microsoft may now decide to harness some of its billions to lobby for laws *against* software patents.
On the other hand, they may decide that they'll need to accumulate the most massive patent portfolio in order to have ammunition if faced with something similar again.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
Look, baseless claims are often made in IP cases. But who's to say that InterTrust didn't come to M$, layout it's proposals and say "This would be a good integration into your software" M$ says "We'll get back to you on that" and simply takes the idea and runs!? If that's the case, and it certainly is viable, then that puts a whole other angle on this. It certainly would be typical M$ fashion, no? JAV
The best case I can think of is InterTrust wins, demands that Microsoft recall all infringing software,
a catastrophic software meltdown results driving most users to Linux short term,
and long term leads to the revoking of all current and future software and business practice patents.
Ok, so it's a slim chance. I'm still rooting for it.
-- Buy prevention, invest in cures.
Ok. Let's say you come up with a great idea for a new chip fabrication process that could potentially increase transistor density by 1000 times. You start up a small business venture and get a loan from the bank and a small group of investors to fund this idea. However, it's very expensive to fully develop this technique. You spend several years and millions of dollars perfecting it (trying different frequencies of lasers, different combinations of semiconductor materials, etc.) but finally get it right.
You start making your chips using this new process, but don't patent the process because patents are bad, mmmkay? Since your chips are so much better than the competition they sell pretty well. In fact, your small business is overwhelmed by orders and you run out of your reserve supply trying to meet the initial demand. However in order to break even on all the money your poured into initial R&D you need to sell tens of millions of units, and it will take at least a year or two just to manufacture that many.
Then, 3 months later, your competitor, which is an entrenched behemoth semiconductor manufacturer, reverse-engineers your process and starts making a duplicate product at much, much lower prices than you charge. Since they don't have to pay back the R&D expense, and their larger facilities mean lower fixed manufacturing costs per-chip, their margins are better even though their price is less than half or yours.
Well, thanks to this new competition you now have to lower your prices to match just to get any sales, meaning your margins are extremely tight and it will now take decades to pay off all those research costs. Plus, your sales are down significantly since the market is now diluted with copycats, and the competition has better brand recognition. You can't sustain enough profits to pay back your debts in a timely fashion (you had to borrow money to conduct research and build your facilities, after all) and are forced into bankruptcy. Thanks to the fact that you didn't have a patent for your invention, you just gave your best idea to the competition for free, and got yourself into bankruptcy to boot.
InterTrust aren't really a little guy. They're a stick in the hands of Sony and Philips, particularly Sony, used to bash MS. Sony have been fighting MS on many fronts for a long time now (going with PalmOS instead of PocketPC, PS2 vs X-Box, trying to push smart electronic applicances in the home rather than PCs).
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
We will never know the outcome of this case. When Microsoft settles with InterTrust, InterTrust will be forbidden to disclose the terms of the settlement. Only InterTrust and their lawyers will know what the payoff was, and their lips will be sealed.
There's been no evidence stated that Microsoft ever heard of those guys. Almost all software patents are for stuff that's obvious and Microsoft could have developed whatever it was completely independently of whatever that company did. So there's no basis to think that company is entitled to anything. Nobody forced them to do whatever it was that they did. It's better to just not have software patents. Those who find developing without getting patents doesn't pay high enough rewards, are at perfect liberty to do something else instead. They can invest in aerospace or biotechnology or hamburger chains instead of software development. The rest of us active developers will be much happier to be able to get our work done without have the threat of patent litigation over our heads.
Who do you root for?
These guys are probably hoping for a similar outcome, with a bigger payout.
I can't believe you pay to troll this site.
After having busted my balls in this industry for years and effectively getting nowhere, I sit back and take a look at the POS that is the computer world. We have a huge monopoly on the one hand which knows no tactics dirty enough to gain marketshare. We have tiny little desperate companies such as SCO and Intertrust using the law to effectively cripple any wish to innovate in anything. We have an open source movement on the other hand that can't agree on the colour of it's desktop that spends a lot of effort in talking when threatened, but much less in actually defending itself.
I think I've had it. Let the indians have all these headaches.
