Microsoft Loses Appeal in Guatemalan Patent Claim

Spy der Mann writes "A year ago, Guatemalan inventor Carlos Armando Amado sued Microsoft for stealing an Office idea he had tried to sell them in '92. They were found to be infringing on his patent and had to pay him $9 million in damages, but they refused and appealed the decision. Today, just a year after they appealed, the Court confirmed the verdict: Microsoft loses. If that wasn't enough, the amount was raised to $65 million for continuing infringement."

Comments

Good

[nbannerman]

Good. Good. Good.

This is how the patent system should work. A guy came up with an idea and tried to make his buck. MS stole the idea, which for all intents and purposes ruined his chances of making his money back. So, he sued them and got what he deserved. Eventually.

Of course, 14 years must be a hell of a long time to wait for your money...

I wonder if someone at MS is feeling just a bit stupid right now. Yeah yeah, £65mil is chump change to them, but they do leave with a substantial amount of egg on their face!

Re:Good

[thelost]

unfortunately they probably are not. yeah they drop 65m but often a large company like this will simply bulldoze through a smaller opponent, having the money and manpower to ignore niggles like this. After all this isn't going to appear on the front page of the newspapers tomorrow, so apart from the money the damage to MS is minimal. No one is going to put them on their knee and give their hide a good tanning, and that is what annoys me than anything. Money makes a poor substitute for apologies to me, even 65m of it. tag this post "idealistic" but I would be happy with an honest apology and handshake, that was earnestly meant.

Re:Good

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

Microsoft would be facing 'death by a thousand cuts' if they didn't litigate these cases strongly.

Re:Good

[no_barcode]

You're right, 14 years is a long time to wait for your money. If I were him, I'd take a nice long vacation. Maybe head to Guatemala for a couple of weeks for some nice, much deserved R&R.

Re:Good

[Halo1]

This is how the patent system should work. A guy came up with an idea and tried to make his buck.

Actually, this is independent of how the patent system should work. The only goal of the patent system should be to promote innovation. It is not there to "help the little guy get his share from large companies" any more than it is there to "help large companies crush little guys with their huge portfolios".

Only if the chance that other people would come up with this on their own is very small, and if the "original discoverer" would not publish it without getting a 20 year monopoly in return, and if the downsides of this 20 year monopoly don't outweigh the upsides of disclosure, then there could be a justification for granting the patent. On a macro-economic scale, this is not true for software patents.

In this particular case, it's about patent US 5,701,400. Let's have a look at claim 1, which as a whole consists of a single sentence of 506 words. Below, you can find a summary of the meat of that claim:

a program in execution by said computer for controlling operations thereof for receiving user input defining one or more analysis rules to be applied to user specified data from said memory,

We have a program with rules operating on data

each said analysis rule being a user defined arithmetic and/or logic test to be applied to user specified items of said data and for controlling said computer to receive and store user entered data defining the alphanumeric text of a diagnostic statement associated with each true result of each said analysis rule,

Each rule is a mathematical or logical expression returning true or false, and its outcomes are associated with text strings (i.e., if-statements with a string as result)

each said diagnostic statement comprised of a user defined alphanumeric text string which the user can program to define the significance of the true result, its relevance or any other expression which provides meaning to the user of the true result of the analysis rule, and for controlling said computer to receive user input controlling which of said analysis rules are to be applied to said data,

The user can specify the "then" and the "else" outcomes of these "if" statements.

and for applying said analysis rules so designated to the data designated by said user and returning a true or false result for each analysis rule so applied depending upon the state of the data to which each analysis rule was applied,

You can apply the if-statements to different inputs, and the output will depend on the input

and for each true result returned by an analysis rule, controlling said computer to store in a file in said memory the user programmed text of a diagnostic statement associated with each true result as a diagnostic in a diagnostic database,

Those earlier mentioned text strings are stored in memory once those if-statements are evaluated.

and for controlling said computer to receive and store in said memory user input defining one or more expert tests, each expert test comprising a user defined arithmetic and/or logic statement to be applied to one or more diagnostics selected by user input from the diagnostics stored in said diagnostic database, said arithmetic and/or logic statement comprised of mathematical operators and/or logical operators from any logic set such as predicate logic or Boolean logic including at least the AND, OR and NOT functions, each said expert test returning either a true or false result, and for controlling said computer to receive us

Re:Good

[islisis]

So what is good, outside Amado and Microsoft. The code is still closed and the concepts still owned, and businesses with no software alternative still have to move the cost to their clients who will move it somewhere else. Good will be what Amado decides to do with the money, act the same way as Microsoft and let his idea remained closed or act differently.

Re:Good

[moochfish]

To demonstrate just how arbitrary the patent system seems sometimes... let's replace a few words in your statement:

Good. Good. Good.

This is how the patent system should work. [Creative] came up with an idea and tried to make [their] buck. [Apple] stole the idea, which for all intents and purposes ruined [their] chances of making [their] money back. So, [they] sued [Apple]...

Of course, [4] years must be a hell of a long time to wait for your money...

You could do the same thing with Amazon's One-click patent and achieve similar results. Yeah... I am not saying the dude did or didn't deserve the money. I am just saying it all seems very arbitrary sometimes.

Re:Good

[nbannerman]

You're quite correct, I guess it does seem a bit arbitary sometimes. Considering the facts in this one, I do still agree it is a good decision. If the patent system was reformed properly, it would be easier to make decisions about what is 'good' and what is 'bad'.

To use your analogy, if Creative did create something and Apple decided against using it (licence too high, etc), but then had a change of heart and used it without paying Creative for a licence, then Apple would (imho) be in the wrong.

Now if Creative patented something and then sat on their hands not using it, whilst stopping others from using it, then we have a problem.

Patents are messy, but I do think we have to judge things on a case-by-case basis.

Re:Good

[nbannerman]

I have to admit, I haven't read the patent itself.

If the patent isn't valid to start with, it does of course call into question the whole thing. I'm glad someone can actually distill that patent into something readable.

Re:Good

[giorgiofr]

It's not arbitrary at all, actually the rule is very simple. Successful (and preferably big) companies must DIE DIE DIE, while the mythical "little guy" must be allowed to prosper. Strangely enough, such theory is upheld by many little guys.
Welcome to /., I hope you enjoy your stay.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a nice summary of the first of 12 claims. Claim 1 basically outlines the method of implementation and doesn't really contain much "novelty," but you can't really make the following 11 claims describing what the program does, unless you've said you have a program. Subsequent claims describe an "expert system" for providing advice or automating decision-making. eg, Word's grammar-checker.

It may still not be all that "novel," but it's an awful lot more specific than "a program that applies AND, OR and NOT logic to database results and stores them in memory"

Re:Good

[Halo1]

Even if the patent were valid, the goal of the patent system is not "to enable small guys to gets lots of money from the big guys", even if said big guys are doing something the small guys thought of first. The fact that this patent itself is horse crap (although I have yet to see a software patent which isn't, to be honest) is just something which adds injury to the insult.

Re:Good

[nbannerman]

I think you've mis-understood the sentiments in my original posting.

I agree with what you say; the patent system should exist to spur innovation, be it in big multi-nationals in vast labs, or people in their own houses.

However, if someone devises something, then the patent system should protect their interest and provide a means to reward them for their work. In this case, the 'big guy' essentially stole the work from the 'small guy', and imho the patent system shouldn't just allow anyone a free ride to do that.

Software patents are different. Perhaps then, we should seek to create a system for software that doesn't follow in the footsteps of normal patent law. You mentioned Amazon earlier; clearly systems like one-click are questionable and have no place in 'patent' law.

You're clearly well read on the subject; do you have any links to alternative thoughts on the matter?

