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."

Comments

Re:Another Fine Mess

[binaryDigit]

While it's tempting to get a laugh out of a little company handing it to Microsoft for its use of DRM technology

Read the article, InterTrust is owned jointly by Sony and Phillips. This is NOT David vs Goliath. It states that Sony/Phillips bought the company with the explicit intention of going after companies armed with the patent portfolio. Call it what you will, but this is not Good vs Evil, this is Evil vs Evil.

Also, don't miss another statement made about Microsoft just being the first. They wanted to go after the big fish, so all the other fish will fall in line once the big one falls.

Intertrust and SCO

[ucblockhead]

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.)

Well here's an interesting patent...

[Anonymous Custard]

While searching for InterTrust's patent, I found this one, entitled Regulating access to digital content.

Digital content such as text, video, and music are stored as part of a compressed and encrypted data file, or object, at a client computer, such as a personal home computer. The content is inaccessible to a user until a payment or use authorization occurs. Payment or use authorization occurs via a real-time, transparent authorization process whereby the user enters account or use data at the client computer, the account or use data is transmitted to a payment server computer, the account or use data is preprocessed at the payment server computer and if payment information is required and is present, the payment information is transmitted to a payment authorization center. The payment authorization center approves or rejects the payment transaction, and bills the corresponding account. The authorization center then transmits an authorization signal to the payment server computer indicating whether the transaction was approved and if not, which information was deficient. In response, the payment server computer transmits a token to the client computer, and if the token indicates approval, an installation process is initiated at the client computer whereby the object is activated and locked to the particular client computer. The object can be reopened and reused at any time on that particular computer. If the object is transmitted or copied to a different computer, the required payment or use information must again be tendered for access to the content.

Every time I find one like this, I wonder why I haven't patented a method of sustaining life by diluting ionized liquids in the human body by transferring di-hydrogen oxide from a residential source, via a smoothed glass semisphere, through the esophogus and into the human Gastrointestinal subsystem.

Then all you water drinking pirates would have pay me royalties!

Re:Who are we siding with today folks?

[divide overflow]

>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?

Neither.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Re:2 Questions...

[randolfe]

That's what patents are for. They protect your "invention" against any other thing being developed that is the same. It doesnt matter if you never saw theirs, or even knew of a patent. The inventor is responsible for searching for pre-existing patents. A patent is different from a Copyright, where knowledge of existance might be important.

Actually, you are not correct, although your position is commonly believed by most people today. In fact, developing something without knowledge of a pre-existing patent _can_ be a legitimate defense in many cases. Specifically, if you can show that, by using a body of existing art/knowledge, the "logical/natural" conclusion would be your invention, then the pre-existing patent can be ruled invalid. Case in point, the infamous patenting of XOR as applied to mouse cursor graphics. Although some jackass patented it (was actually granted a patent through the US Patent Office), it was thrown out as a logical, natural, and foreseeable application of a commonly known concept.

Re:Where to find the patents?

[servoled]

It's absolutely amazing how many "nerds" can't figure out how to use a search engine.

Search results from USPTO, or go to the USPTO homepage and do it yourself.

Stop whining and get specific

[werdna]

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.

Check it out

[Treeluvinhippy]

At Intertrust's Site, there is a whole section about the law suit and it gives a little more info, here's a quick link

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
# .NET Framework
# .NET Common Language Runtime (CLR)
# Visio 2002
# Visio Enterprise Network Tools
# Visual Studio .NET Enterprise Architect
# Visual Studio .NET Enterprise Developer
# Visual Studio .NET Professional

I wonder if they missed one?