Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Calls For Patent Law Change
Elektroschock writes "According to an article of IDG/Infoworld Microsoft calls for a reform of the US patent system . Last month Microsoft Denmark started a backfiring PR campaign to influence the European debate in favour of software patents. Critics of Microsoft often claim that MS was behind the EU lobbying and wanted software patents to kill open source. While it is true that lobbying took place, persons deeply involved in the debate are more cautious to affirm real business interests of Microsoft. In a CeBIT debate today it was concluded that the MS monopoly would not exist with today's software patenting in place back in 1985. Some highly influential stakeholders with real business interests are often forgotten: patent professionals and the patent offices. What if there was no evil MS conspiracy behind all those patent plans? Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith is very concerned of submarine patents and patent trolls for Microsoft's business. He said patent reform should begin at home."
Of course they want it changed.
Microsoft executives on Thursday stepped up their calls for reform of the U.S. patent process, saying the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) too often focuses on quantity instead of quality.
What they're saying here seems to make perfect sense, but I really have a hard time trusting anything that Microsoft says about software patenting considering their history.
I'm a big tall mofo.
I for one welcome our Microsoft overlords, Wait.... did I say Microsoft???
in French, though...
Trolling using another account since 2005.
It's possible that MS want Patents to be easily accessible to the smaller business so they can then obtain exclusive licenses cheaper than doing original research...
there's a cold front approaching hell and lows are expected to reach 32 degrees Fahrenheit. When asked about this, the dark one said, "It's gotten to the point where 'A snowball's chance' is actually pretty good.
Mr. T pitied this fool on 27 July 1992.
Please... 17 years of silence at Slashdot would do everyone some good.
Laws are for people with no friends.
Microsoft evil.... cannot.... understand.... Head exploding!
Yeah as if M$ is not behind the software patent thing. Who were the one trying to patent "double clicking" and that isequal operator thingy.
If the USPTO has had so much money taken from it, it obviously isn't a cheap operation to run. If we're in the mode of cutting governmental programs.... wouldn't it be a good idea to just cut the functions that the USPTO has to perform.
For instance - getting rid of software patents, along with biological patents, business-model patents, and the vast majority of method-based patents in general might be a good idea.
We owe it to our children to not force them to owe so many millions in the name of the ownership of ideas. These types of patent management is equivalent to flushing a large portion of our market down the tubes.
Ryan Fenton
They want the EU software patent directive so bad that they pose themself as the 'good guys' at home. So their patent promotors can point to this statement and tell: 'see, we are all reasonable and only want the best'. Don't belive it for a second, their only motivation is to get *their* way through...
Things are bound to get hot in the next three months (because that is the time limit until the EU parliament has to decide what to do) and you will see much more 'double talk' in this respect from other large companies.
because now Microsoft has been stung by the U.S.'s absurd patent law themselves, thanks to Eolas. As Microsoft apparently realize that THEY, being a hugely profitable company and having software products spread across several markets, are the biggest target for rubbish software patents, it's in their clear interests to help fix the system. What we can't trust is that they have influence over government. They won't always be doing the right thing.
http://mjr.iki.fi/texts/patentfund
Sorry Bill, We'll get that sorted right now.... Can we polish your shoes too, wipe the screen of your jet....
For a second there, I thought April 1st was already here!
What do I have to do to get a sig around here?! www.bearscanfly.org
To Slashdot............Microsoft is evil....
patents are evil too....patent reform is a good thing......
Microsoft WANTS patent reform.............please, someone tell me how to think!!!!
So if the Evil Empire is not to blame for all of this lobbeying, then who? Perhaps some small businesses or other institutions who have invested in protecting their research and intellectual property are in favour of patenting in the software sphere. Maybe these small businesses are expressing their opinions just as vocally, but more effectively than all of the ranting on this site!
Straight from the horse's mouth:
"The system has to work for everybody," said David Kaefer, director of Microsoft's IP Licensing Program. "It's only a system that works for the largest companies."
I'm sure this quote will come in handy.
It may appear foolish, but I trust the large corporations when they say they patent things to protect themselves. Submarine patents are a huge threat to the legitimate employment that these companies provide, to the real effort expended by their employees in developing solutions to the problems computers have (and "embracing and extending" these problems...) and to the money that funds this development. So it seems to make sense that Microsoft are seeking to limit their expenses in litigation by pushing for reform in the patent process.
I for one - having developed big software, and just in the process of starting up a small company - just care for one thing: patents stay out of Europe, and M$-like patenting behaviour stay out of Europe. I don't want no big company coming here, patenting everything from water to stars and making us pay for them. I don't want to spend my life checking whether the lines of code I've written are already owned by some big bull.
Big companies on sw-patenting sprees are only good for one thing: killing off smaller companies instantly and middle size companies on the long run. Many see and know this, still nothng is done.
And hell, why would anything be done, in Africa hundreds die a day in hunger and still nothing is done.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Very concerned of? I'm skeptical for that's correct...
Well, if MS can't get the Patent office to change it's ways, MS will just have to buy it in a hostile takeover.
How about reform in which USPTO case workers (or whatever they may be called) are educated as to how to go about searching for prior art (particularly, but not limited to, in the tech space)? Also, whatever happened to patents only being licensed when the product is clearly demonstrated (that is, instead of patenting an *idea* for a product)?
Microsoft wants a system that says "All patents are belong to us".
Americans wants a system that says "All patents are belong to US"
This is not a signature.
Interesting then that patents4innovation.org (probably the larget pro-software lobby organization in Europe) lists Microsoft as one of its members (look under About Us).
Ironically, the site is built using FLOSS (PHP)...
From the article: To increase patent quality while helping examiners deal with the quantity, Smith called for a permanent end to Congress's practice of diverting USPTO fees to other budget areas.
That would imply a degree of fiscal responsibility. If fiscal responsibility existed the dollar wouldn't be going through the floor.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
The issue is that software is excluded in the EU, it would be pointless to move the debate forward on false premise! Curious timing if this was not intended purely to influence the EU!
That was Kaefer admitting the patent system is broken, and showing the fallacy of "patents for the little guy" to be just that. Whoopsee!
"Ladies and Gentlemen you see if we Ownall patents in the United States, we can save money by not suing every one and the licensing fees are half the price of the legal fees. W00t
"No other company gets such immature treatment from slashot other than Microsoft."
/. gets plenty of immature treatment.
SCO does.
Both major US political parties do. (immature support and immature derision)
Slashdot itself gets plenty of immature treatment from us.
Just about anything mentioned on
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
Perhaps I'm just ignorant, but I cannot think of an instance where Microsoft used one of its patents aggressively against a competitor. It uses them more as a protective shield: as long as it has a patent on something, no small patent company looking to make a quick buck in the legal system will be able to sue them over it. In fact, Microsoft has been known to buy out companies not for the people that work for the company or the products the company has, but solely to get the patents registered to that company. As the article says, Microsoft has lost far more money to patents than it has gained. This, of course, doesn't garauntee that Microsoft will never use its patents agressively in the future; but that is all the more reason to reform the patent system now.
...RFTA.