All I want is the IP for Pizza
Pay me or starve!
So what happenned to .GIF files anyway? Weren't there some similar legal issues there?
Microsoft will buy out this little company (now held by some big guns like Sony). Sony and partners acquired it for 453 million, and MS has so much money they will settle for buying the patent at a ridiculous markup my guess is ~8-10 Billion.
THEN they stomp anybody else who tries to compete with them. Patents are meant to be a barrier to entry for the competition, and that is what Microsoft will use it for.
I am absolute ruler of the known and unknown universe. Bow before me and worship me for I own all that exists.
I just patented the "patent application process".
I also just patented "patents".
I patented "Intellectual Property" also.
and I claim all prior art and all IP.
Everything that is, ever was and ever will be is mine.
Send your royalty payments by check to:
GOD
P.O. Box 1
Bumbleshoot, Arkansas 42089
(you too Bill...)
I've noticed about 95% of the keyboards I've tried have that problem. Unfortunately it is not something you can easily test in the store. I think it is mostly to do with the internal electronics not being able to deal with multiple keys being held down at once. By the time you type that "C" you may not have fully let up on the "F" or the "U". My Dell KB worked great till I wore it out, now I'm using an HP KB from an old machine. Several that I bought separately had this "rollover" limitation though. Unfortunately it is not something you notice right away, and you tend to think "It will be better as soon as I get used to this keyboard", but it doesn't work that way.
Let the buyer beware. (And yes, the relatively expensive Microsoft KBs suck about as badly as the cheap ones do. Par for the course).
Perhaps that is why Intel is open to linux about its arch, and has sort of dragged its heals on the MS trusted computing initiative.
'That is like sending the mouse out after the cat' to quote from a famous Sly Stallone movie.
If Gates and Co. are stupid enough to steal after reading a non disclosure, or if they hired any disgruntled ex-employees from Intertrust, then MS deserves what it might get, sued into oblivion.
No MS couldn't be that stupid.
There is also the question, have these guys actually created anything other than a framework for a patent? Do their designs actually work and have they been tested and proven. If they have prior to MS/Intels foray into trusted computing design then the shit is about to really hit the fan. Funny that a company like Sony is betting bigtime that it will.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
I've had enough of this crap. Software patents should be abolished. period. All of the real innovation takes place in the code, and that is covered by copyright. Beyond that, it is the business model that makes software valuable, not the "IP." If you have to have broad sweeping patents and pay more in legal fees than payroll in order to turn a profit then you have already failed as a business and are just depending on the idiots in Washington being idiots in order for you to make payroll.
They CAN protect the small guy, but the small guy can easily be too small to afford a patent. I understand there are about $10,000 in fees involved in filing, not including the cost of a patent attorney.
I've got some ideas I think are patentable myself, but I can't afford that kind of crap.
They could have done this from the start, but it's obvious that the company with a patent on a "secure operating system" has no respect for other people's "intelectual property". How absurd it was for them to argue that Intertrusts patents were, too vague to be enforceable, and that others required such narrow interpretation that they would have been hard for Microsoft to infringe.
One thing's for sure, neither Microsoft nor patent law can win. Without strong patent law, Microsoft will fall to superior free software. If Microsoft wins, patent law suffers. If they lose, they can be ruined and that would be shocking. It would be better for Microsoft to lose.
The absurdity of patent law must be demonstrated and this is a great way to do it. Patent law has worked to the disadvantage of others and should work to Microsoft's disadvantage too. Microsoft's defeat and ruin by forgein firms might just shock the US population into examining and overturning the laws that idiots like Bill Gates pushed for. Sony and Philips have invested more than half a billion dollar in this 30 person firm and patent portfolio. It is right and fitting that Microsoft be destroyed by the laws they helped create and then used to abuse others. It will be sweeter still if their destruction leads to the end of software patents.
Who am I kidding? Microsoft is going to win, patent law will continue to be available to the hightest bidder and US courts will still be the finest money can buy. It will be interesting but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
What mouth full I think I will go brush my teeth something tastes like shit!
But I think that about sums it up.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
I aggee it is a mess but Micorsoft may come out in a very strong position even if it looses.
