Sun Files For Patent on Software Licensing Method

cft_128 writes "CNet writes that Sun Microsystems President Jonathan Schwartz has filed for three new patents, one of them on the companies per-employee software pricing plan. The pricing patent application was summarized: 'Method for licensing software to an entity, including determining a per-employee cost for the software, determining a number of employees of the entity, and determining a total licensing cost using the number of employees and the per-employee cost, wherein the total licensing cost comprises a software license for all employees of the entity and all customers of the entity.' The plan was introduced last year on Sun's Java Enterprise System, charging $100 per employee. Schwartz did say that any money the patents generate will be donated to charities."

Comments

But Sun is cool

[Hot Summer Nights]

Sun is allowed to do this.

Re:But Sun is cool

[msobkow]

No, a licensing model cannot be patented. Anyone who thinks it should be patentable is smoking crack.

Even phone company pricing packages are often very, very similar with only the promotional name and actual values used for the billing calculations changing.

Re:But Sun is cool

[AvitarX]

Yeah, can't pantent a pricing model.

They were supposed to call it a business method.
Geez, I should join their legel team.

And I thought it was obscene...

[SynapseLapse]

When Microsoft patented the double click. I really hope this isn't used to destroy single employee software companies.

Re:And I thought it was obscene...

[Anonymous Coward]

Firstly, I do not wish to offend anyone with this post but I have had enough of the amount of mis-information floating around the net about patents.

Most of you guys seem to be peddling the tired old mantra of 'all patents are bad! grab your pitchforks and burn all patent attornies at the stake!'. How much do any of you guys really know anything about the patent system and how it works? By reading these posts, it seems that very few of you seem to have real life experience with patents at all. Instead all most of you seem to know is the hysteria that the mass media, Slashdot included, feed to you about how patents will be the end of the world.

I agree that the patent system is old and outdated. I agree that software patents are entirely inappropriate due to the frequency of independent reinvention (which should raise the bar for obviousness and novelty to a very very very high level). In fact, I believe software patents are the wrong way to go as they only stifle creativity and invention in the industry. They should be abolished just like patenting a literary construct, a musical cadence, or a work of art is not allowed.

I do not, however, believe that obviously trivial patents such as the Microsoft double click patent and the Sun per-employee patent are relevant to anyone. These patents are obviously invalid due to mountains of prior art. Should Sun or Microsoft attempt to sue someone for patent infringement, the defendent can literally take a laptop to court loaded with any program that exhibits double clicking or per-employee billing that was dated before the patents filing date. With double clicking and per-employee billing, there are hundred of examples of such programs. And then, the case will be thrown out of the court. The patent will be nullified and cancelled. It is that simple. And the only negative effect to all of this is that Sun and Microsoft have wasted money getting such a useless patent filed.

To preempt the obvious replies :

- NO, Microsoft and Sun cannot magically 'bog you down with their legal team forever until you pay up'! With such an obviously invalid patent, the case is so ridiculously clean cut it will never ever stand up in court, even if they had a thousand lawyers trying to figure out a loophole.

- "Why have such patents been granted at all? This is a collosial failing of the patent office! Burn it down!" - I agree, except for the arson part. But the point is, IT DOESN'T MATTER! Patents, like laws, are not set in stone. The validity of patents is, and always has been, decided in the courts. If the patent office has stuffed up, it will be straightened out the moment someone tries to enforce their patent. And as mentioned above many times, trivially incorrect patents will be deemed void by the courts. No refund given to the companies that have spent money filing the obviously incorrect patent.
I mean, the patent office is not perfect as the people inside are not perfect. Can YOU say that you have never made a single mistake at work before?

Again my purpose is not to offend but merely to attempt to clarify what I think is a tendency to focus on the wrong issues with patenting, and to clear up some of the mis-information about patents. The hysteria the mass media like to whip up about trivial patents is entirely the wrong focus. It is not because of these patents that software patents should be abolished. It is geninue software patents that actually have substance and novelty that really damage the industry. It is these patents that are harmful, because with such patents there actually IS room for argument in court, and the litigation fees could destroy a small company. It is these 'good' patents that will destroy software, and the reason software patents should be abolished. THE TRIVIAL PATENTS ARE IRRELEVANT AND ARE NOT THE REAL ISSUE HERE!

Let the flames begin...

Re:And I thought it was obscene...

[tsm_sf]

- NO, Microsoft and Sun cannot magically 'bog you down with their legal team forever until you pay up'! With such an obviously invalid patent, the case is so ridiculously clean cut it will never ever stand up in court, even if they had a thousand lawyers trying to figure out a loophole.

I think any prudent business owner would be wise to get a lawyer if MS or Sun or anyone came after them. This would cost money that a small business might not be able to afford. The implied threat of these lawsuits would be enough to keep a small developer far away from the broad area staked out in the patent.

Re:And I thought it was obscene...

[John Miles]

THE TRIVIAL PATENTS ARE IRRELEVANT AND ARE NOT THE REAL ISSUE HERE!

OK, we have one AC's opinion. Now, let's find someone from Barnes & Noble and ask them if they agree.

Re:And I thought it was obscene...

[imkonen]

No, I don't think you really preemted the obvious replies. In short:

If stupid patents can just be thrown out the instant someone challenges them, why is it the fights we hear about always seem to drag on. I agree it should be reasonably cheap for another big company to fight such a ridiculous patent, but that's not enough. It shouldn't be cheap. It should free, and it should cost the defendant no time at all. Otherwise it still disproportionately favors big business over small.

If trivially stupid patents don't matter, why are the big guys in such an arms race to collect them? From the article:

"I think that IBM in particular, and Microsoft increasingly, have incredible patent arsenals. Sun needs some protections, too," Governor said.

This sure doesn't sound like Sun isn't worried about M$'s patent on double-click...it'll get tossed as soon as M$ tries to enforce it. This sounds like Sun is trying to say...okay M$ if you try to charge us for double-clicking, you don't get to sell per-employee site licenses anymore.

And finally...sure the patent office is allowed a few mistakes. But your attitude seems to be don't worry if the patent office is too liberal, that's what the courts are for. No the courts are not there to do the patent office's job for it, and it's fairly clear that a judge's time is more valuable than a patent clerk's.

Re:And I thought it was obscene...

[Dashing Leech]

While I agree with some of what you are saying, particularly that the "all patents are bad" mantra is an over-reaction, but I think your main point is quite naive. You say:

With such an obviously invalid patent, the case is so ridiculously clean cut it will never ever stand up in court

and

I mean, the patent office is not perfect as the people inside are not perfect.

You seem to recognize that the ideology of a perfect patent system isn't realistic, but you claim this isn't a problem because of your ideological belief in the court system. There are several flaws with your claims.

First, civil courts rarely just "throw things out". Usually they'll hear the whole case before deciding on whether or not it has merit. In civil cases this often takes years and costs millions.

Second, even when courts throw things out it is usually after Discovery in which the parties exchange all of their evidence. Discovery is expensive and can take years as well. Just witness SCO vs IBM. SCO doesn't a lick of evidence against IBM for the claims they are making and yet they are still at it.

Third, courts generally only throw things out when they see them as frivalous, completely without merit. In a patent case, the plaintiff here (e.g., Sun or Microsoft) would have a valid patent (in the eyes of the law) and the defendant would have clearly violated that patent. Such a case would not be frivalous. The defense would challenge the validity of the patent which would probably require expert testimony, which would generally be entered into cout during the case, well after Discovery. (Expert analysis also comes at a cost.)

Fourth, even if the case would be thrown out, and I doubt it given the points above, if the defending company is small they will often cave to legal pressure of the larger plaintiff company simply because of the financial risk. For example, you should read Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig where he provides explicit examples of the de facto removal of fair use rights because the "little guy" can't risk a copyright lawsuit when a large corporation threatens him. The same is true for patent lawsuits.

Fifth, if the offending (defending?) company is a corporation controlled by investors, it will often be forced to cave because the lawsuit and risk will often drop the share values, especially when investors see that the company is violating a legally valid patent.

In short, it is quite naive to think that an obviously invalid, yet granted, patent is nothing to worry about. It does have a chilling effect on innovation and implementation of the process.

I also disagree on several other points, such as that "software patents" should be abolished. (I know, heresy on Slashdot.) There really is not such thing as "software patents", they are patents on methods (algorithms) that can be implemented in software. Yes, there's an explosion of such patents that are invalid and harmful, but the same is true of patents in general. For example, someone patented "playing with a cat using a laser pointer and the combover. But that doesn't mean there are ingenious or innovative algorithms that wouldn't exist without the protection of patents. The double-click patent fails the obviousness test (and in the case of Microsoft, the prior art test). But what about some ingenious facial recognition algorithm, for example. There can easily be as much innovation and ingenuity in that as any mechani

Re:And I thought it was obscene...

[lightknight]

Wrong.

"It shouldn't be cheap. It should free, and it should cost the defendant no time at all. Otherwise it still disproportionately favors big business over small."

And what if the positions are reversed? What if a small company wants to spank a large company? If you want to drag MS into this, they rip off everyone. Try to take them to court, and now they get a free defense? WTF? Bill Gates thanks you.

"But your attitude seems to be don't worry if the patent office is too liberal, that's what the courts are for. No the courts are not there to do the patent office's job for it, and it's fairly clear that a judge's time is more valuable than a patent clerk's."