Re:Good

[Halo1]

That's a nice summary of the first of 12 claims. Claim 1 basically outlines the method of implementation and doesn't really contain much "novelty," but you can't really make the following 11 claims describing what the program does, unless you've said you have a program.

That's irrelevant. Claims 1 to 12 have all been granted, so each and every one of them defines a monopoly which has been granted to the applicant.

Subsequent claims describe an "expert system" for providing advice or automating decision-making. eg, Word's grammar-checker.

As the first claim explains, "expert system" is used here as synonym for "an if-test with multiple conditions". In this sense, pretty much every single useful program I've ever written contains multiple "expert systems".

It may still not be all that "novel," but it's an awful lot more specific than "a program that applies AND, OR and NOT logic to database results and stores them in memory"

Even though what you describe above is a monopoly on its own which has been granted, let's look at a couple more:

• claim 2: the data and the results of the if-tests are bi-directionally linked to each other.
• claim 3: the data, if-tests and results are stored in separate tables of relational databases and linked to each other
• claim 4: same as claim 1, except that you now also get a "weighing factor" in case the if-test returns true, and when combining multiple if's you also combine those weighing factors.
• claim 5: the user can define how the weighing factors should be combined
• claim 6: the user can only use some predefined functions to combine the weighing factors
• claim 7: the weighing factor is used to define confidence in the result, and how to combine confidences (AND = minimum, OR = maximum, NOT = inverse)
• claim 8-12: sorry, but I've wasted enough time on this nonsense

I still completely fail to see how this is "an awful lot more specific", novel or innovative than the first claim. Not to mention that everything which is supposed to be innovative is plain maths or logic.

Re:Good

[bhmit1]

The if-then-else with and-or-not is a prerequisite for the rest of the patent, not the patent itself. From the abstract:

A system for applying artificial intelligence technology to data stored in databases and generates diagnostics that are user definable interpretations of information in the database. The diagnostics are stored in a database which can be queried with downdrilling to the associated data which generated the diagnostic. A set of bidirectional links is maintained between selected data items in the first database and the corresponding diagnostics in the second database. The system acts as an information compiler in developing a map of the raw data dimension into the structured dimension of intelligent interpretation of the data in the diagnostic database.

Seeing decision support tools with drill down interfaces on top of raw data (admittedly, never seeing them done right, but that's another topic), I would say that this is no simple import/export tool, nor is it a if-then-else implementation. If it's anything like the tools I've seen in the past, the result is a screen that a manager can look at everything in a high level. Click on a problem area and you get the detail, perhaps split out per month instead of a sum for the full year. Zoom back out from a single month and see how everything was performing in that given month, you get the idea. My guess is that they still haven't figured out how to automatically determine how best to summarize the data, i.e. answering the managers question before they ask it... that would be a pretty good patent.

Re:Good

[LilGuy]

I have to admit.. I'd have to be pretty twacked out on meth to even want to read and summarize that patent.

Re:Good

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

Well said, but being that we're stranded in a suboptimal reality, the in-force patent system has goals that are anything but promoting innovation. Turning the tables on behemoth portfolio holders by itself doesn't constitute reform, but so long as existing precedents are firm & new ones aren't set by the ruling, then this is more likely to move things *towards* reform than away from it.

Legislators will reliably favor well-to-do interests who can afford their ear. The courts aren't so predictable. If their decisions result in the patent game carrying a higher risk for large companies, then you can be sure the lobby for patent reform will no longer require grass-roots funding.

Re:Good

[Halo1]

My post simply summarized the first claim of the patent. The claims of a patent define the monopolies granted to the applicant. All conditions of a single claim must be fulfilled in order to infringe on that claim. So as soon as you use an if-the-else test in the way described in the first claim, you are infringing.

The abstract and description are merely used to help interpret the claim, but they have little or no legal value and do not directly define what the patent monopoly covers.

Re:Good

[TheLinuxSRC]

"I would be happy with an honest apology and handshake, that was earnestly meant."

Good luck with that. When has Microsoft *ever* made a public apology for anything? (not a troll -- honest question)

Re:Good

[Halo1]

It merely encourages reform which protects the big guys. It does not solve any real problems, and might even make it harder to solve those real problems (such as software patents): if they can get reforms through which make things less bad for them, they will be even less inclined to ever support abolishment of software patents.

Re:Good

[bit01]

You're falling into one of the standard errors of patent proponents. My correction:

... However, if someone devises something, and they wouldn't have done it without monopoly protection and profits and the overall benefit to society outweighs the cost of the monopoly., then, and only then, the patent system should protect their interest and provide a means to reward them for their work. ...

No invention that takes little investment, or that might reasonably have more than one person independently think of it, should be given the monopoly privilege.

One of the big problems with patents in general and software patents in particular is that the reasoning and logic used to justify this massive interference in the citizen's business is very poor, what basically amounts to hand waving. Everything from category errors, e.g. "prior art" and "combining", supposedly simple ideas, are based on the shifting sands of what it means for something to be similar, to the supposed non-existence of independent, simultaneous invention of things "whose time has come".

---

Scientific, evidence based IP law. Now there's a thought.

Re:Good

[thelost]

indeed, but then when has any large company ever apologized for their behaviour? Check this out for the greatest apology from a multi-national - that never happened.

Re:Good

[jonbryce]

You don't need to grant a 26 year monopoly to encourage software innovation. In fact, innovation works much better in this area without monopolies.

Re:Good

[kilodelta]

And while we're at it, why don't we apply copyright law against all those stolen ideas in Hollywood.

Re:Good

[ehrichweiss]

Man, I almost fell for that one. If it weren't for them talking about the Yes Men and the hoax on that page, I'd have been telling everyone that everything was made alright. I had been talking about the Bhopal incident a couple months ago and am still amazed by how much damage was done and yet nobody has been forced to stand accountable. I find it hard to believe that "we" want something like the WTO to make fair trade for Starbum's coffee but they seem to miss taking any action on gross miscarriages of justice like Bhopal.

Re:Good

[mOdQuArK!]

If the patent system was reformed properly, it would be easier to make decisions about what is 'good' and what is 'bad'.

Part of my pet "patent system" proposal is to limit the total # of "valid" patents to some small number N, which will force there to be some kind of competitive process to determine the best patents (as well as make it easier to search the valid patent database, and limit the effect that patents can have on the general process of innovation).

The competitive process I had in mind was an auction, where anybody can submit ideas for a patent, and anyone else can bid to secure a patent "slot" for one of those applications. Patents slots becomes available as they are freed up due to expiration, prior art or obviousness. The winning bid would be paid to the person who submitted the patent idea.

Advantages:

• forcing the bidder to perform due diligence on each patent that they are bidding on, to make sure that its value won't get knocked down by a competitor using prior art or obviousness
• doesn't need to depend on a patent examiner system this way
• the "little" guy can exercise his/her innovation by submitting ideas to the patent auction for little or no cost, and with the potential for a _big_ payoff if the auction yields big bids
• because of the "wanna win the lottery effect", you'll get a whole stream of ideas (both good & bad) that didn't quite meet the standards of the bidders, but then become public-domain
• society (and the auction winners) win since the people who win the auctions are much more likely to have the resources to fully distribute the benefits of those patent ideas to the market

Re:Good

[thelost]

there's a very simple and unfortunate reason that Bhopal has never been rectified, it happened 20 years ago. Peoples memories are short if you ask them to remember something that happened which didn't directly affect them such a long time a go then you'll just get blank stares, like I do whenever I mention Bhopal to any of my friends. Even though I consider them intelligent, informed people.

Re:Good

[RobertLTux]

i kind of like a ante up system and a yearly "maintenence fee" for a patent

1 to get a patent you would need to ante up one(or more) of your current patents and if the application fails you loose the ante'd
patent(s) To help the little guy the scale would slide according to how many patents you have. under XXX patents you don't need to ante up, if you have XXXXXXXXXX patents you land up with an ante ratio of 8 to 1.