One dark scenario would be for Microsoft to loose the case, thus strengthening the monopoly position that InterTrust's DRM has in law and then Microsoft buys out InterTrust. The combination of DRM and DMCA is scary enough without having a single entity having a legal monopoly on it.
With all the money Microsoft can put into defending this, they might get a court ruling establishing new precedents in patent law. We don't have enough details of the case to know what the offensive strategy will be, be assured that whatever obnoxious aspect of patents they use to build their case, e.g. the doctrine of equivalents, will be weakened as a result.
And if Microsoft loses in spite of the best lawyers money can buy, well, Microsoft losing anything is a cause for celbration, too.
But patents don't seem to work that way anymore. Now patent are used as blockades that stifle the creativity in software development, and almost always by a large company against a smaller one.
On the other hand, Microsoft has truly never lost anything when you think about it (modulo Bob), ... so I think it's time to buy me some more Microsoft stock!
DT
Is this thing on? Hello?
There is no law that states a company HAS to license a patent to someone.
Two words: Hostile takeover. Provided the patent holder is a publicly held corporation, there is a maximum price for any patent: the market capitalization of the patent holder.
Will I retire or break 10K?
If I thought they'd fight this out, I'd see it as a good thing. Microsoft has the lawyers and the money to win. They wouldn't be fighting to overturn software patents, but even a win based on "overly vague patent claims" would be a step in the right direction.
I'd be cheering MS on (and my friends might be filing commitment papers...)
But it ain't gonna happen. MS will settle (with a "secret settlement") or buy the company, or something similar. No precedent will be set. No good will come of it.
Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
Don't misunderstand me I really hate MS use of
DRM technology and part of me think that they deserve whats comming to them, but the idea that you should use the legal system as a way to make money instead of a proper business model really have to stop. Nowdays it seams impossible to chose an OS that isn't in some kind of legal problem.
Linux is under fire from SCO for introducing Sys V features into Linux.
Apple is under fire from Open Group due to their
use of the Unix trade mark owned by Open Group in their marketing.
And now Microsoft again, as if their recent Timeline business wasn't bad enough.
It seams that it is more profitable for software companies to litegate than actually making what they are supposed to be good at, i.e. software.
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
Why would any company in their right mind, after winning such a law suit, sell their cash cow? All InterTrust would have to do is sit around, do nothing except drop an occasional law suit on someone and then collect money. What could be easier? What could be more despicable?
I think the more likely possibility is that MS buys them out as part of the settlement.
Do you seriously believe they don't patent the stuff they're inventing? Just to protect themselves? They'd be stupid if they didn't, and they aren't stupid.
And I wouldn't touch MS for mission critical stuff even if they paid me... well actually I'd touch the box if they paid me, and I'd install it if someone else wants it and "ahem" PAYS me :)
Otherwise no dice. I agree with ya 100%, not 'cause I hate microsoft but 'cause all I use MS stuff for is gaming and quickbooks (but that's for the secretary cuz she'd not know what to do with herself in Linux.
-DaedalusHKX
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
I think we need to start a grass-roots campaign and start collecting cash to help Microsoft fight this case, the last thing we need to see is MS go out of buisness!
if everyone sends as much cash as you can spare to my paypal account I will make sure Mister Gates gets it.
InterTrust is partly owned by Sony and few other major companies...no way they sell InterTrust to MS. Like you said, Sony and co. can milk MS for all the money it has been milking them for years. Payback is a bitch.
-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
Wasn't this case presented before SCO announced that they had filed a tort against IBM. I do believe so, in fact didn't I hear about the intertrust case on /. - I believe so again, as well as a couple of other sites.
So, M$ is being SCO'ed by InterTrust, Linux is being InterTrusted by SCO. LOL,... Has Daryl McBride ever had an original idea?
No... not nintendo gamecube... these were really cool looking rack systems with monsterous power supplies, capacitors, and pyramid shaped "cooling" tops. The system was a massively parallel system (single instruction multiple data I believe). Each processor board contained about 64 processor cards.