Hindsight is 20/20. No one can predict how a company/inventor may enforce their patent(s), nor can the USPTO track down every single piece of prior art out there. Their job is simply to do the best they can, given the circumstances (sleeping, eating, having a life). And, like the law of averages (where 50% of all people have below average intelligence), so too will the patent office always come under fire, no matter how tight their standards are.

Re:And I thought it was obscene...

[imkonen]

Wrong.

"It shouldn't be cheap. It should free, and it should cost the defendant no time at all. Otherwise it still disproportionately favors big business over small."

And what if the positions are reversed? What if a small company wants to spank a large company? If you want to drag MS into this, they rip off everyone. Try to take them to court, and now they get a free defense? WTF? Bill Gates thanks you.

I didn't say defenses should be free for all patent infringement cases, unless as the original poster suggested, we want to take a "whatever let the courts sort it out" attitude towards granting BS patents. I think the AC is underestimating the cost of defending yourself against any bogus lawsuit that probably should be thrown out in the first place. And before this devolves into an issue of whether the courts are inherently fair or not, I'm perfectly happy to concede that it may be impossible to come up with a legal system that prevents bogus lawsuits from ever being more than a nuicance while giving all legitimate complaints their fair hearing. But that doesn't mean we should make it worse by adding ammo for bogus lawsuits.

No one can predict how a company/inventor may enforce their patent(s)...

How or whether they plan to enforce it is irrelevant as to whether they deserve the patent. If the patent is obviously unenforceable than it obviousely shouldn't have been granted in the first place. The mere threat that they might try to enforce it is bad enough enough, even if you THINK you know you can beat it in court. And the whole "Sun's not evil. We just need this patent to defend ourselves from Microsoft's bogus patents" defense doesn't hold water for me. If that's really the situation then it means the system is badly broken.

...nor can the USPTO track down every single piece of prior art out there. Their job is simply to do the best they can, given the circumstances (sleeping, eating, having a life). And, like the law of averages (where 50% of all people have below average intelligence), so too will the patent office always come under fire, no matter how tight their standards are.

Well okay the picture is not as black and white as either the AC or I made it out to be. The AC's main point was "why worry, let the courts settle it." I say screw that, let the patent office do its job. If they mess up once in a while fine..the courts are the back-up system. And I'm sure what we're seeing here on /. are the worst examples out of thousands of patents granted. But I don't hear politicians talking about this. I don't read about this in mainstream media. If this is a problem that only tech sites are talking about then it's a good thing they seem to be beating the subject into the ground.

Re:And I thought it was obscene...

[chanio]

I don't blame you for wanting to have a lot of money. We, fools , also like that.

I don't blame M$ for stealing Xerox's invention and patenting it.<p>
I know that the powerful are never mad. They finally have the right truth. Specially when they have a patent about such silly things to make them win any difficult case.<p>
Patents are about the silence of the common people. Intelligent masses should never speak or propose anything that they have never thought of. This is a contradiction in the Internet era, don't you think?

Re:And I thought it was obscene...

[tricorn]

How much do you know about how the patent system works? Have you actually participated in any way in an actual patent challenge or lawsuit? I've helped provide prior-art evidence in two cases, and it doesn't matter how trivial or stupid the patent is, it can be a real problem trying to get judges or juries to understand why something should never have been patented in the first place. Sun just lost a patent case, which may cost it a billion dollars, and that patent is also one that shouldn't have been granted, or at least not applied to Java.

One patent, 4,449,182, filed for in 1981, issued in 1984, was used by DEC to lock anyone out of providing compatible peripherals to their systems (since the operating system used the patented "invention" to talk to all peripherals). Although we were able to provide matching prior art from 1979 to the company being sued, which caused DEC to drop the case (thus preserving their "we've never lost a patent case" claim), as far as I know the patent continued in effect until it expired normally. It still cost that company a lot of money, and probably kept other companies out of that market.

The other one was 4,624,462, which involved a bingo game (there are an amazing number of patents on bingo games). Although the original invention on the face of it isn't too bad, this patent was being interpreted as a software patent: the infringing device they were suing over was completely implemented in software, on normal PCs, using normal networked connections. This patent drove a company into bankruptcy, before finally being overturned. Clear prior art was ruled by a judge to not read on the patent because the prior art was implemented on a timesharing system (even though the program was implemented as multiple independent processes running on that timesharing system, communicating among each other using shared memory), and the patent was referring to multiple computers communicating in essentially the exact same way, only over a communications network.

Re:And I thought it was obscene...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yo, people.

The announcement says Sun "filed for" patents -
not that the patents have issued.

The majority of discussion here seems to be assuming that the patent(s) have already issued.

Not true, if the announcement is correct. You can FILE a patent on anything, valid or not. Then it's up to the PTO to do its job, which it appears it hasn't had the opportunity here yet.

cheers.

Re:And I thought it was obscene...

[juergen]

(where 50% of all people have below average intelligence)

Not wanting to be anal, but 50% of people have an IQ below the median IQ, not the average one.

AFAIK there are more than 50% below average since a few very high scores skew the distribution.

Patenting...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm curious, when are they going to patent the rogue patenting method?

Re:Patenting...

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean; A method of subverting the USTPO whereby the patent system designed to spur innovation is co-opted by a handful of established corporations to prevent competition from innovative upstarts and retain their profitablity now they feel threatened?

Re:Patenting...

[EvilGrin666]

1. Patent the GPL
2. ????
3. Profit

Re:Patenting...

[SnowZero]

I think there's prior art for that :)

Re:Patenting...

[orkysoft]

Well, at least it's unlikely that Linux will be affected by this patent ;-]

Re:Patenting...

[brianosaurus]

Yeah, except maybe for RedHat, Novell, or any other commercial entity that sells an "enterprise" edition...

Isn't this kind of like basic accounting? I haven't bothered to read the article (IHBTRTFA?) but this is absolutely insane.

"determining a number of employees of the entity, and determining a total licensing cost using the number of employees and the per-employee cost"

Uh... You mean Counting and Multiplication? I'm pretty sure I learned prior art in the first grade. Surely someone at the USPTO has completed elementary school, or at least seen Sesame Street?

Re:Patenting...

[Christopheles]

At first when I read the title I thought they had patented the process of patenting software.

Re:Patenting...

[dead sun]

I'm curious, when are they going to patent the rogue patenting method?

Come now, there's way too much prior art for that to be patentable.

Re:Patenting...

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't bothered to read the article (IHBTRTFA?) but this is absolutely insane.

HAJTWYWRTUSSATMYFS?

How about just typing what you want rather than also using some stupid acronym to make yourself feel special?

Bleh

[mfh]

Yeah who would have thought Sun would change their behaviour after that famous settlement? I mean this patent reads like, "we are going to calculate how to make lots of money and double it by preventing others from doing the same".

Schwartz did say that any money the patents generate will be donated to charities.

Yeah, sure. What percentage? There is absolutely no way to qualify that shit, so I don't buy it. Business plays the charity card when they know the public image will take a hit from a particular action. The Cnet title reads "Sun's Schwartz guns for patent glories", not Sun donates 100% of patent earnings to Cancer cure or anything like that.

Re:Bleh

[stephanruby]

The percentage doesn't matter. A charity can be anything these days -- A lobbying group, an antitrust legal action association, a scholarship fund for employees, a coushy job for a wife, etc.

Re:Bleh

[kawika]

If Sun really wanted to give something back, they would donate the patent directly to the public domain.

No matter where the money goes, the fact is that Sun can still use this patent like a club to beat people into submission when and if they please.

Re:Bleh

[brianosaurus]

Sun couldn't use this patent to beat off. The charity thing is a PR stunt.

Computing a total by multiplication and addition is not new, unobvious, or novel, and should not be granted a patent in the first place. Even if granted, I can't imagine anyone* who would legitimately pay to license it from Sun.

What's next? A patent on quantity discount?

* A notable exception would be Microsoft, who has repeatedly demonstrated that they will buy a license for any frivolous bullshit patent, just to keep the broken system alive. As they aren't actually licensing it for the technology, I don't consider that legitimate.

Re:Bleh

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so glad I was laid off by that asshat of a company. You think it's bad looking at it from the outside? You don't know the half of Sun's bullshit that you see from the inside.

Re:Bleh

[vsprintf]

Yeah, sure. What percentage? There is absolutely no way to qualify that shit, so I don't buy it. Business plays the charity card when they know the public image will take a hit from a particular action.

The charity is the Abused CEO's Relief Fund.

Re:Bleh

[ConceptJunkie]

So are you willing to fork over the millions it will cost to get the patent invalidated in court (if such a thing is even possible?)

I know I'm not.

I guess the only way to fix the system is pre-emptively patent everything you can and use it to hold the U.S. economy hostage until Congress gets off its ass and actually does something about it.

I'd love to hear one of our presidential candidates address this issue. BUt seeing as how Bush (whom I support by the way) gave MS a pass on the antitrust trial, I wouldn't expect much. Kerry can't take a stand until he finds out what Bush's is so he can take the opposite stand, so there's no help there.

huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

you have got to be shitting me

Re:huh?

[tomhudson]

Nope. But one of the other patents is obviously bogus, because Sun took their "Looking Glass" hype too seriously:

The other application is for displaying 2D information on 3D windows. If a window is displaying particular information, related information can be shown on a second surface of that window; Sun demonstrates the idea by showing a window being flipped over so notes can be written on it.

