Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Sued Over Patent Infringements
Foobar of Borg writes "The Associated Press is reporting that Microsoft is being sued over alleged infringement of three patents held by Visto Corporation. The patents in question relate to the handling of information between servers and handheld telcom devices.
Jack Evans, a Microsoft spokesman, has not commented on the case itself, but has simply stated that 'Microsoft stands behind its products and respects intellectual property rights.'"
TFA: "Microsoft stands behind its products and respects intellectual property rights." Well they do, im sure. Right until they buy the company. "Heres , keep the change. All your IP are belong to us."
"Sarcasm is for *winners*, Alan." - Charlie Harper (Two and a Half Men)
I just don't get how this is meant to work. I don't blame Microsoft here, how are they to know an idea they comeup with has has already been patented? Or is this just the way modern business is going - money is made my sueing other people. I rarely stand behind MS, but i think this is all getting a bit silly now.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
'Microsoft stands behind its products and respects intellectual property rights.'
Correction: this sentence lacks the second "its" (just after "respects").
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Somehow I have a feeling Visto is just trying to "cash in" their patents by making out-of-court agreements to settle the deal.
The small guys try to get rich with patents suing the big guys, so the big guys get further patents to protect themselves.
The system is fucked.
__Funny video clips for Adults only!
Nothing like a little pressure from industry giants to speed up much needed reform of the patent system.
My pics.
I remember a time -- I think it was around the release of Windows 95 -- when the dream of every little startup was to get bought by Microsoft.
Now, they have strangled the competition so much that the dream of many little startups is to fold, hold onto their 'Intellectual Property' for a while, then sue the heck out of Microsoft.
Which, by the way, is not a bad strategy at all, since Bill Gates & Co. have billions and billions of dollars in the bank and are very willing to buy their way out of legal troubles (monopoly problems with DoJ and all that).
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
According to what I read YESTERDAY (but the story was rejected on /.) Microsoft seems to be being targeted in a preemptive way. In order to protect its IP, Visto is asking that MS Mobile 5.0 simply be prevented from being bundled with other MS products. They apparently have IP to back this up, and I hope that Visto manages to hold their own, whether that is toe-to-toe until out of court settlements are made, or in just filibustering their way to leadership position on mobile email. By keeping Microsoft out of the game (so to speak) that leaves room for other options. One thing I know for certain, Microsoft will never be kind to a F/OSS option in terms of IP licensing... perhaps Visto will.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Now we know the real reason why NTP acquired a stake in Visto yesterday.
Neither NTP nor Visto have contributed anything of importance to mobile E-mail technology; they have simply taken out patents on some of the obvious and trivial ways in which devices can get notified of server updates.
Visto's argument that it is good to beat Microsoft with patents because of Microsoft's monopolistic practices is wrong. It is true that Microsoft is behaving monopolistically with Exchange and Windows Mobile, but that's an issue for regulators and the market to worry about. Allowing Visto's and NTP's bogus patents to stand only replaces a big monopolist with a little one.
It seems the new craze for companies is that when they are struggling, just sue a successful company for patent infringement. Look at creative suing apple over the iPod... they didn't care until apple kicked their ass in the market. Look at RIM.
My point is that our corrupt politicians have allowed what should have been copyright law become patent law. Your code is a parallel to writing a book, not a parallel to creating the electric engine.
The irony is that big corporation like Microsoft have shot themselves in the foot here. They pushed for this type of patent law out of fear that their software would easily be duplicated, so It is funny to watch them get slapped by so many frivolous law suites.
I read this the other day and posted on a comment on the story about NTP signing a patent licensing deal. The small company involved was Visto and Visto has several patents (25 total). It is quite possible the two companies are cross-licensing, but NTP may not have any patents worth sharing when the re-examination process at the PTO is complete.
Basically, Visto and NTP announced their deal Wednesday, the same day Visto filed suit against Microsoft. It also appears that NTP acquired a stake in the company as well, so they seem to have an invested interest in this case now as well. For those who have been hiding for the last while, NTP is the company who has become famous (or infamous) from their suit against RIM.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
Patents were originally there to prevent ideas theft
Sorry, but this is wrong, because:
1. Ideas can't be stolen. Period.
2. Actually, patents were originally there to promote disclosure of useful ideas instead of keeping them forever as trade secrets.
BTW, 2. really should be used as one of the criteria of patentability: the thing should be patentable only if it can be successfully kept as a trade secret. Trivially reverse-engineered or analysed things should not be patentable. If by looking at the thing I can easily tell what is the essence of the patent, this thing doesn't deserve to be patented - because disclosure does not add anything useful to my observation. (The "ease" has of course to be somehow quantified, but this is a solvable technical question.)
Microsoft have lost millions in patent fights, and have never ever used them to attack open source software.
O rly?
"I'm going to Fucking BURY Visto Corporation! I've done it before, and I will do it again. I am going to FUCKING KILL Visto Corporation!"
"Sure there's porn and piracy on the Web but there's probably a downside too."
Do they know about this?
On aside note, its Good to see lawyers have work during this Holiday season. I always worry about them during the cold months.
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
Yes Im a hypocrite !
Hurray for the US Patent office!
"A system or method of bringing a computer to its knees after an authorized user attempts to execute factory-installed software. Following lock-up, the user is presented with a blue screen which may contain meaningless technical jargon.
This patent includes a system in which, following lock-up, the user is presented with an animated hour glass.
This patent includes a system in which, following lock-up, the user is presented with a mouse pointer that won't move.
This patent includes a system in which, following lock-up, the user is presented with a mouse pointer that moves but won't click.
This patent includes a system in which, following lock-up, the user is presented with a mouse pointer that moves and clicks on buttons that don't respond."
Evil is the money of root.
"Microsoft stands behind its products and respects intellectual property rights."
Just not at the same time.
-- This void intentionally left null.