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.
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...
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.
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!!!!
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.
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.
They have to play the game by the rules. Just because they're good at the game doesn't mean they like the rules.
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
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.
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.
I think you can trust that MS will follow the path most profitable.
"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
Patents have always been a bit of a compromise. There were circumstances in which the amount of work and money required to solve a particular problem was so great, you needed to create a competition to persuade people to get into the game. Patents are that competition - you get to the finish line first, and you get a temporarily but draconian monopoly on the right to use your answer. Computing has never been short of people wanting to solve problems, so there's never been any need to introduce this competition. It doesn't help the software industry, it hinders it. It means it's becoming increasingly difficult to program and know you're allowed to write what you just wrote.
We need software patents scrapped.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
"While patents are a really important way to reward innovation
Could the above be the understatement of the day?
"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
If so, the USPTO needs some external pressure. For instance, it could be made liable for legal expenses if a patent is overturned in court, thus demonstrating that the examiners were sloppy.
This would rapidly remove the incentive to approve all sorts of trivial patents.
C - the footgun of programming languages
DMCA and DMCA-likes go far beyond what is required by the Bern convention and its signaturies.
DMCA is purely a Mickey-Mouse law.
It is positevly obscene that Disney (at al) used old. royalty-free stories and turned them in to megabucks and is now denying those same rights to others.
Q:I was listening to a CD in Grip and it sounded horrible! What's up? A:Perhaps you are listening to country music
Congress should properly fund the USPTO if they want patents to do what they are supposed to do, protect inventors from egregious and abusive violation.
That's not what patents are supposed to do, however, which is probably why you're out in left field there.
Patents are intended to promote the progress of useful arts. In practice this means that they are intended to cause people to invent novel and nonobvious useful inventions which they otherwise would not have invented; to cause them to disclose the workings of the inventions; to encourage them to bring their inventions to market so that the public can enjoy the benefits the new technology provides.
Since the public wants those benefits, but wants to benefit generally, and not pay more than those things are worth, patents should be as minimal as possible in term and scope so that the public gets as much benefit as possible for as little cost as possible.
The reason software patents seem like a bad idea is because developers are already very heavily incentivized to invent, disclose, and market. The additional incentives patents could provide seem minimal at best. And since patents impose significant transactional costs (e.g. doing patent searches, licensing, etc.), they seem poised to impose a public burden greater than their benefit. This would be a total failure of the patent system in this field.
The software field is presently unusual. If this changes, software patents might be a good idea someday. For now, they probably aren't.
I guess at the end of the day people should respect the wishes of authors and creators
What a bizarre statement. Well, let's see if you believe it. I wrote this post. I wish for you to give me a brand new car. Pay up, if you're so concerned about my wishes.
Well?
-- 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.
A company that depends upon selling software to survive cannot exist where there is no copyright law.
Of course it can. Just as authors existed before copyright law.
Copyright law might help them, but it's by no means necessary. Plus, who actually cares about people selling software. All copyright is concerned about is people developing and publishing software. It doesn't matter why they do it.
-- 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.
The strategy memo which I cited suggests to react to the concern by filing as many software patents as possible, and entering patent cross-licensing agreements with major IT companies. MS has since then done exactly what Bill Gates said they should do, and they have expended significant resources on this. They are definately genuinely concerned. Of course they'll never support a solution that doesn't support and protect their monopoly position.
Under construction: swpat politics overview article