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."
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.
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!
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
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!!!!
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.
FTA: "it was concluded that the MS monopoly would not exist with today's software patenting in place back in 1985."
This particular conclusion suggests that MS would prefer the patents as they are now. MS doesn't need a new startup to kick it out of lead position.
Notice that I am not saying whether MS really wants the patent landscape to change, just a comment on this particular quote.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
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)...
"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.
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/
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 =-
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.
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.
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.
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 novell owns the patent to the login prompt what predicament would windows be in without a secure login system?? I guess Windows XP wont actually miss that security wise that is. i think EOLAS was a completely different topic (anticompetitive practices) Novell has threatened MS and any other companies that threaten thier interests including LINUX and many open source applications under their umbrella. with patent infiringement notices that they will retelliant with any and all means in the collective patent portfolio of SUN, IBM, Novell Redhat etc.
"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.
"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.
"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.
"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
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.