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."

Comments

Watch out Microsoft

[TimeTraveler1884]

FTA:

"Microsoft rejected licensing terms that would be acceptable to us. We were forced to sue Microsoft to stop them from continuing to infringe, and inducing others to infringe, on our intellectual property rights. We are very pleased with the Court?s decision in this matter."

What goes around comes around I say. While by no means I think everyone suing everyone is a good thing, it's refreshing to see that someone is taking on Microsoft for a change.

What is unclear to me though, is if Alacritech really the first to use this technology. They don't explicitly say this in the article. The closest thing to indicate that Microsoft tried to steal their technology is the following time line:

* 10/97--Alacritech files first provisional U.S. Patent application 60/061,809 on SLIC Technology
* 09/98--Alacritech meets with Microsoft and describes patent-pending Dynamic TCP Offload architecture in detail under a non-disclosure agreement
* 04/99--At Microsoft?s request, Alacritech delivers?detailed architecture document for integrating Alacritech SLIC Technology into Windows
* 06/99--Microsoft ceases further communications with Alacritech?and subsequently proceeds to use Alacritech SLIC Technology without a license
* 04/00--Alacritech ships first products based on SLIC Technology
* 05/01--First Alacritech patent on SLIC Technology, U.S. Patent No. 6,226,680 issued
* 07/02--Alacritech U.S. Patent No. 6,427,171 issued

According to this, Microsoft met with them, asked them for the architecture details, the ceased contact 2 months later. Interesting.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[winkydink]

According to this, Microsoft met with them, asked them for the architecture details, the ceased contact 2 months later. Interesting.

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.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[bonch]

I'm confused; I thought we were against software patents?

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[DrEldarion]

For a change? People are always trying to take shots at Microsoft, it's just that most of them fail (and most of them SHOULD fail, since they're 99.9% BS, like the Eolas case).

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[dreamchaser]

Try to keep up. Software patents are a *good* thing when used against Microsoft!

(for the humor impaired, that was meant to be tongue in cheek)

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[klui]

I suppose it can also be the case where it's not obvious until somebody shows you and then... "of course... a child could do it."

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[teknomage1]

Personally I hope microsoft takes this as an opportuity to reevaluate it's stance on software patents....

...Hey, I can dream....

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[The Bungi]

What goes around comes around I say.

If you'd like to show us an example of Microsoft using patents this way *against* other companies, I'm all ears (or eyes).

Much like IBM, Microsoft's patent portfolio is supposed to be defensive in nature. Again, if you have proof to the contrary I'd like to see it.

OTOH, if these people's claims are truthful and this is another STAC case, then Microsoft should definitely be shafted, as I would expect anyone else to be.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[bill_mcgonigle]

Interesting

Hardly, unfortunately. It's the same thing they did with Burst with whom they just settled for a paltry $60M. This is becoming modus operandi for Microsoft.

It will be interesting to see if Microsoft destroyed evidence in this case as well.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[UnknowingFool]

(and most of them SHOULD fail, since they're 99.9% BS, like the Eolas case).

Eolas is rather questionable but that doesn't mean this case is without merit. MS has done kind of thing before. For example, Stacker and Goldtouch.

Goldtouch Tech makes peripherals and launched a lawsuit against MS. After they shared a new mouse design with MS for licensing considerations, MS declined. 18 months later MS made a mouse that looked remarkably like theirs. This was around the 1999-2000 time frame. I don't put this past MS.

As a whole, I don't think Ballmer and Gates are urging these tactics. MS is a big company. Their will be bad apples with power and influence in any organization that do things that are immoral or illegal.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

It goes this way:

patents == bad.
patents used against M$ (must use the $ sign) == good

copyright infringement == good
using GPL code and not releasing source == copyright infringement == bad

sharing music / movies != theft as nothing physical was taken
using GPL code and not releasing source == theft as the source was 'stolen'

SCO making unfounded claims that Linux poached SCO code == bad
Linux zealots making unfounded claims that M$ uses GPL code == good

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[linuxtelephony]

This is hardly "becoming" MO for Microsoft -- this HAS BEEN SOP for Microsoft for years. It's a practice that is, and has been, repeated numerous times by Microsoft, and reported on as well.

The problem, is that it is cheaper for MS to continue with this practice, as well as paying off the settlements they end up having to pay, and to keep making money by selling these products.

Just like it was (a while back) cheaper for MS to pay fines and keep violating a ruling or law (and pocketing money from sales) than complying.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[Stephen Samuel]

From the looks of things, this appears to be (at least partially) a hardware patent with software aspects to it. (which is quite different than a pure software patent).

In any event, even if the work wasn't patented, it would have been subject to trade secret complaints (if you accept Alacritech's version of the story)

So Microsoft is stealing someone else's Intellectual Property... Why aren't I shocked? I'm expecting that they figured that they'd get away with 4-5 years of slogging it thru a court before they had to face the fact that they were wilfully infringing a patent (by which time the company would have probably been defunct).

I think that companies are learning to expect this from Microsoft.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[lubricated]

Think about it this way, if patents are used against the rich and powerfull, then there is more of a chance those same rich and powerfull who used to be for software patents will be against them in the future.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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-bra d- smith-on-patent-issues.html

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[sconeu]

May I suggest you read Startup - A Silicon Valley Adventure, by Jerry Kaplan, and you'll see that this is standard modus operandi for MS.

That's exactly what they did to Go! Computer.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[dnixon112]

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.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[bill_mcgonigle]

Tell it, brother.

If you have links to others besides STAC and Burst, please post.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[ImaLamer]

like a/the gui?

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[Trepalium]

While it wasn't a company, Microsoft did send the developer of VirtualDub a nastygram telling him to remove the ASF support from his program because they had a patent on it. If he did not, they warned that they would file against him. He, of course, caved into their pressure.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[Loco3KGT]

HAhaha no dumbass. We're against whatever we don't like and for whatever we do like. But only on daily whims.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[Austerity Empowers]

Or there was nothing there. I can't count how many start ups I've worked with that have shown me slideware of "patent pending" technology that was not implemented, not thought through or otherwise junk. Obviously if I'm looking to buy enough to sit through a meeting or sign an NDA, I understand what's needed and want someone to deliver. After said company then asks for an outrageous sum for their technology (usually a sum that equals or exceeds the cost for us to develop on our own) we'll tell them to shove it and develop it ourselves.

I've never had (or wanted) to work for Microsoft, so no one has ever haunted me, but I can probably see where microsoft may just be victim of the patent system they themselves are abusing.

That's even better than the david vs. goliath theme.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[ergo98]

To be fair, their patented technology basically sounds like it could be explained as "parallel processing for specific tasks". It would not be surprizing if Microsoft looked at their designs, decided that they wanted to do it their own way (maybe Alacritech's specific designs are turdular), and now Alacritech is claiming implicit ownership because it offloads processing to a task-specific processor.

I'm too impatient, and too unmotivated, to look through the patent, but if that what Alacritech is using as a foundation for their argument then I hope that Satan tears out of the soil and eats all of their eyeballs and sticks rabid hedgehogs in the empty sockets.

Of course they probably padded their patent application with obvious implementation details that one would naturally do when performing a task such as parallel processing using task specific processors, giving the illusion that it's a highly specific design, but that's just an illusion of specificity.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[northcat]

Would you be happy if a criminal gang carrying dangerous chemicals invaded your extremely-annoying neighbour's house, beat up your neighbour and set up a camp there?

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[DogDude]

The problem, is that it is cheaper for MS to continue with this practice, as well as paying off the settlements they end up having to pay, and to keep making money by selling these products.

How is this a problem, exactly? A settlement is just that... a settlement. That means that the plaintifs are happy with the amount of money that MS is giving them to walk away without a lawsuit (which probably would be won, considering the amount of money MS is willing to pay.. That's how the system works.

If I had a startup, and I had a product that MS infringed would I A. Want to fight them, and take my chances with a startup, eating Ramen Noodles for several years, and living in my car with the *hope* that *maybe* I'd hit it big or B. Settle with MS for a lump sum? Hmmm.... tough one.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[cft_128]

How is this a problem, exactly? A settlement is just that... a settlement. That means that the plaintifs are happy with the amount of money that MS is giving them to walk away without a lawsuit (which probably would be won, considering the amount of money MS is willing to pay.. That's how the system works.

If I had a startup, and I had a product that MS infringed would I A. Want to fight them, and take my chances with a startup, eating Ramen Noodles for several years, and living in my car with the *hope* that *maybe* I'd hit it big or B. Settle with MS for a lump sum? Hmmm.... tough one.

It is a problem if they make it their SOP rather than just licensing the technology in the first place. I would rather have them do that, then the lawyers don't get a slice of the pie. Also keep in mind the plaintiff is not always happy with the settlement the court came up with.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[d34thm0nk3y]

I'm confused; I thought we were against software patents?

We are, if MS gets pissed off enough from this stuff they can afford to buy better legislation than we can.

I personally like to see as many large corporations and companies get bit in the ass by this crap as possible.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[Johnny Mnemonic]

The more big companies, like Microsoft, are getting screwed over by bullshit software patents ... the more likely they will push for patent reform.

While I agree with this sentiment, it is more likely that any reform that happens will protect the position of big companies, but impair the ability of smaller companies to protect their patents.

For instance, Microsoft could well lobby for "loser pays litigation costs" when patents are litigated. Such legislation would reward the big companies with large war chests, and make it hard for smaller companies to prosecute their cases.

Be careful of what you wish for, is all that I'm saying.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[Waffle Iron]

If you'd like to show us an example of Microsoft using patents this way *against* other companies, I'm all ears

Of course they're not going to bother with enforcing their patents now. It's currently much easier for them to make money the way they've always made it.

