Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft May Become Major Opponent of Patents?
UltimaGuy wrote to mention a story positing that Microsoft may one day be a major opponent of over-reaching patents. From the article: "Speaking at the LinuxWorld conference in London on Wednesday, Mark Shuttleworth, founder of the Ubuntu Linux distribution, said that although Microsoft is seen as being very pro-patent at the moment, if every other software maker enforced its patents in the same way then Microsoft would find it very difficult and expensive to do business. 'I think in ten years you will see Microsoft become a major opponent of patents and we will see very large software vendors turn around their position on patents,' Shuttleworth said."
Somehow I don't think money will speak any less loudly in ten years. I don't see Microsoft suffering terribly in the next ten years either.
A company as litigious as Microsoft (themselves victims of the litigious) will just use the cost of litigation to stifle their opponents. Their opponents (the little guys) would have to first have something Microsoft was really interested in, and would have to have the financial wherewithall to pursue Microsoft.
"...if every other software maker enforced its patents in the same way then Microsoft would find it very difficult and expensive to do business."
That's a very big if...
My ZooLoo
Microsoft was just about to submit a patent on hypocrisy...
Just wait until someone blocks them with a patent they need but refuse to licence them.
/* FUCK - The F-word is here so that you can grep for it */
I would think that almost all software vendors would be opposed to software patents. When every obvious method of doing something is patented, no one will be able to do anything.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Microsoft can afford to pay whatever they need, or would just buy the pattent owners.
-GenTimJS
Masturbatory speculation. That's precisely what this story is. Do you really think Microsoft wants to abolish software patents?
IANAL but I belive that there is a more than substantial similarity to the Pot Vs. Kettle case of '72.
But what of the fact that their own patent portfolio ( a crucial asset in the fight against free software and other competitors ) will them become defanged ?
Since when does does slashdot link to articles from the Bizarro World?
Microsoft collects patents today in part to have ammunition to file countersuits when other companies sue them (that's big business 101). However patents are also good for Microsoft's twilight years, when the only thing they will have left of any real controlling influence will be their software patent portfolio. Then they'll be hell bent on collecting any and all royalties from said portfolio just to bolster their waning proprietary business. You can bet that part of the reasoning behind Microsoft securing so many software patents right now is to provide a "retirement plan" for the business once their software products no longer dominate the market (they've got the money now, why not buy a little "insurance" for the future?).
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
...one day, the RIAA may become a major opponent of frivolous law suits.
I read
It would be a good thing. Either Microsoft gets bitten by its own pro-patent policy, or it takes an anti-patent policy, benefitting Open Source. Unless software companies fail to grow a backbone and neither of the above happen.
Not only "land of the free" but "land of the lawyers" who love a good old 1st amendment smackdown. Shihar 153932
You will probably have to register your patents through Microsoft!
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Conversion to Buddhism
As the legend goes, one day after the war was over, Ashoka ventured out to roam the city and all he could see were burnt houses and scattered corpses. This sight made him sick and he cried the famous quotation, "What have I done?" The brutality of the conquest led him to adopt Buddhism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka
Oh, wait, that already happened.
At least Shuttleworth won't join them due to lack of money. He's richer than coffee puree.
A person making such a statement has no obvious understanding of how patents are used by big brother.
This should suprise noone. Most companies are about money rather than principles. They'll claim to be big on patents as a principle until it isn't profitable to them. Then watch how quickly they backpedal.
It is important to note that Microsoft was in support of KSR International in their case against Teleflex (wraiting on Writ of certiorari before the SCOTUS). This case is questioning the requirement for a statement explaining why a combination under 35 USC 103 is obvious. This standard was created by the CAFC (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). It would not be an overstatement to say that removal of this requirement would prevent countless patents and would possibly invalidate thousands more.
