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

Oh great

[Frothy Walrus]

Here come all the knee-jerk rally-behind-Microsoft comments.

Re:Oh great

[SN74S181]

Oh, I forgot. Software patents are good on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Unless the entity enforcing the patent is suing a Free Software project...

Re:Oh great

[squiggleslash]

According to SCO themselves it's contract law, not copyright law. While they've claimed Linux contains copyrighted code, they haven't gone to court over this - it seems to be largely a PR exercise. What they are doing is suing IBM for contract infringement - namely IBM supposedly agreed that any technologies it develops to include with its AIX system automatically belong to SCO and IBM is forbidden from using them elsewhere.

It's bizarre. But copyright infringement it isn't.

Re:Oh great

[rthille]

Well, since Sony bought InterTrust, I doubt that Microsoft will have as much luck killing it off as IBM will with SCO...

Re:Oh great

[MikeMo]

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".

Re:Oh great

[spuke4000]

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.

Re:Oh great

[barneyfoo]

actually it is copyright law. they are suing for damages based on code in the linux kernel and demanding, prior to judgement, license fees from all linux users. How is that not copyright? The court case might involve a contract dispute but it is based on copyright infringement. They have to prove that linux contains copyrighted code.... Copyright law will be directly involved, the contract is just an easy way for SCO to claim that IBM was tainted with SCOs copyrighted code, which is probably bogus and a ploy by microsoft (maybe something like, 'well invest some money in you, SCO, but only if you start suing linux companies, and consider the investment a downpayment on your attourney's fees).

Re:Oh great

[spirality]

Actually in principal the whole patent/copyright system is a mess. This is just another symptom of it. What would be nice is if Microsoft woke up to that reality and began lobbying for some changes. Certainly they have some pull in Washington...

Re:Oh great

[Flower]

The enemy of the enemy is my friend. I consider software patents to be a much higher order of evil than MS can ever be.

If this suit got MS into buying some patent reform I am completely behind their efforts. If it doesn't then let them hang.

Pipe Dream

[(54)T-Dub]

If settlement talks fail and InterTrust prevails in court, it would be entitled to a court order halting sales of all those products.

It'll never happen ... but hey ... we can dream right?

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.

Re:Pipe Dream

[GreyPoopon]

This eliminates the buy-out option.

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.

Re:Pipe Dream

[robinthecandystore]

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 :-)

2 Questions...

[calebb]

2 Questions...

...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?

Re:2 Questions...

[Tmack]

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?

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.

Tm

Re:2 Questions...

[mjh]

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?

This guy is not claiming copyright infringement. Therefore he doesn't need to see the source code to determine whether or not infringement occurred. He simply needs to see a program which implements (via any source code) a technique that he's patented.

Let's use an example of what I mean. Mailblocks claim that they have a patent on an antispam technique called "Challenge/Response". Then comes along Earthlink who implements a C/R antispam option for their customers. Mailblocks sues Earthlink. Now Mailblocks hasn't seen any of the source code to the software that Earthlink uses. But they know that they have a patent on what earthlink is doing, because they can interract with it and identify whether or not Earthlink's system implements all of the claims of Mailblocks' patent. Then they file suit.

BTW, I don't particularly like the patent claim that Mailblocks is using. I think that there is a *LOT* of prior art that can be demonstrated for this particular patent. However it is useful to illustrate the point: that this guy does not need to see Microsoft's source code to claim patent infringement. He only needs to play with the software and see if it does something that he's patented.

Re:2 Questions...

[Meridun]

This is not copyright infringement, this is patent infringement.

If someone accuses you of infringing on their copyright by stealing sourcecode, you can disprove them if you show that your sourcecode bears no resemblance to theirs.

If someone accuses you of violating their patent, you must prove that your invention falls outside the scope of their patent OR that their patent is invalid due to prior art.

Therefore, your questions of how they got the code aren't terribly relevant. As for how InterTrust noticed that they were using patented techniques, well, I assume they probably keep up in the field and read some of Microsoft's whitepapers. Again, patents cover a scope of techniques, rather than an exact set of code instructions, so it's possible to gauge infringement without a sourcecode comparison in some cases.

