Slashdot Mirror
Start-up Granted Injunction Against Microsoft
AustinSlacker writes " A San Jose, CA start-up, Alacritech Inc, was granted a preliminary injunction against Microsoft in a patent infringement lawsuit involving several patents related to Microsoft's implementation of "Chimney" TCP offload architecture."
First, if it requires a much higher standard of proof to get a preliminary injunction than it does to win at trial, as they claim, how come there are trials where preliminary injunctions are granted and then the plaintiffs lose? They're trying to play up this minor victory in the opening salvo of legal maneuverings as if they've already won the trial. Their lawyers know that's not the case and so do Microsoft's lawyers and execs. So who are they tring to convince?
And would Microsoft think a single networking technology would provide that much leverage? Seeing as the phrase comes from an Alacritech lawyer, it seems like just so much more hyperbole. If Microsoft "rules the world", it does so more because it owns the consumer/business desktop than because of huge wins in the server market. Microsoft has much more competition in the server OS world than it does in the desktop OS world.
All, in all, I consider this non-news. Let's see if the injunction withstands an appeal or two, or if the case withstands some of Microsoft's early motions. Until then, IMO, this is all just a lot of preening by peacocks in suits.
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
That said, if a company with the size, resources, and hipness to the patent system that Microsoft has still has problems with the patent minefield, clearly something's wrong and needs to be fixed. The patent system is there to protect innovators, not to pull the legs out from under existing and profitable companies -- the economic ramifications of permitting individuals to sink corporations over legal silliness are staggering.
I never vote for anyone. I always vote against.
-- W.C. Fields
Aren't these the guys that came up with the "network coprocessor", and didn't they sue Microsoft for SUPPORTING hardware that has said implementation?
Every time something like this happens, it pushes large companies a step closer towards realizing that perhaps software patents are not an entirely Good Thing for the industry as a whole. And that means said large companies are one step closer to lobbying for software patent reform which, as we all know, is what it takes for any actual change to occur.
End of lesson. You may press the button.
1. invent technology
2. apply for patent
3. show technology to microsoft (who then copies said technology)
4. sue microsoft for infringing on patent
5. wait for buyout settlement
6. PROFIT!
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
Well, let me speak for myself. I don't think they are a good idea...at all. The best thing about *this* case is that it could easily become a thorn in the side of one of the biggest patent whores in the US. I find it particularly amusing that the patent holder is under no obligation whatsoever to ensure that the terms are "agreeable" to whomever wants to license them.
EAT PATENT, MICROSOFT!
Preventing OSS adoption through patent/indemnization FUD campaigns: priceless
Patents is really the only ace they have right now against OSS.
The Raven
It's called "blowback". Microsoft, IBM, etc. etc. have just realized that anyone with a smart patent attorney and a BS patent might get lucky filing against one of the big guys.
a d- smith-on-patent-issues.html
Microsoft in particular has recently been calling for some "patent reform". If you're as cynical as I am, that means making it easier for Microsoft to use their patents and harder to be the target of patent attacks by less well financed entities. Pretty good summary of the MS position appears to be here:
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2005/03/microsofts-br
A start-up with a 10-year history ?!?
:(
Looking at their timeline does make Ms look a little suspicious. And while saying a prelim injunction is harder might be stretching it a bit, it certainly isn't easy.
I'll have to side with the 'little guy' for now.
Especially as we don't like submarine patents and they are acting before Ms sells a billion dollars worth of stuff using it, sounds like they are trying to be relatively fair (without knowing what those favorable terms are, of course)
That and the fact they were able to get an injunction along with that suspicious looking timeline.
Ms using it and dealing with consequences later doesn't sound out of character. Make a billion dollars, put it in bank, years later pay fine/royalties off the interest sounds good if you can pull it off
We are against software patents. The reason this is a good thing is simple. Big companies have a lot of lobbying power with the government. The more big companies, like Microsoft, are getting screwed over by bullshit software patents (instead of just using them to screw others over) the more likely they will push for patent reform. If big companies, not just some open source junkies, are using their lobbying power to change software patents then it will be a lot easier to get the system changed.
Below, find three sequential elements from the timeline in TFA.
How many articles have we seen here on /. that duplicates this pattern? Who else has been stepped on by the giant in such manner? I'm sure somebody could find a fist-full of articles here in history that shows exactly that behavior pattern.
Am I correct in recalling that Novell got stung? IBM? I know those are giants themselves. I'm just glad to see that a little David has been able to sling his stone bullet into the face of the Goliath. Now, let's see if they can make it really count.
I'm not asking to shut down Microsoft. Just have them play fair.
Is that too much to ask, Bill?
(Bill: "Why, yes. It is.")
- - - /.)
When you say that you agree to a thing in principle, you mean that you have not the slightest intention of carrying it out in practice. -- Otto Von Bismarck
(this sig stolen from
I read TFP (The Fine Patent), or at least a good part of it.
It seems to be nothing more than the specification of the interface to an I/O processor. There have been I/O processors since the 60's.
I couldn't find anything that was at all innovative about.
I think M$ probably looked at what they had, said "So what? How does this help us?" and proceded to go ahead and implement what they had already envisioned.
If a patent doesn't have something in it that causes you to say "Why didn't I think of that?" or "Why did the aliens contact that guy instead of me?" it probably shouldn't be granted.
Which of course is the point of patents.
Alacritech "invented" the idea, so they get to be the only game in town for 20 years... This is the problem in my mind with software patents (the length of time not the monopoly granted).
Software patents would be fine if they lasted 2 years, maybe 3 at the very most. I feel that software patents don't achieve their purpose of fostering innovation because if I patent process xyz, and no one else can use it except for pay me for it, well, someone is going to figure out how to do xqwz and end up at the same endpoint without violating my patent. So, in short the patent didn't make me any money, it just encouraged reinvention of the wheel, which makes all development slower.
