Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Patent Problem
pens writes "Microsoft suffered utter defeat at a crucial pretrial hearing in what appears to be the highest-stakes patent litigation ever--one in which a tiny company called InterTrust Technologies claims that 85% of Microsoft's entire product line infringes its digital security patents."
Here come all the knee-jerk rally-behind-Microsoft comments.
If settlement talks fail and InterTrust prevails in court, it would be entitled to a court order halting sales of all those products.
... but hey ... we can dream right?
It'll never happen
An investor group led by Sony Corp. of America and Royal Philips Electronics bought the company in January for $453 million, hoping to convince consumer electronics and tech companies--beginning with Microsoft--of the need to license its patents.
This eliminates the buy-out option.
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
...and rebuked the company's lawyers for wasting her time by promising proof that never materialized--legal vaporware, in essence.
As far as I can tell, the patents that InterTrust owns cover the technology; They don't go into details on accomplishing what they describe.
Q1. What if Microsoft developed a way to carry out their authentication (using these trusts) either
1. On their own or
2. Without even hearing about InterTrust's patent?
Q2.In the case of #2, everyone is probably saying "It doesn't matter..." but if this was the case, how would/did InterTrust find out about it? Microsoft doesn't leave their source code lying around the internet; Now they do give SDK's, but (at least prior to .NET framework), the SDK is vague on how things like authentication happen. If you want to learn about NTLM, you need to go to a site like Security Focus. The helpfile in any SDK that Microsoft releases will not talk about the underlying technology (or lack thereof...heh)
Of course, I'm not against suing Microsoft, but I'm just curious as to how this whole suit came up... Maybe someone else out there can enlighten me?
Let there be singing in the street! MS could be struck down! Oh happy day! May their quivering entrails be picked apart by Sun, MS, and IBM.
May they eternally be peeing into the wind.
May the public works decree that the road never rise to meet them.
May MS's stock go so low that Billy Boy OWES money.
May we hear him utter the words, "Would you like fries with that?"
This presents quite a dilemma. Do I root for Microsoft and hope quell the tide of overly broad patents? Or do I root for InterTrust and hope this derails DRM for the time being? I guess I'm leaning toward the option where the trial drags out for two years, but MS eventually wins. That way at least the patent gets busted (because we know that MS would eventually license and implement DRM anyway).
While it's tempting to get a laugh out of a little company handing it to Microsoft for its use of DRM technology, of all things, this is yet another B.S. piece of patent litigation. InterTrust, according to the article, is now nothing more than "a patent portfolio, 30 employees, and this lawsuit." Microsoft, like all other technology corporations, has its own bulky patent portfolio --- which is useless defense against a company that makes no use of its own patents, much less anyone else's.
It'd be funny if Microsoft used its considerable political influence to fix this patent problem, and wound up killing SCO as a side-effect. Hey, it may be cheaper than licensing DRM from InterTrust...
Hey, this could be good either way it turns out. On one hand, if anybody has the legal/political muscle to reform software patent silliness it's Microsoft.
On the other hand, if InterTrust wins the patent licensing fees will probably make DRM much less of a nuisance, at least for another 14 years. And it will totally kick MS in the balls.
The requested URL
Hmmmm. Microsoft? The legal, leeches attempting to enforce software patents? A true /.er's Dilemma (tm)!
Roving Web-Teleoperated Robot
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?
Ok, you have SCO attacking Linux over licensing code. You have this small company (but backed by larger companies SONY and Phillips) attacking Microsoft. Where does someone turn to get away from all the legal hassles?
Ignoring the trolls, would a *BSD system be better off, because SCO doesn't seem to be claiming anything related to BSD.
Also, could this be a nail in the coffin of DRM? Or, would MS just pay the license fee, and jack the consumers for it anyway?
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation
Unfortunately, your average investor isn't clued in enough to realize that InterTrust has a very good case while SCO has a very bad one. Thus, the recent runup in SCO stock.
The cake is a pie
Hold on here. Are tech copyrights now good?
Damn you slashdot political climate, damn you!
It took me years to figure out all of the nuances, then they had to go screw it up again.