I had a processor card from one we basically threw away. A couple of us kept them as keep-sakes although the system had still be classified as a supercomputer and this was a government research lab (DOE). You get the picture. Dispite the fact that the system hadn't been turned on in years, and this also being not more than 3 years ago this was strangely labeled as sensitive hardware.
That explains why my fingers keep getting covered in saliva!! :-)
Naw, I have to say that Logitech puts out better input devices than MS.
I think the main reason that people like MS keyboards is because it's not uncommon for people to either have a shitty keyboard or a decent Microsoft keyboard, so the only non-lousy keyboards they ever use are Microsoft keyboards.
And in the world of mice, Logitech's MX700 really *is* just about perfect.
May we never see th
OK so where are the analysts that said we should not implement Linux until the SCO thing is settled. If they are non biased they should say we should now wait with MS until this is settled. That definitly going to be my advice to management
Seems like we have come full circle. Considering that the QWERTY layout originally was designed to avoid the typing hammers of common digraphs to bang into each other.
The cure for this might be to wire the internals of the keyboard to avoid rollover problems with common digraphs. ER, CK, ST, OP, and TH come to mind
SIGBUS @ NO-07.308
Except if MS trumps it all and goes to Congress. Then MS fucks Sony, which is it's plan anyways.
I can't forsee any pleasant outcome for the rest of us. If MS wins, they aren't going to say, "We've learned our lesson, let's lobby for change in the patent system". DRM will keep going and MS will be more careful in the future, probably trying to file for as many patents as possible in the future. If they lose, I'm sure Sony and Philips will push for their own brand of DRM. I think I would hate to have Sony driving DRM even more than MS.
Essentially, I doubt anyone involved is going to see the light and push for change in our patent system.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
Twit
I just realise that I dislike patent law more than M$. And if patents did not exist at all, I would like M$ more.
;)
Lets hope M$ kills off patent law
I was planning on finding a coding job in India, but I've decided that I'll find a job as a lawyer, that's where all the dough is going to these days!
I wonder if sony can sue MS in japan. Surely Ms does not have enough money to buy the united states and japan.
I must admit though that they bought the united states for pretty cheap.
War is necrophilia.
This is a GOOD court case. It has the potential to show the world that patents of this sort should never be granted.
There arises from a bad and unapt formation of words a wonderful obstruction to the mind. (Francis Bacon)
Now that Microsoft have abolished their liability cap for their customers being sued for ip infringements, InterTrust Technologies should sue the Fortune 500 companies for Patent Infringement in windows!
No more Microsoft!
You can't have it both ways. You either hate software patents in all cases or you don't, no matter who the defendant is.
Actually, when the underdog has a change to use laws that were originally designed to protect the little man, but have always been abused by the big bully against the little guy, people tend to like watching the big bully get a dose of his own medecine.
Maybe if MS has to pay through the nose for patend infrigment, they will see the point people make about software patents being bad.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
While I am absolutely anti-Microsoft and I am sure that Hell's sysadmin is Bill Gates, this case is clearly something I would make an exception in my 5 minutes of hatred against Redmond.
The patent system was created mainly in a world where Newton's mechanics was rised to a new church. By the most, it was related to mechanical inventions and mechanisms. During the industrial boom of the 19th Century it was seen as a viable and effective mecahnism to protect inventors.
But computers are not mechanisms by the most. Mostly they are Mathematics, Science and Art. Now these fields demand interaction, exchange and even free sharing of ideas. Besides, the combination of these fields creates a non-conclusive and non-deterministic environment. With a great degree of accuracy, one can determine the limits of most mechanisms. The same is not appliable to programming, where algorithms look like LEGO pieces. But while a LEGO piece has a clear form, most algorithms may deform themselves and take several shapes. They can even brake apart and rejoin again. So, one cannot have clear boundaries where one could make a clear conclusion that a program or algorithm starts "here" and ends "there". Whatever definitions one may claim in a patent, while he doesn't use mathematics and logic, one cannot clearly define a patentable algorithm or program. Using natural language to define a patentable algorithm is falling in the eternal question "Why you cannot program in plain-text English?"