So Microsoft definitely doesn't mind changing things that would hurt the issuance of patents, but I doubt they would go so far as to totally despise the patent system. The patent system can guarantee them money (well at least possibly) for years if they do have some horrific failure in the years to come. The 20 yr life of a patent might keep them afloat for a while if they ever need to use it.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
I also think that the whole patent system will blow up in their faces. There was a recent case of someone suing a big company and winning (very recently, the details escape me at the moment, sadly). A few more of these cases, and they won't be supporting patents as much as they do now...
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
Somehow, I just can't believe that Microsoft will become the leader against patents and suddenly become the defender of the Free World. Bill Gaytes was the first nerd to come out against piracy when no one else cared. Basically, they want to be able to patent things but they don't want to be obstructed by patents themselves, so I bet they'll raise the bar higher so that small companies or individuals won't be able to file patents at all.
Not if they take all of the spoils first.
Which leads me to another point: Why are the big software corporations so eager to walk this destructive path? Is it that they think there will be no software industry in twenty years, so don't care if they destroy it in ten as long as they can suck the corpse dry first?
When your goal is maximizing earnings and shareholder profites other priorities shift about that. If it's more profitable to support broad patents, that's what they'll do. If it's more profitable to oppose them, ditto. That's why politicians are so often caught speaking out both sides of their mouth, their stated views can change in persuit of their hidden agenda.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Windows and Office will get even more expensive for a while, and microsoft will say it's because of patents.
But let's remember most other patent holders just want the recognition and time to go to market first, they don't grab the patent 15 years after the fact(FAT anybody?), after it's an industry standard to make money and force out competition.
Other patent holders might start targetting Microsoft when these patents continue to stifle businesses, which will likely start the minute they get the FAT partition (I can't imagine a better example on how patenting after the fact is unfair)
This wouldn't have anything to do with having a big wad of cash forcibly extracted by an Eolas patent, would it?
Anyway, bottom line is that XML is going to be a huge patent minefield down the road; and the problem with landmines is that even the big boys step on them.
Good Luck Microsoft if you want to use Open-XML 2.0 without paying us.
What do you call the Eolas lawsuit?? Inexpensive? Give me a break! More than $500 million for one patent? And you don't think Microsoft is worried about patent disputes?
In fact, why do you think that Microsoft patents so aggressively? To sue Linux? No! Historically, their extensive patent portfolio is used defensively. The problem is, defensive patents really only work against large corporations, who will usually settle rather than seeing all-out patent armageddon warfare, which just costs tons of money (e.g., Sun vs. Microsoft). Eolas is exactly the type of company that defensive patents don't work well against: small IP-holding companies looking to cash in by bringing targeted infringement lawsuits against the biggest money-makers. (Don't forget that every other browser on the planet was also infringing upon Eolas -- they just chose not to sue anybody else.)
Paranoid Linux types are always worried about Microsoft using its patents to destroy things like FAT filesystem compatibility, but that has not happened. (If you recall, the recent activity surrounding the FAT patents were initiated by Microsoft competitors, not Microsoft.) That doesn't mean it won't, but it is an important distinction to make!
Can you say Patent Cross License Agreement? That's how all the big hardware players do business.
Software patents are in the very fabric of Microsoft. They will no more oppose them than they would oppose advertising, exclusive OEM contracts, or no-compete clauses.
The culture is built around selling software based on its features, and denying others the ability to have the features (whether developed internally or acquired). In order to sell the software they either have to copy the features of someone else, buy/coopt the inventor, or come up with the feature internally. They can't rely on trade secrets, contracts, or copyright to protect them from other people using the features Microsoft uses. They have to rely on patents for that.
Being denied access to a software feature by a particular patent, Microsoft will attempt to cross-license it, buy the patent owner, convince the marketplace that the feature is useless or harmful, or ruin the patent owner.
It's not in the nature of Microsoft simply to make their product and see who likes it. The company was built on having some useable product and _marketing_it_ with exquisite skill, timing, and ruthlessness. They have always used any tactic they could to lock in OEMs, consumers, and ISVs, while locking out competitors. It's their way.