So, for the next 5 minutes, goofy tech patents rule!
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?
Put if software patents are bad (and I believe they are) they're bad even when someone is putting the boot into Microsoft. Let's face it, this may be a 'small' company putting the boot in, but it's a 'small' company owned (mostly) by Sony. Patents still only help those with very deep warchests.
We must continue to oppose software patents and that means all software patents, because that's the only way we can maintain a playing field level enough for us small guys to play at all.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
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)
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.
That company is own by Sony and Philips, it's not public. Also, the article insinuates they're looking for payments in the billions, not just millions. If this patent gets upheld, it's going to cost a lot, and not just a one time charge by the gist of it. The good part is that this may cause the patent nonsense glass to finally overflow.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
On the other hand, if InterTrust wins the patent licensing fees will probably make DRM much less of a nuisance,
Nope, it just means legit things like the iTunes Music Store and BuyMusic will have to charge more money to cover the licensing costs. It means that other attempts to figure ways to legitimatly allow users inexpensive online access to content will be stalled/aborted. It means that the RIAA and their ilk will continue to have a convenient excuse to go after file sharers because there STILL won't be a viable legal alternative.
Sure, we all like to see the little guy yank Micro$oft's chain. But software patents are an insidious practice, meant to stifle market competition and innovation.
Think about the implications if MSFT loses. Sure, the evil empire is bought to its needs. Meanwhile, Amazon's patent on "one click shopping" and other nasty tricks get support in federal court.
I want software patents stopped now. Let the demise of MSFT take care of itself.
Ok, let me say first I hate all that Microsoft stands for. Having to use (and support) their software sickens me. However, this type of dispute is indicative of the major problems today with IP patents. Broad process patents such as these will hurt us all in the end, tying up the courts, infringing upon many "good" companies needs to innovate their software products.
While i would like to hammer M$ as much as anyone, this is just the tip of the iceberg for litigation and everyone will feel the pain sometime soon..
Intertrust's suit could hardly prompted by SCOs as it has been wending its way through the court system for two years now. It's a company that was trying to sell DRM "technology" but could not because of Microsoft's fun competitive tactics. It currently has no assets other than patents because it essentially ran out of money (at which point Sony and Philips bought it to keep this lawsuit going.)
The cake is a pie
Then all you water drinking pirates would have pay me royalties!
$8.95/mo web hosting
>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.
"At its prebubble height, InterTrust (founded in 1990) employed 376 people and marketed its own software and hardware products; today it consists mainly of a patent portfolio, 30 employees, and this lawsuit."
Great, an IP only company. Wonderful
"Microsoft argued in court that crucial phrases in InterTrust's patents were too vague to be enforceable, and that others required such narrow interpretation that they would have been hard for Microsoft to infringe."
Don't we claim stuff like this all the time about Patents. This is a test of someone with real money being able to say the USPTO is full of shit and these patents are vague adn useless.
Win or lose, the more of this crap the better. It will eventually get so bad that someone will change the USPTO.
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
"ADOT Troll"?
This guy copied this exact comment from this post, from the same article, and the mods didn't see it!
We're now seeing the inevitable result of a system wherein the unequal playing field forces companies to do battle in the intellectual property realm rather than in the marketplace. Rather than come to market first with the best products, it's now about building up an intellectual property portfolio and torpedoing whomever surfaces first.
The business climate that Microsoft helped to engender has rebounded back on them with a vengeance. But that doesn't make InterTrust the good guys. They're just slimy opportunists who have elected to go along with the prevailing attitude, which is "Build up a company the old fashioned way? Screw that! Let's sue instead!"
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
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)
Yeah, I don't get it.
Why are monopolies so evil?
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.
"I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
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.
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.
Yes, God forbid anyone should actually be able to recover the costs associated with researching and developing new technology, let alone be able to profit from it. Patents are not inherently evil. They provide inventors an incentive to spend their time and money developing inventions. If patents didn't exist, inventors would be screwed if they spent their whole lives and fortunes inventing a new widget only to have it copied by a million competitors as soon as it hit the market.