The display is still (unless they recently got holographics displays) a 2-d device, not a 3-d device. So, even though you might think yuo're "flipping over" a 3-d window, you're not. It's a 2-d representation of a 3-d object.

Their "demo" still deals with 2-d objects rendered to give ther appearance of a 3rd dimension. So they are not "rendering 2d information on a 3d window", any more than Doom is 3d.

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody knows that Doom is 2.5D.

Sigh :~

[Greger47]

I dont know what saddens me most, that they have the balls to submit an application for something so old and obvious like per employee pricing, or the fact that it actually has a pretty good chanse of beeing granted...

/greger

Re:Sigh :~

[Tony-A]

"wherein the total licensing cost comprises a software license for all employees of the entity and all customers of the entity." Emphasis added.

Maybe not so obvious.

Per employee pricing for all employees is obvious.
Dunno what they're up to with extending it to all customers, somehow I expect it will turn out to be a very wise move.

Re:Sigh :~

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe possibly remote tech-support software. A firm hires 10 people to do remote/contract tech support, buys ten of Sun's remote/contract tech support software (possibly in development, maybe already here, I dunno,) for those ten employees, and installs the client-side software on the customers' machines (at no additional cost).

Probably wrong, but it's one idea.

Re:Sigh :~

[Halo1]

Maybe not so obvious

Who cares about obviousness here? The problem here is not in the first place novelty or obviousness, but subject matter. Why on earth should one be allowed to patent a licensing method? What's in that for the economy as a whole? Are companies not going to create new licensing methods if they can't "protect their investments" in "inventing" new licensing methods?

How far are we still away from patents on investment methods, savings formulas of banks, etc? Patents were never intended for things like this. Not everything you do has to be monopolisable. A monopoly per definition has negative effects, so it's only justifiable to voluntarily give one if the positive effects of what you ask in exchange outweigh it.

There is not even a hint of proof they do so in case of patents like this one.

Re:Sigh :~

[rpozz]

You can't really blame Sun for applying for this patent, considering that every other corporation patents whatever they possibly can too. It's an overall problem with the patent system.

Re:Sigh :~

[Anonymous Coward]

Are companies not going to create new licensing methods if they can't "protect their investments" in "inventing" new licensing methods?

And even if they didn't, why would we care?

Re:Sigh :~

[mikael]

We do have to wonder how long before someone patents a patenting method.

Re:Sigh :~

[Halo1]

I don't think that will happen any time soon, because the lawyers won't shoot themselves in their feet. Generally they argue for patents on everything and anything, but you don't hear them arguing for patents on legal strategies, argumentation tactics or juri observation methods. In fact, they publish a lot about court cases, analysing them to the bone and sharing their experiences with colleagues.

For some reason, they understand that in their own profession they have nothing to gain from monopolising general methods, but they generally seem to assume it's necessary everywhere else.

Re:Sigh :~

[Tim C]

For some reason, they understand that in their own profession they have nothing to gain from monopolising general methods, but they generally seem to assume it's necessary everywhere else.

The lawyers argue for what they're told to argue for. Someone high enough up in a company says "argue for X", they do it - that's their job. So, the CEO says "defend our patent on $obviousThing", they do it. That doesn't mean that they agree with it, or think that patenting everything in sight is a good idea (other than that that's what everyone else is doing, so it's a good defence). Or do you really think that it's the lawyers telling the commpanies what to patent?

Re:Sigh :~

[mavenguy]

The State Street decision.

I know you are arguing against the merits of this, but this is the legal basis permitting such methods to be potential subject matter eligible for patent protection in the US under 35 USC 101.

Re:Sigh :~

[Halo1]

Or do you really think that it's the lawyers telling the commpanies what to patent?

I definitely do think that in a lot of cases, lawyers simply try to make their department as important as possible to the company. Getting a lot of (software) patents and consequent licensing revenue and negotiation power is one way to do this. For example in Europe, a lot of corporate lobbying for software patents is coordinated by Tim Frain, the head of Nokia's patent department. Another active player is Fritz Teufel, patent department head of IBM in Germany and Europe.

Then again, there are also some heads of IPR departments who readily concede their patenting bonanza has nothing to do with investment protection or innovation, such as Robert Barr of Cisco during the FTC 2002 hearings.

Re:Sigh :~

[Halo1]

Most of what people call "obvious" patents are also allowed under (US and other) patent law. As a law scholar once told me (in a discussion on the European directive on software patnets):

"The law clearly says that inventions must be "non-obvious to a person skilled in the art". If you take those words literally, than that is a VERY LOW threshold: this "person skilled in the art" doesn't mean anything, of course you don't go from a layman's point of view, and obvious does mean obvious! I have even once heard the reasoning: if an invention is new (another requirement for patentability), then CONSEQUENTLY it is "not obvious", otherwise it would have been invented already! The law is only a split hair away from literally stating that trivial patents are allowed. Another illustration of the fact that the directive does not change anything to a recognised weak point of the patent system."

Given that this obviousness stuff is literally written into the law and, more importantly, is basically a foundation of the patent system, I think it's more useful to show people the extension of patentable subject matter is much more important. It's also much more harmful.

You can complain all you want about obviousness, but do we really want patents on non-obvious business methods? What's in it for the economy as a whole?

Re:Sigh :~

[Wolfbone]

Yes and unfortunately the European patent establishment is trying to drag us all down into the swamp:

"International efforts have been largely successful in creating a level playing field between the U.S. and Europe. While some differences in the application process and the granted rights remain, patentability is nearly uniform. Even modern technologies such as software are subject to widely unified treatment. Only when it comes to the very cutting-edge of the latest, controversial decisions can differences be discovered; most notable is the holding in State Street as opposed to that in Pension Benefits. However, the trend of limiting State Street's broad holding has started in the U.S., while Europe can be expected to move towards State Street at the same time -- probably leading to little practical difference soon".

[From Michael Guntesdorfer's "Software Patent Law: United States and Europe Compared"]

Re:Sigh :~

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but this isn't even a software patent.

It's a bloody business process! How do you patent a business process? I thought those were quite explicitely exempt for very good reasons. If you think software patents have a chilling effect on business, just imagine if you could get away with patenting how you do business. Forget not being able to innovate. We're talking about not being able to operate.

Re:Sigh :~

[einhverfr]

Who cares about obviousness here? The problem here is not in the first place novelty or obviousness, but subject matter. Why on earth should one be allowed to patent a licensing method? What's in that for the economy as a whole? Are companies not going to create new licensing methods if they can't "protect their investments" in "inventing" new licensing methods?

You have a point here. Such a patent essentially is a patent about how two companies can interact.

What will we see next? 10 patented ways to break up with your girlfriend (use these and we'll sue)?
10 patented ways to make your professor respect your work? 10 patented ways to make friends and influence people?

Re:Sigh :~

[rainman_bc]

Sad part is, a challenge to this patent stands a good chance of winning - there must be prior art out there, but who wants to go to the expense of such a stupid exercies in the first place. Good job US Patent Office for granting this one.

Re:Sigh :~

[brianosaurus]

they're only filed, so far. hopefully they won't be granted, and Jon will look like an ass for making an empty pledge to charitiy.

Re:Sigh :~

[brianosaurus]

Hey! Maybe that's the 3rd patent, to be disclosed in a future filing.

(I know, bad form self-replying, but...)

"A method for filing frivolous patent applications such that the USPTO will feel guilty if they do not grant them."

By associating the patent with raising money for charity, if the USPTO denies the patent, its like they're stealing money "from the children." Fucking brilliant!

Re:Sigh :~

[brianosaurus]

No, you really can blame Sun for it. It is a problem with the Patent system, but that doesn't mean its right for Sun (or for everyone else) to exploit it.

There's problems in MS Windows (and Linux, and MacOSX), but does that mean the l33t h@x0rz who write destructive exploits are not to be blamed for their actions?

Re:Sigh :~

[Total_Wimp]

Although you make very strong points on this, and I agree that it's a bad practice, I have to ask whether or not it matters in this particular case.

Bare with me here. These guys have pattended a licensing method that does not conflict in any way with the licensing methodes used to promote free exchanges of information. The only people this affects is other proprietary information horders.

It's kind of like if Microsoft's gaming division sued their office products division for a bullshit patent. It's bad, but who cares?

TW

Re:Sigh :~

[Halo1]

Bare with me here. These guys have pattended a licensing method that does not conflict in any way with the licensing methodes used to promote free exchanges of information. The only people this affects is other proprietary information horders.

Speaking for FFII (I'm board member of FFII), we have absolutely nothing against proprietary information producers or holders. In fact, we believe that some form of exclusion rights are beneficial to stimulate the production of more information and information processing means. We do think patents are completely unfit for this purpose however, and that copyright or possibly a third paradigm between patents and copyright is more suited. I personally subscribe to this view as well.

Anyway, I think this kind of waste of money is never good. First you have Sun spending money on trying to get thispatent, and if they get it, someone else may try to destroy it again. This is all money that is simply wasted. It does not help the economy to go around, except for the lawyer-economy. It's money that's diverted from tech to some non-producing entities, which is not good.

I think we're better off if Sun invests more money in cool projects like DTrace than in silly patent applications like this, regardless of whether you like Sun or not. The former may at least result in usable functionality for their customers (and may even be open sourced so it becomes available to many more people). The latter only results in money for the USPTO and lawyers.