However, if the situation ever changes and they start to have disappointing quarterly earnings reports, then you can expect to see them trying new methods to keep the revenue flowing. They could become a monster version of SCO, but with competent management and lawyers.

Note that IBM already generates large amounts of revenue from their patent portfolio. It's not just for defense. (And even these "defensive" patents are usually used in a passive-aggressive manner, traded between large companies in cross-licensing agreements to build up an oligarchy where it's harder for small players to break into the marketplace.) However, since much of IBM's patents are on hardware, it has tended to be less of a potential threat to the average small-time developer. That could change too, as IBM focuses more on software and services.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[wcdw]

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.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[SpaceLifeForm]

Xerox PARC.

MS stole their GUI ideas.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[eraserewind]

We are anti-patent, but we are pro-schadenfreude.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[The Bungi]

However, if the situation ever changes and they start to have disappointing quarterly earnings reports, then you can expect to see them trying new methods to keep the revenue flowing.

1997 called. He wants his argument back.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow -1 Flaimbate. No surprise though since slashdot is not about the truth. The only thing I can find fault with is the last line. I don't know anybody who claims they are using GPLed code but there are people who claim that they are using free software but under a licence. This of course isn't illegal since the copyright licence allows it. The only reason why people are pissed about that is because "why should M$ get to use our code but we can't use theirs" sort of thing. I'm not saying that thy have no right to be pissed. They do since M$ has tried to slow the growth of Linux and Open Source yet supposedly (I have seen no proof but there have been claims) takes open source code. However what they are doing is still legal as I have never heard of or seen any proof for them using code under the GPL or other simular licence. If the Open Source community is ever going to make it big they are gonna have to learn to take some criticism.

In truth the only thing I think Microsoft has ever done to the Open source community is 1)their a monopoly, 2)they copy alot of the ideas(from Mac too), 3)They go out of there way to insult or put Linux down. Its the same thing in every industry though and some people need to grow up. Thats why I am greatful that Linus is still in charge of Linux since he has a great understanding of the economy and something called common sense. Common sense of course is a rare thing in the Open Source Community and I think the community would be better if more people had it. I fear the day that Linus and a few others are no longer in charge.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[timeOday]

Yes. If you are against a law, pray for its enforcement against the rich & powerful. That is the quickest way it will be changed.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[hhawk]

And then when they do licence the technology they produce something they call a derivative work and stop paying any license fee. They did that with Apple..

The only good thing that might come of that is if there is case law on the record that shows that it's easy to make derivative work (e.g., not so many changes...) which would help those who (for example) sample music and there by create a new derivative work..

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[wardk]

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.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[Bozdune]

Very incisive post, thanks. If I had mod points you'd get 'em.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[back_pages]

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.

Just for argument's sake, what are you going to say if Microsoft loses the suit, exhausts the appeals process, and pays the damages saying, "Yeah, you caught us fair and square. Win some, lose some."

It's only reasonable to expect Microsoft to fight an infringement suit tooth and nail. I'm afraid I don't see how this directly implies that they're going to push for patent reform. Even if I buy that bit of speculation, the greater gap is that Microsoft would lobby for a positive and fair patent reform.

Anyway, I'm just tossing in my two cents, but I don't see how this rationalization can reasonably support patent suits against Microsoft but denounce software patents in general.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[Keeper]

18 months later MS made a mouse that looked remarkably like theirs

It's a freekin mouse. What mouse DOESN'T look substantially like another one (especially after you get a bunch of ergonomics experts together in a room)?

This is the kind of crap you hear from people that 'submit' a script to a movie studio and then sue when someone else had a similar idea and got their movie made instead. It doesn't mean it never happens, but a lot of the time it doesn't.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[Waffle Iron]

The argument was true in 1997, and it's still true today.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[Jason Earl]

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.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

According to this, Microsoft met with them, asked them for the architecture details, the ceased contact 2 months later. Interesting.

See STAC.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[spectecjr]

Eolas is rather questionable but that doesn't mean this case is without merit. MS has done kind of thing before. For example, Stacker and Goldtouch.

Stacker was a case of patent collision. The same algorithm was independently patented by two people, and the patent office gave out TWO separate patents. Microsoft got the rights to one, Stacker got the rights to the other.

So I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "Microsoft has done this kind of thing before".

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[Austerity Empowers]

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.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[bergeron76]

We are against software patents.

Please don't include me in your blanket statements. Likewise, I don't think the entire slashdot community wants you speaking on our behalf.

I do, however, agree with you that there needs to be some MAJOR patent reform - and QUICKLY. IP, much like technology, grows at an extremely rapid rate.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[winkydink]

They also have a correspondingly long history of having huge piles of cash. If you're going to go to the expense of suing somebody, you don't waste your time on somebody who has little or no ability to pay.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[Jason Earl]

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.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[Jason Earl]

Exactly. Eolas can sue Microsoft for using its patented "browser plugin" technology and be awared half a billion dollars. That simply isn't going to happen if you sue the Mozilla Foundation.

Microsoft (and IBM) were planning on using patents to keep the riff-raff out of the software development business. After all, only the biggest and wealthiest software development firms could afford to cross license the patents that they needed to actually accomplish anything. Unfortunately this plan worked all to well. Now the small software firms are even bothering to write software. Instead they simply patent technologies that Microsoft or Big Blue are going to need in the future, wait until their IP gets wrapped up in the next release of an important software package and sue. In a very ironic twist only those software companies that are too small to be noticed by the patent vultures can safely develop software these days (and that includes basically all Free Software projects).

This is why Microsoft and IBM are starting to make noise about patent reform. These companies are finally realizing that under the present system they are very big targets.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[Daengbo]

If there was a large problem with gangs and the annoying neighbor was a man with the ears of high-ranking polititions, then maybe I would be happy. Something would likely be done about the gangs.

I think that that's the GP's argument

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[Daengbo]

s/polititions/politicians/

God that's embarrassing. Preview and some spelling lessons for me!

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[lgw]

MS is evil, I agree and they will burn in hell. But they do not have the market cornered on evil.

Now that's funny! Perhaps they'll leverage their OS monopoly to crush all opposition in the evil market? Would that be good or bad? I wonder if they'll give away free evil bundled with the OS. :)

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[quarkscat]

Exactly so!

As a convicted monopolist that has yet to be
punished by the law, MSFT has used their bevy
of lawyers and their deep pockets to steal whatever
technology that they find useful. Why license
IP from another company when you can steal it?
The theft of that IP will boost market share, and
help to preserve their monopoly status. MSFT has
proven time and again that they don't mind eventually
losing in court, just so long as the "pain" is
less than the "gain".

Sometimes that "gain" cannot be quantified in purely
monetary terms -- sometimes consolidation of their
monopolistic market share is gain enough. MSFT's
shield of lawyers will provide either (1) a
favorable change in venue, (2) sufficient judicial
delay to assure the destruction of competing technology,
(3) favorably altering the political/legislative playing field,
or (4) stealingcthe technology and fighting off the rightful
owners for only as long as that technology is profitable.

This is not an emerging "MO". This is a well
developed "SOP" that MSFT has finessed to near
perfection over the last 15 years or so. The only
"bump" in their roadmap has been the DoJ anti-trust
lawsuit against them. MSFT lost the battle but
won the war by dragging out the legal battle until
there was a change in venue (that is, a regime change).
MSFT got a pretty sweet deal -- they basically
wrote their own penalty for their monopolistic
behaviour.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[killjoe]

"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."

I guess that's what this lawsuit is about. Apparently MS thought there was something there because they implemented the technology.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[killjoe]

Exactly!. There is nothing wrong with that. Since the govt refuses to punish MS It's only natural that I would cheer any entity who can take them down a notch, no matter how small that notch is.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[UnknowingFool]

It's a freekin mouse. What mouse DOESN'T look substantially like another one (especially after you get a bunch of ergonomics experts together in a room)?

I'm not talking about the general look of a generic mouse that looks like a bar of soap here. The basic MS mouse looks like every other basic mouse but not all mice look the same. Certainly the Logitech MX 1000 does not look the same as the Intellimose Explorer. The MS Intellimouse Pro was supposed to be an ergonomic mouse. Coincidently it had almost the same contours and curves as the Goldtouch design.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[NaruVonWilkins]

Without all the convoluted logic... Little Guy == Good Big Company == Bad Which I tend to agree with.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[mOdQuArK!]

Except that the rich & powerful like to change the laws so that everyone still has to obey the law except for them.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[SA Stevens]

The moderation is more incidious than that. First it's modded down as -1 flamebait, which punishes the karma of the poster. Then it's modded up as 'funny' which doesn't count toward said karma.

Net result, people get to see the comment, but the commenter is 'punished' for sharing his view.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[SA Stevens]

The MS Intellimouse Pro was supposed to be an ergonomic mouse. Coincidently it had almost the same contours and curves as the Goldtouch design.

Is it some surprise that if a mouse is designed to be 'egonomic' it might look very similar? We all have the same hands, there aren't 'Goldtouch customer hands' and 'Microsoft customer hands.'

Now, if the Goldtouch design was an awkward mouse designed to look like a Sponge Bob Squarepants figure and Microsoft closely copied it, your comment would have more merit.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[Keeper]

The Logitech MX 1000 looks very much like my current mouse: the Wireless Intellimouse Explorer. It has a deeper "thumb groove" on the left, but otherwise looks nearly identical.

And you say that the mouse they're talking about was the Intellimouse Pro? Good grief ... mice don't look much more generic than that.

After having looked at the Goldstein mouse in question, I will admit that it is definately a "unique" design. It also looks nothing like the Intellimouse Pro (picture of the Goldstein design: http://www.businessweek.com:/smallbiz/news/date/98 12/art12/e981223b.jpg). Goldstein is claiming ownership of a "steeply curved palm rest". Like I said, any basic ergonimics research would have pointed out that this is a good thing.