2 On a similar scale every year you would need to pay a fee to keep your patents if you don't pay the patent drops (and any lawsuits over those patents would be thrown out "due to lack of standing")

Re:Good

[canuck57]

I wonder if someone at MS is feeling just a bit stupid right now. Yeah yeah, £65mil is chump change to them, but they do leave with a substantial amount of egg on their face!

This could acutally be very bad for Microsoft. Very little of MS-Windows is genuine. Most is borrowed, bought or infringed from other sources. Microsoft could dye with a 1000 cuts.

Re:Good

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

So the guys who granted the patent felt the same way?
If I wanted to register a troll patent (and no, I have not read this one), I would try to make the language it is couched in as unreadable as possible. Make anyone who has to read it want to rip their own head off.

Whatever, I assume Microsoft helped make those rules, and I know they are trying to propagate them to Europe. For that sin, just over $64 million is not nearly enough.

Re:Good

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

I appreciate that take on the issue, but from a numbers perspective, I still think rulings like this - given a nontrivial increase in frequency - are more likely to have the opposite effect.

Even for a large corporation, it takes no small amount of labor to regularly whack a bevy of small interests over the head with various & sundry IP claims. The financial gain from doing so isn't immediately realized, and in a some percentage of cases, the corporation is investing in the protection of a low-value property item over the long haul. On the flip side, smaller interests have fewer resources to expend on legal strategy, and this dictates they be less prone to taking up claims without there being a good chance of a worthwhile payoff.

$65mm may be considered "chump change" in toto for a behemoth like Microsoft, but the number represents something larger in the context where they'd actually be considering it... as a line item in their ledger for the IP-assertion revenue stream. From their perspective, that loss offsets $65mm worth of gains from similar efforts. An accumulation of rulings like this doesn't have to make an entire corporation unprofitable to have an impact on their legal tactics in the IP arena. It just needs to make the tactics themselves less attractive from a numbers standpoint. I think the bar is lower here than is commonly perceived.

All that said though, even if my optimism is spot on (which it may well not be on several counts), the scenario resembles "reparations" more than real reform, so I agree that it doesn't present an ideal correction to a broken system.

Re:Good

[mi]

MS stole the idea

Are you sure, they did not just ignore him back then? I would not take the Guatemalan court's decision as any kind of proof or confirmation. I'm sure, sympathy for a fellow Guatemalan and considerations like "Microsoft is rich, they can afford it" played a large role in the judges' decision...

Re:Good

[ehrichweiss]

Yeah, I remember being horrified at the event and even more so when I found out that they never admitted it was their responsibility. And we wonder why everyone plays the blame game with all their problems....cause our corporations are great role models....

They more than likely thought they would lose

[tenverras]

Sure, Microsoft would still much rather win, but I doubt they were kidding themselves into thinking that they weren't in the wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole reason they took it to court was to send the message that just because you think that Microsoft is infringing on your patents, doesn't mean they're going to roll over and pay you off. You better be ready to go the distance if you want to earn your dollar.

Re:They more than likely thought they would lose

[Tx]

Yeah, cuz everyone thought of them as such a soft target before this...

Re:They more than likely thought they would lose

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

If you read the article it looks like this guy wrote some sort of macro to import data. Does this deserve a patent?

Re:They more than likely thought they would lose

[aussie_a]

When ideas are patentable, what doesn't deserve a patent?

Re:They more than likely thought they would lose

[hasbeard]

Actually, the article doesn't say what this gentlemen's patent was for. Article alteration in progress.

Re:They more than likely thought they would lose

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

That was my point. Sounds like this one is questionable.

Re:They more than likely thought they would lose

[hasbeard]

Ok, sorry, I was wrong. The poster didn't say the article actually did mention a macro.

Re:They more than likely thought they would lose

[Bill Dog]

When ideas are patentable, what doesn't deserve a patent?

When actions are punishable by the state with fines and/or jail time, what action doesn't deserve such punishment?

Misleading summary

[kjart]

From the article:

Morrison & Foerster said it is hoping that the federal court will award Amado further damages for continuing infringement, out of an escrow account that now has more than $65 million in it.

The lawyers appear to be hoping for more, but it hasn't necessarily been increased to $65 million yet. Personally, I don't think it's worth that much, since the infringing technology is related to:

Microsoft's method of linking its Access database and Excel spreadsheet infringed on Amado's technology

but heck, that's patent law for you.

Re:Misleading summary

[TheKingAdrock]

Bump the parent by +4. Misleading summary? Sorry, but it's fair to say that the summary was just haphazardly posted by someone who didn't actually follow the link and read the short article.

Delicious marketing gimmick?!

[jkrise]

From TFA... "Since the jury verdict last year, Microsoft has altered Office, alerting businesses back in January that they will need to upgrade to the modified version."

Why should USERS pay to upgrade to a new version? Why can't Microsoft license the patent in question, instead?

Re:Delicious marketing gimmick?!

[kjart]

Why should USERS pay to upgrade to a new version? Why can't Microsoft license the patent in question, instead?

I'd imagine that's referring to a patch and not something that costs money. Unless you're referring to the human cost of having to patch X copies of Office. Then again, I doubt that Microsoft cares if people actually upgrade - it's probably just important (for legal reasons I imagine) that they _ask_ people to.

Re:Delicious marketing gimmick?!

[KDR_11k]

The law says that users can be held liable for patent infringement as well. I'm not sure if upgrade is to be understood as a paid upgrade in this context. This article suggests that the upgrade is an update that's free of charge but all users are required by the license terms of Office to upgrade "immediately". The article goes on to say that companies may have costs arising from verifying that the new version works everywhere (with potential additional costs if it fails to work since the upgrade is mandatory) and of course installing is going to cause delays in work. If we had a sane law that forbids EULAs the affected companies might be able to claim damages from MS for this (deliberate?) oversight.

Re:Delicious marketing gimmick?!

[jkrise]

The law says that users can be held liable for patent infringement as well.

How can the user, who has no way of examining the source code of a proprietary piece of code, be liable for infringements? Looks like the big businesses have written these stupid laws...

If we had a sane law that forbids EULAs the affected companies might be able to claim damages from MS for this (deliberate?) oversight.

A sane law would be one that made the infringer pay. Not the poor chap who licensed code.

Re:Delicious marketing gimmick?!

[bombshelter13]

If a customer goes into a store, buys an item, and it later turns out that the store was selling stolen merchandise, the customer is still liable for posession of stolen property. It doesn't matter one bit that they didn't know the item was illegal. The situation really isn't any different.

Re:Delicious marketing gimmick?!

[Anonymous Coward]

If a customer goes into a store, buys an item, and it later turns out that the store was selling stolen merchandise, the customer is still liable for posession of stolen property. It doesn't matter one bit that they didn't know the item was illegal. The situation really isn't any different.

The situation is different..... unless Microsoft habitually sells pirated software, oh wait! That's what's being alleged here!

Re:Delicious marketing gimmick?!

[someone1234]

This patch is 'free', M$ made it available as a security upgrade. I saw it a while ago, it was something like: 'after this patch access cannot have excel spreadsheets linked in'. I was pondering if it is a security upgrade or a feature upgrade, but it turns out it was a license downgrade :) Btw, the patent is quite ridiculous. Both access and excel is m$ crap, why would anyone get a PATENT for this obvious trick. I'm not talking about copyrighted source code, this is a method/concept stuff. On the other hand M$ loses more than if they simply bought the idea in the first place.

Re:Delicious marketing gimmick?!

[Chowderbags]

Good luck convincing a jury to convict if there was no criminal intent.

Re:Delicious marketing gimmick?!