Re:Sigh :~

[Tony-A]

The only people this affects is other proprietary information horders.

The thing that struck me is that the patent really applies only to proprietary competition to GPL'd software.

I'm firmly convinced that the future of IT lies in essentially the supply chain, where that chain has more than two links, and where it is neither possible nor desirable to have all the links under your control.
This leads to an unholy alliance between suits and hackers neither of whom want to have anything to do with the other and who totally reject the basic assumptions and priorities of the other. Oddly enough, methinks the suits need the hackers more than the hackers need the suits.

Bugs is bad. Totally different means of coping, but this is the common ground. Also what matters to suits is of extreme indifference to hackers and vice-versa. So overall it's worth a pittance to do something that helps out the other side enormously.

GPL'd "Product".
Customer: What's this src thingee? What do I do with it?
Vendor: That's the source. Your're paying us so that you don't have to mess with it.
Customer: Can I install this on my home computer? Friends? Neighbors?
Vendor: Completely legal. However, those are your support headaches, not mine.
Hacker: I think I've found a bug in old-version, still in latest version. Steps to duplicate and possibly even a potential fix.
Vendor: Thankee. Fixing foo breaks bar, but maybe this fixes both.

Re:Sigh :~

[f00zy]

So, are you telling me I shouldn't pursue my patent on the following scheme? pricing = (price^2) * numUsers?

Re:Sigh :~

[f00zy]

of course there was supposed to be a square root in there...

Another retarded patent

[betelgeuse68]

I don't care if it is coming from Sun.

Re:Another retarded patent

[nkh]

It's not retarded at all. It's a huge step for all the new patents to come. We're approaching the patent on patents at great speed! It's coming!!!

This is getting more ridiculous by the minute

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anybody else have the feeling that just when you read a story about a patent claim that is so absurd that you can hardly believe anyone would come up with it, let alone grant the patent and you think that it simply can't get any worse one of our beloved IT companies comes up with a patent claim that is even more ridiculous?

How on earth the EU can contemplate bringing this braindead patent system to Europe is beyond me.

Re:This is getting more ridiculous by the minute

[Anonymous Coward]

There's obviously good money to be made.

Re:This is getting more ridiculous by the minute

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine for a second that SUN could be making a point by submitting the patent - It could generate curiosity and interest of lawmakers bending them towards scrapping / completely remodeling the flawed system.

Send the patent claim to your rep and voice your dissent - Argue with facts - argue politely and things just might change

Re:This is getting more ridiculous by the minute

[leonmergen]

How on earth the EU can contemplate bringing this braindead patent system to Europe is beyond me.

Simple: they don't know this stuff. The ones who decide about this, get their advice from software companies. Software companies threaten to leave Europe if they don't accept software patents. They get their information from the wrong sources...

Seperation between church and government has been there a long time ago (at least, over here in Europe), when will the seperation between businesses and government happen ?

Re:This is getting more ridiculous by the minute

[gcaseye6677]

For that matter, patent the concept of voicing dissent. Sue the infringers every time there is a protest. It won't take long for the patent system to be reformed once somebody finds a way to completely quash free speech using patents.

Re:This is getting more ridiculous by the minute

[sweede]

seperation of biz and government is called Free market or laissez faire market system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

what would happen then is some powerful companies (Microsoft) would totally demolish small companies (*) because there would be no regulation.

Re:This is getting more ridiculous by the minute

[Elektroschock]

It is a question of lobbying power. Speeches,
demonstrations, lobbying in Brussels. The real problem is the lack of support. There will be so much too lose with a software patent system. But it is difficult to get enough money for lobbying activities. Organisations such as FFII act with almost no budget and organise so many events.
Anti-softwarepatent Demonstration with RMS in Amsterdam. what is even more important is professional expertise and action at an early stage of development, see "upcoming EU Consultations".

Re:This is getting more ridiculous by the minute

[AnotherBlackHat]

How on earth the EU can contemplate bringing this braindead patent system to Europe is beyond me.

The US patent office is extremely successful at generating revenue for the US patent office.
So much so, that the US government now steals about 85% of it.

So you see it's very simple - the legislators in favor of it are corrupt.


-- Should you believe authority without question?

Re:This is getting more ridiculous by the minute

[lightknight]

Then let MS do it. Playing by free market principles is better than some state-induced regulation. Why? How can I be this cold? Easy. When the government exerts control over a market (in this case, against MS, in the name of 'competition'), it is only a matter of time before that government becomes infected (MS lobbyists, etc.), and now we have a much worse problem on our hands.

What next !

[Dolphinzilla]

Heck - what next, someone getting a patent on the combover ? Patenting of the combover

Re:What next !

[gcaseye6677]

At least it's now expired, so Gene Keady doesn't have to worry about getting sued!

Re:What next !

[ebyrob]

Actually, the one nice thing about patents is you can make one instance for your own personal use... (Though perhaps that only works for one morning)

Patent "sharing" with M$????

[mabhatter654]

unfortunately, don't they have a shiny new cross license agreement with MS? so this is entirely useless against the ONE company that's trying to ram per cpu/per user/per conection/per application/per "window" program fees up our collective arses!!!

In other words they're patenting it FOR MS to use, not to prevent MS from using it!!!!

Re:Patent "sharing" with M$????

[AchilleTalon]

And the money will go in the Gates Fundation charity fund...

Re:Patent "sharing" with M$????

[Anonymous Coward]

"The more you ram fees up our collective arses, MS, the more computer systems will slip through your fingers."

Re:Patent "sharing" with M$????

[Anonymous Coward]

... apart from oracle. Microsoft isn't the only evil bastard in town.

At this stage there is only one solution to the patent mess: we, the free people of the net, collectively agree not to ignore patents and to shoot fuckers who enforce them

Re:Patent "sharing" with M$????

[xenocide2]

More importantly to Sun, that company is the ONE that has the resources to destroy their patents in court. With MS out of the way, they can move forward with other companies trying the per employee tactic. Unless you're gunning for IBM, nobody's in a condition to stand up.

The end result is probably going to be less about charity donations and more about less pre user liscences.

Re:Patent "sharing" with M$????

[brianosaurus]

Even more importantly, that agreement gives them an automatic, built-in licensee for all their bullshit, giving the patent merit if it happens to be granted.

MS will probably license this one to sell Sun a per-seat site license for "a method for wiping your ass with the Constitution."

Better than "CPU" licencing

[acomj]

A large data base company gave use prices based on Mhz of CPUs on the machine running the database (with a multiplier for Risc Cpus.) I thought that was inovative!

But seriously, if you install more copies you pay more. This is called selling and shouldn't be patented.

Re:Better than "CPU" licencing

[maxwell demon]

Don't forget the other possibilities:

• additional $10 per KByte CPU cache (sum over all levels)
• additional $1 per MByte RAM
• additional $5 per GByte HD space (doubled if on RAID)
• additional $1 per Mbps LAN transfer rate (sum over all installed network cards)
• and, of course, limited number of updates (you can buy additional update licenses, of course, for $100/update)

I think i should patent those :-)

Re:Better than "CPU" licencing

[Anonymous Coward]

why not patent a business method whereby you patent the patenting of licensing models with a view to extracting revenue? Or even patent the above business method and even the business method of patenting the above business method, or...

Brain panic: infinate loop

Re:Better than "CPU" licencing

[Anonymous Coward]

This is called selling and shouldn't be patented.

Hey yeah, what a brilliant idea. I can see it now:

"A method whereby currency is exchanged for the provision of goods and services"...

(And don't try to tell me that's too obvious, or I'll double-click you!)

Charities?!?

[ultrabot]

Schwartz did say that any money the patents generate will be donated to charities.

Of course the money coming from licensing the patents doesn't matter - it's the chilling/killing effect it has on competitions that makes it sweet.

MSFT could as well give all the patent revenue money to charities - hell, they could burn the money. The money from patents is peanuts, as long as it keeps the other guy down.

Re:Charities?!?

[Neophytus]

It's them trying to jump on the corporate responsibility bandwagon. Like tobacco firms sponsoring the creation of a new park: Totally unrelated but "kind" acts that can be seen right through.

In Related News

[markxz]

The catering firm for the local hospital gets paid per per patient

Re:In Related News

[Anonymous Coward]

The catering firm for the local hospital gets paid per per patient

Any survivours?

Amen

[dolo666]

In other words they're patenting it FOR MS to use, not to prevent MS from using it!!!! Amen, brother.

Obviousness

[bfree]

Has the test of obviousness just been forgotten? I don't know which is worse either, the per user licensing or using "extra" faces on 3d representations of 2d objects to provide additional interfaces.

Seeing as though Sun are saying they will donate any proceeds to charity makes me wonder if this is in fact a deliberate attempt to attack existing patent database and in particular the US PTO's ability to grant patents. Could they really seriously think these can fly?

Prior art anyone? I know I've seen software sold on the basis of the number of people, and surely some of the previous 3d desktop efforts have done something like the notetaking example given for the 3d patent I mentioned above?

Re:Obviousness

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM's AS/400 has been doing this for a number of years. It even sends messages to the operator's queue telling them when a product's licence usage is about to be reached. And no, it doesn't stop you exceeding the limit, but the ops will get a lot of messages when the limit has been exceeded.

