Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Found Guilty of Patent Infringement
Spy der Mann writes "Microsoft has been found guilty of patent infringement and ordered to pay a Guatamalan inventor Carlos Armando Amado almost $9m in damages.
The US District Court of Central California court ruled that Microsoft had infringed on his intellectual property and ordered it to pay him $8.96m.
The patent in question is a method to transfer data between Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Access using a single spreadsheet."
In other news, Guantemala's gross domestic product tripled today...
Sigur RÃs: I didn't know that Heaven had a rock band.
and with one small stone, the giant fell...
?giS
So wait, does this mean patents are good now?
I'm so confused!
that MS is firing a few thousand patents a year at the USPTO - protecting themselves.
You gotta have some sympathy for MS about this.
"Damn! Should have settled. They were offering me $10 million."
'Nuff said.
Patent infringement is not a crime, so they were not, in fact, found "guilty".
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Not that MS cares, or anything, seeing as no one can push them around at their own game.
So.. he patented a way for Microsoft Excel to work with Microsoft Access.. both products that Microsoft makes.
Then he sued Microsoft???
I know.. i patent a way for Apple Intel to work with Apple PowerPC, no one would ever think of that.
The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
As much as I hate Microsoft, I hate people who think they can use patents to cash in on something after the fact. Rambus did this in its ambush of memory makers. Eolas did this to Microsoft. Intertrust is doing this now to MS.
These companies sit around and brainstorm ideas without ever coming up with anything tangible, then they receive patents on their broad ideas. With the patent in hand, they can then sue anyone and anything that looks to be infringing. It's really sad.
At least when IBM or Microsoft or Sun patent something, they have some tangible product they look to implement. The patent leeches just look for traps they can set for big payoffs later on.
i like this idea you are trying to sell us. but it reminds me of something we are already working on. you may leave now, no need to take your folder with you.
I know people always point out how bad Microsoft is, but, I'm seeing plenty of advertising about all kinds of research sponsorship Microsoft does, and wondering if I should enroll (at least try) in some of them? I also have few new algorithms that people pointed out to me "try selling that to Microsoft".
Can anyone tell me more about their good/bad experiences regarding IP and Microsoft ? And I'm not talking only for the bashing part, Microsoft is a big company and plenty goes on with them, anything positive?
And Bill was just about to buy that ivory back-scratcher that he wanted.
Am I open minded towards open source, or closed minded towards closed source?
It's nice to see the little guy win every once in a while.
serves them right :->
That isn't American dollars. He "only" got $1,166,448
Jackson found innocent, invites school bus full of children to his ranch to celebrate.
Yahoo decides to give up fight against Google and shifts all it's resources to making small toys for the quarter machines at grocery stores.
Gnome and KDE finally resolve differences and merge, new name to be KnomE
Secluded inventor in Guatamala buys entire country a round.
You will be baked, and there will be cake.
Why, aren't they usually happy when software patent rights are recognized?
.sig: Open Source, Open Mind
Microsoft sued over a patent concerning *its own* products! CLASSIC!
Nandz.
Isn't that about what Bill Gate's recycled snot is worth??
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
that someone sued and won Microsoft for patent infringement, but I'm not surprised that Microsoft is infringing patents. What did this guy do to be able to afford that?
Also in the article there is a mention of a possible infringement of the JPEG patent. This patent was filed in 1986 and was worthless before JPEG came along. In those cases where the patent is not valuable and actively used for a certain number of years, I think it should be revoked. I think I'll start inventing stuff no one use , patent it, wait and profit!
Just my 2c
Ok,
so transfering data from an excel spreadsheet to an Access table is patented... Hmmm I've been using copy/paste to do that since forever. What "technology" is this? You've been able to export a spreadsheet to comma delimited and import to Access since forever as well... How do you get a patent on importing a comma delimited file?
Let the rest of us get back to work.