As dubious as it sounds, it can also be a matter of, after looking at it indetail, they discovered that there was nothing special about it.
Dubious indeed, given MS's long history of screwing over their technology 'partners' in _exactly_ this way.
If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
Yes. If you are against a law, pray for its enforcement against the rich & powerful. That is the quickest way it will be changed.
As dubious as it sounds, it can also be a matter of, after looking at it indetail, they discovered that there was nothing special about it.
This certainly could be the case.
I know they were so unimpressed with Stac's disk compression technology, that they quickly wrote their own from scratch in a clean room. wait, maybe that was Sybase SQL Server. No, that's not it.
maybe the risk losing a suit in the end is cheaper than either paying legit royalties or investing the R&D to roll your own. I think maybe MS has so much money, they are willing to take these sorts of risks, it's only money...that stuff falls from the sky for them.
If I invent something and don't want to do anything with it, why should the gov't have the right to force me to share it? And who gets to dictate the terms of the licensing? The patent office that we already love to call inept?
I understand you're reasoning, but transfering power away from big corporations and giving it to big government doesn't really solve the problem, it just moves it around.
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
Microsoft is currently defending itself in over 30 of these patent cases. Microsoft has huge piles of money, they talk to everyone, and they have a long history of shady dealings. Patenting a technology that Windows is likely to infringe in the future is the "new" way to make scads of money in the software business.
It's truly ironic that Microsoft paints Free Software as having patent issues. Heck, even IBM is starting to realize that patent reform is probably in its best interest.
I agree mostly.
Consider a historical invention that was truly worth patenting, like the transistor. By demonstrating and explaining the benefits of technology to any number of huge companies, most of them with R&D interests and good technical people would see how valuable the invention is. They'd also know that they may not be smart enough to invent it on their own and would pay.
Consider on the other hand someone giving a power point presentation on the concept of one click shopping. I know that I could hire any given ambitious junior high school student a minimum wage job to build that for me if I describe it to him. To sue me for doing so because I didn't pay said presentor simply because he had a "patent" on this idea is pretty lame. If this is the case, I'm afraid I'm with Microsoft on this issue. MS is evil, I agree and they will burn in hell. But they do not have the market cornered on evil.
It would be amusing if each MS hater went about patenting every single thing that crossed our mind and sued MS for infringement. We could "prosecute" on the cheap, and MS would be forced to fight us all off. Death by a hundred million mosquitos. Hey, the patent system might even get a much needed reform out of it.
I hereby patent this process, but I grant each person license to use it against MS, free of charge.
The funny bit is that you don't need to prosecute "on the cheap." It's easy to find competent legal assistance when you are going after a cash-laden company like Microsoft. Eolas was awarded $500 million dollars for supposedly patenting web browser plugins. That decision is currently being appealed, but still that is a *lot* of money. Competent lawyers will find *you* if you have a chance at that sort of a windfall. As I said before, this is going to become the software industry of the decade. Unless, of course, Microsoft (and IBM) rethink their patent strategy and start pushing for sanity.
Microsoft is probably in the right on this subject, but unless they start lobbying for patent reform NOW, they are going to get screwed either way. I would feel sorry for Microsoft, but they have been actively pushing for the expansion of software patents, and Microsoft has been very aggressive in using patent in marketing campaigns against Free Software. Until Microsoft changes its stance on software patents I hope that these patent houses bleed MS dry.
Abusing the slashdot mod system! RAWK!!
Karma: Terrible
OK, I've never really understood why a huge company would want to own the patent and leverage it against the competition, while a small company would want to be bought out of business. To me, I'd rather see my small company grow as a result of the tools and advantages we develop. And if we could grow with residual income from large companies, including Microsoft (whether through contracts or fines), then that would be all the better.
So, I guess my question to everyone is, " Why is it better to be bought out by Microsoft than to license your patents to them (and other corporate customers)?"
My guess is that it's the Lottery Mentality... get the quick pay-off and go party with your "winnings."
Just another thought, why should Microsoft be the buyer (and therefore patent winner) in this situation. Aren't there other buyers who might want to leverage that technology? Two companies come immediately to mind: IBM and Canopy Group (SCO).
- - -
...other than spelling and pronunciation, what's the difference?
Heretic? Lunatic?
Except for the one I took out on Schadenfreude. Think about it, though. What IS Microsoft except a huge rat's nest of intellectual property? Oh, and those mice and the X-box.
A rundown through the first page of returns ("Microsoft sued patent") shows that people who have sued Microsoft include Eolas, American Video Graphics, AT&T, University of California, Burst.com, the State of Florida, Kodak, InterTrust, Priceline.com, Forgent and others.
In the same return page, Microsoft sued Lindows (not for patent abuse), eight identity thieves (not patent), several spammers (not patent), a Brazilian magazine (for defamation), 117 phishers (not patent), and more spammers (not patent).
Of the returns on Google's first page, almost all are people suing Microsoft over patents, or Microsoft suing over non-patent related issues. The closest thing is a breach of contract suit against Timeline, Inc over SQL Server that involved a patent filed on their joint project by Timeline while they were partners.
It occurs to me that I've seen far more "Foo sues Microsoft over Patent X" than "Microsoft sues Bar over Patent Y" articles.
Of course, Microsoft does plenty of other dubious competitive practices... I haven't touched a product of theirs in almost eight years now. But I've not seen them wielding patents the way Sun and Apple do (or that IBM used to).
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
It's not really that funny or strange. Most people would probably feel the same way. People without power always bitch about the system. People with power don't want to change a system that gives them their power. It's the same everywhere.