Microsoft also called for a patent system that is more accessible to small investors, and executives recommended that the U.S. Congress end patent filing fees for small companies, nonprofit groups, universities and individual inventors. "The system has to work for everybody," said David Kaefer, director of Microsoft's IP Licensing Program. "It's only a system that works for the largest companies."
Concidering that MS is one of the largest companies, the reform they are pushing for is not in their best interest. They are going to have to end up paying more to file their patents if the proposed shift in the patent processing fee takes place.
Having patents can bring a lot of money. Philips biggest winners were the shuffle button and 'read data through a window/layer' when they introduced CD technology two decades ago.
But the recent years shown the drawbacks of patents. For Microsoft alone 524 million at eolas and a 100 million in costs a year for going to court because of infringements by themselves as well as others infringing on their patents. Even for Microsoft, that is a lot of money.
No wonder they want to reform from quantity to quality.
MS=evil
MS vs patents... overload...
Everyone knows that
Software Engineer
If Microsoft is so concerned with submarine patents, why did they put pressure on Denmark to export the patent mess overseas?
So what if Microsoft says they couldn't have come into existence in today's patent environment. Do you think Microsoft cares about that? Well, I do, actually... but not in the sense they seem to be trying to imply. I think they would be really unhappy about another Microsoft coming into existence. They already exist, a monoply like theirs in another field could only hurt them.
Hey, will you look at that. The Xerox Unistroke patent did a real number on Palm, and forced Palm to give up one of their competitive advantages over the Pocket PC... the efficient Graffiti shorthand system.
Yeh, I think the current patent environment is in Microsoft's favor, and I don't think they really believe US patent law can be reformed. This is all a PR smoke-screen to distract attention from Europe.
Oh my God, I've accidentally logged onto the Bizarro World Slashdot!
Next there will be stories on why Apple's design sucks, why Open Source will fail, and how SCO is the greatest company in the world. And there will be no story dups!
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
"But they're just trying to protect themselves" the MS apologists will say...
No, they're not. They could easily protect themselves by creating a "prior art" and putting it out there. MS has a bazillion patents out there...
Lets take, for instance, IsNOT. Instead of applying for a pantent for that, they could have just *used* it, then claimed prior art if they ever needed "protection."
so yeah...if MS thinks we need patent reform, they should start with themselves. They're a large part of the problem.
I think all of these proposals would be beneficial except changing for changing to a first to file system. One advantage of a first to invent, is that the true first inventor will receive a patent. A first to file system would likely protect corporations with well established patent departments. I agree with MS that the first to invent system can lead to uncertainty and litigation, but I think this is an acceptable cost.
-= alphaFlight =-
Microsoft is building a navy of secret submarine labs under our noses for their evil experiments!
They don't want a monopoly. They're finally going for world domination!
While in it's current iteration, the patent system stifles innovation and development, it does have it's place.
In my opinion, the patent system should be retained, but the duration of the patent should be shortened to approximately 2 or 3 months. That's right, months.
This will bring patents back to their original intentions, which is to protect smaller inventors from having their ideas stolen before they can get a product out to market.
While ideas may not be "ownable", I'd be pretty pissed off if I came up with a brand new algorithm for - as an example - audio processing that allowed me to process audio instantly. I'm in the middle of making a killer audio app with it, when $BIG_COMPANY pushes one out the door putting me out of business, just because they have more manpower.
A patent system such as I suggest would prevent this, while not being a significant hinderance to usage of algorithms/features in other programs - if something is patented, all that must be done is to wait until the next release cycle.
Patent application fees serve some critical purposes:
1. They weed out non-serious applicants.
If anyone can apply for a patent for free, the PTO will be flooded in a wave of applications that have no real basis. They'll be time consuming and costly to dispose of. By requiring fees, only serious applicants will pursue the process of applying, and they will likely have made sure that they have a decent chance of getting their patent since they will not want to waste money in futile attempts.
Additionally, even where an applicant has a good invention that is patentable, a patent is a significant burden on the public and should not be granted lightly. Applicants should be thinking seriously about using their patent commercially rather than just sitting on it. If it is an investment to them, then they'll be thinking of it in a business mindset, and will likely try to use it or license it to others for use. If they can get it for free, there's less likelihood that the patent will be used productively. It's better for inventions to enter the public domain than to be patented in such situations.
2. They can fund the PTO
Patent examination -- when it's done right -- is fairly time consuming and somewhat expensive. This doesn't just include prior art searches, but making sure that the government can hire examiners that are familiar with their fields, and competent in the law so that applications can be checked for legal requirements as to structure, contents, etc. Plus of course there are numerous administrative costs to just keep the PTO running; applications will likely get copied, marked on, published, etc. and these things aren't free.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Microsoft wants to spread some good marketoid..
so that the pro-Patent people in Europe will have a stick to beat back the chorus of people saying
"Microsoft is trying to 0wn, the European Software Industry".
Don't believe this half hearted "me tooism", coming from Microsoft... it's just lip service, to try and defuse anti-Microsoft rhetoric (accurate rhetoric, it's worth noting).
--
AC
"Critics of Microsoft often claim that MS was behind the EU lobbying and wanted software patents to kill open source."
Straw man! Whether Microsoft was behind the efforts, they definitely supported them. Showing that other groups may have been the prime motivators for this misguided legislation doesn't change the fact that Microsoft's actions were directed to supporting it.
Prior art submission by third parties during examination is of course nice, though one could wonder how many third parties have the resources (time, money and people) to keep up with the deluge of patent applications that is submitted and published, and to additionally spend time on finding prior art. This is definitely an extra cost of the patent system which should be factored in when evaluating its efficiency.
The "administrative challenge" as permitted in Europe does not really help. In 2001, 5.7% of all granted patents were opposed. I can't find the link currently, but I previously read (also somewhere on the European Patent Office's website) that in about 70% of opposition cases, the patent is maintained. This means only about 1.7% of granted patents is rejected using this procedure. In 2002, the opposition rate even declined to 5.4%
Depending on how the "willful infringement" clause is reformed, it may become less dangerous to search the patent database for information. Then again, this assumes that you can actually decipher those patents to get the useful information out, of course. Most people will still find scholar.google.com more useful, probably.
"Increasing harmonization across international boundaries" probably refers to "get those software patents in the EU going asap". Not Good (tm). Not sure what it has to do with a reform of the US patent system either (unless they mean they want to get rid of software patents in the US, which I somehow doubt).
Donate free food here
Look at BSD. Nobody reads that, yet they get their own.
Pardon me, but I read the BSD section quite often.
BSD is to Windows like the American Armed Forces is to its enemies. It takes one BSD admin to wipe out 100 Windows admins.
Using this ratio, Windows gets underreported! :)
Bizarro Murphy: Don't you mean you hate the BIZARROS?! /off-topic Sealab 2021 reference
Could you imagine if Linux Users and Microsoft were working TOGETHER to make patent laws more sensible, getting rid of submarine patents and making software patents harder to get. Obviously we would like it if software patents were scrapped altogether, but at least with a united front we could target the worst abuses first. Microsoft doesnt need software patents, it has plenty of protection through copyright.