I'm afraid of making any sort of software, even for fun. If it somehow leaves my PC goes public, someone could notice I made it, dig up some old patent, and sue my ass to Hoboken, New Jersey. This leeching is far worse than file leeching, and it's always sad to see that something intended to advance science and the arts (see Sec. 8, Clause 8) is impeding it instead. If it can happen to "M$" with their many IP/etc. lawyers, it can happen, and cause far worse damage, to us. That's -1, Scary to me.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
f M$
Carlos Armando Amado devised a way to connect Excel with Access using a specially crafted spreadsheet during his tenure as a graduate student at Stanford University. After applying for a patent in 1990, Mr. Amando approached Microsoft to license the software, but was denied.
Microsoft then used the same exact method.
Now, while i totally disagree with the idea of patents like this... It changes the story a bit doesnt it?
Heh, after all this is slashdot.
Parent admits uses M$ products!
Just another cost of doing business. Put it down in the books as a business expense for a tax write off.
I mean, really just because he had an idea to connect a different data view to do the underlying data doesn't mean that the idea was origional.
I doubt the method was identical to his. It might have had similar elements, but I bet microsoft's was implemented in a much different manner.
Also, I believe that Microsoft began development of the idea in 1989 like they claimed. Its unlikely that anyone who delt with Armando had influence in the design plan.
So I think this is just an example of pattent misuse.
And does anyone think Microsoft would even notice a $9 million bill? Their phone bills are probably larger than this.
As much as I hate the company and its products, and believe me I do, this is a case that should've either been thrown out or used to nullify the patent. Instead the judgement strengthened the concept of software patents and non-novel patents, which in turn strengthens Microsoft's position as a monopoly, for a sum of money that's just barely half a single day's take.
It must be Windows. It needs half a gig of RAM and a hardware-accelerated graphics card just to run Solitaire.
seeing as no one can push them around at their own game
If I ran the numbers right, based on their third quarter earnings this will set Microsoft's profits back 7.5 days. That's profit, not revenue.
That worked out to $329/second, or about $40 grand by time Slashdot will let you post another comment.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Microsoft invents Microsoft Access.
Guatamalan inventor patents method of transferring data between the two programs.
Does that make any sense to you? Guy didn't invent either program. He's not some disgruntled ex-Microsoft programmer out to get his just dues. He's not some super, uber-leet programmer who came out with "Carlos's Excel" or "Carlos's Access" years before Microsoft did and simply didn't succeed due to lack of marketing. This is some Joe Nobody who filed a broad, vague patent that the courts were stupid enough to uphold.
1) Invent something
2) Sit on your invention and never plan to market it
3) Let someone else use your invention and keep quiet
4) ???
5) Profit!!!
Real programmers can write assembly code in any language. -- Larry Wall
Now I like Microsoft as much as the next IT geek (ie. not at all) but I no longer have a clash of conscience over patent issues. The patent system is completely out of control and is causing terrible damage to the industry. As a small developer, patents terrify me. And who are patents supposed to protect in the first place?
Now I don't know the specifics of the case, but given the current rampant abuse of the patent system I'm going to side with the Evil Empire here by default, until I see a decent argument over why this is a fair patent. Most are not. Mind you, MS probably do deserve this sort of thing given their support for software patents.
No, we use U.S. Dollars, even for civl awards here in Ahnuldh's Cal-eee-fonya.
As much as I like to see Microsoft lose one, I'd say this case is actually, on balance, a bad sign. Let's review: A patent is awarded covering data portability between two microsoft products, Microsoft is sued when they actually implement this pretty obvious idea. I don't know about you, but I'm thinking maybe I should grab a patent on the idea of using a PSP to wirelessly control a home game console (the PS3) and suing Sony just in time for Christmas 2006 so that I can afford to buy one of each.
Anyway, the end result of this is that yet another frivolous patent is financially rewarded, at a cost which is a mere pittance for a company the size of Microsoft. The damage that is done is that software patents which are both general and trivial have another piece of judicial precedent to bolster them. In the end, companies with stores of thousands of patents (companies just like Microsoft) can exploit this imbalance in the judicial system for a quick buck (pretty trivial on the balance sheet, though) and, more importantly, to force much smaller potential competitors straight out of business by offering them the choice to go to court and have their coffers drained by legal fees and possibly by damages awarded, or to settle under terms which require them to cease their competitive activity.