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:2 Questions...

[ichimunki]

I think you're oversimplifying. If patents were all as simple as writing a simple overview of what the "invention" was supposed to do and then waiting for others to implement that idea in any fixed form, then they'd be too vague as to be valid. A patent needs to be specific enough so that someone skilled in the art can use the patent as an instruction manual for constructing said device. Patent protection is then extended only to a device that could be reasonably considered to have been constructed using the patent. Of course, the way things have been going, who knows what it's possible to convince a judge/jury of these days.

Re:2 Questions...

[Cyno]

Just watch for InterTrust's board of execs to start selling stock any day now. Can't wait 'til they start offering new licenses for Windows. I just might pick up a few if they give me a good discount.

Isn't this great? I didn't understand what everyone meant about all the oportunity here in America until I saw that just about anyone can claim ownership of any property, even Linux and Windows, just by leveraging the legal system.

I'll never have to work another day in my life. :)

Re:2 Questions...

[JanneM]

That's what patent engineers and patent attourneys are for - to make the broadest possible claims on anything you have made, without it being so broad that it invalidates the patent altogether.

Some years ago, I would have written "...broadest possible well-founded, legitimate claims ...", but the way the patent system works nowadays, I would be lying...

WOW!!

[JoeLinux]

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?"

Re:WOW!!

[Sanga]

MS could be struck down! Oh happy day! May their quivering entrails be picked apart by Sun, MS, and IBM.

Recursive MS?? Self-cannibalism? Or do you want MS to rise like a phoenix from it's ashes?

Re:WOW!!

[Sloppy]

Although I'm rooting for Microsoft in this situation (they've simply been "out-eviled" here), it's just plain bullshit that Microsoft helps the economy. They don't produce hardly anything of value at all. Almost all the money going into them and coming out to their employees, is simply redistribution, without much actual work being done.

Consider just how many customers Microsoft has. If those people and businesses (and the government) stopped wasting so much money on Microsoft products, then that would help the economy. Maybe your paycheck (assuming you don't work at Microsoft) would be bigger and your stocks (assuming they aren't Microsoft) would be worth more.

If you want to sympathize for megacorps, pick one that produces something useful or provides a useful service; don't pick one as hollow and empty as Microsoft.

Lesser of two Evils?

[sleepingsquirrel]

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).

Re:Lesser of two Evils?

[Yohahn]

Root for MicroSoft, if we get overly broad patents taken care of, MicroSoft will have one less weapon against Linux.

At the same time, laugh at the irony

Re:Lesser of two Evils?

[Godeke]

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.

Re:Lesser of two Evils?

[FauxPasIII]

> This presents quite a dilemma.

Lighten up, Mr. Glass is Half Empty, look at it this way: in a battle between Microsoft and Trivial Software Patents 'r' Us, the bad guys will DEFINITELY lose.

Re:Lesser of two Evils?

[CharlieHedlin]

No, the bad guys (Evil Patent Lawyers) will definately win, regardless of the outcome.

Re:Lesser of two Evils?

[clenhart]

:)

yes, but the bad guys will definitely win.

Another Fine Mess

[druske]

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...

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.

Re:Another Fine Mess

[jd]

Consider this. About the only way the Government can intervene and preserve Microsoft is to weaken patents, especially software patents.

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.

Re:Another Fine Mess

[stwrtpj]

Call it what you will, but this is not Good vs Evil, this is Evil vs Evil.

Then choose who you support on the basis of the principle of the matter and not who the lawyers work for.

The way I see it, if Microsoft fights the patent and wins, this is a win for everyone. A win by a highly prominent company like Microsoft will send a HUGE message about overly broad patents. It makes it less likely that any large company, including Microsoft can use the same tactic on anyone else, since a precedent has been set.

Any other outcome is a loss. Microsoft purchasing the patent or settling out of court is a minor loss. It sends the message that Microsoft thought the patent infringement case was credible. If Microsoft challenges and loses, this is a major loss. It more firmly entrenches broad software patents as a matter of policy.

