Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Holds Off on Eolas Patent Changes
Walkiry writes "As reported by Reuters, Microsoft believes the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office might come to the rescue and cancel the patent that was going to force them into changing the behaviour of Internet Explorer. Maybe the Patent Office is finally getting a clue? Or is it Microsoft's long arm? Time will tell..."
This is an import win for common sense and the software industry as a whole.
Let's hope this can become a reference case for defeating further rediculous patents.
----
the cancellation of this patent would be a good thing. We can't have these tiny little extornist companies putting a stranglehold on technology and commerce.
Whatever Microsoft is guilty of, I don't recall it using patent violations as a tactic. They have created a lot of wealth for a lot of people. I can't say the same for the patent holders in this case.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Lets face it, you want to think of Microsoft as the bad buy in every lawsuit. Hell, 1/2 of the /.ers around here blame Microsoft for the SCO vs. IBM thing. This really isn't the case with alot of these patent laws. Old patent laws don't apply well to new technology that develops VERY quickly. True progress is going to require a legal system that understand the technology that it governs over.
If it works like the courts, the patent office might actually feel the need to work in a regular pattern and rule on things in the same way. If they keep working like this, maybe the bullshit will finaly cut down.
I'll believe any kind of bribery or influence long, long before I believe that the patent office has a friggin' clue!
Right now the internet standard have been set. It doesn't matter what new proposals come out of the W3C or how well other browsers will perfect their implementations, the internet will always be suspended at the greats common denominator (which is, in this case, the functionality of IE 6). No-one in their right mind is going to abandon support for the browser that 90% of potential customers use.
By levelling the playing field a bit more, this would mean that webmasters and designers would not be afraid to move on and leave IE behind. By doing so, Microsoft would be forced to keep up to maintain market share.
However, there is one big caveat - and that is the Eolas doesn't use their win against Microsoft to go after everyone else. This is a pretty big if and definely one that cannot be easily discounted.
If Eolas do decide to follow suit with other browser manufacturers then any "leg up" that has been gained will be lost, IE will still be dominant and the WWW standards will stop. However if Eolas doesn't go after anyone else then this is quite some benifit.
Unfortunately, banking on Eolas winning and not sueing anyone else is just too much of a risk. Which means that, in this case, the best course of action to is come to Microsofts defence, get it overturned and accept that for WWW standard to move on (which will necessitate the removal of IE from the top spot), it must happen in a different way.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
They could, if they wanted to. They're in a position to use the Eolas patent to say, "Hey, these software patents are stupid! Let's change the system!"
But will they? Of course not. The stupid patents are stupid to Microsoft only when they prevent Microsoft from writing code. It's true that they haven't been litigating violations of their own patents to date (at least I think that's true) but it does appear that that's all about to change as they resort to bare knuckles tactics with the OSS community; the ridiculous Office XML patent being a good case in point.
I wish I was wrong. But I'm not.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
Having worked with intellectual property matters in the technology arena (both patent and trademark), the staggering antiquity of our concepts in protecting the fruits of one's intellectual labors is, well, staggering.
:)
Patents are broken down into small "claims", and a patent can easily have hundreds of these, if not thousands. Even the most ridiculously simple idea gets divided into minute, easily digestible sections. One such section I remember was included to explain the concept of a ZIP code, and how the company filing the patent was NOT the arbiter or owner of that concept, but was using it as a reference within their work, and that this was not a determining factor in their technology (they could have easily used another large-scale locational identifier, such as area code). Hence, their patent could be defensible when someone claimed in court that it was based on technology they had no claaim to ownership of.
But worse, the point of the average patent is not to delineate what it is, but what it's not. If your patent includes as part of its concepts anything which you did not personally conceive of, and which you have not attributed to their original creators, That claim becomes indefensible. Toss out one claim, and the whole patent is invalid. It's a house of cards, and that's how patent attorneys litigate patent cases.
When push comes to shove, Amazon knew exactly what they were doing (certainly, their lawyers did) when they patented "one click", and they did it because a patent is precisely designed to allow the applicant to carve out as massive of a piece of intellectual pie as the patent office deems acceptable. Eolas is doing the same, in a different light, it would appear.
If you can state a case, without prior art being an issue, for patenting Earth, feel free. The rest of us will either have to move, or beat you up you and steal your planet.
In cases like this, where someone else comes up with a basic idea, manages to patent it, then extends their idea to encompass the known universe, perhaps the whole issue of reexamining the validity of the original patent should be considered. It would certainly cut back on the "I invented soil, it's mentioned in my patent" suits.
Rock is dead. Long live scissors and paper!
Let's be honest here. Throwing out these patents sets the precedent that big boys can bully the patent office into throwing out the patents of the small guys. You don't really beleive that it's going to apply to anyone who doesn't have billions of dollars in the bank, do you?
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
I would hope to think that Tim Berners-Lee was more significant than Microsoft in fighting this.
After all, if he said it was prior art, then it was prior art.
I hate things that make my life more difficult.
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
Frankly, unless we get some real patent reform out of this, this will just go to show that you are totally fucked unless you are a Big Player(R).
Perhaps I'm just cynical these days?
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I'm hoping this is just bad reporting, but if the patent office is granting dubious patents and letting the courts sort them out, perhaps somebody should tell the courts to actually do that.
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
That would undermine the social benefit of the patent process: making these processes available for the public to use. In the long run, patents benefit more people than trade secrets do.
> MS ever-so-graciously decided to publish their CIFS protocol and license it to anyone EXCEPT OSS
> projects. (Or as they called them "viral licenses".)
Not all OSS licenses are 'viral'.
> MS is not above using patents to club the competition into submission.
Everyone, including MS would eb served by a Samba with a BSD style license.
Yes, MS would pick it up and use parts of it most likely, but it would effectively put an end to the cat and mouse game of changing specs and having to reverse engineer them, resulting in a better working samba and better compatability with MS platforms.
I'm not against the GPL, but I can see very well that MS thinks it threatens its business model, and as a result wants to fight it. The example you give (samba) however is a bad one, and so is the assumption that the GPL is the only OSS license out there or that there are no 'non viral' licenses that are recognized as such and are OSS.
And why isn't this a good idea already? Wouldn't it be nice to know what is about to run on a new page you've entered for the first time before it runs?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."