[KDR_11k]

A sane law would be one that made the infringer pay. Not the poor chap who licensed code.

I meant the cost arising from updating all computers and verifying compatibility as damages, not the infringement cost. That should be handled separately.

I presume the user can be sued to prevent those who managed to snag infringing goods from using them without paying the fee to the inventor. There's also the right to destroy all infringing merchandise which I presume has to be exercised before claiming damages from infringing users.

Re:Delicious marketing gimmick?!

[Vengie]

We have a presumption against crimes that lack mens rea; not an ironclad rule. There are crimes for which no mens rea is required (i.e. speeding) -- although these are much rarer in common law contexts than in MPC contexts (since Negligent/Reckless/Knowing/Purpose requires negligence/reckless unless otherwise specified) In the federal context, Congress has to explicitly remove the mens rea requirement -- but it CAN do so. (see e.g. US v Arthur Anderson, US v Morisette, and US v Staples, US V Liparota)

If you don't actually have a legal training and were just pulling the "criminal intent" line out of your ass -- sorry to say, but you're wrong.

As an aside, this is a CIVIL claim for copyright infringement. Intent is meaningless in that context.

Re:Delicious marketing gimmick?!

[Devistater]

You dont. Its a new Service Pack for office (which is free obviously). A company I work for got a letter about this requesting that any new installs of office be sure and have the latest service pack, or else you'd be in violation of the volume liscense agreement. In other words, non-compliance is now going to be the fault of the small businesses that MS audits, not the fault of MS.

Re:Delicious marketing gimmick?!

[Chowderbags]

I was talking about the theoretical "possession of stolen property" that might occur after buying from a store selling stolen property (a shady pawn shop, for example), which would be a criminal trial, and thus subject to the decision of a jury. Provided the jury wasn't braindead, there couldn't possibly be a conviction.

Re:Delicious marketing gimmick?!

[Vengie]

Such a case would never pass a prosecutor's office. The police don't just throw you into jail, the DA decides if there's grounds to file charges. You'd never BE in court in the first case. (Prosecutorial discretion however is not subject to judicial review, see e.g. Inmates of Attica)

Re:Is this why Gates stepped down?

[kjart]

Nice trolling; I'll bite. There are a couple problems with that:

a)This case has nothing to do with Vista. The patent is related to with some sort of communication between Access and Excel (sounds kinda bunk to me)
b)I don't think that a $65 million lawsuit (and this isn't even necessarily for that much) would make a decent significant enough in Microsoft to cause the resignation of Bill Gates...

Obligatory Nelson Quote

[lee7guy]

Points in the general direction of Redmond.

Ha ha!

Re:Is this why Gates stepped down?

[kjart]

decent = dent

:'(

14 Years, 65 mil

[Frightening]

That's 4.64 million green boys per year-and back in '92, a million bucks was a million bucks.
The Humanity! Kudos to this gentleman for a well placed career investment.

Hang on a minute

[sane?]

This concerns a patent for a method of shifting data from Excel to Access. I thought we had all agreed that software patents were a bad idea? All of them.

This guy managed to take two packages made by Microsoft and work a way of shifting data between them. So what? I'll guess (given that no reference is given to the actual patent) that given the two packages there are only very few mechanisms, and these are obvious in the context of the software. I can quite understand Microsoft telling him to take a hike for an export/import routine.

As much as it may pain some, this person looks to be a chancer. Just because its the little guy and Microsoft doesn't make it right.

Re:Hang on a minute

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

'using a single spreadsheet' makes me think this was just some kind of macro, although I have no idea what the macro capabilities were in 1990.

Re:Hang on a minute

[homer_s]

I thought we had all agreed that software patents were a bad idea? All of them.
You must be new here.
Here are the rules reg. patents on slashdot:

If it is a patent by google/apple, it is a defensive patent and hence good.
If it is a patent by any other company, it is teh evil.
If it is a patent that hurts Microsoft, then it is good and that is how patents are supposed to work.

Re:Hang on a minute

[rolfwind]

In one way, I do agree with you. In another, I have to point out that it is MS that is helping push software patents in Europe, and thus, this is poetic justice. Perhaps they'll reconsider their position if this happens enough (though I doubt it).

Maybe, in the end, I wish they were getting their poetic justice without a patent troll getting paid off, though.

Re:Hang on a minute

[jkrise]

This concerns a patent for a method of shifting data from Excel to Access

There's no reference, but I'd wager NO PATENT would've been granted on these lines... more like, "a method to move data from a spreadsheet to a database".

This guy managed to take two packages made by Microsoft and work a way of shifting data between them.
No evidence to the above. Maybe more generic work.

I thought we had all agreed that software patents were a bad idea? All of them.

Agreed. And so, until software patents are declared illegal, any aggrieved party should be able to make the infringer pay.

Just because its the little guy and Microsoft doesn't make it right.

How about vice-versa? With WGA, Microsoft checks every small guy every day. Every day, every one is guilty unless a piece of software decides you are innocent. Two wrongs won't make a right.... and yet, the rights of little men MUST be upheld, until the SYSTEM becomes more equitable.

Re:Hang on a minute

[flight666]

Oh, yes it does make this right. Very right. You see, strategically, it would be best if the worlds most profitable software company were to lose a bunch of these suits and then decide that they dont like software patents very much. Then they could spend some of their money buying some patent reform laws.

Re:Hang on a minute

[irtza]

No, /. is a much larger and varied crowd than you seem to give it credit for. There are people here who despise all patents under any case, others who despise all software patents or patents on methods or some other subset of patets, some who despise patents that don't harm MS, people who would give there left arm to buy a patent for google, those that would give your left arm to buy a patent for apple, and those that enjoy reading about multi-million dollar lawsuits being flung around by the big boys.

I consider myself in the second (I don't like patents on methods - which includes software - and last categories. I am happy to hear this lawsuit is going on, lawyers are getting paid, the trolls are well fed, the little guy wins. This truly is justice my friend. It is a shame you have failed to see it; your upstanding principles must really interfere with your choices for entertainment.

Re:Hang on a minute

[kjart]

I would tend to agree with you. Sadly, right or wrong, this seems to be the norm for patents these days, and the 'good' and 'evil' , big and small will continue to screwed until it gets changed.

Re:Hang on a minute

[Giometrix]

I wish you were only kidding...

Re:Hang on a minute

[kestasjk]

Or more likely they'll decide they have to get even more patents on trivial/obvious features to stop this happening again.

Re:Hang on a minute

[KiloByte]

If it is a patent that hurts Microsoft, then it is good and that is how patents are supposed to work.

The reason why we cheer for some patents, is that it's good to see patent trolls themselves get hurt. In fact, this is the only way to fight -- it is them who get to buy laws, and without them getting ever hurt, our side simply has no leverage to persuade anyone who has any power.

Re:Hang on a minute

[Jason Earl]

The reason that I don't cry when Microsoft loses a patent case is because Microsoft is one of the prime movers behind expanding America's broken patent system around the world. Besides, in recent years Microsoft has become very aggressive in its efforts to use its patents to generate huge amounts of licensing fees. In essence Microsoft wants to create a world in which large corporations, with large portfolios of patents to trade, are the only folks that can write software. Heck, Microsoft's most effective tool agains the encroachment of Free Software on its market has been to talk about "intellectual property" issues. When push comes to shove what Microsoft is really threatening is to use its patents against Free Software.

Microsoft is big enough and influential enough that if it got serious it could end the current patent madness almost single handedly. As long as Microsoft is part of the problem and not part of the solution then I sincerely hope that they reap the whirlwind they have sown. Not that it really matters what I think. Microsoft has billions of dollars in the bank and writes piles and piles of software. They are an ideal target for patent trolls. I'm sure that it has already occured to the bright people at Microsoft that its patent offensive has largely backfired. Microsoft is currently embroiled in over 30 patent lawsuits, many of which it has already lost. Free Software, on the other hand, continues to advance.