Sorry folks, but this is not a win.
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
Wasn't Microsoft Access 1.0 released in 1993 or so?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Oooooh. Gee, you got us. The register had it yesterday. Yaaaay. Good job.
It seems to me that this guy just thought of something that he knew Microsoft had to implement on their own sometime and then blackmailed them for it. This tactics of explicitly mentioning someone's products in a patent and demanding that they pay to simply add an obvious feature is something that not even MS has stooped to yet. I really hope that this teaches Microsoft that patents are not their friends, rather than simply learning a new trick out of it.
I hope this guy spends his new money on cigarettes and hookers with VDs.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
Unfortunately if you look you'll notice that as the number of frivolous patent lawsuits against Microsoft has gradually increased over the last few years, Microsoft's response has been... to suddenly start filing a whole bunch of patents. Lots of patents. Even more than before. And making a big deal in the press about patents and how important they are. And making a big deal to Europe about why they need software patents. Whereas before software patents was something they didn't really give much public indication of caring about one way or the other.
Microsoft obviously isn't doing this for protection, since the only people who've been suing Microsoft have been tiny parasite IP companies-- the kind of people who a patent shield is useless against. Instead it almost kind of seems to me like Microsoft is brushing off the patent judgments like an elephant swatting flies with its tail, but meanwhile going "wait... you mean patents can be used for evil? Interesting...", as if even though the lawsuits may sting a little they don't mind so much because it's given them some ideas of their own.
I hope to whatever Gods may or may not exist that this is just my overactive paranoid imagination.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I guess that's what they get for being ubiquitous.
Kind of ironic and strange that they can be sued for patents on interactions between their own software packages.
Could I patent, just as an example, methods for converting between PDF and PSD files, and then sue Adobe for infringing when they do the obvious?
Something not right about this; I guess it's just showing up yet another problem with copyright law. Pretty thorny one if you think about it.
Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.
Like most things at Slashdot, there is a double standard at play here. In other words, the Slashdot fanboys are not as pue as they like to think of themselves as. If it's bad for MS, it's good "just because". Pay backs, you know? Like little children...
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Except the straw is much smaller than the waterfall pouring into the lake, so no, it wont succeed if given time.
So, we know what this guys invention accomplished, but did he actually get a patent on moving data from a database to a spreadsheet? Or did he patent some method for doing this? The link doesn't lead to the patent or mention the patent number.
/. patent stories. Yeah, we all hate them. But the patent at stake is seldom described very precisely. In fact, it's usually mis-described to make it sound even worse than it is.
This is a really annoying habit in
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
1. Responsible for or chargeable with a reprehensible act; deserving of blame; culpable: guilty of cheating; the guilty party.
"This is a really annoying habit in /. patent stories. Yeah, we all hate them. But the patent at stake is seldom described very precisely. In fact, it's usually mis-described to make it sound even worse than it is."
Well Slashdot has a patent on mis-describing stories, and no one else can mis-describe stories like we can. So pay up suckers.
In capitalist America; after you beat the system, the system beats you.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
Sounds like Microsoft got a dose of their own medicine.
Buckethead
I was trying to be funny, I guess it wasn't obvious enough.
Delicious irony, but don't ask me to explain why.
I guess too many people used the hot coffee and slip on wet floor trick at McDonalds... back to the drawing board!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No. What will happen is that big companies that have influence over government policy will lobby to have the bar raised so high that small patent holders ("whores", as you say) will not be able to prove a case in the first place.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
So.. he patented a way for Microsoft Excel to work with Microsoft Access.. both products that Microsoft makes. Then he sued Microsoft??? I know.. i patent a way for Apple Intel to work with Apple PowerPC, no one would ever think of that.
You didn't get it:
1. The guy came up with a technique to interact with Access and Excel while doing graduate studies and gets a patent.
2. He approached Microsoft Corp. in the 90s and offered them his patent. Microsoft rejects the idea and say they're not interested.
3. About the same time, Microsoft adds the same technique to his products, makes a great deal of it and gets millions in revenue.
4. Then, and only then, the guy went to court, proved that he was the first to come up with the technique , proved that he approached Microsoft, proved that he showed it to them before they ever thought about it and then gets a fair amount of money.