Re:Another Fine Mess

[DF5JT]

" [...] 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.

Re:Another Fine Mess

[Wumpus]

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's hard to use your own patents against an IP litigation company, but you can cause them some pain - Microsoft, I'm sure, has its own DRM patents that it can enforce. Microsoft could declare publicly that, for the industry's sake, it refuses to license its own patents to anyone who licenses InterTrust's patents, and that it will seek to enforce its own patent rights.

This should throw a nice fat wrench in the works. If nothing else, it would make licensing InterTrust's patents pointless for the purpose of implementing a DRM product. if all goes well. It would also throw DRM down the toilet, giving everybody involved a compelling reason to play nice.

Re:Another Fine Mess

[Mostly a lurker]

A win by a highly prominent company like Microsoft will send a HUGE message about overly broad patents

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.

Re:Another Fine Mess

[xigxag]

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.

Looks like a win-win to me

[Thoguth]

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.

Perhaps we can all now decide....

[mickwd]

....that software patents are just a bad idea.

Who to root for?

[Hayzeus]

Hmmmm. Microsoft? The legal, leeches attempting to enforce software patents? A true /.er's Dilemma (tm)!

Re:Who to root for?

[spitzak]

If you ignore the jokes, it is pretty clear that Slashdot unaimously thinks Microsoft is the one to root for. Read the comments please, and find one serious one that does not say that the InterTrust is evil for this.

really...

[lurgyman]

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?

Article, for those who don't wanna go to the site.

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft's Patent Problem
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 .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?"

Well they should be happy

[bigsexyjoe]

Since they are so interested in intellectual property, they must be overjoyed that the courts are protecting IP so zealously

Attack on software

[mhesseltine]

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?

Re:Attack on software

[jonabbey]

The only reason SCO isn't attacking BSD is that BSD isn't as popular. The Linux and OpenSource/FreeSoftware communities are bursting with energy, and have produced a product superior to anything SCO can possibly think of producing. SCO might be able to compete with BSD if BSD stays small and contained within a relatively narrow developer cabal. Linux is just too much, particularly with SCO licensees like IBM throwing down.

Re:Attack on software

[ucblockhead]

BSD would have no protection from either. First, just being "open source" yourself gives you no protection from patented technology. None. Zip. If someone has a patent on X, and you go write "GnuX", you'll get your ass sued. (I'm not saying that's how it should be. I'm saying that's how it is.)

If something is copyrighted, and not licensed with an open source license, you can get your ass sued for using it. This is exactly with SCO is suing over. If IBM had contributed to BSD instead of Linux, the lawsuit would be no different. (Of course, the fact that the SCO suit is almost certainly frivolous makes a huge difference.)

This is not going to be "the coffin of DRM" by any means, as InterTrust is backed by really big companies like Sony and Phillips. What it means is that Microsoft is on the short end of the patent stick and therefore can't monopolize DRM like they'd dearly love to.

Re:Attack on software

[tres]

um, sorry?

BSD already went through this same thing a decade ago. The litigation that tied up BSD for years was actually one of the reasons that Linux became so popular to begin with.

SCO can't touch BSD because UC Berkeley and AT&T already went to court and settled on this matter.

Lawsuits

[ucblockhead]

This lawsuit is one of the things that is causing investors to be so pro-SCO. People have made a bundle on Intertrust stock as this lawsuit made its way through the system. This gave people the idea that they could make a bundle buying into tiny little companies trying to enforce patents on corporate giants.

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.

Re:Lawsuits

[nelsonal]

Happily there are a few investors savy enough to realize these things, that's why Sony and Phillips bought this company for a half a billion, and SCO is still public (meaning that noone belives they have enough of a case to buy them out).

Re:Lawsuits

[dasmegabyte]

Intertrust is a privately held firm, numbnuts. "Investors" haven't made anything -- just its parent companies.

Privately held firms are where it's at. All the flexibility and simplicity of small business combined with the clout of big business.

Wait, wait

[Obiwan Kenobi]

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!

Wouldn't it be ironic if

[mjmalone]

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...