Re:Hang on a minute

[tehshen]

It's amazing how you can be automatically Insightful for bashing this place now. If someone's wrong about something, don't whine about some 'groupthink', try to correct whoever it was, which actually helps. Explain why this isn't how the patent system is supposed to work. Anyway here's my opinion on the matter.

I think of it like this:

• If I break into your house and steal all your money, that is bad and I should be punished for it.
• If I break into your house because you stole my computer and I want to get it back, I might be more justified in doing so.

Sure, it's a lot more complicated than that - in either case, I've got a charge of breaking and entering to deal with. Likewise, patents are going to be controvertial whatever happens.

I don't like Microsoft that much. I don't like their business practices, their software, or their vast army of lawyers and patents, and anything that hinders any of those things is good by me. Then again, I'm also against these software patents, and I'm not sure if this one should've even been granted, let alone used.

Using a patent against Microsoft is making the best of a bad situation. Obviously, I'd rather see them both without any patents, like I'd rather not have my thing stolen and have to break into your house to get it back. This is just the next best thing.

Re:Hang on a minute

[Awod]

Very well said, would probably make a good sig.

Re:Hang on a minute

[UnknowingFool]

The history of this particular patent was that this guy was able to make Excel and Access work together in 1992. Back then they were two separate programs developed independently at MS and not really designed to interface with each other. He found a way for them to interact together and he patented it. He claims that he showed his method to MS but they didn't want to buy his patent. He claims they then used his technique anyway on subsequent versions of Excel and Access. A court has determined his claims were valid and they were reaffirmed on appeal.

Re:Hang on a minute

[Giometrix]

Microsoft might argue that they are patent trolling to prevent falling victim to patent trolling. I don't think anyone would argue that its better to be on the patent owning end of the deal.

Re:Hang on a minute

[laughingcoyote]

Actually, the general sentiment I seem to see (and incidentally agree with) is:

Software, "method", and biology patents are generally bad and subject to a large degree of abuse, and need to be done away with.
That being said, some holders of software patents (such as patent trolls or MS's threats against open source) are MORE abusive with them than others.
Seeing a patent abuser getting clubbed over the head by another one is funny, though the assertion remains that neither one should have software patents.

Re:Hang on a minute

[professionalfurryele]

Sure it is. This guy patented little more than automated copy and paste. He might geniunely think it is a valid invention but ignorance is no excuse. We really need to start punishing stupidity where we find it, otherwise these morons are going to take over more than they already have.

Re:Hang on a minute

[file-exists-p]

The huge defensive patent portfolio is great against another gorilla like Sun, Apple or Google who. But against an individual, how could it help ?

--
Go Debian!

class action suit

[rjdegraaf]

I see a class action suit from windows-users against MS, forcing MS to buy the license.

The users bought the office suite which included a functionality which is now being removed. Moreover, MS had the opportunity and responsibility to keep the end-users out of (legal) problems. Also, the EULA stated MS has copyright of the delivered software (which turned out to be a lie).

Re:class action suit

[jkrise]

I see a class action suit from windows-users against MS, forcing MS to buy the license.

The users bought the office suite which included a functionality which is now being removed.

I don't think so... MS may have implemented the same functionality in a different, non-infringing manner.

Also, the EULA stated MS has copyright of the delivered software (which turned out to be a lie).

Ah, that may be a possibility... although, a straightforward proposal could be: Why punish users to change the code they have already licensed from MS? Why not force MS to license the infringing code from the patent holder?

And even more curious...

[jkrise]

From an article referenced in the link:
"It was recently decided in a court of law that certain portions of code found in Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003, Microsoft Office Access 2003, Microsoft Office XP Professional and Microsoft Access 2002 infringe a third-party patent," Microsoft said in an e-mail to customers. "As a result, Microsoft must make available a revised version of these products with the allegedly infringing code replaced."

Questions that come up:
1. How could any 3rd party obtain access to portions of Office Pro 2003, etc.?
2. And since MS conceded that they may have indeed infringed on patents, WHY SHOULD THE CUSTOMERS BE FORCED TO DEPLY A DIFFERENT VERSION???
Why can't MS be forced simply to license the patents for the volumes ALREADY SHIPPED to customers, and NEW customers provided with modified non-infringing code?

The response of MS to a similar spat with ActiveX and Eolas, also tends to fall in the same pattern - forcing 'users' to change their code / behaviour for a crime committed by the software maker! Why punish the people who PAID for the product????????

Re:And even more curious...

[kjart]

Sorry to keep following you around....but this is your third rediculous post on this story.

Your first question seems offtopic - a 3rd party can get access to portions of Office by buying it. Unless you mean the source code, which doesn't necessarily have to be involved for Microsoft to be infringing a patent.

To your second question, from your own quote "Tt was recently decided in a court of law that certain portions of code...". Microsoft isn't conceding anything. They are merely stating the fact that a court has decided that they are infringing. For further evidence of them not conceding anything, please refer to the article you are posting to - it's about Microsoft appealing _that_ decision.

Lastly, where are you getting this forced upgrade information from? Certainly not from your quote: "As a result, Microsoft must make available a revised version". Make available != forced upgrade. Also, in terms of licensing this patent, I could personally see them not wanting to do that because it seems pretty trivial - at least from the description in the article (you know, that thing you should've read).

Re:And even more curious...

[tomstdenis]

Why punish the people who PAID for the product????????

And people thought just running Windows was punishment enough... /me hugs OpenOffice and teTeX

Tom

Re:And even more curious...

[jkrise]

"Your first question seems offtopic - a 3rd party can get access to portions of Office by buying it. Unless you mean the source code, which doesn't necessarily have to be involved for Microsoft to be infringing a patent. "

I meant source code. How else can infringement be proven?

Lastly, where are you getting this forced upgrade information from?

From the linked article: "Although existing customers can keep using older versions on current machines, any new installations of Office 2003 will require Service Pack 2, released by Microsoft in September. Office XP will need to be put into use with a special patch applied.

Microsoft is also recommending that customers update their existing software with the new code. "

That's where it states that EXISTING users are recommended to upgrade!

Re:And even more curious...

[kjart]

I meant source code. How else can infringement be proven?

Well, the patent concerns a "method of linking its Access database and Excel" - this probably wouldn't need source code to prove. This sounds like a patent on an idea regarding how to implement something - so the feature itself could be infringing instead of the specifics of coding that feature. The article doesnt really go into much detail on what the patent actually entails.

With respect to them recommending that they update, of course Microsoft will - I'm not sure I understand how this is a big deal. If Microsoft didn't ask people to upgrade and remove the offending feature, it could probably be used against them in court. Some sort of willful infringement (I'm not a lawyer, shrug)? I fail to see how this justifies the number of !'s you're using here - another patch from Microsoft is certainly nothing to be shocked at :) I'm sure those that don't want to apply the Service Pack in question (I'm sure it contains other patches/fixes as well) wont have to.

Clippy?

[mostaphalles]

So that's the son-of-a-bitch that invented Clippy... Only when pitched his name was El Hungry Clippo, the spelling-error eating robot.

prior art ...

[rs232]

I realize that a lot of people are under the delusion that 'computers` were invented by Bill Gates but a lot of this stuff had been previously devised on the Mini and Mainframe.

"RPG .. was originally developed by IBM in the 1960s .. RPG was an acronym for Report Program Generator, descriptive of the purpose of the language: generation of reports from data files, including matching record and sub-total reports."

"RPG III significantly departed from the original language, providing modern structured constructs like IF-ENDIF blocks, DO loops, and subroutines .. In 1994, RPG IV .. was released and the name, officially, was no longer an acronym"

See also:

"Record Management Services (abbreviated RMS) are procedures .. that programs may call to process files and records within files.

