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...
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.
IANAL but I belive that there is a more than substantial similarity to the Pot Vs. Kettle case of '72.
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
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
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."
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!
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.
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 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 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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?!