It would take a complete culture shift for them ever to oppose software patents. Instead, they will attempt to use the patents they have as leverage in whatever way they can, whether it's cross-licensing other patents, FUD, or to lock in whomsoever needs locking.
sigs, as if you care.
that's awesome, I wish Microsoft stopped beating its own drums and took a look around at a bunch of incompatible shitty software.
The thing is the patent climate has shifted a lot in the last few years. Traditionally most patents were being developed by big industry players and there was a kind of mutually assured destruction involved. That is, IBM never sued Microsoft because Microsoft could sue them right back. They make deals to use eachothers patents and thus the industry heavyweights get to control the industry. Small time players get shut out because they don't have the leverage of their own patent portfolios and don't have the money to license them.
In recent years though there have been a lot of people building patent portfolios as a business in itself. They don't put money into R&D and product development, they just have lawyers who are there to do nothing but enforce patents. No matter how many patents Microsoft has, they have no leverage against a company that doesn't produce anything. Given the rather low standards the patent office has held for innovation is software patents there are tons of ways Microsoft can get in trouble without knowing it.
The big problem this poses for Microsoft is that it's an unmeasureable risk. They don't know at any given time how many patents they might be violating and how much the damages are that they might be liable for because of them. With many of the patents they can settle quickly for relatively minimal license fees. But if some people want to play hardball for a big settlement there's little MS can do about it.
In the long run this problem is only going to get worse for them. There are a lot of people who recognize this as a viable business model. The risk is somewhat high, but the reward is huge if it works out. While any one of these may be small change to Microsoft, they can add up pretty quickly and put product releases at risk. With new software releases comign every couple of years but patents lasting almost 20 years, the pool of potentially violatable patents will only grow.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
The point is that the patents are used as ammunition to force other vendors into cross licensing their patents. It all looks like an expensive farce ... until you realise that small, up-and-coming potential competitors have no patents to use in cross licensing deals.
Consequently, software patents seem to permit the creation of a "big boys club" that shuts out smaller competitors. The word "cartel" doesn't currently apply to the large commerical software industry, but I wonder how much longer that'll be true...
i don't understand, i REALLY don't understand:
How can happen that someone gets to talk in a LinuxWorld conference just because he is a multi-millionaire that bought Debian and made his own brand with it?
Now we're listening to rich donors instead of real developers.
I'll be glad in 2 or 3 years when all this open source hype will be finished...
"Some guy who works on a Linux distro said this might happen with Microsoft. News at 11."
"Sufferin' succotash."
And making sure the playing field is heavily slanted in their direction - by foul means more often than fair - is how Microsoft has always achieved success.
In Soviet Russia Microsoft oppose patents.
Oh. Wait...
Forget it.
Microsoft doesn't need the monopoly power offered by patents - they are already a monopoly in of themselves. It's better for them to squash other people's attempts at asserting patents against Microsoft.
And that's exactly why our investors are contemplating that my startup ditch our product --- so that we don't have anything infringing on Microsoft, IBM, etc patents (obviously, since we won't have a product) and focus our efforts on our XML-processing-IP that they will eventually infringe on.
Don't hate the player, hate the game. The new reality of the technolgy industry is that it's easier and more profitable to be an IP shop (Eolas, Rambus, Tessera, ARM, Dolby) than to acutally build things. And then sell licenses or perhaps the whole company to a manufacturer (Sony, Infineon, Microsoft, etc) to cash out.
In particular, MS is against patents held by other companies. Have we all forgotten that MS just lost its appeal on the Aoleas/UCB patent for plugins?
they mounted an expensive legal effort because there's a 500 million dollar
royalty overhead for their browser product. Thats just one patent, one product. there are so many more out there.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
I always thought patents existed to support the small players. If the patent system ever fails it would give the large players no reason to listen to the small ones. Any new idea or invention will be worthless to you without something protecting it from being copied by a company with deep enough pockets to keep you out of the business.