Re:Who are we siding with today folks?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Too... much... input...

Circuits... overloading...

*Head explodes*

Sounds like judge Judy

[_Sambo]

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?

Just because it's Microsoft doesn't make it right

[Simon Brooke]

OK, OK, I'm laughing too. I'm laughing pretty hard because this is so much the biter bit. It's a great story.

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.

Where to find the patents?

[Vip]

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

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.

as said in the evangiles

[lfourrier]

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)

.NET? I'd be worried...

[alyandon]

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.

Re:50 Billion in the Bank

[molarmass192]

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.

scratch out software...

[Thinkit3]

All patents are bad! Get it through your head!

Re:scratch out software...

[Cyno]

Yeah, I don't get it.

Why are monopolies so evil?

Re:scratch out software...

[anonymous loser]

All patents are bad! Get it through your head!

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.

Re:scratch out software...

[henrygb]

Monopolies are not inherently evil. It is not evil to have a monopoly.

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.

Re:scratch out software...

[nathanh]

Why are monopolies so evil?

Monopolies aren't evil.

Microsoft is "evil" because they abused their power as a monopoly to hinder competition. To be specific, they threatened OEMs with a revocation of Windows licensing unless those OEMs licensed Internet Explorer instead of Netscape Navigator.

You can argue that Navigator was going to go blammo anyway (and I wouldn't disagree) but that doesn't excuse Microsoft from what they did. They hastened the death of Netscape by abusing their monopoly power. That's illegal. It's also immoral. I probably wouldn't go as far as "evil" but that is your word.

Think of it this way. Being big and strong is not wrong, in itself. Being big and strong and bashing small weak people whenever you feel like it, that is very wrong.

Re: Nope a lose-lose

[binaryDigit]

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.

Patents are the greater evil

[basho3]

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.

This actually sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

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..

Re:This actually sucks

[Paul d'Aoust]

If I had mod points I'd mod the parent as "insightful"... I agree strongly with the sentiment expressed therein. I would love to see Mickeysoft go down, but not at the hands of a bunch of guys with an IP portfolio. A situation like that would further engender this whole miserable environment of "intellectual property" enforcement.

The ends don't justify the means, especially in this case!

Re:This actually sucks

[stwrtpj]

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 is an excellent comment.

This is why I get sick of hearing the hyprocrites on /. who keep slavering for IBM to bludgeon SCO with its patent portfolio. 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.

Re:This actually sucks

[jonathanbearak]

If a company as large as Microsoft suffers because of bullshit patents, maybe our legislators will finally do something about it.

This may be a machiavellian idea, but if I had to pick a corporation to finally get in trouble because of this kind of nonsense, Microsoft is a good choice.

Re:This actually sucks

[jafac]

It's like the end of Jurassic Park, when the kids and the scientists are all cornered by the Velociraptors, and suddenly, the T-Rex comes along, and tries to eat one of the Velociraptors, and then the other two attack the T-Rex, and the humans escape.

It's great when two evils decide to attack eachother.

This is why competition is good, and monopolies are bad.

The US Govt - by the way, has a monopoly on awarding patents.

Re:This actually sucks

[MyHair]

Ok, let me say first I hate all that Microsoft stands for.

That's not very fair. They make nice mice and keyboards!

Re:This actually sucks

[sniggly]

What if you have a company with hundreds of workers, you developed a piece of code, you patent it, you show it to another company (assuming non disclosure and all). Then that other company won't buy or license it. But they use it anyway, and put it in most of their brand name products.

Wouldnt you seek legal redress if you could? There is a real difference between this and SCO, SCO hasn't shown us evidence of their ownership of code, these guys apparently have convinced a judge in 30 out of 33 cases that their patent should be enforced.

Re:This actually sucks

[orcrist]

You can't have it both ways.

