Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Researching Patent Law with New Experts
wikinerd writes "According to The Register, Microsoft seeks to hire new patent experts. In their words, patent experience itself "is helpful but not mandatory" and advance knowledge of patent law is not required. The applicants need only be Computer Science or Electrical Engineering PhD holders, without any qualification in law. They will be involved in prior art search, patentability research and technical analysis. The article outlines some of the most controversial MS patents, such as online bill payment."
One only has to look at the rampant achievements and success of Free Software and Open Source to see how much the rest of the industry is being held back by software patents and other "intellectual property" restrictions.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
in other news, war is peace, hate is love, and microsoft ROXXORZZZZZ.
And soon microsoft shall hold patents to errors, bugs, patches and security updates.
http://www.sandstorming.com
"Microsoft, the world's largest software company is seeking all manner of Patent Attorneys with Freakin' Lasers on Their Heads to assist with plans of world domination."
I'm a big tall mofo.
"Application for a patent that covers the act of patenting software intellectual property."
That that, logic!
I am from a small, grease-loving country in the north called Ca-na-da.
As much as I like to poke fun at Microsoft, I don't see anything wrong with this job posting.
Performing a prior art search requires 95% technology knowledge and 5% patent knowledge. The little patent knowledge their employees will need I'm sure they'll learn on the job. Come on, we've all sold ourselves during job interviews as being "fast learners."
In my opinion, this is just a silly reason to ridicule Microsoft.
I promise not to look for prior art or question the validity of any mouse click you want patented.
I wont be bothered to see if anyone else is even trying to do something similar, and will push to patent using keyboards to input data, using a pen on the screen to push objects, and even patent running software on something called a processor.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Maybe they'll patent their vulnerabilities so it will be illegal to exploit them. That'll make Windows secure. Kind of like what the cel phone industry did to full spectrun scanners. They had them banned instead of providing secure communications for their customers.
What?
And you seem to have the same skillset as the current Patent people..
;)
Pre-exisiting posts..!
Wanted: PHD in physics to serve fast food through drive through window.
Condidering the fact that getting a PhD in CS and EE is fairly easy these days, we should expect a lot of idiotic "methods and aparatii" from those new kids. Then couple of frivolous lawsuits against small corporations as a testing ground and finally against free software will follow during the next decades (probably some easy target, ala bnetd, so people will boycott Microsoft for few ours and then start buying new products, like with Blizzard) but it will result in very bad PR and counterclaims from IBM so the practice will probably be terminated after two (three at most) low-priority lawsuits from the top levels of the management, those new kids will get fired and everything will go back to normal. It will be certainly interesting to watch, but devastating to the US industry which will obviously benefit EU who will rather choose progress than software patents. It will mean stronger domination of Microsoft in the US and weaker in Europe. That of course means that it is a good time to buy stock of SuSE and Mandrake, and sell Red Hat.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
I hope some of the real lawyers that read this site can confirm or discredit this.
:). Lawyers who work on IP issues tend to be very specialized and the firms they work for tend to be specialized as well.
Anyway, a friend of mine who happens to be a lawyer, when I asked what she knew about IP law stated that is so different from other types of law it has its own bar exam. Unless you actually pass that exam you are not really qualified to work on IP cases or to give legal advice. She said she will not touch IP law in any form because, in effect, it would be malpractice (I, of course, was hoping for some free advice
I have to wonder if by hiring unqualified people MS is heading for lots of problems.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
As opposed to... what, exactly?
It's already a Microsoft-dominated Tech Marketplace. Microsoft already uses every loophole there is to drive out competitors. It's not a step toward anything. They're just doing what's necessary to protect their investment.
Meanwhile I, and other open source developers, are doing what's necessary to make sure their investment was a bad one.
Formerly GNU/Anonymous Coward. This message has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.
Litigate.
I think it's far more likely that the purpose of these new employees is to help Microsoft invalidate patents that may be used against it such as the bogus Eolas patent a few months back. That of course begs the question, why do they think that this is going to be an issue since they also think that software patents are such a good idea? Unless, perhaps, they *know* they are invalidating patents, are afraid they will get sued and feel that the best defense is a good offense...
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Sorry, I'm your prior art there.
I recently finnished reviewing a few patents because of a grant application I've made, they were mainly to do with commercial detection routines some of which have expired so the free PVR guys might want to have a look at those :-). They are the most boring and badly written crap that I've ever seen. The entire purpose is to make sure that you can't understand what the hell is going on in them. The patent lawyers make sure they are as broad as possible just to see if they can get away with it, I ask my patent lawyer about that and she confirmed it. They are annoying and sometimes very sparse on the technical details so you just have to guess what is meant. I don't think that reviewing patents is a job that I could do for very long while staying sane.
"but I'm not about to fund any massive development efforts"
Don't be silly.
Nobody funds R&D development just to find clever algorithms.
Here's how 99% of all software (by volume) is coded:
You work for a company. They say, "Bobby, we need you to write a front end to the payables system".
So you code it, and if you're a programmer with half-a-brain, you come up with a few twists that make it run better/faster/nicer. The code is never sold, or used outside of your company. It exists, and probably nobody will ever see the code again except some 1st year puke out of college. And the world goes on.
To imply that something this guy did in a day is worthy of an entirely new set of legal protections is to show a stunning ignorance of how software is developed.