It'd be one thing if they'd had some special feature that was copied, but the a curved palm rest? *rolls eyes*

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[headkase]

It almost levels the playing field again, an army of little guys can tie the big players up like Gulliver being tied down by lilliput's in his travels.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[Temporal]

You have a good point, but somehow I don't think Mr. Coward is terribly concerned about his karma. ;)

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[10101001 10101001]

This is the first I've heard about MS gaining a patent on the technology they used in Doublespace. My understanding was they cozied up to Stac because they weren't planning to make their own disk compression software, and when it became clear that Stac wasn't going to go along with getting no royalties that Stac gave up. It's not entirely clear how much info Stac gave to MS, though at least one draft talked about the patent MS violated. Overall, I'm amazed that MS didn't get punished with punitive damages since it seems that MS went into the relationship expecting to get something for free, and when they couldn't get it they just copied them to try to beat them hoping to not get caught.

Where I'm getting this info (I'd love to hear proof of this double-patenting): "Complaint for Patent Infringement" "Demand for Jury Trial" from Stac.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[miomao]

You think that a better patent system will solve all problems? These are only distraction tactics to disguise they already have enough patents to rule the IT sector. This is why they are pushing sw-patents in Europe, India and everywhere...

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[Jesus_666]

I wonder if they'll give away free evil bundled with the OS. :)

They do, it's called Internet Explorer. ;)

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[matria]

Two online service companies that I have worked for over the years (one gaming network, one shopping comparison service) have had Microsoft come and discuss "licensing" and "bundling".

The gaming company was totally convinced that their software would be bundled with Windows 95 when it shipped. I was fired a week after the corporate meeting where they told us about it, and told us to cooperate fully whenever Mr. Gates, using his father's account (Mr. Gates Sr. was a bridge player), asked us questions or to demonstrate features. I was horrified, quite firmly assured them that they would most certainly NOT be any part of the release, and they were not happy with my reaction.

Much the same happened with the shopping comparison site, except I had learned to keep my mouth shut, and didn't get fired until the third wave of massive layoffs.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[shmlco]

Forget it. The only thing your logic is going to prove to anyone else here is that you're obviously a Microsoft plant... ;)

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[spectecjr]

This is the first I've heard about MS gaining a patent on the technology they used in Doublespace.

Dr. Ross's Compression Crypt

The introduction states:

Unfortunately, during this happy rollout, some patents popped out of the US patent system that cast a shadow over the LZRW series algorithms, and they became effectively unuseable in any practical application. If you want to use them in any product (whether free or commercial), you will have to do some in-depth patent homework and algorithm development/modification so as to avoid infringement. If you think that's easy, then you should be aware that Microsoft tried to use an LZ77/LZRW1/etc variant, specifically designed not to infringe existing patents, in its MS-DOS V6 operating system, and ended up having to pay Stac about $80m in the resulting patent lawsuit. For this reason, I would like to take this opportunity to state that the code provided in this web (and FTP site) is provided with the intention that it be used for educational and recreational use only.

The specific patents are referenced here, in an excerpt from the comp.compression FAQ:

LZ77 Patents

Waterworth patented a LZ77 variant (US Patent 4701745). This algorithm is generally referred to as as LZRW1, because Ross Williams reinvented it later and posted it on comp.compression on April 22, 1991. The same algorithm has later been patented by Gibson & Graybill (US Patent 5049881). The patent office failed to recognize that the same algorithm was patented twice, even though the wording used in the two patents is very similar.

The Waterworth patent is now owned by Stac, which won a lawsuit against Microsoft, concerning the compression feature of MS-DOS 6.0. Damages awarded were $120 million. (Microsoft and Stac later settled out of court.)

Is that sufficient proof?

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[xtracto]

IP, much like technology, grows at an extremely rapid rate.

That is an interesting point. Software patents should only last for a year (more or less). And, if for any reason, some technology becomes standard the patent must belong to the government. Or, something like that.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[Keeper]

No nastygrams were sent, and he wasn't ordered to remove support. At no point were lawyers involved. A dev at Microsoft gave him a heads up about patents Microsoft holds on the ASF format.

"Today I received a polite phone call from a fellow at Microsoft who works in the Windows Media group. He informed me that Microsoft has intellectual property rights on the ASF format and told me that, although I had reverse engineered it, the implementation was still illegal since it infringed on Microsoft patents. I have asked for the specific patent numbers, since I find patenting a file format a bit strange. At his request, and much to my own sadness, I have removed support for ASF in VirtualDub 1.3d, since I cannot risk a legal confrontation. This unfortunately means that I can no longer redistribute versions of VirtualDub older than V1.3d. (I did appreciate, though, that I heard this through the programming staff and not the legal department.)"

Would Microsofts laywers have gotten involved had the VirtualDub author left it in? Who knows. Did the VirtualDub author want to keep his app from violating patents? It appears so.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[10101001 10101001]

Well, a bunch of searching leads me to believe the patent is trivial. Having stated that, it's worth mentioning that another patent (search for Stac on the page), 5,016,009, was also involved in the case, but I can't seem to find an actual copy of the judgement (it's probably on Lexis Nexus) to know how much basis it had on the ruling.

So, Microsoft never had a hold on the patent. It just happened to reinvent for a fourth time time (Waterworth, Ross, Gibson/Graybill, and Microsoft) the same idea. That's a pretty good clue that that patent shouldn't exist or be a basis for why Stac won. If you have any more information, I'd be glad to hear it.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[aim2future]

We are against software patents.

Please don't include me in your blanket statements. Likewise, I don't think the entire slashdot community wants you speaking on our behalf.

Everyday Slashdot readers I would guess are mostly people who are in software, computers, math and high tech. Among these it is therefore very unlikely to find anyone being pro sw patents. I would guess around 98% of everyday Slashdot readers are against software patents, and then it is also rather relevant so say:
"we are against software patents"
(even though I generally don't like cathegoric statements about others I think this is one to defend)

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[webview]

On Monday Microsoft will take you to lunch
On Friday Microsoft will have you for lunch

Nothing new here.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[agacat]

I spoke to the owner of STAC about 10 or 12 years ago. He knew that MS was going to filch his product and kept enough documentation that his suit was a "duh". He was laughing all the way to the bank, because he made more money on the settlement than he would ever have made on the product.

As a background for you kiddies out there, STAC was a compression utility about the time of MS-DOS 6. Bill Gates called the owner of STAC in to discuss his product, said he was unimpressed with it, and then, miraculously, a STAC-alike showed up in MS-DOS 6.1. It was so STAC-alike, in fact, that when STAC sued (with their documentation), it was a hands-down victory and settlement for them.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[indifferent children]

In any event, even if the work wasn't patented, it would have been subject to trade secret complaints (if you accept Alacritech's version of the story)

IANAL. Change your 'even if' to 'only if'. Once an invention has been described in the public (including in publicly disclosed patent documents), it is no longer a secret. It is then ineligible for Trade Secret protection. Trade Secret status is incompatible with patents; you must choose.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[pfleming]

I'm confused; I thought we were against software patents?

We are. But even a GPL code writer does not want their code taken without "payment" regardless of whether there is a patent involved or not.
This is more about Bill Gate's long standing behavior of stomping on other people to get what he wants. His purchase of DOS is equivilant to paying beads and trinkets for Long Island and then he had the gall to write his "open letter to hobbyists" saying don't steal my code.
Even though Apple and Microsoft both stole/borrowed the GUI/mouse from Xerox Gates was pissed at Jobs for "stealing" it too (and then Jobs did it better/first so they had to "steal" again from Apple).

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[wardk]

agreed, MS out-laywered Sybase bigtime. Sybase gave away the farm on that one. But this was when people trusted MS, MS was still stringing IBM and Lotus along with their vaporous os/2 work.

if this is another stac, then I expect they will just make the required payment and move on.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[Krach42]

Be careful how you're painting your hypocrits.

First of all, I'm the guy asking for donations to use against Maui X-Stream. And I view both GPL theft, and music theft, as such. Theft. Both are wrong. You may want to enjoy that music song, but guess what, some company owns it, and they get to say how it's used.

Now, I also believe that there's an interest in having information free. Thus, my greater concern about people stealing GPL code, than stealing music.

In the first instance, people are taking something free (as in speech) and not sharing. In kindergarten I learned that not sharing is bad.

In the second instance, people are taking something that's not supposed to be shared, and sharing it. If your mom gave you a cookie, and told you that you can't give any to your brother, would you?

If you did, then you could be punished, because your mom told you not to do it. But on the other side of the coin, there's a moral allowance for it, because come on... it's your brother, and he wants some of your cookie.

So, to clarify your points:

taking a freedom and getting rid of it == bad
taking a morally justifiable action, which is prohibited, and doing it despite == good

Rosa Parks knew she was breaking the law when she didn't go to the back of the bus. She *knew* this. She still did it, because it was morally justified. This is the substance of public disobedience. You break the law (and go to jail for it) to have attention brought to the action itself.

I don't argue that the RIAA has a right to sue the filesharers... but I can except that people think they *shouldn't* have that right.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[Zeinfeld]

Or there was nothing there. I can't count how many start ups I've worked with that have shown me slideware of "patent pending" technology that was not implemented, not thought through or otherwise junk.

I have idiots come and claim that they 'invented' ideas that are in several of my specifications. I then have to point out that the ideas were not new when I wrote the spec which was written long before said idiot sent me any material. It is getting to the point where I am going to have to get an admin to read all unsolicited mail so that unsolicited ideas can be returned unseen.

I don't work for Microsoft but I work with a lot of Microsoft people on standards. On several occasions they have objected to ideas I have wanted to put in because they are too interesting, too innovative and too likely to be patented by someone. The patent system is having the exact reverse effect of the one intended.

