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."
Let's the big boys fight it out, the rest of us can just watch as they spend their money in courts. When the dust has settled I'm sure Europe, Canada and the rest of the free world will give asylum to the ones of you that decide to depart from the united states of previous freedom.
I mean, really... It sounds a lot like CVS and even patch updates as well as partial backups, snapshot backups (from Network Appliance systems), and MANY other systems that have been in use for years.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Is it better to support the little guy versus the big guy in any patent brawl?
Not for me. Patents are scummy ways of avoiding competition. In my non-existant "utopia" I would never accept them -- don't invent if you can't compete with what you invent. Someone else will come out with the same idea soon enough.
For many geeks, their careers probably rest on companies that have many patents. Yet how much quicker would technology progress if we were able to perfect the imperfect and not have to wait a decade or two for a patent to expire? How many geeks here on slashdot that have been part of a team that discovered a patented process would continue to research and develop new products because they love the process, not just the endgame?
I continue to work on new ideas and new processes for my business, some of them that I openly share with my competition. Sure, business procedures may not be patented, but why not? Why can I patent a keyboard style on a cell phone but I can't patent how I lay out my retail store or how I handle customer complaints?
I don't support either party in this lawsuit, and in the end, only the lawyers win. Guess who pays?
From TFA:
But in the coming months we filed broad patent applications that were subsequently granted.
I think that pretty much describes one of the big problems with the current patent system (and it's not just the American patent system, so don't go getting righteous because you live outside the U.S.) - the patents that are granted are very broad. The original purpose of patents was to give rights to people who had specific ideas that resulted in specific products (tangible or intangible), not sweeping vagaries that left room for interpretation.
NeverEndingBillboard.com
NeverEndingBillboard.com
(disclaimer: I am a IP patent holder)
I've been using Groove for over a year now, and it is really cool. It does all that stuff that is in the Visto patent. So does Yahoo, and a bunch of other services. I can see that in 1995, perhaps this was a new idea, but ten years later it is all over the place. Synchronizing files and services by use of a global server? I would bet that even in '95 you could find analogies somewhere -- incremental backups or some such. Wasn't database replication being worked back in 95 as well?
It's unclear from the information provided whether this was a truly new invention that Microsoft is trying to poach (along with half the world of computer development) or it was a day late and a dollar short. Once again, waiting ten years after the patent application is filed makes such analysis almost impossible. Technology is moving very quickly. The patent system needs to be fixed where we are not arguing ten-year old ideas -- by this time it's all old hat.
My Blog
During the years, we've had the chance to sue the hell out of a lot of companies for all sorts of patented ideas we came up while picking our noses, but this is my first big project.
This says it all about patents really. This guy admits these "highly valuable" ideas, worth millions were dreamed up by a few guys sat around picking their noses. Of course, nobody else could possible come up with such brilliant ideas on their own, when it takes so much time, development effort and expertise to put these patent portfolios together... Morons...
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
It would appear that the US patent system has now simply collapsed into inanity. It is starved resources, abused by large corporations, and now they in turn are finding themselves the victims of the same behavior. Real patent reform is needed, and my feeling is now that clearly abusive patents should lead to massive fines and/or suspensions for long periods from making any more patents (and that means against future companies that have anybody on the board of a company that has previously been caught in this kind of scam).
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You mean he's leeching bandwidth off bbspot too? Cool guy.
Hell - I didn't notice that as I posted - thanks AC.
It appears this 'patent holder' is linking to the BBSPOT image from the classic Microsoft Purchases Evil From Satan article.
Without attribution too. Nice to see that he respects others intellectual property
BBSpot - if you're reading this, please change the image something nasty. I don't care what - but I would like to see a (well used) futon in there...
My pics.
Finally? The straw that breaks the camels back. When big companies become lawful targets (not ethical, just lawful) and are suddenly financially exposed, there will be reform.
If Microsoft loses, all bets are off. A loss here legitimizes patent barratry as a business model.
But, if Microsoft wins, their patent portfolio loses value.
I can't wait. Nuthin like a good petard hoisting to get the blood pumpin.
There would be ways to make a patent office efficient. First, find a way to fund them which doesn't mean they get more money if they grant more patents.
Next, change how the system works. Now, when a company ask for a patent, the Patent Office ask competitors of the company for prior art or at least reasons why the patent is obvious. If it fails, ask the public. Then review yourself. By making other do your work, you save a lot of time.
And finally, the core idea of the new system. Every time you troll the patent office, you get a time penality. Let's say 3 months. So there is 3 months in which you can't submit anything to them. Every time you do it again the time you have to wait until you can submit your next patent doubles. Every twice the time you are penalized with, you'd slide down a ladder. So if you had a 6 month penality you didn't troll for one year, you are back to 3 months and half a year after to nothing.
This system would not penalize the small guy with smart ideas but not a truckload of money.
Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
The patent may have issued in 2004 but the priority date (the earliest filing date that the patent can take advantage of) is 1997. Also, just from the list of references cited, it appears that this patent was examined more thoroughly than many software patents I have seen.
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
It seems to me the patent office is routinely and grossly negligent in performing its duties, and this is costing businesses millions of dollars and the country as a whole billions. And I'm just talking about legal fees and unduly diverted revenue, not even touching on how the economy is being stifled (which is much harder to measure).
Isn't that grounds for a law suit?
Couldn't any company who has been sued for violating some patent that is eventually overturned as absurd seek to recover associated legal expenses (and lost revenues caused by any associated delays) from the patent office itself?
From what I have read in the past, the patent office seems to be motivated internally by revenue. While I'm all for not wasting taxpayer money, I would rather have my taxes pay for a well-run, highly scrupulous patent system that grants only sparingly than pay nothing for one that costs me far far more in indirect consequences.