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."
At first I thought maybe they were going to sue them for stealing one of the variations on the name "Vista".
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"
The patent sounds like any concurrent versioning system. How can that be "invented" in 2004?
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?
"Today I woke up and started preparing for work as usual. Brushed my teeth, shaved, took a shower. But you could sense the tension in air. Today I'm filing patent violation suit against Microsoft.
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.
Needless to say, I'm pretty nervous and excited to work with the legal department of such a big and popular company. I've met with them couple of times, and they appear to be a bunch of great guys, so I hope we'll do a great job together."
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.
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
Oh - and this photo is mildly amusing too...
My pics.
(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
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
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.
"Thereafter, the applet 359 in step 1325 acts as the I/O interface with the communications interface 340 of the global server 115. If the global server 115 in step 1330 determines that it is unauthorized to perform a remote terminal 105 user's request, then the global server 115 in step 1345 determines whether the method 1050b ends, e.g., whether the user has quit. If so, then method 1050b ends. Otherwise, method 1050b returns to step 1325 to obtain another request. If the global server 115 in step 1330 determines that it is authorized to perform the remote terminal 105 user's request, then the global server 115 in step 1340 acts as the proxy for the remote terminal 105 to the service 615. As proxy, the global server 115 forwards the service request to the selected service 615 and forwards responses to the requesting applet 359 currently executing on the remote terminal 105. Method 1050b then jumps to step 1345."
Replying to comments on slashdot concerning how retarded the arguements are is something only a retard would
It looks like the fifth patent NTP was suing RIM over has been overturned by the USPTO: http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/20051221 150546394
The article seems upbeat about patent reform coming, but I doubt it. I think the prevalence of Blackberrys in D.C. probably had more to do with this being overturned.
I HAVE CUBIC WISDOM THAT TRANSCENDS AND CONTRADICTS ONE DAY GODS
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.
Man, oh Man, It now appears every time I sneakernetted I violated this patent...where do I pay up? Still scouring for other ways I'm in violation of this patent...
Hmm... seems that the part where I saved files from the internet onto a PC-FAT12 formatted diskette from the library's Macintoshes violates the device-independent capabilities of their patents.
I'm hosed... Yeah, right!
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 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.
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.
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 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.