Slashdot Mirror
Visto Founder Blogs about Microsoft Lawsuit
neelm writes "Reported a few days ago, Visto is suing Microsoft over patent infringements. David Cowen, a founder of Visto (and Verisign) has made a recent blog post about the patent involved. He clears up what exactly the patents involved are, but what may be a more interesting read is the patent itself - issued in March of 2004. It might be nice to see Microsoft defending itself from patent litigation I admit, but I'm not sure I want to give validity to this patent."
The patent sounds like any concurrent versioning system. How can that be "invented" in 2004?
From the blog post:
"These PC's were running on the same large TCP/IP network as my PC client at Bessemer as well our Exchange server, and yet there was no way for me to access my corporate email and calendar."
"These patents were written by programmers who were engaged in building a viable, commercial platform, and genuinely wished to protect the invention."
Here's the deal... He wants to fix a problem, bridge a gap. On obvious gap. The patent system is supposed to protect inventions, not prevent people from creating their own solutions to a problem. I see nothing in that stupid patent that isn't nebulous and pathetic.
"But this time Microsoft is steamrolling its way into wireless messaging through the clear theft of my, Daniel's, Chris', and others' intellectual property. That's why Visto is suing."
Pray, tell, what exactly did Microsoft steal? Did they steal your problem space? Because patents don't cover problems. They cover solutions.
Because nobody can clearly define the restriction of obviousness, and even if they could, patent clerks screw up (possibly even more than most people since I hear being a patent clerk is a crappy job).
At this point, I'm pretty much starting to think patent systems always suck. Sure the occasional patent may reward the inventor, but it seems these days they tend more to reward rich investors, patent lawyers, and frivolous filers.
it's also an overly technical explanation of how isync works in OSX.
the main problem with software patents is that there are as many ways of wording a way of doing something for a patent as there are ways of actually doing it in a computer system.
99% of software patents are bullshit. even a lot of hardware patents are bullshit, but the signal-to-noise ratio is, at least, respectable.
...spike
Ewwwwww, coconut...
So this guy patented rsync?
Andrew Tridgell has copyrights on rsync as old as 1996, possibly even older.
This patent never should have passed the Novel or Obviousness tests. I find it amazing reading some of these patents that have been issued and finding that the patent itself explains why it should not be patentable. From the uspto.gov website:
"The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently different from what has been used or described before that it may be said to be nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention."
Now I'll get a long list of replies with "if it was obvious how come nobody did it before". All I can tell you is that just because somebody hasn't done it doesn't mean its not obvious.
Let me explain it this way, if you have a problem that needs to be solved by developing a software application and you can sit down with a developer and he says "yeah, I can do that" then its obvious. If the developer says "thats impossible" and somebody then spends significant time and resources trying to find a solution and does, they very well may have something that is patentable.
That said I would also point out that in 99.999% of all cases software algorithms and solutions are not patentable, they should be covered by copyright. And copyright covers the actual code a binaries, not reverse engineering. If somebody does the same thing with their own code it is not a copyright violation.
burnin
Patents were originally designed to protect an inventor's investment. They were not intended to be the source of investment in and of themselves. The patent system is now essentially a means and end unto itself, and looking at it, it's almost inevitable that businesses have formed whose sole reason for existence is to patent as many loose and overgeneralized ideas as possible and then wait for someone to walk into the trap. The notion is basically that large corporations will simply settle rather than go through a trial. The government seems to think it has no problem with the patent system, when it is the government which must give the system teeth to severely punish those who try to screw around.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
And if M$ gets the crap kicked out of them and loses a bunch of money because the patent is valid, so much the better. If the patent's not valid, then M$ attorney's have to be paid, AKA Microsoft foots the bill that invalidates the patent for the rest of us. Which is not a bad thing either.
Question is, if the patent is valid, will Visto play nice with the rest of the world and thereby gain favor and $$ in the short and long run, or pull a Unisys (.gif fiasco) style play and shoot themselves in the foot?
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
A client stores a first set of workspace data, and is coupled via a computer network to a global server. The client may be configured to synchronize portions of the first set of workspace data with the global server, which stores independently modifiable copies of the portions. The global server may also store workspace data which is not downloaded from the client, and thus stores a second set of workspace data. The global server may be configured to identify and authenticate a user seeking global server access from a remote terminal, and is configured to provide access to the first set or to the second set. Further, services may be stored anywhere in the computer network. The global server may be configured to provide the user with access to the services. The system may further include a synchronization-start module at the client site (which may be protected by a firewall) that initiates interconnection and synchronization with the global server when predetermined criteria have been satisfied.
Which definition of may is being used here?
Some parts of the abstract appear to use (5), to be obliged, must. But other parts are ambiguous and sound as though they are possible but not necessary (2). 'Which may be protected by a firewall' certainly sounds optional.