I wouldnt support microsoft from getting rid of patents all together. However I would support anyone with a viable alternative that retains rewards for invention.
So, in ten years, MS will become anti-patent? The logic behind this is that other companies will be enforcing their patents against Microsoft.
You know why this hasn't happened in the past? Because MS has the kind of cash available to make selling out to MS a better deal for your shareholders than trying to enforce your patents against MS.
MS will still be playing the "If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em" game.
A question I see is whether developer/inventor ill-will against MS will outweigh the financial incentive for companies to sell out. Given that it is illegal to not act in the best financial interests of your shareholders, I can't see that happening.
The other question I see is whether there will be a competitor with pockets deep enough to be a viable alternative to selling to MS... and I seem to recall a certain advertising/data mining company that's amassed a pretty big warchest...
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Despite the large number of conflicting patents and the generally recognized lack of diligence of the USPTO in screening for prior art, big IT companies pursue the game of collecting patents with a voracious appetite. Sure, they want to protect their IP, but it boils down to "If you sue me, I'll sue you". The larger the patent portfolio, the more nukes each company has in its arsenal for a counter strike.
Continuing the nuclear analogy, maybe there should be a law or some type of voluntary governance to restrict the number of unexpired patents an entity (personal or corporate) could hold -- which could be negotiated downward over time.
I was at the Microsoft Research Intern BBQ at Gates' house this summer. Part of the time, a bunch of us were standing in a big nerd horde, with Gates in the middle, having a Q&A session.
I asked him something like "What is your position on software patents? Specifically, do you think Microsoft would be better or worse off if software patents did not exist?"
He went off on a 3-5 minute ranting monologue about how capitalism has been proven a better idea than communism, and that not having software patents is something that belongs in soviet russia, not in the U.S.
I think it'll be a long time before Microsoft changes its position.
Why wouldn't Microsoft just introduce an(other) "get out of jail free" amendment. If they're quick, they should be able to get something onto one of the Katarina Relief bills.
All they really have to do is make it more expensive and difficult to litigate patent infringement. If they want to have some real fun, they can probably set it up so that, in the event that some little guy litigates, not only can they not be touched, they end up with the patent as part of "legal costs."
(Note: none of the above is intended to be humorous or sarcastic. It really is that bad.)
NEWSFLASH!!!
...
Stallman has been saying this for years
Zzzzzzz
The day Microsoft will oppose patents is when they, by some force, can't file any more...then they'll look for a new way to register "their" ideas.
The problem with the US patent system in general, and software patents in particular, is that the whole system is setup to protect the big. Patents are being issued with limited to no validity. This fails to protect anyone who doesn't have a large enough stockpile lawyers and money and time -- and makes it hard for anyone else to challenge patents held by those who do.
The only way I see Microsoft opposing patents is if it becomes in their competitive interest to do so. This is unlikely to happen if they're big enough to defend their patents and hold enough to make some deals. If the day comes when Microsoft is no longer that big, then their opposition is not likely to matter.
If the open source and linux communities start patenting software elements "a priori" to prevent others from doing so, and if these companies are wlling to buy shares in the defense team, then we might see some movement.
=======
Science -- Sealed, Delivered.
/. must be giving mod points to the morons these days.
Here in the EU, Microsoft sponsored about every pro-swpat lobbying entity: ACT, CompTIA, "Campaign for Creativity", EICTA, BSA, and additionally, various national organizations throughout the EU. They also had their own lobbyists running around in the European Parliament. I ran into them more than once. But they mostly tried to hide behind so-called industry associations.
Microsoft will try to modify patent law in the US and elsewhere to the effect that smaller players (trolls as well as truly productive companies) can't use patents too effectively against big ones, by limiting the amount of indemnities (at a level that gets 99% of the businesses in the industry bankrupt but is small change for MSFT), doing away with injunctive relief (which really hurts even the largest players because it disrupts revenue production and can lead to incalculable liabilities vis-a-vis customers) etc. If you look at what the BSA tries to achieve with respect to that U.S. patent reform bill, then you'll get the idea.