Though I agree the parent comment was very insightful, I think I could have it both ways. One of the reasons I dislike Microsoft (Or at least its business practices) is because of the degree they have egendered/exacerbated the very IP problem mentioned in the parent comment. I don't think it's the tip of the iceberg per se, since MS itself was the tip, middle, and a good portion of the bottom of the iceberg. It would be a pleasure to see them suffer the literal consequences of their actions and it would be (at least) poetic justice, with the added bonus of knowing they would be forced to at least partly aid the fight against such patents and similar ip claims.

Though I must admit I'm not too optimistic that it will necessarily turn out that rosy :-( Still, I don't see any moral ambiguity or double standard in my hopes.

-Chris

Re:This actually sucks

[JCCyC]

You either hate software patents in all cases or you don't, no matter who the defendant is.

Yeah, right, Microsoft will see the error of their ways and defend Free Software from patents, because, well, they're moral beings and would never use double standards.

Re:This actually sucks

[benjamindees]

You either hate software patents in all cases or you don't, no matter who the defendant is.

You either hate shootings in all cases or you don't, no matter who the victim is.

When it's your grandma shooting someone who tries to mug her, you'd change your mind.

Overly-broad patents don't hurt people, people who use overly-broad patents as a weapon hurt people.

Re:This actually sucks

[Gherald]

The US Govt - by the way, has a monopoly on awarding patents.

Yes, I am sure things would be sooo much better if there were two or three major competitors who were mass issueing conflicting patents left and right in order to outsell each other.

The economic implications of legal bills alone would be astounding!

Re:This actually sucks

[Sexy Commando]

What if you have a company with hundreds of workers, you developed a piece of code, you patent it, you show it to another company (assuming non disclosure and all).

Scratch my previous comment. When you patent a invention, you have effectively told everybody in the world how your thing works in the patent document (eg pseudocode etc.). Patent and Non-disclosure don't go together, Unless you are talking about copyright, which is a different beast.

Re:This actually sucks

[the gnat]

One of the reasons I dislike Microsoft (Or at least its business practices) is because of the degree they have egendered/exacerbated the very IP problem mentioned in the parent comment.

With regards to software piracy, perhaps - although I tend towards Microsoft's side in that case. However, they have been relatively less agressive in enforcing patents. Bill Gates himself pointed out more than years ago that the growing patent frenzy would have prevented the past few decades of technical advances, if companies had been that zealous when the computer was invented. Thus, he said, Microsoft would have to be constantly on the lookout for other companies (specifically, large ones like IBM) who would try to screw it with patents - the solution being, therefore, for Microsoft itself to assemble a defensive patent portfolio.

Microsoft has definitely used the threat of litigation to scare off competition in a few cases, and they've made rumbling noises about various open-source projects that aim for compatability. However, they've never truly used their patents for outright extortion, unlike *cough* IBM and seem generally content to sit on their portfolio unless directly threatened. I don't trust them for a second, but I'm not going to attack them without cause.

Re:This actually sucks

[the gnat]

If a company as large as Microsoft suffers because of bullshit patents, maybe our legislators will finally do something about it.

Bingo! I think this is exactly what will happen. Our government needs to see the kind of damage this madness is able to inflict upon our economy before they will act in a fashion that would appear "anti-business". I'm predicting that gene patents will meet a similar end, along the same lines (though they may die out anyway for other reasons).

Re:This actually sucks

[dnoyeb]

That is completely inaccurate. Patents have their place. They are not completely worthless.

2nd and 3rd hand patents AND copywrights is where it gets questionable. Everyone should be able to patent what they invent, heck and even license it. But i disagree when the patent itself is sold.

Thats the diff between this case and the SCO case. /.ers are intelligent enough to know the difference.

Re:This actually sucks

[cmacb]

Glad you said this. It would have taken me 3 pages to rant out the same concept.

As soon as a copyright or patent becomes just an asset on a balance sheet I have a problem with it. Companies buy patents to prevent anyone else from using them. They donate patents to universities at outrageous valuations to get tax write-offs, and like SCO, they use them to blackmail other companies.

The purpose of patent and copywright law is to encourage innovation. But why innovate when you can play the game like it is the stock market... buying, selling and litigating over technology that your company neither uses or understands?