They're suggesting:
Dropping the fee for small businesses applying for patents. I don't think that helps, patents are worthless protection, its the *lawsuits* protecting the patented idea that cost the money not the patent application. Without the lawsuits a patent offers no protection at all.
Patent office to focus on quality not quantity. The problem I have with this is how is the patent office supposed to determine if software is new and novel. i.e. I think they're patenting rubbish simply because they don't know all the prior art available. Its all closed source and cannot be determined.
Microsoft are complaining about the patent situation in the USA *after* the vote in Europe. Before the vote they held shows for the Commission showing how innovative they are and for all the mentions in this story their lobbyists were there.
So I doubt they're angels here.
When I read this news this morning a very big alarm bell started ringing. My take on it:
1 M$ is desperately in need of patents to kill of the open-source competition
2 Because you currently can patent practically everything you can think of fierce resistance is growing against the idea of software patents in general
3 M$ decides to exploit the current criticism and proposes to fix the current software patent process
4 M$ buys a company that made a 'sensible' software patent application which has a common use
5 M$ uses the thus acquired patent to seriously affect the open-source software scene
6 M$ reestablishes it's hardcore monopoly
7 Profit
A software industry where patenting becomes common in the way copyright is today, even for software not made by Microsoft, is a software industry that is also fundimentally hostile to free and open source software. That medium and large companies can then cross-license means software would operate as a cartel, where those who make it can then choose who else could be permitted or denied the right to produce software.
For the small company, Microsoft's genorosity is a trojan horse. If it becomes easier for small software companies to gain a small patent of their own, then they will still need to negotiate cross licensing deals, for they would not be able to produce anything without access to patents others would then hold. Cross-licensing for patents for a small company under this new regime means surrendering it's patent to the big guys who can then choose to copy it and compete with you, in return for the basic right to even enter the market. Yes, it is also a good way for large and lazy companies to aquire and capture the benefits of R&D of smaller ones.
One thing Microsoft claims in patent reform is claimed to be about getting rid of the pesky underside of sharks, who use one patent wonders to hold larger companies hostage. But consider, after all, if one wishes to be able to be able to openly bully small companies into surrendering their few patents, one must also disarm their potential ability to retaliate, which can actually be possible today even with a tiny patent portfolio and a willingness to not produce products.
In short, this is not patent reform, but patent rape.
"reform from quantity to quality"
Oh yeah ? Why submit a patent for the NOT operator then ?
Why submit a patent for the FAT system ?
Why put a copyright on the term Msgbox ?
MS could start helping the patent industry immediately by controlling themselves and not submitting useless patents covered by prior art in the first place.
MS for a better world ? I'll believe it when I see it.
Even the parent post gets immature treatment, because it sucks.
"In a CeBIT debate today it was concluded that the MS monopoly would not exist with today's software patenting in place back in 1985."
Or circa 1980 to prevent Microsoft/Seattle Computing from ripping off CP/M.
In a similar vein, Disney would not be what it is today if copyright had been applied to fairy tales and the like - and then never allowed to expire.
But now that they've taken advantage of the way things were, they want protection from others doing the same to them.
Turnabout is fair play.
Daniel Jansen
I think that MS is following the easy money path as usual. Do as we say, not as we do.
Here is my theory. Microsoft wants to increase the number of patent so they can pick and choose to combat FLOSS.
Would you take a million for your patent?
The patent office doesn't think it needs to reform. I'm from Arlington, I know two lawyers who work at the patent office and both of them specialize in software patents.
First, they believe they are doing our country a service by protecting the 'inventors' of the software. You can't tell them otherwise. Bringing up things like prior art just pisses them off. According to them, prior art is not their responsibility, its the responsibility of the person filing the patent to show any prior art. They don't have 'time' to be hunting around the for this so called 'prior art'. If they grant an invalid patent, let the courts sort it out. Its the courts job to validate and rule on prior art.
Second, they don't need to have software development experience to approve software patents because all they do is look through an internal database see if key things are already patented. If it is not, boom, granted.
So, I don't think we're going to see patent reform any time soon, especially when they don't want to be reformed.
When it gets sued, the patents are obvious and there is plenty of prior art. When it is suing, they are not obvious and there is no prior art.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Considering the number of Microsoft and Bill Gates stories that Slashdot posts, it's amazing they don't get their own section.
Look at BSD. Nobody reads that, yet they get their own.
Yes. I propose we retire the BSD section, and replace it with a BSOD section.
(I'm a Windows user, okay? I know BSODs haven't been a problem since Windows Me. It's a joke. Laugh.)
but... does it run on Linux ???
I know its trendy to wave a Noam Chomsky book and identify everything any corporation does and label everything that could be a public stunt as propaganda. The problem with this view is that it simply ignores that Microsoft doesn't have much to gain in that direction.
The reason that the patent system sucks is because 99.9% of voters don't understand enough to give a crap about it. So is this propaganda aimed at the 0.1% of remaining voters? If so, it isn't even doing a good job.
Look at Microsoft's patent history. Sure they've done some crap and registered a ton of BS patents. Of course they did; if they didn't, some schmo (like Eolas) would register a submarine patent and sue the crap out of Microsoft, and maybe even get a fat payout to shut up. While they might not have as much to lose as OSS people, Microsoft has a lot to lose under the current system.
Maybe I'm being brainwashed for believing this? Perhaps. If so it isn't changing my day behavior of working on open source apps and calling for patent reform in which case my brainwashing didn't reap any rewards for Microsoft. So much for manufacturing consent.
We have a winner.
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
And get sued? Yay.
That said, I do think there are enough "Zomg Bill Gates writes something!" stories to get a section of their own; a couple of weeks ago every other story on the front page was about him...
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
"While patents are a really important way to reward innovation
Could the above be the understatement of the day?
http://petition.eurolinux.org/
Microsoft announces 120 'high quality' jobs coming to Ireland. There was a prominant annoucement featuring this on the 6 o'clock news headlines on RTE this Wednesday.
This was after Irish comissioner Charlie McCreevy's (internal market) endeavors in the EU Commission this week to procede with the software patents directive (after a meeting Bill Gates), and Irish minister Mary Harney's dubious endeavors in the Council of Ministers (Irish EU presidency) last May to get a yes vote on the directive.
So now Microsoft brings 'high quality' jobs to existing 1200 employee site in Dublin this week
Coincidence?
No.
They are losing more money from software patents than they are making
"In a CeBIT debate today it was concluded that the MS monopoly would not exist with today's software patenting in place back in 1985."
... it is easier and cheaper to exploit an existing business model, than to remain limber and innovative in a changing market.
... often (though not always) through our patent regime.
Or circa 1980 to prevent Microsoft/Seattle Computing from ripping off CP/M.
It sounds like the CeBit article (disclaimer, I haven't read it, merely your quote from it) is disingenuously putting forth a pro-software patent argument.
It is true that if software patents had existed in 1980 the Microsoft monopoly probably wouldn't exist. However, it is also true that free software wouldn't exist. Nor would the Internet, the World Wide Web, ubiquitious and universal email, or most of the modern software we use and enjoy.
