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.
...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?
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
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?
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!
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.
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
Sure, we all like to see the little guy yank Micro$oft's chain. But software patents are an insidious practice, meant to stifle market competition and innovation.
Think about the implications if MSFT loses. Sure, the evil empire is bought to its needs. Meanwhile, Amazon's patent on "one click shopping" and other nasty tricks get support in federal court.
I want software patents stopped now. Let the demise of MSFT take care of itself.
Yes, but it doesn't completely eliminate the possibility of Microsoft buying the patent itself. If all patent rights are passed to Microsoft, they would have just the bargaining chip they need to prevent anybody else (including OSS) from developing competing security products. They'd just make the price tag for licensing use of the patented technology high enough to discourage people.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Ok, let me say first I hate all that Microsoft stands for. Having to use (and support) their software sickens me. However, this type of dispute is indicative of the major problems today with IP patents. Broad process patents such as these will hurt us all in the end, tying up the courts, infringing upon many "good" companies needs to innovate their software products.
While i would like to hammer M$ as much as anyone, this is just the tip of the iceberg for litigation and everyone will feel the pain sometime soon..
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.
This eliminates the buy-out option.
Actually, not really. Sony and Royal Philips could use this to their advantage. We all know that Sony complained about microsoft trying to change their licensing deal after <cough> the settlement with the doj. Maybe they can use this as a bargaining chip with MS? They could haggle for a better OEM licensing deal and hold this over MS or they could possibly just force MS to license their IP. Or just force MS to pay (insert X billion here) for the company
OTOH what do I know :-)
In the long run Microsoft will simply license the patent. There is no way that they would allow themselves to be prevented from shipping product, and at the point that it is clear that the legal team has failed, a vast quantity of cash will appear.
Frankly, would wish that Microsoft would win this one, because I would prefer that they come up with a way to make patents less of an issue in the industry than to have the tempo of lame patents increase due to a jackpot payout. However, I suspect a license will be negotiated. It mare come dearly after this legal fumble however.
Sig under construction since 1998.
"At its prebubble height, InterTrust (founded in 1990) employed 376 people and marketed its own software and hardware products; today it consists mainly of a patent portfolio, 30 employees, and this lawsuit."
Great, an IP only company. Wonderful
"Microsoft argued in court that crucial phrases in InterTrust's patents were too vague to be enforceable, and that others required such narrow interpretation that they would have been hard for Microsoft to infringe."
Don't we claim stuff like this all the time about Patents. This is a test of someone with real money being able to say the USPTO is full of shit and these patents are vague adn useless.
Win or lose, the more of this crap the better. It will eventually get so bad that someone will change the USPTO.
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
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)
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!
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?
> 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.
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
Timeo idiotikOS et dona ferentes
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?
>
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.