It's easy to understand if you think about it: Patents are good when they reward innovation, they are bad when they punish or limit innovation, regardless of what companies are involved. Seems pretty easy to me.

Re:This actually sucks

[HutchGeek]

The US Govt - by the way, has a monopoly on awarding patents.

Exactly. And do you notice that those who have monopolies tend to do a shoddy job of things? Face it - MSoft has got their OS monopoly - well basically. And inlight of "spending millions on security" they still come out with holes in thier software. Am I about to rant on Microsoft? Nope.

But consider this: if MSoft holds soo much of the world market share in OS and according to most ./'ers does such a horrific job of it - what has the US patent office been doing lately?

It seems these days that anyone can get a patent on anything. Have we taken the idea of IP too far? or patents in general? Patents on something very specific are understandable. You come up with a new data encoding technology for hard drives for example. At this point its a wonder the Patent office isnt issuing IP patents for say... "a device to reproduce audible information from a personal computer by electrical impulses." Wham, US patent office grants it and suddenly our $10.00 PC speakers are 200.00 because someone sues the hell out of every speaker manufacturer on the planet for patent infringement.

Pretty soon ideal growth is going to grind to a halt. Why? no one will develop new ideas or technologies for fear of getting sued by someone else claiming they had the idea first.

And the source of the problem? People working in the patent office who don't realize that granteing these broad encompassing patents hurts growth, industry, research, courts, and the economy.

Wonder if I can get a patent on air? I bet if I phrase it right I can be granted a US patent, and therfore a monopoly on Oxygen. Think not? give someone time and the right phrasing. I'm sure the patent office will be happy to oblige.

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.)

Re:Intertrust and SCO

[shades66]

and that intertrust have at least been through the courts to prove ownership unlike SCO who are just hoping that no-one finds out that they own nothing... (hopefully anyway!)

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:Implications?

[GreyPoopon]

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.

Actually, I think Microsoft's future plans depend on this technology. Even if the patent expired tomorrow, they'd still owe a BUNCH of back payments should the case be decided in favor of Intertrust.

heard about this a year ago

[CrackedButter]

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.

Microsoft == good guy in this case

[asscroft]

"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.

Re:Microsoft == good guy in this case

[phorm]

Great, an IP only company. Wonderful

If you had a decent-sized company... and Microsoft basically took your product/ideas, stuck them in their product, and shipped it out everywhere, how would you end up?

You might want to focus on how InterTrust ended up as an IP-only company...

Are you kidding me?

[Ophidian P. Jones]

"ADOT Troll"?

This guy copied this exact comment from this post, from the same article, and the mods didn't see it!

Let's call it like it is

[Infonaut]

I've never liked Microsoft or their tactics. But this is nothing more than extortion by weasels who want a slice of the big Microsoft money bag.

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!"

Re:Just because it's Microsoft doesn't make it rig

[martissimo]

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)

Not so much a win-win as you think

[getling]

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).

Oh the irony...

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

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

Re:Oh the irony...

[v1]

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?

Not neccesarily a bad patent

[Hamfist]

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.

Re:Not neccesarily a bad patent

[Flower]

Nope. Software patents are bad. Period. EOF. I will never be convinced otherwise. I've listened to the RSA patent debacle, have heard Radia Perlman speak and say she was interested in pursuing research in certain applications of cryptography but wouldn't because that area was currently littered with a minefield of patents, and I've seen the USPTO not only botch the job with patent after patent but then have the gall to say they are doing a good job.

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.

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.

Re:Stop whining and get specific

[Jerf]

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.

Normally I'd agree, but the typical technical patent simply is a restatement of the abstract, in all possible permutations of basic hardware and software setups. See the anatomy of a trivial patent for examples of that sort of thing. Combined with the way the Patent Office (and the rest of the system) is forced to take a broad view of patents, it regrettably is fairly valid to argue from the abstract alone.

There's no reasonable way to describe a true implementation of these ideas fully in the twenty or so pages most of these sorts of patents consume.

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.