Re:Good-"/." wisdom.

[Ginger Unicorn]

you assume slashdot is a hive mind. that post was made by an individual who may very well beleive what they spout, and it certainly doesnt infer any disingenuity to anyone who has voiced an opposing opinion on slashdot at any time in the past.

No, it's really a win for Microsoft

[njdj]

Cost to Microsoft: Negligible. (Microsoft's net income was over $12 billion last year).

Cost to the inventor: 14 years of his life spent fighting a legal battle.

Message to anybody else whose work Microsoft steals: if you take us to court, figure on losing 14 years of your life fighting a legal battle, and by the way you'd better have a lot of money before you start, because Microsoft won't hesitate to spend a few tens of millions on the best legal talent available.

Re:No, it's really a win for Microsoft

[dfjghsk]

14 years to get at least $9 million.. hmm.. $642,000/each year... doesn't sound like a bad deal. where do I sign up. :)

Re:No, it's really a win for Microsoft

[FooAtWFU]

I don't know. If I made $65 million after 14 years... that's $4.64 million a year. I think I'd retire comfortably...

Powerful ally

[Gadzinka]

It's good to have such a powerful ally in fight against software patents.

After couple of court loses like this, I don't think there's anyone in MS who still believes that their huge patent portfolio will help them. It used to be that you simply amassed patents and when your competition sued you for patent infrigment, you sued them back, finally settled outside of court and signed mututal patent exchange with them.

Now, there are companies that don't do anything, just sue left and right, so you have no possibility to sue them back for patent infrigment[1]. You might even bankrupt them by prolonged court proceedings, but they are like hydra: those same people, will resurface in some other company and continue to extort money.

Robert

[1] unless you own a patent on a business method ,,don't do anything, just sue'' ;)

Re:Powerful ally

[pieterh]

There are a number of inescapable flaws in the software patent 'system'; this is one of them...

1. Owning patents does not protect you from a non-producing entity (NPE, a firm that owns patents but makes nothing, so infringes nothing and cannot be sued).

2. It is impossible to define new software standards that cannot be undercut and held hostage by NPEs.

3. It is impossible to build new software products that cannot be undercut and held hostage by NPEs.

4. It is impossible to define software patents that cannot be undercut by other software patents. I.e. if Microsoft had filed and owned this particular patent, it'd not stop an NPE making another claim that undercut this claim.

The irony (sweet or not) is that it is those firms lobbying hardest for wider and stronger software patents (IBM, Microsoft, Nokia, Sony, Siemens, SAP) which end up paying the biggest bills. It's true that software patents provide temporary and lucrative monopolies - see the GSM market, based on some of the heaviest-patented standards ever - but in the end the patent trolls will always find a way to turn it around.

Sadly large IT firms are deeply schizophrenic about software patents, with patent policy firmly in the hands of the lawyers, not the engineers, and it will take more than a few lawsuits to change this. (A lawsuit that does not kill a firm just makes its lawyers stronger.)

Re:Powerful ally

[fermion]

The court, which in many ways were the last ally of the individual against corporate and governement greed, are quickly losing thier power. The drive again liberal activist judges, and replacing them with corporate activist judges, kills the opportunity to gain reasonable recompense for damages.

For instance, insurance companies routinely offer minimum settlement knowing that one of two things will happen. Either the claimant is poor and must accept the substandard settlement, or the claimant has means and can wait the years until a suit can be filed. If the later happens, the insurance company often will pay to insurance limits, but has still managed to keep, and freely invest, the claimant monies for a number of years.

A few years ago their was a case in which an insurance company did this on a particular grevious case. They all but lied in court in an effort to pay a claim that any reasonable person would deem valid. They hounded the claimant, and said that he should sell assets to cover costs that the insurance comapny in fact should have covered. When it finally ended up in court, it was found that insurance company acted extremely badly and was ordered to not only pay the claim but a large amount. The amount was large enough to catch the attention of the industry and stop thier practice of lowballing claims and abusing the court system by encouraging unnecesary suits. However, high courts found the settlement too large and block the last remaining path to justice.

For most large companies, the courts provide a known limited risks, and encourage said companies to abuse certain privaledges knowing that any cosequences will be long off and, at the end of the day, insignificant. It is unlikely that the 65m will hold through appleals. We can expect another 5-10 years of fights, after all MS has nothing to lose and will probably get the settlement whittled to half as much.

Re:Powerful ally

[raynet]

The irony (sweet or not) is that it is those firms lobbying hardest for wider and stronger software patents (IBM, Microsoft, Nokia, Sony, Siemens, SAP) which end up paying the biggest bills. It's true that software patents provide temporary and lucrative monopolies - see the GSM market, based on some of the heaviest-patented standards ever - but in the end the patent trolls will always find a way to turn it around.

Can you clarify how GSM standard is a software patent and if it really is patented. AFAIK, GSM was an European thing and I thought software couldn't be patented in Europe, atleast now very easily. I could be wrong though.

Re:Powerful ally

[pieterh]

Software patents are granted by the tens of thousands in Europe by the EPO and it's just national courts that tend (but not always) to reject them. Telecoms patents have tended to be upheld by courts much more often because they have (superficially) a industrial character that makes them different from 'pure software' patents. This is the rationale. Of course GSM is pure software.

Simply do a Google search for "gsm patent", it's pretty clear the impact these patents have, which is mainly lawsuits.

The GSM standard is owned much the same way the MPEG standard is owned, and licensed under the same kind of 'reasonable and non-discriminatory' terms. It is a very heavily patented standard and (IMO) for this reason has been very slow to evolve once it was defined.

Re:Do they care?

[nurb432]

Its not quite that bad, but yes, stalling the case for a year has gained them much more revenue in the country than the 65M fine. Its just consider a 'cost of doing business'.

We have a radio station in town that was similar. They would regularly violate FCC broadcast power and obscenity rules. However, the extra distance ( power ) and listeners ( obscenity ) far outweighed the fines they incurred and just made jokes about it ( on air even ). The process continued for years until they were top dog in that market and didnt need to do it anymore.

Is this the patent?

[tuomas_kaikkonen]

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-a dv.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=(%22Amado%3B+Carlos% 22.INNM.)&OS=IN/

Re:Good-"/." wisdom.

[kjart]

you assume slashdot is a hive mind

You mean that borg picture doesn't represent the average slashdot reader?!

Are you sure?

[sane?]

Are you sure this is the patent in question?

I've skimmed through the vast extent of it and some points arise:

1. it should never have got accepted in the first place, its a piece of software, written as patent
2. it references Microsoft FoxPro as something it works within, which both dates it and calls into question the Access/Excel claims
3. its a mess of AI, Genetic algorothms, decision support, data mining and virtually every other buzzphrase in the known universe
4. it describes a level of intelligent action on input data such as I've never seen in a Microsoft application

If this is really the PoS that $65m is built on, I'm in the wrong game.

sixty five mill...

[seven of five]

The High Price of Innovation!

Licensor has, by definition, a monopoly

[fritsd]

About your point "why can't MS be forced simply to license ...":

AFAIK there are no limits under patent law to what the licensor (mr. Amado) can ask for a license. He also isn't obliged to sell a license to MS if e.g he doesn't like them; after all, he has been granted a monopoly (for 20 years) to use his "invention".

If he decides to charge e.g. $200 per copy of Microsoft Office, what is Microsoft to do? their only recourse is to either tell their customers to downgrade to a new version of MS Office with that "invention" excised, or pay Amado a lump sum of several billion dollars.

Welcome to patent law. Now do you see why software patents are such a bad idea?