Funnily enough, Microsoft is one of the three main sponsors of the "EV50 Europeans of the Year" awards this year. However, the jury is perfectly independent, and they nominated me, as a representative of the anti-swpat movement in Europe :-) I'm running in the EU Campaigner of the Year catgory as well as for the overall European of the Year award. If I win that award, then the Microsoft-sponsored prize money will go to the FFII, an anti-swpat NGO. For more information (including on how to cast your vote against software patents, even if you're not based in Europe), please look at these two earlier slashdot postings:
Links to the ballot and general information (scroll down to the final part of that posting, that's where the information on the EV50 awards is)
Specific list of voting recommendations (since it's mandatory to make one choice in each of the ten categories, and most of the names there will be unknown to most people)
well, fact checking should precede posting. I got all my facts wrong according to our very well archived /. discussion of that patent>/a>. MS won and I misspelled the name of the loser. But my point is still standing: MS already talks out of both sides of its mouth on the matter of patents...and for the reasons cited in the parent.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
Interesting idea: what about a limitation on patents that you have to either work to put it into production, resell, or license it inside of a given time frame, or else lose the patent to the public domain? That would retain the purpose of patents (spurring innovation) while preventing the laying of IP minefields.
A further possibility would be to make this a sliding window - not only do you have to put it into production, you have to keep it there. This is a lot like the current situation for trademarks (which is commonly misconceived to apply to patents and copyrights anyway) - use it or lose it.
I'm not saying it's a solution; just wondering about the pros and cons of such a move (if it doesn't exist already; I'm not a patent lawyer).
How do you cross license with a company that doesn't do anything except buy patents and sue you over them? You have to pay them real protection money to leave you alone for a while. That's what might tip Microsoft away from patents. I don't think it will, but it's not beyond the realms of possibility.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
but in 10 years, I personally will be sued for infringing on the patent that welcomes our new overlords...
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
Microsoft will stop caring about patents under two circumstances:
1. When there aren't any patents left.
OR
2. When the patent office is so overwhelmed with patents declaring the effects of holding the left mouse button down for 3.5 seconds they can't process anyone else's patent applications.
It was reported that MS filed for a patent on Ballmers' most distinguished innovation codenamed " FLYING CHAIRS ".
Proof that heir Gates reads slashdot, someone hurry with the puchline...
Traditionally, companies made things and filed patents. When two companies crossed paths, they waved their stack of patents at each other much like two stag beetles comparing the size of their antlers. The company with the larger stack obliged the smaller company to pay up to continue making things. That situation suited Microsoft, IBM, Sun et al rather well, as they had a lot of patents which gave them leverage over each other.
Now along comes a rash of companies who exist for no other reason than to buy patents and use them to sue people. They don't make anything, and so they never infringe anybody else's patents. Now Microsoft finds itself with a jillion patents to Bucaneer Holdings Corp's one patent, but none of those jillion are relevant, while Bucaneer only needs their one patent to sue Microsoft with.
We joke that someone should patent the business practice of piratical patent abuse, but in truth, it's the only thing that could be used defensively against these leeches.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I would gladly give the egregiously misnamed Microsoft the patent, especially if they sued all unlicensed practitioners.
Patent the thinking process thereby eliminating even the thought of using our code. Then you won't even have to worry about infringement.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
companies patented technology for their benefit.
Patents hurt MS's ability to 'innovate'
I'm sure that Eolas's case has struck a blow into Balmer's strategizing. I'm sure that MS is extremely fearful of IBM patenting a bunch of technology, and than opensourcing those patents via license, something like: "You may use such and such technology IF and ONLY IF it is used in opensource software under the following set of approved licenses"
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
You know, I think there maybe something to this. No corporation, especially Microsoft wants to be the loser of a battle for money. Microsoft, for all the negatives that we can say about them seems to be very shrewd about maintaining their dominance, and I think they probably will have the foresight to do so with patents.