On the other side, almost no program or algorithm is complete per se. Most of all, an algorithm or program is mostly an abstraction. In most cases algorithms of similar structure may be used over tens or hundreds of fields of applications. To become meaningful they need some sort of "translation" to the real world, an interface. But interfaces also carries lots of algorithms. And interfaces may be of several kind, from monitors and keyboards to printers and pens. So one cannot determine the boundaries of the algorithm or program.
So, even if M$ is the Evil in flames, in this case, I am fully M$ support. (no matter my stomach revolves on the idea).
Looking over the comments, I can't believe that no-one (that I read, anyway) has commented on the hollow laugh that someone is suing Microsoft for stealing their security technology.
To InterTrust, I say: you sure you want to own up to creating that house of cards?
The article uses the phrase "trusted systems". From what I've seen of XP and Longhorn, they're not Trusted systems. This is a trusted operating system. Does XP or Longhorn prevent users who don't have high enough security clearance from copying (using software) text from a document they are reading? This is what Trusted Operating Systems are all about - preventing people who don't have appropriate security clearance from gaining access to information they shouldn't be allowed to see, and preventing people from making data on the system available to others.
Follow me
Three pop-ups - two when you open the Fortune page and one when you close it. I wish they'd get Mozilla at work...
And I wonder, why I haven't patented the method of representing arbitrary large numbers with a fixed range of symbols in such a manner that common arithmetic operations (such as adding, subtracting, multiplication and division) can be performed in a efficient manner (polynomial to the log of the value).
All InterTrust would have to do is sit around, do nothing except drop an occasional law suit on someone and then collect money.
Sounds like SCO
Urgo: "I want to live. I want to experience the universe and I want to eat pie!"
Jack: "Who doesn't??"
Mexico and Canada came free with their purchase...
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
So , that's why Bill G always said that Micky$oft is always 2 years away from going completely under. He was just waiting for this to surface I suppose.
"I used to have that really cool,funny sig
Software is not about big ideas, it is about implementation. I wouldn't know one software company that has become big on a patented idea. On the contrary: people who have the first implementation usually fail.
However, you shouldn't regret those first comers too much. Just talk to some smart programmers and you will showered with vague ideas of big new implementations. The people who make the first implementations are actually the second phase in how software develops.
E-bay is a very good example. With their perfectionism they took online auctions to the next level and in the process they got the market.
Microsoft is the king of implementation. Sure, they need a few versions to get there, but the always end up with the best implementation.
I am sorry to see that Microsoft has by now so many legal bruises that they even have a hard day in court when justice is on their side.
> ER, CK, ST, OP, and TH come to mind
I don't speak english you insensitive clod.
I like nothing about either side of this mess.
It will take the sacrificial offering of one super-corp for the modern business world to realise the devastating consequences of the whole "Patent\IP?= sue like hell" cycle and amend it. History teaches us that it is only with magnificent hindsight, following spectacular failures, that change comes to accepted business practices.(Enron anyone? Worldcom?) Since we can all agree that suing over IP is an accepted, if dispicable, business practise these days, then think of the hindsight that super-corporations will apply to this case, should it succeed: "Joe farmer and his one shot patent can bring me down by inventing shit-on-a-stick first". The only people that can change the outlandish rate of corporate litigation are the corporations, by lobbying. The typed protests of slasdotters dont do much, alas. I think it would be a good thing for a whale like Microsoft to be beached. Whilst one or two corps (Sony?) might make a benefit, there will be plenty more looking on in horror. One small company harpooning the worlds most successful company? If that doesn't bring about lobbied changes to the IP laws, I don't know what will. Trust me people. We want this one.
Beanz!
Rocket science is easy. Neurosurgery, now *that's* difficult.
I mean, really? It's not as if they haven't done exactly this several times before to several other companies in a very public manner.
You *know* how ethical they are. If you deal with MS and show them how your stuff works, you're a fool.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
America, please continue your stupid patent scheme.
It's important that programming jobs keep moving out of the USA to where they patents are less strict. We need the jobs too.
Thank you Bill Gates and Intertrust. America must be proud of having to such patriots to help their economy.