Generally speaking, while that may be useful in non-software domains, software patent claims are uselessly vague. Showing prior art for a patent claim that literally boils down to "Sending encrypted data with a network" (as opposed to the next claim, which could involve sending encrypted data with a modem) is so easy, the legal system refuses to believe it, so they make it impossible, because while specified prior art certainly invalidates the broad claim, it doesn't quite match the exact implementation or something stupid like that. Frankly, I have a hard time keeping all the rationalizations that make software patents possible straight; they are so nonsensical that they make no sense to me anymore.

Totally True

[mholt108]

I am so sick of this esoteric patent corporate raider bullshit. I hope MS fucks them up!

Re:Totally True

[kien]

I am so sick of this esoteric patent corporate raider bullshit. I hope MS fucks them up!

Parent was modded Troll, and I can't help but wonder why. Was it an anti-Microsoft moderator or a pro-software patent moderator?

This particular thread might just be the Slashdot Singularity. :) Of course, I'll probably get modded Offtopic by both camps now, but I think it's an interesting question.

Kinda puts a whole new spin on "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"....who is my enemy in this case?

--K.

Interesting combination...

[barbkev]

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.

Ridiculous == Helpful in political world

[gamartin]

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!

Like a football game between two hated teams

[dtolton]

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.

InterNonsense...

[hysterion]

InterTrust CEO Talal Shamoon asks rhetorically, "How much would that be worth to Microsoft?"

Hey this rings a bell... it's the SDMI watermark company and guy! Kind of nice to see how that all ended:

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.

Head hurts..

[FurryFeet]

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...

Word of the day

[grondin]

Word of the day

Time to try again to answer that age old question.

[Featureless]

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.

What happened to the vaunted Microsoft legal team?

[ffoiii]

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.

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/no v0 1/11-21NeukomPR.asp

Is Microsoft in the right?

[Random BedHead Ed]

A lot of people will be annoyed by this comment, but personally I think we should support Microsoft on this. No, this is not a troll. I usually enjoy laughing in Microsoft's face, but in this case they've encountered the same problem that many open source developers face: the notion that software patents are a valid use of our patent system. They are not.

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.

I don't know about anybody else...

[Anonymous Struct]

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.

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?

Re:Check it out

[UnknownQ]

Yep, they missed Bob. Looks like all you Windows zealots are stuck with a big yellow smiley face for an operating system.

Re:Check it out

[Sloppy]

[product list]
I wonder if they missed one?

Nope, none of them would be missed. ;-)

What's next ? David against Goliath ?

[Atreide]

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 /.

Things I don't get

[tomstdenis]

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

that's not good

[73939133]

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.

This is so weird, but...

[inode_buddha]

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).

Ridiculous!

[Anonymous Coward]

How could MS possibly violate a security patent?

To do that, they'd have to implement some kind of security!

Why Patents Are A Good Thing

[SilentMajority]

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.

Re:Why Patents Are A Good Thing

[zooblethorpe]

Hello, IANAL, but I've had to translate a few patents in my time, and I've noticed a few flaws with your reasoning above. Given my background, I'll tackle #2 first.

• No patent I have seen so far (not many, but enough and in varied enough fields to get a general feel) is actually usable as the recipe you seem to think all patents should be (and common sense would seem to dictate). In fact, I remember asking a number of people (professional technical translators, civil servants, and others) about why the claims were so blooming vague, and being told that claims are deliberately written to be as vague and broad as deemed legally defensible in order to cover as many permutations of said claims as possible. If the patent were in fact a specific recipe for the product in question, then any wannabe competitor need only change a few things in the design implementation to sidestep the claims. That's the only way these IP patent cases work at all -- it's (usually) not that Company X has made a complete duplicate of Company Y's product, or even a partial duplicate, but rather that Company X's design infringes on the claims of Company Y's patent.

• On to #1. The problem here is that you assume simply having a patent is enough to protect the little guy. Again, IANAL, but as I've noticed over time, the vast majority of illegal activities are ignored unless someone specifically fights against them. Take jaywalking as a more prosaic instance, and then take copyright as a more apropos example. If violations are not pursued, the offenses are ignored, and in the case of copyright, the legal restriction against the activity (in this case, copying) vanishes. It's not the best example, but 'Aspirin' was once a brand name.
  