Having read the article and the comments I have yet to see anything that gives me any information on what the Chimney technology is. I doubt that it is going to be very important however since Longhorn is not yet out and this is the first time I have heard any mention of it.

As for Microsoft supporting the patent system in its current form, they have made frequent complaints about the abuse of the patent system and the issue of trivial patents. There is a middle ground between thinking that all software patents are evil and should be abolished and thinking that all are valid. Everyone who actually makes stuff is agreed that the vast majority of software patents are garbage. But even though 99% are garbage that should never be issued there are a few legitimate ones, the RSA patents for example, Diffie Hellman, Merkle Trees, the Lamport hash chain and the patent I have pending. Microsoft is spending several billion a year on Microsoft Research and it is not unfair for them to see some of that returned as patent royalties. Nor is it unfair for IBM or Texas Instruments to see a return on their investments.

But that does not mean that Eolas have a right to see a dime for their bogus patent or that Unisys should ever have received a cent for the Gif patent or that RAMBUS should profit from their schemes.

It's Alacritech, isn't it?

[winkydink]

Alacritch sounds like something you need Tinactin to get rid of.

Re:It's Alacritech, isn't it?

[Aggrav8d]

Don't forget to give her Smeckler's Powder.

Re:It's Alacritech, isn't it?

[TheLoneGundam]

That's "Tough Actin'" Tinactin (TM) you insensitive clod. John Madden is gonna run the Annexation of Puerto Rico on you.

Patent Infringment spiderweb

[Bananatree3]

When will we finally settle all these Intelectual Property suits? My guess is probably never. Along the same lines, how could the USPO allow Microsoft to patent something that was already patented? This is screwy...

Mountain out of a molehill

[gbulmash]

Based on the press release, it seems more like Alacritech is trying to boost its own profile and try the case in the media.

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

Re:Mountain out of a molehill

[drakethegreat]

non-news? They still won something which means it moves to the next level. They haven't won yet but they haven't lost either. They are making news because its now become a bigger deal. Don't pretend like nothing just happened...

Re:Mountain out of a molehill

[gbulmash]

non-news? They still won something which means it moves to the next level. They haven't won yet but they haven't lost either. They are making news because its now become a bigger deal. Don't pretend like nothing just happened...

Until the injunction has been appealed and held valid or Microsoft is prevented from shipping a product which is otherwise ready to go, the injunction *is* a non-event. It's preliminary, issued by a judge who is in a class that is regularly found in error by higher courts. The Scalable Networking Pack, if it gets delayed, will make this have an impact. But Longhorn... Microsoft doesn't need any outside help in delaying that beast.

- Greg

Re:Mountain out of a molehill

[WebHostingGuy]

[i]A preliminary injunction is absurd in this case, because the alleged damages are easily monetized. Prelims are only supposed to be for situations in which an irreversable wrong might occur.[/i]

Not really true. A preliminary injunction is the appropriate response here. Basically the plaintiff is arguing Microsoft stole their IP. They do not want anyone using it who does not pay them for the license. They also do not have to let anyone ever use it. Why would a court force a company to license their IP against their will? They would not. This is the case here. Microsoft did not license the technology, but still used it (the plaintiff's argument). Therefore the plaintiff says to the court we ask you to force them to stop using it. If the plaintiff can show that there is a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of the case and that there is damage from not stopping them from using it now then the judge will grant the preliminary injunction. What the plaintiff argued (and it appears successfully) is that the harm they would suffer is that their trade secrets, their IP, is being used by someone else to unlawfully profit. If released by Microsoft someone could reverse engineer or possibly someone at Microsoft could be sloppy and release the source code, thus depriving the plaintiff of unspecific future losses.

You do not just deny a preliminary injunction because there is also the potential for money damages. In the legal system you have money damages (law) and non-money damages (equity). In this case they would have pleaded (asked for) both. First, money for stealing the IP and second a court order to stop them from using it.

What makes this newsworthy is that preliminary injunctions are hard to get and more difficult to win than a normal trial. Either the judge totally blew the hearing/order or there is enough evidence to support the plaintiff's claims at this point. And if there is enough to support their claims then Microsoft could be in a problem if they have to remove the code before release. However, I personally believe if this is the case they would simply buy the license or buy the company.

Microsoft Chimney

[techguy911]

And to think for all this time I thought Microsoft Chimney was going to be an addon to Longhorn to help cool down my new quad core Pentium 8 256 bit nano-processor, which is what will be out by the time they release it.

Re:Microsoft Chimney

[Chris Kamel]

All this coverage and you still seem to miss it.
I say bring on more moore's law articles /.

I'm starting to see the software patent problem.

[Future Man 3000]

I can see how a small developer can infringe inadvertently on an existing patent, whether by happening across the same method or forgetting that he observed the method in an existing product.

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.

Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Eh?

[gstovall]

What?

Network coprocessors have been around for aeons.

Just look at the products from http://www.ramix.com, and I'm not even saying they were anywhere near the first.

I've got a stack of old network coprocessors sitting here in the closet next to me, that predate any of the dates mentioned in this article.

Good, but not for the obvious reason

[Verteiron]

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.

Re:Good, but not for the obvious reason

[william_w_bush]

Absolutely, and causes small companies (and lawyers) to drool uncontrollably. Also, the dirty secret of the democratic party is their dependence on the special interest groups of trial lawyers, which sucks.

Brought to you by, Sexual Harrass... err Don't Sue People Panda!

Re:Good, but not for the obvious reason

[MoralHazard]

You're not looking at it from a strategic perspective. Large companies (and smaller ones, too, if they're smart) know that every day they're in business, there's a risk that they're going to get sued, and try to act intelligently about that knowledge. It's called risk management. They also know that they might be able to sue another company/person, too.

This means trying to minimize lawsuit losses (legal costs, judgements against, licensing costs, and bad PR) and maximize gains (judgements for, licensing profits). There's a hell of a lot of thought that goes into this, at most decent-sized corporations, especially when it comes to something like IP lawsuits.

The smart strategy for Microsoft is to weigh the impact that software patents will have on their bottom line, overall. One lost suit (or a dozen) aren't a bad thing, as long as MS makes more money in the process. If they're winning enough suits of enough size, and licensing out their own IP for enough money, the total gains attributable to software patents might outweigh the occasional lawsuit that they lose.

And being that MS has such a mountain of US Patents at its disposal, growing all the time, I think they may be seeing a little further than one or two patent lawsuits, even if they're individually pretty large.

As an aside, most business don't have much lobbying power, and so the point about lobbying for change is nonsense except for the biggest companies, like MS. Even if those few giants are against patents, MS and its ilk will be weighing the effort and expense of lobbying versus the chances that they'll get laws passed--not a sure thing, by any stretch. So even if they suffer some small losses in the long run, it might not be worth the effort to try the change it.

Re:Good, but not for the obvious reason

[Stephen Samuel]

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

Don't hold your breath. Microsoft is probably one of the primary proponents of software patents -- and if the Eolas patent didn't get their attention (actually, I think it gave them the idea) I don't think anything will.

Besides, I'm not even sure if this is a pure software patent. This appears to be at least partially a hardware patent (although all I've read is the (rather sketchy) PR fluff and not the patents themselves.

In any event, Microsoft appears to have induced the company to reveal the details of their idea (under NDA?) and then wilfully infringed. Very different than the normal issues people have with software patents.

Re:Good, but not for the obvious reason

[Shihar]

I can't speak for software patents, but I can speak for other patents. I work in a nanotechnology startup firm with a very hot product. We have grand total of 30 or so guys working in this company, all of which are very smart people. We only really do one thing, develop technology. We develop the basic idea of a new technology, work out the initial kinks, then sell it to another company for scale up operations. Patents are all we have. Take away our patents, and we would close up shop tomorrow and let the technology sit there stagnant.

What people don't realize is that often times the people that make the technology and the people that build the technology are two very different people. 30 guys can't run a semiconductor plant building enough memory to feed the global market. We can do all the R&D though. That means that we need to show our R&D to outsiders. We need to take our awesome idea, bring it to a company, and show them enough to convince them that we are not another crackpot startup. The only way to do this is to show them a lot... enough where they get a couple years leg up on reproducing what we have. The only thing that allows us to walk into companies and show them what we have is the protection of IP laws. Without those laws, we wouldn't be able to show off the technology, much less sell it.

It is this very reason why our company won't even contemplate doing business in Korea or Taiwan. IP is the only thing we have, and those nations are not exactly know for their respect of ownership of IP. IP laws are what keep our business in existence and in the US.

I am not a programmer, so I don't know how it works with software, but I wouldn't be surprised if something similar happens in that industry too. A small company develops an impressive bit of code, and the only way they can sell it is with the protection of IP to shield them while they show it off and sell it.

IP laws are not the bane of creativity. The patent system has more then a few flukes and shitty patents handed out, but it is without a doubt needed. Kill patents and you better get cozy with universities and massive corporations, because without IP laws entrepreneurs and risk taking startups are SOL.

Re:Good, but not for the obvious reason

[Maestro4k]

I am not a programmer, so I don't know how it works with software, but I wouldn't be surprised if something similar happens in that industry too. A small company develops an impressive bit of code, and the only way they can sell it is with the protection of IP to shield them while they show it off and sell it.

• It's a bit different, software patents patent an algorithm generally. To put this in perspective, you know that 2 + 2 = 4 right? Well I can write a bit of code implementing an algorithm to add two numbers and give the result. Now let's say I get a patent on that, and enforce it. Suddenly the entire industry has to pay me licensing fees to add two numbers in a program.

• In software there are multiple ways to do some things, and others there aren't. Many of these software patents specify a specific way of implementing an algorithm, but then if someone else indpendently comes up with a way of doing the same thing, the odds are a LOT of the code will be similar. Then the company with the patent sues company #2 to make them stop using code they developed that does something similar and/or pay fees to company #1 on something that company #2 spent the time and money to develop independantly. Company #2's losing money here either way.