That is not a reasonable summary of the patent

[njdj]

If that were all that the patent said, Microsoft's team of top lawyers would have ripped it to shreds in seconds. The fact is that Claim 1 just describes a component, for which no originality is claimed. The essence of the patent is that it takes a bunch of things, none of which are novel, and combines them in a way which is claimed to be novel. The patent itself says "its individual elements respond to prior art in the following areas: decision-support software and executive information systems, expert systems and expert system building tools, ..." and it cites 7 examples of prior art just in the area of decision-support software.

The patent is bad because it is a software patent. But if software patents are allowed, then combining known elements in a new way qualifies for a patent, because there is over 100 years of precedent in awarding patents for just that in other fields.

Re:That is not a reasonable summary of the patent

[Halo1]

If that were all that the patent said, Microsoft's team of top lawyers would have ripped it to shreds in seconds. The fact is that Claim 1 just describes a component, for which no originality is claimed.

That is plain wrong. Every single claim is a granted monopoly, regardless of the number of the claim and of whether it's an independent or dependent claim.

The essence of the patent is that it takes a bunch of things, none of which are novel, and combines them in a way which is claimed to be novel. The patent itself says "its individual elements respond to prior art in the following areas: decision-support software and executive information systems, expert systems and expert system building tools, ..." and it cites 7 examples of prior art just in the area of decision-support software.

The claims are the granted monopolies, regardless of what the rest of the patent says. And each claim on its own must be patentable subject matter, new, and useful in the US (in Europe, it's non-obviousness and industrial applicability instead of usefulness, but in practice it all largely amounts to the same thing).

The patent is bad because it is a software patent. But if software patents are allowed, then combining known elements in a new way qualifies for a patent, because there is over 100 years of precedent in awarding patents for just that in other fields.

I honestly wonder what the new way is in this case. And while what you say here in this last paragraph is 100% correct, it immediately demonstrates one of the core problems of software patents: this is exactly what programmers, just like mathematicians, do all day.

Re:That is not a reasonable summary of the patent

[smittyoneeach]

Perhaps there is no way to 'fix' the system. Like a madman, it just needs to spiral out of control until everyone, including its benefactors and proponents, realize that it's untenable.

Re:That is not a reasonable summary of the patent

[smittyoneeach]

So, near the point where the system achieves total statis, somebody is sued off the planet for trying to publish a text editor, and you have an Information Age equivalent of the French Revolution.
"They have no Operating System? Let them use Emacs."
-- R. Marie Stallmanette, shortly before dropping a significant percentage of her height.

Re:That is not a reasonable summary of the patent

[Ohreally_factor]

And then what happens? The outraged villagers kill the patent system with pitchforks and torches?

Re:That is not a reasonable summary of the patent

[smittyoneeach]

In some political way, yes.

Holy balls, Eben Moglen is a deep thinker: Visionary Keynote

Re:That is not a reasonable summary of the patent

[smittyoneeach]

>But the masses aren't starving

Some would argue that DRM counts for intellectual starvation, but I'm talking here of a major "Welcome to Your New Patent Suppository Overlords" meltdown, involving vast cash and minimal substantial case.

Re:That is not a reasonable summary of the patent

[Ohreally_factor]

But don't you see the problem with using torches? The patent system is frightened and angered by fire! Instead, we should try to soothe the patent system with soft music and treat it with kindness.

Re:That is not a reasonable summary of the patent

[smittyoneeach]

"This patent system needs a simultaneous visit from every role Jack Nicholson ever played"

</joker face>

Convergent N-GEN and Unisys

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, all they had to do was use an NGEN based workstation and the software which allowed this, long before MS had office, between a spreadsheet and a database. Either a lazy prior art search, or them unwilling to look at long forgotten software - like Digitals all-in-one office, say. Compuware bought up a mainframe based spreadsheet, that allowed their funky and proprietary database to do similar. MS using CP/M software for prior art - well maybe not.

Let's hope...

[Pig Hogger]

Let's hope that maybe now, Microsoft will put all it's weight behind scrapping software patents altogether???

Re:Is this why Gates stepped down?

[dreamlax]

a) That's a potential $65m they could have used for marketing... yeah I know, each department is funded differently etc etc, but a $65m loss is a $65m loss no matter how you look at it. Funding would have to be cut somewhere, unless they have a fund for lawsuits that stretches more than $65m (which wouldn't surprise me). b) I think it would. Vista's launch is all flaky... when's it going to happen? What exactly are the final features? Will it run on a majority of the PCs people currently own? Who knows? Not them... apparently*. The Microsoft Corp is beginning to crumble a bit more every year since it's peak with Windows 2000 and XP*. Now with so much competition and with excellent marketing from Apple (with their PC/Mac ads, hahaha they're so funny), as well as the typical free OSs like Linux and FreeBSD, MS need all the money they can get. Bill can see it's not going to happen any time that he can be bothered waiting, so he's quitting while he's ahead like a smart man. It wasn't this $65m that caused him to resign, it was the fact that MS's profit is slowly diminishing*, and this $65m is just further evidence that they won't be able to stand strong forever. * facts are not verified, just assumed

Ballmer's Comments

[BlueScreenOfTOM]

When reached for comment, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer stated "Carlos Armando Amado is a fucking pussy. I've done it before and I'll do it again... I'm going to Fucking Kill(TM) Carlos Armando Amado!" He then hurled a chair in the general direction of Guatemala.

steal now, pay a low low price later

[a_greer2005]

If they would have licenced this, he would be looking at a hell of a lot more than $9m since '93...$9m is nothing when they are making a few billion on Office each year!

Bad

[Descalzo]

The problem here is that they had to pay the guy 65 million quetzales, which comes to like 2 bucks American.

Bad Summary

[RackinFrackin]

The summay isn't accurate. FTA:

The appeals court said it would let the lower court decide how much, if any, of escrow funds should go to Amado. ...

Morrison & Foerster said it is hoping that the federal court will award Amado further damages for continuing infringement, out of an escrow account that now has more than $65 million in it.

"We are hopeful that the District Court will now award Mr. Amado substantial monies from that escrow account when the matter is returned to the court."

evil yet good

[m874t232]

I think the patent is of dubious validity; it's basically a patent on applying a class of welll-known technologies to relational databases instead of in-memory databases. It doesn't contain any significant intellectual insights.

Microsoft got targeted by this patent because they have money. But, in the end, that's good: Microsoft has been such a big proponent of "intellectual property protection" in recent years that they should realize that they have a lot to lose themselves from bogus patent claims, probably more than any of their competitors. Let's hope they'll change their lobbying as a result of such claims.

(Incidentally, this is a US patent case; the only thing Guatemalan about it is the inventor.)

Have to side with Microsoft here

[Myria]

Ready to get -1 flamebait...

Nobody should get pushed around by stupid patents, and that includes your enemies. Don't side against someone simply because you don't like them. It's in your best interests to defend Microsoft here...

Melissa

Re:Have to side with Microsoft here

[Mr. Hankey]

The best way to get rid of software patents is for those who generate a lot of them to get burned many, many times until their own patents make them significantly less than they lose in cases such as these. They're pushing software patents in Europe, and they're not exactly trying to get rid of them here. It's not strictly speaking because some people don't like Microsoft, although I'll admit I'm not fond of Windows. I like and use Amazon.com, but I think the one click patent is just ridiculous.

Bill Gates... Charity...

[skeeterbug]

how can i take this guy seriously when he steals ideas and tries to beat the little guy into submission? charity starts with your personal day to day actions - a lesson still not learned by some folks. and billy g wonders why folks are so cynical of him wanting to portray himself as a decent, giving person. hey, i give him credit for giving - and getting others to give to his foundation so he can give OPM, too. but i also hae to shout out when he's stealing and beating down honest business people, too.