I don't support software patents, but if Microsoft is promoting that nasty game, they have to obey the nasty game's rules.
Basically, it went like this:
Microsoft obtains software product A.
Microsoft obtains software product B.
Microsoft begins making them work together.
Guy beats Microsoft to market.
Microsoft continues making their products work together.
Guy sues Microsoft, wins millions for being first to patent obvious method made "novel" by the fact that it works on those confusin' new computers.
This would work against Linux.
This crap would work on anything.
Microsoft did *NOTHING* wrong here. They didn't steal his stuff or anything. They just made their own products work together. It probably wouldn't even have been an issue if Excel and Access had been marketed under the same freaking product name.
Ludicrous.
Microsoft did NOT invent the spreadsheet. Microsoft did NOT invent the database. To be consistent you should not support any patants that Microsoft claims surrounding these two products.
Fucking WHORE.
Sounds like the American Dream to me, capitalism at work where the rules were bought by corporate lobbying. I say more power to him.
I'll start feeling sympathy when I have billions of dollars of cash money and thousands of minions in my thrall.
Slashdot salutes you Mr. Excel and Access method of transfer inventor guy.
I dunno. There's a lot of fluff here about software patents being "obviously" bad, which reminds me of arguments about the existence of God being "obvious." In college we used to say "it's obvious" directly translates to "I don't have a fucking clue." I'm not taking a position either way, just saying the vehemence of the position suggest (perhaps unfortunately) a lack of substance to the argument.
/. geek. They turn down lots of patents because they're overbroad, unlikely, or obvious to relevant experts.
/. response here seems just about as rational and insightful as the socialist drones at www.workersparadise.com who laugh gleefully when Big Bad Corporation takes a spill, whatever the eventual cost to the rest of us. The passing non-techie would be pretty justified in drawing the conclusion that the local denizens have nothing of maturity and insight to contribute to discussions on important things like the laws of the Republic. Flame on, now.
Also, contrary to vague conventional wisdom, you can't patent stuff that is obvious or trivial. The rules say innovations that are obvious to one "skilled in the art" i.e. a relevant expert, are not patentable. Companies hire fancy researchers and lawyers to do exhaustive surveys of the state of the art to make sure their applications pass muster.
You also can't patent mere ideas. They have to be described in enough nitpicky detail that any competent person can implement it. In the case of mechanical things, you almost always have to have built a working model. In the case of software, I'd guess you have to have programmed it, or something very similar, and showed it works, at least in principle.
Nor are patent examiners dumfuks, or at least, no more so than the generic
So, yeah, I dunno, but the
here is the sentence after what you quoted. Are periods taboo in patents? I never read one before, but this is horrendous. Someone should be shot just for butchering the english language that badly.
a program in execution by said computer for controlling operations thereof for receiving user input defining one or more analysis rules to be applied to user specified data from said memory, each said analysis rule being a user defined arithmetic and/or logic test to be applied to user specified items of said data and for controlling said computer to receive and store user entered data defining the alphanumeric text of a diagnostic statement associated with each true result of each said analysis rule, each said diagnostic statement comprised of a user defined alphanumeric text string which the user can program to define the significance of the true result, its relevance or any other expression which provides meaning to the user of the true result of the analysis rule, and for controlling said computer to receive user input controlling which of said analysis rules are to be applied to said data, and for applying said analysis rules so designated to the data designated by said user and returning a true or false result for each analysis rule so applied depending upon the state of the data to which each analysis rule was applied, and for each true result returned by an analysis rule, controlling said computer to store in a file in said memory the user programmed text of a diagnostic statement associated with each true result as a diagnostic in a diagnostic database, and for controlling said computer to receive and store in said memory user input defining one or more expert tests, each expert test comprising a user defined arithmetic and/or logic statement to be applied to one or more diagnostics selected by user input from the diagnostics stored in said diagnostic database, said arithmetic and/or logic statement comprised of mathematical operators and/or logical operators from any logic set such as predicate logic or Boolean logic including at least the AND, OR and NOT functions, each said expert test returning either a true or false result, and for controlling said computer to receive user input defining the text of a super diagnostic statement in the form of an alphanumeric string associated with each true result of one of said expert tests, each said superdiagnostic being an alphanumeric string which the user can program to define the significance of the true result of the expert rule, its relevance or any other expression which provides meaning to the user of the true result of the expert rule, and for controlling said computer to receive user input defining which of said expert tests to execute on user specified diagnostics in said diagnostic database, and for controlling the computer to execute the expert tests so designated, and for controlling said computer to store as a super diagnostic in a super diagnostic file in said memory the super diagnostic statement associated with any true result returned by any said expert test.