Re:Obviousness

[Teun]

Seeing as though Sun are saying they will donate any proceeds to charity makes me wonder if this is in fact a deliberate attempt to attack existing patent database and in particular the US PTO's ability to grant patents.

My thought too.

I've no 'prior art' knowledge of SUN being an amusing company but this might be a shot at it.

Re:Obviousness

[mefus]

Has the test of obviousness just been forgotten?

No, not forgotten, it's lying there in the commons, in that churned up piece of ground over there, where the hob-nail shod clydesdales in Armani Livery have ridden it into the ground.

There is no longer a test for obviousness as an expert in the given field would understand it.

Re:Obviousness

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok. here's a prior art.

Debian licenses for $0 per employee. Has been doing so since day dot.

Re:Obviousness

[autiger]

Long-time prior: Lotus/IBM's Complete Enterprise Option - not just per seat pricing which is normal, but a licensing model with a pricing based specifically on the total headcount in your organization.

The problem

[m1chael]

The problem with patents is that they are considered more important than laws.

Sun, the charity from hell

[fireman sam]

Quote: "Schwartz did say that any money the patents generate will be donated to charities."

Translated: "We are evil, but we will do it in a good sort of way"

Re:Sun, the charity from hell

[Anonymous Coward]

Translated: "We are evil, but we will do it in a good sort of way"

Which is pretty similar to Microsoft's "We will suck as much cash out of people as possible, but we will give some of it to worthy causes."

How lovely!

Re:Sun, the charity from hell

[Halo1]

This reminds me of the stealing with a further ethical effect analogy to the granting of software patents in Europe.

Re:Sun, the charity from hell

[LnxAddct]

Don't worry, it's evil from any view. Even if they do keep their "promise" and give it all to charity, that just translates to good press and a big tax deduction.

Re:Sun, the charity from hell

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like most charities, especially order ones..

spank you

[Stumbles]

The "charity" of course being those that benifit Sun. Doh!

More obscene..

[Gentlewhisper]

I got a better one.

"I hereby patent the process of the transfer of money in exchange of a good or service!"

Tomorrow I shall go sue all retailers and major corporations and even those beggers on the street!

Oh wait, maybe I will just leave those beggars alone, but the moment they start performing.....

Re:More obscene..

[Anonymous Coward]

Even with your new patent, Microsoft is safe: they never provided any service so far!

Re:More obscene..

[SynapseLapse]

But when is someone going to patent the process of patenting? Then you could control what was patented.

Re:More obscene..

[Anonymous Coward]

What good or service do the beggars on the street provide? Or do you just mean the ones who sing on the subway?

Re:More obscene..

[Anonymous Coward]

Just how many times is this trite comment going to be rolled out?

Is EVERYONE new here?

The ultimate in irony

[m00nun1t]

The ultimate in irony? Choosing EFF as the charity to donate the money to.

Re:The ultimate in irony

[zora]

for real irony how about the FSF

Re:The ultimate in irony

[AndroidCat]

Maybe they could buy more licences from SCO? (SCO isn't quite a charity, but they're certainly non-profit.)

why not ?

[l3v1]

Why not? I mean Microsoft patents so much sh*t in a year one could hardly count on thousand fingers. So what should keep anyone else, let that be Mr. Schwartz (whom I personally don't really like despite my long term respect for Sun), from doing if not the same then something similar ?

It's just the most commmon businness (mal)practice these days. What can one do ? Not much besides watchin'a game and havin'a bud :P

But - somewhat - seriously, patenting a software licensing methodology is so much really worse than a gazillion ridiculous patent filings of Microsoft ? I very much doubt that.

Re:why not ?

[coofercat]

It looks like the US is falling to the lowest common denominator. If one big player does it, the others have to follow or lose out.

If Sun are giving any patent royalties to charity, then I suspect they're saying "we don't want this, but we've got to do it". I'd sort of imagine they wouldn't need to bother collecting any money for the patent though, would they?

It looks to me like most folks here have a problem with the fact that such a patent can exist, and can get past the utter stupidity of the USPTO, as opposed to anything to do with Sun doing things as lowly as MS et al. CNet are hamming it up for the benefit of chest-beating /.ers.

Do something about that daft patent system. And please don't let it happen here in Europe. It's only a way to create jobs in the PTO and Law sectors, everyone else loses.

Re:why not ?

[l3v1]

If one big player does it, the others have to follow or lose out.

This and more. I mean despite some (?) MS's businness misbehaviour they became a major success story (more or less also because of the ignorance of average people). So MS as a company and as businness behaviour is a good or a bad example ? Do some follow their ways from free choice or from necessity ? Probably both.

Re:why not ?

[aussie_a]

If one big player does it, the others have to follow or lose out.

Capitalism at it's finest.

Re:why not ?

[Anonymous Coward]

one could hardly count on thousand fingers

That is, if you count in binary

Selling software is no different

[Sylvius]

from selling anything else. For millenia, when you went to the market and bought a bunch of the same thing, the vendor would charge per item. Why is software any different? How is charging a company a per employee fee for software any different from the per employee fee the company pays for health insurance, catered food at a meeting, desks, etc? If the patent office is going to treat software as a product and treat each copy of the software as a unique, saleable item, then they need to compare software patents with any other item.

Re:Selling software is no different

[NewStarRising]

'Method for licensing software to an entity, including determining a per-employee cost for the software ...'

Software is Liscenced, not sold.

Re:Selling software is no different

[Gopal.V]

> Selling software is no different from selling anything else

Software is not sold, it is licensed to the End User ...

and that's the root of half the evil I see in software ... rest is stupid people.

I am missing out

[localroger]

I am going to patent a novel I dea I've had, "per unit" pricing: A method by which a retailer multiplies the "number of units delivered" by a "base price" to calculate a "total charge" to be paid for said delivery.

If that flies, next I'll patent discounts off MSRP, that'll be really slick.

Re:I am missing out

[Halo1]

If that flies, next I'll patent discounts off MSRP, that'll be really slick.

You're too late, sort of. In Europe, there is already a patent on using rebate codes in Internet stores to give people discounts (see patent 19 of the FFII webshop).

Re:I am missing out

[tomhudson]

You're too late, sort of. In Europe, there is already a patent on using rebate codes in Internet stores to give people discounts (see patent 19 of the FFII webshop).

... which should have failed the "not innovative because it's obvious" test.

Bad patent laws are like all other laws. If there are enough bad laws, it brings all law into disrepute, and people no longer feel obliged to obey them. We're seeing this with both patents and abusive copyright extensions.

Historically, the best example of this was probably Prohibition. It resulted in criminals becoming folk heroes (Bonny and Clyde, Al Capone, etc)... And we're going to see the same effect with patent laws. People WILL ignore them, because there will be so many bad patents, that there will be no moral imperative to toe the line.

Re:I am missing out

[Halo1]

... which should have failed the "not innovative because it's obvious" test.

Actually, it should have failed the patentable subject matter test (which is performed before they look at novelty or obviousness), because it's either a business method or a computer program, neither of which is patentable according to the European Patent Convention.

Bad patent laws are like all other laws. If there are enough bad laws, it brings all law into disrepute, and people no longer feel obliged to obey them. We're seeing this with both patents and abusive copyright extensions.

The problem with being an outlaw is that it immediately weakens your position, even if you're "right". We need at least some respect for the law (even if it doesn't suit you), otherwise society as we know it would disolve into total anarchy. It's very hard to make it objectively clear that the law is plain wrong in a certain case as far as the general interest in concerned, and that you're not just promoting your personal (or small lobby group's) interests.

Historically, the best example of this was probably Prohibition. It resulted in criminals becoming folk heroes (Bonny and Clyde, Al Capone, etc)... And we're going to see the same effect with patent laws. People WILL ignore them, because there will be so many bad patents, that there will be no moral imperative to toe the line.

I hope that in Europe, we can prevent the legalisation of patents on software-implemented mathmatics and business methods so it doesn't have to come this far. And just maybe, it may help the push for a real reform in the US as well.

Re:I am missing out

[Anonymous Coward]

That is exactly what will happen. There are many cases of people disregarding "The Law" when "The Law" was wrong. Some examples include the American revolution, the underground railroad, and prohibition. None of those counted as civil disobedience, they were all simple lawbreaking. Of course, just because you are breaking the law doesn't mean you can ignore right and wrong, such as minimizing harm to innocents as much as possible.

Heh. I hope they get it.

[Flavius Stilicho]

Let them win. Maybe it'll keep the other idiots from using the same scam.

What about that pesky obviousness clause?

[shyster]

It seems to me that they're trying to patent multiplication - eg., a license for Employee is $100, how much for 10 Employees? Answer: $100 x 10 = $1000. Surely this qualifies as obvious....

Re:What about that pesky obviousness clause?

[flonker]

Ah, but they're charging for employees who don't use the software too. Actually, that's been done before. They've added charging for employees who don't even use a computer. I believe that is what is "innovative".

Last Gasp

[linuxislandsucks]

Last Gasp for reveleance in the Sun VS FOSS wars.. losing as usuall

You have 1 new message

[maximilln]

Relationship Change

User SUN.COM has made you their foe.

WTF

[Y-Crate]

It seems Sun is attempting to patent multiplication.

u * p = c

U = # of users

P = Price per user

C = Cost

It should be noted that a variation on this formula can also break any form of encryption on the net. :)

Re:WTF

[blackest_k]

no the original article states employee's

which is even more harebrained. so how do you measure that one? Do you get the cleaning staff from an agency to save on costs? perhaps you spin off the people using the software into a seperate company?