There is a balance, however, between giving the inventor the ability to benefit from their invention, and giving that benefit to society, which is why patents expire. I think if you want to complain about patents, you should complain that they don't expire quickly enough for your tastes. Although, I think patent expirations are a godsend compared to the current expirations on copyrights.
I am so sick of this esoteric patent corporate raider bullshit. I hope MS fucks them up!
Timeo idiotikOS et dona ferentes
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...
Isn't that basically what SCO is doing with *nix right now? Offering the opportunity to license the tech as though they've already won in court?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Can patents make it more convenient for big wealthy people to fuck the little guy? Or do they create too big of a risk that some big guy might actually get in trouble themselves?
Now, for those new to the debate, lets go over the simple reason why software patents are categorically, provably, and obviously insane.
Assume that the patent office is adequately staffed with an army of geniuses with eiditic memories, who never make poor judgements about what is patent-worthy and what isn't.
Anyone writing code must have to know the entire patent database - millions of patents. They would also have to stay current - thousands of new applications a day, on a slow day.
Impossible? Duh.
"Uh, now what?"
Every piece of software is a ticking patent time bomb - a multi-million dollar civil litigation waiting to happen.
Big players enjoy (and lobby for) patent systems like this because its another tool in the toolbox. You build a portfolio, and it's a great way to cost your competitors millions, threaten their business, their reputation, create FUD, etc. The cases drag on for decades, and hey, it's interesting how whoever has more money to fight them seems to always come out on top.
My greatest dream is that a giant like Microsoft will get snared in its own net, and actually start fighting to end software patents, so at least there'll be one less absolutely awful piece of economy-destroying legislation for our children to enjoy.
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
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.
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.
You can find specific patent numbers they claim MS is in violation of, such as US Patent No. 5,940,504 which I guess is about product activation. (I'm to feeling lazy right now so you go look up the patents.)
I'm not feeling that lazy so here's a quick cut and paste of MS's stuff they claim is violating their patents.
# Xbox
# My Services
# Windows Hardware Quality Lab and Windows Logo Certification
# Windows File Protection System
# Windows XP Home
# Windows XP Professional
# Windows ME
# Windows XP Embedded
# Windows CE.NET
# Office XP Standard
# Office XP Professional
# Office XP Professional with FrontPage
# Office XP Developer
# Access 2002
# Excel 2002
# FrontPage 2002
# Outlook 2002
# PowerPoint 2002
# Project 2002
# Publisher 2002
# Word 2002
# Windows Media Player
# Microsoft Reader
# Digital Asset Server
# Internet Explorer 6.0
# ASP.NET
#
#
# Visio 2002
# Visio Enterprise Network Tools
# Visual Studio
# Visual Studio
# Visual Studio
I wonder if they missed one?
>
I am quite surprised.
:
/.
Lot's of "Urah" and "that's good"...
But just remember
1/ if InterTrust succeeds who's coming next on their menu ? However I do not think the future will take this path.
2 / remember, InterTrust is backed up by Sony & Philips. That is not David against Goliath as some are thinking. That is Mamoths against Mamoth.
They will probably settle an arrangement. It is not good for Sony & Philips to test the validity of the copyright up to its end. It is far much better to let the shadow of it, in order to scare others. That is much better in order to force others into complying with their own agenda. Remember who are Sony & Philips ? They are not FSF advocates but music & multimedia devices suppliers... Remember who are their friends ?
Their agenda (InterTrust agenda) is probably to give Sony & Philips leverage on MS in order to implement THEIR technology into Windows. That will make money (licence + standard devices & albums disks) for them and cost nothing (no market to penetrate, MS does it & no trial for years). After that their technology will be all over the rest of the world.
The best thing (the worst ?) of all 3 is that it can even be good for MS who might end with 2 allies in order to propagate its technology (CE in Philips & Sony devices ? MS DRM in Sony albums ?).
Indeed that is very very bad for all of us.
We are living is a very sad world guys. Depressing to read
The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then
How could MS possibly violate a security patent?
To do that, they'd have to implement some kind of security!