Yes, the formatting is right on that.
Tharkban (It is a signature after all)
$9M to Microsoft is less hurt than you dropping a penny.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I kept digging. The patent does include this, later on. It might be what it's refering to...if it is I want to know where this guy lives. To, um, congratulate, him, yeah....
remember this is on some database expert system patent
PREFERRED MODE OF INTEGRATION WITH SPREADSHEET PROGRAMS
An alternate implementation has also been tried to INTEGRATE THE INVENTION WITH SPREADSHEET PROGRAMS. The concept of this alternate implementation isn't as elegant and flexible as the previous solution, but this is considered more practical and appropriate, since it doesn't require as much memory and computer speed as the DDE solution. In this implementation, the invention simply exports its information to a format that can be read by spreadsheet programs. In the case of the Microsoft Excel 4.0.TM. spreadsheet program by Microsoft Corporation of Redmond, Wash., the spreadsheet program supports an option called Info Window (information window). This option may be activated by use of menu command Options-Workspace-Info Window. When the Info Window shows up and whenever it is the active window, the Info Window menu bar is also active. Now use menu command Info and check out all information except for option Note. Using this configuration, the Info Window will only show the contents of the memo note of the worksheet's active cell. Finally, it is suggested that both the worksheet and the info window be arranged so as to show up simultaneously (just use the Windows-Arrange menu command). The Info Window's contents change every time a new cell is selected in the spreadsheet. So, if the spreadsheet will show the data in one window (the worksheet window) and the other window (the info window) will show the diagnostic (the memorandum) associated to the cell where the cursor is. To make this work, all the invention's diagnostics are transferred to the spreadsheet and written into notes in the spreadsheet cells where the corresponding numbers are.
Tharkban (It is a signature after all)
Clarifying the judgement, MS said the inventor would receive more than 1.6 million dollars worth of Windows licenses (non transferable, of course)!
Isn't this how MS is paying all its fines slapped by various government bodies?
O this learning! What a thing it is - William Shakespeare
Yesssss.......
...was a gentle old man.
apple goes to intel!
microsoft found guilty of patent infringement!
i've woken up in bizzaro world!
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
Ya know, it seems Micro$loth seems to steal a lot of ideas only hoping they'll never get fined or have to pay fines that are very miniscule, and usually they steal ideas from 3rd party developers rather then big companies. Ain't it a perfect world we live in?
Yay! Another judgement for a totally retarded patent awarded!
Er... no... wait...
5,537,590, 16 July, 1996
The same guy appears to have been granted a more recent patent for a related process:
5,701,400, 23 December, 1997
The wording of the second one is very buzzword-laden and overblown ("artificial intelligence"? whatever). I'm still looking over both of them.
The news articles seem to have a number of other things wrong. First, no one with the last name Amado applied for a patent in 1990. The patent which appears to be being discussed was filed for in 1993 (After Access was released).
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
5,293,615, 8 March 1994
His last name is spelled differently, but this appears to be the one. I was an Amiga user in 1990, but this sounds like basic database/spreadsheet usage to me.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
And a giant slap for the Giant. Seriously, audacity that microsoft displays every now and then and the attitude that they are above the law must turn off any good sensible person in this world. I am glad the judge saw them through for what they really are. A bully and a killer of innovative spirits.
In this day and age, the reason corporations acquire as many patents as possible isn't necessarily to obtain exclusive use. It's for "cross license agreements". Company A has a patent. Company B uses technology similar to the patent. Company A sues Company B. Company B also owns patents that Company A appears to be using. They both agree to "cross license agreements" for their patents so neither side actually pays any fees to the other.