The entire software industry would essentially be where it was in circa 1985 at best, because all of the patents on basic software design would just now be expiring, and all the patents on the next generation of ideas (which were around in 1985 or so) would just now be kicking in.
I hate the Microsoft monopoly as much as anyone, and I despise what they've done to the industry. They've held computing back a good 10 or 15 years in many respects, but compared to what software patents will bring, Microsoft is harmless. To use their anti-competative practices to justify and argue in favor of government entitlements to monopolies on ideas, however basic or advanced, is so rich in absurdity and irony it boggles the mind.
Software patents are a reality. They probably will get shoved down the Europeans' throats, and the era of breakneck software innovation and advances will come to an end. This will suit the entrenched business and political interests that are pushing so hard for software patents just fine
Expect the snail-paced progress that follows to be spun by the media and pundits as "the technology sector has matured." A mature market is doublespeak for a market that has been regulated into stagnation
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
So the Onion is really a prophetic newspaper.
It is true that when considering a wide range of potential conversation topics, the slashdot audience has a general trend to tend towards an immature and non-serious discussion of the matter at hand.
However, in a contrasting point, consider the fact that when it comes to topics pertaining to the former Soviet Union (particularly vis-à-vis comic performers of the nineteen eighties), seriousness slashdots YOU!
That's because, when Bill Gate$ actually writes something himself, it should be considered world-breaking news... In all ways "world-breaking" can be interpreted
I can now stop time, but the effect is only temporary
What if there were no "evil" Microsoft conspiracy keeping IDG/Infoworld afloat with all kinds of press releases, ads and other sponsorship? Maybe the truth about patents could be discussed at places like CeBIT, without Microsoft rigging all the PR.
--
make install -not war
Microsoft's "solution" is "make it easier for small companies and individuals to get patents". WTF???
I'll tell you what's wrong there:
(1) Philisophical point: Making it cheaper for me to restrict others by patent monopolies is very poor compensation indeed for others being able to restrict me! I don't desire to restrict others that way, nor do I desire to be restricted.
So, thanks, but no thanks, there.
(2) Microsoft's execs are starting I"P" holding companies. Patents in the USA are a _transferrable_ asset - they can be bought and sold ! If a small company can get a cheap patent, Microsoft or their hellspawn progeny I"P" holding companies can buy it from them. So, small company gets patent for $cheap, large company getting patent from uspto is $expensive. Large company just offers small company $middling where $cheap < $middling < $expensive.
And if small company actually produces anything, they'll still be liable for patent suits from Microsoft's existing portfolio - and, since patents are valu-able (that is to say, the US legal system can assign value to them), in a such a suit, Microsoft might end with the smaller company's patents for even less than $cheap !
So that's great - now Microsoft can build a giant patent portfolio more cheaply!
Microsoft NEVER do things for any reason other than enriching Microsoft. - and sometimes I also get the impression it's not enough for them to be enriched, other people have to suffer too.
And start thinking in terms of whose interest are similar and contrary to yours, and in which areas.
But there is a system issue here, is it to encourage innovation, of to fund the PO, patent attorneys and lawyers; if innovation the current system is fatally flawed
It would not be hard to construct a fair system to encourage innovation and to protect the small inventor: fees based on the (a) number of patents already held, (b) on public prior-art challenge, (c) require attestation of no prior-art with penalty ... would all fix the problem
Since this necessary reform is not happening, presumably due to lack of political will be all the more suspect of M$ motives; they are un-ethical but NOT stupid.
Show me some action, not just double-speak.
Oh my God, I've accidentally logged onto the Bizarro World Slashdot!
Next there will be stories on why Apple's design sucks, why Open Source will fail, and how SCO is the greatest company in the world. And there will be no story dups!
But even on Bizarro World Slashdot, there will still be typos.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
According to Dante, the lowest levels of hell are actually quite cold (the wind chill is generated by the ever-flapping wings of Satan). The primary torment there is to be encased in solid ice, though there are three in particular who are instead perpetually chewed-up inside the three mouths of Satan.
More info can be found here.
Agreed. And I've adjusted my settings to promote that immaturity. It makes for an interesting read, so long as you remember that what you're reading is doubly skewed.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Worst case the industry would never have taken off at all.
Currently a highly profitable business model would be to patent a bunch of crap and hope that Microsoft inadvertently uses some of that stuff in their code. I wouldn't expect Linux guys to be particularly profitable targets, comparatively speaking...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
"Microsoft, which holds about 4,500 patents worldwide and has another 10,000 pending, has been on the losing end of patent lawsuits."
Nuff said.
Patent application fees serve some critical purposes:
1. They weed out non-serious applicants.
They do NOT weed out non-serious applicants with money. Granted, a symbolic once-only fee of between 20$-40$ might be necessary just to stop "spammers" but that, and the work involved in writing a patent application, is enough to stop applicants. Even now, most of the cost is not in writing, but in other legal costs anyway. Also, a well-funded company does not need to make use of a patent to pay for the fees, since to a well funded company, the patent fees are small money('peanuts'). Even if the patent is useful, it might just sit and wait till it gets bought or till it can sue someone for licensing fees.Licensing fees would not be a problem if patents as they exist today did really only cover the exact steps in detail to make something work - however they often also cover completely different or more advanced stuff. Actually, a patent should have only one claim. Having several claims has completely undefined semantics until tested in court.
2. They can fund the PTO
When arguing for patents, it's being said that patents serve the good of all by providing economical support for progress. If that is so, then there is no need to punish patent holders by huge fees and taxes, and since the PTO performs an important public service, the public should pay for it.I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
So far MAD has worked. but just "so far". As soon as a credible anti missile defense gets close to operational, the other parties without that tech would realise there's no "mutual" left in that equation, all they will see is "assured destruction", and will be sorely tempted to launch an all out first strike.
Of course, I now kind of wonder at your familiarity with the system, since patent terms are 20 years from filing, not 25.
Who's to say a Cher Patent Term Extension Act wouldn't be tacked on as a rider?
There is nothing that prevents a corporation from donating to charitable causes, or restricting their business to being nice. They just have to disclose these things to shareholders in earning reports if they are expected to influence the bottom line. You can then decide to invest based both on your wallet and your morals.
:-)
Bill Gates plans to donate a large part of his wealth, when he could have given himself smaller stock grants and distributed the money to shareholders, without any change to his own bottom line. I don't see any huge outcry among investors.
The only trouble is, not enough people are making these choices. The solution I think is creating more opportunities for people to help themselves and close family members, which we are relatively good at. It will not be anything pleasant for big corporations
a patent is given just to the one who expends the time and money to patent it and uphold the patent.
Not in the US. Only the first inventor can get a patent, and then he has to undertake the step of getting it within a fairly narrow timeframe.
Later inventors don't get shit. This is why prior art is such a big deal -- if proper prior art exists, it indicates that the applicant (or patent holder) wasn't the actual first inventor, and therefore cannot validly have a patent. This is the requirement of novelty. Nonobviousness, another requirement, also relies on prior art.
Our first to invent system is a bit unusual, but I think it's superior than other countries first to file system.
