Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Copies Idea, Admits It, Then Patents It
An anonymous reader writes "BlueJ is a popular academic IDE which lets students have a visual programming interface. Microsoft copied the design in their 'Object Test Bench' feature in Visual Studio 2005 and even admitted it. Now, a patent application has come to light which patents the very same feature, blatantly ignoring prior art."
If Microsoft get this patent, which from previous granted software patents doesn't seem unlikely, this again shows that software patents do not deserve the name "patent".
A patent used to be something that had invented something new, if whatever they had come up with was already out in the open and common knowledge then there a patent could not be granted.
So many things have been patented late, as far as I know these patents did now show up until a few years ago, yet all kinds of things that has been out in the open has been patented.
Software patents doesn't seem to have anything to do with who invented anything, it is about who first comes up with patenting something and get the application in.
So far I have never heard a sensible argument for why software patents is a good thing. It doesn't look like the big companies that keep on filing these patents would stop developing because there was no such thing as a software patent, they did so long before software patents would ever show up. I haven't heard of a single case where the lone programmer (inventor?) gets a patent for some smart code he invented and the big companies will pay him for his efforts. All that I heard of is big companies (or maybe small companies that invent nothing but has made it their business to file patents for things that already exist) that have asked money from another big company because of these patents.
That this is no longer a world of great men, but a world of committees.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Vote with your money against such business practices, use competitive products.
The whole purpose of publishing patent applications was so that people could submit prior art to the examiner.
So, if you care, and if you think you have prior art, submit it to the examiner.
That's the final straw. How feasible would it be to take the USPTO to court for not fulfilling their chartered duty and as a result causing millions of dollars of damage? There have been liability suits against the government, I think. How is this one different?
They will do whatever they think they can get away with... and more. They always have and they always will. Their patent people know quite well what patents are for and what the rules are. They do it anyway. I think if it can be shown through some sort of evidence that they were compelled to files these patents by some sort of directive, that they should actually be barred from filing any further patents if not forever, then for a specific and damaging amount of time. Abusers of 'the system' should be blocked from using the system.
As it happens, Visual Studio Express is a free download from Microsoft. Having recently visited a college with my high school aged son I learned that the students in the Computer Science department all used Studio Express for their school projects. So I think ascribing this behavior to "corporate greed" may be reaching a bit. In fact, the author of the blog laments the fact that they (BlueJ) are only trying to educate, not make money. Given that, they should be happy that their ideas have been adopted and given much wider exposure via Visual Studio. Perhaps their motives are not so pure and they now see their chance at big bucks from the big, rich nasty corporation?
If it were Microsoft company policy to steal ideas that are plainly in the public domain and then patent them, a company with Microsoft's money pile would be the target of thousands of these types of accusations, and rightly so. Rather, I suspect this transgression is the result of some overzealous individuals, perhaps trying to meet patent quotas or gain some upward mobility in an enormously large corporation where it is hard to get noticed. Regardless, should Microsoft ever take the next step and go after BlueJ, I will have to eat these words, because that truly would be an unforgivable act.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
If no one has patented it yet, I want to patent patenting - everyone who wants to patent something, come to me first... :-)
The number of downright stupid patents is not summed up by the words "sliped through". Sure they my be overworked and under paid. But toys that are fuled with farts, sticks to entertain dogs, or "one click" online crapola. Its stupid to assume thats novel, inventive or anything other than plain stupid.
There is no cost to the patent office for granting patents that are stupid. There is no or little cost to the applicant for appling for a stupid patent. Thats the problem.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Yes, this is evil. But you're underestimating the problem if you think it's just Microsoft or that we can stop it by reigning in a single company. Apple does the same thing, for example, as do many other companies.
The only solution is a total overhaul of the patent system.
(As for the BlueJ feature itself, I'm not exactly sure what's supposed to be new about it anyway. People have been doing that kind of testing since the days of Smalltalk.)