  I'm guessing in nanotechnology if you come up with a product the odds are against someone being able to create the same product without the exact same methods used. In software this isn't true. And fundamentally can you really lay claim to something like x + y = z?

IP laws are not the bane of creativity. The patent system has more then a few flukes and shitty patents handed out, but it is without a doubt needed. Kill patents and you better get cozy with universities and massive corporations, because without IP laws entrepreneurs and risk taking startups are SOL.

• Patents aren't always bad, I'm sure they're quite vital in nanotech in fact and that they're a good thing there. As you say, it allows your company to do R&D and license it out to other companies to make the product viable. Both of you win, you get money from your research and they get money from the product.

• However, software patents are not a good thing. They allow companies to patent things that are far too easy to be recreated with absolutely no knowledge of the existing patent. With software patents only the holder of the patent wins. Other companies are forced to pay licensing fees for something they may have developed on their own as well, but can't risk a lawsuit. Or they can't get a license and interopability goes down the tubes. Software patents tend to lead to stagnation in creativity. Even Bill Gates has admitted that Microsoft could have never become the company it is now if they'd had to get licenses for every little thing they implemented in software when they were starting out.

  Back to the adding algorithm, imagine if only Microsoft was allowed to add two numbers together in code. Not a particularly pleasant thought is it?

Re:Good, but not for the obvious reason

[volkris]

So basically what you're saying is that we all should suffer under crummy laws because otherwise your business will fail.

Got it.

And no thank you.

Re:Good, but not for the obvious reason

[alain94040]

I fail to see why software patents are any different. In software as in most fields, there are different ways to do things, some similar, some innovative and some are just copies.

I would refuse to make a specific exception for software patents. If you want to fix the system, either go back to the letter of the patents ("invention not obvious for those skilled in the art"), or offer something else.

Alain.

Re:Good, but not for the obvious reason

[Ambassador Kosh]

Are you SURE there are different ways to do things? I have seen programmers around the world solve a given problem and have the code be darn near identical. Heck a number of times on the some of the programming channels I am on several of us have written a solution for someone and our code was IDENTICAL. Same spacing, same var names etc and that was for up to 20 lines of code.

When you patent software you are patenting ideas. Supporting patents on software would be like supporting patents on books. The value is in how it is all put together in the end, not in all the bites and pieces. Just like for a book the value is not in all the words but in the full telling of the story and the same is true of software. The problem is that unless you write software for many years it is very hard to understand this. Without doing it people just can't see how it really works.

Re:Good, but not for the obvious reason

[fcw]

I am not a programmer, so I don't know how it works with software, but I wouldn't be surprised if something similar happens in that industry too.

Time to be surprised. Economically, software is fundamentally different from all other technical fields because it is immaterial.

We develop the basic idea of a new technology, work out the initial kinks, then sell it to another company for scale up operations.

This is the kind of thing that patents can actually be good for.

However, in software, there is no "scale up operation" that requires the incentive of patent protection -- once you've worked the kinks out of your software idea, you're done. By design, computers can generate unlimited, perfect copies of your software forever for free, and the standing infrastructure of the internet makes distribution to arbitrary numbers of customers effectively error- and cost-free as well.

This is the reason we have free software, but not free drugs or free nanotechnology.

And it's also the reason why patents for software are a mistake of the first order.

Kill patents and you better get cozy with universities and massive corporations, because without IP laws entrepreneurs and risk taking startups are SOL.

This is only true when there are significant financial risks associated with bringing a new invention to the marketplace. Remember that patents are solely an economic device to protect such investment, in order to encourage investors to pay for the new factories or processes or materials. If the inventors can do it by themselves, and can get started with the money in their pockets, what are the patents needed for?

When such investments are not required to bring a new invention to the market, patents are an unnecessary burden, especially on the small company.

For a real example, take Microsoft; they went from nothing to literally the richest company in the world in 20 years in software without patent protection. (They want them now because they see their lucrative business model threatened by free software, and so they are doing the business equivalent of running to Daddy for help by asking for government-sanctioned barriers to entry to the market.)

Surely the prospect of creating fabulous wealth without significant cash outlay is sufficient incentive to innovate in software?

Re:Good, but not for the obvious reason

[Alsee]

I would refuse to make a specific exception for software patents.

That is simple, obvious, and wrong because the underlying assumptions are wrong.

There should not be special exceptions for certain kinds of inventions. Agreed.
Certain kinds of inventors should not be denied equal rights. Agreed.

The issue is that software is not an invention.

A 100 digit number may certainly be 'novel' and never before seen. A 100 digit number may certainly be non-obvious. A 100 digit number may certainly be useful. However a number is not an invention.

Software is a field of mathematics. The only thing software can implement is a fancy calculation. Software is nothing but a mathematical function. A fancy equation. A series of mental steps. Any software a computer can (slowly) be run by a human brain in pure thought.

According to the US Supreme Court (Parker v Flook) all software is to be treated for patent purposes as a "familiar part of prior art". For patent purposes there is no such thing as novel or nonobvious software, just as for patent purposes there is no such thing as a novel or nonobvious number. You cannot invent a number and you cannot invent an equation and you cannot invent software.

Prior to the 1980's the US and the rest of the world consistantly and properly rejected any attempt to patent software because software was not an invention. Most of the world still consistantly and properly rejects the notion that software is an invention, the exceptions being mainly a few countries pressured by the US to REVERSE their laws. There's the current debate in the UE, but that is distinctly following the US lead, and the European Patent Convention explicitly states that software is not an invention.

It was the US that made an EXCEPTION for software and REVERSED and ABANDONDED established law and all global patent norms. And it was done by a mid-level US court in the State Street decision. It was done in violation of standing Supreme Court law. As I said, standing Supreme Court law is and was that all software algorithms are to be treated as a "familiar part of prior art". The patent office was actually agruing AGAINST issuing software patents in that case, and the court forced the patent office to start issuing software patents. The problem is that the Supreme Court has simply not addressed patent law since then and hasn't smacked down that lower court decision that improperly EXTENDED patentability to software. THAT was the exception for software patents - a special exeption to EXTEND patentability to software.

The Supreme Court is extremely busy and can only review a few cases per year. Naturally patent law is not exactly a sexy field and reviewing such a case would generally mean bumping some other civil rights case or something off of the docket. But the Supreme Court has neglected patent law for far too long and has allowed the lower courts to run amuck in flagrant violation of Supreme Court rulings. It's long overdue for the Supreme Court to look at at least ONE patent case, something they haven't done in over 20 years. Time to clean up this mess.

-

Re:Good, but not for the obvious reason

[Alsee]

By design, computers can generate unlimited, perfect copies of your software forever for free

...or until the next Windows Operating System release, whichever comes first.

-

Re:Good, but not for the obvious reason

[setbit]

I disagree that IP laws as such are necessary to your business. What *is* necessary is enforcement of contracts. Unfortunately our current system uses patent and other IP laws as a substitute for NDA's and other contractual agreements. Think about it. If you could draw up a combination NDA and "You can't use anything you learn" contract, and have real confidence that it would be enforced by the courts if necessary, then you wouldn't really need the patent. If your technology is really as great as you think it is, then nobody is going to be able to come up with something similar unless they get it from you. Granted, patents are more convenient for you, but I think we've seen what happens when laws are written based on expedience rather than fundamental principles.

Which evil to support?

[hellfire]

Patent lawsuits.... Microsoft.... evil quotient reaching infinity...

cannot... decide... which to... cheer for... brain can't take... much more... **BOOM**

Re:Which evil to support?

[happymedium]

This is funny but also contains a valid point. If software patents are as evil as many Slashdotters claim, we should support neither side, and call a cease-fire in the M$ bashing while discussing the case.

Re:Which evil to support?

[FooAtWFU]

For limits of the form infinity over infinity or zero over zero, you can apply L'Hopital's rule: the quotient of the infinities will be the quotient of their derivatives. (Simple calculus, really.)

In this case, the derivitaves of this case are Microsoft, and Alacritech. Microsoft is all about money money money. Now, we know money is the root of all evil, so Microsoft = money * money * money = money ^ 3 = sqrt(evil)^3 = (evil)^(3/2). Software patents are also evil, though, and it seems Alacritech is after money, so the lawsuit = money * evil = sqrt(evil)*evil = (evil)^(3/2). So, Microsoft / Alacritech = 1.

So I don't reccomend you cheer for either side: the limit of the evil quotient in this case, as the perversity of the universe tends towards infinity (Finagle's Law), is zero.

Re:Which evil to support?

[FooAtWFU]

Dangit! Just like my calculus tests, too- I realize five minutes too late I've made some stupid error at the end. The limit of the evil quotient is one.

Hey! I have a 4.0 in that class... on the Pauling Scale! =b

Is Alacritch Inc, really a startup?

[mcguyver]

Alacritch Inc was founded in 1997. Google was founded in 1998. This is a david-vs-goliath story but certainly not on the scale that this article makes you believe...then again Alacritch did go through three rounds of funding for a total of only $35M.

Re:Is Alacritch Inc, really a startup?

[Spy der Mann]

then again Alacritch did go through three rounds of funding for a total of only $35M.

Conclusion: Patents granted to small companies can be (in practice) stolen without making a big fuzz about it. Or at least it'll hurt ($$$) the small company much more than the big company.

(Another reason for the patent system to be reformed)

Re:I'm starting to see the software patent problem

[Surt]

I think in this case it seems relatively clear that Microsoft was aware of the patent, but chose to ignore it, and quash a smalltime innovator. Possibly they believed the patent would be invalidated in the long run, and therefore felt like the best way to proceed would be to violate and then litigate the patent.

