Slashdot Mirror
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."
Unfortunately that much money's a drop in the bucket for microsoft
Don't almost all browsers use plug-ins? This could be bad for Mozilla as well.
The dream of a lifetime for you and me, pretty near statistically insignificant for Microsoft.
offcourse the amount will be reduced when MS files a petition.....
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
Patents on the simple idea of plug-ins and applets? This seems almost as ridiculous as the amazon patent on one click purchasing.
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
Microsoft supports patents, if they get bit in the ass by some patent laws why should anyone care? You reap what you sow :)
I can't think of a good sig...
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.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
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.
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
Kiss my shiny metal ass
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
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.
- They were embedded in the "hypermedia" document
- They could communicate with the browser
- They could communicate with the server (at least by using sockets and datagrams)
- 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.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.
I.O.U One Sig.
Umm... the patent was filed in 1994 before Mosaic or event Netscape had plugins?
Which of the Fed's patents did Microsoft violate, exactly? I was under the impression it was an anti-trust case.
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
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.
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.
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...
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?
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.
This is bad for anything that supports embedded applications. Flash. Java applets. Anything like that. That's what they got a patent on.
It might be an annoyance to MS, but successful enforcement of software patents is, overall, a loss to Free/OSS.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
"Isn't this just one more reason to use MozillaFirebird?"
If they violate the patent, then no.
"Derp de derp."
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 space intentionally left blank --------
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.
..., you can find so many other things to hate them for?"
like Dennis Miller said, "Why hate someone (for something irrelevant) when, if you take the time to get to know them
be upset and angry at Microsoft for the things they do, not for those things that are not fair.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
That being the case, and given the fact that they lost this lawsuit, there are a number of things that could happen:
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...
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
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.
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.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
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.
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.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
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.
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.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
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
2003-08-12 00:11:35 Jury Orders Microsoft to Pay $520 Million (articles,microsoft) (rejected)
Advice: on VPS providers
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.
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?
``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.
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.
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.
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.
Donate free food here
MS Loses Lawsuit
MS Appeals
Case drags on
MS Settles for $100M
Everyone forgets
.sigs are for post^Hers.
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.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
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.
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
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
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?"
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.
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:
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.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
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.
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.