What if an agency employee uses the software is the agency now liable for licience fee's too?

I think the option look elsewhere for a solution may be the best choice.

Is this possible?

[evil_one666]

Is it really possible to patent a legal contract? This is insane!!

Patenting Patents

[nicklott]

What I want to know is, when is someone going to patent the process of patenting processes?
That will really screw the USPO over. Unless they can prove prior art. Which they almost certainly can.
(Although the way they issue patents these days they probably won't notice until it's too late).

Hint...

[Anonymous Coward]

Understand the licensing concept and you'll understand why it's patentable.

Saying this is like patenting multiplication is like saying the Web is like DOS, because they both run on a computer.

The arse shines out of Sun...?

[Anoraknid the Sartor]

There must be a good reason for such a brain dead "utterly alienate yourself from everyone" move.

1) It's a defensive patent. They are worried someone else will do the same and leave them exposed.

2) They have a cunning plan.

2) They are evil/stupid/shill for Microsoft. The arse shines out of Sun...

Of course the sensible thing would be to patent it and donate it to the EFF (or whoever...)

Fight this!

[segmond]

"Schwartz did say that any money the patents generate will be donated to charities."

So what? If we support them even if all money goes to open/free software projects. What's bound to happen is that after they have established from various cases that the patent is valid. Management will one day say, "Fuck It, time to make some profit!" In the world of business, everything that is said means nothing unless it is written and signed! With that said, Let's fight this, it's utter ridiculous and at the same time disgusting to patent ideas on licensing.

WikiPriorArt

[Famatra]

"Prior art anyone?"

We need a WikiPriorArt like Wikipedia. So when you ask that you know where to go to check up. And if you do have prior art, you'd go there also and input the prior art.

Also it could be used to publish ideas so they act as prior art against future patent ideas.

Re:WikiPriorArt

[mitchc]

rather than wiki for notifying of prior art why not use something like... http://wikalong.phunnel.org/wiki/ which runs in sidebar of firefox browsers and allows comments re url being viewed. prior art could then be registered directly against it's location in the uspto database. ie no need to create a separate navigation structure

Let's patent software patent making?

[G4from128k]

It would be the ultimate "business method" patent, a patent on the creation of software patents. Whoever was the first company to create and file a software patent has a clear claim to this one. The holder of this patent on patent making could then sue all other companies for creating software patents and the software patent nightmare would be hoist on its own patented petard.

Re:Let's patent software patent making?

[RedLaggedTeut]

Unfortunately someone has decided that, because it is so much hassle to keep track of patents and decide their validity (..), that you have don't have an unalienable right to something that you invented first (similar to copyright), but that you actually have to file a patent. And you have to file within one year.

As I understand it, you can also only counterattack a patent on the basis of prior art if you have revealed the invention to the public. Which sucks if you just kept it for yourself and then get sued for using your own invention.

However filing a "patent on the creation of overly broad and obvious patents" might be fun, especially watching the patent office give examples of "prior art". "No, you can't patent this, X already did patent something obvious"

"companies per-employee"?

[Megane]

You mean each employee has more than one company?

I presume the article submitter meant "company's per-employee". This is why just relying on a spelling checker isn't good enough.

MSDNAA...? Prior Art?

[graznar]

I hope they know this is the same scheme that the Microsoft Academic Alliance uses...

copyright terrorist!

[Anonymous Coward]

Only a terrorist would put the code on the internet. How dare you!All of that hard work,just for you to steal it. Think of the children!

Sun is more than cool, it is cold.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sun is allowed to go out of business, too.

Piranha Brothers Patent Pend

[AndroidCat]

The Operation... select a victim and then threaten to beat him up if he paid the so-called protection money.

The Other Operation... select another victim and threatened not to beat him up if he didn't pay them.

The Other Other Operation... the victim is threatened that if he didn't pay them, they would beat him up.

My ship has come in!

[exadios]

These patents are great news for me. I hold the patent on the filing of patents which are so looney that, if the patent system where not so broken, would have absolutely no chance of sucess. I'll be contacting Sun on Monday. I expect the royalty checks to start arriving within a month.

Favourite charity

[Serious Simon]

"Schwartz did say that any money the patents generate will be donated to charities."

Can I suggest www.ffii.org?

Its not been granted... yet, if it ever will be.

[3seas]

* It doesn't mean much to file for a patent.

* we all know the Patent Office needs to figure out a way to stop issuing patent on things they shouldn't. Retoric is a big problem, as you can describe something normally not allowed to be patented (i.e. physical phenomenon, natural law, abstract ideas, algorythims, etc...) in such a manner to pass by a patent examiner (who might then figure they don't know so let the courts decide...)

* there is NO SUCH THING AS A DEFENSIVE PATENT!!!! If you don't want someone to come along behind you and patent what you do, then you publish it and establish authorship/inventorship...... which happens to be a key requirement on a patent application..... DUH! But if you want to spend some money defending yourself the Patent Office will be happy to take your money...

*** Most important is that the Patent Office has defaulted to letting the courts decide whether or not a patent is valid..... You know where a hell of a lot more time and resources and perhaps even public input can be applied, then any patent examainer is ALLOWED to. So all the Patent Office needs to do is simple make sure all the T's are crossed and i' are dotted (that their document specifications are fullfilled --- sort of a pre-court document preparation process)

Oh, by the way, licensing is a abstract idea, as is software. Where copyright would be the more appropriate mode of ownership control.

**** There are other problems with patents and even copyrights. To use them mainly as a tool to hinder others, so as to suppress innovation and competition is simply wrong. For we all only have a limited amount of time to live, so damn anyone who wants to tell you, you cannot do this (unless it infringes on the freedoms of others to do what they want. - freedom does not include any right to take it away from another or others, directly or indirectly.)

The key purpose of patents and copyrights is to allow the creators of such value an opportunity to profit from their work, to receive value for it. But at some point that exclusive right has to be removed, especially when it becomes a hinderance to others in the creation of their new work (perhaps extending or building upon the works of others --- As this IS how we advance.)

Anyone who doesn't understand this building upon the works of others either doesn't understand the natural laws of the human race advancement process or wants to suppress it and the increased freedom it brings (they are OBVIOUSLY either ignorant or against such advancement and freedom, or want to extract unearned wealth directly off the works and labor of others.)

Does anyone have a patent on the GPL?

NO?? Why is that?

who is this aimed at?

[zogger]

looks to me it's aimed at suse/novell and redhat, and IBM for that matter. Anyone who's a customer of theirs care to comment? How are they priced now, what formula? Would this patent apply to their way of offering for-lease software?

Re:who is this aimed at?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't be too worried about IBM running and hiding from a frivilous patent. File under SCO.

companies

[nusratt]

"three new patents, one of them on the companies per-employee software pricing plan"

"companY'S", dammit...

Patently Obvious

[solprovider]

Assuming you accept and obey the license terms, most home consumer software is sold for:
1. You (one person),
2. Your computer (one installation), or
3. Your household (one business unit.)

Sun is selling a per-business-unit license, but charging different prices for different number of people. A company believes it is licensing as #3, but they pay as if it is #1. The advantage is that Sun gets to charge for employees that will not be using the software.

It was called a "volume discount" when the price was lowered as volume increased. The big innovation from Sun is that the price-per-employee increases as the volume increases (because the company will be paying for more unused licenses.) We do not yet have a term for that because it is silly.

Western technology in knots

[stunami]

It makes me wonder with all this patenting going on that western technologies companies are only going to tie each other up in knots. Nobody will be able to do anything because its patented. Of course non western countries (china for example) will be able to leap jump and become the dominant leader it seems its going to be anyway. Is the knot we're tying for ourselves in patents a hang mans knot?

Prior Art?

[jonbryce]

I may be wrong, but aren't some mail servers licenced like this - you pay for the number of mailboxes you want to have.

but...

[grahamsz]

this shouldn't have any impact on the open source world

That was Amazon...

[Trojan]

and not Microsoft.

Ehm oops :)

[Trojan]

As I one-clicked away my previous post I realized that Amazon's was the one-click-buy patent.

Re:Ehm oops :)

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. Amazon patented the one-click and Microsoft patented the double-click.

I've got it! I'll patent the triple-click!

Re:Ehm oops :)

[gcaseye6677]

Has anyone patented the right click? It's becoming impossible for me to use my mouse without infringing someone's patent!

HP already has that patent?

[Cryofan]

Looks fairly similar....

