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
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.
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 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.
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...")
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.
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