-Underpaid India worker
(And yes, was trained by the worker I replaced. Good experience for me and he got nice vacation here, and when he get home also)
It's not exactly without precedent, now, is it?
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
All of you are a bunch of HYPOCRITES! SCO goes after IBM for putting their code into Linux = BAD! InterTrust Technologies goes after Microsoft for the same thing = GOOD! So it's not the subject matter, it's the OS that is being attacked. So let me see if I have this straight..... LINUX = GOOD. Microsoft = BAD. That just makes you a bunch of bigoted, hypocritical, narrow minded... oh, just forget it. You are all so closed minded in your opinions about Linux and Microsoft that it doesn't make a difference what I say. If the bunch of you get any more fanatical you will be showing up in Redmond wearing a jacket made of semtex with primacord trim.
Is that when two companies that actually make things square up to each other, they generally compare the height of their stacks of patents, and the one with the smaller pile pays some money to the one with the bigger pile, then they both get back to doing productive things.
In this case, Microsoft has no leverage. InterTrust, like SCO, has no business except pursuing patents. They can shut Microsoft down, and the only thing that Microsoft can buy them off with is obscene sums of money, or (shudder) ownership of more patents.
You can't negotiate with an opponent when the only options they have are to win a crushing victory or to go out of business. And if they win, well, then they need to do it again. And again. They're like zombies. They'll just keep coming, eating brains and moaning. You can't reason with them, you can't bargain with them, you just have to aim for the head and hope for the best.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Does anybody really think this will make MS or its monopolies on the Desktop OS/Office go away? No, MS will simply have to pay a royalty and they will pass the cost onto the consumer in the form of higher prices. You will still have to pay the "MicroSoft Tax" when you buy a computer, but now you will also have to pay the "InterTrust Tax" too.
Well I wonder what the "soon to be MS employees" at Intertrust are doing right now...
--- I was far from home, and the spell of the Eastern sea was upon me. -Lovecraft-
When shopping for dildos, you don't buy the one that looks like it feels the best, you buy the one that looks like it will hurt the least.
Can't remember what comedian I heard that from, but it is a classic. It applies in this case. Software patents are pretty stupid, but they exist. In this particular case, I am glad it is at least someone attempting to kick MS in the Jimmy, instead of the other way around.
I can still not like the whole situation, but enjoy the way this one plays out.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
What would be incredibly beautiful is for that company to win the lawsuit - and then refuse to license DRM to ANYONE. :)
1) Get rid of DRM, always a pretty neat thing.
2) Get rid of Microsoft, permanently. I need not elaborate on the benificent effects of this.
All InterTrust would have to do is sit around, do nothing except drop an occasional law suit on someone and then collect money. What could be easier?
Do you work for SCO?
Darl? Is that you?
Again, what a slave trader would say. Well, isn't it obvious? No, it's not Nazis. This is a clear analogy. You keep bringing up exactly what a slave trader would say. Is it so hard to see that a slave trader would argue that "ideally, yeah, we shouldn't keep human slaves. But realistically, it's not gonna happen. This is how things work."
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
Something that is little understood about how a judge rules in a patent proceeding is it's perceived effect on 'society'. To use this example, lets say negotiations cannot be settled and an injunction against MS is sought.
Ok, essentially what is then being asked of the court is to take everything has developed by MS and deem it illegal for the masses to use. No one could LEGALLY use windows or office or IE. A judge would never rule this way realizing that the very ruling being written was on a windows PC.
Instead, the judge would ENFORCE a settlement on the parties of say, $10B. Chump change to MS to keep the status quo (last count MS had $40B in cash on hand).
So really, money talks and bullshit definately walks! Because of MS's ubiquitous pressence, any patent infringement case won by the 'little guy' can only end in a cash settlement. Eactly as MS would have it.
And PS. They can still appeal any ruling they don't like; stalling it for decades.
"Celui qui vit par l'épée mourra par l'épée"
And as a side note, the "IP" shorthand has no french equivalent; we use the whole "propriété intellectuelle" expression. Funny I never heard that expression before say... 5 years ago...
You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.