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5375206.html

Method for licensing software
United States Patent 5375206
View Patent Images

Inventors: Hunter; James D. (Ft. Collins, CO);Watkins; William H. (Ft. Collins, CO)
Abstract: Disclosed is a system that provides a common application software interface for a variety of vendor supplied license servers. The system provides a single set of program calls and translates this single set of calls into a set of calls for each license server. This translation is performed using a translate table, which is easily updated to interface to newly developed or newly released license servers. The system runs as a separate process within the operating environment to monitor the application program, and as long as the application program continues to provide services to the user, the system sends periodic license renewal messages to the license server. The system also notifies the user when the application program cannot obtain a license in order to provide a consistent user interface across applications.
Assignee: Hewlett-Packard Company (Palo Alto, CA)
Application Number: 198657
Filing Date: February 18, 1994
Publication Date: December 20, 1994
Current Classes: 717/176; 717/177; 719/310
International Classes: G06F 003/00; G06F 015/16
Field of Search: 364/DIG. 1,DIG. 2
US Patent References:
4441163 Apr., 1984 Leikam et al. 395/275.
4712189 Dec., 1987 Mohri 395/700.
4780821 Oct., 1988 Crossley 364/200.
4924378 May., 1990 Hershey et al. 364/200.
4937863 Jun., 1990 Robert et al. 380/4.
4941175 Jul., 1990 Enescu et al. 380/4.
5023907 Jun., 1991 Johnson et al. 380/4.
5138712 Aug., 1992 Corbin 395/700.
5146593 Sep., 1992 Brandle et al. 395/700.
5175810 Dec., 1992 Young et al. 364/DIG.
Parent Case Data: This is a continuation of copending application Ser. No. 08/031,063 filed on Mar. 12, 1993, now abandoned.

Claims:

What is claimed is:

1. A computer implemented method for interfacing between a licensed application program and a plurality of license server programs in an operating system executing in a computer system, for the purpose of obtaining a license to use the licensed application program, said computer implemented method comprising the steps of:

(a) programmatically receiving a license request from the licensed application program, wherein said license request is defined in a first format;

(b) programmatically requesting identification information from a currently active license server program to identify which one of the plurality of license server programs is currently in use by the operating system;

(c) programmatically translating said license request from said first format into a second format required by said one of the plurality of license server programs identified in step (b);

(d) programmatically sending said translated request to said license server program identified in step (b);

(e) programmatically receiving a response from said license server program identified in step (b), wherein said response indicates whether a license to use the licensed application program is granted;

wherein step (e) further comprises the steps of:

(e1) when said response indicates said license is not granted, presenting an options menu to a user of the licensed application program, through a display attached to said computer system;

(e2) obtaining a menu selection input from the user through an input device attached to said computer system;

(e3) immediately retrying said license request by repeating steps (d) and (e), when said menu selection input from the user requests that said license request be attempted again; and

(e4) sending a queue request to said license server program currently in use, to place said license request into a queue, when said menu selection input f

Re:HP already has that patent?

[tmj0001]

SAS has a good case for claiming prior art.

What a bunch of crock!!!

[Pig Hogger]

Such an obvious bunch of crock would not stand a chance in a proper patent office. This is patently a business method, not an industrial process!!!

Re:Its not been granted... yet, if it ever will be

[Halo1]

there is NO SUCH THING AS A DEFENSIVE PATENT!!!! If you don't want someone to come along behind you and patent what you do, then you publish it and establish authorship/inventorship

Sure there is. A defensive patent is simply a patent you do not intend to enforce, except if someone else sues you over something else. You can then look which of your defensive patents the other party infringes on, and countersue (which usually results in a cross licensing deal in which only the lawyers of both parties are winners).

Donation my @ss

[Anita Coney]

It does not matter if Sun doesn't make a dime off such asinine patents. Sun will still be able to force anyone else from performing the same task. I.e., eliminate any new competition.

Sun is essentially going on a murderous rampage, but claming that all bodies will be donated to science.

Insane Patents are not just rampant in technology

[Anonymous Coward]

A guy somehow 'discovered' that plants grows at different rates depending on how much sunlight and water the plants receive.

Yes, according to the US Patent Office this was someting reall new and novel. He was (somehow) granted a patent on planting of corn with different row widths for different climates.

You guessed it... he has a patent for growing corn in 49" rows, 50" rows, 51" rows...(yada) and if you're a farmer and space your plants out in one of his 'patented' rows... you're supposed to pay him royalties.

Pure, raving insanity.

The world according to SCO?

[lcreech]

If it was done under a SCO license. The all your patent belong to us (SCO).

Method for Patenting an Invention

[khrtt]

USPTO Patent Application

Summary:
The following are claimed in this patent:

1. Patenting and Invention
2. Sueing competitors that try to use similar technology as patented in paragraph (1).

Charity case is going to be themselves

[Anonymous Coward]

Sun just lost a patent case to Kodak for some patents Kodak acquired from Wang and which Kodak says Java infringes upon. Kodak wants ... 1 billion dollars.

Kodak isn't exactly SCO but with all the instability going on in the tech industry, even companies that you wouldn't think would turn on each other are starting to. Now if Sun starts tanking pretty badly, they'll start turning on others and it will start to snowball.

Even if companies though they were protected by cross licensing won't be if those patents are sold off to companies they aren't cross licensed with.

Didn't SCO liscence that way ?.......

[EvilLordSoth]

If so, then toss up the liscencing form for linux that SCO so nicely provided for linux users to the pubpat foundation as prior art to this attempt to patent this liscencing method !!!

That ought to teach both of those bastards !

Ahhhh delicious irony !

WOW. all sorts of prior art

[WindBourne]

the blatent grab for patents is a huge indication that IP is out of control. This one has HUGE prior art. Back in the 80's, I was going to pick up Word perfect for SCO (Yeah, at one time, I ran SCO, but that was 20 years ago). We have pricing based on volume.

1. 1 user ~50.
2. 2-10 users ~45.
3. 11-50 users ????

That was just on example of why it should not go through. The fact that they are wasting time on it, says that corporation believe that they can be granted for anything. I fear that they are right.

This is a huge sign that patent and copyrights need to be reformed.

DUDE!

[roman_mir]

You have to go to the Images section of that patent and look at the drawings on the first and the second pages. It's hilarious !:)

Charities my ass!

[BushCheneyCriminals]

Is the claim that they will donate patent profits to charities supposed to somehow justify this anticompetitive abuse of the patent system?

What Charity? They'll probably take a page from Microsoft's book and donate Sun hardware and software to schools or libraries. In other words, the money will still generate revenue for Sun!

This is the grammar police!

[Asprin]

Come out with your hands up!

One company,
two companies.

The company's press statements demonstrate a wanton disregard for the rules of pluralization, so the other companies' representatives voted to sanction the editor for his mistake.

Thank you.

Carry on.

Question...

[hoborocks]

If they're going to just "give the money to charity", what's their reasoning for applying for this patent? Patents are used to protect property and ideas, and in a lot of cases (in my opinion) to keep money flowing in when it shouldn't, and to stifle competition. Can any of these companies provide a valid justification of getting software/algorithm/LICENSING patents? Is nothing sacred anymore?

per customer?

[samjam]

MS already do $30K licensing for sharepoint for all your non-employee customers.

Sam

seems foolish

[jdkane]

So if all the licensing schemes eventually get patented, does that mean a company cannot license its own software to users without having to pay a royalty fee to a patent holder to do so?

This is not patent stuff. This sucks.

"Per Capita" patent: use your head, pay our fee ..

[ankhank]

Amazing.

Ya'll are missing a opportunity

[greg_barton]

This leaves a great opportunity for those of us opposed to silly business process patenting: patent the process of licensing patents.

If you can patent one licensing process, why not patent another? Let's patent the process of licensing patents in as many "novel" ways as possible. Then start patenting the licensing of a licensing patent. Or maybe we can "fractal patent" up the entire infinite patent-license-patent chain...dunno about that...

Ya'll get my drift?

What is he smoking?

[minkwe]

EOM

They've finnally done it...

[rsilvergun]

they've tried to patent charging people money. Still, I don't see how that'll stand, the IRS so has prior art...

Wow, thats terrible

[pavera]

Ok, so adding and multiplying is going to be patented.. I thought you couldn't patent mathmatical processes.

I guess this licensing scheme is a little "new" but I've been doing it with customer service for 5 years (I started a business, and did per seat customer service), IE 15/mo/employee.

Anyway, adding up employees and multiplying by $100 if this patent is accepted, is the most bizarre patent of all time.

Damn patent!

[temojen]

Now we can never use this method in open source software!

Is Sun trying to patent multiplication?

[miket]

'Method for licensing software to an entity, including determining a per-employee cost for the software, determining a number of employees of the entity, and determining a total licensing cost using the number of employees and the per-employee cost, wherein the total licensing cost comprises a software license for all employees of the entity and all customers of the entity.'

this is one patent...

[jeif1k]

Think about it: this is one stupid business method patent that doesn't affect open source software. Of course, it doesn't affect Microsoft or IBM or any of the other companies that Microsoft has a cross-licensing agreement with either. Mainly, it just keeps new competitors out of the market.

Still, the nature of the patent demonstrates again just what kind of company Sun is and what kind of person Schwartz is.

Doesn't look valid to me,

[Anonymous Coward]

of course IANAL, but that sounds pretty much like the standard per seat liscensing used forever...

It also means that since having a liscense for everyone who uses it is bloody obvious, it isn't going to get a valid patent. Unfortunately the patent examiners seem to have a serious case of rectal-cranium inversion syndrome.....

That's it's granted

[microbox]

I dont know what saddens me most, that they have the balls to submit an application for something so old and obvious like per employee pricing, or the fact that it actually has a pretty good chanse of beeing granted...

That it's granted, and that the corp as nothing to lose for applying.

Re:That's it's granted

[brianosaurus]

I'd have said "...THIS corp has nothing to lose..."

Patent applications do cost time and money, but for large companies (like Sun, MS, IBM... you know, the ones with "patent arsenals") its a drop in the bucket. Small companies can't afford to patent every trivial thing they do. These frivolous "defensive" patents are nothing more than anti-competitive practices.