Submittor Failed to RTFA

[magicchex]

FTFA:

Morrison & Foerster said it is hoping that the federal court will award Amado further damages for continuing infringement, out of an escrow account that now has more than $65 million in it.

and

In June 2005, an Orange County, Calif., jury awarded Amado $6.1 million, ruling that Microsoft's method of linking its Access database and Excel spreadsheet infringed on Amado's technology.

The original fine was 6.1m, not 9m, while the current one has NOT been set at 65m. Seems "Spy Der Mann" didn't read the short article before submitting.

This is one of those crap patents

[fatdog789]

Let me get this straight: the guy patented a method of using the MS APIs to move data between two of their own products? So...basically, he used another companies intellectual property to create his own intellectual property of a feature they were probably going to add themselves later? This ranks up there with patenting business ideas. If Apple had been on the losing end, this place would be filled with outrage at the patent system (ie, the Creative suit).

Yeah

[Mark_MF-WN]

Yeah, isn't America supposed to be big on capital punishment? If the most extreme form is good enough for children and the mentally disabled, I'd think Microsoft's management would definitely qualify for at least a good caning in the public sqaure. Does Washington even have public sqaures? That would be a great make-work project: public squares for canings. It would also stimulate the local market for canes. A few sets of stocks wouldn't hurt either; those guys at SCO might qualify for a week in stocks. And there could be a law stating that members of congress have to spend a month in a suspended metal cage for each campaign promise they fail to keep. Suspended cages -- oh what the middle ages can teach us about justice.

Re:Yeah

[aevan]

I think you're meaning corporal punishment? Capital punishment tends to be a little extreme, but corporal punishment just might work.

At the very least you could air it and get revenue...pretty sure a Pay-per-view caning of Bill Gates would garner a large audience.

Re:Yeah

[alphamugwump]

When will they learn that hanging's the only way to deal with these people?
-- Vernon Dursley

Because of 35 USC 271

[kansas1051]

"Why should USERS pay to upgrade to a new version?"

35 USC 271: "...whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent."

If the users don't upgrade, they also infringe the patent and can be sued individually for patent infringement. Microsoft has no legal obligation to indemnify its customers (unless they entered into some sort of special agreement to do so).

Re:Bill Gates... Charity...

[zenhkim]

My sentiments exactly. Seeing Bill Gates pushing himself in the media as the ultimate humanitarian benefactor (cover of Time with Melinda Gates and Bono Vox, anyone?) makes me want to laugh or puke. Or laugh and puke. Or laugh until I puke....

Reminds me of the old "Bill Cosby Himself" film, showing The Cos at the top of his standup comedy form, where in one sketch he explains to his kids why their grandparents (Cosby's mother and father) are so affectionate and generous towards them: [paraphrasing] "You are not looking at two selfless and loving people, kids. You are looking at two selfish and aging people *who are desperately trying to get into heaven!!*" [cue uproarious laughter]

Gates has been trying for quite some time to repaint himself as a serious, concerned philanthropist. My problem with him isn't that he's doing good things; it's that he's doing those good things for bad reasons.

"And he's buying himself a stairway to heaven...."

Condemning Software patents in the early 90's...

[Spy der Mann]

We have to take into account the time in which it was patented. We're talking about the times when there wasn't Windows 95. Actually Windows 3.1 was just released. The internet wasn't used in home PC's but computer depts in colleges, and Mosaic wasn't invented yet. The Pentium processor was in the works, and so was Linux. The newsgroup comp.os.linux had just been proposed.

In that time, the concept of Open Source wasn't used yet, it was only known in certain circles. For the other 99.9% of us, all we had was SHAREWARE. Try before you buy, nag screens, and the like. At that time, trade secrets were the rule.

IMO, it's just not fair to judge someone for patenting a software idea in the early 90's, before the internet became mainstream. It was just another era.

Re:I have trouble with "all patents bad"

[Hymer]

That is correct. The problem right now is that patents hurt more than they help and therfore the whole idea is generally bad. If the system haven't been misused and foobared it would not have been bad.

But MS Access did not exist in 1990?

[milkasing]

"In 1990 Carlos Armando Amado filed a patent for software which helped transfer data between Excel spreadsheets and Microsoft's Access database using a single spreadsheet." MS Access was only released in 1992 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Access), so how did Carlos Armando Amado develop a process that allowed the products to be compatible before that time?

Re:Bill Gates... Charity...

[Javaman59]

I won't speculate on why Gates is giving so much to charity, but I agree with you, and the parent, that it doesn't compensate for so many illegal and/or immoral business practices over the years.

Insightful?!?! ... more like +5 Funny...

[kbs]

If it isn't funny independently, try reading it to yourself in a British accent. And if that doesn't work for you try Singaporean.

yes

[Mark_MF-WN]

Ah yes, a very important distinction. Although it is ironic that a nation so willing to execute anyone and everyone would flinch away from a simple caning -- and positively recoil in horror when another nation does to some punk what his own parents should already have.

Re:Bill Gates... Charity...

[Xuranova]

Could you cry any more? He gives billions to causes to actually help those who need help and that doesnt compensate for the people he beat in the race to make money? HA. Could you be more holier than thou? You don't like Bill because you probably don't like MS. He is one of the best buisnessmen in the world and has probably done more for the computing world than those he crushed would have. He is doing what Rockefellers and Morgans of yesterday coudln't quite do: beat the governments and other companies at their own game and well practically any game they want to play. I'll give the EU credit though, they are putting up a fight.

Re:Is this why Gates stepped down?

[kjart]

I'm pretty sure Microsoft has had double digit revenue growth for many years (including the past several). Microsoft has been bringing in over 10 billion a quarter recently, I believe. They are spending more right now, though. A lot of it is investing into new products like Live, etc that are expensive investments but could payoff in the long run.

Tell them to "come round & watrch a movie"

[DrSkwid]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bhopal/40377 03.stm

http://www.bitenova.nl/tt/l294d

Re:Tell them to "come round & watrch a movie"

[thelost]

thanks very much i appreciate this. i'm gonna download it and upload to google video and youtube.

Re:Do they care?

[pommiekiwifruit]

Sounds like the (former) Sunday Trading Laws in the UK - hardware stores would open on sundays and pay the fines as a (relatively small) cost of business.

6 million, 65 million...

[alexo]

This is just the cost of doing business.

Re:Condemning Software patents in the early 90's..

[dreadclown]

For those of us who ran Amigas in the late 1980s and early 1990s (and there were more than 0.1% of us), there were Fish Disks which usually contained source for the included programs. Early disks were mostly full of ports from comp.unix.sources, but there was lots of original material also.

Re:Is this why Gates stepped down?

[dreamlax]

Much of their profit would either be contractual corporate licensing, or wholesale OEM distribution to companies like Dell. One bank in New Zealand use Windows-based ATMs (namely Kiwibank). They run Windows 2000 and connect to a server via Terminal Services [and believe it or not, they play ding.wav upon dispensing your cash!]. If 500 ATMs are deployed throughout the country, that's 500 licenses for Windows 2000 and 500 user licenses for Terminal Services (not to mention Server side and database software). This excludes any on-going support costs/contracts they may have with Microsoft. Still, the amount of money that this bank paid Microsoft (even though it's not like banks don't make a lot of money) is huge compared to what a consumer pays for an OEM copy of Windows/Office. It doesn't stop there though, MS Volume Licensing is contracted, and in most instances, they send you the latest software with x amount of licenses for a rather undulating but nevertheless large fee per year. This is why their figures are still rather attractive. My gut feeling is that Vista will be a huge loss. It will turn out like Sega did. Sega used to make leading consoles and now they develop and produce games for what used to be their competitors. Poor old Sega. OK, OK, it won't be exactly the same as Sega, but that's what I'm hoping for.