Unlike document copyright, where the first publisher of a sequence of words is the copyright holder as if this was an inalienable right
I agree that copyright is pretty fucked up. However, that's also not correct. Novelty is only required for patents. You don't need novelty for copyrights. So let's say that Alice writes a book, and Bob then writes an identical book. So long as Bob didn't look to Alice's work, he can get a copyright on the same thing. What's important is not that each work is unique, but that you did it yourself. The technical term for this is originality, which merely means that the work originates with the author, rather than that it is novel, which would mean that it had never been done before.
They do NOT weed out non-serious applicants with money.
Bill Gates didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks, you know. So long as the fees can scale up, they can continue to provide a significant barrier. Of course, larger entities can fund more inventive activity, so it shouldn't be surprising that Bell Labs gets more patents than some guy in his basement.
Minor fees are insufficient, however. They should start in the thousands and move up fast. Copyright fees are too low now as it stands, and coupled with making fees not necessary for copyright to attach, the system there is all screwed up. Getting monopolies of this nature should not be done on a lark; they should be serious business decisions made by serious businesspeople. This means businesses or inventors that treat their work as a business. Not people who do stuff for the hell of it; they'd do stuff anyway, and therefore should not get rewarded when we need those rewards only for people that wouldn't do it anyway.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
And charities wouldn't be near as required as they are now if across the board people were given livable wages and benefits. You have to remember, there is no "right" to incorporation, it is a government granted privelege that at least in the original days had as part of the deal that the corporations efforts had to serve the public benefit as well as make profit (had the opportunity I mean) for the corporations owners.
Once that first part-be of public benefit- gets ignored, then they become burdensome to the population, even if they have a useful product or service.
Here's a large obvious example. Is walmart useful to a community when they can offer cheaper wares, with the tradeoff of whenever they become established someplace, better paying jobs with benefits disapper, and then the state or charity has to step in to take up the newly created slack? Like, how useful is a walmart to a person who's factory job evaporated offshore and they lost a decent middle class job with some benefits? So they can go work at the walmart instead, yep, what they can buy is cheaper, but now they make 1/2 what they were making before and have no real benefits. Is just having the cheaper stuff available all that valuable to that person then? Has the corporation actually fulfilled their incorporation obligation to be of mass public benefit, or has it merely gone to make the corporation profits?
Just using walmart as an example because they are so big and a lot of studies and anecdotals, etc, are out there now.
Microsoft has much more to lose than they have to win from patent litigation.
If a smalltime patent holder wins against Microsoft, the cost could easily be an eight to ten digit figure. On the flipside, what M$ might gain from a patent victory against the little guy might be insignificant compared to the PR hit they would take. Vanquishing a small company over questionable M$ patent rights might even harm their defense against charges of anti-competitive practices, potentially leading to enormous losses.
They absolutely must protect their right to sell what they've built, and of course they will do so. But they also are looking over their shoulder, and they may not like what they see.
If they don't patent it someone else will, and Microsoft will get sued. You call them evil for playing the game, but you don't acknowledge that Microsoft are the biggest patent target on account of having wads of cash. But shades of gray are too much for you to comprehend right?
it's a joke based on a common misconception...
...MS realises they are pretty vulnerable to getting charged with violations. At least that's how I am parsing his statements. "First to file" sounds like they want to be able to legally trump prior art, and "leverage" their obvious financial advantage in filing.
I think they are running scared now. I bet they have a ton of violations inside their "licensed" code base.
Anyway, the software industry got what it lobbied for, patents. It sure wasn't the vast majority of end users out there lobbying for it.
Next step is going to be them (and a ton of other places) defending against "no warranties" so called licenses with their "valuable intellectual property" software patents. I think that's really the next big shoe to drop, even if it's off most radar screens right now. the obvious absurdity of having multi hundreds of billions a year industry with zero consumer warranties is starting to become quite a problem --and also an opportunity that some lawyers will notice, and quite a few CFOs in NON software corporations are noticing. People who get stuck with having to payout zillions, and then have to repay over and over again to "insure" it might be half way functional or secure.
Microsoft is a big business. Although perhaps a couple of employees there may object to our current patent system for ethical reasons, I think that the company as a whole has to love our patent system.
You weren't thinking the name of the game was innovation or serving the customer instead of money, were you?
I suspect, as others have said, that much of what microsoft is saying is political spin, perhaps with an eye towards the EU.
-------
Incite and flee.
It is so blatant that what these firms are trying to do is kill innovation from small lean companies that often develop distruptive technology. in first to file, the one with more money wins.. so the little inventor and small company are dead in the water as they work towards their product. couple this with offshoring and there will be little innovation in the united states proper as the infrastructure to support such innovation is far away. need a machine tool.. cant get it, its not here anymore... have a new product.. well, now that you contacted outside places, they have the resources to put 100 people on it and flood the patent office with claims they will re-ammend with the initial purpose of locking their first to file status. first to file creates the situation of secrecy and deadly competition. the downside in first to file for large firms is that it makes them vulnerable to IP theft. spy in a company and get an idea what they are working towards, and patent it first. it doesnt matter anymore if you came up with it first!!!!!! this is a bad idea.. it stops innovation through the obvious as well as through the subtle but not allowing a person to communicate knowing that their rights would not be abridged by such communication. the concept of a submarine patent is a neg spin on a good thing. they dont like that they didnt do the due diligence search to find the patent before they established the produict. its not like the patent info was secret. the argument that is obfuscated is that they are tired of not being able to shove a patent through without spending the money on the work they are supposed to do and then get bitten. sue the guys doing the incomplete search for you or accept the consequences of making application without such a search.. i am a small time enginner and product developer, and its almost impossible for a small person to get stuff out there.. actually its pretty impossible... if software patents where allowed in the way they are doing this, eventually no one will be able to write any efficient code as they bloat more and more to avoid thousands of infringements because novelty in code is a hard thing to define. imagine if there were patents on sentences and you will get the idea as to what will happen. you will have to make products only out of old code snips that are out of patent, or make this huge thing that meanders to avoid the expense. this will not stop the biggies that hold the patents as they cross licence to each other merrily picking up innovation money because their competition is non existent. the patent office was to protect innovation.. more and more because of the late 1800s law that sets companies as entities like people, we are allowing them to square off the freedom to reach on your own for anything. it may be better for those that can afford ibm or giant company stock in large amounts, but it will be worse for us all as great things will not be made becuse one company will agree not to make it in order to be allowed to make something else. every company which creates in house solutions will have to switch to canned solutions in which the algoritms have proper licensing.. no more in house developement because it will be impossible to write code that doesnt infringe once the free for all (like in genetics) is over... the breast cancer gentics patents are keeping all development at a stand still as reasearchers cant afford to licence to work on any part of it. it has in effect made sure that only once company can develope anything using these two genes.. and so we are not limited to the innovation of that one company.. whats worse is the technology needed to find things to wall off in IP is not contributable to the technology that would be needed to exploit the patent.. we have created the situation where ther people who own the potential have no ability to exploit that potential. given that this is risky to start with its not practical for another company who doesnt even know yet if htey have anything to start work on something that has a built in monkey on its back
One word: Eolas
Even if Eolas does not succeed, they will have succeeded in causing Microsoft to spend tons of money in legal fees, as well as making their stock price suffer. Even then, it still sucks for Microsoft.