I'm not surprised. Seems like standard Microsoft behavior.
/. behavior.
I'm also not surprised that you went off topic and mentioned Linux and OS X just to get modded up. Seems like standard
An apt analogy. Someone with a crappy patent can still "win" if they have a dominating chip advantage over an opponent that doesn't have so many chips and can't afford to go all in.
Except that surely in filing the patent someone had to say "I invented this".
If the person implementing the feature didn't write the code then they can't.
If the person who implemented the feature just followed a spec then they can't
If the person who wrote the spec "invented" it by copying other people's suggestions then they can't.
The applications lists Goenka; Gautam; (Hyderabad, IN) ; Das; Partho P.; (Hyderabad, IN) ; Unnikrishnan; Umesh; as the inventors so they've declared they invented it. So what did they do that they think is patent worthy?
I'd hardly call that recent. Since then Microsoft has asserted that Linux violates Microsoft "Intellectual Property" but has declined to specify what IP that would be exactly. I don't think anyone would claim that's to help patent reform.
This current incident also reeks of foul play, and Microsoft is going to have to turn around pretty quickly and say "Look how stupid the patent office is for giving us this patent," lest they look bad for the incident. If Microsoft is still trying for patent reform, it seems to me they'd be better off targeting ridiculous patents held by other entities.
That said, here's what I think might have happened.
That's my theory, anyway. It goes to show that there's a perverse incentive for large corporations to have a system of information hiding so that it can later have plausible deniability about this kind of thing.
We were talking about Integrated Development Environments, and out of nowhere you mention how you hope people will change the Operating System they use. If you had stuck to RealBasic and Eclipse, then you would have been on topic.
After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
- The Tao of Programming
Do we really need a patent system?
Oh, I understand the purpose - The purpose is to allow someone who developes a new technology to be able to make the research costs back by having a monopoly, thereby encouraging innovation.
But, I see two situations:
1. The new invention is so clear an obvious that there is no effort at all to reverse engineer it when it comes on the market. (i.e. Sporks, intermittent windshield wipers, etc.)
2. The new invention is technically sophisticated, and requires significant effort to reverse engineer.
In case one, we probably don't want those obvious types of things patented anyway. In case two, even if there is no patent, the person will have a monopoly while other companies reverse engineer the product, tool up for production, etc.
I just don't think that people are going to stop innovating because there are no longer patents. In fact, I think it will ACCELERATE innovation. A company won't be able to develop a product, patent it, and just rake in the bucks from their monopoly anymore - They will have to make constant improvements to be ahead of the curve.
In addition, maybe there should be stiff penalties for filing patents in bad faith, that is, filing a patent with knowledge of prior art, hoping that the PTO doesn't catch it. It seems that many patents nowadays could fall under this category. The test for "knowledge of prior art" could be broadened to include obvious prior art.
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
I thought that the idea of a defensive patent wasn't to protect yourself from getting sued for that invention, but to be used as a bargaining chip in case you get sued for a different patent infringement. That way a company with a huge patent portfolio (such as IBM) is able to negotiate a cross-licensing agreement with any company that may be inclined to sue them for patent infringement. Of course it doesn't protect against patent trolls who have no need to license anybody else's patents since they don't actually produce anything....
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
This might be an acceptable situation for some businesses if they did not have to pay for the Microsoft-certified "professionals" to come fix their installations when the OS gets fried by malware, viruses, adware, spyware, and/or patches and "updates". Not to mention the costs of trying to relicense software if a piece of hardware goes out.
The real cop-out is saying that there are no alternatives.
3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
So now a company can try this:
1) Submit obvious idea for patent.
2) Have a "third party" submit prior art. A shoddy version so that it is easily dismissed.
3) Get the patent.
If any trial happens, try to get the opponent's prior art thrown out by proving it is related to the prior art that had been previously submitted.
Of course, I have to wonder if this would ran afoul of any conspiracy or fraud type laws.