  To pull this back to the topic at hand, simply having a patent, i.e. IP rights, on something is not sufficient protection, as one must also have the resources at hand to fight against that right being abrogated. The "little guy who invents something new" often still has a heck of a time competing against the big guys who copy his ideas. Even if he manages to put up a legal fight, chances are he gets bought out by some pittance of a settlement while the Big Company(TM) goes on to make major money. As noted previously in this thread, patents are most helpful to those with substantial warchests.

If you have some tale of the little guy taking on the Big Company and winning big time, I'd love to hear it, as it might restore some faith in the system for me. As it is, I'm feeling pretty damn cynical about IP all around.

--------
If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts written in blood...

The reareason MS is indemnifying their customers?

[univgeek]

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!!

ObMSBash: Business as Usual

[red floyd]

[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!

Patent vs Copyright?

[uberdave]

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?

Re:Patent vs Copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

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.

This threatens us all, not just MS.

[borgheron]

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

Re:Oi Vague

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

too vague to be enforceable
Yet the term Windows is specific enough to be a strong trademark. Ummm...

Consumer electronics kings vs. Microsoft

[SysKoll]

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.

-- SysKoll

Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

One good thing about this result ...

[rollingcalf]

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.

On the other hand..

[jav1231]

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

you're not really thinking about the big picture

[anonymous loser]

If someone wants to profit from their own work, they can simply manufacture and sell it.

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.

Only One Thing Is Certain

[serutan]

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.

No, and you're assuming facts not in evidence

[phr2]

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.

Re:No, and you're assuming facts not in evidence

[angio]

> Almost all software patents are for stuff that's obvious

As one of the named inventors on a pending software patent application, I call BS on this. The patents you usually hear about, particularly on Slashdot, are bad. But that doesn't mean that "almost all" software patents are for stuff that was obvious when they were filed. In 1999, was the use of stego to encode digital watermarking information really obvious? The first academic conference on stego-related issues wasn't even created until 1996. I know some of the people who worked at Intertrust during its heyday - and they're damn smart crypto and security researchers. Look at some of the research papers from Intertrust. If you know anything about security, you'll recognize some very good computer scientists in there. Martin Abadi invented the logic used to analyze security protocols. Robert Tarjan quite literally wrote the book on advanced algorithms and data structures.

Now, contrast that with something like "a patent on the use of a web server to sell things" -- well, duh. But a patent that describes the method by which you use the high frequency components of an audio signal to digitally watermark an audio sample? It sounds kind of obvious in 2003 because that's how everyone's doing it, but the technology was quite new five years ago, and Intertrust was doing some of the preeminent research on it.

Don't blast all software patents because some are stupid. The system has a problem - a big one - but the fundamental concept of software patents isn't as silly as you might believe.

Computers are a waste of time

[theolein]

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.

Re:Anyone remember STAC?

[Peter H.S.]

They had a bogus data compression patent that they successfully sued Microsoft over. The result was that Microsoft bought out Stac for something like $120 million and incorporated the Stac algorithm into Disk Doubler.

Quarterdeck STAC wasn't bogus at all. It actually worked, while Disk Doubler was nothing but trouble. AFAIK, the lawsuit wasn't about patents, but that MS had verbatim copied code from STAC into DD.
Se eg. http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/12684.html

MS never bought Quarterdeck (of QEMM and Desqview fame). MS hated Quarterdeck with a passion, probably because of Desqview.

They had that option. Burn M$, burn!

[twitter]

Microsoft will simply license the patent. There is no way that they would allow themselves to be prevented from shipping product

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.

Oh no, not another one

[unoengborg]

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.

Re: what a mess

[spirality]

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.

Re: what a mess

[saden1]

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.

Re: what a mess

[Malcontent]

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.

On the behalf of M$

[Ektanoor]

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).

Trusted?

[jaavaaguru]

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.

You don't understand software

[musicmaster]

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.

Re: what a mess

[bahamat]

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?

Some history...

[bobwyman]

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