If you read the article, Microsoft seems to be talking out of both sides of it's mouth. On the one hand, they want patents to be free for small businesses and non-profits, on the other hand, they don't want to be sued by 'inventors' that view holding a patent that Microsoft needs as a winning the lottery. These options are mutually exclusive as making patents free for small businesses would virtually guarantee that thousands of 'inventors' would get into the lottery. Why not, if the tickets are essentially free? In addition, Microsoft's proposal would result in the FSF (which is a non-profit) becoming the world's biggest software patent holder in short order, and I'm fairly certain that isn't what Microsoft has in mind. More to the point, why travel around the world threatening governments if they don't essentially sign up to implement the US patent system for software? Microsoft surely has many times more software patents then they have hardware patents, so if they were really interested in preventing future Eolas patent extortion schemes, they should have been agressively lobbying against software patents. Instead, they were the most vocal backer of software patents in the EU. Actions speak a heck of a lot louder than words, particulary where Microsoft is involved, and their actions all point to a desire to prevent competition by any means possible. It is going to take a lot more than a press release to convince me that pigs can fly, particularly, the biggest, fattest, pig in the pen.
Sure, microsoft may be spending a ton on legal fees.
But having a big arsenal of patents gives them the ability to make very convincing threats to their competitors, and probably gives them increased control over their markets.
-------
Incite and flee.
Foxes claim the henhouse design is a submarine patent by the dogs.
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
Please stop posting this crap around the internet !
ie : www.nosoftwarepatents.com
Where you've managed to piss off 'every' single last Irish person, in the world.
Why not post.
"Danish Minister fails to do as parliment told him to do, since M$ threatned 800 jobs in Denmark, by not demanding the A-item Patent (no debate) was changed to a B-item (with further debate)"?
Because you're a flaming looney and like the Danes but, don't like the Irish ?
Please crawl back to whatever bierhoff it is you crawled out from and find some other minority to pick on !!!!!!!!!
.. is that if there is a disagreement on what constitutes a worst abuse, microsoft is going to win. They'll never classify anything they do as an abuse.
Plus, I hate the system we have of jury-rigging the law. We say, "Well, people should be rewarded for good ideas, and the patent system was an attempt at doing this... so even though it's not working very well right now, all we have to do is tweak it a little." Good. Just add some more watered down legal code to the process of determining what is a "new" and "valuable" idea.
No, we should leave the US patent system as it is, and let it grow so absurd that it collapses under its own weight.
-------
Incite and flee.
We can quote them on that. That might be helpful.
It's also good if this initiative results in more public discussion of the issue.
What is important to avoid however is to allow any Microsoft-sponsored law on the topic to get adopted. No such law will do anything to solve the problem. It will however reduce the probability of software patentability getting overturned by the US Supreme Court.
Under construction: swpat politics overview article
I thought it was determined by several appeals that Microsoft didn't have a monopoly.
Am I missing something?
Ohhhh that's right. Since they have 200 bazillion dollars, they can appeal til every court gets tired of hearing the case, and they find for Microsoft so they go away.
The golden rule precludes monopoly. Silly me.
for telling us that just AFTER the new EU directive was adopted... I hope MS can get their money back from Mr. Brinkhorst.
Microsoft calls fo` patent reform
... today we see a crisis of confidence in tha U.S.," Kaefa said . Death row 187 4 life. "At lot of thugz is ask'n, is tha system as good as it could bizzle
Govizzles focuses on quantity, not quality, software vendor says
By Grizzant Gross, IDG News Servicizzles 10, 2005
WASHINGTON - Microsoft (Profile, Products, Articles) execizzles on Thursday stepped up they calls fo` reform of tha U.S. patent process, say'n tha U.S. Patent n Trademark Office (USPTO) too often focuses on quantity instead of quality upside yo head.
Microsoft also called fo` a patent system thiznat be more accessible ta S-M-to-tha-izzall investors, n execizzles recommended tizzle tha u.s. congress end patent fil'n fees fo` smizzay companies, nonprofit groups, univizzles n individual inventors. "izzy system has ta wizzork fo` everizzles said david kaefa, director of microsoft's ip licens'n program. "its only a system tizzle works fo` tha largest companies."
Microsoft n playa tizzay companies have pushed Congress ta end tha diversion of patent fees fizzle tha USPTO ta tha U.S. government general budget, say'n thiznat tha office needs mizzle fund'n ta evaluate tha grow'n numba of patent applications , chill yo. The USPTO receives more thizzan 350,000 patent applications per year, triple tha drug deala it received 20 years ago from tha streets of tha L-B-C.
But end'n patent fees fo` small businizzles wouldnt hizzy a major impact on tha USPTOs budget coz so few small businizzles or individual inventors can afford tha fees, Gangsta said. Patent application fees can run into tha thousands of dollars. "Some thugz is more able ta hizzay finance tha system," Playa said . Relax, cus I'm bout to take my respect.
Mizzle technology companies n trade groups have called fo` patent reform, playa some Internet activists accused tha USPTO of grant'n patents on technolizzles that were already widely used. One of tha mizzle publicized cases was in Septemba 1999, wizzle Amazon.com was granted a patent fo` its one-click weed-smokin' service . One, two three and to tha four. Amazon.com (Profile, Products, Articles) Chief Executive Bitch Jeff Bezos nigga called fo` patent reform fo' sheezy.
Microsoft, whizzay holds `bout 4,500 patents worldwide n has brotha 10,000 clockin' has been on tha los'n end of patent lawsuits like old skool shit. In July, a U.S. court in California ruled that an ergonomic keyboard patent claim against Microsoft by TypeRight Keyboard could mizzle forward but real niggaz don't give a fuck. Shot Calla this month, a U.S. appeals court overturned a $520.6 million patent infringement judgment against Microsoft brought by Eolas Technolizzles. Eolas had sued Microsoft over a Web brows'n patent n won its case in lowa court in August 2003 now pass the glock Anotha dogg house production..
"While patents is a really important way ta reward innovation
Hustla echo'n a speech by Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith in Washington, D.C., Thursday, also called fo` Congress ta look fo` ways ta limit patent lawsuits with my hoes on my side, and my strap on my back.
"It is too eazy fo` a litigant ta manipulate tha U.S. system n look ta a patent lawsuit as tha ultimate lottery ticket, steppin' ta confuse jurors wit technical jargon that wizzle yield tha payment of a lifetizzles Smiznith said in e-mailed remarks n shit.
Smizzay n Playa also recommended tha U.S. n otha countries look at ways ta "harmonizzles patent laws . Dogg House Records in the motha fuckin house. Steppin' patent laws cause problems fo` patent drug deala n technology companies, Bitch said to increase tha peace.
The European Union (E.U.), meanwhile, is in tha middle of a politizzles controversy over patents. The European Commission, tha E.U.s executive body, has issued a proposed law on Rappa inventions", whizzay could allow software ta be patented. To date there have bizzy no legal provisions that allow patents ta be applied ta software in tha E.U.
