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?
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 :-)
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".
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.
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
" [...] 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.
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.