So to answer your diatribe, you aren't funding a search for new patentable software, you're simply trying to solve a problem. Therefore if software cannot be patented, you'd still have to solve the problem.
Oh, and to put the final torpedo in the burning hulk you call an "argument", the bulk of innovative software was developed before software patents were allowed. Software patents have be in force for probably around 10 years, and the software world has had a stunning lack of innovation in that time.
I fail to see how this differs from any of their own in-house attitudes towards patents, prior art, or the property of others.
It's kind of like the Mafia putting out an ad that looks like this:
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
The worst thing about the bicycle patent is its name. It's not a bicycle, it's an exercise machine with a single flywheel. The novel aspect is the pedals - they are independent of one another rather than being connected by a crankshaft.
There is nothing wrong with software copyrights because copyrights only cover that very literal piece of code and only factor in when that code has been copied. So if the code goes stale because of its short shelf life, then it doesn't matter if it cannot be copied.
Remember, with copyrights, if you write a program and I write one "just like it" that isn't _actually_ it, then there really isn't a conflict. Especially if there was no way I ever saw your code.
Also, you don't "own all code like yours" when you hold a copyright.
Software patents are bad because they grant a realm of control that extends beyond the scope of what you created (or might have thought about creatring) to give you dominion over all things kind-of like your theoretical thing. That's bad in the extreme.
Copyright is useful for software, and will remain so as long as we don't end up in the "copyrighted space" bull-pucky. (e.g. you can't take picutures in this public park without a paid permit because the sclupture is copyrighted, which is the bull actually happening of late.)
What *isn't* good is the ability to "copyright" "look and feel" (remember that old evil phrase?) because that becomes copyright of general concept, which is just erzats patenting but for longer terms.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
If I were to guess about what is about to come about, I'd say they are about to make some tests for their patents to see how well they will stand up against counter claims to invalidate their patents when they start lawsuits for usage.
This isn't just useful to ensure they aren't infringing. That's even kind of hard, because you're dealing with a huge space of potential patents.
What's useful about hiring a bunch of people to look for prior art is when you're trying to invalidate a patent being cited against you. Then you have a specific set of claims for which you can search for prior art. Of course, in the end, I like this, because it means stupid crappy patents will get weeded out by being invalidated at trial (if things go to trial rather than just being settled). Unfortunately, not everyone can afford to hire an army of people to do searches like this, so it's not the most efficient method...
I've been a lurker here for a few months, and while there's sometimes really intelligent stories, why is it that anytime someone mentions Microsoft we feel they've done something wrong?
Shouldn't we be happy that they're hiring PhD's to do their patent work, and not patent lawyers with no understanding of computer science?
And, after all, what is so evil about Microsoft? All that money that they make (mostly off of large corporations) does end up in the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; yes, charity. I don't like IE anymore than the rest of you, but sometimes their corporation does no evil, same as google. Like them or not, software patents encourage incredible innovation in the field. You may be willing to release your source to the world, but for some, profit is a motivation. Would you rather that they left computer science entirely?
An open eye to the world, even to Microsoft, is never a bad idea. Disclaimer: I use firefox on Red Hat. I'm no great fan of Microsoft products either.
I know a Physics PhD that took a position about 10 years ago with a large IP law firm. He did it for the money. From what he described of his job, it sounded like a paralegal position where his specialty is to look at the science of patent applications. I imagine law firms have a need for specialized paralegal services in other areas too, such as medicine, etc; evidently, software too. Lawyers can't know everything.
In the end, the lawyer moves the paper and puts on the public face. The paralegals do the grunt work and directed research behind the scenes.
As a software developer, all this stuff makes me cringe. Makes me feel like I'm blindly jogging through a land mine field every time I create a new product.
--- -- - -
Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
Given that in other news, the collapse of Microsoft is near, perhaps Microsoft will turn into a canopy type group? Perhaps they were funding SCO for R&D rather than FUD?
Patent applications must be technical, novel and non-obvious. For example, you can't patent "one-click shopping" or "progress bars".
Oh, wait...
I can't believe this post has been up for a day and not a single person has actually checked in with the following info:
Law firms and companies with patent lawyers routinely hire non-lawyer technical experts to help them with patent work. In law firms, these people are typically called "technology specialists" or something similar. Often these people simultaneously go to law school, with the idea being that they will eventually turn into lawyers.
Additionally, there are many people out there who are called "patent clerks." What this means is that they have studied for and passed the US Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) examination. Once you have passed this exam, you are qualified to help people obtain patents, regardless of whether you have a law degree. Now, you obviously can't practice law, so you're quite limited if your only a patent clerk and not a patent lawyer, but you can still be quite helpful to someone who just wants to obtain a patent or two.
Bottom line: law firms and legal departments routinely hire tech/science people to help them with their patent work. I honestly can't believe this made it into a story. Next week there will be a post about Microsoft hiring SECRETARIES. I mean, they're a software company!! They're supposed to be writing software and they're out hiring secretaries!?!?
Keep in mind that Microsoft is also the deepest-pocket target for every crank with their own crazy patent. I know of several cases in the past few years where Microsoft spent a lot of money defending themselves in infringement suits against completely frivolous patents. Be glad that these patents were trashed, and hope that's how Microsoft continues to do its patent litigation.