Th
David Kaefer, director of Microsoft's IP Licensing Program. "It's only a system that works for the largest companies."
Since the whole Federal Government works way too, now that a corporate giant wants some changes maybe we'll see some changes.
The way large companies "protect themselves" from competitors with annoying patents is by having the trading cards necessary to force a cross-license rather than litigate. Usually if the attacker is a competitor, they will be doing things in the same space as said company.
The real danger to big companies is licensing farms with giant piles of (ultimately) useless patents with which they can extort money.
Increasing patent quality helps solve that problem.
As for Europe, Microsoft still wants *good* software patents. They seem to be arguing (justifiably) that they'd be better off with fewer stupid patents (even, or perhaps especially, including their own which are expensive to acquire/maintain and ultimately useless in the long run).
Big countries still want nuclear weapons, they just don't want them to be easy to acquire.
With their tiny profits and lack of market acceptance, Microsoft needs all the help they can get to try to squeeze out just a few more cents of PROFIT !!!
... (World Domination step)
1. Change Patent Laws
2. Only Microsoft, Corp is allowed to make patents.
3.
4. PROFIT!!!
They starve thanks to corruption. In many ways, corruption in countries like Nigeria is so rampant, it is a way of life. And don't get me started on lawlessness in places like Rwanda. Complete chaos.
Get rid of corruption, and Africa, with the current amount of aid they receive, would not be starving.
... this reminds me of a small company that wrote a Lotus 1-2-3 clone, and got into legal trouble about it. What was it called? Microsoft? With Microsoft Excel?
What happened to Lotus 1-2-3, btw. ?
Wait... does that mean... that Microsoft is my friend? Or that software patents are my friend??
Does... not... compute..... So... confused!
Tick: "My head feels like... like it's going to have a baby!"
Arthur: "It's called a 'headache'."
Tick: "It has a name?!?"
--- SER
Next stop...........the twilight zone!!!
I was with you right up to the no dupes bit, that would never happen
Eventually, patent reform has to happen anyway. Microsoft might as well try to influence the changes in their own favor now instead of waiting until it might be too late.
From TFA I gathered that they (MS) call for greater accessability of the patent system by small businesses, and they propose to achieve it by getting rid of the registration fee.
So, let us see. Certainly that will not stop MS and its ilk from patenting; but it will also result in a flood of new patent applications which will come from small businesses and individuals. Soon we will have an endless see of patents dominated by the big fish. We all know that even though anyone can register these things, only the biggest players can really enjoy their benefits in the marketplace -- if only because their deep pockets allow them to litigate more rigorously.
While they do not advocate software patents in TFA, they do so in other venues. So throw in the software patents, and then in a few years we will have everything patented -- inventions, ideas, DNAs, etc., etc. ... It beats me how a monopoly can be challenged under such circumstances, or, most importantly, how can a person with a great idea enter the marketplace. It is clear that no matter how original an invention is, there is always enough prior art to warrant some litigation.
If anything, we need to reduce the scope of patentable things, as well as the scope of monopoly granted by the government. Patent system, if used at all (I would opt out), should concern itself only with inventions that are truly original, difficult to come up with, expensive to research, and pose no major moral conundrums when monopolized (like life-saving drugs!). Allowing to patent anything else can only lead us to a stagnation of ideas and is against the purpose of the patent system.
Did you expect the press to immediately understand what MS is really trying to do here?
Here is my analysis: What Microsoft proposes is a change that will make the software patents problem worse rather than better, by encouraging hackers to play a new kind of software patents lottery, by filing software patents, and then trying to sell licenses for those patents to Microsoft. Microsoft will then buy licenses to those patents which could be relevant to Microsoft's future products. This initiative is targeting specifically businesses for whom the relatively small patent filing fees are significant, i.e. businesses who could never even dream of filing a patent infringement lawsuit against MS. That means that the chances of MS to essentially dictate the price and other terms and conditions of those patent licenses wouldn't be too bad. I'm sure that the license contract would prevent the patent holder from also licensing the patent to third parties under terms which are compatible with the idea of Free Software. Besides this nasty side effect, the benefit of this scheme to MS is that MS would be able to buy patent licenses relatively cheaply *before* releasing products which infringe those patents. (Buying patent licenses is problematic for MS only after MS has already released a program which infringes the patent, because in that situation the patent holder has a strong negotiating position).
If this strategy works out, it'll give MS a huge edge over every other software company, essentially granting a permanent monopoly to MS. MS is willing to share part of the monopoly rent with some small software businesses by buying patent licenses from them.
Under construction: swpat politics overview article
MS probably wants a specific kind of patent reform: the kind that would prevent IBM from hammering MS in retaliation for MS crushing open source with its patents.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
If this is the same proposal I heard about earlier, the MS solution is to make getting a patent more expensive.
Now this isn't a totally worthless idea, but it does benefit those with deep pockets. Still, if it cost, say an extra $1,000 per patent, even the larger corps would be less likely to patent things they saw as frivolous.
OTOH, just getting rid of patents would be a much better idea.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
So you accept Dante as divinely inspired revelation?
You do know that the Inferno was basically a diatribe written in exile where he depicted his political adversaries in every torment he could think of, don't you?
The comment about Dante is a normal response to "When hell freezes over!", intended to suggest that the respondent doesn't consider it as unlikely as all that. Don't take it too seriously or literally.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
WIPO is based on law written for by, and for large corporations and paid for by campaign contributions made to US politicians just like DMCA is. While the neocons are a good part of what's wrong with the world, when major corporate interests are involved, starting with the Hollywood content cartel, Democrats will roll over with their paws in the air just as quickly as George Bush will. (see also the vote on the new MNBA-funded bankruptcy law as well as who voted for DMCA)
If Google is your friend, try these keywords:
WIPO "domain name disputes"
Tech Public Policy stuff
The quote hits the nail on the head: "The current patent system only works for large companies."
I'm not with Microsoft on the subject of whether software should be patentable -- the economics of software are totally different than material good. However, if patents won't go away, then we should at least remove as much of the nonsense from them as possible.
Remember, I can only respond to what you said, not what you meant.
Tech Public Policy stuff
MS denied the story later, you can believe the demial if you please, but if you do, "want to buy some land"?
IMHO, NO, WE CAN'T TRUST THE SOURCE
Tech Public Policy stuff
Just in the opposite direction of where Microsoft wants them to go.
Many of the posts here seem to discuss Microsoft as if it were a single entity with a single will.
They're not. Differnet bits of MS want differnet things
I'm sure MS-legal loves patents, what better way to stay busy and make money?
I'm equally sure that MS-dev hates patents 'cos it adds to the development cost.
Here's a suggestion:
- software patents only apply to companies or individuals seeking financial gain. To put it another way, if you're developing open source software, you can do so without fear of litigation over software patent issues; essentially, FOSS is exempt from patent issues
Obviously, MS would not be pleased about this. Obviously, there would be subsequent discussions required as to exactly what defines "open source" and "financial gain". However, I don't think these issues would be anything like as messy as the current patent systems in use around the world
The patent system was originally put in place to allow inventors to have a brief monopoly period over their work. The reasoning was that inventors had spent some time and effort developing their inventions, and should be compensated so they'd keep inventing more and more useful stuff that would benefit the public overall.
