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
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
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
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.
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.
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.