The thing I don't understand is how a free market is even possible when people can patent ideas. I don't remember who said it, but it's like allowing rhyming word patents for poets. Think what you will about MICROS~1 (and their inability to actually _win_ an IP law suit lately), but this issue affects all of us.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
1. Judges ruling as far as I can tell denies a summary judgement for invalidity motion.
All this means is that there is no clear cut reasons for ruling the patents as invalid.
This does not mean that some/all of the patents are not invalid, it just means that the Judge will not rule them invalid as part of a Summary Judgement (keyword is Summary here). The judge needs to hear more on issue from both sides before deciding issue of invalidity.
2. Article says that judge states that MS Lawyers full of it.
This is MS's MO for these trials with armies of lawyers attempting scorched earth tactics.
But in patent law moreso than anti-trust law, if you do not have substance to your argument, then this scorched earth policy is easy to discern by the judge. The inherent complexity of patent litigation moves these judges to frown even more upon these heavy handed tactics by MS (they are just clogging the courts with meaningless arguments). So MS has been given notice that the judge has her BS meter out.
3. 85% of MS' product line:
Damages are decided not by percent of product line alone. Other questions that damages are based upon could be:
What was Intertrust charging other licensee's of their technology?
Does alternate non infringing technology exist that MS could have used instead of the patented technology and what would costs have been as far as using this alternate technology?
How prominent is the technology as part of the functionality of the product being sold? (A patent covering word processors is going to collect more damages on an infringing word processor product over a patent covering DRM would on the same infringing word processing product).
IBM has, for a long time, had a crypto coprocessor card. Is this card subject to the patents?
The card is quite neat actually. I first learned of it on Slashdot.
Basic description...
Thousands of dollars. PCI card. It has a secret key inside. Thus it can sign things. You can communicate securely with it. It can securely generate a new secret key that can be securely transferred to another card elsewhere. (For instance, a master card generates a new key for all of my ATM's. It can encrypt the new key and then export it off the card. Couriers can carry the encrypted key to other cards. Only the processor on the crypto coprocessor in the ATM can actually decrypt the new key and know what the key is. Basically, no human EVER knows what the key is that is used between the ATM's and the master system.) The PCI card is tamperproof. It has a small metal box on it. Inside this box is a "blanket" of fine wire mesh. Batteries on the card power the crypto processor. The card detects tampering attempts and erases all of the secrets on the card. The purpose of the card is that it can know secrets that are truly secret, that is, the secret never exists outside of this card, or maybe only on this card and other similar cards, but never outside of a crypto coprocessor card. The card detects tampering of air pressure, electrical changes, radiation x-rays, etc.
Every time I think about TPM and DRM I think of this IBM card soldered to your motherboard. It has since become clear that TPM is not as tamperproof as this card. It provides high performance crypto functions in hardware, like this card, and has embedded "secrets" like this card, but those secrets could be extracted from the TPM on the motherboard by a dillegent effort.
One more interesting thing about IBM's crypto card. So how can you know that the secret key on the card is not known to IBM? Well IBM describes in a publicly downloadable PDF everything about the card, how it is manufactured, etc. (I read it before when I first learned of this card on slashdot). You buy 10 cards. Take 9 of them apart. See for yourself that the firmware inside the secure processor actually does secretly generate the key during manufacture and that everything works exactly as IBM says it does. Then take the 10th card and assume that it works the same way and that they key within it is truly a secret that is confined within the little metal box.
So is this covered by the patent? Owners of ATM's will not be happy.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
Sure it would.
But don't expect slashdrones whose only experience in on-line content is Kazaa to realize that.
In a bold and visionary move, our top management decided to switch our corporate network to Oracle, only to withdraw the decision the next day, after finding out that the yearly license fees would exceed our company's net worth.
To sum it up, there's only one choice left: we'll be switching everything to SCO Unix next year.
"There are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare." - Blair Houghton
21 of the 26 patents that Intertrust provides links to on their site refer to one or more of four patents on which I am the sole inventor. My four "license management" and/or DRM patents were all assigned to Digital Equipment Corporation (now HP) and are some of the earlier patents in this space.