What is not mentioned yet is MS get so much hassle from patents due to them ripping people off/copying and claiming as their own - we have all seen it over the years - entering an agreement, signing NDA, getting the IP, then shitting on the [usually small] Company so they go out of existance.
Also, why are MS patenting over 3000 'patents' a year, if they do not like them/use them? It is their arsenal, and with the cash pile they have, over time nobody else will be able to compete, even if the IP is original - as MS will have some fingers in the that patent pie already.
Of course, money to buy what you need from Government etc. needs to be said no more.
The guy from Ubuntu is dangerously mistaken (Neville Chamberlain: "I have here in my hand a piece of paper...")
"You can't outdevelop Microsoft, but you can outinvent them."
Nathan Myrvold, (cover) "MIT's Technology Review", May 2004
former Microsoft employee (#5?) Microsoft's original CTO
founder of Microsoft Research
Ph.D., and now|new, J.D., specializing in....patent law, working now...buying strategic IP patents.
Isn't this the company that got a patent for the double click? http://www.earthv.com/articles.asp?ArticleID=2260
How the hell is this news? Seems more like baseless prophecies from some OSS advocate who can't comprehend why companies want credit for their inventions. Maybe I will make a speech called "Microsoft in 30 years will be bought by a Linux company" and get my bull shit slashdotted also, yes it could happen but I have no way to back it up and I would just be talking out of my ass.
The lawsuit was flawed from the start. To overcome prior art, doyle had to argue the application is external to the browser. He got the claim, but in the markman hearing described the application as being a plug-in (part of the browser). The judge agreed and found in Doyle's favor. In the re-examination notes (that were just issued), the examiner literally underlines the word separate application. Microsoft will now use that and be found not to infringe.
afte all, where would MS be if Apple patented its UI's for the past ten years?
The big problem is working up a strategy to deal with this problem. The FOSS community doesn't seem to have a strategy in this area based on their opinion that patents aren't valid and therefore a strategy isn't needed.
I'll probably have to negotiate with some corporate lawyers on this one all by myself so I'll be at considerable disadvantage. If I get anything out of it, it will likely be highly restricted as to its area of application (problem is it's platform independent) so I'm betting it won't have a GPL license that allows GPL 3 to be applied when that comes out. The corporation will want to reserve it's right to sue for violations of the restriction.
Bill, can't you just stick to what made you famous? You know... The Operating system, Windows...
Am I the only one tired of this dickhead buying everything he can.
-Fatman
Capitalism is another economic system, in which the market regulates itself.
A patent is a statement from the government regulating the market.
In which system does this belong?
larry
if the eolas patent for browser plug-ins wasn't upheld as valid, this slashdot entry wouldn't be here.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
When he doesn't understand basic economic principles, you have to wonder.
"It is better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees." - Albert Camus
Microsoft has cross-licensing agreements with many of the major players in the software industry. Minor players can be coerced by Microsoft to license whatever patents Microsoft wants because any small software company likely violates many of Microsoft's patents and can be shut down by the mere threat of a Microsoft lawsuit. The only people who can claim infringement against Microsoft are patent lawyers and IP firms with no product, and there aren't enough of those around.
Open source probably comes out best in this regard. Open source projects generally don't infringe deliberately and have licenses that expressly prohibit the use of patented technologies. They also usually have no direct revenue stream against which to assess damages. Except in really unusual circumstances, a FOSS project will just fix infringement upon notification and go on as if nothing has happened. Hopes by Microsoft to be able to shut down or significantly affect FOSS projects through patents are a pipe dream.
Microsoft may eventually lose interest in patents because they are only effective tools against smaller competitors and there aren't a lot of those around anymore, but I doubt Microsoft will ever actively oppose patents.
There has been concern that if the FAT patents are upheld, Microsoft may claim that Linux infringes on Microsoft technology and will seek a royalty. Any monetary compensation could threaten the operating system, which under GPL terms may not be distributed if it contains patented technology that requires royalty payments.