Couple reasons:
1. Without patents, the little guy who invents something new won't be able to compete against the big corporations who copy his idea.
2. Patents are REQUIRED to describe sufficient details so that any reasonably skilled person in the "art" (computer science, electrical engineer, etc.) can actually use the patent to build the invention. This means rather than keeping useful inventions secret, the inventor benefits for about 17 years after which the general public can benefit too by having details available.
In other words, patents CAN help the lone inventor protect his invention and it helps foster an environment where inventors are incented to SHARE details about their invention with the public.
Like anything else, there are abuses and extreme cases but it doesn't mean there are no benefits.
While we all thought that MS was indemnifying their customers in order to present Linux in a bad-light, might that have been to assuage customers against this ruling? This news seems to be put MS WindowsXX in a much worse position than Linux/IBM is now. There is already a ruling against MS, as opposed to only 'legal vaporware' against Linux. Convince your company to stay away from MS based on this!!
All bow to his Noodliness!! His Noodle Appendage has touched me!
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.
Software patents are wrong in general. It seems as though this company has become a litigation engine for finding infringements of it's patent anywhere it can, even if it's a stretch.
I'm no Microsoft lover, but I don't like seeing software patents abused in this way.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
too vague to be enforceable
Yet the term Windows is specific enough to be a strong trademark. Ummm...
I agree that software patents are a pain and are unethical.
But it's interesting to note who is attacking MS here and in what context. Philips and Sony are two of the greatest consumer electronics companies on the planet. Sony is an archfoe of Microsoft since Redmond released the XBox. Several large Japanese companies recently made a lot of noise about standardizing on Linux for consumer electronics, which is pretty bad for WindowsCE. Some observers wondered if the goal of that publicity wasn't just to score a marketing point against WinCE.
So this is the next episode in this war. This patent lawsuit is a single battle in a larger fight.
Watch for more blows exchanged between MS and consumer electronics companies.
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
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.
Microsoft may now decide to harness some of its billions to lobby for laws *against* software patents.
On the other hand, they may decide that they'll need to accumulate the most massive patent portfolio in order to have ammunition if faced with something similar again.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
Look, baseless claims are often made in IP cases. But who's to say that InterTrust didn't come to M$, layout it's proposals and say "This would be a good integration into your software" M$ says "We'll get back to you on that" and simply takes the idea and runs!? If that's the case, and it certainly is viable, then that puts a whole other angle on this. It certainly would be typical M$ fashion, no? JAV
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.
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 could have done this from the start, but it's obvious that the company with a patent on a "secure operating system" has no respect for other people's "intelectual property". How absurd it was for them to argue that Intertrusts patents were, too vague to be enforceable, and that others required such narrow interpretation that they would have been hard for Microsoft to infringe.
One thing's for sure, neither Microsoft nor patent law can win. Without strong patent law, Microsoft will fall to superior free software. If Microsoft wins, patent law suffers. If they lose, they can be ruined and that would be shocking. It would be better for Microsoft to lose.
The absurdity of patent law must be demonstrated and this is a great way to do it. Patent law has worked to the disadvantage of others and should work to Microsoft's disadvantage too. Microsoft's defeat and ruin by forgein firms might just shock the US population into examining and overturning the laws that idiots like Bill Gates pushed for. Sony and Philips have invested more than half a billion dollar in this 30 person firm and patent portfolio. It is right and fitting that Microsoft be destroyed by the laws they helped create and then used to abuse others. It will be sweeter still if their destruction leads to the end of software patents.
Who am I kidding? Microsoft is going to win, patent law will continue to be available to the hightest bidder and US courts will still be the finest money can buy. It will be interesting but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Why would any company in their right mind, after winning such a law suit, sell their cash cow? All InterTrust would have to do is sit around, do nothing except drop an occasional law suit on someone and then collect money. What could be easier? What could be more despicable?
I think the more likely possibility is that MS buys them out as part of the settlement.
InterTrust is partly owned by Sony and few other major companies...no way they sell InterTrust to MS. Like you said, Sony and co. can milk MS for all the money it has been milking them for years. Payback is a bitch.
-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
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.