Crushing a small, innovative startup, then donating the proceeds to charity is very noble, indeed.

How to challenge with prior art?

[John Murdoch]

Several people have posted on this topic that the "innovation" that Sun is claiming is a seat license. That's not really correct--what Sun is claiming is that they are licensing software from a central source per-employee and per-month. That's (slightly) different from installing a copy-protected EXE and charging a fee for each install.

But that doesn't mean Sun has an original idea.

In the late 1990s I worked with a client to develop several web applications that were billed on a per-user/per-month basis. The applications identified users and installed copies, and permitted the end users to review their records before billing (so they could remove portions of the software from machines they weren't using, etc.). Without seeing the specifics of the Sun patent application, this sounds as though it would be a very credible example of prior art.

Which brings me to my point:
Does anyone in the community know how to provide examples of prior art to the USPTO examiner? Or is the best recourse to tell my client to call his lawyer?

Re:How to challenge with prior art?

[ChrisRijk]

Sun's patent app sounds simpler (and a bit different) to what you describe here. I've no idea how to go about trying to discuss things with the USPTO - maybe there's something on their web-site.

The patent is basically for Sun's "Java Enterprise System" middleware stack subscription. Which is $100/employee/year. The employee count is based on SEC filings for public companies (or similar for other countries) and trust for other companies or legal entities (eg government). It's a yearly subscription which includes services and support and infinite right to use.

Basically, it makes the licensing really really simple... at least relative to today's licenses. There is also no subdivision or slicing it up depending on what bits you use. You can use as little or as much as you want, it all costs the same, regardless of how many employees are actually using it or how many customers or clients are using it.

It doesn't come out cheaper for everyone, but Sun still offer "traditional" licensing. Sun have over 400,000 employees-worth subscribed already ($40m/year).

It's really nice for companies since their licensing costs become very predictable. They don't pay extra when they use new stuff. A lot of headaches simply go away. It also works for Sun since bigger companies pay more, basically. Which does make you wonder why nobody thought of this before. There is certainly the demand for something simpler.

With regards to it being a stupid patent or not... I think Sun have little choice but to try. If not, somebody else would and then try to screw Sun.

I'm sorry your patent application is rejected...

[ebyrob]

The wording is just too simple, and it makes too much plain sense.

Please try again.

It only makes sense,...

[ebyrob]

...to donate all proceeds to charity on a blocking patent. (Since they'll always be 0)

Makes you sound nice to the press who don't know any better, while those you're out to screw get 0 relief.

Re:It only makes sense,...

[brianosaurus]

Like I said below, I bet that's the third patent they haven't announce yet.

"A method for fronting like a good guy, when you're actually being a complete asshole."

Thought Police seizes 69,897,987 persons brains

[rts008]

In other news: Millions of people had there brains confiscated in a massive raid today due to the Thought police cracking down on people thinking patented thoughts. Also in the news: A large corporation plans to patent conception and birth...

So Basically They Just Patented

[Anonymous Coward]

Multiplication and Division....nice.

I really have no idea what is stifling innovation in this country.

I think I need to file a patent, too

[melted]

I need to patent "A method for filing patents for ridiculously stupid things and apparatus for getting them through USPTO". I'll donate all the money I get from it (and this will be a TON of money) to charities, too.

Re:I think I need to file a patent, too

[Hognoxious]

I need to patent "A method for filing patents for ridiculously stupid things and apparatus for getting them through USPTO".

I think you'll find there's prior art, namely three or four posts saying that in every slashdot thread about patents.

The Prior Art?

[Ralph Spoilsport]

This will fail on Prior Art. Companies have been charging by the head (seat licenses) for umpteen jillion years. If this DOES go through, then I honestly don't see how the simplest business activity can't be patented.

If it goes through, my next patent:

1. make something
2. Sell it
3. PROFIT!
4. Send royalty check for profit making business practice to me, Ralph Icebag, a brown shoed square in the dead of night, right here in the city of West Gommorah.

Bah.

RS

Prior Art

[Anonymous Coward]

Corel offered a per user, (not per workstation,) licensing scheme for WordPerfect. Three to four years ago, I purchased such a license for a law firm I was working for.

So lame. Game over Sun?

[presidenteloco]

Sniff sniff
Scotty we hardly knew ye.

Conversation overheard in ancient times:

"So, how much for this putrid ale?"
"That's 5 drachmas for each of you, (goatbreath)"

Case closed.

Any prior art on this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in the midst of filing a patent on wiping
my bum with a downward motion, instead of
the more common upward motion.

Amongst the claims are the use of assorted
textiles, some with per-use allocations. My
attorney believes I should include the
non-assisted bare hand, but I believe someone
named Jonathan Schwartz already has that patent?

All -profit- generated?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be more acccepting if they legally bound themselves to a declaration whereby they vow not to profit from or act upon the patent, rendering it legally useless. All it is now is a tool to defeat opponents in a marketing bullshit wrapper.

Not to mention the obvious issues of invention, discovery and the quantum theorem that logically follow.

Charity

[Analogy Man]

Schwartz did say that any money the patents generate will be donated to charities

Donating ill gotten booty to charity doesn't make a practice any less objectionable. Suppose I hold up a bank and give all the money to "Save the Fluffy Bunnies". Am I absolved? Hardly.

Black Sun

[j.leidner]

Method for licensing software to an entity, including determining a per-employee cost for the software, determining a number of employees of the entity, and determining a total licensing cost using the number of employees and the per-employee cost.

They should be ashamed to even think about patenting a no-brainer like that. No honourable geek would even consider working for Sun now.

Come to think of it, how about filing a patent entitled 'Method and apparatus to evcuate human excrements using a water-flushed chair (T.O.I.L.E.T)'? What, you have seen/used such a device before...?

When the patent system was invented, it was never meant to keep ideas proprietary. It was meant to encourage innovation by protecting significant investments in research and development. Licensing models might be clever, but they aren't a result of investing in a 5-year plan to build a new factory. Now it's time to modify the law to ensure that the innovation-fostering rationale gets to apply again.

--
Try Nuggets , the mobile search engine retrievs answers to your questions via SMS, across the UK.

We all know where this is going

[InvalidError]

Next, someone will start applying for stuff like 'a method of losing hair', 'a method for losing hair in a particular pattern (see receding hair line and male-pattern baldness)', etc.

It really is deplorable how the USA's legal and pattent system is accepting abuse to such seemingly unbounded extent. Soon, even the most trivial tasks will require an unmanageable number of pattent licenses.

All this pattent madness is effectively transforming the innovation market into a monopoly where only those with enough pattents worth cross-licensing to resolve pattent disputes can afford to keep going on.

WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

We all know the USPTO is out of control---and out of it's collective mind---but even they should realize this is merely a business practice, not a patentable invention. And the crew at Sun are obviously sniffing glue.

The only viable solution to the whole patent mess is simple---totally ignore them. Just respect the other guys work.

Oh, never mind,
Mal the Elder

Non-obvious licensing schemes

[pasdemoi]

I'm going to patent my own licensing model, which should steer clear of Sun's proposed patent, by charging a unit price (P) multiplied by the number of urinals (U) and toilets (T) available within the business at any time. Total price = P * (U + T). Not only do I not utilize the "number of employees", but I've got addition in my formula, too! That should pass the Patent Office's "non-obvious" test.

Re:Non-obvious licensing schemes

[Hognoxious]

Well said. Seems to me Sun are indeed trying to patent arithmetic.

This isn't new

[dtfinch]

It's just a variant of per-seat licensing. Pretty much identical to per-named-user licensing. You pay per user. I'd have to read the patent application but it seems like there may be a lot of prior art.

HUH?!?!?

[cranos]

I think I speak for a majority of people when I say "HOW THE FUCK IS THIS EVEN CONSIDERED PATENTABLE????"

It's a licence for shits sake. Not a thing, an object, its a fucking business revenue model.

Ahh fuck it I give up

You know what would be useful?

[hendersj]

A list of the patent numbers in the article....

Of course, CNet neglected to list the patent number as well. In searching for patents issued to Sun Microsystems with the keyword "licensing", I turned up 14 patents, the most recent issued on 21-September-2004 - but that particular patent is entitled "Mechanism for embedding network based control systems in a local network interface device" and doesn't actually appear to cover this topic.

"The food is bad, and the portions are small"

[GunFodder]

I love watching Open Source advocates rip into a licensing patent. It's like complaining that the food is bad and the portions are small. If the food is bad then what do you care how big the portions are? If proprietary software is wrong, then who cares what method is used to determine the cost?

At this point it isn't even a proven business model. Microsoft sold >30 billion dollars worth of per-CPU, per-machine, and per-install licenses last year. Sun probably didn't sell more than a 1% of that total. I think the patent is silly, but it won't even be an issue unless it is proven successful.

Burgers per functioning heart valve method

[konmaskisin]

You arrive at McDonalds and pay a reduced price if your arteries are already clogged.

5000 years of prior art ...

[konmaskisin]

Conqueroring tyrants and legitimate governments always estimate taxation on a per capita basis. The amount of tribute owed to passing armies (Greeks, Mongolian horsemen, Viking sailor warriors, etc) varied according to the size of the town.

Too bad ... another invalid silly pointless patent that wastes times money and brain cells and makes everyone look stupid - including people who take time to criticize how stupid it is ... oops ...

Re:5000 years of prior art ...

[msobkow]

Good point.