That's pure FUD. Even if Microsoft's preposterous claims were upheld, the FAT file system would simply be removed immediately from the default kernel installation and the Linux kernel distribution would continue unchanged otherwise. Anybody who needed FAT access would have a variety of short-term workarounds available, and in the long term, there would be some non-infringing implementation, at least for reading the format.
Painful though this would be in the short term, I would consider it a good thing in the long term: FAT really deserves to be shot and killed, and Microsoft patent claims on it are just the thing to do it.
I expect a Coyote v. Acme comparison may be helpful and instructive as well....
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
The problem with today's bad patent laws is that the only way to protect yourself is to patent everything. Saying "I don't believe in software patents, so I won't patent my program," won't work because someone else will patent your idea and sue you.
No, I will not work for your startup
I think the claim that Microsoft will "become" anti-patent is actually missing what happens every day. I think all businesses wave anti-patent banners unless they're the ones holding the patent. Microsoft has a lot of patents, so they're usually the ones appearing to be pro-patent. The fact of the matter is, a corporation--by definition having no intellect--cannot have ideas. It cannot be moral or immoral. The only "good" for a corporation is more money; the law is either an obstacle or an aid. When the law is an aid, the corporation will support it; when the law is an obstacle, the corporation will oppose it. Oftentimes, the exact same law/state of legal affairs will be both supported and opposed by a given company. This is one reason I'm sad to see the current state of affairs in the Supreme Court. Justices supporting the "personhood" of corporations will only hasten this problem. Will Microsoft be anti-patent in ten years? I would say no more or less so than they are today, although they may be involved in more "anti-patent" litigation as other tech companies grow. Whether patents are "good" or "bad" in any ethical (read: non-monetary) sense is not something Microsoft will ever truly concern themselves with except where it makes for useful rhetoric.
To me this makes 100% sense. I once had the very nice pleasure of talking to a Software patent lawyer. We talked all kinds of things and the basic underlying point is this:
Companies like microsoft are for patents but against companies that make buisness modles out of patent infringement.
...you read that as "Microsoft May Become Major Opponent of Pants". Finally, I can side with them on something.
Bill Gates sounds like one of those pseudo-capitalists who tend to think that corporate subsidies and government regulations are very pro-capitalism, but laissez faire economics and government nonintervention in competition is Marxist liberalism from the Soviet conspiracy.
I wish Ayn Rand were still alive to deliver him a much-needed spanking on his ass until he actually gets it.
Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
What's the opposite of insightful. Because that's what this post deserves. It is almost uncanny how very incorrect is the poster's understanding of the two systems.
The main principle of capitalism, in fact the principle for which the system is named, is the concept of property rights. It is the idea that if a person can do what he pleases with what is his (land, items, money, etc.) he will direct its use toward profit which will benefit himself and ultimately society at large. The capitalist believes that the primary function of a government is to secure for its citizens property rights. That means catching and punishing robbers as much as it means avoiding wasteful government spending. The fruits of your labor are your own.
the main principle of communism is the absence of property rights. It is the idea that the primary goal of a society should be an equitable distribution of wealth. You have no right to your land, posessions, and in some implementations, even your person. The fruits of your labor belong to the community.
There are some valid and reasonable points to both systems, but only one has shown to be practical in the real world. Interestingly, although communism would seem to be called for by application of Millsian ethical principles, practice has shown that the correct utilitarian choice is apparantly some form of capitalism.
Both of these are relevant to the discussion at hand. Are patents the logical extension of property rights to include "intellectual property" rights?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Agreed! Printing currency is communist too!
It is beyond naive for him to assume that the law will be evenly-enforced with a monopolist like Microsoft, when we've seen how their antitrust case went. On balance, they win and the little guy loses. Given the level of corruption we now have in this country, MS's interests are probably better served with restrictive patent laws in place.