And just in case you weren't joking, this won't in any way sink microsoft. At worst they pay a penalty proportional to the damages, which would be quite small (for microsoft), and be forced to either license the patent or do without tcp offloading in their OS.

Evil

[TimeTraveler1884]

What goes around comes around I say.

If you'd like to show us an example of Microsoft using patents this way *against* other companies, I'm all ears (or eyes).

You want proof? You must be new here.

Seriously though, I was speaking in terms of just general evilness.

Re:I'm starting to see the software patent problem

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

Wha? There's no minefield here. Microsoft walked in and stole their technology and planned to use its wealth to fend off any litigation. (allegedly)

The patent system is there to protect innovators, not to pull the legs out from under existing and profitable companies

This is exactly why the preliminary injunction was issued. If you're trying to be sarcastic it was a bit to thinly veiled.

Re:I'm starting to see the software patent problem

[bonch]

Wikipedia even has an entry on the software patent debate.

The amusing section is the list of quotes for and against software patents, both lead by a Gates quote:

Quotes supporting patentability

Bill Gates (Microsoft) 2005
"...There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises. They don't think that those incentives should exist... I'd be the first to say that the patent system can always be tuned...the United States has led...because we've had the best intellectual-property system."

Quotes against patentability

Bill Gates (Microsoft) 1991
Internal memo
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today...The solution is patenting as much as we can. A future startup with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price might be high. Established companies have an interest in excluding future competitors."

Re:Think Twice ...

[foobsr]

I congrat myself, rating the stupidity of the common "American Idiot" (Green Day) perfectly.

CC.

the plan..

[jspectre]

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!

Re:the plan..

[dBLiSS]

My plan is better..

1. Patent Obvious method of doing something
2. ????
3. Launch Lawsuits against everyone
4. Profit

Re:the plan..

[nametaken]

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!

Six steps?! wtf?!
My delusions of successful three-step business management have been quashed.

Re:the plan..

[Ayaress]

1. invent technology

Far better to wait for somebody ELSE to invent it and then patent it, which is the case in most of these patent lawsuits. Better yet, patent a bunch of obvious stuff and wait for somebody else to invent it.

Re:I'm starting to see the software patent problem

[KarmaMB84]

If MS thinks the patent is bullshit, why not fight it?

Re:We are

[symbolic]

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!

No net effect

[gosand]

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.

Quite honestly, Microsoft doesn't give a shit about the industry as a whole. Microsoft cares about Microsoft, and overall software patents are a net gain for them. So they have to settle with some small company for pocket change - they win in the end, because they most likely got away with this behavior many times before. And will get away with it again. (and it just isn't Microsoft that does this kind of thing)

Re:We are

[snorklewacker]

> 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

How many patent lawsuits has Microsoft taken out?

profit equation

[vlad_petric]

Giving ~50 million dollars to a cocky startup: nothing.

Preventing OSS adoption through patent/indemnization FUD campaigns: priceless

Patents is really the only ace they have right now against OSS.

who writes these titles?

[hurfy]

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 :(

Re:I'm starting to see the software patent problem

[Stephen Samuel]

If you accept Alacritch's press reports at face value, this is not a patent minefiled problem. Microsoft went to the company and got details of their technology (probably under NDA). They then cut off communication with the company and implemented their idea without any sort of agreement.

This is an example of the kinds of minefield a small startup faces when they try to deal with Microsoft. It would appear that MS simply intended to walk all over this company and suck them dry on court costs. It's actually nice to see Microsoft get their ass nailed to the wall on this.

From the sounds of things, this is also (at least partially) a hardwar patent and not a pure software patent issue.

Re:I'm starting to see the software patent problem

[Surt]

That seems to be what they're doing ... I don't see in this anywhere that microsoft has decided to license rather than fight?

Follow the money: Alacritech vs. Broadcom?

[Wesley Felter]

Alacritech makes TCP offload engines (TOEs); so do several other companies. Notably, Broadcom has promised to commoditize TOE by including it in GigE controllers "for free". If this happens, Alacritech is out of business. These Broadcom TOEs rely on the Windows TCP Chimney API to work. If TCP Chimney has to be removed from Windows, then Alacritech is possibly the only TOE company left standing.

Re:Follow the money: Alacritech vs. Broadcom?

[pavera]

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.

Re:Follow the money: Alacritech vs. Broadcom?

[larytet]

ok, i read what is TOE http://www.nwfusion.com/techinsider/2003/0707techu pdate.html is. i do not understand what exactly can be patented here.

6 or 7 years ago i worked in a company which considered to put the whole V5.2 (US GR303) into ASIC and speed up telecom switches.

IBM 430/440 has some "TCP" fetaures inside like IP header checksum calculation.

true, i did not read the patent, but smart chips (and NICs) is not something new. SCSI first of all is a smart HD controller.

One US startup attempted to put H.323 (VoIP) into single chip together with TCP/IP

If they don't have a shipping product yet...

[unicorn]

Then yeah, I'd say they're a startup.

SOP for M$

[jwave]

OK, at the risk of clobbering my newly grown karma, allow me to point out that this is a shining example of how Microsoft has grown to become the great behemoth it is.

Below, find three sequential elements from the timeline in TFA.

• 09/98 - Alacritech meets with Microsoft and describes patent-pending Dynamic TCP Offload architecture in detail under a non-disclosure agreement
• 04/99 - At Microsoft's request, Alacritech delivers detailed architecture document for integrating Alacritech SLIC Technology into Windows
• 06/99 - Microsoft ceases further communications with Alacritech and subsequently proceeds to use Alacritech SLIC Technology without a license

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 /.)

Re:SOP for M$

[ndykman]

Uh, I hate to point out the obvious, but the timeline you quote is according to Alacritech. Assuming that the timeline is correct, complete and factual is well, is now a subject for the courts.

It is quite possible that the TCP offloading APIs and code do not infringe, and the courts rule that way. Sure, it's /. and we all assume that Microsoft is evil and dumb (and it can be), but we'll probably never know.

Re:SOP for M$

[spectecjr]

To be fair, Kaplan would not dispute that his company was doomed anyway for at least two reasons: mismanagement by GO, and the fact that pen computing was probably ahead of its time. ... and they were designing their own Hardware, and their own OS, and only wanted Microsoft to write Apps for them.

You might want to read Barbarians Led By Bill Gates for some insight. Or search on Amazon for it, and search inside it for "Furthermore, Go was building its software".

Re:We are

[dillon_rinker]

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.

EXACTLY.

So-called intellectual property is, in theory, a temporary monopoly granted for the sake of the public good. By granting the monopoly, the government provides economic incentives to creators. What, though, is the good to the public if the creators do not license their intellectual property?

I would propose mandatory licensing of ALL intellectual property under standard terms. No patent holder would then be able to withhold permission to incorporate patented technologies; nor could they demand outrageous payments for their patent. They could not keep technologies off the market solely to keep from cannibalizing their existing sales.

Record companies would be required to make ALL of the music they owned available to the public or risk losing their copyright. There would be no orphaned works; failure to provide access to a work would constitute abandonment of copyright and ensure that a work passed into the public domain.

The devil, of course, is in the details. What would the mandatory licensing terms be?

Re:I'm starting to see the software patent problem

[voisine]

Those quotes are 14 years apart. It's not so strange that someone would change their mind on a subject over 14 years, especially considering that in '91 software patents were mostly not in Microsoft's favor, and now they are.

Re:Think Twice ....

[Surt]

You're undermining yourself quoting kohlberg, after all, going as high as you can go:

Stage 6: Universal Principles. Stage 5 respondents are working toward a conception of the good society. They suggest that we need to (a) protect certain individual rights and (b) settle disputes through democratic processes. However, democratic processes alone do not always result in outcomes that we intuitively sense are just. A majority, for example, may vote for a law that hinders a minority. Thus, Kohlberg believes that there must be a higher stage--stage 6--which defines the principles by which we achieve justice.

Microsoft is certainly bad for society (a universal principal), therefore any strategy which can be used against microsoft is good. Therefore you should say in response to are software patents good, precisely: "Yes, if used against M$".

Hypocracy as a form of government

[Atroxodisse]

Funny how when MS is a smaller company he's against patents and when MS is a huge company with lots of patents he's all for them.

Re:Hypocracy as a form of government

[Politburo]

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.

Re:Hypocracy as a form of government

[Atroxodisse]

I was being facetious.

Re:We are

[symbolic]

Not the issue. How many patents does Microsoft hold? The distinction is important- the reason Microsoft hasn't initiated any patent suits (that we know of anyway), is because it hasn't needed to. Put the company in a position of financial stress, and you can bet they'll be looking at every possible way to take advantage of this massive portfolio.

Re:We are

[mattyrobinson69]

how many patents has microsoft been hoarding lately?
how many times has it threatened the linux kernel with litigation?

(SPOILER!)
answer 1:lots
answer 2:more than 0

Re:Think Twice ....

[periol]

It is a question of moral judgement.

Please, refrain from being ridiculous. Software patents aren't a moral issue, and they aren't an ethical issue. The issue of software patents is a legal question about property rights.

Obvious??

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Smells Phishy

[BrainSurgeon]

Ok, lemme get this straight...

Alacritech "shows" MS this technology back in 98
MS breaks communication in 99 and starts to use the technology without license
4 years later Alacritch then "tries" to offer a license.
One year later they sue

Why did they wait 4 years if they knew MS was using it without a license? Sounds like a Phishing scheme at the corporate level to dig into some pockets.

Re:Smells Phishy

[Maestro4k]

Why did they wait 4 years if they knew MS was using it without a license? Sounds like a Phishing scheme at the corporate level to dig into some pockets.

• It's not clear from the article when Alacritech found out MicroSoft had continued to use their technology. If they didn't find out until four years later, it would make sense that there's a gap there before they offered them a license. If all happened as Alacritech says it did, it's to their credit they tried to get MS to do the right thing and offered them a license. They could have skipped that and gone straight to a lawsuit, after all MS had stolen their technology pretty blatantly.

• This also doesn't look like a submarine patent scheme, MicroSoft hasn't actually started shipping products with the technology at question in them yet. Alacritech seems to be trying to prevent them from doing so, instead of waiting until it was all over the market then suddenly popping up and filing suit.

Re:OT re .sig

[nofx_3]

or you could simply insret a non-optonal line in all edited postss stating the that time of each update and the total numbers of updates. This way people could correct gross speeling and errors gramatical. Then if someone complains about a post that been edited, you are aware ov it and u do'nt end jup with posts that read like this one :)

-kaplanfx

MS Cellphone company?

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

Wasn't this basically the same pattern reported for Microsoft's arrangements with a cellphone OS company (was it "Orange"?) "Partner" with them, starve them to death and let them die, then walk off with their "Intellectual Property"?

Re:I'm starting to see the software patent problem

[Drakonian]

Part 1: If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today

Part 2: The solution is patenting as much as we can.

That's a very odd, but very true non sequitur. Well, unless you want the industry to be at a complete standstill. Which I guess they do; they have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

Re:Think Twice ....

[foobsr]

Therefore you should say in response to are software patents good, precisely: "Yes, if used against M$".

I wholeheartedly disagree, though I, in real life, am not able to follow through consistently.

However, I at least always try to improve my integrity. No, I am not religious, but practice Tai Chi.

CC.

Re:Think Twice ....

[foobsr]

Please be precise. You are talking about "Intellectual Property Rights", right? This then moves us quite fast into the regions of moral an ethics (glance at SCO here?). Keep in mind that these areas (at least ethics, morals is more difficult to categorize, room for another thesis) are normative (contrasted to maybe empiricist).

But please let me be ridiculous, there is not much else left to laugh about in this (my?) world.

CC.

Why choose?

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Nobody (that matters) likes MS or software patents, but when MS gets hurt by the weapons it uses then a cheer goes up from the GoodSide.

It's a bit like mean people using landmines. Both the people and the mines are nasty. When a mine layer gets his leg torn off by a landmine then there's some poetic justice.

Re:Why choose?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you care to provide us with examples where Microsoft have used software patents as a weapon?

Re:Think Twice ....

[periol]

Glance at SCO all you want. The only reason "morals" or "ethics" could be called into question in the SCO case is if they are pressing a case that they know to be false. I don't like them either, but it's not immoral or unethical simply to sue someone.

I'm quite aware of what ethics and morality are. Keep in mind that when we're talking about "intellectual property rights" we're talking about a DEBATE over LEGAL ISSUES. If we're talking about my behaviour in light of the current legal framework, THEN AND ONLY THEN are we talking about ethics or morality.

You're right. Things are *way* too serious in your world. You can start lightening up by remembering that not everything is a moral or ethical issue.

Re:We are

[Nefarious Wheel]

Isn't this about pre-existing legislation already in place, that prohibits people from predatory practices? One case that comes to mind is Jim Fisk buying out the Red Line tram system in Los Angeles in the 20's and selling off the right of way piecemeal so it would never be in a position to infringe the revenue stream of Fisk Tires Corp. Use of purchasing power to deny access to competitors is a time-honoured practice of robber barons. IBM did it in the 70's and sent Memorex to the wall (bought out supply of a key component the competition needed). Or today with the RIAA -- using it's legal purchasing power to deny access to people with legitimate claims for use. Go figure.

A couple differences involving software patents

[loqi]

30 guys can't run a semiconductor plant building enough memory to feed the global market

This is the biggest difference between software patents and "normal" patents. If you've got the software, you've got the software. There is no "fabrication" step beyond stamping CDs and shrink-wrapping a box for mass market consumption (which is only for the tiny sliver of the software market represented by commercial end-user products, and these tend not to contain revolutionary new ideas).

Software is also already protected by copyright laws. If you show off your software and they use your code, that's an IP violation. If you show off your software and they decide that it's cheaper to write their own version themselves... then clearly the market has given you a not-so-subtle hint about the actual value of your software R&D.

Wow, My mind just went *ping*...

[pla]

While reading through the posts on this topic, I noticed the same patterns I always do, how patents for the most part seem to get granted at the drop of the hat, and both big and little players can use them to very carefully target and cripple the opposition.

But then I had a thought... We should FULLY, ABSOLUTELY support the granting of insanely over-broad patents for every trivial little thing any company can think to sue over.

Why, you might ask, would I suggest such a seemingly abhorrent idea?


Simple: Because, in 20 years, it means that we'll all have the current batch of insanity to point to and excuse our "infringement" of then-current patents with "see? I implemented that, now out of patent."

"Why yes, it would appear that I violated your patent on 3rd-harmonic quantum eigenreplication, but as you can see from this now-expired-and-thus-fair-game 2002 Microsoft patent, I did nothing more than implement their 3rd claim, which covers ''the use of numbers to do stuff''. So, if we can dispense with the debate over such highly-technical language, I'd like to move for dismissal."

Phishy, no, Need patent to sue for infringement

[Finsterwald P Ogleth]

And if you look at the dates, Alacritech didn't get the patent till 2000, and another one in 2002.

I think you *need* the approved patent to sue for infringement. "Patent pending" won't cut it in court.

Besides, they may have notified MS in 2000, when they got the patent, but MS has the money to "wait it out", gambling (somewhat...eh, maybe not that much, based on their record)that the little guy will get starved out.

Burst was in the same position. I think the major reason Burst settled was because of cash flow.

Eventually, Kolar-Kotelly will have to take these types of behavior under legal consideration as evidence that MS will just not change. Maybe then we can get a ruling that's fair to the marketplace...

FPO

Re:Think Twice ....

[foobsr]

I'm quite aware of what ethics and morality are.

I am not so sure. Perhaps I would say that I have thought about questions of ethics and morality for quite a while without coming to the ultimate conclusion. Never mind.

If we're talking about my behaviour in light of the current legal framework, THEN AND ONLY THEN are we talking about ethics or morality.

From my position, we then are talking about "morality" (as the current implementation of ethics, if you like).

I don't like them either, but it's not immoral or unethical simply to sue someone.

To me, you do not "simply" sue someone - to me, it is "unethical" (SCO case), but conforms to current business "morals".

You're right. Things are *way* too serious in your world.

My problem. Yes. Well diagnosed.

CC.

Also

[einhverfr]

Assuming that this is shipped in Longhorn, does this mean that Longhorn will be another 10 years off?

lawsuit documents prepared with microsoft word

[xoba]

lawsuit documents were prepared with microsoft word:

http://www.alacritech.com/assets/applets/Motion_fo r_Preliminary_Injunction.pdf

isn't filing suit against microsoft against their software license agreement? or if you do decide to sue microsoft, you agree to stop using their software?

Re:We are

[back_pages]

So-called intellectual property is, in theory, a temporary monopoly granted for the sake of the public good. By granting the monopoly, the government provides economic incentives to creators. What, though, is the good to the public if the creators do not license their intellectual property?

The answer to that question is the public disclosure of the technology and the implicit offer of a temporary monopoly to anyone who can improve that technology in a non-obvious way.

Regardless of whether or not you buy into it or like the answer, it is what it is.

I would propose mandatory licensing of ALL intellectual property under standard terms. No patent holder would then be able to withhold permission to incorporate patented technologies; nor could they demand outrageous payments for their patent. They could not keep technologies off the market solely to keep from cannibalizing their existing sales.

This has been done in times of war when the Federal government deemed that the technology was relevant to the defense of the nation. I'm personally not opposed to a system along these lines, although I would suggest something more like the arbitration that the government does to settle labor disputes. If a potential licensee and a patent holder couldn't come to a reasonable agreement, then the potential licensee could request Federal arbitration, plead the case for a reasonable agreement, and if ultimately necessary, receive a deal through the Federal government. You'd obviously have to tinker with the rules for competitors forcing deals out of each other and it would cost a ton of money to establish the fair market value of technology (before it hits market) but I think it could all be ironed out.

I wouldn't touch the copyright issue. I know quite a lot about the patent system but I'm not an expert in copyright law. And yeah, the devil IS in the details.

Re:We are

[XorNand]

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.

Re:Think Twice ....

[periol]

dude.

There's a world of difference between coming to a common definition of what we're talking about and coming to "the ultimate conclusion".

It's fine to say something (the SCO case) is unethical. It's not fine to just say that. Think about this - morals do not exist in our three-dimensional world. The morality of any action does not lie in the action itself - the action is a-moral, but the motivation behind the action is moral. So yes, every single lawsuit is "simply" a lawsuit. The ethical and moral qualities of said lawsuit are not found in the fact that there is a lawsuit, but in the motivation of the one pressing the lawsuit. It's called situational ethics - the same action can be right in one circumstance, and wrong in another.

I know, it's complicated.

Gestalt, Venn, Hypocrisy and other assigned words

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow -1 Flaimbate. No surprise though since slashdot is not about the truth.

The problem and the reason why the proper moderation is flamebait, is that you can't claim hypocrisy or inconsistency, unless if you beleive that slashdot is some sort of gestalt entity. If you mapped it out with some Venn diagrams, I think you'd find the number of people holding both portions of any of the gradparent's couplets is extremely small.

Between the short answer format and the self-selection of authors, it is not surprising that very few complete value systems with all the necessary shading and application are presented. As such, there are plenty of posts that agree on the surface but reflect widely divergent opinions and systems.

To some up, both post have some valid points, but seem to mistake some trees for the forest.