I cannot find any patents by anyone named Amado or containing the keywords Access or Excel and having been filed in 1990. Does anyone have the actual patent, or maybe the court order?
No I don't have any sympathy for Microsoft over this.
I hope that Microsoft and some other of the really big software companies has droves of this kind of lost patent fights in court because they will then have to realize that the current patent system does not work.
These guys can if they combine excert enough political power to have the system changed. Hopefully to something better.
-- Don't even think of (C)opying this SIG
Just be glad they haven't started patenting songs or movies, or the lobbyists would take the distinction away. ;)
Microsoft invents Microsoft Access.
Guatamalan inventor patents method of transferring data between the two programs.
I don't know if you remember 1992, but back then, you couldn't get Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Word to talk. Believe, I tried. I was going to college back then and for one of my engineering classes, I tried to embed an Excel spreadsheet into Word. The spreadsheet has come complex calculations in it and I didn't want to type in the values by hand. Eventually I had to save Excel as text and then open that up in Word. So this getting two MS programs to interact was non-obvious.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Click on the mycologist link. oops.
.....
http://www.postnuke.com/
I developed a way to transfer data from Excel to FileMaker, it's called typing. Can I have a check also?
--- Shoo-be-doo-be-do-wop-say-what-yeah!
That's the longest sentence fragment I've ever seen.
Not that anybody on slashdot cares about things like this, but the correct spelling is Guatemalan
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. -- G.B. Shaw
a patent should patent the How? not the What?
Well you see when software patents are allowed to live their seedy lives, this happens..
It goes both ways, unfortunatly one way more often than the other.. many many years ago on a continent far far away, two accountants had geeked out and figured how to transfer their data out of their accounting system into a spreadsheet (123).. do you think they own the Intellectual Property to their invention? Wrong... who does? Big Mickey!
-if at first you don't succeed, stay the heck away from paragliding.
I don't think Microsoft really lost here.
Think with me: if Microsoft really wanted to win this case, they would just appeal. They've got the money, they've got the lawyers, there is NO WAY Joe Smallpotatoes would win in the end. Especially not this ridiculous patent, which should be easy to overthrow on the grounds of obviousness.
So, I can only conclude that Microsoft is actually happy to lose this one. And why would that be? My guess is that they simply have lots of these obvious patents themselves, which they hope to apply tactically in the near future to bring down small entrepreneurs. Since they now lost this case, in the future, when someone they sue tries to tell the judge that a Microsoft patent is obvious, Microsoft can reply by pointing out the historic case in which a judge upheld a similar patent, which is therefore non-obvious.
This is a tactical loss for Microsoft. And I see a bleak future.
While I don't like anybody getting sued over silly patents, this is good. Microsoft is a major proponent of software patents, and if they find out how bad it is for their business, maybe they will lobby to abolish them.
Of course, $9m isn't going to hurt them, but we can keep our fingers crossed that someone will be awarded $9b. In all that Microsoft software, there must be lots of patent infringement.
As long as patents like these keep getting enforced against the big players like MS, we'll all be better off sooner. No, it's not because it's nice to see MS et al getting their just deserts (though there is some humour derived there from, I must admit) - we all know these kinds of patents are basically... crummy. And having the big pushers for these kinds of patents actually getting stung by them... repeatedly... from "unexpected sources", may convince them that it was all a bad idea to begin with and THEN perhaps they'll reverse there positions and actually use their immense political purchasing powers to reverse the laws.
Or not.
Hmm, they sure seem to want to make it a crime: Thought Thieves
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Yeah one person "got paid" but this also strengthens MS resolve to patent everything they possibly can so this doesn't happen again.
This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
Microsoft invents Microsoft Excel.
Microsoft invents Microsoft Access.
Guatamalan inventor patents method of transferring data between the two programs.
And exactly what is the difference between inventing Excel, or C / C++, Java, Perl, and have people loading software patents based on that technology?
None. This just shows why software patents is bad. It's all mathematics, and they're trying to sell what we already own, to us..