Not 12 hours after osnews.com's database is backonline after an extended outage and slashdot is already pilferring stories from them again. Lovely.
It's almost verbatim the same the same article. I'm a big fan of slashdot, but read osnews.com to get the news first these days I'm sorry to say.
This is especially true since FOSS has gained momentum... lots of non-MS developers wanting to duplicate functionality. As for the MS developers, most of them are already alienated; I don't know any that like the company.
I think at best we will see MS hold their tongue about patent law. Probably, they will push for 'reform' that favors entrenched conglomerates.
I can see how it might be in Microsoft's interests to fight patents, but I don't see them doing it right now (while it's cheap). C'mon, Microsoft, just bribe a senator to put in a "you can't patent obvious stuff" rider into the next emergency spending bill. Senators are cheap compared to lawyers.
If i recall correctly, they've filed something like 3000 in the recent past and are accelerating...
I think in 10 years MS will be reduced to a position similar to Novell was 5 years ago. They'll be doing little more than grubbing for pennies on the measly Vista support contracts they trick people into signing over the next 4 years. And because all the top brass there are such greedy egomaniacs, they will refuse to adapt like IBM did. MS will be so stressed out about losing market dominance(s) that they won't have time to reconsider their position on anything.
"freedom to innovate"?
A patent is emphatically NOT a statement by the government "regulating the market."
A patent is a statement by the government granting a property right. It is therefore a statement in fact creating a market, not regulating that market.
Furthermore, regulation is required for smoothly functioning capitalist markets, in order to prevent self-dealing, asset substitution, etc., etc. Simply put, regulation is required to create the level playing field we need for people to trust in the market.
Patents merely create yet another property right that can be traded, and therefore help to allow more efficient allocation of innovative ideas, such as where an inventor lacks the assets to produce his invention...
The creation of property rights is a fundamental prerequisite for any capitalist market.
This is one reason I'm sad to see the current state of affairs in the Supreme Court. Justices supporting the "personhood" of corporations will only hasten this problem.
It hasn't been only recently that government, or the Supreme Court in this case, has supported personhood for corporations. In 1886 the Supreme Court granted corporations personhood. Thomas Jefferson warned of a corporate aristocracy:
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Should there be a Law?
I'm very pro patent, I think we SHOULD have VERY strong patents, however they should expire just 5 years after their filed OR give the patent holder the option of a much less restrictive patent with for examplke forced licenses at a fixed price for 10 years.
I too am pro patents but I'm anti software patents. Software already enjoys protection, it's called copyrights. I'm also against method or "business process" patents.
I also support limits for patent duration. Say the 14 years with a one 14 year extention that Thomas Jefferson wanted.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Just because Microsoft throws lots of money on the table, does not mean they have to sell. Some people have these things called 'principles' and will refuse to compromise on them.
Unfortunately though, because MS has a big war chest it can use for defense, MS can steal from the little guy and say "so sue us". Because thier small many small shops or developers don't have the "luxury" of trying to sue but even if they did and won what MS would have top pay is chump or pocket change.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I'm kinda leaning towards the notion nowadays that Microsoft, unlike some other software companies out there, actually isn't intending upon suing anyone
If they aren't intending to sue anyone then why are they seeking all of these patents? The only reason to have them is to use them is to profit or use as a bludgeon.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Microsoft may become major opponent of patents, if they were unable to obtain any patents in the future. As long as they keep on being a company of cutting edge technology, it is not likely to occur for them to be an opponent of patents, it certainly depends on the company's attitude toward R&D of new technology.
Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
If Microsoft doesn't "play the game," they could get hit any second by somebody who does... even a teeny little organization with a ridiculous patent on software plug-ins.
How does not getting a patent harm MS or anyone else? If you want to say MS was harmed, it was because Eolas had a patent they weren't using. And instead of seeking a patent to protect one's self all they have to do is publish, once published that can be cited as "prior art". Thus there's no need for a patent for protection.
FalconShould there be a Law?