I've watched Intertust collect their patents over the years and have been regularly struck by the realization that these folk have been successfully patenting ideas that I considered obvious and unpatentable in the 80's or already covered by my patents. Also, quite a number of the things that they have patented are things that I clearly recall having been discussed with Microsoft while I was at Digital or at Microsoft once I joined them (for a brief stay) back in the early 90's.
As many will realize, Microsoft has been long interested in and involved in the process of building DRM software. Many people will, for instance, remember Gates' letter to the industry back in the 70's in which he complained that people weren't paying for software. I personally became aware of Microsoft's interests in licensing back in the late 80's when Digital and Microsoft cooperated in submitting my "Digital Distributed Software Licensing Architecture" to the OSF in response to one of their solicitations. Having spent a great deal of time speaking with Microsoft folk back then, as well as dealing with many of the licensing issues as "Senior Product Manager for Applications Programmability" once I joined Microsoft, I can assure you that folk in Microsoft were aware of and anticipated many of the methods that InterTrust has managed to patent.
The problem, of course, is that simply knowing the methods isn't good enough. You've got to get them patented... But, back then, there wasn't much of a culture of getting software patents. People simply didn't do it. Even at Digital, I remember being regularly told by the patent attorneys that they were very happy to have found a software guy willing to work on patents and how they hoped that they'd be able to use my patents as an example for others.
While there may be "some" meat in the InterTrust case, my personal feeling is that this case is yet another example of the problems we have with software patents. The system was supposed to reward and encourage innovation yet the people who seem to be getting rewarded are not the innovators -- rather, it those who file patents who are getting rewarded. Perhaps, today, we've established that the only rational thing to do is to file for patents on anything you are doing -- no matter how obvious it may seem -- and then hope that the patent office will screw up and grant you something. But that was not always that case. It used to be that if people filed patent applications at all for software it was only for the really "special" ideas. The result is that alot of little stuff or obvious stuff went unpatented until companies like InterTrust, who live on patents -- not innovation -- came along to sweep things up. This isn't the way the system was supposed to work.
bob wyman
No, Sony will use this to beat profits out of Micrsoft in hopes to harm the X-Box line so the Sony Playstation line remains profitable. Think of the implications.
LainTheWired = isgod( int Lain, int denial, float truth)
no... see the difference is that these guys actually have a case =)
I ate my sig.
Lucky for us, Microsoft has enough cash to make a difference! If they hate software patents, maybe a few wealthy congressmen will start hating them, too...
'Technologies' claims that 85% of Microsoft's entire product line infringes its digital security patents.
lets consider the above statement.
a VERY, VERY, small corporation is standing up and saying, "yes, i'm the one responsible for creating the security that micosoft uses!"
i just keep getting this image of a limping buck deer walking into the middle of a pack of sleeping wolves, and poking the alpha male were the sun don't shine. real hard like, if you understand what i mean. the outcome will be obvious, and noisy.
Generally speaking, it is highly destructive to allow those that are unable to produce to get in the way of those who can. Patents exist to IMPROVE the state of invention, not to make people rich.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
So much for saying "motefuce so tat s it"
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
And can you believe there are individuals who's only purpose is to patent ideas that could possibly make them rich in the future! What BS!
Legally, there's nothing wrong with monopolies, per se. What's illegal is leveraging your monopoly to spread power in other areas of business (a la MS, IBM, Intel and probably just about every other major company).
No, if they do want money.
My statement was based on the premise that these businesses want to make maximum profit. While that's not really true (RIAA isn't greedy enough, yet), it could become true if the major labels receive sufficient competition from the indy labels.
Drop DRM, major labels leave, indys make big money, majors decide they want a piece of the action (or all their musicians leave for more profitable pastures, in which case the label becomes less "major"), then majors return despite lack of DRM.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
By the way, it's not clear that I mean the whole patent, including the description, is no more then a requirements specification, not just the claim. For all the verbiage, there's nearly nothing of value to an engineer there. The vast majority of that patent describes e-commerce systems in general; this is largely because "one-click order processing" is a minor adjustment to normal procedure rather then a breakthrough.
Whore??
I don't get this... you just being an asshole or did you grow a set and show the rest of us you're an asshole?
~Daedalus
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler