Microsoft Nailed by Software Patent

An anonymous reader writes "It was just announced that Microsoft lost the case where it was accused of violating Eolas' patent on embedded applications in the Internet Explorer browser. They have been fined $521 million in damages."

Comments

It's amazing..

[Plix]

A little patent-portfolio company did in one suit what the Fed couldn't in 5 years.

Re:It's amazing..

[bedouin]

Why was this modded down?

Re:It's amazing..

[dago]

you mean get rich and retire ?

Re:It's amazing..

[realdpk]

Which of the Fed's patents did Microsoft violate, exactly? I was under the impression it was an anti-trust case.

Re:It's amazing..

[cyril3]

Is it a patent portfolio company? Sounded more like the originator to me though I haven't looked further. Just the way it's worded.

Re:It's amazing..

[Anonymous Coward]

He means fuck them up the ass in a court of law, not the other way around. His whole point had nothing to do with patent law. You are truly obtuse.

The feds ruled MS a monopoly that broke laws. They imposed no penalties, nor did they impose remedies. This little company just sucked half a billion out of them and were right to do so.

See Microsoft, what goes around comes around. You help SCO fuck linux, and when you're not looking, someone else fucks YOU.

Re:It's amazing..

[ar32h]

Eolas is not a patent profolio company by a long shot, they are a pure R&D company.
You can see some of the things thay have patented here.
I seem to recall a article where the founder of Eolas was talking about a patent war against Microsoft, not because they wanted royalties but because they objected to the I.E.ization of the web.
Notice that Eolas is going after Microsoft, not Sun or Mozilla.
Standard practice for patent profolio companies is to prey on the weaker first. Eolas went after the main standard breaker with their lawsuit. I think this should give us some hope about Eolas's intentions.

Re:It's amazing..

[Anonymous Coward]

Eolas isn't doing that to ward off IE. Doyle has a history of claiming title to things he didn't invent, and this is one of them.

They haven't gone after Sun or Mozilla.....yet. You can bet they will.

Re:It's amazing..

[Anonymous Coward]

The government holds patents on tyrannical rulership by suckering its "Consumers" into subscription licensing schemes.

Re:It's amazing..

[Malcontent]

What is interesting to me is that MS already settled with AOL for over 700 million for what they did to netscape. If this verdict stands (and god knows MS can drag it out forever and has friends in very high places) it will have cost MS over a billion dollars to gain dominance over the web.

I wonder if they feel like it was worth it. Billion is pocket change to MS but still it would have been cheaper to just license the patent.

Re:It's amazing..

[NukemWhumpus]

So, normally prey on the weaker first, then go on. They start with MSFT. I think they are planning to take over the world next. Thats the only next logical step.

Re:It's amazing..

[rsborg]

He means f*ck them up the ass in a court of law, not the other way around. His whole point had nothing to do with patent law. You are truly obtuse.

Of course, if the administration didn't change so significantly in 2000 (think: complete reversal), im sure M$ would have had a much more tough "justice" department to fend off.

Re:It's amazing..

[danheskett]

Except you are nuts if you think this is the end of the case.

Even if appeals fail, $500M is a big chunk of change. Congress will be the stop after appeals are exhasuted...

Re:It's amazing..

[danheskett]

Don't forget, GWBush campaigned on the promise of ending the MS trial as soon as possible.

Suprisingly, a politican followed through.

Re:It's amazing..

[kcbrown]

Eolas is not a patent profolio company by a long shot, they are a pure R&D company.

The truly important question is whether or not the company actually produces anything. If they do, then they're vulnerable to a countersuit involving patent infringement.

"IP" holding companies are some of the most dangerous creatures in the technological world today. The reason is simple: the traditional way the patent game is played is that most companies would collect patents for use as a defense against patent infringement suits. When the inevitable suit happened, they'd break out their own patent portfolio and, hopefully, find at least one that the company suing them was infringing. Both companies would agree to cross-license their patents and life is good again.

Companies that don't have a patent portfolio are at a disadvantage in that game, of course, but the upside is that patent infringement suits were relatively rare, so one could do development work in relative peace. Only if you were wildly successful as a result would you face an infringement suit, and at that point you'd generally have the ability to pay for a licensing arrangement -- unless the initiator of the suit was a competitor (as was the case in, e.g., Amazon vs. B&N). The overall system wasn't perfect, of course, but it worked well enough. Certainly free software was reasonably safe from such suits because there would be no money to be had from such a suit.

Enter the "IP" holding company. The problem with such a company is that there is no defense against them. The traditional method of cross-licensing doesn't work because such a company doesn't infringe on any patents. It can't, because the company itself doesn't actually make anything. As often (probably more, actually) as not, these "IP" holding companies don't even invent anything. Their sole purpose in life is to suck money out of companies that do invent and build things. That can include any company that does a lot of free software work, like IBM and RedHat.

I think these "IP" companies are among the greatest dangers our technology-driven world faces today, because there is no effective remedy against them, short of legislation. And we all know how likely it is that that will be of overall benefit.

Re:It's amazing..

[H8X55]

well, we'll see where they take it. if they keep sharshooting, or in they drop some of that loot into future R&D.

Re:It's amazing..

[Anonymous Coward]

You neglected to mention the federal anti-trust case and all that entailed (even though the verdict was mild, it caused major costs on MS business). Not to mention that the engineers did their job well enough so that all of the "cut the airsupply" business stuff was probably irrelvant in the long term.

I think it's a good point, but here MS really just got caught holding the bag for "innovating" Netscape and Sun features.

Re:It's amazing..

[Anonymous Coward]

He means f*ck them up the ass

You misquoted the parent. He said "He means fuck them up the ass."

Re:It's amazing..

[shaitand]

hell they can take the money and run and not sink it into any R&D for all I care, and more power to them. So long as they lock up that patent and throw away the key. This patent stems from the world on mosaic back in the day... that means it mostly likely IS the first and legit, which means every modern browser could be smashed under it.

Re:It's amazing..

[Feztaa]

Hello? This is Microsoft we're talking about. $500 million dollars is pocket change. If Billy happened to find $500 million dollars lying on the ground, he probably wouldn't bother to pick it up.

Besides, none of this matters, because software patents are EVIL! Yes, they are even more EVIL than Microsoft! And it doesn't matter that the victim is also EVIL, the patents themselves are still EVIL!

Re:It's amazing..

[EJB]

I believe they claimed Microsoft violated US patents # 000.000,000,001 (the '1 patent) and # 000,000,000,002 (the '2 patent).

The '1 patents lays out a "way to rule a country comprised of dozens of states" and the '2 patent describes the taxation of citizens of a huge country.

Re:It's amazing..

[Anonymous Coward]

..that took too long and changed nothing.

Re:It's amazing..

[Slayer]

First: If you don't enforce a patent, you lose it. If they get through with MSFT, they have to go after all other browsers.

Second: I hear a lot of whining about patent portfolio companies. If you are in R&D and see, how large corporations continue to slash R&D funds because they don't generate revenue (share holder value) right away you'll understand why IP law suits are not necessarily a bad thing. These companies might not generate a final product but they do produce something of value. R&D is hard work, for those who don't know.

Re:It's amazing..

[BobTheLawyer]

this is a very odd view of patent law. By far the most common way to defend against a patent infringement action is to claim that the patent is invalid, e.g. because there is prior art or because it is insufficiently novel.

Re:It's amazing..

[spongman]

Isn't the federal government supposed to own exclusive rights to be an oversized behemoth that takes everyone's money and does nothing of any use to anybody?

Re:It's amazing..

[Halo1]

Certainly free software was reasonably safe from such suits because there would be no money to be had from such a suit.

And now that big companies like IBM and Red Hat are playing the Free software game, that will probably change soon enough.

Re:It's amazing..

[kramer2718]

Yeah, but the Fed suit indicted Microsoft for predatory business practices while the little patent-portfolio company is using predatory business practices.

I really think that software patents are awful. Algorithm ought to be public domain. Copyright, and obfuscation ought to be good enough for code. And for christ sake, if someone reverse engineering certainly should be permitted.

Re:It's amazing..

[Ilmari]

First: If you don't enforce a patent, you lose it. If they get through with MSFT, they have to go after all other browsers.

Bzzt, wrong. It's trademarks you lose if you don't enforce them. Patents can be enforced as selectively as you care, likewise with copyright.

Re:It's amazing..

[KingRamsis]

Should be moded insightful not funny
"way to rule a country comprised of dozens of states"
when MS was trying to ditch the antitrust suit and the extreme lobbying demonstrated.

"patent describes the taxation of citizens of a huge country."
offcourse we all heard of the "Microsoft Tax", and how difficult it is to get a refund on Windows if you dont agree to the EULA.

Re:It's amazing..

[Anonymous Coward]

there is no effective remedy against them, short of legislation.

There is. Shotgun.

Re:It's amazing..

[file-exists-p]

There is no hope to get from a verdict stating that one can patent technology for "plug-ins" and "applets". Every single case like this is one more argument to be used by the bad guys in the future. This is on more sad day in the infamous world of IP.

Re:It's amazing..

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm. Finding a cross-licensing situation, getting your attacker to knock it off without going to court, versus going to court to do anything to show that the patent is invalid, which still carries the risk of you losing.

Re:It's amazing..

[Halo1]

A cross licensing deal is often much cheaper than going to court to try to invalidate a patent, so I wouldn't be surprised if that is often tried before deciding to invalidate a patent. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but these people are and they advise more or less the same if it's a viable option in the light of the litigated company's strategy (i.e., if they're mainly interested in being able to continue their business).

Re:It's amazing..

[RajivSLK]

It's not an odd view at all. It's reality. I know on slashdot everyone pulls prior out of their ass but that's not how things happen in real life.

I know because I own a software company and we have had many patent issues come up in the past. They are insidious evil and retarted. Using defensive patents is the preferred action.

Take a look at Redhat's stance on software patents. Redhat has a considerable number of patents; all of them used for defensive (i.e. Cross licensing) purposes.

Re:It's amazing..

[Alan Cox]

I disagree. The usual way to respond to a patent suit is to contersue. Its more like nuclear wargaming than law (and indeed an all out software patent war in the USA would do the same to the economy as a nuclear war)

The current way to avoid patent lawsuits is to patent in the USA (so you can sue people) but make nothing (so you can sue ibm and they cant nuke you), then sell rights to a "random" chinese or similar company to make them on a royalty and have a third "unrelated" grey import company ship zillions of them into the USA. If anything nasty occurs (patent lawsuit, class action, even safety) then the grey importer folds and everyone else gets to keep all the money.

Great for everyone who is rich and doesn't care about unemployment in the western world, or especially in the USA about health and safety issues given the lack of state/national health care.

Re:It's amazing..

[Minna Kirai]

By far the most common way to defend against a patent infringement action is to claim that the patent is invalid

Really? Do you have any supporting evidence? I hardly ever read of a patent's validity being challenged in court. Only the most astoundingly stupid patents ever seem to be revoked, and only if they impair major economic sectors.

5806063, the US patent on Y2K compliance, was invalidated. But it's anomalous- only because the licensing fees would've exceeded $5,000,000,000 did the court chose to strike it. (They can overlook an unjust billion-dollar loss, but not real money)

Re:It's amazing..

[Anonymous Coward]

Hasn't it already changed? What do you think the SCO suit is all about?

Re:It's amazing..

[Halo1]

Afaik they're mainly focussing on copyright and not on patents.

Re:It's amazing..

[aggieben]

Enter the "IP" holding company. The problem with such a company is that there is no defense against them. The traditional method of cross-licensing doesn't work because such a company doesn't infringe on any patents. It can't, because the company itself doesn't actually make anything. As often (probably more, actually) as not, these "IP" holding companies don't even invent anything. Their sole purpose in life is to suck money out of companies that do invent and build things. That can include any company that does a lot of free software work, like IBM and RedHat.

I think these "IP" companies are among the greatest dangers our technology-driven world faces today, because there is no effective remedy against them, short of legislation. And we all know how likely it is that that will be of overall benefit.

What if the system was changed so that once you have filed a patent and it is accepted by the U.S. patent office, you get a year (or some specific time period) to implement the patented concept in a product, or the patent expires? Would that not sufficiently defend the industry against patent portfolio sharks?

Re:It's amazing..

[zakath]

So patents are ok as long as you're out to fuck Microsoft? That's the lamest thing I've heard today. So what happens if MS is in a position to buy a company such as this and they decide to go after everyone else? Is the patent a *good thing* then? These patents and the jokers who award them have to be dealt with - we're well on the way to having our thoughts policed.

Re:It's amazing..

[JCCyC]

Suprisingly, a politican followed through.

They usually do when they promise to do evil things.

Re:It's amazing..

[RALE007]

"...it will have cost MS over a billion dollars to gain dominance over the web...I wonder if they feel like it was worth it. [A] billion is pocket change to MS but still it would have been cheaper to just license the patent."

Well, the article states:

"Eolas, a closely held Illinois company founded by former University of California professor Michael Doyle, had originally sought licensing fees that would potentially have totaled $1.2 billion."

To answer your question of whether Microsoft feels it was worth it, I think it's safe to assume they do. $500 million in damages that they may not even have to pay after the appeal is obviously much cheaper than the $1.2 billion they would've paid to license the patent.

Re:It's amazing..

[mjh]

Enter the "IP" holding company. The problem with such a company is that there is no defense against them.

IMHO, the problem is that the law allows companies like this to exist. The idea behind patent infringement *should* be recompensation. That is you've lost something as a consequence of an action taken by someone else. You should be re-compensated for that loss. However, the law currently allows for compensation: being paid despite no loss. Or using lawsuits as part of a business plan.

In the case of Eolas, is this recompensation or compensation? And the key question is have they produced anything that they would have lost as a result of Microsoft's actions. Or are they simply suing because they hold a patent that they've never implemented. IMO, if we're going to have software patents (and I don't think we should) then at the very least a working copy of the thing being patented needs to be part of the patent process.

But I'd much rather we not patent software.

$.02

Re:It's amazing..

[WWWWolf]

The '1 patents lays out a "way to rule a country comprised of dozens of states"

...with a system consisting of traction wheels...

and the '2 patent describes the taxation of citizens of a huge country.

...using a wool manufacturing widget (which probably implies the citizens are Sheep who are to be sheared for taxation).

Don't blame me, this is what the USPTO patent search says =)

Re:It's amazing..

[stephenbooth]

What if the system was changed so that once you have filed a patent and it is accepted by the U.S. patent office, you get a year (or some specific time period) to implement the patented concept in a product, or the patent expires?

That would actually be quite dangerous and would disadvantage a lot of small/independant inventers (ranging from people who do R&D for a living through to people who just had a good idea and decided to see if they could make some money off it). Supposing you have an idea for some gadget that is novel enough to be considered original and patentable. You draw it out, write some decriptions and if appropriate make a few models to demonstrate it. You then go to the patent office, pay the fees and get a shiny new patent.

As so often happens these days (these days being anytime since the Industrial Revolution) whilst you came up with the idea you simply don't have the resources to produce the product and bring it to market. Maybe it needs large scale production to be viable (e.g. a new DIY tool) or it is only really useful as part of a larger item that already exists (e.g. a rebreather valve for the oxygen system of a diving suit). You can't make it yourself (not for a price you could realistically sell it at) and couldn't market it if you did because you don't have the infrastructure. You have to go to various companies and try to get them to license your idea, probably going to companies already in the market you're invention fits into. This can take more than a year, more than 2 years, more than 5 years. If I recall correctly the inventer of the 'Workmate' took 8 years of hawking around various tools companies from getting his patent until Black and Decker finally decided to produce it.

Setting a time limit from patent to when the first unit must be in production would probably lead to either inventers losing their patents despite their best efforts or having to show a product to potential manufacturers without the protection of a patent so having no recourse if they then started to produce it or a product based upon it. You couldn't even start producing units on a small scale yourself whilst looking for a manufacturer, it would take long for a lawyer to find a judge who agreed that you were not making a real effort to produce a product but were just trying to prevent others from producing a competing product by complying with the letter but not the spirit of the law.

Stephen

Re:It's amazing..

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. They have commonsense patents like all other patent companies. "Hypermedia" linking. Please - links are as commonsense as can be, and invented long ago. Methods for displaying genome sequences? Also commonsense.

These patents NEED TO GO! Our patent system is a big pile of dog shit. There are so many bullshit patents - think amazon - that the truly amazing inventions that deserve patents sink from view.

At best, the patent office is there for a bitter old poor man who invented something co-opted by big business. At worst, the patent office is the bullying club carried by people like mcbride (that scumbag).

Its clear that the organization is obsolete. I should try to patent microsoft word. I bet I get the patent on it.

So they invented what? A commonsense solution to a problem that microsoft engineers (as well as mozilla and sun engineers) found because it was a commonsense way out of a problem.

Anyway - ever since fucking companies stopped sharing credit with their engineers, the public lost the USPTO as a PUBLIC institution. We should do away with organizations that only serve corporations. Corporations are supposed to be second class citizens. Only existing to fill a need - to employ people.

Re:It's amazing..

[TimmyJoeB]

Just wondering, what else did Doyle claim to invent that he did not?

Re:It's amazing..

[Anonymous Coward]

I hardly ever read of a patent's validity being challenged in court

HP's patent claims ruled invalid just last week. (HP v. Mustek Systems)

Re:It's amazing..

[Anonymous Coward]

The Web Application Platform
Distributed hypermedia method for automatically invoking external application providing interaction and display of embedded objects within a hypermedia document

U.S. Patent 5,838,906, Filed in October, 1994, Issued November 17, 1998
Inventors: Michael D. Doyle, David C. Martin and Cheong Ang

First demonstrated publicly in 1993, this invention lifted the glass for the first time from the hypermedia browser, enabling Web browsers for the first time to act as platforms for fully-interactive embedded applications. The patent covers Web browsers that support such currently popular technologies as ActiveX components, Java applets, and Navigator plug-ins. Eolas' advanced browser technology makes possible rich interactive online experiences for over 500 million Web users, worldwide.

-----
BEGIN SARCASM
-----

OK - this is plain bullshit. They embedded documents in a document - something people have been doing for years prior to 1993. And if they didn't invent it (if invent is a good word - I think engineered a solution to a commonsense problem is a better term here) I guess no one would have?

Please. Edison was an inventor. This is nothing more than another cottage industry for lawyers - sucking money out of the system like vampires.

Re:It's amazing..

[Lord_Dweomer]

"I seem to recall a article where the founder of Eolas was talking about a patent war against Microsoft, not because they wanted royalties but because they objected to the I.E.ization of the web."

Yes, well, we've seen how well they stayed true to THAT idea.

Re:It's amazing..

[rsax]

Notice that Eolas is going after Microsoft, not Sun or Mozilla.

What happens if a large corportation with not so good intentions (perhaps one with the most popular web browser out there) buys Eolas' patent portfolio and then goes after Sun, Mozilla, Opera, and so on. Lesson to be learnt here: all software patents are evil.

Re:It's amazing..

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also amazing how nearly all previously anti-software-patent advocates suddenly see the benefit of software patents now that MS is given an ass beating with them.

Re:It's amazing..

[Grizzlysmit]

Hmmm I hate M$ but I must say this, is silly plugins are just a generalisation of older concepts, like hooks, well hopefully M$ will do the first good deed of their corporate life, and help destroy the abomination of software patents.

Re:It's amazing..

[Ugot2BkidNme]

Is there a loss to them sure there is they sell the rights to any company they like they make money from that company someone else decides to use that and not pay them for their "idea" and they get nothing so they sue. Simple I have an IDea I pay for the patent you all have to pay me now.

Re:It's amazing..

[Ugot2BkidNme]

The Guy invents nothing he patents ideas. You really should look here and check out wht this guy has patented image mapping, cryptography over the web. But one thing you shoudl really notice is that lack of ANY products He makes nothign but patents Scum like this should be shot and dragged through the streets. I mean please if this guy had even had a product and had some source code to support his claims I could maybe understand his position. but the comapny has nothing.

Re:It's amazing..

[mjh]

Maybe, but I would argue that you haven't actually lost anything in that scenario. If you implement your idea and you are not able to sell it due to infringement of your patent - resulting in unfair competition to your federally granted monopoly - then Ok, I agree that you've lost something. But if you haven't produced the product, only the idea, then how can you claim you've lost anything? You aren't even competing, so how can you claim that the existance of competition is unfair?

Re:It's amazing..

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is my answer: Today Microsoft, tomorrow The World? Not in my world if I can help it! If I want to eliminate the nemesis, I surely will not to attempt that with its own devices!

Anonymous Cowards Unite

Re:It's amazing..

[Zeinfeld]

Eolas isn't doing that to ward off IE. Doyle has a history of claiming title to things he didn't invent, and this is one of them.

During the court proceedings Microsoft was prevented from producing the copious evidence that the patent was invalid.

I have an interest here as I was one of the people who actually invented what Doyle is claiming.

Doyle does not care diddly about open source, he went after Microsoft to make a buck. He was sending out threatening letters before Netscape was started when all the web browsers were open source and many were public domain.

Re:It's amazing..

[md65536]

Don't be retarded. Bill would pick up a single dollar if he happened to find it on the ground. If he didn't, someone else might get it.

MS isn't the victim of anything in this case. They made a ton of cash on other peoples' work, why stand up for them when they have to give some of it away?

Re:It's amazing..

[Anonymous Coward]

..wht ..shoudl ..nothign ..comapny

And you got nothing but spelling mistakes that make you look like an idiot. Don't you proof-read before clicking that button?

Re:It's amazing..

[pbox]

And you think it is for the good?

Are you insane? What guarantees that this cute little company with shiloads of cash will not start going after Linux? They can afford legions of lawyers for decades to come...

Remember people: software patents are BAD. In fact they are worse than Microsoft. Got it?

Re:It's amazing..

[danheskett]

Because patents on software are bogus, whether it hurts Linux, Microsoft, or just the entire tech industry. No matter how you slice it, patents are evil.

Re:It's amazing..

[BobTheLawyer]

I'm an IP lawyer in one of the world's biggest and most evil law firms.

I can't remember ever seeing a patent infringement action in the US or the UK where the defendant *didn't* raise invalidity as a defence: it's arguably negligent of the defence attorney not to at least try this one on.

The most recent high profile tech example I can think of is British Telecom's stupid claim over hyperlinks, which was thrown out by a Federal Court due to invalidity

A google search for "patent invalid" finds zillions of other examples.

Re:It's amazing..

[Feztaa]

why stand up for them when they have to give some of it away?

It probably has a lot to do with the fact that I'm not a hypocrit, and I don't endorse double standards like most slashbots do.

Re:It's amazing..

[Geek of Tech]

Let the patent law follow Moore's law. For technology patents you get 1 1/2 years for algorithms, 3 for concept, and 6 for hardware, unless it can be proven that the technology is not obsolete. Or just forget about that last part, even if it isn't obsolete, still let it fall into public domain.

Re:It's amazing..

[bluGill]

Mostly I agree, but I don't think that you should nessicarly have to be in production. Just that if you can't within a year of the patent produce a device that uses the patent, then you don't get it. Just one device, not a production model. I don't even require it to be fully functionable, just that it must exist and form that you can convince people (both techs and laymen) that it has a good chance of being useful. No company goes into production without prototypes. (Only an idiot would use a O2 re-breather that went into mass production without a lot of tests first)

If you can produce one and prove it works, you can have a patent. In the case of the O2 re-breather I don't mind if it takes 10 attemptes of dunking your head in a barrel before the prototype works. Just so long as I can be convinced it works. Working the bugs out to make it production worthy is your problem. My problem is patents that you have no intent of using in a product.

Re:It's amazing..

[Geek of Tech]

No, his company does have something. 521 Million dollars. That's definately something.

Re:It's amazing..

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be retarded. Bill would pick up a single dollar if he happened to find it on the ground. If he didn't, someone else might get it.

This is a good point. People do NOT become rich by passing up opportunities. People who get rich by not passing up opportunities don't STOP passing up opportunities--if for no other reason than habit.

Re:It's amazing..

[goldfndr]

Some other bureaucracy might fall out of this.

• Would the prototype be held in escrow, so that the inventor/artist doesn't cheat and take more than a year?
• If yes to escrow, what if the escrow fails (lack of money, fire, tornado, robbery)? Maybe the UK(?) system of at least five geographically-distributed copies would work well.
• Who tests to make sure that the prototype matches the claims?

I too think that it's a great idea but there'd need to be some additional consideration of how to implement such a monumental change. And I'm guessing that Big Companies would like it because it raises the barrier to entry.

Re:It's amazing..

[aggieben]

Like one of the previous replies suggest, I didn't mean that a product had to be in "production" to count. I really only meant one functioning device. A prototype. Maybe there could be different time periods based on whether the device is intended to be standalone (these would be the shortest time periods) or a component in another device. I can see how this could get complicated, but hey...if the US tax code isn't complicated, what is? Anyway, I don't think this raises the barrier to entry, per se, but rather the barrier to keeping a patent over a period of time. As an example, you mentioned the black and decker tools taking 8 years to get a company to produce it right? Well, did it take 8 years for the inventor to create prototypes? It doesn't take a gob of money to have one device specially made in many cases, unless it takes a ton of raw resources.

Also, maybe there could be some way of reapplying for patents after they've expired. For example, maybe if you invented something and got a patent, but for whatever reason were not able to create a prototype device. You lose your patent after x months/years. You could then re-apply for your patent after a year or something like that.

Oh well. Just shooting out ideas.

Re:It's amazing..

[Minna Kirai]

I can't remember ever seeing a patent infringement action in the US or the UK where the defendant *didn't* raise invalidity as a defence:

The set you examined is already selective. As a lawyer looking at "actions", your viewpoint has already been confined to the minority of patent disputes where out-of-court negotiations failed to reach agreement. Most patent claims reach a licensing arrangement without going before a judge; either quid-pro-quo if you've got your own patent portfolio (like IBM and Kodak), or simply getting out the checkbook if you don't.

Re:It's amazing..

[stephenbooth]

The guy who invented the Work Mate made several prototypes in the process of inventing it. When he was going round trying to find a manufacturer he had a rough model made of timber and held together with screws and nails which demonstrated the principles but looks nothing like the finished article.

If you're going to accept making one prototype as preventing you from losing your patent then you run into the problem I outlined in the last paragraph of my comment:

You couldn't even start producing units on a small scale yourself whilst looking for a manufacturer, it wouldn't take long for a lawyer to find a judge who agreed that you were not making a real effort to produce a product but were just trying to prevent others from producing a competing product by complying with the letter but not the spirit of the law.

Your patent could be overturned by someone who could afford a bigger lawyer than you because you can't afford to move to large scale production. Sure you could appeal but in the time it would take they could have a line of products at or ready to go to market and would say "He was just sitting on the patent not letting anyone else produce product. Anyhow, he reads Slashdot so he must be a commie terrorist, don't let him get away with it!" (it's been a long day).

Or put it another way. Supposing I invented a very highly efficient electric motor that would produce high torque over long periods, say it would propel a typical family car 500 miles on a fully charged typical 12 volt lead-acid accumulator without needing to recharge. I patented it and built a prototype which I put into a family car and drove 500 miles using only one 12 volt lead-acid accumulator without needing to recharge. Under your proposal I can keep my patent for the next however many years, I believe it's 15-20 depending on the country and style of patent. Dubbya pops around to see me that next day and says his pals in the oil industry want to buy my patent for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. So I sell it to them and go buy an island somewhere. They then take my patent and lock it away in a big safe, only bringing it out to sue into oblivion anyone who tries to invent highly efficient electric motors claiming my patent (now their patent) constitutes prior art and they're in violation of that patent. My motor never gets made until the patent runs out, well except in Japan.

If you allow a single prototype to satisfy the requirement to actually build something using the patent then all you do is require patent holding companies to hire someone to make a prototype/working model, but if you don't you destroy a load of small/independant innovators. Life sucks sometimes.

Stephen

Re:It's amazing..

[AndroidCat]

My physical copy of Dr. Dobb's 2/96 isn't here, but the editorial makes for good reading. Microsoft was using someone's patented method, but Eolas promised that it wasn't about royalties, just enforcing conformance to the standard.

Could someone with access go in and haul the proper sections out of the Dr. Dobb's archive? (Trim and add comments for fair use.)

Pretty funky reading back when MS was scrambling to catch up in the Browser Wars and would use anything to even the score. Even Open/Depth Charge tech.

Re:It's amazing..

[nerdlyone]

Enter the "IP" holding company. ... As often (probably more, actually) as not, these "IP" holding companies don't even invent anything. Their sole purpose in life is to suck money out of companies that do invent and build things.

IP holding companies are a natural result of the commoditizing of intellectual property. IP is tradable, therefore traders will arise. This is not evil. It's similar to banking; many people used to think (or still do) that charging interest is wrong, because you aren't doing anything, but you are siphoning money off someone who is. But charging interest is the foundation of our economy and all forms of advanced banking--without interest, there could be no tradable public debt, or private debt for that matter. Without tradable debt, our economy would shrink drastically.

IP holding companies are expected players in the market. If IP weren't tradable, it would be much less valuable. Since it is tradable, we have to expect traders to arise. The only way to prevent it would be to make IP inalienable, and that would end the entire system. (The vast majority of patents are filed with assignment papers.)

Re:It's amazing..

[Anonymous Coward]

aren't anti social lying rapist pig homosexuals like yourself supposed to shut the fuck up?

Peanuts

[OvErRiDeX]

Unfortunately that much money's a drop in the bucket for microsoft

Re:Peanuts

[letxa2000]

That's half a billion dollars. I think Microsoft has, what, 40 billion? You can argue they still have 39.5, but losing about 1.3% of their reserves on a podunk little company with a silly 'ol lawsuit is still an important message.

Like someone else said, that's more than the Justice Department was able to do in 5 years.

Re:Peanuts

[chunkwhite86]

Unfortunately that much money's a drop in the bucket for microsoft

Actually, half a billion isn't a "drop in the bucket" even for M$. M$ has quarterly revenues of roughly US$12 Billion.

That's 4 percent of their quarterly revenue which is not an insignificant number for the corporate accounting types.

But then again, M$ does have ~US$48 Billion in cash reserves. So I guess it is just a drop.

Re:Peanuts

[baximus]

Like someone else said, that's more than the Justice Department was able to do in 5 years.

Makes one wonder whether the Justice Dept was working as hard as they could have been. Just my $0.02

Re:Peanuts

[dicepackage]

You might care if you worked at Microsoft and had to be laid off because of this lawsuit. You can argue that this sort of thing only takes funds away from the executives. Unfortunetly it is the people with the low paying jobs that will be suffering the effects of this the most.

Re:Peanuts

[SubjunctiveSam]

Consider also that revenue != profit. So yeah, I say it is certainly going to sting some.

Re:Peanuts

[TopShelf]

I'm assuming this is a troll, but I'll bite anyway - layoffs occur when structural changes are made to a business. Nobody sees a tangible difference in how Microsoft would do business as a result of this. They'll probably just tie this up in appeals for the next several years anyway, ensuring happy employment for lots of hard-working, blue collar lawyer types...

Re:Peanuts

[CityZen]

Wasn't their profit for the last quarter something like $2 billion?

When you've got profit margins like that, it pretty much takes the sting out of everything.

Re:Peanuts

[Grax]

Rumour has it Bill clips coupons. I guarantee he'd notice a missing 521 million dollars.

I still hate software patents, even if they're used against MS.

Re:Peanuts

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what this means for SCO. Perhaps they'll make 5 times that before they're done.

Re:Peanuts

[OMEGA Power]

Makes one wonder whether the Justice Dept was working as hard as they could have been

You remember that the the DOJ vs. M$ case ended on a settlement proposed by M$, not a judge's rulling. The US has a very pro-busniess/anti-regulation president and attorney general so it is fairly safe to assume that a judge would have impossed a far more severe penalty than the settlement.

Re:Peanuts

[SubjunctiveSam]

Well about 500 million would be about 25% of 2 billion. I guess we have varying definitions of the word "sting."

Re:Peanuts

[AvitarX]

Actually they did,

But the judge was deamed unclean to rule due to comments he made on the record during the trial, that came out aftwards.

Re:Peanuts

[16K Ram Pack]

Didn't that quarter include all the profits for some of their licensing programs for the next 3 years or something?

Re:Peanuts

[16K Ram Pack]

Is this $48 billion cash reserve some kind of an accountant figure, or is there a numbered bank account sitting there with $48 billion which can be drawn on?

I only ask, because sometimes, things are described by accounting in such a way that it leads people to think one way rather than another.

Re:Peanuts

[EzInKy]

You might care if you worked at Microsoft and had to be laid off because of this lawsuit. You can argue that this sort of thing only takes funds away from the executives. Unfortunetly it is the people with the low paying jobs that will be suffering the effects of this the most.

As those who worked for Microsoft cared for employees of other firms put out of business by Microsoft's monopoly practices? C'mon...get real now! The world is full of people just aching to take a golden shower in Microsoft's tin cup.

Re:Peanuts

[DrJay]

Would someone with experience in this area make a suggestion about how long it would take for Microsoft to spend a half billion on lawyers?

I've got some friends who are corporate lawyers in New York City, and it wouldn't shock me if they could spend that much money by dragging things out long enough and hiring enough legal help...

JT

Re:Peanuts

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck you lame ass shits working at Microsoft. You work for the evil empire, you are my enemy!!!

Re:Peanuts

[JCCyC]

This "jobs" excuse is lame. By that reasoning, we shouldn't be prosecuting drug traffickers and producers -- they create lots of jobs, don't they?

Won't anybody think of the ch... uh, I mean, jobs?

Re:Peanuts

[IGnatius T Foobar]

That's half a billion dollars. [...] Like someone else said, that's more than the Justice Department was able to do in 5 years.

If you're going to weigh it in terms of money, weigh it in terms of money. How much money did Microsoft have to contribute to George W's campaign fund in order to obtain that "Get out of jail free" card? Make no mistake about it: the legal system is driven by money; justice is obsolete.

Re:Peanuts

[chunkwhite86]

Is this $48 billion cash reserve some kind of an accountant figure, or is there a numbered bank account sitting there with $48 billion which can be drawn on?

This is cash in the bank. Real US currency in an account.

Re:Another Reason?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, actually I don't see how it effects end users at all.

Re:Another Reason?

[weeeee]

Don't almost all browsers use plug-ins? This could be bad for Mozilla as well.

Great!

[freeze128]

This means there will probably just be another IE service pack that breaks more web pages....

Re:Great!

[Mr. Troll]

Yeah, just some other no name company sitting on a patent waiting for someone to do something with it......then skimming profits.....this is the kind of things that killlllls delelopment

Patent whores who just sit around and WAIT for someone to sue.....heaven FORBID they actuall DO anything with their patent.....no, just sit and wait...just like SCO....just like those creeps who screwed EBAY....THIS is the problem with the web today

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Solution: Don't use IE.

Re:Great!

[H8X55]

not as bad as the great domain grabbers. "Wow, this is a great name... someone, someday will want this! and i can PROFIT!"

sorry, a little off topic, but i think it fits with the above mentioned problem with the web today, plus, it's fresh in my mind, cause i'm dealing w/ a PITA type of guy right now.

Re:Great!

[EzInKy]

sorry, a little off topic, but i think it fits with the above mentioned problem with the web today, plus, it's fresh in my mind, cause i'm dealing w/ a PITA type of guy right now.

Tell you what...why don't you offer the "PITA" a deal? You give up claim to all the "IP"" you own, and he gives up claim to all the "IP" he owns?

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you are joking but it already happened before.

MS IE does not have Netscape plugin compatability for a year or so.

People were surprised, Apple thought its an attack to its Quicktime (don't blame them, it happened before) but that guy from PBS found the truth. It was all about this case...

Imagine other "smaller" plugin companies had to spend, just to move from netscape pluging arch to ActiveX/Com stuff, which is entirely different.

So Eolas invented COM and ActiveX

[pr0ntab]

I don't think so. Have you seen the invocation of some embedded applets in IE? Nothing like Netscape.

I have my feelings against Microsoft, but this smells like being in the right place at the right time, and PTO's own trademarked brand of ignorance.

Re:So Eolas invented COM and ActiveX

[shird]

If you have a read of the patent, youll agree it is one of those broad catch all going to try milk this later type of patents.... I also think that if they could get money out of MS, then Netscape, shockwave, ICQ, and many others are all to come.

Re:So Eolas invented COM and ActiveX

[Greeneland]

There is an interesting paragraph in the cnet article about this case, pasted below: Additionally, the judge in the district court case will hear evidence in the coming weeks on a counterclaim from Microsoft. The software giant said that Eolas' patents are invalid and that an inventor name Pei Wei, who worked at O'Reilly and Associates, came up with similar technology, but at an earlier time. A Microsoft representative said that Eolas knew of his work, which makes their lawsuit inequitable. A quick google groups search shows a number of interesting posts involving Pei Wei.. such as http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Pei+Wei&hl=en&lr =&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=r&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12 &as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=11&as_maxm=8&as_ma xy=1994&selm=93020.102722RBNTJC%40rohvm1.rohmhaas. com&rnum=5

Re:So Eolas invented COM and ActiveX

[Greeneland]

Take a look at this PRIOR ART Here on google

Re:So Eolas invented COM and ActiveX

[mrseigen]

This is definitely one of these patents invented by marketing/business weasels in order to try and grab as much revenue as possible.

It's really sad -- the PTO appears to be set up to reward idiots who patent a really simple (but hard to implement) idea and then demand royalties from whoever does actually implement it. There needs to be a big overhaul.

Re:So Eolas invented COM and ActiveX

[Anonymous Coward]

If they don't win on appeal, Bill should fire his lawyers. The Eolas patent is for external applications, not applets, not activex, and not downloaded java.

In 1994, Com was for a single computer. MS filed their Dcom patent in 1996.

Re:So Eolas invented COM and ActiveX

[Anonymous Coward]

I imagine this thing goes beyond a MIME-handler (which is what the link describes). In particular, it seems to require a 2-way communication link between a browser and another app.

Re:So Eolas invented COM and ActiveX

[Steeltoe]

The PTO is doing what all companies are for, maximizing profits in a capitalistic society. It makes sense for them to spend as little energy to examine the applications, and grant as many as they can per year.

It's more than the PTO that needs a "big" overhaul..

Re:So Eolas invented COM and ActiveX

[mill]

http://www.xcf.berkeley.edu/~wei

"Noteably, it was one of the first publically available graphical interface web browser, and the very first with applets (3 years before the public appearence of Java)."

Re:So Eolas invented COM and ActiveX

[TenPin22]

Wellllllllllll

If *I* got money out of M$ I REALLY wouldnt need to get money out of anyone else.

Re:So Eolas invented COM and ActiveX

[nalfeshnee]

Dudes, make the friggin link shorter, will ya?

http://www.makeashorterlink.com

Thanx,

Nalfy

Re:So Eolas invented COM and ActiveX

[julesh]

OK, when I paste that URL into my browser and remove all the spaces I get this article:


From: Thomas J Cozzolino (RBNTJC@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com)
Subject: Using WWW to get at Gopher (and embedded WAIS)
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.wais, comp.infosystems.gopher
Date: 1993-01-20 08:52:10 PST

We have an experimental Gopher server, with the WAIS search engine
embedded (Gopherd 1.1, and Boolean/substring WAIS). It works fine.

We also have WWW clients (Pei-Wei's Viola and Tony Johnson's Midas) and
have written a simple HTML page to "get into" our Gopher server. We can
navigate menus, etc. with no problem.

However, when do a WAIS search, we get the error:
server error: '?keyword' does not exist

My .Links file has:
Type=7
Host=myhost
Port=70
Path=7/directoryname/index

Has anyone gotten a WWW browser to successfully access WAIS searches from
within Gopher?

Please reply directly, if possible.

[signature cut 'cause it triggered the lameness filter]


Could somebody explain the relevance of it, 'cause I think I'm missing something. This is just about a web browser interface to gopher, which AFAICT has no bearing whatsoever on this case?

Re:So Eolas invented COM and ActiveX

[marko123]

I think Pei Wei Herman has already been discredited for masturbating in public. But I could be wrong.

Re:So Eolas invented COM and ActiveX

[jamesmrankinjr]

I believe that a patent application must include a WORKING implementation of the patented idea. So no, you can't just come up with the idea and patent it without an implementation.

Isn't it also true that you can patent an enhancement to an existing patent? I'm not as sure about this one.

Best,
-jimbo

Re:So Eolas invented COM and ActiveX

[Anonymous Coward]

If this patent is valid and MS broke it, I think Netscape broke it first.

The reason why they sued MS is that MS has the money to pay the fine, and they already had a bad reputation (does anyone believes that wouldn't have any effect, if only subliminal, on jury and judge?)

Re:So Eolas invented COM and ActiveX

[Greeneland]

Perhaps you should take another look at Voila as it is much more than that.

Re:So Eolas invented COM and ActiveX

[devnull17]

Look at the date.

Re:So Eolas invented COM and ActiveX

[julesh]

In what way? I don't have a gopher / WAIS server hanging around to try what was described in the original post. What is special about this?

Re:So Eolas invented COM and ActiveX

[Greeneland]

Here is a quote from of a historical article written in 1996 discussing what the Voila Browser was, if you are having difficulty finding any information about it. It was released in the 1991-1993 timeframe. I am not sure if the full article mentioned the actual release dates of particular features.

The World Wide Web - past, present and future, July 17, 1996 By Tim Berners-Lee, excerpt from his speech at the British Computer Society Basically, he had something very like Java, and as he went ahead and wrote something very much like Hot Java, the language was called 'Viola' and the browser was called 'ViolaWWW'. It didn't take off very quickly because you had to first install 'Viola' nobody understood why you should install an interpreter, and then this 'WWW' in a Viola library area. You had to be system administrator to do all that stuff, it wasn't obvious. But in fact what he did was really ahead of his time. He actually had Applets running. He had World Wide Web pages with little things doing somersaults and what have you.

Now it should be clear why it is prior art. Not sure where you can still find copies of Voila to try for yourself.

Re:So Eolas invented COM and ActiveX

[nerdlyone]

I believe that a patent application must include a WORKING implementation of the patented idea. So no, you can't just come up with the idea and patent it without an implementation.

You must have enough information in the disclosure to allow someone skilled in the art to make your invention without having to experiment much. And you must disclose the best possible way you know how to practice the invention.

Also, related to a previous post, if someone is first to solve a given problem, but they only came up with one solution, they can't get a patent broad enough to cover all solutions, only the one they came up with. In other words, if I discover one way to turn lead into gold, I can patent my method, but I should not be able to patent "...turning Pb into Au."

Isn't it also true that you can patent an enhancement to an existing patent? I'm not as sure about this one.

Yes you can patent an improvement to something already covered by a patent. You would not be able to practice your improvement without infringing though. But nothing prevents you getting a patent on it.

Damnit!

[Anonymous Coward]

I just bought stock in MS too! :( At least it's first post! :)

Re:Damnit!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not doing so well today are you?

Re:Damnit!

[captaink]

well according to their price trends now is a better time to buy than three or four days ago ;)

A Half Billion:

[Farley Mullet]

The dream of a lifetime for you and me, pretty near statistically insignificant for Microsoft.

Re: A Half Billion:

[Black Parrot]

> The dream of a lifetime for you and me, pretty near statistically insignificant for Microsoft.

Yeah, they probably 'lose' more than that due to rounding errors when they run up their reports.

Re:A Half Billion:

[Anonymous Coward]

THIS IS NOT INSIGHTFUL, IT'S WRONG.

YEARLY REVENUE: ~$50 BILLION = 1% OF YEARLY REVENUE

CASH RESERVE: ~$50 BILLION = 1% OF CASH RESERVE

IN EITHER CASE: 1% IS NOT "PRETTY NEAR STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT"

Re:A Half Billion:

[graveyhead]

The dream of a lifetime for you and me, pretty near statistically insignificant for Microsoft.

Funny you should mention that, my mother-in-law is one of the 100 private Eolas investors :P

Although this news is great, there is still quite a fight ahead. An appellate judge will decide in the upcoming weeks if the appeal has merrit. If so, it could drag on for years. In that case, Microsoft will likely settle for much less. The one thing I noticed about the trial that might give MS grounds for appeal is the trial judge instructed the jury not to weigh testimony from Pei Wei, a fellow who claims to have prior art. If the judge handled that innapropriately, MS could have grounds for appeal.

It could go either way for MS, though and they may get spanked harder than you think. This is only one of several cases. Eolas is also filing separate suits against MS for Windows sales between 2001 and present day and sales before the scope of the current trial. Also, other makers of browsers and plug-ins may find themselves involved in litigation with Eolas very soon!

Re:A Half Billion:

[mpthompson]

Also, other makers of browsers and plug-ins may find themselves involved in litigation with Eolas very soon!

This is exactly what I'm afraid of. If Microsoft's fortunes in this matter don't change it may be a little embarassing and a bit painful to pay damages and license fees to Eolas, but it will surely be fatal to any other unfortunate victim caught in this sinister patent trap.

Also, if Microsoft does ultimately lose the appeal, one can be certain Microsoft will do everything in their power to be sure the heads of other infringers are served on a silver platter to Eolas with garnish on the side.

What's really sad is by losing the infringement case, Microsoft still wins big time. All other current and future browser competitors would be instantly eliminated as viable alternatives. Furthermore, the vast majority of the public wouldn't even notice or care thanks to the Microsoft monopoly on browsers.

Re:A Half Billion:

[parliboy]

Lemme get this straight. They got the Viola dude on the stand, and the judge made a finding of law (not of fact, because that's not his job) that his testimony was immaterial.

Someone PLEASE tell me where I can get a transcript of this?

(and tell Granny to get out while the getting's good)

Re:A Half Billion:

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

Hold on a minute - not only are you related to a shareholder of a company engaged in /. reader's 2nd most despised activity in the universe, you then come onto /., own up to that fact and then make thinly veiled threats about other browsers.

Either you have a death wish for your servers or you are monumentally short-sighted.

Re:Another Reason?

[shird]

No, why would it be? IE is free, and this affects only Microsoft not the end users.

amount will be reduced

[stonebeat.org]

offcourse the amount will be reduced when MS files a petition.....

Whoa...

[invisi]

This has got to be the first Lawsuit M$ has lost!

Re:Whoa...

[kevinz]

Ummmmmm. No. Microsoft has lost a numeber of similiar suits. In the end it hasn't made any difference. Remember Stac and their disk compression software? Seems like someone called Spyglass also won a lawsuit alleging M$ infringement on their web tech. And of course there is always the DR Dos / Novell / Caldera suit that was settled last year. Microsoft loses all the time, but with multiple monopolies they can afford to lose from time to time. Half a billion. That's what, .5% of their current cash reserves (after they just paid out 10 Billion to stockholders)?

Re:Whoa...

[WindBourne]

In fact, MS loses the bulk of the lawsuit if they are not able to settle. About the only lawsuit that they have won were against owners. Of course, while they lost the government monopoly suit, they were able to get it so that there is affectivly no lose.

Re:Another Reason?

[lseltzer]

Why?

521Million?

[BenTheDewpendent]

Thats all? that is a nice chunk of change but why not go for something with a B in it when going up a agains a giant such as MS who is worth several Billion.

Re:521Million?

[Anonymous Coward]

The prez of the company suing MS originally wanted $1.2B

Re:521Million?

[Anonymous Coward]

The amount was set by Judge Dr. Evil.

Re:521Million?

[agm]

They did go for something with a B in it according to the articla.

Re:Another Reason?

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe its just me, but i don't get why this is insightful. there are plenty of reasons to use mozilla/firebird. but how is this one of them?

Let me save everyone some time...

[qbproger]

There are going to be a bunch of people yelling about microsoft getting bit by software patents.

There will be the people yelling that we shouldn't be for patents when they are against microsoft.

In the end we will come to the same resolution... Software patents, and microsoft... both bad.

Re:Let me save everyone some time...

[zinkem]

Microsoft supports patents, if they get bit in the ass by some patent laws why should anyone care? You reap what you sow :)

Re:Let me save everyone some time...

[AntiOrganic]

They haven't come after Mono and other potentially-infringing stuff yet. Let's hope it stays that way.

Re:Let me save everyone some time...

[bluprint]

As someone who is as strongly opposed to patents as just about anyone on this planet, and who has argued time and again that MS never even had a monopoly....good point. It still concerns me, but only in a much larger sense (support of patents in general), rather than this particular ruling). While I agree that a thief "had it coming", it's still not right to allow thieves to practice their trade, even if they are only stealing from other thieves at the moment...

Re:Let me save everyone some time...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Gates has expressed his dislike for patents. He'd rather crush his opponents like a man by out-engineering them and out-selling them until they are an industry laughingstock (see WordPerfect, Netscape, etc) and die of obscurity.

Microsoft has patents simply because that's how the game is played. Companies like Apple have been scoring off them for years with this patent bullshit, so they need to have a defensive strategy.

Im so confused!!!!!!

[slash-tard]

Microsoft = bad

Patents = bad

So is this good? Must be some sort of paradox if so...

Re:Im so confused!!!!!!

[mpthompson]

Microsoft = bad
Patents = bad

So is this good?

I forget where, but it has been said that two wrongs don't make a right, just even.

Re:Im so confused!!!!!!

[GreatOgre]

two wrongs don't make a right

No, but three rights make a left :)

Re:Im so confused!!!!!!

[NaDrew]

Here, it's very simple.

1. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
2. "A friend in need is a friend indeed."
3. "One good deed deserves another."
   Therefore...
4. Profit!

Re:Im so confused!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

But two rights make an airplane.

Re:Im so confused!!!!!!

[wzs]

Microsoft=bad
Patents=ok

hey, at least they expire after a while. Besides, then we can all nail microsoft for infringing on them.

Re:Im so confused!!!!!!

[TedCheshireAcad]

...two wrongs don't make a right...

!false == true

Re:Im so confused!!!!!!

[Malcontent]

It's a double negative.

Re:Im so confused!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

slashdot@project-insomnia.com

Re:Im so confused!!!!!!

[bloo9298]

Your topos is boring.

Re:Im so confused!!!!!!

[mpthompson]

!false == true

Huh? Perhaps more like...

false * 2 != true

Re:Im so confused!!!!!!

[Alsee]

Microsoft = bad

Patents = bad

You should clarify that to SOFTWARE patents are bad. Most people have no objection to a reasonable and properly functioning patent system for objects.

And not only is Microsoft "bad", but Microsoft happens to be the biggest single force pushing for software patents. So Microsoft getting bitten by their own evil pet project is just-desserts.

-

Re:Im so confused!!!!!!

[bob65]

Um, explain how that is relevant to the parent post? What do wrong and right have to do with true and false, and furthermore, where is it disputed that !false is not true?

Re:Im so confused!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah Right.

Re:Im so confused!!!!!!

[stuntpope]

No one claimed not wrong doesn't make it right; the claim is 'two wrongs don't make a right'. Your logic (not something is the same as twice something?) obviously carries over into your sig.

Re:Im so confused!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I forget where, but it has been said that two wrongs don't make a right, just even.

No, it takes two wrongs, highly paid lawyers, and a few strategically placed congressional donations.

Re:Im so confused!!!!!!

[KurdtX]

My momma always told me two wrongs don't make a right. However, in this case, I don't so much mind - the irony is entertaining enough.

Re:Im so confused!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

No..Two wrongs are just twice as wrong. A wrong and a right make an even.

Re:Im so confused!!!!!!

[soulsteal]

it has been said that two wrongs don't make a right ...but three lefts do!

Re:Im so confused!!!!!!

[PetoskeyGuy]

It's called Karma. Like attracts Like.

Re:Another Reason?

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Isn't this just one more reason to use MozillaFirebird?"

If I were looking to up my karma, then yes.

hmmm

[Coneasfast]

Patents on the simple idea of plug-ins and applets? This seems almost as ridiculous as the amazon patent on one click purchasing.

Re:hmmm

[BJZQ8]

I once worked for a company that held a patent on "hierarchal" custom construction in software applications, as in Dell and Gateway online configurators (or cars, or houses, or widgets, etc...)...where your subsequent choices are limited by your previous ones...Don't know if they ever collected, but at one time they had lots of hope they would get millions...

Re:hmmm

[MntlChaos]

hierarchial custom construction... isn't that called a flowchart?

Re:hmmm

[Thing 1]

The amazon one-click patent really bugged me. I mean, what is the least energy you can expend on purchasing something? Without the computer being able to read your mind, it's ... one click. It should be obvious to anyone who knows the subject area.

So I propose to file a patent on a two-click process, so we can go after B&N and Borders who are avoiding Amazon's patent. Then we should file a 3-click, and 4-click, and 42-click patent...

Re:hmmm

[dkf]

The patenting of the idea of plug-ins and applets is less ridiculous when you consider when the patent was applied for (1994, and yes, I've read the patent) but is still really a trivial extension to the online world of software practice at the time (such as dynamic loading of libraries, which is the real foundational technology) IIRC.

Re:hmmm

[BJZQ8]

Yes...it is. But it's a flowchart applied to custom specification and construction of something. If you're buying a Gateway computer, you might have four choices...server, low-end server, high-end desktop, low-end desktop. You pick server, and get different choices than the low-end desktop. If you pick something, it limits your subsequent choices. It was originally applied to construction specifications, where you could pick a school, for instance, and it would automatically limit choices for interior materials that were approved for use in schools...or if you were building a prison (kind of like a school, but sometimes longer-term) it would automatically limit your lock selection to those approved for use in prisons. They (and their lawyers) stretched its application to things like computers and cars.

Re:hmmm

[gotak]

why don't you just file one on the process of clicking? I think it would be cheaper.

Re:hmmm

[pauljlucas]

[One click] should be obvious to anyone who knows the subject area.

It wasn't obvious at the time. Every web site was locked into the shopping-cart/check-out model. Yes, one-click seems "obvious" now. Most good ideas seem obvious after somebody thinks of them.

(Note to those who somehow read what I don't write: above, I never commented on whether an idea like one-click should be patentable. The only thing I said was that, at the time, said idea apparantly wasn't "obvious.")

Re:hmmm

[poot_rootbeer]

Patents on the simple idea of plug-ins and applets?

Well, sure, any patented idea seems obvious when you oversimplify it!

The Hindsight Effect often also applies.

Re:hmmm

[MntlChaos]

well DUH! I'm sure something along the lines of...
if(a=='a')do_b();else do_c(); has been around longer than any patent like that. If you pick something (a='a') then your choices are limited only to what choices do_b allows instead of all the choices of do_b and do_c

Seems like basic logic to me!

Re:hmmm

[Thing 1]

It wasn't obvious at the time. Every web site was locked into the shopping-cart/check-out model.

I hear what you're saying, but I have to admit it seemed obvious to me. In terms of efficiency, I like to try to reduce any activity into the least possible steps, and for something like buying an item on the Internet, the least steps are 0 but that involves the machine reading your mind.

So the slightly more inefficient method would be to do it in one click.

I'm not a rocket scientist, although I do have a fairly high IQ. But I don't believe that simply being efficient should be rewarded with a monopoly on efficiency!

Or, I could just learn how the rules are played, and play the game.

Re:hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

How are plug-ins and applets different from dynamically loaded librarys that existed well before 1990's?

Who has the patent on dynamically loaded code? IBM?

Re:hmmm

[BJZQ8]

Well that if:then series may be simple and may have been around awhile...but that didn't stop them from getting a $500,000 "license" payment from half a dozen companies, and pursuing it with two-dozen more. I'm not saying I agree...just that it happened.

So what does that amount to?

[Soporific]

About a weeks worth of work for Bill Gates or Paul Allen?

I'm not an MS hater, but I think it's the truth.

~S

Re:So what does that amount to?

[WindBourne]

Paul left MS ages ago.

Comforting thought.....

[eclectro]

If anybody can bust this patent, it's microsoft. They have 521 million reasons to.

Re:Another Reason?

[tuba_dude]

I don't either, but it might Affect end users. In any case, you could always make a (rather weak) political statement by using Firebird.

Anybody know?

[Anonvmous Coward]

Does this have to do with Netscape Style Plugin support, or ActiveX or... what? Any idea?

Re:Anybody know?

[ftvcs]

I've been following the Eolas lawsuit for a long time now, and this is bad folks. They basically have a patent on any embedded technology in a browser. A lot of people have looked into this, and so far have come up with nothing. The earliest "application" in a browser technology I'm aware of is Vosaic, but I can't get ahold of anything that shows what date that was originally set up. This screws Flash, Java applets, and all kinds of other things. Watch for more lawsuits in the future.

Hard to know what to feel.

[MikeFM]

I dislike Microsoft but I still don't see that this helps the development community or users at all. Software patents are stupid and a bad idea.. even when being used against that monopoly we love to hate. Anyone with an interest in the freedom of developers to develop what they want and the freedom of users to choose the best product for their needs can't see this as anything but a loss.

Re:Hard to know what to feel.

[Manic Ken]

Hear hear!!
Second that! I listened to RMS in india (the recording, not me...but that would have been cool), and The Man is brilliant. It is also funny, especially the idiots that doesn't get it...lol, anyhow, here is a link I found with the speech in ogg.

Re:Hard to know what to feel.

[div_2n]

I am not saying that in this case Eolas is in the right, but I totally disagree with that philosophy. If I dream up the idea for a new product that does something completely different and draw up a patent for it and then don't actually make a prototype I still own the rights to that idea. Me making a prototype is not a prerequisite for ownership. Likewise if a company comes up with a neat new idea for software but never EVER write it they still own that idea. It does not matter one bit if consumer demand exists for it. Consumer demand does not supercede a company's (or individual for that matter) ownership of an idea.

I know many of us (me included) love the idea of OSS and open ideas but not everyone feels that way and the vehicle to ensure those people have that choice exists in the form of Patents. Sure we could do away with that vehicle but you can be sure that funded R&D by companies would cease. Want that great cancer drug to cure all tumors? Not in a thousand years if a company can't retain rights to it in order to recover the money that went into its creation. That is capitalism for you. Like it or not this principle is at the heart of the creation of almost every piece of technology you are using to read this message right now.

The only way to make this change is to change everything to open and free. People have to eat, pay morgages and buy clothes and so on. Sure this may not be the case in this instance but the principle applies.

Re:Hard to know what to feel.

[broeman]

And even more here. They are pretty long, but quite informative. Take a break from the dreamworld and listen to some reality.

Re:Hard to know what to feel.

[MikeFM]

You honestly think companies would stop making things just because they lacked patent protection? Oh lets just all close shop forever because we might have a lil competition.. how can you have business with competition!? You don't leave multi-billion dollar businesses because you get competition. Instead you ring up your marketing department and have them whip up lots of ads with some unlikely looking young woman selling your superior products.

The only people who might actually be influenced by the availability of patents would be individual inventors and small companies.. the problem there is that patents cost something of a lot to file with no garantee whatsoever of earning back your investment.. and large companies with lots of lawyers can still use brute force to rip you off most of the time. Better to use your size as a benefit and be a quick mover. Get in, make some money, and then jump to the next project before the big companies notice the market you were just in. If you're any good maybe one of those big companies will do business with you. Contract law still holds so you can work on deals without being ripped off anymore than you could be without patents.

Software especially shouldn't be patentable because I've yet to see a software patent that wasn't so mind numbingly obvious as to be unworth stating. All these stupid Internet-related software patents are especially retarded. Most of this stuff I'd figured out by the time I was 15 and had already used in my own sites, BBS's, etc and a couple years later here comes tons of people smacking patents on. Why didn't I patent them first? #1 cus 15yo's don't typically have money, #2 cus 15yo's don't typically think about patenting lame ideas they have, and #3 cus patents suck. I can't believe people patent such stupid things as 'one click shopping' and 'online auctions'.

I'd make everything free and open if it was within my power. Actually that is one of my projects.. don't expect to see it available to the masses for a while yet. You have to be a member to get free stuff and being a member means you have to produce something for the group for free. ;)

Re:Hard to know what to feel.

[div_2n]

You could argue it a number of ways but consider drug companies. They make drugs and patent them so they can charge a huge fee to recover R&D costs and make a nice profit. This greatly encourages them to pour countless resources into development because they KNOW that if they make that super great drug (like Viagra) then they will make a killing. If you remove their patent protection that will NOT be the case since any company with reasonable resources could sit and wait for them to develop the compound and then reproduce it and sell it cheaper (no R&D, testing, etc).

Sure there would still be advancements in science/technology without patent protection. You can bet your life that certain sectors will be hit harder than others.

The resources required to spur development in different industries is not the same. The equipment required to produce new medicines is MUCH more expensive than the software industry with the exception of super computers.

The fact that the entry barrier is lower does not and should not mean that a crafty inventor of software should be treated differently than the crafty inventor of hardware.

I am not sure of the original purpose but I know one current benefit of patents. The little guy or company can enjoy protection from the big guy. I don't see how you can argue that idea as bad. Until you can make the food on my table free and the roof over my head free I will not work for free. Neither will those that their job is to develop new ideas and processes.

I wish you luck in your project :)

Re:Hard to know what to feel.

[MikeFM]

They'd have to keep developing because if they stopped they'd simply go out of business eventually. It'll take time for competitors to make their own knockoffs (especially if the druig company doesn't publish the exact details) and the knockoffs would still have to go through FDA testing which is in itself a slow and expensive process. Perhaps the company would have to make itself more effecient to stay ahead of the game but I'm sure most could manage. Simply knowing how something is done doesn't make it into an instant product. I know how to make root beer but I'm not currently putting A&W out of business.

Suits would have to learn to change their business strategies but technology would keep advancing and people would keep buying and selling.

I'd also have to point out that technology has the constant effect of making expensive things cheaper. The more competition you have in an area the faster technology advances. The faster it advances the cheaper things get. So more competition in the pharmaceutical industry would make producing new drugs cheaper. Cheaper R&D and production means there is less cost to recover. Some of that savings might even make it to the customers pocket with any decent amount of competitition going on. It would be a shock to the monolithing industries used to not having to work very hard but overall it'd be good.

Sure if somebody can think of something really new then I guess they can patent it. IMO that does not include stamping 'Internet' on a real world concept or taking something everyone is already doing and putting a patent on it. You get stupid things like companies patenting the way clicking on a toolbar works. If you devise an algorithm that can sort any array of any length in 3 seconds then that might be patentable. Of course those things are exactly the things we don't want patented because it hurts the community as a whole.

The little guy is protected from the big guy? Hardly. The big guy can squish the little guy under so much paperwork that it's almost impossible for the little guy to ever get anything from the big guy. The big guy just uses their massive legal department to file a patent on any stupid idea anyone can ever think up and then uses those to squish the little guys.

Nobody is asking you to work for free. I just have severe doubts that patents are putting food on your table or a roof over your head.. especially software patents. Hell, I'm going to patent the number 42. That is afterall the meaning of life, the universe, and everything. :)

Re:Hard to know what to feel.

[div_2n]

Hey, I thought of 42 first!!! :)

I see your point. I just am not sure that cheaper is always better. In computers that isn't such a big deal because your standard PC life isn't more than three or four years for many people.

I am not sure about other industries. I know that in the case of say a surgeon I want the best I can afford. I don't give a damn about how much the surgeon costs as long as I can afford it. I certainly would rather pay $4000 for the best I can buy who has 10 years experience and graduated from a great med school as opposed to $200 for some medicine-doctor-from-the-jungle educated "surgeon" from Brazil (no offense to Brazil).

Re:Hard to know what to feel.

[Anonymous Coward]

History shows that less capital is invested in R&D when no patent protection is available.

Furthermore, the non protected R&D efforts are geared toward more efficient production of existing technologies (can easily be protected by trade secret) than toward development of new technologies.

Re:Hard to know what to feel.

[MikeFM]

Douglas Adams estate will no doubt sue me over the patent for the meaning of life. I'll take a trick out of their own book though and time travel back to the past and file the patent before he wrote the book.

Cheaper isn't always better but things that are getting better often get cheaper as they are being produced in greater numbers and are fine tuning their design so that cruft gets tossed out.

I think services are fundamentally different than products.. especially mass produced products. Expense often, but not always, relates positively to quality of services rendered. For products I'd say it's inversed.. expense often, but not always, relates negatively to the quality of the product.

In the case of old (more expensive) technology against newer (cheaper) technology you very well might not have known the old sucked (as it was the best at the time). Still I think with more demand for high-tech tools for drug design and production we'll be seeing those R&D and production costs dropping. Things like high power computers, genetics, and nanotech will certainly bring those prices down a lot. :)

And in other news...

[Scalli0n]

From the article: "Eolas had argued that the technology for "plug-ins" and "applets" made it possible for Microsoft to compete against the Netscape Navigator browser."

In other news, SCO has also sued Mozilla for the use of "HTML" and "JavaScript" which have made it possible to be used by more than one person...

Re:out of context random starwars quote post

[handybundler]

"YOU HAVE FAILED"
</darthvader>

Categories for this article explained...

[pHatidic]

You may have noticed that this article seemingly falls into 7 different categories. Let me break them down for you so you can see for yourself how each one applies to this insightful article.

Firstly, the Bill-Gates-As-Cyborg is representative of Microsoft being fucked.

Secondly, the IE icon with the broken halo is representative of Microsoft falling from grace.

Thirdly, the circuitboard was just misclick by Taco.

Fourthly, the patent pending icon is representative of Cyborg-Bill being stabbed in the back by a rusty spoon.

Fifthly, the hat on briefcase thing also represents Microsoft being fucked.

Sixthly, the internet thing represents my posting this on slashdot about Microsoft being fucked.

Lastly, the newspaper icon represents joe sixpack reading in weekly world news tomorrow that Microsoft is being fucked.

In Summary...

[Anonymous Coward]

Boo: Overbroad Patents!
Boo: This patent is stupid!
Boo: Microsoft in general!
Yay: Microsoft has to pay money!
Boo: It's too little money!
Solution to this:
Yay: Mozilla!
Yay: Slashdot!

Re:In Summary...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where exactly does "stage three: profit!" come in?

Re:Sounds familiar

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Posted by michael on Monday August 11, @08:58PM"

"2003-08-12 02:12:38 Jury orders Microsoft to pay $520 million (articles,patents) (rejected)"

What, you submitted the story after it was posted?

What's it got to do with the PTO?

[Anonymous Coward]

They lost in court.

Approval of Patents means squat if it's overturned in court.

Extra links

[shird]

Some karma whoring links others might find interesting.

EOLAS SUES MICROSOFT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT...

The patent

Peanuts

[Anonymous Coward]

"They have been fined $521 million in damages."

Peanuts

Re:Sounds familiar

[Poofat]

Obviously, you were rejected because you rounded the 520.6 million down instead of up.

Before you start bitching about slashdot users...

[Dalroth]

Before you start bitching about Slashdot user's being hypocrites, keep in mind that Slashdot is a community filled with 1000's of a users who all have very different opinions on everything.

I do not support this ruling, because I do not support patents in any way shape or form. That does not mean the Slashdot community as a whole feels the same.

In fact, it's very hard to determine just what it is the Slashdot community DOES believe, because more often than not it's the negativity that makes it through the ranking system more than anything else.

Some people will call this a great victory for Open Source. I don't. I think it's a travesty, but that's my opinion and mine alone. Other's may or may not agree, but please don't let one person's opinion spoil your view of the entire community.

Bryan

Re:Super

[Anonymous Coward]

what is this "delelopment" you talk of? it sounds interesting, and my company may be interested in paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in buying the rights for it.

Bad precedent

[Eloquence]

Software patents being enforced are always a bad precedent, no matter against whom. Hopefully, big corporations will wake up to the patent scam, which primarily benefits lawyers and idea pirates. Innovation does not come from patents, according to Cisco's VP of "Intellectual Property". He stated in an interview:

Patents don't stimulate innovation, they capture and protect innovation. My experience at Cisco is that the ability to get patents is not what inspires new developments. Instead, competition has been the major stimulus of innovation at Cisco. Our engineering teams are motivated by the desire to quickly turn their ideas into products and services that customers want, solutions that will help our customers improve their productivity. They don't ask "can we patent this?" before deciding whether to create new solutions.

In order to "capture and protect" innovation, companies register more and more patents each year, often just to prevent others from suing them. But some companies register patents for the sole purpose of engaging in legal warfare -- a risky gamble with potentially huge prizes.

The biggest danger inherent in software patents is to free software. Megacorporations can easily collect thousands of patents on trivial processes to use against open source programmers who have little means to defend themselves. Wait for Microsoft and others to attack on this front -- that would be nice extra FUD fodder with all the SCO crap going on right now. To ignore software patents as Linus Torvalds does is the wrong approach. They must be eliminated entirely.

Re:Bad precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree :-)

I have been modded to oblivion for pointing out what crappy economics patents are in the past. Here is a very recent valid example that has hit a client of ours.

IP lawyer - lets call him "shithead" - does a search for patents that might affect our client. Finds one, brings it to client's attention, and offers his services.

Now, this patent is a systems specification (4 or 5 years old) whose only difference from many other specs I've written or been involved with is that it contatins the words "online" and "internet". If our client develops a system like the patented one they now do so in "willing" defiance of the patent, despite the fact that it's their core business and also despite the fact that the patent holder has done nothing for five years, yep, no prototype, no data model, no code no nothing.

No doubt shithead will help said client go through the courts and get this thrown out. And no doubt another lawyer, lets call him "tosser" will vigourously defend the patent. Even if this does not get to court the costs are huge.

Either way shithead and tosser win - these knights in shining armour protecting our IP from thieves and blackguards. If the patent holder win then there is an enourmous tax likely to be paid by our client.

Economically this is totally ludicrous. This tax disappears overseas never to be seen again. It won't build roads, hospitals or schools. It won't even finance government IT spending, just a total loss to the economy.

Someone, somewhere, please stop this insanity!

Re:Bad precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead, competition has been the major stimulus of innovation at Cisco.

Too bad all you're innovating is ways to fuck people who buy barely-used Cisco hardware from dead startups and other places.

Re:Bad precedent

[servoled]

Congratulations on the best out of context quote I have seen today. Read the question right before it:

Why are patents important for continued innovation at Cisco?

Robert Barr: Cisco is recognized worldwide for helping create the Internet as it exists today and changing the way people communicate. There's no doubt that Cisco is a highly innovative company. By innovative, I mean that Cisco excels at transforming new ideas into services and products that customers need to improve the productivity of their businesses. Patents help protect the right to innovate at Cisco. By capturing and patenting new ideas that emerge, Cisco has more freedom to develop new technologies that can be transformed into value-added products for customers.

The reason that Cisco's engineering teams don't question whether or not something is patentable before researching it is because they aren't paid to do that, they are paid to do research. Cisco has a legal team which takes care of the wondering whether or not something can be patented.

About the free software/patent issue you said:

The biggest danger inherent in software patents is to free software. Megacorporations can easily collect thousands of patents on trivial processes to use against open source programmers who have little means to defend themselves.

There is plenty the free software community can do to protect themselves. All they have to do is publish their work before any of the "megacoporations" go out and file their patents. The problem is that as far as I have seen the free software community doesn't care much about actual innovation, all they want is a free version of the products that every other company sells. If the free software community would stop trying to copy everything that Apple/Microsoft/Sun and countless others have made they wouldn't have to worry about nearly as much about patents.

Re:Bad precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents do motivate companies to innovate because they know their innovations will be protected. Otherwise, a company would not invest millions of dollars to innovate a process only to have its competitor copy it and use it. On the other hand, once a company patents a process, it no longer needs to innovate further because its process is protected. When Linus "ignores patents", he does so to prevent companies who hold patents from suing him and his developers for patent infringement. If he and his developers don't know anything about a patented process, then the company who holds the patent cannot sue them. Thus, to say Linus ignores patents instead of addressing them makes no sense.

Re:Bad precedent

[Steeltoe]

There is plenty the free software community can do to protect themselves. All they have to do is publish their work before any of the "megacoporations" go out and file their patents. The problem is that as far as I have seen the free software community doesn't care much about actual innovation, all they want is a free version of the products that every other company sells. If the free software community would stop trying to copy everything that Apple/Microsoft/Sun and countless others have made they wouldn't have to worry about nearly as much about patents.

Yet, Apple/Microsoft/Sun has done excactly as the Free Software community - copied technology. If you understand programming economics, it's the most economical thing to do: Copy and Extend/Innovate. To build from scratch is very, very, Very hard. And alot of work on top of that. You should try it. People will hate your software because it is "unusual". Most projects fail horribly.. What one needs then is a very strong theoretical foundation, coupled together with commercial ingenuity and a bunch of luck. Frankly, very few on this planet have all that. Programming's still a very new technology, and hardly a science yet. To make it science, you need to share innovation - catch 22. You don't have proprietary bridges by corporation XXX YYY, you have standards and companies doing real service.

There is alot of innovation going on in Free Software/Open Source. You're just looking at all the big glossy projects, which have had some catching up to do. There are myriads of small projects. Some very innovative, others just another editor. It's the way inventing always has been, and it's vibrant community.

Anyways, innovation is in the human creativity. To argue about creativity-differences in commercial/Free Software is pointless. All creativity comes from humans, and we should do everything we can to stop big corporations to highjack that and take the fun out of life.

Re:Bad precedent

[Eloquence]

If he and his developers don't know anything about a patented process, then the company who holds the patent cannot sue them.

Wrong. Ignorance is no defense before law.

Re:Bad precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

No, ignorance is no defence, but I think it limits the damages they can seek

Re:Bad precedent

[Yaa 101]

Finland does ignore the significance of USA patents, not Linus perse.
More than one patented (software) things are downloadable from finnish servers.

Re:Bad precedent

[Minna Kirai]

Wrong. Ignorance is no defense before law.

That's a vapid overgeneralization. Ignorance has been sucessfully argued as a defence in many cases. (Shoot a man for carrying a cellphone? You were ignorant, you get off the hook!)

Patents are intended at the fore to prevent copying another's ideas. If you can strongly argue ignorance of the patent, you're on your way to demonstrating independent reinvention. Then, if the jury likes your attitude, the trial can be yours. It's a roll of the dice, and it depends on your attorney getting the jurors to focus on the meaning of the original law, rather than minutia of USPTO regulations. (It's a roll of the dice)

OTOH, any statement ending in "cannot sue them" is automatically false, because anyone can sue you for any grounds.

Re:Bad precedent

[Eloquence]

Shoot a man for carrying a cellphone? You were ignorant, you get off the hook!

Only if you're a cop.

And Java applets in Navigator are not prior art?

[notAyank]

Can somebody explain this to me? How can this patent exist when in 1998 there were applets / plugins running inside Netscape Navigator doing all the things the patented method does:

1. They were embedded in the "hypermedia" document
2. They could communicate with the browser
3. They could communicate with the server (at least by using sockets and datagrams)
4. By doing this they were "providing the user of the client computer with interactive features and allowing the user to have access to greater computing power than may be available at the user's client computer."

Sorry, but I think MS should be in the clear here.

I'm Confused

[Drakonian]

Monday is Microsoft hating day. But Tuesday is patent-hating day. Well, since it was posted at 11:58 EST I guess I'll stick with Microsoft hating.

Stupid Microsoft! J00 G0+ 0W#3D! Thatt'll show you to write crappy code! Now you have to PAY. MUHAHAHAHAH.

Re:I'm Confused

[Goody]

ROTFL !!!!!!!

Is Wednesday RIAA hating day or file piracy advocacy day ? Everyday is Linux kernel announcement day. Mozilla news day is every third Wednesday. I haven't figured out what day is "Amiga has something cool" day, but I think it's every third Thursday.

Re:I'm Confused

[Dante333]

And everyday is beat up on SCO day....except for the second Tuesday in monthes containing a "r".

Software patents

[ignavus]

Losing a case about software patents is something I wouldn't wish upon my worst enemy ... hang on, it's MS ... hmm, let me think about this a little.

$521 million? To MS?

[Tumbleweed]

Can you say, 'Rounding Error'?

I knew you could.

Re:$521 million? To MS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you say 4% of quarterly revenue?

Re:$521 million? To MS?

[Tumbleweed]

The market fluctuates more than that. Considering how much they've also got in the bank, that's just "walking around" money.

most other browsers are in violation as well

[Anonymous Coward]

its just that microsoft is the only company they thought they could get money out of. but wait and see, open source browsers will be next. this is a very general patent that basically encompasses every well-featured browser in existence.

The large payout...

[lysium]

...is a great indication of what the public at large thinks of Microsoft, if nothing else. Even if a tedious appeals process somehow whittles the 521 down to something less painful (and painful that is, even with cash reserves), the message has still been sent that even the varied population that forms a jury of peers is ready to punish, even when our business-friendly Government (Administration?) is not.

----------

Re:The large payout...

[sweetooth]

Bull. This has nothing to do with how people see Microsoft of any other large company. Jurys are handing out large payouts for paper cuts these days.

Wait a minute. I got a paper cut today. Maybe I should sue International Paper for making such a dangerous product and not putting a warning label on it.

Link to patent

[dze]

Link to the actual patent.

I'm not much at reading patents but this looks like the usual silly IT patent that could apply to just about anything. Can't see this as a good thing at all.

Re:Link to patent

[X-ViRGE]

As opposed to all those other, fair, narrow-in-scope, not-out-to-get-anyone software patents that everyone else files. Right.

Re:Link to patent

[Tokerat]

Wow, this is terrible. Worse than I had thought.

A system allowing a user of a browser program on a computer connected to an open distributed hypermedia system

...your LAN counts...

to access and execute an embedded program object. The program object is embedded into a hypermedia document much like data objects.

...Java and JavaScript...might not cover Flash unless it contains ActionScripts...

The user may select the program object from the screen. Once selected the program object executes on the user's (client) computer or may execute on a remote server or additional remote computers in a distributed processing arrangement.

...PHP/ASP/Perl?(!)...

After launching the program object, the user is able to interact with the object as the invention provides for ongoing interprocess communication between the application object (program) and the browser program. One application of the embedded program object allows a user to view large and complex multi-dimensional objects from within the browser's window. The user can manipulate a control panel to change the viewpoint used to view the image. The invention allows a program to execute on a remote server or other computers to calculate the viewing transformations and send frame data to the client computer thus providing the user of the client computer with interactive features and allowing the user to have access to greater computing power than may be available at the user's client computer.

It sounds to me like this only covers downloading executable code to be run, or having code run on the server to generate a web page. Doesnt' look at all to me liek they've patented "plug-ins" as some have said... Worded loosely enough that it could cover scripts and the like as "executable code". I hope MS appeals, as much as I hate the bastards I'm rooting for them this time.

So

[mao che minh]

$521,000,000 USD isn't much to Microsoft. They probably have 8 times this amount saved up for legal issues anyways. In the end, Microsoft is going to pull an IBM on this company and make them sorry for ever suing them. Whoever had the balls to do this to Microsoft probably won't be around much longer.

Just look at the political careers of all the *major* politicians that were invloved in the original MS anti-trust case. If they didn't politically stagnate then MS made them go away - quietly, and expensively.

Monopolies can not be brought down with small lawsuits anymore. It will take a vast reversal in public opinion, many brave and ambitious politicians, and some fierce competition. So far we have 1 out of 3.

Re:So

[prostoalex]

$521,000,000 USD isn't much to Microsoft. They probably have 8 times this amount saved up for legal issues anyways.

How about 100 times as much? Microsoft has near 50 billion of good ole cash in the bank.

Re:So

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not so sure that Microsoft can "pull an IBM" on these guys. The company that won the lawsuit one of the more evil patent-related institutions: a patent holding company. They only license patents, they don't actually implement them in any of their own products. Without any real products, Microsoft can't turn around and sue them for infringing upon its own patents.

These patent holding companies are notorious for going after a series of smaller companies that will typically settle to build up a warchest, then they come down on the big companies like Microsoft. Pretty nasty, eh?

Re:So

[El Cubano]

It will take a vast reversal in public opinion, many brave and ambitious politicians, and some fierce competition. So far we have 1 out of 3.

Not trolling, but which one do we have now?

Microsoft's public opinion is beginning to wane, but it will be years before the level is up to public outrage or disgust on a majority level.

Brave and ambitious politions. Well, I won't say anything about that.

I like to the think that the F/OSS is providing fierce competition (they way that so many developers simply continue to press on in the face of all the naysaying is truly admirable). But, like the public opinion, it will still be some time before we reach a critical mass. Thankfully, that time may be quick in coming.

Re:So

[Tyreth]

Whether or not $521million is a small amount compared with what they have is irrelevant. Half a billion is a *lot* of money in anyone's books. And Microsoft will not want to just throw it away on legal issues. It may be that they have 8 times that stored up for legal issues, but you can bet that that is all to protect larger assets. They're not in the business of losing money.

Now, I don't think this will hurt them much at all - but it is still something they don't want. I've heard a story of a man who earned 25,000, and tithed 10% to his church each year. Then his pay was increased to 250,000 over the years. He described to his local church group how much harder it was to part with that money. So they prayed, "Dear Lord, please reduce our brother's paycheck". Anyway, joke aside - the more money you have, the harder it is to part with any of it. The less you have, often the less you care about material wealth.

I just don't see what's the point of demonstrating how little $512million is. Microsoft wants that money and they don't want to admit that they stole patents. Nothing more, nothing less. Though you seem to be responding to thoughts that this could help bring down the monopoly - I hope people don't think that, it obviously won't. Microsoft wants that money, but it won't kill them to lose it, not by a long stretch.

Re:So

[dementis_canis]

I agree, $521,000,000 USD certainly isn't much when you consider that, when planning the downfall of Netscape, Microsoft would most probably have factored in at least $1,000,000,000 USD for lost patent battles...
I mean, seriously, who believes that Microsoft doesn't knowingly violate patents and just simply budget for the inevitable settlement, or at worst, loss such as this?
It's part of the business plan, and has been since the beginning.

Re:So

[praedor]

So what? The company might not exist in the near future but at least the heads of the company will have gotten a big, fat, "retirement" check from M$. Microsnot can come down on them as hard as they want, the company can simply declare bankruptcy and the CEOs walk away with fat money in their pocket.

Re:So

[OSgod]

Ambitious politicians is 1/2, isn't it?

No competition here though -- sad to say.

Public opinion will go the way their bread is buttered -- and right now the general public will run screaming from Linux -- even in it's current form (you may not need to compile programs anymore but you still can't tell J. Public how much weight his cup holder is good for).

Re:Before you start bitching about slashdot users.

[j1mmy]

Your post is completely and utterly worthless. Mine is of similar caliber.

errr.. ya..

[kmak]

And how much MS make a year again? I bet they just laugh.. seriously, I bet to be asses, they'll appeal just so they can run up the lawyer fees of the other company..

umm...

[Starji]

"We're confident the facts will support our position." They obvoiusly didn't the first time :-P

Re:umm...

[Petronius]

Sounds like Rumsfeld talking about WMDs.

Re:umm...

[CityZen]

I think the "facts" that they were referring to are their corporate power and influence and ability to buy their own decisions, given enough time and a large enough infusion of cash in the right places (in the US, at least).

Re:If I only had a dollar...

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse me, $1.47 for each copy of windoze from 1998 to 2001. Then I'd have $521MM.

Re:And Java applets in Navigator are not prior art

[Chris Parrinello]

Umm... the patent was filed in 1994 before Mosaic or event Netscape had plugins?

Great News

[Henry V .009]

This is the best news that I've heard for a while.

Why, you ask?

Because, my friends, Microsoft is now going to spends billions to kill the current patent system. They're going to buy every Congressman from Alaska to Puerto Rico to shut this scam down. Bill Gates is going to spend so much on politicians that they'll still be standing in line to give him blow jobs twenty years from now. After Microsoft is finished, the only debate will be whether to use the patent authority building for Total Information Awareness Headquarters or turn it into a Fritz Chip manufacturing plant.

Re:Great News

[El Cubano]

They're going to buy every Congressman from Alaska to Puerto Rico to shut this scam down.

Uhh...Puerto Rico does not have Congressmen in the traditional sense. They have "non-voting delegates" to the House and Senate.

Re:Great News

[mOdQuArK!]

Because, my friends, Microsoft is now going to spends billions to kill the current patent system.

No, they'll just pay to help put caps on jury-awards. That way they can still use the patent laws to bankrupt/stifle small companies/open source advocates who might be competition, but not worry about being put out of business because they ran roughshod over someone else's patent.

Re:Great News

[Henry V .009]

I've heard them addressed on the news as "the Congressman from Puerto Rico" or what not. I'm not sure if that was how they were supposed to be addressed or not, but I've certainly heard it used that way. You're right that they aren't Congressmen. In fact, some states would lose Congressmen if Puerto Rico were ever to become a state because of the 435 limit, I believe.

Re:Great News

[bogie]

"Microsoft is now going to spends billions to kill the current patent system."

What in the world makes you think that? MS has a lot more to gain from patents then they do from them going away.

Sure MS isn't as big a patent player as some of the other companies, but if some of their recent patents hold up the Computer and Electronics world will be paying MS royalties for the next 20 years.

No MS isn't killing anything, especially the golden goose which is going to ensure they get paid.

Re:Great News

[Steeltoe]

It doesn't always work that way, and we shouldn't cheer stupidity either way. It's good to get some focus on the stupidity of the current patent system, but Microsoft will probably defend itself in every possible way within the current system. They have alot of interest keeping their IP-wealth status quo. Then they might buy up the company, like so many times before, and fire everybody. Sadly, no lessons learned there..

Don't count on anybody doing the job for you.

Re:Great News

[Anonymous Coward]

looking at history, though, Microsoft had always been more dependent on copying smaller players' ideas than they were threatened by any competitor stealing their ideas.

Re: Great News

[Caid Raspa]

Microsoft is now going to spends billions to kill the current patent system. They're going to buy every Congressman.

They will just transfer the legal costs to prices of Windows and Office. That is the easy way. I assume MS holds loads of software patents, and they are not going to throw all that investment away because of one lost lawsuit.

But in the long run, this patent BS ruins software. If every idea any developer had in the last 20 years was patented, any code you write is bound to violate someones copyright. If someone had patented object-oriented programming, he would still be collecting royalties (IANAL). This will just encourage anyone with a patent to sue everyone in sight. All the money wasted in legal battles on software patents is away from real R&D work. Companies will hire lawyers, not coders.

I think the Chinese ("Patent? What is a patent?") will produce better software in the long run. Free Software developers will be in SCOish legal trouble for decades, unless we reform the patent system, and I'm not optimistic about that.

Re:Great News

[Anonymous Coward]

While I don't agree, your comment gives me an idea. Software patents are very much here to stay. I am not saying they can't ever be dealt with, but that my idea won't really strengthen them. Free software developers should register patents. If this one company can sue Microsoft, an army of free software patent suicide bombers would have Microsoft shaking in its boots. Going by these numbers, it would only take about 100 of us to completely destroy Microsoft (earlier someone said they got 1.3% of MS's money).

Re:Great News

[mystran]

This is exactly what I hoped when I see this. It will have to happen at some point, by some large company. I don't know if it's MS that will do it, but someone will.

It seems to me that there is quite some action going on in the legal grounds. We have this SCO case, and now we have this. There are proposals for new legislation. Then there's things like Linux gaining a lot of publicity lately, and (ordinary) people getting frustrated with MS, spam, viruses..

We might well live on the edge of new revolution.

Re:Great News

[Henry V .009]

My comment was meant mostly in jest. But I'm not sure that you're right. Microsoft does have a patent portfolio, but it doesn't guarantee anything in the current system. Patent lawsuits are like gambling, and settlements against Microsoft are going to be far larger than any settlement against Microsoft's competitors. Moreover, I thought that Microsoft's monopoly was almost completely independent of software patents -- so they don't gain much. Microsoft will act to stop the chaos. The next judgment could stop them from selling Windows or Office even. That kind of chaos is terrible for the companies on the top who are mainly concerned about stability.

Improvement in tech-patent news

[dpille]

The patent in question is U.S. Patent No. 5,838,906, granted in 1998.

I follow the patent stories here all the time, and I'm used to trying to take the scattered details of whatever news service we're linking to to find the actual patents. Just wanted to point out that it's refreshing to find a major information source using actual patent nos.

patent warchests

[mitomac]

IBM, Microsoft, Apple all have giant patent portfolios. When a small company like Eolas can nail microsoft for a patent violation it does not bode well for linux. If IBM can b*tch slap SCO with patent violations regarding hierarchial graphical menus. What is to stop them or any other patent hoarder from making the same claim against linux? Currently, these companies refrain from suing each other because they know the other company likely has patents they are violating...But what ace in the hole patents does linux have up its sleeve?

mitomac

Re:patent warchests

[BiggerIsBetter]

None, as far as I know. In a way, that's kind of the point of free software, and it appears to be Linus approach to the whole issue. Having said that, there may well be indivual developers and companies with secret stashes of IP fodder tucked quietly away.

It would be very cool if MS stomps this company on appeal, and hopefully the whole software patent concept with it. But I don't think they will do that - it's probably worth more to them to lose this battle, and have their own "IP" portfolio's worth validated. If that's the way it goes, look out world because there's gonna be one huge bun fight with every opportunistic company pulling out their dodgy patent claims.

Re:patent warchests

[elphkotm]

The fact that there are companies like IBM out there with thousands of patents that are using Linux for their business purposes, as well as the fact that Linux itself is not a legal entity, since it is owned by thousands of individuals. Going after the individuals would be futile, and you can't attack the heads of the project since they could disclaim any liability for code written by another person.

Re:patent warchests

[screenrc]

I don't think Linux has any aces, but the
GPL nature of linux allows it to become collective
property for giants like Oracle, IBM, etc.
Linux is fine for now, until the giants defeat
the common enemy and start arguing among themselves.
I should not become a surprise if sometime in the (distant) future IBM attacks
Linux in order to harm Oracle.

In the mean time, although Linux seems it is not
protected, perhaps IBM and friends should
have already thought what to do when Linux is
attacked through patents. One supposes they
at least have some type of plans for this before they invested
Billions of dollars. Now that the lawsuits have
started, we should someday be able to tell how they plan
to fight back.

Re:patent warchests

[praedor]

Except...companies like IBM consider their patents, by and large, DEFENSIVE in nature. They don't load the guns unless they get stuck into a situation such as what SCO has done. THEN the guns are dusted off, loaded and fired.

If M$ were to subsequently start a patent fight against linux in court, this would directly affect IBM (and HP and other's) bottom lines. They would bring their patents to bear against M$. Amongst the giants, then, there is an unspoken MAD policy in place. The ones in real danger are small companies, not the big players, and linux doesn't count in this regard. Linux isn't a company but a number of large companies (with defensive patents) are using it. To fire on linux is to fire on these other guys (see the SCO-linux thing driving the biggest boy of them all, IBM, out with its big guns). M$ would get the same IBM treatment if they went after linux in any significant way...and IBM has way more patent ammunition than M$ ever will.

At this point, it is simply lucky for we linux users that IBM is on our side.

MOD PARENT UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHAHA

MOD PARENT UP!!

INSIGHTFUL +7 FUNNY +2 !!!

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

well im just tryin to say that Scalli0n is FUCKING HILarious.

Re:MOD PARENT UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up, Scalli0n.

Re:MOD PARENT UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually this is scalli0n and fuck you, I didn't post that reply to my own post. I'm not as lame as you.

Well, then....

[SubjunctiveSam]

I don't know if this helps at all, but according to the transitive property of equality, that means we can conclude that Microsoft = Patents!

Think about that for a while.

Then, moderate this post up as insightful.

Re:Well, then....

[BobTheJanitor]

More accurately, microsoft is a subset of evil, and patents is a subset of evil. The most that can be said is "Because some evil is microsoft, and some evil is patents, some microsoft may be patents."

Re:Well, then....

[SubjunctiveSam]

I'm familiar with set theory. If the post I was replying to had said what you said, that would be true. However, the poster said they were equal, not that microsoft is a subset of evil and that patents is a subset of evil as you stated.

Re:Well, then....

[azzy]

Your post is a subpost of a crap post, that makes your post crap. My post is a subpost of your post which makes this post... aww damn!!

Re:Well, then....

[Anonymous Coward]

Shheesh... respect your own low uid, post something meaningful.

Re:Well, then....

[WillyElectrix]

Microsoft, PTO, and the NY Yankees all implement the Evil interface. It's the only explanation that makes sense.

just have to say it...!

[agent2]

I killed Paul Allen with an axe, in the face!
American Psycho is the best movie ever.

Re:Another Reason?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually this is a developer resource and therefore not referring to end users. Some of us on Slashdot do develop, you know.

Isn't Free Software Vunerale as Well?

[femto]

What's to stop the company from going after Mozilla authors as well, or authors of any other free software program that uses plugins?

Also, from the article:

"We believe the evidence will ultimately show that there was no infringement of any kind, and that the accused feature in our browser technology was developed by our own engineers based on preexisting Microsoft technology."

Isn't that irrelevant, and why software patents are 'evil'? It doesn't matter whether your work was completely independent. If it is patented, your stuffed.

Having said that though, check out the case Frearson v Loe, dated 1878 (google is your friend). I gather (in my naive IANAL way) that it is an often quoted precedent. The case determined that non-commercial experimentation is okay, even in the face of patents. Can writing free software be considered to be an experiment?

Re:Isn't Free Software Vunerale as Well?

[Fizzl]

Can writing free software be considered to be an experiment?

I'd say 'NO', because it can potentially harm the business of patent holder.

Re:Isn't Free Software Vunerale as Well?

[servoled]

Isn't that irrelevant, and why software patents are 'evil'? It doesn't matter whether your work was completely independent. If it is patented, your stuffed.

It is true that the ones who do not have the patent in a case such as that have the burden of proof, but if they can prove that they invented whatever it maybe that was patented, then the patent will be over turned. This is why it is so important that you document as much as possible all activities related to any possible inventions.

That being said, as far as I know, this is only true for the USA. In other countries the first one to file gets the rights to the invention no matter what.

Re:Isn't Free Software Vunerale as Well?

[Anonymous Coward]

yes it would be. For now, it wouldn't be worth this company's time to go after Mozilla. They are after companies that have the big bucks. The resources of the Mozilla Foundation probably wouldn't foot their legal bill for a week.

Re:Isn't Free Software Vunerale as Well?

[Anonymous Coward]

They could very cheaply threaten and cajole Mozilla into dropping all of their plug-in features.

Which would be a disaster, because all of the skin/component stuff was THE major engineering thrust of the browser.

Re:Isn't Free Software Vunerale as Well?

[calica]

Having said that though, check out the case Frearson v Loe, dated 1878 (google is your friend). I gather (in my naive IANAL way) that it is an often quoted precedent. The case determined that non-commercial experimentation is okay, even in the face of patents. Can writing free software be considered to be an experiment?

Ignoring the patent clause of the GPL.

That could be dangerous. It could be argued that writing/developing Linux/Gnome/etc. can infringe but then can only be used for Non-commercial purposes. As soon as you setup a server for an ecommerce site, the patent is in effect. In order to be legal the end user needs to license the patent. Now this isn't SCO because the concensus is they don't have any applicable patents. They're just waving around the term IP.

Actually, the more I think about it this could be a good thing. Just need a clearinghouse to handle the licensing fees. This would let OSS develop patented technologies without fear.

Re:Isn't Free Software Vunerale as Well?

[foniksonik]

Up until recently Mozilla as browser, mail, chat, etc. was explicitly stated to be a w3c compliance test suite, using the Gecko rendering engine, which necessarily had to function in order to perform it's role.... not sure what they are saying about it now that they have Firebird, etc. in the pipeline.

Now if it is still just a test suite then it's non-commercial and of course Mozilla is in fact a non-profit at this stage (conveniently having been rolled out of AOL and friends, JIT?).

IANAL but you're hypothesis looks good... it's just a big experiment in w3c compliance (even though they have their own test browser...).

Re:Isn't Free Software Vunerale as Well?

[julesh]

"We believe the evidence will ultimately show that there was no infringement of any kind, and that the accused feature in our browser technology was developed by our own engineers based on preexisting Microsoft technology."

Isn't that irrelevant[...]?

No. The key word here that causes it to be relevant is 'preexisting' - that is they claim that they had some early version of this kind of technology working before the patent was filed, if I read the statement correctly.

They deserve it all and here's why

[agent2]

I believe that this just goes to show that at least someone on the court system isn't afraid to hit Microsoft with a half-billion fine for their 'infringement.' I am not for certain but if the patent-of-debate is for "plugins", regardless how many elite, if you can say that at all, technologies microsoft 'created' such as ActiveX, they are still stealing the idea from the patent. So I think Microsoft deserves every penny.

Eolas's biggest product to date

[Humba]

True story (I've met some of the company's employees):

Eolas, the company that won the judgement's best selling product to date was the IP license for the curley "e" logo (like the @ sign w/ an e) that they sold to IBM for use in the IBM "e-business" logo.

--H

I've seen it 4 times.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hey Paul! yaaaaaah!" *shunk*

"Try getting a reservation at Dorcia now, you fucking stupid bastard!"

Re:Hello

[geek4ever]

Gunther Wheeler u say? He was in a Disney movie...o yah, "The Paper Brigade"!(so what i had 2 google for that).
Ouch! someone got busted! True story my behind!

So this is how MicroSoft faces justice?

[Thoth Ptolemy]

Heh.
I'd say bringing a lawsuit is the last line of defense people have to protect themselves from greedy and overly powerful entities. The goverment has completely failed to do anything, so now people are falling on this last defense. It's a shame it had to get to this point, but hey...justice is justice.

This not good ... it was a BS patent to begin with

[Anonymous Coward]

The patent should never have been approved.

That said. It should never have won in court.

Too broad and the company never used it to gain profit on it's own merits.

What if this happened to Mozilla and friends?

[raw-sewage]

As much as I like to see Microsoft get slammed, it scares me to think what might happen if these patent-enforcement lawsuits were directed at the open source community. I didn't bother to actually research the details of that patent referenced in this case, but what if Mozilla or Konqueror or another open source browser infringes on the same patent?

Microsoft is a nice target for lawsuits: they're big, visible and have lots of money. However, what if an open source browser had a more significant market share? Wouldn't that same patent-portfolio group come demanding royalties?

This is a more general concern that scares me; it may be tested by the SCO-IBM case(s). Say a company patents some software technology. What if the developers working on that code go home at night and use the same concepts in some open source projects? I emphasize concepts because the developers are smart enough not to copy code, but a patent covers an idea, not a specific implementation.

A lot of this paranoia comes from my co-worker, who is pro-Microsoft and very much anti-open source. He is absolutely convinced that open source is communism, and that it clashes with capitalism. He loves to suggest the above scenario and predict that the GPL will ultimately fail in court...

...because it blocks someone's right to profit. Not only can you not get anything for free in the U.S., but it's getting to the point where you can't give anything away!

Finally, back to Microsoft: don't they have over $40 billion in cash? So $500 million is 1/80th of $40 billion. That's like having $400 and being fined $5. Oh, that hurts. Is anyone here an accountant? How much of that gets written off in taxes? It's really a joke, in my mind.

Of course I don't know the details of the case, but $500 million seems weak. Microsoft has said that IE is now a critical part of Windows. Windows and Office are the only two sources of revenue for Microsoft... doesn't that somehow make IE a critical part of their income stream? And they only got fined five bucks for it?

Re:What if this happened to Mozilla and friends?

[ciroknight]

Microsoft has said that IE is now a critical part of Windows. Windows and Office are the only two sources of revenue for Microsoft... doesn't that somehow make IE a critical part of their income stream? And they only got fined five bucks for it?

Truth be it told, $5 is better than $0. It's time Microsoft learned a lesson, but this is a crude and unusal way of getting a lesson across. Hopefully Eolas will be honest to it's intentions and not attack netscape/mozilla. They said in the article that they only sued Microsoft because of the way IE seemed to take over the internet, and I'm holding them to their word on this one. Eolas gives me no reason to believe they are bad people.. they are good people with good intentions.. but power corrupts, and I hope they don't get corrupted by the hordes of cash they just raked in...

I truthfully stand behind Eolas on this one, but I'm weary of the double edged sword they wield...

Re:What if this happened to Mozilla and friends?

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

Yes, it can happen.

However it's not very profitable to sue someone who do not have a lot of cash. It will cost more than it taste.

Secondly if you are bright enough to code you should be bright enought to know that you should not use ideas that are patented by the company you work for.

So the risk for anyone involved are very small. If it happens the maintainer of the free software should just remove the offending code and rewrite it using another algorithm.

This is also not a risk that only effekts users of free software; users of closed software has the same risk. However usually the patente holder goes after the company not the programmer...

Follow the money!

Re:And Java applets in Navigator are not prior art

[jonabbey]

It wasn't filed in 1998.

I'd like to think that this sort of thing is an obvious extension of techniques like OLE, OpenDoc, and SOM, but patents don't tend to work like that, as I understand it.. you can patent something which is a extension of someone else's patented work so long as it doesn't strike the examiner as obvious.

Microsoft claims, From the Article...

[Suhas]

"We believe the evidence will ultimately show that there was no infringement of any kind, and that the accused feature in our browser technology was developed by our own engineers based on preexisting Microsoft technology."

Correct me if I am wrong, but how does this justify their position? Developing a technology for which there is a pre-existing patent still results in patent infringement right? So what's their point? If they can somehow prove that they developed the technology WITHOUT having any knowledge of the patent, can they go scot free?

Re:Microsoft claims, From the Article...

[catbutt]

Correct me if I am wrong, Ok. :) Patents are often awarded when they shouldn't be (such as if there is prior art), and they often don't hold up in court when challenged. Patent examiners don't have the resources to determine whether there is prior art, beyond a fairly quick search. When challenged, lawyers often can find things the examiner didn't. However, often a judge will rule simply on whether they violated the patent, and leave it to an appeals court to decide whether the patent was valid in the first place.

This is very very bad

[deanj]

I've been following the Eolas lawsuit for a long time now, and this is bad folks.

They basically have a patent on any embedded technology in a browser. A lot of people have looked into this, and so far have come up with nothing. The earliest "application" in a browser technology I'm aware of is Vosaic, but I can't get ahold of anything that shows what date that was originally set up.

This screws Flash, Java applets, and all kinds of other things. Watch for more lawsuits in the future.

Re:This is very very bad

[Anonymous Coward]

This screws Flash, Java applets, and all kinds of other things.

And it screws them for good!

Re:This is very very bad

[jvollmer]

Let's all go back to using lynx.
Damn, it was fast!

Re:This is very very bad

[Hatta]

This screws Flash, Java applets, and all kinds of other things.

Man, this rocks!

Re:This is very very bad

[Fastball]

This screws Flash, Java applets, and all kinds of other things.

Fine by me. I can't stand Flash or Java applets in my browser anyways. Too often these things are abused by advertisements. I hope this expedites their disappearance for all time.

Re:This is very very bad

[IM6100]

I guess you'd better get used to static web pages. No more e-commerce, no more web-oriented applicaton development.

Re:This is very very bad

[Compuser]

Seems Vosaic dates back to spring of 1994, postdating their "invention".

Re:This is very very bad

[Compuser]

Check out:
http://ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/archives/WWW-TAL K/www- talk-1992.messages/337.html
and
http://ksi.cpsc. ucalgary.ca/archives/WWW-TALK/www- talk-1992.messages/371.html
(Hope above links pass lameness filter).
Seems like embedded functionality predates their patent.

Re:This is very very bad

[sunya]

really? I was under the impression that all you need for e-commerce was a secure browser, and al the magic happens over a scure link to a secure server.. where does any "embedding" come in to the picture ?

Re:This is very very bad

[cherad]

No more Flash! \o/

Re:This is very very bad

[ptr2void]

So what? Who needs flashing buttons for doing eCommcerce? Simple HTML forms make the best webshops as they actually work in any browser. I don't care if the d**n shop has animation and funny menus. I'm no fan of overly generic patents, but if this one kills Flash, I'm all for it!

Re:And Java applets in Navigator are not prior art

[notAyank]

Er. You'd be correct. Sorry about that.

Didn't Sun already release "Hot Java" Browser?

[rfmobile]

Didn't Sun release their Java Browser "Hot Java" at about that time? -rick

Re:And Java applets in Navigator are not prior art

[Albhar]

Can somebody explain this to me? How can this patent exist when in 1998 there were applets / plugins running inside Netscape Navigator doing all the things the patented method does The patent was filed in 1994 for "so-called" invention done in 1993. More info here. I find this ruling frightening. The above page points to prior/concurent art and if MS cannot win its case, who will? Mozilla, Opera, Konqueror? Who is next on Eoals diary? It may be one more blattant proof of the stupidity of current patent laws in US but applets and other embedded programs are now subject to patent in HTML. So you cannot implement the HTML spec (which is supposed to be an open spec) in the US whithout a license or being subject to a law suit.

Re:Another Reason?

[child_of_mercy]

I'm sure you meant "IE is available free of charge".

Re:Sounds familiar

[The Bungi]

Grousing about rejected submissions is offtopic and usually gets moderated that way. It happens, don't take it personally.

Besides, "grousing" is, um, "grouse", and probably painful.

Whatever it is.

Oh?!

[metalmaniac1759]

So M$ *does* get sued ;-)

Nandz.

No, but Viola probably is.

[chathamhouse]

In 1991, Pei Wei created Viola. It supported extensible plugins prior to 1994.

My objection to most software patents stands. If you're doing something that an expert would consider to be an obvious extension to the current state of the art, you don't have something patentable.

Re:No, but Viola probably is.

[Waffle Iron]

The whole patent obviousness issue is in need of a serious overhaul. I've got a few patents courtesy of a big corporation I worked for many years ago. Every once and a while they would send patent attorneys to troll through the engineering groups looking for random things to patent. They would come in and tell us: "Don't worry if you think your ideas seem obvious. What's obvious to you isn't necessarily obvious to the patent examiner. The legal standards for 'obvious' are very low." From what I could tell, almost no idea was considered "obvious", and things have gotten much worse since then.

Here's what's obvious to me in this case: Assume you went back to 1994 and gathered up a random group of 50 competent software developers. Give them the problem of having a server present interactive content to users of hypertext clients. I guarantee that 80% of them would have independently come up with plug-in based architectures very similar to what we see in all browsers today.

We need some way to incorporate such common sense notions of obviousness into the patent screening process.

Re:No, but Viola probably is.

[LoztInSpace]

That should be patently obvious.

Re:No, but Viola probably is.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's what's obvious to me in this case: Assume you went back to 1994 and gathered up a random group of 50 competent software developers. Give them the problem of having a server present interactive content to users of hypertext clients. I guarantee that 80% of them would have independently come up with plug-in based architectures very similar to what we see in all browsers today.

You know that they did something like this, right? MS brought in an expert to say exactly that and Eolas brought in an expert to say the opposite. The jury listened and the jury decided. There's no possible doubt that MS found the best credentialed, most knowledgeable, most persuasive guy money could buy to make the argument and that they gave him the best presentation tools available. And the jury still didn't buy it.

Further, you know that MS must have scoured the literature looking for prior art.

What do you conclude from that?

Re:No, but Viola probably is.

[zungu]

That cannot be an objection to patents, since under 35 USC 103 it is a bar to obtaining patents. Anything that would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art is NOT patentable. A patent can be challenged on this ground anytime during its lifetime. Don't criticize patents unless you know enough about them.

Re:No, but Viola probably is.

[Waffle Iron]

What do you conclude from that?

I conclude that the people on the jury had zero qualifications to judge the technical merits of the question. It probably boiled down to which expert was a better BSer.

To accurately answer the question of "is it obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art", you need ask a special panel of software developers, not a handful of random people pulled off the street.

"Jury of their peers" is dead

[roystgnr]

A federal jury in Chicago awarded the University of California and a browser technology company $520.6 million after finding on Monday that their patents were infringed by Microsoft Corp.

Any jury of Microsoft Corp.'s peers would have looked at the patent dated 1998, noticed that the patent's claims applied to the Java applets they were running in 1995, and thrown the case out. I doubt that jury duty calls up a huge fraction of programmers, though; Eolas' lawyers probably didn't even have to kick many people off for being too smart.

Re:"Jury of their peers" is dead

[servoled]

1998 is the date that the patent was issued and has nothing to do with the date required for prior art. The patent was filed on October 17, 1994, this is the date that you have to consider when looking at prior art. Lets check the math:

1994 less than 1995 = TRUE

Looks like the Java applets don't count and the jury was in fact smarter than you, sorry.

Re:"Jury of their peers" is dead

[roystgnr]

1998 is the date that the patent was issued and has nothing to do with the date required for prior art. The patent was filed on October 17, 1994, this is the date that you have to consider when looking at prior art.

You know, you're right, but I didn't even bother to look at the Filed date, because I glanced at the dozen references dated 1989 through 1997 and figured it would be hard to reference a 1997 patent in 1995. Eolas should probably forget this "browser plugin" junk and patent their time machine! ;-)

Looks like the Java applets don't count

Are you sure? I mentioned 1995 as the date the public got to play with Java - Sun had a Java-enabled browser running internally in 1994, and so probably had the idea of running applets from hypertext documents (the idea, the only thing Eolas created while Sun built a working implementation) years before (like when they started Java in 1991 or when they thought of hooking it up to Mosaic in 1993).

In any case, it's not like Sun was the only one working on that sort of thing. This guy appears to have had working "infringing" code in 1991.

And you know who has some of the best prior art? Microsoft. They'd had "applet inside a word processor document" and "applet inside a spreadsheet document" technology working for years; does anybody really think that "applet inside a hypertext document" technology would have eluded them if it were not for the wonderful inventors at Eolas? Eolas just managed to be one of the first companies to pull off the "take existing invention or task, add 'with the internet' to the description, file patent" scam that's made the patent office a joke today.

Re:Another Reason?

[cshark]

Right, but it would affect the mozilla foundation as well. Much as I hate Microsoft these days, this kind of broad patent is just stupid. This is also consecutive loss number two for microsoft this year. The first being the extremely broad data storage patent that applied to SQL server. Considering that Microsoft is one of the richest companies in the world, you would think they would have better legal defense. It almost seems like they can't win these days. I can't wait to see how the Xbox and Trusted Computing patent infringement case goes.

Re:Before you start bitching about slashdot users.

[Kevin DeGraaf]

• Slashdot user's being hypocrites
  
• 1000's of a users
  
• Other's may or may not agree
  

I' dunno, I thin'k mayb'e Sla'shdo'tters are'all of one' opinion on thi's one...

Re:Another Reason?

[deanj]

This is bad for anything that supports embedded applications. Flash. Java applets. Anything like that. That's what they got a patent on.

I'd rather not admit to that...

[Anonymous Coward]

technology for "plug-ins" and "applets"

The technology that inspired a whole genre of ads, worthless toolbars, crashing IE, crummy web pages, and secure breaches. I'd rather not admit to owning it and tell em to keep the $500 million.

Re:Sounds familiar

[Luke-Jr]

What difference does it make? They used content and even put my name in the Gentoo 1.4 story and it showed as rejected. They probably just "reject" most multi-submitted stories and merge them into one. It's just a few bytes on a page only you can see, anyway. =p

Well at least...

[RedWolves2]

I won't have to pay $699 to use my browser. Or $32 to use it on my Pocket PC.

bummer

[sdibb]

In a statement, Microsoft said, "We believe the evidence will ultimately show that there was no infringement of any kind, and that the accused feature in our browser technology was developed by our own engineers based on preexisting Microsoft technology."

It's a shame they don't step up to the bat and actually speak out against stupid IP patents, and how they can be harmful to the developer's community. It would certainly look good for them, and if there's anyone who can sway opinion with the government, it's Microsoft.

Re:bummer

[loconet]

If they speak out against patents, they'd be speaking out against themselves

treble damages?

[jvollmer]

Since Microsoft is an illegal monopoly, Does this mean that Eolas is entitled to treble damages?

Does this $521,000,000.00 already represent that?

Gee - I had fun typing out all those zeroes.
Just wait 'til InterTrust gets their day in court - that Ballmer guy 'll be hustling for pocket-change.

Lets hope they don't follow SCO's logic...

[jmors]

There are an aweful lot of people out there who are "end users" of the internet explorer web browser, so, by SCO's logic they can sue each and every person who has IE on their computer or offer them a "license" to protect from being sued!

This is no victory

[flacco]

It might be an annoyance to MS, but successful enforcement of software patents is, overall, a loss to Free/OSS.

Re:Sounds familiar

[cranos]

Doesn't grousing usually involve small fat birds and a shot gun?

Software patents hurt everyone

[JVert]

Software alone should be an exception from patents. Copyrights are ok to protect branding but patenting algorithims is like patenting a shortcut for a daily commute. People built cars and roads to you could use them as you wish. Same thought behind people building hardware and compilers.

Re:Software patents hurt everyone

[saddino]

Copyrights are ok to protect branding

Er, trademarks protect branding. But anyway...

Why should "software alone" be excepted? Isn't deciding that putting frozen ice on a stick (Epperson's Popsicle patent) "like patenting a shortcut for a daily commute"?

Patents protect original inventions. I don't see why putting 1s and 0s in a creative, unique way is any different from putting frozen ice on a wooden stick.

Re:Another Reason?

[NanoGator]

"Isn't this just one more reason to use MozillaFirebird?"

If they violate the patent, then no.

This is good.

[Adidas13]

Now Microsoft can 'explain' to the US government how absurdly our patent system is being applied to software and the tech industry.

Re:Another Reason?

[Rooked_One]

I plug my lamp into sockets... Is that considered a plug-in?

What about the obligitory "PLUG IT IN PLUG IT IN!"

IMO this is just getting rediculous... this is almost as bad as the whole "buy it now" patent.

That reminds me...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I got mail!"
"I got mail!"
YAAAAYYYYY
"I got mail!"
"I got mail!"
YAAAAYYYYY

Re:Before you start bitching about slashdot users.

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ man, you spent 90% of your post apologizing in advance for your post!

You sound like you have some serious self-esteem issues to work out.

Cringely mentioned this case about a year ago...

[puppet10]

In this article.

One interesting thing not mentioned in the Rueter's report but expounded upon in detail in the pre-decision Cringely article is that winning this lawsuit may allow Eolas to prevent Microsoft fom any infringing behavior through a court injunction -- ie. they can't use the technology covered under the patent upheld by the court at any price if Eolas decides to do that (since by holding the patent they are not required to license the right to use it to anyone). And they may decide to sell to someone other than Microsoft exclusively the rights to develop software including the patented methods.

This is one of the places software patents are really bad (though in Microsoft's case its a bit of being hoist by their own petard), the exclusivity without compulsory licensing allows Eolas (or any other company with a patented process/method/device) to use their patent as a club to force Microsoft (or anyone else) to do whatever Eolas wants if they need/want to license the patented technology.

This is wrong - forget who

[gsfprez]

I don't care if its Microsoft, SCO, or Linus "Himself" - software patents are bad. Micro Soft is wrong in a great many things... but they should not have to defend themselves against "(obvious idea) over the internet" patents or any other silly patents. No one should.

like Dennis Miller said, "Why hate someone (for something irrelevant) when, if you take the time to get to know them ..., you can find so many other things to hate them for?"

be upset and angry at Microsoft for the things they do, not for those things that are not fair.

Re:This is wrong - forget who

[Anonymous Coward]

could not agree more - software patents suck, even if it's Microsoft!

If everyone had always patented their software we would today be living with one spreadsheet, VisiCalc, which as a result would be expensive, missing features and bug-ridden. This would apply to all categories of software.

One of the reasons of the great progress during the industrial revolution was that patents did exist, but people did not always follow them or could find a way around them (Watt steam engine, etc,). Especially cross-border.

Umm...hang on a sec...

[deanj]

Did anyone else notice that Eolas did all this work in Mosaic, yet they're not listed on any licensee list for Spyglass or NCSA?

Sounds like they were doing commercial work without a commerical licensee to the code. The code to NCSA was freely distributable, but to do commercial work with it, it had to be licensed.

Re:Umm...hang on a sec...

[Anonymous Coward]

The work was done at the University, and patent was licensed to Eolas with right of enforcement. The University holds the patent in their name.

Re:Umm...hang on a sec...

[Phroggy]

It was my understanding that Spyglass's browser was indeed a derivative of Mosaic, although I don't know the licensing terms at all.

Re:Umm...hang on a sec...

[deanj]

Right, and Eolas released it.

I don't think Eolas was a licensee of Mosaic from either NCSA or Spyglass during this time. As soon as they released that as a commercial company, they were in voilation of the Mosaic license

Translation for the dense

[Anonymous Coward]

He means that they actually got something out of Microsoft. In all of the government cases, what exactly has Microsoft had to give up?

One can only dream...

[kcbrown]

As far as I know, Microsoft hasn't ever actually started a patent infringement suit against anyone (examples to the contrary welcome, of course).

That being the case, and given the fact that they lost this lawsuit, there are a number of things that could happen:

1. Microsoft could just pay up and otherwise leave things alone, chalking this up to the cost of "doing business".
2. Microsoft could appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court.
3. Microsoft could push for some type of legislation to reduce the risk of a repeat performance.
4. Microsoft could buy the company that hit them with this suit, along with other similar companies, and then start suing others through their newly-acquired companies.

The interesting question is: which of the above would represent the best thing for the free software community, and how likely is it to happen?

Things obviously don't get any better initially if they cave, though the long-term consequences might be of benefit (if they cave and just pay, then other patent-holding companies will be very much encouraged by that and we'll probably end up seeing many more such suits by such companies, and eventually the big corps will Do Something about the problem, though I suspect the end result will benefit only them and not us).

If Microsoft appeals to the Supreme Court, they can only do so if they have some sort of Constitutional argument. That's not as far-fetched as it sounds, because they can very legitimately question whether or not the patent in question and others like it meets the intent of the clause in the Constitution upon which patent law itself is based. If it weren't for the fact that Microsoft hates to lose and generally tries to win at all costs, I would totally dismiss this as a possibility.

If Microsoft pushes for some sort of legislation, the natural question is what that legislation would look like. My cynical outlook forces me to think that the resulting legislation would somehow raise the barrier of entry for either acquiring a patent or prosecuting a patent so high that only megacorps like Microsoft would be able to participate. Problem solved, along with the problems of these pesky little IP companies and free software types.

Finally, Microsoft could buy the company in question out, but that might be the same thing as IBM buying SCO out as far as end results go, with the end result being that every little upstart IP company will be suing the likes of Microsoft in order to get bought out. If Microsoft has a big enough patent portfolio, then they really don't need to do this and thus probably won't.

I'll bet Eolas is going to get lots of visits from the BSA from now on...

Re:One can only dream...

[le duf]

If Microsoft appeals to the Supreme Court, they can only do so if they have some sort of Constitutional argument.

Uh, no. The Supremes can take any damn case they want (and it only takes four votes to do so). They get to decide what the "compelling reasons" are. Granted, most cases people know about (and that have a big impact) are constitutional in nature, but you can easily find examples of cases that are not, such as United States v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co.

Re:One can only dream...

[jafac]

That's true.
Microsoft is essentially the poster-child of violating others patents. They've been sued numerous numerous times, and seem to always emerge unscathed. Come to think of it - they've been so successful at ripping off other companies, $521 Million really IS relatively unscathed.

Re:And Java applets in Navigator are not prior art

[cpt kangarooski]

Yeah, however this creates a blocking problem. The original patent holder can use his patent except for the new non-obvious purpose patented, and the new patent holder can't use his at all, as it would infringe upon the earlier patent.

Generally it is hoped that they will come to some kind of agreement, as they have nowhere else to turn.

Typical

[heli0]

"They have been fined $521 million in damages."

"The settlement will be paid via a lifetime license of Internet Explorer for all Eola employees, past and present."

SCO sharholders rejoicing

[bstadil]

The idiots over at Yahoo SCOX message board are rejoicing thinking they will do even better vs IBM

I feel like Kryten from Red Dwarf:

Ketchup

Re:Another Reason?

[thufir]

I use to use phoenix exclusively; however, this new and incredibly stupid name makes my stomach turn. I will NEVER even look at it again until they fix that blatant severity 0 bug.

In actuality, the name change ended up being a good thing for me. It drove me to switch back to Konqueror while they fix the name. The later versions (>= 3.1.2) really kick ass, and now I see absolutely no reason to switch back -- even if they do fix the stupid name.

So is this good, or...

[Trogre]

After thinking a bit, this has to be bad. Microsoft is being sued for infringing on a trivial patent that shoud never have been granted in the first place.

Of course Microsoft fully deserves to go down for their illegal actions over the last two decades, but I think they need to go down for the right reasons.

Not because some schmuck wants to collect royalties he doesn't deserve.

Re:Before you start bitching about slashdot users.

[Anonymous Coward]

" I do not support patents in any way shape or form"

I am sure people are going to spend $billions developing new drugs and technology if everyone else can produce the same product and reap the rewards for doing nothing.

Less Sypware?

[ps_inkling]

Does this mean that the next targets are Comet Cursor and their ilk? Will BHOs no longer work in IE? No more clicking "Would you like to install ActiveX Sypware of the Week?" windows?

Where and when do I get this patch? :)

They will never have to pay

[heli0]

This will still be on appeal in five years and Eolas will either be out of money to pay trial lawyers, or purchased by MS for a pittance.

Re:Before you start bitching about slashdot users.

[Zork the Almighty]

+1 insightful. :p

Laches

[yerricde]

Nothing you read on Slashdot is legal advice.

Patent whores who just sit around and WAIT for someone to sue

...may lose the right to collect. The doctrine of laches states that if the alleged infringer can show that the patent holder harms an alleged infringer by delaying legal action, the alleged infringer doesn't owe the patent holder any damages for infringements that occurred before the suit was filed.

Re:Laches

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoa there big fella.

That sounds like some dangerously *informed* sort of comment there. Better be careful or the standard slashdot patent signal/noise ratio might exceed the daily allowance.

Next thing you'll have posters reading the claims of a patent.

We quite enjoy the spittle-flecked ant-IP rants on slashdot. We print 'em out here and pass them around like extracts from the Weekly World News or Darwin Award Entries. Don't mess things up with informed comment.

Re:Laches

[BobTheLawyer]

the defence laches is slightly more difficult to use than this. You need to show:

that the patent holder's delay was unreasonable and inexcusable (there is a presumption that 6 years is a sufficient delay for this purpose); and

The alleged infringer suffered materially prejudicial harm from the delay. For example, if the delay has meant that the claimed damages are significantly increased, then the doctrine of laches may prevent the plaintiff recovering that increase.

Re:Laches

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey cool, TCP, UDP and now Ants are running over IP.

<cough>

Software patents are vile.

[Vicegrip]

Microsoft getting fined this way doesn't turn my crank at all. Also, I'm beginning to wonder why they allow jury trials for issues that are as technically complexe as this, nevermind allowing patents on processes and software in the first place...

This is as stupid a patent as they come: what's a plugin or an applet? Fundamentally it is all in the same family of idea as of linked libraries-- bloody fundamental to every piece of software out there -- except that in this case the software is dynamically downloaded by a browser and then executed within the security context of the browser.

521 million? I'm all for roasting Microsoft when they deserve it, but this is nothing they should have to pay for. Next thing you know Mozilla will get into trouble for having downloadable theme plugins.

Re:Software patents are vile.

[MikeFM]

All data is software. An image file is nothing but a program that tells the computer how to order pixels in a defined size. Running a plugin or applet (which I mostly dislike) is no different than loading an image. It's all inline programs. The app loads the webpage inside itself, the webpage loads other apps inside itself, etc. *sighs* It semms to often most people don't recognize that all digitized data that follows a format is software.

Re:Software patents are vile.

[Anonymous Coward]

"It semms to often most people don't recognize that all digitized data that follows a format is software."

Congrats. You win the banal post of the night award.

The patent is specifically about 2-way communication between an applet and a webpage, which is something more than a GIF can handle.

Re:Software patents are vile.

[innocent_white_lamb]

I'm beginning to wonder why they allow jury trials for issues that are as technically complexe as this,

That's something I've never understood about the US legal system.

I read articles stating that "the jury awarded Joe Blow 85 million dollars but the judge reduced the award to 1 million."

If it's in the judge's discretion to reduce the award like that, why not just allow him to set the amount of the award in the first place and save everyone a lot of time?

Re:Software patents are vile.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ass. An applet can't "communicate" with a webpage. It can communicate with a webserver, or the host webbrowser, but your posted interpretation of the patent is fundamentally wrong. Sorry.

Re:Software patents are vile.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://wp.netscape.com/navigator/v3.0/liveconnect. html
You suck.

Re:Software patents are vile.

[BobTheLawyer]

I believe it would be contrary to the constitutional right to trial by jury (but I Am Not An American Lawyer)

Re:Software patents are vile.

[Minna Kirai]

This is completely wrong. There are many kinds of distinctions between software and data, important for both practical and theoretical reasons. I won't take up 5 pages listing them- you can reference "Turing equivalence" in an encyclopedia to scratch the surface.

It's true that "all software is data", but the reverse doesn't hold. Do you say that "all matter is hardware"? No, because such a generalization would render the word (hard|soft)ware free of content.

Re:Software patents are vile.

[MikeFM]

If it tells a computer how to do something it's software. All software is data and all data is software. In almost all cases you'll need to combine data with some sort of interpreter to cause the computer to understand the data as software but that is just as true for Perl programs as jpeg images.

All matter is hardware? In a sense yes. I don't really see how 'all matter is hardware' relates to 'all digitized data is software'. Random 1's and 0's on your hard drive would be software if you had other software that'd interpret them to fulfill a logic role. Maybe such as a random number generator.

Re:Software patents are vile.

[MikeFM]

If I wanted to make an image format that could do 2-way communication with the web browser then I certainly could. Maybe something as lame as most applets.. just make bits of the image transition on mouse overs. That'd only be a slight modification to the concept of animations which GIF can (poorly) handle.

Re:Software patents are vile.

[innocent_white_lamb]

I believe it would be contrary to the constitutional right to trial by jury (but I Am Not An American Lawyer)

Could be. "You have the right to have this case decided by a jury. However, we don't have to abide by the jury's decision."

Re:Software patents are vile.

[Minna Kirai]

All software is data and all data is software.

Then why do you think "software" is even a word? You think it's exactly equivalent to "data", so why not just use the latter word all the time? We could have the "Data Aisle" at the computer store, contained products built by "Data Engineers".

"Anyone running Microsoft data should be careful of MSBlast and LovSan infections"

It's always possible to invent super-generic definitions that rob words of all meaning. That's what you've done.

I don't really see how 'all matter is hardware' relates to 'all digitized data is software'.

Yes, I see that. You also seem not to understand why the word "software" was even invented.

Re:Software patents are vile.

[MikeFM]

There are many things with more than one word. The difference between software and data is all in how the user is thinking about the subject. It's the difference between rain and a downpour. All data is software but software is data that is thought of as software. You also have to note that data is a word in it's own right outside of computers which is why I said that all 'digitized' data is software and not just that all data is software.

I'm not robbing any words of meaning. You obviously just haven't properly considered the meaning of the words before. Any list of instructions that can be carried out by a computer is software. Digitized data is software if anybody ever uses it to instruct a computer. Data that does not instruct a computer in any way is pretty much useless to have because there would be no way to get it out again.

The word software was clearly invented to sepperate the concept of software from hardware. It's quite clear that software is data that can (with the help of hardware) complete a function. Hardware obviously consists of physical circuits that also complete their given functions.

Re:Software patents are vile.

[Minna Kirai]

Did you see the "?" characters throughout my post? There were 2 of them. They're question marks, and they indicate that the preceding sentence was a question- something you'd have to answer to have any credibility. To hammer it in a little more, here's another question: "If Kinkos rents you a laptop to edit your report, but warns you against putting any software on it, do you accept? Or do you claim that since all data is software, they've forbidden you from making any use at all?"

You obviously just haven't properly considered the meaning of the words before.

Funny, I was going to say the same thing, until I realized you've spent entirely too much time considering it. This is actually a well-documented phenomena: "Your radical ideas about philosophy have already occured to others". It normally occurs in college students forced into aimless musing as they sit up all night watching a roommate cram for finals.

Any list of instructions that can be carried out by a computer is software.

And is "red, red, green, red, blue, green, blue, red, green" a set of instructions? No, it emphatically is not. "drawpixel(red);drawpixel(red);drawpixel(green)... " are instructions. If a person wanted to be useless, he could claim they're equivalent, but they're not. Not every fact is an instruction.

That would be the same as calling any rock or lump of wood a "machine". A silly person can claim "the rock is a machine to describe the shape of a rock", but the world will see him for a fool.

Machines (or "hardware") are a subset of all matter. Software is a subset of all data. (Hardware|Software) is (matter|data) that has been built into a functional machine. There is much matter that clearly is not hardware, and much data which isn't software.

The word software was clearly invented to sepperate the concept of software from hardware.

Yes, that's correct. So why do you refuse to honor the intentional meaning of the word?

In the distant past there were computers which read data from cards and processed it as electrical impulses. When a new computational function was desired, the hardware had to be laboriously rewired. The great insight was that data could act like hardware, and we'd call that software. From the dream of the UTM was born the general-purpose, stored-program computer.

Your position would deny the greatness of that invention, by claiming that since computers had already processed data, "software" had existed all along.

Re:Software patents are vile.

[MikeFM]

Are you saying that if you rent a laptop and are asked not to put any software on it that it would be okay to like download your porn collection? Somehow I don't think that is what they mean. So my answer is yes, I think they are asking you not to put any files on the computer.

Funny. I happen to have thought about this issue a lot as I write a lot of software that exists merely to process data of every kind. That leads to working with a lot of file formats, writing compilers, etc.. which leads me to know that there is no difference between software and data.

"red, red, green, red, blue, green, blue, red, green" is exactly an instruction set. If you think programs require function calls in their syntax or even human-readable syntax at all then you know nothing about programming. For that matter I've used programming languages that were nothing more than just that except that they defined each pixel color in hex. Are you telling me that that isn't software? When ran through the interpreter it sure executed with the right result.

A rock is only a machine if you can do something mechanical with it. Drop a stick over it and then yes it is a machine. Look in most science books and you'll find this listed as a lever. A rock by itself is not a machine because it does not do anything. You could possibly say it is a tool though as you can use a rock to smush bugs, pound nails, etc.

Machines are a subset of matter and software is a subset of data.. but digital data is almost the same subset of data as software. There is some digital data that is not software.. anything that is random and never used as an instruction set. What use such data would be I couldn't say but it does exist at times. When you partially delete files and things like that such data may be left behind by accident.

I am clearly sepperating hardware and software. Or were you claiming that data is hardware?

I'm not denying at all that data can at times replace equivilant hardware. I'm claiming that all data can replace equivilant hardware. I could wire a circuit that would output an image. A jpeg image file just happens to be software that can create such an image much easier.

When computers started processing data then yes indeed there was software.. it's just that nobody understood the full power of the concept yet. The formal invention of software was important because people were beginning to understand how flexible computers could be.

Re:Before you start bitching about slashdot users.

[drinkypoo]

The only people winning here are Eolas and everyone's lawyers. $300M? Microsoft finds this completely irrelevant. They probably spent that much on cappucino and biscotti for the defense team.

Here's some prior art.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand why nobody else has brought this up:

Microsoft's own Object Linking and Embedding technology (OLE). It was at version 2.0 in mid 1993 on Windows 3.

I think this blows the doors off the patent. I still have my old Windows 3.1 disks and Microsoft Word 6 somewhere (if they've not decayed). This could handily do all of the "embedding" parts mentioned in the patent. Specific examples include embedding an Excel spreadsheet, a drawing or an equation - each created and displayed by the user interacting with an external program embedded into the document.

And if a "Word document" doesn't meet the definition of a hypertext document, I'm sure Powerpoint presentations do.

The only caveat is the "remotely distributed" bit, although I suppose a LAN could be considered a "remotely distributed" environment if the document resided on a central server.

In conclusion: software patents are evil. Without exception. Even the cases like this can set very nasty precidents.

Re:Here's some prior art.

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting, but not relevant. COM/OLE worked on a single computer. Microsoft did not release Dcom/activex until 1996.

Die, Microsoft, Die!

[Quickening]

yeah, sure, I don't believe in software patents either, but what's to stop a monopoly from just stealing all the software out there? This damage award represents (I'm NOT saying "equates to") the revenue M$ made by stealing one company's software. Add up the 300+ other companies they've destroyed, and you could probably take out that company all together. I count $110+B assets.

Re:Die, Microsoft, Die!

[IM6100]

This company doesn't produce software for Microsoft to have stolen. They are a 'pure R&D' outfit. In other words, they patent stuff and wait for somebody to sue or bill licensing fees to.

Also, this is the kind of company that people like R. Stallman bemoan and argue against when the topic of software patents comes up.

But you can continue to believe that anything anti-Microsoft is inherently good. If you wish to live in that simple of a world...

Well, this has got to hurt...

[minion2]

Microsoft is going to have to keep on saving all those nickels to cough up that much cash.

(I really do hate that ad campaign.)

Come on...

[MoeMoe]

$521 million huh?

My company spends more money than that for coffee each day to give the coders.... Truthfully though, shouldn't a suit of this magnitude promote progressive damages? $521 million aint much in "business speak"... "1337 5p34k" however...

Yeah! Only one problem.

[eniu!uine]

What are they going to do with three million copies of Windows XP?

Err, $500M

[drinkypoo]

Is surely what I meant.

Re:Another Reason?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody really gives a flying fuck WHAT browser you use, nor what reasons you have for being "driven" to it. In short, why don't you take a flying fuck, you piece of shit.

What the goddamn fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Another frivolous patent upheld in court? The sad fact is, the courts are the last layer of defense in the balance-of-powers. If the executive branch can neutralize the judicial branch (as it did for 9/11 suspects) or if the courts are otherwise broken, who will protect us?

Re:What the goddamn fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

We should all march with pitch forks in one hand, and torch in the other. Then, we march on over to the patent office and burn that fucker down!!! Now here is the idea, first we........ERROR 323521 transmission terminated under PATRIOT ACT.

Re:What the goddamn fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Another frivolous patent upheld in court?

And I suppose you've read the entire patent carefully to conclude that it is indeed "frivolous"?

Or does "patent" just always equal "frivolous patent" patent now?

What the goddamn fuck indeed...

Patents = Small developers locked out

[Cryptimus]

This is yet another victory for the software giants. Heck, even when Mickeysoft loses, it wins.

The problem with the patent office - as most readers will well know - is that they award software patents for methods that are intuitive, obvious (to practitioners of the art), a logical outgrowth of an existing system or something that clearly has prior art.

The effect of all this is that large entities with extensive patent portfolios cross-licence to avoid patent infringement.

What are small developers supposed to do?

Why, we're not supposed to play. Patents are the mechanism by which big business is locking out competition from smaller more nimble startups.

The US patent office is criminally liable for egregiously granting the most bizarre series of competition-stifling patents in history.

Would you like to put a cursor on your screen sir? Patented. Use hypertext links? Patented. Embed access to applications into your browser? Patented.

You think open source is safe? Think again. The list of absurd software patents is so extensive, it's impossible for anyone to develop anything of reasonable utility without infringing someone's patent somewhere.

The fact that there exist companies whose sole mode of business is to scan patents in other jurisdictions and then lodge those same patents in the US is testament to the sheer corruption of the system.

Where I come from we call that theft. Theft of intellectual property. The fact that this can be done in the USA is damning evidence that the Patent Office's intention is not to support the small inventor, but to aid US companies in claiming inventors rights for inventions which are clearly not theirs.

None of the large companies will ever fight this battle in court. They have two much to gain by locking out their smaller competition. Essentially the existing scheme of software patents provides a stunning barrier to entry whose sole purpose is to prevent upstarts from upsetting the main players.

The difference between writing and using...

[poptones]

Writing software (and even using it personally) is, in a practical sense, unenforceable. No one is going to come to your house and demand royalties for that OSS MP3 player, or DIVX player or whatever.

but that's you and me. The difference here is businesses are accountable and there's enough exposure there (employees and such) that you can pretty much bank on getting caught if you violate these stupid IP laws. So while it's not a big deal at all in a personal sense - no one is going to "outlaw" linux (nor can they) and no one is going to squash people in their homes (except maybe the **AA, but that's a different matter) - but if businesses cannot use linux then we, the people, lose a helluva lot of influence. Suddenly it's not really a big deal if the DRM-of-the-week player doesn't support linux, because it doesn't represent an economic interest to anyone. No one cares that you can't play fucking DVDs in linux, because no one has an economic interest in it.

Your friend is both right and wrong. OSS actually is anti-capitalist. He, like so many others, is just confused about the implications of this - and more than a little scared that capitalism is the only way to prosper.

Remember that "service economy" everyone said was gonna be so great? Well, this is it. And it's working about as well for us as was for the japanese way back when Clinton first moved into office.

Guess they're having the last laugh now...

Microsoft should wiggle out of this one...

[mpthompson]

"We believe the evidence will ultimately show that there was no infringement of any kind, and that the accused feature in our browser technology was developed by our own engineers based on preexisting Microsoft technology."

I'm not a big fan of Microsoft, but I think they have plenty of room to wiggle out of this one on appeal.

Microsoft's ActiveX plug-in technology, or whatever it's called today, is pretty much a direct descendent of OLE (Object Linking and Embedding) which allowed applications to be embedded within Word, Excel and any other GUI application that cared to implement the correct APIs. I'm fairly certain OLE and the enabling COM technology predates 1993 in some form or another. Embedding mini-applications within the context of a web browser hypertext document seems a pretty straightforward and obvious extension of embedding mini-applications within the context of other GUI based applications such as Word and Excel.

Within the actual patent there seem to be descriptions about the embedded application within the browser viewing data created by a remote server with computational power exceeding what is available to the browser or media terminal. Perhaps this is what differentiates browser plug-ins from standard application plug-ins, but even this seems like a direct and obvious extension of thin-client/server computing reaching back to the days of X Window terminals or before.

What amazes me are the legal hacks that Microsoft must have hired to royally botch this case. I can only imagine they were arrogant SOBs the jury couldn't wait to stick-it to when it came time for deliberation.

Re:Microsoft should wiggle out of this one...

[Greeneland]

This article at nytimes.com mentions that microsoft tried to argue that there was prior art, but the judge ruled the jury could not consider it in determining if microsoft violated the patent...

how rediculous.

Re:Microsoft should wiggle out of this one...

[mpthompson]

Ridiculous? Simply fscking amazing!!! I live in the San Francisco Bay Area and know how screwed up the California courts are at the local, state and federal level, but this takes the cake. Sheesh.

Unfortunately, we probably have to go through a lot more straw before breaking the back of the insanity caused by software patents.

Re:Microsoft should wiggle out of this one...

[bobwyman]

mpthompson wrote:
> I'm fairly certain OLE and the enabling COM
> technology predates 1993
I was Senior Product Manager for Applications Programmabilty at Microsoft from 1991 to 1993 and I can assure you that not only OLE but OLE Automation (the real predecessor of ActiveX) were well understood and underdevelopment prior to 1993. In fact, when I came to Microsoft in 1991 to work on this stuff with them, the program was already underway and I considered it to be merely the Microsoft version of work that we had done at Digital (where I had been product manager for ALL-IN-1). As early as 1982 at Digital, we had demonstrations of wordprocessors that took spreadsheets and other active elements as plug-in extensions. Also, the wide-area-network Hypertext browser ("Memex Prototype 1") that I built at Digital in the mid/late 80's had plug-in extensions that used the TPU plug-in model.

bob wyman

Re:Before you start bitching about slashdot users.

[stickb0y]

I do not support this ruling, because I do not support patents in any way shape or form.

Patents or just software patents?

Software patents are bad because their lifetime is an eternity in the software world, giving them undue monopolistic power. This is exacerbated by the fact that most of the patent examiners don't seem to have the direct knowledge or the familiarity with computing history to differentiate between trivial ideas and really unique, innovative stuff.

(And then there's also the problem of idiots flooding the patent office with ridiculous patents.)

However, the patent system as originally envisioned by the U.S. forefathers was a pretty good idea. It gives inventors an incentive to fully disclose the workings of their inventions to the public in exchange for a limited-time monopoly.

Why is this news anymore?

[el cisne]

Granted it seems significant that such a headline is even available to be read, but really, what can we expect here besides the headline?
I have absolutely complete faith that Microsoft will wriggle out of this one, too, and whatever they eventually have to pay out, if any at all, will be so watered down and lame as to be laughable. It's like throwing stones at a tank. You make a lot of noise, and feel like you are doing something, but in the end, the tank will still roll on as before.
I have every belief that they will either win on appeal, leverage some technicality, drag the thing out forever, (already 4 years on this one), so it is no longer relevant, and/or whatever so-called penalty or remedy is determined at the end of it will be more like a pat on the back that even a slap on the wrist. And in the mean time, it is busine$$ as usual for The Great Satan of Redmond.
So to me, this is interesting, but not much news. Call me when they ACTUALLY get nailed on something -- with big nails that they can't wriggle out of -- and then it will be news. After the DOJ caved when the administration changed, and then the antitrust chief bailed right after the so-called 'settlement', I am too jaded to even care much anymore.

LOL

[Gillies]

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! yes... that's bloody brilliant... take that Microshaft, bastards...

Let me just make sure I've got all the rules...

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Patents are bad
2) Microsoft is bad
3) When a patent dispute goes against Microsoft, ignore rule #1
4) While(TRUE) SCO = evil

Another typical day at /.

What's that...

[euxneks]

What's that money to them... Bill Gate's Pocket Cash?

I can see it in court now..

Bill G.: Sorry.. How much was that?... Yeah sure.. just a sec.. *flip flip* there yeh go! Now run along and don't bother me again!

that's like what

[b17bmbr]

30 minutes interest on gates' portfolio?

Prior Art - RIPscrip -- 1993.

[spectecjr]

Rip Script overview

Specification (zip file)

And this version (there are earlier) dates from July 19th 1993.

RIPScrip appears to allow the transfer of scripts to the client, including template information, field handling, and autonomous response code.

Sounds like there is indeed prior art for this.

Simon

Amazing grace indeed..

[Steeltoe]

IT DOESN'T MATTER what their "intentions" are.. This case clearly shows how silly software patent-laws are. With guns and sanctions they dictate who can use what technology, because someone were "first". Come on! Most of us stopped such silliness in the kindergarden.

What makes this a rather ironical and humorous case though, is the target - behemot Microsoft. It'll probably be overruled in the next run, but nobody is safe with such laws. Who's going to risk developing stuff when you're sued left and right before you even know somebody filed a patent for it while you RDed? This can potentially kill off alot of inventing. Without somebody with lots of money backing you up, it's a risky business.. Which is what the big corporations want anyways, so maybe Microsoft will settle this one in the end..

It's not amazing at all really, it's Astounding.

Re:Amazing grace indeed..

[Daengbo]

Ironic is aready an adjective: there is no need to add -al to it. What? Do you think you are in a rock band or something? (obscure reference). Please see associated /. story for further details.

Re:Amazing grace indeed..

[Alsee]

Ironic is aready an adjective: there is no need to add -al to it.

He was just trying to adjectival it.

-

Re:Amazing grace indeed..

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the lesson, I really never thought about it that way.

Ironical isn't it? ;-)

Re:Amazing grace indeed..

[SarekOfVulcan]

It's not amazing at all really, it's Astounding.

Are you sure it wasn't F&SF?

Re:Amazing grace indeed..

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you misspelled "Adjectivicate." HTH.

Re:Amazing grace indeed..

[Anonymous Coward]

... you even know somebody filed a patent for it while you RDed

Was I the only person who read this as "while you are dead"?

Re:Amazing grace indeed..

[The OPTiCIAN]

" IT DOESN'T MATTER what their "intentions" are.. This case clearly shows how silly software patent-laws are."

Software patent laws are stupid, but it DOES matter what their intentions are. That was the point of the previous poster, and it's valid. If you have an objection to patents, voice it in a way that doesn't appear to be rebuttal to him.

Re:Amazing grace indeed..

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with adjectivise?

Re:Amazing grace indeed..

[div_2n]

I have been wrestling with the idea for software patents for quite a while and have recently concluded that they are equally as legit as any other patent. There is absolutely no reason that inventions involving software should receive any less protection than that involving solid objects.

Just because you store and transfer the results in a multitude of ways doesn't mean it is a commodity upon inception. Granted, many software patents are the equivalent of patenting a stick but that line thus far hasn't been and likely never will be defined.

Re:Amazing grace indeed..

[Whispers_in_the_dark]

This case clearly shows how silly software patent-laws are. With guns and sanctions they dictate who can use what technology, because someone were "first". Come on! Most of us stopped such silliness in the kindergarden.

The problem with that approach (no software patents at all) is that the little guy STILL gets hurt. In this case it occurs when the fledgling inventor tries to convert his idea on a napkin into a prototype and then into a marketable product. Without some sort of patent, larger companies with far more manpower and money would snuff out the competition faster than you could say "Intellectual Property".

OTOH, the broadness applied in many of these patents is close to absurd. Some balence needs to be struck, but I for one have no idea how that should come to be...

Re:Amazing grace indeed..

[clarkcox3]

Is it ironical? Why not humorousical? or ironificated? :)

Re:Amazing grace indeed..

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it ironical? Why not humorousical? or ironificated? :)

It's a perfectly cromulent word!!

Re:Amazing grace indeed..

[Anonymous Coward]

that was very ironicalistic

Re:Amazing grace indeed..

[jafuser]

Who's going to risk developing stuff when you're sued left and right before you even know somebody filed a patent for it while you RDed? This can potentially kill off alot of inventing.

And THIS is truely the main point against software patents.

The patent system was created to encourage people to invent. In modern times, it is having the opposite effect.

Instead of encouraging *creative* innovation, they are just encouraging "first post"-style patents on aspects of software development which would have ultimately been achieved anyway.

The fundamental problem with the patent system is that the more patents the PTO approves, the more revenue they make.

This feedback system needs to be reversed. They need to benefit by turning away frivolous patents, not by encouraging them.

As I understand it now, it costs a small amount of money to have your patent reviewed, and then upon approval, a large amount of money to have it officially registered. Perhaps if they switched these two so that it cost more up front to have a patent reviewed and a much smaller amount to have it registered (if it passes review), then this problem of abusively high approval rates would diminish substantially.

The problem especially with software patents is that many aspects of software development have an innate path of evolution.

Things like the Huffman encoder would have been discovered by someone eventually, given enough time. It would have certianly have been discovered by now.

Note I say 'discovered' not 'invented' becuase discovering how to do a huffman encoder is not all that different than discovering the 10-billionth digit of pi.

Re:Amazing grace indeed..

[Anonymous Coward]

and it was nearly successfullatedly executiated.

Re:Amazing grace indeed..

[ProfessionalCookie]

Ironic is aready an adjective: there is no need to add -al to it.

Or maybe he wanted to see all the irony in list format.

Re:Amazing grace indeed..

[Blue Lozenge]

Ironic is aready an adjective: there is no need to add -al to it.

He was just trying to adjectival it.

You know, verbing wierds words.

Re:Amazing grace indeed..

[Deven]

With guns and sanctions they dictate who can use what technology, because someone were "first". Come on! Most of us stopped such silliness in the kindergarden.

We need educational reform to stem the rampant use of guns and sanctions in kindergarten!

Re:Amazing grace indeed..

[nojomofo]

Ironical is a perfectly cromulent word.

Re:Amazing grace indeed..

[cluckshot]

The Microsoft gang getting a dose of their own medicine is ironic indeed! But as to Patients/Copyrights we have a problem. Software clearly needs effective processes where the inventor of something gets paid. The problem here is that the programmers who write the stuff rarely get the control here.

Also there is a problem with software technology patients/copyrights blocking progress. Clearly without them no progress would get far, but with them the laws we have are not really suited to them. First they run for too long to be relevant in the industry. This is particularly true of copyrights. Patient renewal in softare is an abserd proposition.

There is another "Process" problem here. The concept that you can patient a process when there are many ways of doing it subverts the whole innovation and invention process.

We are dealing with a set of laws which do not make any sense regards to software anyway.

It probably will all be academic shortly. Regardless of any Domestic US Lawsuits, Linux is going gangbusters world wide and will take out Microsoft anyway. The Domestic US Market will either adapt to the new ways or it will collapse in the market. Americans have a choice of going the GPL etc or losing all the market. The EU will not defend Microsoft in this.

I suspect that the Microsoft guys already know this and are just bailing out. The other software guys are just grabbing a piece as they go out anyway. If you are a developer this leaves you exactly one way to make a living. SERVICE.

MBA on Microsoft

[mbakaitis]

Having read Slashdot for awhile, and having an MBA in my back pocket, I thought it might be good to point out a few things from a strictly-business point-of-view. (This obviously doesn't invalidate anybody's personal opinion...but it may be considered as an extra data point.)

1. $500+ million is a huge amount of money. People who talk about how this is some "percentage" of Microsoft's quarterly revenues, income, or "war chest" just don't get it. In the end, successful corporations are such because:
   • Making $1 is good.
   • Making more is better.
   • Losing $1 or more is bad.
   Period.
2. Software companies like patents because for two reasons. First, they make it harder for new entrants to threaten them. Second, it protects a position based upon functionality (in many cases) rather than pure technical merit. In each case, it protects a company against its (up-to-now) worst enemies -- other companies.
3. Microsoft would amaze me if they decided to try to weaken patents. Doing so would weaken the vast portfolio of patents they have created or purchased. It would also weaken their ability to use these things, like a club (see #2), against competitors in the future.

I'm not trying to shift discussion away from whether Microsoft's actions were ethical, whether patents are good, or any really relevant and interesting discussions.

However, everything else we discuss here is, at best, philosophy to a creature like Microsoft. When you are talking about $billions in revenue, and if you are trying to "get into Microsoft's head", you need to shift perspective a bit. I, personally, think patents have been abused in many ways in the last decade. However, a company like Microsoft only evaluates things like this on one basis - money. Think like that, and you'll practically be in Bill's head.

Re:MBA on Microsoft

[Tingler]

Think like that, and you'll practically be in Bill's head.

Bill's head, in my opinion has already left. He is looking for greener pastures. He had 651,749,300 shares of MSFT stock on or around November 1st, 2001. He currently has 172,612,893 shares as of 8/5/03. He knows that if he sells any faster, the media will catch on, as they did when Mr. Balmer unloaded around 12 million shares around the 5/30/03.
Follow the money. The smart money is leaving Microsoft.

link

Re:MBA on Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Those 'remaining shares' numbers for Bill don't make sense.

If Bill has only 172 million shares of MSFT left, then at about $25.60/share (current stock price), that equals about 4.4 billion dollars. But Forbes lists Bill Gates as the richest man in the world, with a net worth in excess of 40 billion. I think Bill has over 1 billion shares of MSFT left, actually. Otherwise, where is the other $35 billion? :^)

Re:MBA on Microsoft

[Tingler]

Invested in other companies.

Re:MBA on Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, no, it's still mostly in MSFT. The data on the quicken.com web page is broken. The data is broken around February 5th, which is about when the most recent MSFT stock split occurred. (Take a look at Bill's stock sale between 2/5 and 2/18.) It looks like the stock split caused the web page to "lose" 1 billion (post-split) of Bill's shares.

So Bill has about 1.172 billion shares of MSFT left, worth about $30 billion.

Re:MBA on Microsoft

[kahei]

Wait... Microsoft are in business to make money?? I thought they were trying to make a new and larger type of cauliflower!

I'm glad you have an MBA.

Re:MBA on Microsoft

[Saberwind]

Mr. Gates, et. al. are diversifying. No intelligent investor would leave all their eggs in one basket. The reason he sells slowly is to prevent wild share price fluctuations.

Re:MBA on Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

and he and ballmer didn't divest so heavily for the previous 15 years because, why? They suddenly got smart? No. they know the days of rapid growth for this company are gone.

Re:MBA on Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I loved the headline on your subject. As if a nice piece of paper that you have in your back pocket entitles you to have a more valid opinion than any one else here. Or as if you know more than everyone here. You're so arrogant it makes me sick. Ill bet you're fresh out of graduate school too, and probably think you shit dosen't stink. fuck you and your MBA. YOu know what MBA stanbds for? Mostly Bullshit Advertisement. thats right, it's a nice little pat on the back that you can give your self when you are depressed, but dosent really mean shit to anyone else. so tell you what, the next time you feel depressed, just go ahead and get the gun. Put it in your mouth, and pull the trigger. As far as im concerned, one less arrogant asshole in the world.

Re:MBA on Microsoft

[multimed]

MSFT went public in 1986. It is only a very recent happening that Gates has been diversifying. All along, I kinda thought he was crazy for keeping almost every penny of his wealth in MSFT and not diversifying (like Paul Allen did). Of course history certainly proves Gates right and me wrong--his wealth accelerated much faster than Allen's all the way to making him the richest man in the world. Anyway, you have to admit that it's at least interesting that he didn't diversify his holdings for well over a decade and now over the last few years has begun doing so about as fast as possible without shocking the price or the market. There's lots of possible reasons, among them that he suddenly has become a much more conservative investor. But a less optimistic viewpoint on the future of MSFT seems at least as likely as him drastically changing his personal/financial philsophies. Then again, he didn't give hardly any money to charity (relatively speaking) until fairly recently and is a major donor now so that was a drastic change of philosphy too. OK I'd like to strike that previous line but in all fairness I guess I gotta give devil his due.

Re:MBA on Microsoft

[jafac]

On the other hand, look at how much MS paid to Apple for their under-the-table settlement of the lawsuit over Quicktime patent violations. It was rumored to be in the $400-$500 Million range.

Microsoft's business barely hiccupped, for one quarter. And that was like 5 years ago.

This is essentially "mice nuts".

Now I understand why they did pay SCO

[livingboy]

There was no conspiracy there, they are currently just so unlucky, that they lose in IP disputes and courts, don't believe me ?

Well check last months MS submissions in Slashdot:

Microsoft's Patent Problem July 23rd 712 comments

Microsoft Settles With Immersion over Haptic Patent July 29th only 28 comments

Microsoft nailed by Software Patent August 11th

So their ass has been kicked, of course they like that the competition will be kicked as well and if paying SCO saved potentially their money plus allowed competitions ass kicked as well it was really brilliant deal.

Re:Now I understand why they did pay SCO

[xyvimur]

``So their ass has been kicked'' ...

Well I'm quite happy that their ass get kicked, but would be happier if it would be done without using patents. Why? Patents can be very dangerous weapon that can be used to strike virtually everyone. Software patents are strange, bad and will cause `us' many problems in the future. Especially when we have stupid courts not aware of what is going on in IT market.

Re:Now I understand why they did pay SCO

[vidarh]

Look at it this way: Microsoft has 40-50 billion USD in the bank. If Microsoft gets hit too hard by software patents, Microsoft will start seeing software patents as a problem. 40-50 billion means you can afford quite a bit of lobbying and "industry" associations and "public" outcry to make lawmakers see your point.

Re:Now I understand why they did pay SCO

[xyvimur]

True, maybe their point of view will change. Let's wait till the final settling of this case.

Re:Now I understand why they did pay SCO

[Disti]

Yeah right. Here's an idea:

1. Get hit by software patents.
2. Consider lobbying against software pantents.
3. Discard the idea.
4. Hire more lawyers.
5. Patent everything and sue everyone.
(Donate money to smaller companies to do this part for you)
6. Profit!

Oh, sorry. They're doing it already.

Re:Another Reason?

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly, I was just keeping up the line of conversation.

It's not just the 521 million

[Anonymous Coward]

521 Million is just the amount the jury awarded. Microsoft would also lose the right to use embedded applications if they didn't pay for the right, which could end up being far more.

Does make a dent.

[zapp]

I am in the process of applying for MS jobs (I know, flame bait - hear me out, I just wanna know if I'm good enough for them, I don't know if I'd accept the job)... anyway:

I read on their site that they spend over $5,000,000 (thats right, 5mil) per DAY on R&D. Yes they have the money in the bank, but it also means that's money that ISNT funding 104 days of research.

Re:Does make a dent.

[gl4ss]

actually, no, that money wouldn't be straight out of r&d.

unless they run out of the money they have in 'bank' that is many billions and have to start making drastic cuts.

Re:Didn't Sun already release "Hot Java" Browser?

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC, HotJava was written in Java, but did not do applets in it's early versions.

(the bucket, a drop in) | (perspective)

[MegaFur]

Okay, so MS currently has nearly $50 billion.

50,000,000,000 / 521,000,000 ~= 95.969289

So... if this happened to MS like maybe 50 or 60 more times, they'd be hurting. yeah.

whimper/sigh.

Re:Didn't Sun already release "Hot Java" Browser?

[BiggerIsBetter]

Sun released Hot Java in 1995, but if their internal R&D docs are up to scratch they might be able to prove prior art.

tkwww, prior art, and my dance with Microsoft

[chenyu]

I didn't mention this earlier because I didn't want Eolas to win, but I guess there is no harm in mentioning it now.

During the litigation, lawyers from Microsoft contacted me about a program that I wrote in 1992 called tkwww which was an early web browser. The important thing about tkwww was that it rendered images by calling an external application xli.

This was sufficiently close to what microsoft was looking for that a lawyer (who was named Vlad of all things) talked to me about what I did. I stupidly gave him a pointer to a URL through which they downloaded everything, and even more stupidly did not bill them anything at the time.

When I finally came around to sending them an invoice I got some stupid excuse about them might needing me as a witness so that they couldn't pay me anything. I never heard from them again.

The reason I didn't mention this earlier was because I thought that the Eolas patent was silly and I didn't want to say anything that would help them. Now that they won the case against Microsoft, I'd like to let everyone know about this prior art, in case Eolas decided to go against other people.

Re:tkwww, prior art, and my dance with Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you going to send your invoice again?

Quarterly PROFIT vs. REVENUE

[AvantLegion]

Sure, their quarterly revenue is around $12 billion. But a lot of that turns around and gets spent.

Their quarterly PROFIT is around $1.5 billion. They just lost 1/3rd of their quarterly profit in one fell swoop. Think that might affect them coming in below estimates this quarter??

We should take the opportunity...

[ultrabot]

... to underline how big a supporter/MSFT has been for software patents. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

At least this frivolous lawsuit will get a lots of publicity. Now everyone with a trivial patent up their sleeves can go about suing everyone.

I assume the SW patent thing has not yet been ratified by the EU? This might be something to show your MEP...

damages...

[canning]

$521 million in damages.

Personal cheque?

Glad the editors sat on the story to let it cook..

[afabbro]

2003-08-12 00:11:35 Jury Orders Microsoft to Pay $520 Million (articles,microsoft) (rejected)

Microsoft on side of patent reform?

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

IANAL, but I wonder if this could be a potential victory for everyone opposed to software patents.

Note the wording of Microsoft's official statement: "the accused feature in our browser technology was developed by our own engineers based on preexisting Microsoft technology." From what I understand of patent law, whether the technology was developed independently by Microsoft's engineers was irrelevant.

If Microsoft wins on appeal, that could set a precedent in favor of everyone who gets hit with a patent lawsuit when they developed the technology independently. This could help to weaken software patents.

Then again, if Microsoft ultimately loses its appeal, they could end up helping to reform patent law. I may get modded down for this, but I honestly don't think Microsoft is evil - just greedy. And $521 Million is a serious chunk of change, even for Microsoft. They may be better off convincing a few congresscritters to invalidate stupid software patents, and that's good for all of us.

Re:Microsoft on side of patent reform?

[The Master Control P]

"but I honestly don't think Microsoft is evil - just greedy."

*WOPR voice* What's The Difference, Dr. Falken?

Re:Microsoft on side of patent reform?

[fuali]

Well, the main thing required for a patent to stick is that the technology does not already exist. This keeps people from patenting stuff like forks, and table salt. MS is claming that not only were they working on it before the patent was applied for, but it was already in use by "Viola".

Example I invent a widget that allows people to breath water and apply for a patent on July 4th 2003. But prior to July 4th 2003 you were working on a similar widget and finish it after my patent is approved. If you can prove you were working on it before I applied for the patent then I can not sue you for patent infringement.

The messed up thing here is that the court would not let the jury see that evidence that MS presented that proves they were working on the technology before the patent was applied for. The appeal will go through in favor of MS. It won't help software or any patents.

Re:Microsoft on side of patent reform?

[praedor]

Doesn't this ruling, in effect, make it almost impossible to reverse engineer, which IS OK inspite of patents?

In a clean room setting you reverse engineer an application and, by necessity, in doing so duplicate (without explicitly knowing it) the process(es) that the original app uses. Would this not then be a violation of the original app's patent?

David v. Goliath

[yintercept]

The problem is that courts fall for the David v. Goliath bit.

The two best ways to profit from a bogus patent is to either go for small amounts from small companies that will settle before defending, or to go after the largest companies that jealous lawyers will perceive as having too much money. The courts are desparate to show that they are "for the people" and that bogus patents defend the people.

This is the problem with the current patch work of patent laws, they tend to be more about politics than any thing else.

This ruling is just like the case against eBay that hit last week. The courts want the world to think that patents are helping the little guy, when in fact they are just feeding the legal beast.

Re:David v. Goliath

[EzInKy]

The two best ways to profit from a bogus patent is to either go for small amounts from small companies that will settle before defending, or to go after the largest companies that jealous lawyers will perceive as having too much money. The courts are desparate to show that they are "for the people" and that bogus patents defend the people.

That would make the answer obvious then, wouldn't it? Just have Microsoft demonstrate to the court how they stand up against corporate greed to further the rights of the "little man" and they are in like flint B-).

Re:David v. Goliath

[cshark]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but it looks like M$ just can't win. You'd think that with their legal budget, that they would win one once in awhile.

The more of these stupid patents that are left standing, the worse it is for the open source community, and everyone else for that matter.

Re:David v. Goliath

[yintercept]

Just have Microsoft demonstrate to the court how they stand up against corporate greed to further the rights of the "little man"

I wouldn't be surprised to find that this was the MS legal strategy. I suspect that Bill Gates still sees his little company as a group of hippies gathered in a Albuquerque garage taking on the world of big business to support the small business and hobbyist.

Re:David v. Goliath

[cshark]

Well, that would explain .NET wouldn't it. Esoteric code for the esoteric hobbyist. Kind of has a ring to it.

Re:Hello

[Anonymous Coward]

WOW U MUST BE RICH NOW

Re:Another Reason?

[Dalcius]

Just a thought, reading your sig for the 500th time (previous discussions with you and all [RIAA, etc.]):
If you ever need a hand with Linux, gimme a buzz. Email's in the profile. Put SLASHDOT in the subject.

The same goes for other slashdotters as well. =)

This actually is bad

[trelanexiph]

I mean, we just set a legal precedent stating that Internet Exploerer in parts is worth over half a billion dollars. Which means that when you go and steal windows, then get sued for copyright violation... well there's an established value for that software now that's a bit higher than it was before.

but umm fortunately it doesn't work that way so we can all breath easily, and go back to swapping on kazaa, untill the MPAA knocks on our door.

We can hope...

[Borealis]

We can hope that this leads to companies like MS realizing that software patents are not in the best interests of anybody. If MS threw it's weight into suppressing software patents then this sort of thing might never be an issue.

Isn't OLE prior art?

[blitz487]

OLE (Object Linking and *Embedding*) is Microsoft prior art. I remember Steve Ballmer demonstrating embedding objects into Excel spreadsheets long before 1994.

Re:Isn't OLE prior art?

[deanj]

They're talking browsers, not other apps.

Re:Cringely mentioned this case about a year ago..

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, if they actually would have the balls to put an injunction against MS things would happen. MS would crush them in some other way whether it be not licensing MS products internally, or destroying their credibility as a company. I bet Eolas is quite happy their ISP is functional and the electricity in their building runs all the time...

Re:They deserve it all and here's why

[Tokerat]

Stick it to Redmond, or shoot down a software patent that could have implications on possibly every common software product to date? Talk about a rock and a hard place... ;-)

If what you say is true, that also means Netscape, AOL, Photoshop, The Gimp, Mozilla, and Safari also infringe, as well as perhaps Windows (DLLs) Linux and the BSDs (libs) and MacOS 7-9 (INITs, CFMs, Shared Libraries) infringe as well!

Fortunately, I don't thnk it's quite that bad. Would anyone who knows exactly how far this will reach care to comment? Some of us saw this headline and are dreadfully fearing the evils this could bring across all current software as we know it.

Re:Before you start bitching about slashdot users.

[BiggerIsBetter]

Yeh but how much faster and better would drug develoment be if the research was shared? You can aruge competition makes for a better stimulus, but I believe that competetion AND shared information works best - just look at KDE vs GNOME.

Re:Another Reason?

[shaitand]

funny you should mention it, I showed a mere 3 windows users firebird this week, they all love it. It's becoming less and less an issue that only IE renders pages and thus nobody gives a shit about it anymore. It also helps that firebird doesn't come with the mail prog which decidedly sucks.

Patent license still required?

[Anonymous Coward]

So does this ruling now give microsoft the right to continue using the patent or do they still have to license the patent? (i.e. are the damages for past usage, or for past and future usage?)

If a license is still required it seems like they have Microsoft by the balls. This is a major function of the browser, and can't easily be removed. Couldn't they charge them just about anything to continue using the patent in future products?

Re:Another Reason?

[shaitand]

I can't believe some microtroll actually spent a point to mod you down when offering to give a hand.

same goes for me though, anyone who could use a bit of help can find me at mfread@masscomputers.com

Just put RTFM in the subject line, no really, that will allow me to immediately seperate it from the mounds of spam

Maggots

[DigiShaman]

That's all they are. They're camping little maggots. They wait for someone to do all the hard work, then they swoop in and rape the corp for as much possible. Some call them gold diggers but I just call them rotten little maggots!!

Re:Maggots

[Steeltoe]

I wouldn't call them maggots. It's demeaning to the maggots. They're quite useful you know.

Re:Another Reason?

[xyvimur]

``I'm sure you meant "IE is available free of charge".''

No it is not - it is integrated with one of the OS'es. And to get IE you have to buy that OS.

Should be called dis-service pack

[Anonymous Coward]

MS doesn't release service packs, they are more a disservice and break more things than the fix.

This could set an interesting precedent...

[Anonymous Coward]

techies could use to push the adoption of free software among their companies.

"Boss, since free software developers are unlikely to be sued (as they don't make a profit directly from their code), if we had used an open platform from the beginning now we would not be forced to apply the Nth patch to the browser (OS, or any other product) that could introduce more bugs and break the compatibility with our products".

Re:Another Reason?

[child_of_mercy]

I believe you're mistaken.

I've got it running fine under wine

And I've installed it fine on Win 95 in the past.

Re:Another Reason?

[xyvimur]

Da, my mistake. However you're among lets say 0.5 percent of computer users who use IE in such a fashion. Still nice to hear about it.

A small prize ...

[zonix]

If this verdict stands (and god knows MS can drag it out forever and has friends in very high places) it will have cost MS over a billion dollars to gain dominance over the web.

And if so, it would be a small prize to pay indeed. The lawful way of achieving web dominance or dominance in any world market would be for sure much harder and much more expensive, I reckon. It would take longer as well.

Of course, I may be overexaggerating, but Netscape was really the only company standing in their way back then with respect to web browsers, that is.

z

the patent text

[rassie]

The actual patent text is at uspto.gov.

It seems that IE is not the only browser that would be susceptible to a lawsuit.

From the abstract: ...(allowing a browser) to access and execute an embedded program object

Re:the patent text

[SagSaw]

From the abstract:

Remember that the abstact is mostly meaningless. If you want to post something, post the relavent claim(s).

For example:

1. A method for running an application program in a computer network environment, comprising:
providing at least one client workstation and one network server coupled to said network environment, wherein said network environment is a distributed hypermedia environment;
executing, at said client workstation, a browser application, that parses a first distributed hypermedia document to identify text formats included in said distributed hypermedia document and for responding to predetermined text formats to initiate processing specified by said text formats; utilizing said browser to display, on said client workstation, at least a portion of a first hypermedia document received over said network from said server, wherein the portion of said first hypermedia document is displayed within a first browser-controlled window on said client workstation, wherein said first distributed hypermedia document includes an embed text format, located at a first location in said first distributed hypermedia document, that specifies the location of at least a portion of an object external to the first distributed hypermedia document, wherein said object has type information associated with it utilized by said browser to identify and locate an executable application external to the first distributed hypermedia document, and wherein said embed text format is parsed by said browser to automatically invoke said executable application to execute on said client workstation in order to display said object and enable interactive processing of said object within a display area created at said first location within the portion of said first distributed hypermedia document being displayed in said first browser-controlled window.

Re:the patent text

[rassie]

In this case, I would say that the claim you are referring to is mostly meaningless, as it uses appr. 15 lines of text to say the exact same thing as the words I copied from the abstract.

But of course, that is how these patent documents are worded. I myself have witnessed how a 1-page document in clear text was "encrypted" to 15 pages of lawyer gibberish.

Re:Another Reason?

[Synic]

thunderbird is a great pair for firebird... try out preview version 0.1

huh?

[ftvcs]

How can you use Konqueror as a replacement for internet explorer?

Re:huh?

[EzInKy]

How can you use Konqueror as a replacement for internet explorer?

I agree, you can't compare the two. The first freedom while the second assumes slavery.

Re:And Java applets in Navigator are not prior art

[Doppler00]

But they are trying to patent something that already existed within windows, being the ability to embed an application within another application. This already existed with Microsoft's OLE a long time before the internet was ever popular. Adding this capability to webbrowsers doesn't seem like such a big deal.

I'm not against patents, just ones that patent extremely trivial ideas.

What happened???

[Comatose51]

I was reading a law book on patents a few days ago and one of the conditions for granting a patent is that it must be nonobvious. Did they decide to drop this requirement since my law book was published? Or is computer and Internet related technology so overwhelming for the people in the patent office that anything related to either one is automatically granted a patent? Or perhaps patent lawyers and applicants have gotten better at BSing their way into a patent? Talk about a digital divide! I wonder what the requirements are for people in the patent office.

Good patent

[LauraW]

>I'm not much at reading patents but this looks like the usual silly IT patent

Even though I dislike software patents in general and think they should be abolished or have a much shorter duration, I've got to admire whoever wrote this one. They did a very good job making the claims broad enough to cover a lot of cases but narrow enough to stand up. I've had to analyze a few patents in the past, and it's often possible to find ways around them. For example, you can find a special case that the claims don't cover and then make sure your software fits that special case. That looks pretty hard to do with this patent.

vicious cycle

[cyberwave]

The patent clerks in the U.S. patent office are (correct me if I'm wrong) paid on a sort of commission, meaning that they are less inclined to reject patents.

1.2 Billion down...

[raehl]

That's what, 44.8 to go?

Patent Ignorance

[harriet nyborg]

you kill what you fear and you fear what you do not understand.

what if this were YOUR invention?

should Microsoft be allowed to make profits from the unlicensed and unauthorized use of your inventions?

how is it fair that Bill Gates become richer from your invention while you receive nothing?

remember Lotus 1-2-3, WordPerfect, the Apple II? all of these were groundbreaking products stolen from their inventors (first by Lotus, Corel, and Apple) and then by Microsoft.

where are they now? the technology is dominated by Xcel, Word, and XP.

why? because copyright law was too weak to prevent MS from squashing little people who threaten them - which is what giants do.

software patents are the only tools which exist which enable you to protect YOUR inventions against the giants.

it is irrational that programmers see software patents as a threat and completely fail to see them for the opportunity that they present.

"burn her, she's a witch."

MS lost because they were arrogant. they - like open source developers - refuse to pay for the technology they use and prefer just to take it from the good people who created it.

good for Eolas - like Stac Electronics who sued Microsoft for infringing their stacker technology - it's nice to see the little guy win once and a while.

one day, the little guy may be YOU.

Re:Patent Ignorance

[Shalda]

That would be fine, if there were an actual invention in this case. Having read the article and the associated patent, it's pretty clear to me that this is total BS. This isn't to say that there haven't been good software patents. LZW, at the time, was good science and appropriate for a patent. Amazon's 1-click was and always will be bunk. And yes, if someone had thought to patent VisiCalc they'd be rich right now. However, not doing so allowed 123, Excel, Quattro Pro, AppleWorks, ClarisWorks, MS Works, OO.org, and a slew of other spreadsheets to grow, flourish, and compete against each other.

PS, Stac Electronics won because MS hired away a bunch of their programmers and paid them to recreate the same product.

hello are you foreign?

[waspleg]

being first is teh only thing 99% of the american idol watching public gives a living shit about, i mean i'm a sheltered geek but i bet half the people who modded you up tailgate to make sure no one cuts them off in traffic because god knows htat losing one more car length will make a huge impact on their massively-self important little worlds... digression? maybe but with a healthy dose of realism you seemed to be lacking

oh and ironical is not a word, i won't touch your spelling cause i take a lot of shit from grammar nazis since i dont' give a fuck while posting to /. land of the self-righteous...

Re:hello are you foreign?

[pohl]

Just for the sake of correctness, "ironical" is a word...

From WordNet (r) 1.7.1 (July 2002) [wn]: ironical adj 1: characterized by often poignant difference or incongruity between what is expected and what actually is; "madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker"; "it was ironical that the well-planned scheme failed so completely" [syn: {ironic}] 2: humorously sarcastic or mocking; "dry humor"; "an ironic remark often conveys an intended meaning obliquely"; "an ironic novel"; "an ironical smile"; "with a wry Scottish wit" [syn: {dry}, {ironic}, {wry}]

Re:hello are you foreign?

[d_i_r_t_y]

Just for the sake of correctness, "ironical" is a word...

From WordNet (r) 1.7.1 (July 2002) [wn]: ironical adj 1: characterized by often poignant difference or incongruity between what is expected and what actually is; "madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker"; "it was ironical that the well-planned scheme failed so completely" [syn: {ironic}] 2: humorously sarcastic or mocking; "dry humor"; "an ironic remark often conveys an intended meaning obliquely"; "an ironic novel"; "an ironical smile"; "with a wry Scottish wit" [syn: {dry}, {ironic}, {wry}]

maybe in some american dictionary, 'ironical' is a "valid" adjective. i don't see the point of it though, since 'ironic' is also an adjective, which by the above definition, means exactly the same thing...

in any case, it's not a word in my English English dictionary. nor should it be. i agree with the original poster - it looks and sounds like poor grammar.

Re:hello are you foreign?

[waspleg]

just becuase some dick adds a definition to wordnet in 2002 doesn't make it real

the word is irony, the correct form is ironic

there are 3rd graders that could have done that

and whoever marked me a troll is an idiot =)

Re:hello are you foreign?

[pohl]

Dictionaries have always described language, and never prescribed it. Words exist if and only if people use them to encode memes that can be decoded by others. Sad to say, even "aint" is a word, and the most that you can claim is that it's a "lowbrow" word, or some such elitist sentiment. The good news, though, is that you are free to invent words, and your only barrier to making them "real" is getting someone else to adopt them.

Regardless, it's not just wordnet that recognizes "ironical", so you'll have to do better even if you insist on the same rhetorical strategy.

Microsoft Sued... By Stupid Patent Abusers

[dupper]

Does Not Compute - Slashbot Overloa....... (no carrier)

Re:Another Reason?

[citog]

... and you think you count among the ms-hating-general-bitching rabble? :-)

Re:Another Reason?

[EddWo]

Wasn't it just a reference to Demolition Man?

Mounting a lawsuit is prohibitively expensive.

[jbn-o]

There is plenty the free software community can do to protect themselves. All they have to do is publish their work before any of the "megacoporations" go out and file their patents.

This only describes part of the process (and thus only part of the problem with software patents). The other part is raising this prior art in court as a defense to patent infringement or to get a patent overturned. Either is very expensive, in fact it is so expensive I wouldn't be surprised if there were organizations who would rather simply not engage in the patented process than pay for a lengthy and possibly fruitless patent defense or overturning lawsuit.

At its heart, this is a part of the problem with software patents--people say software patents are okay because the court can resolve any problems in the system without acknowledging the adverse impact on those who can't afford lawyers. Court action generally discriminates against the poor (which can include the people who are ostensibly supposed to be so well-served by the patent system by allowing them to monopolize their "inventions"). The rich can afford to buy patents by acquiring organizations that have them. Large corporations probably have a lot of patents and can afford to cross-license (a practice which exposes an interesting fatal flaw with software patents).

RMS' talk on the dangers of software patents is most enlightening, I highly recommend listening to it or reading the transcript.

Same Old Story

[blunte]

MS Loses Lawsuit

MS Appeals

Case drags on

MS Settles for $100M

Everyone forgets

Software patents are bad, even if MS has to pay

[jopet]

It is amazing how an obvious idiocy like software patents can not only continue to exist in the US but actually get copied by other countries (e.g. the EU). What is next - patents on physical laws?

Re:Software patents are bad, even if MS has to pay

[saddino]

What is next - patents on physical laws

If people created physical laws, then yes, that would follow.

I really don't see why the Slashdot party line seems to be that "software patents are bad." Yes, software is just algorithmic expression, but certainly it is creative algorthmic expression -- and unique software inventions should be patentable.

All sorts of metal clothes fasteners existed before the zipper, yet it was clearly a unique invention.

If "Acme Clothing Connectors" had used the same method, after it had been patented, then they would have infringed.

All sorts of plugin technologies existed before Eolas created a unique method for allowing plugins/applets to run inside IE.

If MS used the same method (which appears to be the case), after it had been patented, then it infringed.

Why is this "idiocy?"

Re:Software patents are bad, even if MS has to pay

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but due to the Sonny Bono Memorial Act, patents on mathematical discoveries are now in effect eternally.

Therefore, you may not figure out the length of one side of a right triangle using the lengths of the other two sides without sending Pythagoras a check for $699.

Re:Clickable link

[Anonymous Coward]

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Pei+Wei&hl=en&lr %20=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=r&as_drrb=b&as_mind =12%20&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=11&as_maxm=8 &as_maxy=1994&selm=93020.102722RBNTJC%40rohvm1.roh mhaas.com&rnum=5

Indeed

[Steeltoe]

It was a rebuttal. Definately. I'll back it up a bit more here to make it clearer. I disagree with his view on intentions, because I don't see how you can defend the best intentions when you're doing wrong. And claiming monopoly on ideas is wrong/perversion in my book. Plain and simple.

Just you wait 'till companies like IBM with lots of IP starts sinking. The litigations-wars would leave a dry and barren wasteland of a formerly healthy IT-sector. Or they get bought up by somebody without scrouples. Then the former "intentions" are worth nothing.

Corporations are too big and have been given too much power.

Even when it's against someone "evil", like Microsoft. Which I don't believe for a second. Evilness doesn't exist, only ignorance.

I do however, also agree with you. I could have a different tone in my post. It's a way to get a message across I guess. Sorry. You're right, in a way, intentions are everything. If it goes wrong anyhow, it's usually because of bad luck or ignorance. However, don't take their word for their unproven "intentions". The Iraqi Information minister proved once and for all what people will say for the right incentive or beliefs. Believe me, all spokespersons have a little Iraqi Information Minister in them..

Do not give power to people with so-called "good intentions". Look at what they DO instead. Do they live what they preach? Most people don't, really. Then their word is worth nothing, because there is no experience behind it. It's empty without the experience and wisdom behind it.

It's an interesting paradox: Intention is everything, but don't count on it, it's also nothing.

Re:Indeed

[B'Trey]

Even when it's against someone "evil", like Microsoft. Which I don't believe for a second. Evilness doesn't exist, only ignorance.

I'll agree that Evil doesn't exist, in the sense of a disembodied force or being. However, evil certainly does exist. Microsoft isn't ignorant. They are well aware of what they are doing - it's a deliberate strategy. Microsoft wants to rule the IT market, and could care less about the free market or fair trade. I call that "evil." I call it that because of it's effect. You can call it something else, if you like, but then we're merely arguing semantics.

Evil, (one of) thy name(s) is Microsoft. For the moment. In a past life, it was called IBM (now one of the good guys.) In the future, it'll be something else. But evil does exist.

Re:Indeed

[LemonFire]

I'm glad this happened. I hope it will happen even more often to big corporations and maybe then there will be enough motivation for these corporations to put some political pressure on our politicians to trash our current patent system.

Re:Indeed

[The OPTiCIAN]

Nice reply :) You got good karma too :)

Dear Microsoft,

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Microsoft,

Your lawyers really suck.

Sincerely,

OJ Simpson

The '2 patent has been overturned

[leonbrooks]

I kid you not! A Memphis court has actually ruled that Federal Income Tax is voluntary! We really need a ruling like that here in Oz: "be a good pollie or I'm not paying any taxes!" (-:

Re:The '2 patent has been overturned

[PhilHibbs]

A Memphis court has actually ruled that Federal Income Tax is voluntary!

I think that's over-stating the case - the jury didn't convict because "we all felt that the prosecution didn't prove its case". Still, nice idea! I've heard it said before that federal taxation is unconstitutional, as is the United States Army, simply because the constitution doesn't explicitly give Congress those powers, and any power not explicitly granted to congress is reserved to the states.

Re:The '2 patent has been overturned

[taybin]

Don't believe any of that bunk. All those arguements are completely debunked here.

Re:The '2 patent has been overturned

[OwnedByTwoCats]

I've heard it said before that federal taxation is unconstitutional

You're hearing from folks that don't know what they're talking about.

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Plix means "empty Microsoft's petty cash box"...

[leonbrooks]

...but there's still another thirty or so billion to go before that's complete.

It'd be nice to spread even 10% of that win around a few FOSS projects, wouldn't it? New super-server and a lifetime supply of bits for each of your fifty-two favourite projects.

Re:What if... No money, no suit !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

They are looking for the money of the big cows. and open-source is not a money-cow at all. they dont have nothing to win, and a lot to spend on attorneys. So they suit the Winborgs and posibly the IBMens of this world , to cash on their money to make profit.

Also, the X systems have been doing that server-client stuff since day one, So i thing it would be more difficult to explain to the no-geek jury the real diference between a browser and a X-client, making the bullet going back to the shooter. Windows is a more easy target on that point, because it dont work client-server until the arrival of the web browsers.

Won't Bill have budgeted this? Re:MBA on Microsoft

[bailster]

IANAMBA, but if I were inside Bill's head I would have already budgeted up to half of that huge MSFT cash stockpile for patent infringement judgments. Same if I were at any other big software company.

Sure, the patent system is a wonderful ancient system to stimulate Science & the Useful Arts, blah blah blah, and accordingly software companies often don't want to rock the boat.

But when you have a witches brew of:
--9 to 5 gov't serfs at the PTO who would grant a patent for breathing air if you asked for one (ie, they often issue patents that should never be issued)
--clever lawyers, and an unaccountable life-appointed judiciary, including many judges too old or out of touch to have any idea how software works; and judges equipped with a huge legal bag o'tricks to rationalize decisions and appeal results rooted in their political beliefs (all the way up to the supremes)... ...then any software business is potentially at risk of having to pay huge patent infringement damages at all times. If they are paying attention, they will plan/budget/insure accordingly. They aren't going to disclose the budgeted figures (could be used as an admission or to estimate their ability to settle), but they should have a rough estimate for any period.

So while Bill may be unhappy that he is losing $1 (bad), he shouldn't be surprised because he was expecting it all along --if not on this patent, then on some other.

Re:Microsoft Is on the Side of Microsoft!

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is completely predictable.

When software patents are on the side of Microsoft, they will favour software patents. When software patents do not favour Microsoft, they will oppose them! Nothing complicated about that!

Flaw in Eolas' case

[BenjyD]

>"...Microsoft has made extensive use of Eolas'
>technology to make its Internet Explorer the
>best-of-breed browser"

Best of breed? I thought perjury was a serious crime in US courts.

In other news

[yaphadam097]

Bill Gates took a two week vacation and cost the company twice as much in billable hours.

Seriously, why does Microsoft care about a $521 million payout? At that rate blatant patent fraud is still amazingly profitable for them. The only way Microsoft will ever stop acting like Microsoft is if they are broken up and their execs put in jail.

Re:Nevertheless, fixing that problem would fix thi

[rollingcalf]

"software patents are the only tools which exist which enable you to protect YOUR inventions against the giants."

No, that's what copyrights and trade secrets are for.

If Microsoft wrote their own code to solve the same problem without ever seeing my code, they should have the right to sell what they built.

'Twould be hilarious...

[leonbrooks]

...if it only bit derivatives of Mosaic. Serve Microsoft right for shafting SpyGlass Systems, that would. (-:

...and if so...

[leonbrooks]

...what's the account number, and what authority do I need to fa^H^Hpossess to access it? (-:

Paul still has shares and connections...

[leonbrooks]

...and his own agenda.

Discomforting thought...

[leonbrooks]

...following through on your logic, they have 48,000,000,000 reasons to bust every other company and free competitor on the planet. Feeling comfy?

Re:Discomforting thought...

[eclectro]

Which they already have done, with the exception a few pesky mac and linux companies/users. They will all fall into line when users can't get the app they need for the OS they are running.

They probably have secretly bought the Vatican too.

If a wordproc or presenter is a browser...

[leonbrooks]

...then surely WordPerfect, Microsoft's own help system (or OS/2's), Mosaic itself and countless other programs all constitute prior art?

Re: Sig

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't that be:

Karma: Excellent.6ueh8t3qu4thliyuh6fxai7357q39y (Due mainly to an unterminated string.)

Oh, wonderful...

[Millennium]

It is rare that I find myself taking Microsoft's side. But deserve to get smacked down hard though they may, this is very much not cool . The precedent is a terrible one, and will haunt us for many years to come.

Why, oh why can't people understand that thought isn't a device to be patented? Copyrights are sufficient to protect any proprietary software (plus they're cheaper and last longer) without the side effect of allowing companies to run roughshod over any competition in any way other than honest, you know, competing

wait a sec

[farlukar]

Patent whores who just sit around and WAIT for someone to sue....

from the Yahoo article:

The suit, originally brought against the world's largest software maker in 1999 by Eolas Technologies Inc

It's not as if they're jumping on the SCO bandwagon...

Re:wait a sec

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly..

The patent was applied for in 1994. It took the patent office 4 years to finally issue it in 1998. Then they sued Microsoft in 1999 and finally recieved the damages after another 4 years of court proceedings in 2003.

4 years in "Internet Time" especially in the mid 90's is like dog years....

Here's how it went...

[Anita Coney]

Judge: Mr. Gates, your company owes Eolas $521 million in damages.

Gates: Sure, let me get my wallet!

Yeah, but...

[leonbrooks]

"burn her, she's a witch."

Microsoft does not weigh the same as a duck!

I, for one, do not support patents.

[MickLinux]

I, for one, do not support patents at all. That is, I would favor getting rid of them entirely.

As pointed out elsewhere on this same topic, the patent system never did help encourage invention, as is given as the one authorization for patents in the US Constitution.

Nor does the patent system encourage justice: it actually prevents true inventors without deep pockets from profiting from their work (read the link above... it's pointed out often enough).

And the major effect of the patent system is to just give more sales (and thus money) to companies that did not earn it, by preventing those who *did* earn it from entering business.

So I completely do not support patents. I am well aware that there are others like me on slashdot (I suspect the grandparent post is one); I am also well aware that for some reason I am in the minority. Why that is, is beyond me, but that's okay. That's life: other peoples' logic seldom makes sense to me.

Re:I, for one, do not support patents.

[MeNeXT]

Because you're one of the few who thought about that do hickie thing a ma gig which you use and share with friends but never bothered to patent... Next time get a second mortgage on your house and hire a lawyer...

Buy a patent and create work for your friendly neighborhood lawyer!

Most people can't name one patented thing if their life depended on it....

Re:I, for one, do not support patents.

[MickLinux]

Umm... check out my journal sometime. Okay?

Also, I also do not support copyright.

Also,

Most people can't name one patented thing if their life depended on it...

I strongly suspect that the gallows is *not* patented at the current time. I can't think of anything else, offhand, that could be possibly patented that people's lives depend on. Maybe the climber's "friend" or some kind of piton or the dynamic rope is patented.

However, things that are patented include:

Toys:
The Slinky.
The little springy press-down pop-up suction cup toy.

Computer algorithms:
The GIF (I guess that just expired, though).
Arithmentic encryption.
The one-click checkout.
"Buy it now" on Ebay (but patented by someone else).

Weaponry tech:
The nuclear submarine (Feynmann/US government).
A nuclear airplane (never actually invented at the time Feynmann named it.)

Medical:
Substitute skin.
Many methods for determining cancer.
Almost definitely patented (but I do not know for sure offhand) the self-disolving stitch.

There's a few.

Re:I, for one, do not support patents.

[nerdlyone]

the patent system never did help encourage invention

I believe it does. Patents provide security for investors. That means companies have more money to hire more inventors. That means more inventions.

And the major effect of the patent system is to just give more sales (and thus money) to companies that did not earn it, by preventing those who *did* earn it from entering business.

Those are the same companies employing inventors, no? In other words, they are the ones paying for the research and development. Doesn't that mean they did earn it?

Re:I, for one, do not support patents.

[MickLinux]

You don't seem to be paying attention to the news.

(1) Patents *decrease* security for investors that actually produce products. That is because patents are a legal minefield that nobody can be sure of navigating safely. Not only that, but there are huge costs associated just with being innocent of patent infringement. There are larger costs associated with being guilty.

(2) The one group of investors that are not at risk from patents are those who invest in patent holding companies. But patent holding companies don't produce anything. They patent ideas, sometimes after they have been invented, or just after the technology to invent them has been developed, and then specifically do not invent it, but wait for it to be invented, and then mug the inventors.

(3) No, the investors do not earn it. The inventors are the ones who earn it. You seem to have drifted from the concept "it can take money to earn money" to "anyone without money must be prevented from earning money." Very occasionally, investors actually have their own idea, start their own business, and pay people to invent. More often, the investor just throws money at an already existing invention. Having money to throw is not something that I consider "inventing."

In line with this, I should note that you seem to have a flawed concept of business. Business is a reaction chamber for many ingredients: workers, idea people, investors, customers, managers... just to name a few. If it is not profitable to any of those groups, business should not happen, period. But consistent with our country's slide into fascism, people (including, it seems, you) are beginning to forget any group except the investor and sometimes the customer.

To sum up, I find your vision of business to be almost completely blind. Sorry for being harsh, but you just performed the all-too-common distillation of real capitalism down into a non-sequitor.

Re:I, for one, do not support patents.

[nerdlyone]

You don't seem to be paying attention to the news

I read lots of news, including news other than /. posts. Maybe that is why you are confused.

(1) Patents *decrease* security for investors that actually produce products. That is because patents are a legal minefield that nobody can be sure of navigating safely.

Investors rarely produce actual products, so you are talking about a tiny minority. Most of our production (invention) comes from the workers (engineers), not the investors. So your statement that "Patents *decrease* security for investors that actually produce products," [emphasis added] is kind of moot. The vast bulk of our economy is based on corporate activity, and the investors in companies are not "investors that actually produce products." So you sound like you are bashing patents because they aren't designed to make entry into the market by individual inventors easy. Patents are not meant to do that (though they aren't necessarily intended to prevent this either). They exist to get new products to consumers. They do this by making a return on investment more likely--by providing a property right in the fruits of the investment.

(2) The one group of investors that are not at risk from patents are those who invest in patent holding companies. But patent holding companies don't produce anything. They patent ideas, sometimes after they have been invented, or just after the technology to invent them has been developed, and then specifically do not invent it, but wait for it to be invented, and then mug the inventors.

This statement makes no sense, on so many levels. Do you not realize you must invent in order to patent? That you can't patent something someone else invented? You demonstrate a lack of understanding of this subject. I am not usually this critical of people, but you asked for it in your strident reply to me, and with this nonsense you posted.

(3) No, the investors do not earn it. The inventors are the ones who earn it. You seem to have drifted from the concept "it can take money to earn money" to "anyone without money must be prevented from earning money."

Investors don't earn it? Please tell me then, who would employ the engineers without the investors? We need both. And both need incentive to participate.

And how do you equate my statement with this idea that "anyone without money must be prevented from earning money"? That sounds like a knee-jerk reaction to anyone not bashing patents wholesale. And it sounds like you are against the investors making money--like the engineers are the only ones worthwhile in this equation. You are incorrect if that is your view.

In line with this, I should note that you seem to have a flawed concept of business. ...But consistent with our country's slide into fascism, people (including, it seems, you) are beginning to forget any group except the investor and sometimes the customer.

Fascism? You know, looking back, all I posted was, "Patents provide security for investors. That means companies have more money to hire more inventors. That means more inventions."

And you jump in and call me a fascist? Ever heard of capitalism? Maybe you were trying to reply to Adolph Hitler's post (he was a fascist), but got mine by accident? My post wasn't mean or insulting at all. It certainly wasn't fascist. Maybe you don't know what that word means? (OK, I'm being insulting now, but you started it.)

To sum up, I find your vision of business to be almost completely blind. Sorry for being harsh, but you just performed the all-too-common distillation of real capitalism down into a non-sequitor.

Again, your overreaction is amazing. You say I am blind when I write a simple statement about investement and how patent law provides incentive (and I didn't make it up--try reading some history or economics or constitutional law--these are not old ideas, they were created by people you doubtless would call

You missed...

[leonbrooks]

lessee: atheist, vegetarian, linux user. have i missed anything?

Velikovskian? alt.rec.explosives lurker? OOPArt freak? White Ribboner? Gun owner? Plenty of scope available... (-:

Hang on this can't be right...

[shades66]

I thought Microsoft, like SCO, respected other peoples IP !?!?

warning: corruption on the rise!

[Anonymous Coward]

18:30 12/8/2003

if you read between the lines of the patent,
one could say they (eu-lo) patented the method viruses use ;)

of course viruses are destructive and "...method for automatically invoking external application ..." is constructiv, but still ...

i understand one can patent an engine, a chip, etc.

but how can one patent/copyright a song or
a certain way a processor switches (e.g. program)?

one can't patent a mathematical formula, but then
a computer is a big calculator. now what a computer does is calculate in binaries (ones and zeros). it then maps the result of a computation (this's all math by the way) to a symbol (ones and zeros (say it again: it's math)) say "a","b","c" etc ...
so can i sue the judge for being stupid? or his teacher for giving him a diploma? or are we living in a really really corrupt age? is this the beginning of the corruption-era? do stupid, lazy people really win. why are their no HARD laws anymore? why is everything just arguing and who got more money (to pay the damn expensive lawyers). is justice in the world only for those who have the resources (e.g. money)?

why do rich people live at security-guard protected estates? what are they afraid of? did they do something wrong and have a bad conscence?

start making sense people!

Horrible outcome

[Lonath]

I hope MS wins on appeal. It's never good to let people with software patents successfully sue other people. Which is why I hope that even in the SCO/IBM case, IBM cannot use its patents successfully.

How, exactly, does it show silliness?

[werdna]

This case clearly shows how silly software patent-laws are. With guns and sanctions they dictate who can use what technology, because someone were "first". Come on! Most of us stopped such silliness in the kindergarden.

In what way does it manifest silliness? It would seem to me to be a case entirely free from vapid claims of validity (microsoft hit with a full court press, and lost) or infringement (likewise, microsoft threw full guns at it, and lost).

To the contrary, the case shows the seriousness of these law and their claims when properly applied.

Who's going to risk developing stuff when you're sued left and right before you even know somebody filed a patent for it while you RDed?

Everybody. The patent system has driven R&D in the United States for more than two hundred years.

This can potentially kill off alot of inventing.

There is lots of evidence to the contrary. What do you have to support your proposition.

Without somebody with lots of money backing you up, it's a risky business.. Which is what the big corporations want anyways, so maybe Microsoft will settle this one in the end.

If you say so. Odd how many inidividual inventors seem to make the biggest political push for stronger patent laws, with large companies tending to push for more relaxed "patent harmonization" approaches.

Re:How, exactly, does it show silliness?

[PyromanFO]

In what way does it manifest silliness? It would seem to me to be a case entirely free from vapid claims of validity (microsoft hit with a full court press, and lost) or infringement (likewise, microsoft threw full guns at it, and lost).

To the contrary, the case shows the seriousness of these law and their claims when properly applied.

It shows silliness because of the content of the patent. This isn't something non-obvious or hard to research. It's plugins! It's like patenting vulcanization and then suing every tire manufacturer after they've been doing it for years. That is the silliness.

Everybody. The patent system has driven R&D in the United States for more than two hundred years.

Nobody said all patents were a bad idea, please pay attention. This is a software patent. There has been every indication that software patents have actually hurt the computing industry in this country and slowed innovation. Then, of course, the fact that we are talking about a specific class of frivolous patents that have prior art but were granted anyway.

There is lots of evidence to the contrary. What do you have to support your proposition.

Again, we are talking about a specific set of frivolous patents, so yes there is alot of evidence that they hurt innovation.

If you say so. Odd how many inidividual inventors seem to make the biggest political push for stronger patent laws, with large companies tending to push for more relaxed "patent harmonization" approaches.

Talk about presenting evidence to backup your claims ....

Re:How, exactly, does it show silliness?

[stephenbooth]

This isn't something non-obvious or hard to research. ... It's like patenting vulcanization and then suing every tire manufacturer after they've been doing it for years. That is the silliness.

Vulcanization was patented in 1838 by Nathaniel Manley Hayward (US Patent 1090 with was granted in 1839) and immedietly assigned to Goodyear. There is evidence of prior art (Leuchs and Ludersdorf, both in Germany) and even a competing patent (BP9952/1843)for a similar process.

Perhaps you might like to choose another example?

Stephen

Re:How, exactly, does it show silliness?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to me that it only furthers his point.

Re:How, exactly, does it show silliness?

[Ugot2BkidNme]

I Have to Toally Agree with your post this patent is utter crap If you read the patent here It basically states any Object viewed in a browser thats a very broad spectrum.
This is kin to Amazon.com and all there stupid patents. Next thing you know someone is going to sue for a patent of using English on a Computer.
I had a little more faith in Slashdot users this is a greater abuse then even what SCO is doing. Yet because its against Microsoft most of you are all happy. Blind Bias is crap I don't care who you are if you are wronged then your wronged. This is a bullshit lawsuit.
This company now has Leverage so now any company that makes a browser and does not pay them will then be liable. So Opera, Apple and any other company out there making a browser that has any kind of Money will be a target if they haven't bought a licsence to use there patent. Not to Mention they might Sue Sun for even making Applets.

Re:How, exactly, does it show silliness?

[Doomdark]

Everybody. The patent system has driven R&D in the United States for more than two hundred years.

• This can potentially kill off alot of inventing.

There is lots of evidence to the contrary. What do you have to support your proposition.

Hmmh. You call his 'bluff' ("back it up with facts"), while doing exactly the same: claiming patents do benefit society as whole via R'n D, without any pointers to anything to back it up. Just your opinion (and vaguely implying others agree). Gee, that's convincing argument there.

Notice that just because there has been lots of innovation in computers and related things is not a proof; without parallel universe to check, it's impossible to say how alternative would have worked out. Personally I think things would have been quite similar, actually; meaning that although I do consider patents in general (and as implemented in particular) harmful, I think there effect has fortunately been limited. But there's a possibility that may change, mostly because:

• Industry "maturing", small companies either die or grow big; and big companies tend to both not remember their origins (small innovative company) and lose their technically oriented leaders (to be replaced by legally and/or fiscally oriented successors).
• More lawyers getting involved, consider fabricated concept ("intellectual property") having become generally accepted and thus actual property... and where there's property, there are disputes, and thus lawyers making killing.

Finally, claiming big companies want relaxed patent (copyright, trademark) laws is patently absurd. Tbere are die-hard patent-loving propel-hat inventors, too; but the mix of opinions at individual level is MUCH wider than with corporations. Corporations arae pretty unified in their standing favouring strictly enforced patent laws. These are their weapons of choice, especially when things get tough. PHBs and their ilk like the idea of "new frontier" that "intellectual property" represents. There are just those pesky induhvidualist indians (actual inventors) to get rid of, and then the gold is theirs.

Re:How, exactly, does it show silliness?

[rzbx]

"The patent system has driven R&D in the United States for more than two hundred years."

Patents have done little to nothing to drive R&D, but have done a lot to drive the process of R&D into one of legal battle. People have invented as far back as we know. The patent system has only created a system to monopolize ideas. Your statement is false. If you really believe in this patent system, you have not done enough reading on this subject.

I highly recommend you read "Owning the Future" by Seth Shulman.
That is just one small piece of the patent problem pie.

Re:How, exactly, does it show silliness?

[zipwow]

Vulcanization was patented in 1838 by Nathaniel Manley Hayward (US Patent 1090 with was granted in 1839) and immedietly assigned to Goodyear. There is evidence of prior art (Leuchs and Ludersdorf, both in Germany) and even a competing patent (BP9952/1843)for a similar process.

What about your 'counter-example' shows either situation to be an acceptable and reasonable way to run a patent system?

If, on the other hand, your intention was to show that the patent office has probably never understood anything, then point granted.

-Zipwow

Re:How, exactly, does it show silliness?

[Ugot2BkidNme]

They hold trademark on "inveted here" what the hell is that all about. thats almost as bad as teh trademark of ":)" but at least that was a joke.

Re:How, exactly, does it show silliness?

[ink]

The patent system has driven R&D in the United States for more than two hundred years.

Excuse me, but the patent system has always been used with real objects and not abstract concepts. It makes sense in that light.

Patents have not been used with "intellectual properties" over the past 200 years. The analog would be an author who patents the idea of a murder mystery, and then sues anyone who actually writes anything that even remotely has anything to do with a 'murder' or a 'mystery'. The same idea, more often than not, is upheld in the software arena for some reason ("1-click checkout", "Embedding code in a browser").

Unless, of course, you're one of those who think we should be paying Einstien's estate for the privilege to talk about the theory of relativity in a magazine article.

Odd how many inidividual inventors seem to make the biggest political push for stronger patent laws, with large companies tending to push for more relaxed "patent harmonization" approaches.

That is a lie. "Patent harmonization" always refers to making patent law as strong as copyright; in other words, patents should last for 100 years. The "inventor" of the murder mystery's great-grand-children would just love you.

Re:How, exactly, does it show silliness?

[Anonymous Coward]

Until you start making a point instead of just stating a point you're just ranting.

Safe to ignore.

Re:How, exactly, does it show silliness?

[werdna]

It shows silliness because of the content of the patent. This isn't something non-obvious or hard to research. It's plugins! It's like patenting vulcanization and then suing every tire manufacturer after they've been doing it for years.

Of course that isn't the case -- the claim is narrower than you suggest, and was construed to be narrower than that by the Court. Your next suggestion?

Again, we are talking about a specific set of frivolous patents, so yes there is alot of evidence that they hurt innovation.

So frivolous that even Microsoft's legion of attorneys couldn't put two and two together to find ANY probative prior art to invalidate it. Your next suggestion?

I wrote: Odd how many inidividual inventors seem to make the biggest political push for stronger patent laws, with large companies tending to push for more relaxed "patent harmonization" approaches.

He responded: Talk about presenting evidence to backup your claims ....

This isn't a close question -- only the truly clueless needs to ask for further evidence -- anybody who followed the recent harmonization battles knows who the players are.

Re:How, exactly, does it show silliness?

[werdna]

Hmmh. You call his 'bluff' ("back it up with facts"), while doing exactly the same: claiming patents do benefit society as whole via R'n D, without any pointers to anything to back it up. Just your opinion (and vaguely implying others agree). Gee, that's convincing argument there.

Well, there is quite a convincing correlation -- nations with strong patent laws have a strong technical advantage today, for whatever reason. Admitted that this is not by itself not proof of the cause and effect relationship, which is far beyond the scope of these notes.

My criticism was not so much of that point, which I agree is a deep and very interesting debate, but of the suggestion without more, that a heavily litigated patent that was unsuccessfully defended by one of the world's great economic interests is somehow frivolous.

Finally, claiming big companies want relaxed patent (copyright, trademark) laws is patently absurd.

IBM, Motorola, Lucent, Microsoft, GM and a host of other huge technology players all supported recent harmonization efforts. Independent inventors opposed. You may think it absurd, but look who testified for what, and draw your own conclusion.

Re:How, exactly, does it show silliness?

[werdna]

Excuse me, but the patent system has always been used with real objects and not abstract concepts. It makes sense in that light.

Always? I'll have to check, but as I recall, method and process patents have been around since the mid-18th Century, and that's just the US.

Re:How, exactly, does it show silliness?

[werdna]

There are three kinds of arguments: (1) Patents are bad; (2) software patents are bad; and (3) bad software patents are bad.

No reasonable person disagrees with (3), and frankly, you will never get traction on (1) in a modern industrialized nation -- while clearly YOU don't like patents, and have your rants in support, the other view has clearly prevailed in most fora. Interestingly, most arguments against software patents really only fall into the (1) and (3) categories, not distinguishing software patents meaningfully from patents-at-large, and not really getting to the merits, but rather whining about one or another allegedly bad patent.

This is why the anti-software patent movement has gained zero traction -- they can't seem to persuade anyone but those who have begun assuming their conclusion.

Re:How, exactly, does it show silliness?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmh. You call his 'bluff' ("back it up with facts"), while doing exactly the same: claiming patents do benefit society as whole via R'n D, without any pointers to anything to back it up. Just your opinion (and vaguely implying others agree).

I seems obvious that patent portfolios are large factors in investing decisions. Does anyone really question that property rights in a product makes investment in that product more attractive? You may disagree, but there is logic to that statement, enough that I think the burden of proof would have to be placed on the one questioning that statement.

And I do have one data point, from Dec. '02 issue of IP Worldwide, in an article by Lee Bendekgey and Diana Hamlet-Cox. Speaking of investment in the biotech sector, they mention an announcement by Clinton in 2000 as the first draft of the human genome project was nearing completion. Clinton was misquoted as saying he opposed gene patents.

The biotechnology sector lost over $5 billion in market capitalization that day. Even after the remarks were clarified, it was six months before the market fully recovered.

I realize that is not in the field of software patents, but it does address the basic value of intellectual property.

Software patents are evil

[Rogerborg]

Are you listening, Red Hat?

You are surely joking.

[jotaeleemeese]

That is a hughe ammount of money, in any terms.

I think a lot of people in the IT business have lost all sense of proportion and of the value of money.

But MS Made IE to Allow for It!

[ClubStew]

This is f*in' stupid! Microsoft designed and programmed IE to allow for plugins using various methods, as well as to act as an application host for IE-driven applications (such as HTAs and the like). Who in the hell does this company think they are?! If Microsoft didn't program IE to be extensible, the company couldn't have done it at all!

This is just another example of the software industry going bad - and the government is sure doing their part to screw it up.

S.O.P.

[Basil Ganglia]

So does this mean Microsoft will buy out Eolas?

URL

[kw]

Link to the patent in question: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,838,906.WKU.&OS=PN/5,838,906&RS =PN/5,838,906

Is it just me or does this patent seem vague and cover a lot of broad topics? (shakes head and wonders what kind of cave-dwelling morons work at the US patent office)

Re:URL

[the eric conspiracy]

Is it just me or does this patent seem vague and cover a lot of broad topics?

It is just you. Patents have a very specific legal structure which includes space for a fair amount of hand-waving. The key thing to remember when reading a patent is that the meat of the patent is the claims section, and the key claim is Claim 1. You can put anything you want in the abstract, specification, etc. - but what you get coverage on is what is described in the claims, and nothing else. The claims in this case look pretty specific to me.

the simple idea

[wiredog]

The patent appears to be on the implementation, not the idea itself. And it's not all that simple, or obvious.

Except in hindsight.

Re:And Java applets in Navigator are not prior art

[eshefer]

this disticntion is true from a technological POV' but not a legal POV.

embedding stuff in browsers and embedding something in s word processor or an OS is not the same. they are differant markets. and the technology IS differant. OLE is not the same as activeX.

Not to say that I don't this the suit is silly, it is.

Pocket Change...

[ackthpt]

Sure, US$500,000,000 is pocket change to Microsoft, but as I learn with my credit card statements each month, a lot of little $10 and $15 purchases add up to $1,000 pretty fast.

With the constante hemorraging of home entertainment and other non-profitable divisions (look for whichever column .Net falls under to join them with the 5,000 employees their adding on) even the fattest reserves can be frittered away. You have to be aware that the heads at Microsoft are keen not to see that happen too quickly. Especially since things like this can gain momentum all too quickly and next thing you know Micro$oft is Mirosoft.