Microsoft deserves this, because they're in the forefront of software patents in USA, Europe and the rest of the world. Not because of revenge, but they have to live with the consequences of their ignorant decisions - Karma pure and simple.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
this is news becuase why?
Honestly - this is the anti thesis of most Slashdot - where's the news? I'm sure if you dug hard enoguh, you'd find a patent for booger-picking... (owned by me) and therefore gates is in violation, and owes me 1 trillion dollards.... and stuff...
Point to Point Protocol can be used to convert money? SWEEEET!
Microsoft is now getting one of those giants like IBM who will constantly be bugged by private patent owners (bogus or real) for money. My experience is that though large companies have many patents, the quality of their portfolio is relatively low as they like big numbers. Small companies, on the other hand, have either a completely worthless portfolio or a small but very powerfull portfolio. And a small production, so the backfire risk of a patent lawsuit towards Microsoft is negligible.
But I do not think a (the?) new US patent system backed by Microsoft will solve that problem for Microsoft. It will probably make it worse. Suffer, dudes...
Does anyone find the irony of a company is being sued for infringing on a patent that revolves around the way you use their own products just a little much?
And perhaps a bit troublesome?
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
So they lost in order to set a precedent?
That's entirely possible. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if a few months ago Mr Armando Amado was approached by Microsoft with a lucrative mutually-beneficial proposal.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Team,
/ gt.html
The name of the country is Guatemala:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos
So this really has to prove that software patents are the most absurd concept next to anything Ron Popiel sells. MS looses a case to an "inventor" who can use one MS app with another MS app. Hell, I'm gonna patent the use of generated patterens of sound for communcation. Then all spoken words will belong to me, and I will finally rule the world. There will be no more speech that I do not pre-approve. And asking me for permission is not approved. challenging my patent will require speech that I have not approved. And my evil is finally complete. Thanks!
... is so poor that begs disbelief.
Honestly think about what you wrote, it is a pile of nonsense: any invention will be based in stuff that exists already.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Oh yeah, back in the dark ages. Back before virus writers could write a script embedded in a Word DOC that would open Outlook and send out a worm to everyone in the address book.
Yeah, everyone had it rough back then.
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
Of course Microsoft has a stupid stance on patents. But that's immaterial here, unless you want to be some kind of active karmic agent or whatever.
I *would* agree that this kind of attack is possibly the only thing that will make Microsoft change its tune, but no one is out there urging everyone to patent every good idea they have and put them under a "if a proprietary company uses any of these ideas, we'll sue their nuts off" agreement. This would be expensive per patent, but would not be out of reach for a community that is so broad and has so much resources.
I suspect we *would* see such an effort (or see an existing effort come to light) if free / open source actually began to be attacked by patents seriously... but for now, everyone seems to take the tack that such patents are ridiculous, and that they should not be permitted.
Anyway, as long as Microsoft stands to gain more than lose on stupid patents, they will back stupid patents. But they still didn't do anything to *deserve* this lawsuit.
Oh, wait...
Bzzzzzzt. They were not an integrated suite in 1990. They were separate products. What allowed them to be integrated into a suite? Maybe ideas like the one this guy patented and Microsoft infringed upon.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
This decision will be trotted out when they start defending their own patents.
An ironic twist would be if someone (FSF?) had backed MicroSoft in this case to help them win.
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
"Try selling that to Microsoft" Yeah, show them your stuff ...
They also would like you to write and file
complete patent application at your own expense,
so they can read about all the details and implement your ideas,
patented or not, they don't care...
I did try to offer them some ideas, after filing
US patent application (still pending) and
their standard response was "Get Lost ! We are
not interested !"
They didn't even attempt to offer me a job or
something, to start conversation...
I am pretty sure they are busy now implementing
ideas from my patent application into their products.
Expect more cases like this in the future...
This is why they want patent reform now -
to get away with stealing other people's stuff
(One of the key changes proposed is making
injunction more difficult to obtain for small
entities, so MS can get away with stealing IP)
There was no integration with Access because it wasn't released until 1993.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Yep ! Wayto go!
How many beans make five, anyhow ?