If this patent is not thrown out as too broad or because it doesn't appear to have any innovation in it, then will patent attourneys argue in later cases that it is more general than what the patent examiner actually intended? They may. They may indeed.
As some of the people who posted in the guys' blog point out, their patent isn't innovative - it describes, among other things, CVS, which existed long before they even came up with their "idea".
Just fire the USPTO. It would be so much cheaper, easier, and better.
Whoah! Yes, we will return American criminals provided:
Any American who wants to stay up here gets treated the same as any other country - they just have to follow Canadian Immigration rules:
People do it all the time.
I was refering to the broken system you refer to here as the patent office. Things like these should not be able to be patentable. As I see it, either the people working for patent offices are a little slow (perhaps older people not really up2date with current tidings?), or they are bribed.
How can you patent a system (from what I can see at a first glance) that stores data remotely accessable? It's a fundamental feature of all computer network and has been in existance since the first connection between two computers was made.
There is no fairness, logic or good about that system, it's just broken. My comment refers to that fact, they're fighting over a system that is in my view already so flagrantly failed that I dont care who wins. If Microsoft wins, fine, I'll ignore the outcome. If Visto wins, so be it.
This is great, first he thinks it's fine for Microsoft to steamroll others, because he prefers their solution. Then he gets mad when they do him?! If you support them "stealing" from other people, you better be ready to have your stuff stolen. I cannot understand his logic at all here. As for the patent, IANAL, but from what I gather, this isn't exactly an open and shut case. In fact, his sytem sounds quite broad, and one person even pointed out CVS was na exmaple of it (from 1986)! I think (hope) this'll fade into the background of all the other horrible patent fights we've seen. And will trouble it no more.
Want to find other gamers to play board and role playing game
Software patents are sin. Yes, EVEN if it harms Microsoft. That doesn't make it any better.
It's never just a game when you're winning. - George Carlin
If you need me to translate it down further, try this: I know that sounds great in the 9 seconds it took you to actually think that up, but it's a really stupid way to build a "perfect society" if you bother to put some more thought into it... Ie, discouraging invention is a pretty piss-poor first step on the road to utopia. You may not like our patent system... but the concepts of patents are incredibly useful and valuable to society as a whole.
I'm a businessman. I've had over 10 businesses in 18 years, all but 1 were successful. Not a single business relied on patents, and in some situations I likely could have profited from protecting some processes. I don't see a benefit for society in any monopoly -- especially monopolies granted from government. Society benefits from voluntary cooperation and voluntary trade, not coercion and force.
There are volumes of text on the bad parts of patents -- all of them point to how patents don't make people innovate, they make people lazy. Invent, patent, stop inventing. The areas with the fewest patents tend to be the areas with the most stable products at the best prices.
Software patents are as valid as the idea of the earth being flat.
And it is provable.
Problem is that neither side of the software development community (proprietary and open source) have either the incentive or clarity of mind to to support the proof.
However, just as the roman numeral system finally gave way (after 300 years since the initial introduction of the hindu arabic decimal system) to the much simpler and more powerful decimal system and included zero place holder..... So will software patent break down.
fraud simply cannot hold itself together for long...
The weight of the wrongs of software patents will build until it topples over.
These large corporate donations of software patents to the open source community are two fold in reason. One to slow the topple, the other to try and substain PR "for software patents"...
software ware patents won't fall easily, but they will fall.
The difference is whether or not you and I get a chance to experience the benefits of honesty about software and its common place (as the decimal system of math is today) usage..... and what all people will then come up with..
NOTE: the computer as we know it today, could not have been built using the mathmatical limitations of the roman numeral system. The same leap in advancement can happen when software is inherently free because you make it up as you need it, like using a calculator to calculate something as you need it.
Problem is that neither side of the software development community (proprietary and open source) have either the incentive or clarity of mind to to support the proof.
You forgot to mention the proof in your post. It goes as follows:
1. Under current patent system rules, mathematical algorithms cannot be patented.
2. Computer software IS a mathematcial algorithm.
3. Therefore computer software cannot be patented.
It's really quite unambiguous. If someone comes at you claiming they have a patent on a piece of software you own, simply use the defence that your software is a mathematical algorithm, and thus is not subject to patentability.
Of course this defense would be flawless if i weren't for the fact that:
"Here at the USPTO, we grant patents without predjudice towards trifling things such as unoriginality, gross obviousness and indeed, patentability itself! We've been a proud supporter of the legal industry for over 200 years!"
May the Maths Be with you!
It's worse than that.
By implication, he's admitted that the big companies would come up with these ideas independently. Thus they are not novel, and are obvious to a practitioner of the art. The idea of patents is you come up with something so clever, so original, that it advances the state of the art, and you publish it to give the world the benefit of your cleverness in exchange for patent rights. Does anyone here believe Microsoft read this patent?
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.