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 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.
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
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!
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 commercial software world won't stop itself. Even if it wanted to get off the train, no one would do it unless the others did at the same time. If even one guy is left whose business model involves software patent litigation, then no one else is going to take that big chance. In the end, the politicians are going to have to close the door on the lobbiests, stop taking the bribes that they are so accustomed to, and see that they are contributing to a major meltdown in a few decades.
But human behavior is nothing if not predictable. Instead of fixing the problem now, everyone will wait until the whole thing collapses and then go "Hmmm, maybe patents aren't the best way to protect software".
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
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
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.
We should be pushing for the opposite. Let's get every obvious software thing patented *now* so in 17 years we won't have to worry about this crap anymore.
I'm seriously impressed that you're willing to admit something like that.
I'm now going to admit something.
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.
afte all, where would MS be if Apple patented its UI's for the past ten years?
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
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.
But patenting the Harry Potter books is entirely insane. (one could start by patenting quidich, and horcruxes.)
I would be willing to consider software patents as reasonable if software was then exempt from copyright law.
The multiple layers of artifical monopolies is a sign that something is wrong. There is a very reasonable arguement that one of the things that lead to the United States becoming a super power was the blatant disregard for IP laws.
Work bio at MMWD
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?!