If Oracle/IBM/MS/SAP/... invent something and patent it, it seems reasonable to protect their work from their direct competitors for a period of time. However, if I, working in my house, can develop something that does the same thing, surely releasing it for free to the world benefits the world.
I won't be allowed to benefit from it financially, because someone else came before me, invented it and patented it. However, if I can duplicate it and give it away for free, well that pretty much forces the original inventor to keep raising the bar. More importantly, they can't build enormous proprietary, locked down systems based on a single piece of patented technology; well they could try, but as soon as that system reached a certain "must have it" factor, FOSS equivalents would emerge to compete. Hopefully that would spell the end of "embrace and extend, with patent protection".
Patent-holders would have an advantage over me - they can sell their invention for a profit, whereas I can only give it away - but that also means they can't lock it away in a "glass case" and say "look but don't touch"; if they did that, then people could just come to me and get my version for free.
Why wouldn't people just come to me for my free version? Several reasons: many can be equated to "why do people buy products from MS & Oracle now when they can just download notionally equivalent products for free?". The patent-holder can market their product to death; I can't afford to because I'm not getting paid for it. The patent-holder can support and maintain their product with a big budget; I can't. The patent-holder can cross-licence their patent with other companies in exchange for access to their patents; I can't. Software patents would still have value, but they wouldn't have the "unlimited piles of gold" value they have today.
Anyone got any thoughts on this suggestion?
"Microsoft also called for a patent system that is more accessible to small investors, and executives recommended that the U.S. Congress end patent filing fees for small companies, nonprofit groups, universities and individual inventors."
One might think by this statement that Microsoft wants to play fair and not destroy Open Source through the use of patents. Not so.
Bill Gates himself said that the usefulness of patents is to force cross licensing. However, Microsoft can't really attack open source projects right now because the way that patent laws are drafted it would be too obvious that they have been designed by big corporations for big corporations to destroy competition.
Don't be fooled by this PR stunt. Microsoft has every intention of "vigorously protecting its intellectual property." But after all the publicity that the European software patent push has produced they have to make it seem like software patents are valuable to everyone including open source projects.
Don't forget that even if software patents are free to open source projects suing to enforce them is not. And the whole point of software patents as stated by good ol' Bill himself is to force cross licensing.
I don't care what Microsoft says, they can't compete with "free" forever. If they can force open source software projects to cross license with them and pay royalties they can force the open source projects to not be "free" anymore. This would kill open source as we know it.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Microsoft and other USA corporations needs patents in Europe because they want globalize this practice. So they can translate their patent arsenal all over the world and fight anyone. The reform is only a "Troy Horse"...
I find it disturbing that on appeal the patent gets reviewed by people who are less knowlegable in the field. That's like at a big company where managers make technical decisions on stuff they aren't qualified to make. Bummer.
http://www.newpath4.com/forsalespacecraftenginecon stantpowertheory.htm . Let them get to know me. Worked for John Travolta eh? Anyway, it works for Hollywood. In the Real World truth draws Neanderthals to a pie-throwing contest. Altho in academia someone stepping from amongst mortals gets shunned. Perhaps the French won't act like that. Be pretty funny if the Iranians offer me the money eh? Gee whiz Aunt Martha, whatever would I do? What would YOU do Mr. Average American money-stomped Poor?
Not in the US. Only the first inventor can get a patent, and then he has to undertake the step of getting it within a fairly narrow timeframe.
That is the theory. However there is no way that the patent office can check whether this is the first time the idea appeared. Of course, it seems you are a lawyer - you just define someone who doesn't patent or publish his invention as a non-inventor. Of course I can't really argue against such a circuitous definition/argument pair, I can only disagree with such a basis.However some examples: For example, Microssoft's ISNOT patent application certainly doesn't describe something new. But that is an too easy target. Take the Segway patent. I looked at it, it is a pretty good patent, specific, with details and meat. However, even with such a patent I cannot help but wonder whether all the smart parts in that patent are not just a straightforward application of the known mathematics of feedback control theory. Of course, there is still work involved here, but nothing that some math students wouldn't have solved as exercises between 4am and breakfast.
Today, we stand on the shoulders of giants, and the patent office allows everyone to patent small extensions to these giants achievements, just because they are new. To close, there also si no way that you can accurately define or measure what non-obviousness means. You can only find out what is new.I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
And they have probably another thousand or so around. But besides their ideological views on this world (whether good or bad), a smaller patent portofolio is cheaper to maintain, although you have to invest more money in development before you can obtain one patent. But that is what patents are (or should be) all about: protecting investments in new development, thus encouraging research, which in the end leads, exactly, to a better world :-)
and Eolas is just part of it. Last year, one of Microsoft's File Allocation Table (FAT) patents was called into question by the USPTO and is currently under review.
w eek09/patrequ.htm/
Now, there's more. Last week additional challenges to Microsoft patents were filed with the USPTO. One of the challenges concerns the same FAT patent brought under scrutiny last year (US#5,579,517). Basically, another expert is contesting the validity of this patent on entirely new grounds.
The second request is a challenge to another Microsoft FAT patent (US#5,758,352). That's three challenges to the Microsoft FAT patent family in the US in less than one year.
What kind of leverage can Microsoft have to drive reform if the basics are questionable to begin with?
Check out this report from the USPTO's Official Gazette from March 1 for details on the new patent challenges.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/2005/
you had me at #!
Well, the mathematics of feedback control theory surely do something, even if not physically at first. But I suppose if you are going to patent something physically using this, then you will often leave out most physical details, especially out of the base claim 1, and it would be your duty as a patent lawyer towards the client to make claim 1 as broad as possible.
So it is my perception that claim 1 will often not include much palpable "physical" stuff anyway.
This would not be as bad, if the whole patent would fall if claim 1 would be disputed succesfully, but I believe that the court will then let the patent owner get away with a succesful patent on claim 2+. I just can't get myself to understand this, because the complete invention is built on a chain of claims, and if claim 1 crumbles, it seems to me that the whole chain should fall.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
IIRC one invalid claim will not invalidate other claims. Possibly this is because while you might not be able to patent A by itself, A+B is sufficient, which is what the dependent claims basically are.
However, we're reaching the limits of my patent knowledge here. I suppose I could ask, but it'd take a few days before I could report back.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
"In our global economy, Smith said, countries should have similar standards and laws for patents -- and he said that in some cases, the United States should change its laws to mirror those of Europe and Japan. For example, he said the United States should adopt the "first-to-file" standard for granting patents; current law awards the patent to the first inventor."
Come on guys rtfa, I can't believe nobody saw this line.
Doesn't this mean that if you don't get in to the patent game, a company like microsoft is free to patent your idea and use the patent against you.
Say goodbye to prior art if they ever got this one pushed through.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
What are the implications of the FAT patents being revoked? It seems to me that it would be a big relief for Linux users who worry about infringement.