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."
...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?
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
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.
That company is own by Sony and Philips, it's not public. Also, the article insinuates they're looking for payments in the billions, not just millions. If this patent gets upheld, it's going to cost a lot, and not just a one time charge by the gist of it. The good part is that this may cause the patent nonsense glass to finally overflow.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
In other words, they've been left with the choice of killing the patient OR killing the disease. They can't keep both.
InterTrust's suit is essentially identical to SCO's, and may well have been prompted by it. Either as a defensive strategy ("if they win, we win by default, and if we lose, so do they"), or it may be part of a simpler, more brain-dead, but ultimately more common strategy of "reap in the cash while pillaging is in style!".
Either way, it's going to get the attention of The Powers That Be, who really are faced with the nightmare scenario - to preserve Bill Gates' empire, they have to cripple the very mechanisms that Microsoft and other large corporations have used to create those empires in the first place.
Microsoft -could- pull another Windows 95 -> Windows 98 stunt, as they did with the first round of anti-trust action. But they'll have to be quick, and now that they've been found a monopoly, it might not be quite so easy.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
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.
Sure, we all like to see the little guy yank Micro$oft's chain. But software patents are an insidious practice, meant to stifle market competition and innovation.
Think about the implications if MSFT loses. Sure, the evil empire is bought to its needs. Meanwhile, Amazon's patent on "one click shopping" and other nasty tricks get support in federal court.
I want software patents stopped now. Let the demise of MSFT take care of itself.
Yes, but it doesn't completely eliminate the possibility of Microsoft buying the patent itself. If all patent rights are passed to Microsoft, they would have just the bargaining chip they need to prevent anybody else (including OSS) from developing competing security products. They'd just make the price tag for licensing use of the patented technology high enough to discourage people.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Ok, let me say first I hate all that Microsoft stands for. Having to use (and support) their software sickens me. However, this type of dispute is indicative of the major problems today with IP patents. Broad process patents such as these will hurt us all in the end, tying up the courts, infringing upon many "good" companies needs to innovate their software products.
While i would like to hammer M$ as much as anyone, this is just the tip of the iceberg for litigation and everyone will feel the pain sometime soon..
This eliminates the buy-out option.
Actually, not really. Sony and Royal Philips could use this to their advantage. We all know that Sony complained about microsoft trying to change their licensing deal after <cough> the settlement with the doj. Maybe they can use this as a bargaining chip with MS? They could haggle for a better OEM licensing deal and hold this over MS or they could possibly just force MS to license their IP. Or just force MS to pay (insert X billion here) for the company
OTOH what do I know :-)
In the long run Microsoft will simply license the patent. There is no way that they would allow themselves to be prevented from shipping product, and at the point that it is clear that the legal team has failed, a vast quantity of cash will appear.
Frankly, would wish that Microsoft would win this one, because I would prefer that they come up with a way to make patents less of an issue in the industry than to have the tempo of lame patents increase due to a jackpot payout. However, I suspect a license will be negotiated. It mare come dearly after this legal fumble however.
Sig under construction since 1998.
"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
"ADOT Troll"?
This guy copied this exact comment from this post, from the same article, and the mods didn't see it!
Right, that's all they are *now*, but they were close to 400 people, and they actually invented, implemented, and patented the stuff themselves. It's not like they just went out and patented an idea, or bought and patented someone else's idea.
To make it even worse (in my eyes), this is actually one of those good 'ol Microsoft things where a much smaller company shows the goods to Microsoft as part of a licensing partnership, and then Microsoft goes off and does it themselves. InterTrust and Microsoft *used* to be "partners".
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
It is conceivable that InterTrust would be a viable company today if Microsoft had licenced their products and paid them a fair price for them (assuming of course that MS *did* use technology that infringed on the patents, etc, etc...).
Just a thought.
This post cannot be rebroadcast without the express written constent of Major League Baseball.
Yes, God forbid anyone should actually be able to recover the costs associated with researching and developing new technology, let alone be able to profit from it. Patents are not inherently evil. They provide inventors an incentive to spend their time and money developing inventions. If patents didn't exist, inventors would be screwed if they spent their whole lives and fortunes inventing a new widget only to have it copied by a million competitors as soon as it hit the market.
There is a balance, however, between giving the inventor the ability to benefit from their invention, and giving that benefit to society, which is why patents expire. I think if you want to complain about patents, you should complain that they don't expire quickly enough for your tastes. Although, I think patent expirations are a godsend compared to the current expirations on copyrights.
I am so sick of this esoteric patent corporate raider bullshit. I hope MS fucks them up!
If this suit got MS into buying some patent reform I am completely behind their efforts. If it doesn't then let them hang.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Isn't that basically what SCO is doing with *nix right now? Offering the opportunity to license the tech as though they've already won in court?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
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!
Monopolies created by the state are highly dubious in competitive markets. They tend to reduce efficiency and the general prosperity of the nation. Queen Elizabeth I (one of England's most popular monarchs) almost faced a rebellion in the later years of her reign because of the monopolies she issued by "letters patent".
So the issue is whether the public benefit from creating artifical monopolies outweighs the public loss from reducing competition. How much of the technology and development encouraged by monopolies would have occured anyway in a competitive market? The answer seems to depend on the industry: fewer medicines would be taken through expensive trials if there was no prospect of a short-term monopoly; most broad software ideas (with little underlying cost) would probably be developed by others in a short period of time.
" [...] 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."
That, my friend, is a question of perspective.
Sony and Philips are not exactly monolithic enterprises, but consist of two distinct competitors in anything with regard to entertainment products. However, Sony and Philips have always been interested in establishing firm and open standards, see DAT, see CD.
Them winning a case in DRM would mean nothing but a victory for the user, because they will not use the technique as their salespitch, but distribution of contents with open standards. I prefer that very much more than leaving all mechanisms with regard to DRM in the hand of one company that firmly believes in controlling and selling the patented mechanisms of enforcing DRM.
Evil vs. Evil?
Hardly.
No. Patents are meant to advance the sciences and when it comes to business model patents and especially software patents they are not working as expected. To paraphrase Newton minus the implied snide, software stands on the shoulders of giants. Patents, by design, kill this. Where do you think networking would be today if SPF had been patented?
Sorry but I have no problems throwing this baby out with the fetid bathwater.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
too vague to be enforceable
Yet the term Windows is specific enough to be a strong trademark. Ummm...
Bluntly, you shouldn't be able to protect an algorithm. An algorithm is a mathematical procedure, which is supposed to be unpatentable. The fact that the patent office is ignoring this basic fact is one reason this whole mess needs to be killed. Now.
If mathematics becomes patentable, that would effectively end several thousand years of progress.
In the US, a highly prominent (and rich) company winning a lawsuit is what people expect to happen. It will create no kind of expectation that a smaller organisation could do the same.
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.
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.
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.
Sony? Open? Sony makes good quality products but they love to push their proprietary technology. MagicGate Memory Sticks, MD, memory MagicGate Memory Sticks, Palm OS w/ proprietary extensions, DDCD (w/ Philips), 2.88Mb ED disks, etc. And I'm pretty sure they were among the first to massively copy protect their Japanese music releases. Their plan is world domination, just like Microsoft. They just do it with products that people love, instead of products that people hate but have no choice except to use.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.