This is a hole for trolls!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you use this makeashorterlink thing, how will you know where it will go before you click on it?

click here

Trust the poster?!!

It's obvious to any programmer..

[Anonymous Coward]

They basically patented modularity, but since it's in the context of "hypermedia", it's then allowed? What about Simula? The concept of object-oriented programming is the same.

Is it legally possible for inventors to demand that derivative works are to be non-patentable? Look at the building crumble.

The legal-system needs a few service packs, that's for sure, and it obviously doesn't take a lawyer to figure that one out.

Stimulate innovation my ass. People are terrified of releasing something because the law shows no mercy, it implies that you already knew someone owned the patent.

As usual, bickering here does not solve anything.

Feared today, forgotten tomorrow.

TOUCHABLE!

[momus_radar]

Of coarse MS will appeal. They now have everything to loose. If one small company can succesfully prove that they [MS] infringed their patents, what's to keep others companies from following suit?

Then again I want that company dead, I want that company's campus burned to the ground I want to go there in the middle of the night, I wanna piss on their heads.

No I'm not biased.

Congrats, you've spread two memes...

[Theatetus]

Meme 1: Federal income tax is voluntary, so you don't have to pay it if you don't want to.

Federal income tax has always been voluntary. But, "voluntary" does not mean it is lawful not to pay it. It means you report to the IRS how much you made and you send them the money (though they offer and most of us take withholdings as a convenience).

Meme 2: The US Army is unconstitutional because Congress was not granted the power to make it.

I quote Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 12 of COTUS:

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

And, yes, Congress officially "reconstitutes" the Army every 2 years.

Note that Paragraph 13 gives Congress the power "to provide and maintain a Navy" with no restrictions, so the Navy and Marine Corps do not need to be reconstituted every 2 years.

Re:Congrats, you've spread two memes...

[Anonymous Coward]

It means you report to the IRS how much you made and you send them the money (though they offer and most of us take withholdings as a convenience).

Eh? And what about self-employed people who have to file with 1090? No withholding, just required estimated taxes. (with penalties if you don't pay them)

Re:Congrats, you've spread two memes...

[PhilHibbs]

Thanks for correcting me.

Let's jump on the money bandwagon

[Anonymous Coward]

In a statement, Microsoft said, "We believe the evidence will ultimately show that there was no infringement of any kind, and that the accused feature in our browser technology was developed by our own engineers based on preexisting Microsoft technology." --Of course not to look like I am on MS's side here since I care not for them, from my observation of Microsoft's behaviour when they are guilty of something, I have noticed that they usually pay up. Especially in recent couple of years Microsoft has paid billions either in court or out of court settlements. Unless it has to do with taking "features" out of Windows Microsoft rarely would appeal. IMHO I think this company that I never heard of was just trying to make some money, and so was the university and they did it. If Microsoft was guilty in this case I think they'd pay up.

Patents Are Good

[zungu]

The judgment against Microsoft shows the effectiveness of the patent system. Will Slashdot fanatics try to understand the real benefits of patents now?

Re:Cringely mentioned this case about a year ago..

[Anonymous Coward]

...winning this lawsuit may allow Eolas to prevent Microsoft fom any infringing behavior through a court injunction...

It is hard for a non-producer to get an injunction. See, if the Court were to order a running royalty of 0.0x% on every copy of Internet Explorer sold in the future, Eolas would be made whole. It's even harded to get an injunction during an appeal. And harder still when so many users (e.g. the phone company, the water company, the state of Illinois, the U.S. District Court in Illinois, large parts of the federal government) would be adversely affected. Yes, yes, all those users could switch, but not immediately, and the cost would be enormous.

No. The odds of an injunction here are miniscule. And, by the time the appeal is over (years from now), MS will have a design-around ready to deploy. This is a battle won, not a war.

Ironic justice

[Per Abrahamsen]

Microsoft lobbyist have been one of the, if not the, major force for making EU accept software patents.

How silly

[orionware]

How absolutely silly this is. About as silly as the one-click patent.

Idiotic patents and patent lawsuits like this actually stifle competition. It will get to a point that unless you have a ton of money to do "due diligence" on every idea you might want to develop, you just won't even attempt to innovate only to find out later that something vaguely similar will get you sued..

I know the /. crowd loves to see big business given the crap end of the stick but suits like this harm the industry as a whole.

NO to software patents!

[axxackall]

Any software is an extension of some pre-existed software - mathematicians can prove it. Therefore SOFTWARE MUST BE NEVER PATENTED!

MS SUCKS, but does this mean now APPLETS COST $$?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that everyone is happy about this but what does this mean for developers and other companies that use the same technologies? Does this mean that whenever i use the embed or applet tag I have to pay a royalty? Thats ridiculous. First the ebay patent "Uhh i patent the idea of buying stuff online w/ a button" and then this? How can you patent these things? I would like to know how technically knowledgeable the juries and the judges preciding on this case are. I mean it just doesnt make sense, what kind of people are making these rulings. What's next, I patent the hyperlink?

Bad data! Quicken web site has a BIG typo

[FearUncertaintyDoubt]

The quicken web site lists that he has only 172,612,893 shares as of 8/5/03. However, on 2/5/03, he had 609,749,300 shares, and on 2/18/03, he had 217,498,600 with no transaction in the meantime. Note the share price also went from $48 to $24. Answer: the stock split on 2/14/03. The quicken web site should be showing that he had 1,217,498,600 shares, and he is currently holding 1,172,612,893 shares.

Bill may be selling, but he hasn't sold 75% of his stock.

michael loves teh anti-MS stuff, doesn't he?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then again, so do a lot of the slashbots who hang out here.

picking up 500 M$

[just fiddling around]

Well, for one I understand him! If the amount is comprised of the biggest denomination of currency in the US, ever, the pile would be formed of 5 000 (yes, 5 thousand) bills. And I doubt the 100k$ "bills", made in 1939, have been printed in that number of copies. Which leaves the more realistic 10k$ bill, 5 million of 'em!

Personnaly, i'd grab a few and run to buy a lift (if crated) or a real big truck!

Re:picking up 500 M$

[ukyoCE]

Uhh...since when did 5m times 10k equal 500m?

500,000,000
/ 10,000
=
50,000

That's 50 thousand 10k$ bills, which makes sense being ten times the number of 100k bills as you said yourself it would take.

(ie:
50k * 10k == 5k * 100k
(10 * 5k) * 10k == 5k * (10k * 10)
10 * 5k * 10k == 10 * 5k * 10k

Re:picking up 500 M$

[ukyoCE]

oh yea, and of course this is just mindless nitpicking, i'm sure you didn't whip out a calculator and double check your work like we slashdot trolls make sure to do :)

Microsoft Respects IP?

[Kismet]

Since Microsoft is such a respecter of other people's IP rights, why oh why didn't they imediately license these patents?

I guess that Internet Explorer is such an obscure product, they figured they could just get away with it. The same goes for those pesky DRM patents that affect their "niche" OSes such as Windows XP.

Thank goodness Microsoft had the sense to license questionable Unix IP for their wildly popular Unix Compatibility layer. If they ran into trouble with that program, it would surely sink the company.

Settle? How can they "settle"? They LOST.

[Anonymous Coward]

so maybe Microsoft will settle this one in the end.

"Settlements" are made before the judgement is awarded. In this case the judgement has already been handed down. MS owes. Big time. However, they will of course drag it out in appeals indefinitely and do everything they can to not pay a cent. Even if they lose all court appeals in the end, they will still probably refuse to pay and tell both the plantiffs and the courts to go and f_ck off. Even the US federal govt is impotent to do anything to make them pay what is owed and is afraid of them.

Re:Settle? How can they "settle"? They LOST.

[Steeltoe]

A settlement is an agreement. Microsoft can agree to not appeal. It's up to the other side to judge if they get a good deal with that. They even mentioned that settlement "is in Microsofts court now" in the article.

Microsoft also settled for alot of cash to Netscape. They're walking a fine line with the law, but they're not stupid. They milk what they can without upsetting the cow too much.

Windows Shell/Program Manager/fork

[IMWakko]

So how are the claims in the patent any different than the windows shell/program manager that MS has been using since windows started (yes I know ms didn't invent this, but shows this sort of thing has been in use long before 1994)?
Icons = Hyperlinks
Click/double click an icon, launch an application.
The only difference is the container: windows shell/program manager vs web browser.

And for that matter, fork? Basically the same thing. fork a process from another process. It's all the same thing.

Ooo, now it's only 1-click. Big friggin deal.

Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

I was wondering why Bill was selling stock. Maybe he was worried about the outcome of this case? http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,41798,00 .html

prior art

[penguin7of9]

Even if the Eolas Patent were not obvious to someone skilled in the art, there is prior art. For example, Pei Wei's Viola browser supported applets.

Is this Slashdot?

[muyuubyou]

I thought here in Slashdot everybody was against software patents.

Typo, sorry!

[zonix]

That should have been price, as in a small price for a large prize! :-)

z

Re:Another Reason?

[arivanov]

It was Uni of B who developed it and it is on the licensee list. The company is only handling the IP. In other words RTFA.

Who's evil?

[Steeltoe]

You can call it something else, if you like, but then we're merely arguing semantics.

Agreed 110% all the way. Too much discussion going on is just about different definitions. It's good to see somebody _get it_.

However, evil certainly does exist. Microsoft isn't ignorant. They are well aware of what they are doing - it's a deliberate strategy.

They're a company. There are thousands more that would gladly switch places with Microsoft. Companies device strategies to maximize profits. If what they do is evil, then most of what happens in capitalism is evil. I would call it ignorance - the unability to see farther than one's tip of the nose. You might call it evil, but then you look at the world in a negative way. Ignorance is innocent and dumb, while evilness... well, you can have "cute" evilness, but then it loses its point (a href="http://www.sinfest.net">http://www.sinfest.n et) ;-)

Evil, (one of) thy name(s) is Microsoft. For the moment. In a past life, it was called IBM (now one of the good guys.) In the future, it'll be something else. But evil does exist.

You obviously know it's just a subjective label you put on someone. Just to get that out of the way.

Now, for a different perspective: Do you think the executives do what they do to make people's life miserable? Do they enjoy being evil, creating havoc, putting open source programmers out of job etc? Is that their goal in life?

I'd say everybody is in this life to be happy, and ultimately, they want people around them to be happy too. It's just that many are ignorant about what they do to others. They have not yet matured and realized what they do to others, in the end they do to themselves. It's all about maturity and acting instead of reacting.

If people are rash, angry, hating, rude, aggressive, violent or any such negativity, it's because of stress. A stress or hurt that is manifesting itself to the outside world. It can be just beneath the skin, or it may be a little deeper, but deep inside there's a person, a little child, who just wanted to be loved and happy. Somehow, people have become addicted to feelings of power, money, love, etc, then all the trouble starts!

"Evilness" is just part of the dirt that attach to us throughout a lifetime. It is easily removed when one matures, which might happen someday.

Re:Who's evil?

[gammoth]

Now, for a different perspective: Do you think the executives do what they do to make people's life miserable? Do they enjoy being evil, creating havoc, putting open source programmers out of job etc? Is that their goal in life?

I'd say everybody is in this life to be happy, and ultimately, they want people around them to be happy too. It's just that many are ignorant about what they do to others.

I don't want to burst your bubble or anything, but there is an awful lot of people out there who's sense of personal worth is enhanced when others lose. It's a painful truth I've had to accept these past few years.

I don't understand it either.

Re:Who's evil?

[Steeltoe]

I don't want to burst your bubble or anything, but there is an awful lot of people out there who's sense of personal worth is enhanced when others lose. It's a painful truth I've had to accept these past few years.

You know, if you REALLY didn't want to burst my bubble, you would've kept quiet. ;-)

I'm quite aware of the fact however. That's what I meant with addictive feelings. Some people get a high from climbing a huge mountain, others from victory over others. It's just an addiction to feelings developed over time, inherited from parents/peers, even from previous lifetimes etc.

I don't understand it either.

I do understand it, not fully as that would be to pretend I know everything and everybody, but I've also felt happy to win over others. I play chess, and in that game it is there all the time. You win, you get excited, you lose, you get MAD! (To get good you have to lose LOTS or be a natural ;*)

Same with football-supporters, skiing, tennis, etc. The performers and the audience is hooked on a feeling-addiction they've obtain by the world around them.

I know it's cliche, but deep inside everybody is the same innocent child. Nobody truly want to hurt others, but their vision is distorted by pain and forgotten memories.

Such people have alot to teach us though, about humility and understanding against all odds. Without the bad, there can not be good.

Re:Who's evil?

[dustman]

I know it's cliche, but deep inside everybody is the same innocent child. Nobody truly want to hurt others, but their vision is distorted by pain and forgotten memories.

I used to feel pretty much this way too. But, I now think you are wrong. There are some people who really are evil. There are more who are assholes. There are lots of others who are just mean.

These are people who enjoy hurting others. They enjoy making others miserable.

I don't buy the "deep inside everyone is an innocent child" thing. Children can be the worst.

Empathy is something most people learn, not something they are born with. The ones who don't learn it are the evil/mean/assholes.

Re:Who's evil?

[Steeltoe]

I used to feel pretty much this way too. But, I now think you are wrong. There are some people who really are evil. There are more who are assholes. There are lots of others who are just mean.

I believe that we have more lives than just this one. Just because a person is an asshole one life, doesn't mean he can't be a saint in another. It's just two different ways to experience life, and be experienced. Without the bad guy, there can not be a good guy. Then everything would be bland.

I know, many of you don't agree with me here, but it doesn't matter. This is just what I sincerely feel is right, now. It goes way deeper than that too, but this is not the forum for that.

These are people who enjoy hurting others. They enjoy making others miserable.

Yes, because they are really miserable themselves. Look at a child who gets hit by another child, it hits back in spite which is then immediately released. Quite naturally it gets rid of the stress by hitting back, or crying.

But adults don't cry, at leat not as much as they could. Many bear their anguish and hide it. But it comes out in other forms and actions unconsciously. After many years, it has twisted the original personality very subtly. Just think of how much is hidden!

I don't buy the "deep inside everyone is an innocent child" thing. Children can be the worst.

Children are just what they are, quite natural and spontaneous. You can't blame a child for killing somebody with a gun, you blame the adult for loading it in front of the child. You say they can be the "worst", but they do not do what they do in spite and hatred. They don't have the knowledge and worldly experience. They are completely innocent. They learn hatres along the way to adulthood. Of course, every child is different and special. Some children have problems from an early age, but there is always a cause for everything, even when it is hidden.

Empathy is something most people learn, not something they are born with. The ones who don't learn it are the evil/mean/assholes.

What parents you have is crucial. Chose your parents with great care... :-)

It's easier when you know that people are the way they are because of their "life" - a series of circumstances from birth to death, you can accept them for who they are. Especially people who are not so aware, they're stuck in some triviality of life.

FWIW

[Draoi]

The word "Eolas" in Irish Gaelic means "knowledge", BTW. Another useless factoid ...

Drop in the bucket

[mdielmann]

Now if we do that 79 more times, and stop their cash flow, we can put them out of business.

Seriously, all these guys did is raise the bar where MS will buy out these problems. Maybe.

Re:Drop in the bucket

[smcavoy]

using up their cash reserves would hardly put them out of business. :)

EOLAS WILL BE SORRY!!

[Mr.Sharpy]

I'm not so sure that Microsoft can "pull an IBM" on these guys. The company that won the lawsuit one of the more evil patent-related institutions: a patent holding company. They only license patents, they don't actually implement them in any of their own products. Without any real products, Microsoft can't turn around and sue them for infringing upon its own patents.

While Microsoft may not be able to sue them for reverse patent infringement, they can most certainly buy 10 Stealth Bombers and reduce Eolas headquarters to flaming pile of rubble! Eolas will be sorry. Oh yes, they WILL be SORRRRRRRY! Muahahahaha! Muahahahaha! MuaHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh sorry, I was having a Bill Gates moment. Move along, nothing to see here...

1 Down 99 to Go!

[webzombie]

Hello? This is Microsoft we're talking about. $500 million dollars is pocket change. If Billy happened to find $500 million dollars lying on the ground, he probably wouldn't bother to pick it up.

To look at it another way. M$ has 49 billion in the bank or roughly 100 - $500 million dollar suit settlements available to them.

So, only 99 law suits to go and M$ is out of cash!

Re:1 Down 99 to Go!

[Anonymous Coward]

Then they'll start going after Linux companies...

Re:Before you start bitching about slashdot users.

[Anonymous Coward]

calibre. I also, have no value to add.

not everything that is creative should be patented

[jopet]

take art, for instance: pieces of art are copyrighted, but not patentable. You (luckily!) cannot patent the way you painted the shadow of the nose - this might be highly creative, but to make it patentable will have the same desastrous effect as making writing algorithms patentable has. I won't go into all of the reasons here, because they have been repeated over and over again. To come up with an algorithm or even just a purpose for an algorithm can be highly creative - but so can coming up with the formula for a physical law. There is not that much difference really, because in both situations there is a creative act, no matter if you write an algorithm to convert integers into a hex string or write down a physical law (or model) that describes the connection between certain measurable variables of a system. Maybe the core problems really is that creating algorithms is what programmers do all the time - many of them reinventing the same algorithms for the 1000's time, simply because this is faster than looking up a solution. If you make software patentable it is hard to see what would NOT be patentable - any function or piece of code is a candidate. Software is different from zippers and technical machines. Very different.

Re:not everything that is creative should be paten

[saddino]

If you make software patentable it is hard to see what would NOT be patentable - any function or piece of code is a candidate. Software is different from zippers and technical machines. Very different.

I disagree. You could say the same about zippers: "If you make zippers patentable thatis hard to see what would NOT be patentable - any piece of metal is a candidate."

However, we know you can't patent any piece of metal, just like you can't patent any function or piece of code.

The claims in a software patent have to be very detailed to protect the exact implementation of the code. The LZW patent did not stop the creation of other methods for compressing image data -- it only stopped (illegal) use of the same method.

MS could have written from scratch, a unique plugin architecture that did not violate the Eolas patent. That the chose not to do this (and then got caught) is why they were found guilty.

When reached for comment....

[Kaz Riprock]

Mr. Gates said, "Please give me one second, while I finish rooting in my couch cushions for the settlement money..."

Greed.

[Anonymous Coward]

The patent in question is overly obvious, overly broad, and, in fact, fraudulent (other people did similar work BEFORE the patent). It involves running programs inside webpages (active/X, applets, javascript, etc). The patent holder is likely doing this simply as a form of litigious theft... extracting money from someone else's hard work. It's another example of the SCO buisiness plan in action. (BTW, my understanding is, the University of California was an incidental party in this, not the motivating party.)

We'll have to wait and see if they go after Sun and Netscape next. It would be a serious tragedy if they did.

bif

MOD PARENT UP FUNNY AND INSIGHTFUL AND INTERESTING

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the first Slashdot post to make me laugh all day.

Not all software patents are bad

[pauljlucas]

... software patents are bad ...

Such conclusions are probably reached because of all the coverage of bad patents here on Slashdot. Yes, there are bad patents. But that doesn't mean all patents are bad:

Jerry Springer's TV show is bad. Therefore, all TV shows are bad.

Just because a novel idea happens to be expressed in software doesn't somehow automatically make it bad.

Suppose the whole idea for "transmitting a markup language over a computer network to a client program that will render said markup into a book-like page complete with images" (i.e., the "web") was patented. Clearly, such an idea is novel and non-obvious. (If it were obvious, somebody would have thought of it earlier.)

Such a patent would be a perfectly valid and "good" patent. The entire points of a patent are (a) to grant an inventor exclusive rights to an invention to allow him to make money out of it as payement for coming up with the idea in the first place, and (b) to advance society by giving inventors incentive to come up with new ideas that everybody can benefit from.

The fact that you may not like the whole patent system, or even particular patents, is irrelevant. Patents don't exist to please you. If they frustrate you because you can't use an idea that is patented, then you are free to come up with a new and better idea. If you do that, then society would benefit from the fact that you couldn't use the original idea.

[OT]

[ichimunki]

"Ironical" was in Webster's dictionary back in 1913. If you are over 90 years of age, maybe your reluctance to adopt this new-fangled terminology is understandable. Otherwise, give it up. Not to mention that your own post leaves a lot to be desired in terms of capitalization, puncuation, and grammar.

Re:[OT]

[ichimunki]

Er, punctuation. :)

Re:Before you start bitching about slashdot users.

[eddie can read]

However, the patent system as originally envisioned by the U.S. forefathers was a pretty good idea.

Or to reduce it to simpler language, "in an area that I know something about, patents are bad, but in areas that I am sufficiently ignorant about that I am forced to judge purely on the basis of the idea of patenting as originally envisioned before anyone actually had a chance to see what sort of a mess they produced, patents were a pretty good idea."

That about cover it?

"Eolas" is the Irish word for "information"

[easter1916]

In case anybody cares.

I'm sure Microsoft is rejoicing about this

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, they were very vocal about respecting the "IP" rights of others when they were forking cash over to SCO. This gives them the opportunity to respect even more IP rights. Everybody wins!

great patent idea

[Parsec]

Let's patent applications that run in Outlook. I can't think of any similar prior art.

how's that different?

[siskbc]

IT DOESN'T MATTER what their "intentions" are.. This case clearly shows how silly software patent-laws are. With guns and sanctions they dictate who can use what technology, because someone were "first". Come on! Most of us stopped such silliness in the kindergarden.

Um, that's also how regular patents work. Whoever is "first" gets to decide who uses the technology. Here, it happens to be software. Why is software different than anything else?

Please pay attention to dates folks!

[Vancouverite]

This patent may be good... it may not. That is opinion. However, I don't see any evidence that they got this idea from Internet Explorer (as some folk are claiming).

Look at the history of IE here. Notice the date mentioned in the first paragraph? 1995 -- that's when MS was working on IE1.

Now, look at the Patent Application. Notice the Date Filed? October 17, 1994. So, I really doubt that they took a time machine out to examine the browsers that had not yet been invented.

Re:Before you start bitching about slashdot users.

[jafac]

"Some people will call this a great victory for Open Source. I don't. I think it's a travesty, but that's my opinion and mine alone"

I agree. Does that mean you get to sue me for $521 Million?

I'm not against patents in general. I just think that we need stricter guidelines for keeping the scope narrow.
And, when ruling on patents, judges should keep in mind the whole basis of patents as documented in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution: ". . to promote the useful arts and sciences. . ." If the award of patent does not promote the useful arts and sciences, then it needs to be revoked.

So what will happen to Mozilla, Opera, etc.?

[Krellan]

Eolas has patent #5,838,906, which basically covers any browser that can support plugins (including applets).

That's not good. What will happen to Mozilla, Netscape, Opera, and so on? Will Eolas pretty much go after all browsers ever made? Will this succeed in killing Java, since Java relies upon a plugin? Maybe that's why Microsoft chose to settle, to create legal precedent that they could use to help block Java?

Microsoft got around this patent in later versions of MSIE by making "plugins" directly part of the operating system, and not part of the browser. The browser merely calls an operating system routine, and does this for all embedded objects. The browser doesn't take any special action to invoke a plugin, thus dodging the patent. The operating system thus manages plugins, not the browser.

But how will third-party browsers, such as Mozilla and Opera, survive? They rely on plugins, since they can't conveniently change the operating system to suit themselves. Will all plugin code now have to be integrated into the browser, making it even more bloated? When a new version of Flash or RealAudio comes out, for example, will it have to be compiled directly into the browser, requiring everybody to re-download the entire browser to stay up to date with plugins?

Supporting plugins is a mind-bogglingly obvious thing, but try telling that to the Patent Office.

What's ironic is that the USPTO itself relies upon this patent! Many early patents have not yet been typed in, so only the scanned images are available. These scanned images are in TIF format, a good format for high-resolution black-and-white drawings, but a format that is rarely supported internally by browsers and thus requires a plugin to display! Without the so-called "invention" of this patent, the Patent Office itself wouldn't be able to show early patents!

I hope this patent extends to only browsers. I hope that Eolas doesn't go after the individual authors of plugins, or worse yet, all people who use plugins on their pages at all. It would be ironic if Eolas sues the Patent Office :)

I'm rooting for Microsoft in this case

[Krellan]

As strange as it may seem, I'm rooting for Microsoft in this case.

This patent needs to be invalidated, for the good of everybody.

If Microsoft loses this case, it's only a matter of time until Eolas goes after every other browser ever made.

Eolas is right up there with that streaming-video patent company shaking down porn sites. They are among the worst examples of a shell company set around a dubious patent, attempting to make money by shaking down an entire industry.

Eolas needs to be defeated, or its precedent will contribute to the end of all true invention in the USA, as true inventors are afraid of doing anything new for fear of being accused of infringing someone else's patent.

How do they decide this stuff?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can a jury composed of members of the public possibly call a judgement like this? The case is far to intricate and technically oriented!!! You need an un-biased panel of experts to decide. (Though I admit that finding such a panel is no mean feat)

What's bad for MS isn't necessarily good for us.

[borgheron]

This patent covers flash, java applets, activeX and etc, according the following link:

http://www.eolas.com/technology.html

Just because MS is hurt by this DOES NOT MEAN we are better off. I see this ruling as a double edged sword. Does this mean that anyone who develops a plug-in for Navigator or IE is now required to license this patent?

Some idiot moderated me down before for saying that software patents are a bad thing in general, but I'll say it again: Software patents are bad in general. Just because this appears to help us, doesn't mean that we're not next!

This kind of predatory patent activity has been rampant in the industry for years now. I mean, have you ever even heard of EOLAS? My bet is that it is purely a litigation engine just like refac.

Go ahead... mod me down, if you think I deserve it. But think about it before you do.

GJC

Re:Another Reason?

[Anonvmous Coward]

Bingo. ;)

Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I just hope Microsoft takes on BSA and tells them to lobby heavily against software patents in the EU instead for like it has been the case until now.

Troll?

[goldfndr]

You're new here, yes? Just in case this isn't a troll...

I echo the Anonymous Coward's issue that this opens links up for trolls (same with some other more obvious redirects, like rd.yahoo.com).

But I add that the Correct Response is to "linkify" the URL within a forum that supports linking. All it takes is:

1. Type: <a href="
2. Paste the URL
3. Type: ">
4. Paste the URL (or, better yet, something descriptive - "click here" implies a beginner)
5. Type: </a>

In your posting, this would be:

Dudes, make that friggin link shorter, will ya?

It's not so..

[wolf2q]

this is "single judge vs grand jury"!!
It's easy to tamper with a single judge then with a grand jury!

All of us should support Microsoft

[samwhite_y]

Sometimes I am amazed by the ability of people to avoid seeing the obvious. If I told you that the only way to get to the top of a mountain was to climb it and that somebody had patented "climbing mountains" (let us assume for a moment that there was no "prior art" that you could reference), it would be obvious that the patent had no merit because the basic idea was too "easily realized from simple thought" or too clearly the "simple reapplication of already existing notions" (I can climb a hill, hmmm... maybe the same technique can be used on mountains). It may not be obvious to members of a jury, but to anybody who does any real programming, it is clear that a notion of a browser plugin is pretty equivalent in obviousness (in software terms) to the notion of "mountain climbing". All the details of how such plugins should work are almost mandated by the very concept of the idea.

If our court system allows trivial software notions to be patented, it is eventually going to cause serious harm to any attempts to create a viable long term open source software movement. Sometime in the not too distant future, software companies with money to lose our going to figure out that if they cannot win in the marketplace, the courts will provide the leverage that they need.

So for anybody who thinks that it is a good thing that Microsoft lost this case, they need to seriously take another look at this issue and realize that this case could be the start of a very bad trend. Just because my most hated enemy has to pay royalties to "climb mountains" does not make it right.

Late breaking news! (Dr. Dobb's 2/96)

[AndroidCat]

I was just re-reading an old Dr. Dobbs (Feb '96)(which I left in the car, damnit!), and in the editorial the writer said he had been reassured by someone from Eolas that the patent was not to extract royalties from developers, but to insure that they conform to the standard.

Hurmph. No doubt Microsoft has walked all over that standard, but now I'll have to deep-search (boxes in the basement) my Dr. Dobb's to see what sort of "the check is in my mouth" promises Eolas made at the time. (Scatter-gun search the Dr. Dobb's before and after that date.) Was Microsoft tricked by what looked like an open standard? (Did free = time-bomb?)

Frankly, until now, I didn't give a RATFOR's ass about it: Microsoft gets burned for chump change, oh dear. But if Eolas was promising this as an open standard against the "Enhanced by Netscape" garbage of the day, it's time to take a closer look.

It's worse than that.

[AndroidCat]

From a Dr. Dobb's editorial (2/96), it was released as an open standard, the patent only to enforce conformance to the standard, not for royalties.

No doubt Microsoft "embraced and extended" the standard, but did Eolas plant an "open standard" time-bomb?

Re:Before you start bitching about slashdot users.

[nerdlyone]

but in areas that I am sufficiently ignorant about that I am forced to judge purely on the basis of the idea of patenting as originally envisioned before anyone actually had a chance to see what sort of a mess they produced, patents were a pretty good idea."

Our founding fathers did not invent patents. They had been around quite a while and their effects were well known when the US constitution wisely implemented provisions for patents and copyrights.

GNU Emacs = prior art for "plug-in" architecture ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The GNU Emacs mode system could be regarded as a "plug-in" system, where the file type is identified and causes the loading of a code library relevant to that file type. This code can determine the appearance of the file and the user's interaction with that file. It can even involve the running of external programs, with input and output of the external program being handled within the context of Emacs. And the files can be loaded over the network (i.e. by FTP). And I think all this stuff was in Emacs before 1994.

dont do the crime if you cant do the time.

[Anonymous Coward]

for ms it is not about a measly billion dollars or two.

it is about following their business model: crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their women.