Sun Files For Patent on Software Licensing Method

But Sun is cool by Hot+Summer+Nights · 2004-10-02 00:06 · Score: 3, Funny

Sun is allowed to do this.

--
Karma: Terrible - and proud of it!

Re:But Sun is cool by msobkow · 2004-10-02 02:18 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.

And I thought it was obscene... by SynapseLapse · 2004-10-02 00:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

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... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-02 03:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

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I agree that the patent system is old and outdated.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... by tsm_sf · 2004-10-02 05:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

- 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.

--
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
Re:And I thought it was obscene... by John+Miles · 2004-10-02 05:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
Re:And I thought it was obscene... by imkonen · 2004-10-02 07:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

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... by lightknight · 2004-10-02 09:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
I am John Hurt.

Patenting... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-02 00:10 · Score: 5, Funny

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

Re:Patenting... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-02 00:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

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... by brianosaurus · 2004-10-02 04:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?

--
blog
Re:Patenting... by dead+sun · 2004-10-02 05:16 · Score: 4, Funny

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.

--
If not now, when?

Bleh by mfh · 2004-10-02 00:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.

Sigh :~ by Greger47 · 2004-10-02 00:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 :~ by Tony-A · 2004-10-02 00:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

"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 :~ by Halo1 · 2004-10-02 01:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Donate free food here
Re:Sigh :~ by Halo1 · 2004-10-02 01:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
Donate free food here
Re:Sigh :~ by Tim+C · 2004-10-02 02:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:Sigh :~ by mavenguy · 2004-10-02 02:37 · Score: 2, Informative

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 :~ by Halo1 · 2004-10-02 02:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
Donate free food here
Re:Sigh :~ by Halo1 · 2004-10-02 03:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

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?

--
Donate free food here
Re:Sigh :~ by Wolfbone · 2004-10-02 03:08 · Score: 2, Informative

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 :~ by Total_Wimp · 2004-10-02 05:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 :~ by Halo1 · 2004-10-02 12:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
Donate free food here

Another retarded patent by betelgeuse68 · 2004-10-02 00:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

This is getting more ridiculous by the minute by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-02 00:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

What next ! by Dolphinzilla · 2004-10-02 00:16 · Score: 5, Funny

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

Patent "sharing" with M$???? by mabhatter654 · 2004-10-02 00:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

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!!!!

Better than "CPU" licencing by acomj · 2004-10-02 00:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

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 by maxwell+demon · 2004-10-02 00:47 · Score: 2, Insightful
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 :-)
--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.

Charities?!? by ultrabot · 2004-10-02 00:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak

In Related News by markxz · 2004-10-02 00:17 · Score: 2, Funny

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

Obviousness by bfree · 2004-10-02 00:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

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?

--

Never underestimate the dark side of the Source

Sun, the charity from hell by fireman+sam · 2004-10-02 00:25 · Score: 4, Funny

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"

--
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.

Re:Sun, the charity from hell by Halo1 · 2004-10-02 01:08 · Score: 2, Informative

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

--
Donate free food here

The ultimate in irony by m00nun1t · 2004-10-02 00:26 · Score: 4, Funny

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

--
Read reviews of shopping cart software

why not ? by l3v1 · 2004-10-02 00:27 · Score: 2

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.

--
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.

Re:why not ? by coofercat · 2004-10-02 00:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

Selling software is no different by Sylvius · 2004-10-02 00:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

I am missing out by localroger · 2004-10-02 00:37 · Score: 2, Funny

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.

--
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]

Re:I am missing out by Halo1 · 2004-10-02 01:14 · Score: 2, Informative

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).

--
Donate free food here
Re:I am missing out by Halo1 · 2004-10-02 01:44 · Score: 3, Informative

... 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.

--
Donate free food here

Heh. I hope they get it. by Flavius+Stilicho · 2004-10-02 00:38 · Score: 2, Funny

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

You have 1 new message by maximilln · 2004-10-02 00:44 · Score: 5, Funny

Relationship Change

User SUN.COM has made you their foe.

--
+++ATHZ 99:5:80

WTF by Y-Crate · 2004-10-02 00:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

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. :)

Is this possible? by evil_one666 · 2004-10-02 00:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

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

Fight this! by segmond · 2004-10-02 01:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

"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.

--
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind

WikiPriorArt by Famatra · 2004-10-02 01:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

"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.

MSDNAA...? Prior Art? by graznar · 2004-10-02 01:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

--
[ check out my ruby book @ http://ww

who is this aimed at? by zogger · 2004-10-02 01:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?

Patently Obvious by solprovider · 2004-10-02 01:59 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

--
I spend my life entertaining my brain.

Re:Its not been granted... yet, if it ever will be by Halo1 · 2004-10-02 02:20 · Score: 2, Informative

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).

--
Donate free food here

Charities my ass! by BushCheneyCriminals · 2004-10-02 02:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

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!

How to challenge with prior art? by John+Murdoch · 2004-10-02 05:12 · Score: 2, Informative

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?

"The food is bad, and the portions are small" by GunFodder · 2004-10-02 16:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

Slashdot Mirror

Sun Files For Patent on Software Licensing Method

55 of 213 comments (clear)