Re:We are

[Lehk228]

the government is not forcing you to share what you invented, the government would be forcing you to sell at a reasonable price if you want to the government to prohibit others from inventing their own version very similar to yours

That Disturbance You Felt in the Force

[Greyfox]

Is the impending Microsoft buy-out of the company. We've seen this exact pattern repeated any of number of times in the past with Microsoft and I'm sure we'll see it again in the future. In the business world, meeting with Microsoft to divuldge your technology secrets is the same as a sorority girl yelling "I'm soooo drunk!" at a frat party. Suing them is the the foreplay to some hot Microsoft buy-out action!

Re:That Disturbance You Felt in the Force

[jwave]

In the business world, meeting with Microsoft to divuldge your technology secrets is the same as a sorority girl yelling "I'm soooo drunk!" at a frat party. Suing them is the the foreplay to some hot Microsoft buy-out action!

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).

- - -
Heretic? Lunatic?
...other than spelling and pronunciation, what's the difference?

Re:That Disturbance You Felt in the Force

[prisoner]

If it is better or not depends on why you started your company and, from there, what your exit strategy is. There are a bazillion small biz owners like me that find the notion of selling their biz to anyone abhorrent. My exit strategy is to keep building this thing and, when I get older, to let my partners run it. It's a way of life.

There are, however, others to whom technology or whatver widget they are selling are simply means to an end. These guys understand how to build and market products. Given something reasonable to sell, the product doesn't matter so much once you have the mechanics of business-building mastered. From there it is simply a means to an end which is making money.

Re:We are

[Lapsed Catholic]

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?

Because you presumably petitioned the government for patent protection in the first place. If you don't want to do anything with your invention, then please don't get the government involved by applying for a patent.

Unless of course your goal is to protect a market for an existing, inferior product. An example would be Gilette's rumored patent on everlasting razor blades.

new innovation

[cahiha]

This paper provides information about a new innovation in Microsoft networking--TCP Chimney protocol stack offload.

As I suspected, most of innovation they have been producing so far may have been of the old kind...

what's new about it?

[cahiha]

Off-loading to I/O processors is a standard technique, and the ways you implement it is an application of common engineering principles. What exactly is supposed to be patentable about TCP off-loading?

Re:Think Twice ....

[foobsr]

It's called situational ethics - the same action can be right in one circumstance, and wrong in another.

Do not be pedantic. On topic: I disagree - the scenario you try to establish resembles what they did here to sort out "true" "Wehrdienstverweigerer" (draft dodgers) from fake ones. (Most crucial question back then was along the lines of: What would you do if your girl friend would be about to be raped in the woods by a horde of ... "). I would put it more like "There are situations that deserve unethical actions in order to survive" and then focus on building an environment within which the probability for such situations approaches zero.

morals do not exist in our three-dimensional world

There we have the problem . My position is that morals (not exactly my position but the one I have picked up while being "academically" socialized (arghhh))is the actual instance of ethics.

Now there would be much else to say, but, admittedly, I have to had for a more "horizontal" position right now (it is 3.40 here). However, if you like, we could go on discussing later or mailwise (cc mm ii ss ii aa kk @@ gg mm aa ii ll cc oo mm).

So far, it was great fun :)

CC. (tired)

it's not the patent

[suezz]

although I am against software patents
it is the way microsoft treated the other company. they have done this for years and yet they still keep doing it and getting away with it.

Microsoft is just slimey with the way they do business and I will never use any of their products again - unless it is shoved down my throat like at my job that's okay though it just reminds of why I hate windows - it is just a piece of junk.

Re:Think Twice ....

[periol]

oh, i assure you i am not being pedantic. the biggest problem with most individual's understanding of morality is their inability to break a situation into it's lowest common denominator.

it's well and good to say that rape is always immoral. but that is merely begging the question, because built into our definition of rape is the very wrongness of it. the true question should be: when is sex rape? rape, at its core, is an action involving intercourse between two individuals. the morality of that action lies not in the action itself, but in the motivation behind the action. sex can be moral, but it can also be immoral. one subsection of immoral sex is described as rape.

An entirely different question is my response to immorality. That moves away from the question we were talking about, which I believe was whether or not software patents are "moral".

So let's get into semantics. Of course the software patent itself isn't immoral. Perhaps you could argue that a government which provides software patents is immoral (but then I'm going to seriously question the basis you use to judge morality). Perhaps you could argue that anyone who applies for a patent is immoral, if the possession of software patents is immoral or unethical (and they really aren't the same thing at all, not that you've argued that, i'm just saying).

i'm not going to pretend to understand exactly what you were trying to claim in your first comment. what you said was that it is immoral to think that software patents are a misguided feature of American intellectual property laws, while simultaneously applaud those same laws being used to sue microsoft. well, actually, no.

let me give you a hitler example, just because i like extremes. dietrich bonhoeffer was a theologian in germany during wwii who joined a plot to assassinate hitler. he agonized long and hard over this decision, before joining it, because he realized that the immoral action of killing hitler was massively dwarfed by the immorality of hitler's own actions. the plot failed, but the logic holds.

you and i would never discuss whether or not murder is wrong. it is wrong by definition. murder is a subset of killing, however, and we could probably have a pretty enlightening discussion of the morality of certain killings if we wanted to do so.

Software patents in and of themselves are not wrong. They are concepts. Perhaps it is immoral of me to apply for a patent frivolously, or to steal someone's idea and patent it, or to go around abusing the intent of patent law. But those are human actions that relate to patents, not the patents themselves.

Re:I'm starting to see the software patent problem

[Anonymous Coward]

To try to understand why even a very large company that performs due diligence on prior art cannot escape the patent minefield, read my presentation at this page (it's the first .pdf link on the page):

http://wiki.ffii.org/Madras050408En

It's released under the FDL and/or GPL, so feel free to borrow ideas from it.

Re:Good, but not for the obvious reason?

[KarmaBlackballed]

Okay, patents create an eco-system that supports companies like yours. Your company would not exist without them. Why is that a better eco-system than one without patents? You say something particularly interesting:

It is this very reason why our company won't even contemplate doing business in Korea or Taiwan. IP is the only thing we have, and those nations are not exactly know for their respect of ownership of IP. IP laws are what keep our business in existence and in the US.

Korea and Taiwan seem to be cranking out real products pretty darn quickly from what I can tell. There seems to be alot of technological inovation saturating Korea. Perhaps it is easier to create real products in those places?

Would you be unemployed without patents to build your business model around? If you are smart, I doubt it. You would find a way to build the deliverable products, or partner with folks that do. It would be a different business model, and perhaps a better one for everybody.

Re: Plenty of prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. I/O processors have been known since the 60s (IBM, CDC, ...) and even in the specific case of TCP offload, there have been ISA and PCI cards available from the 80s. For instance, take a look at the ARTIC family from IBM (then, now Radisys).

Re:Think Twice ....

[Surt]

Then you should support my point ... whatever man can do to free, enable, and support his fellow man should be your path. Microsoft stands for the very opposite of that point of view in nearly every way. Acting against evil in a non-violent way is nearly the ideal course in my view.

funny thing

[dbrower]

is that the TOE concept seemed to have been invented a long time ago. The "Excelan" tcp/ip ethernet from around 1984 comes to mind. See for example, this, which says,

what about TOE?
TCP offload is an old answer,
- 1983 : Excelan i186-based "smart adapter"
- 1986 : CMC 68020
- Early 1990's : SGI
- Late 1990's : Adaptec, Alacritec ...

Hey, there they are! Wonder what their "innovation" was that made it a better idea than the first few incarnations?

-dB

SCO buys Alacritech

[NicksMyName]

Newsflash:
SCO has announced it's purchase of Alacritech.

CEO of SCO Darl McBride commented: "This is an important step for us in our "SueTheWholeWorld" (TM) campaign. We have been looking for an opportunity to sue Microsoft ever since they stopped funding our campaign against Linux.".

(Slashdottters suffer confused loyalty.)
__________________________________________________ __
Disclaimer: All content of this posting is intended to be of a satirical nature and should not be used as a basis for investment decisions, lawsuits etc. __________________________________________________ __

Re:We are

[SA Stevens]

The government would be bigger than it already is, and it would be empowered more than it already is to push people around.

There is already a strong precedent, and much disclosed IP out there. A massive government power grab as proposed here is the equivalent of changing the rules of a card hand after the cards are dealt and bets have been made.

Re:mfg0rz, off topic!

[wtlssndlssfthlss]

Abusing the slashdot mod system! RAWK!!

Re:We are

[JabberWokky]

I'm sorry - I missed when Linux entered the conversation. What is the relevance?

--
Evan

Re:Have a reality check

[sillybilly]

Dude, can't you see that MS is actually sponsoring this FUD? What's better than attack them, everyone gang up on MS, you bad dog, in the meantime chanting 'you violated software patents.' The whole idea here is to get you chanting dumbass broad patents as something very valid.

All Patents Bad

[Swift2001]

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.

Re:We are

[mattyrobinson69]

the parent to your parent asked when was the last time microsoft sued for patent infringement - i mentioned that they're hoarding patents and threatening linux because it wouldn't suprise me (dispite their history of not actually litigating) if they did sue.

Re:We are

[JabberWokky]

So, when did they sue?

--
Evan

Re:We are

[mattyrobinson69]

They didn't but its looking increasingly like they will (patent hoarding and making threats)

Re:We are

[JabberWokky]

Ah. It seems that they must have at least some time in the past... not against Linux that I recall. A Google gives... many many patent lawsuits against Microsoft, but no obvious ones where Microsoft sued someone else.

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

Very Telling

[mrjimorg]

It seems that all the discussion here is about patents. But what I think is significant here is that in a Linux-centric group here noone has thought to bring up the lack of TCP-offload architecture for Linux. What is the plans for Linux in the longrun? Are there plans for any "chimney" in Linux? Where will this start? This is one of those opportunities where Linux could lead instead of follow

Re:We are

[dillon_rinker]

We already have mandatory licensing of music. It's doable in theory.