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."

Comments

Patents and Perjury

[NZheretic]

To quote Bruce Perens' 2006 State of Open Source press conference

Perjury:

When one applies for a patent, an oath is sworn. The penalty for falsehoods under that oath [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/ usc_sec_18_00001001----000-.html] in theory - is currently 5 years imprisonment, or a fine, or both. That's in theory. Now, let's talk about practice. At the meeting, Robert Clark, Deputy Director of the Office of Patent Legal Administration, said that there _was_ a patent perjury case: in 1974, and that one comes along every 25 years or so. Yet, we are aware of, for example, a much more recent patent in which the claims included verbatim text of a published paper by a researcher not connected with the applicant. And there are examples like Microsoft's two-click patent, in which there does not seem to have been any excuse for the filer to have been unaware of prior art. There's a strong financial incentive for the unscrupulous to eavesdrop on the open discussion lists of standards organizations or Open Source projects and to make pre-dated patent filings with that information, another form of perjury.

My premise in bringing this up is that there does not seem to be any sense of peril for those who game the system. The worst that can happen to a perjurer is that his patent claim is denied, and he can get a continuation from the patent office and eventually get the patent anyway. Contrast this to how courts treat perjury in non-patent matters: impeachment of a witness for unreliable testimony is often followed by prosecution for perjury and a lengthy jail sentence.

This creates a quandry for the patent examiner, because the total lack of enforcement against perjury means that the examiner should not assume that any patent application has been made in good faith. That examiner might not get a whole day in which to evaluate a patent application, and the fact that we can't rely on the applicant telling the truth makes a job with an impossible time constraint even more preposterous.

Perjury is not a victimless crime: it creates intellectual _poverty_ because its victims will be unjustly denied use of technology covered by a patent claim that, in general, they can't afford to litigate.

In some cases, the perjurer is hiding behind an attorney or a patent agent who believes in the honesty of the claim. But the applicant should be counseled on the peril of perjury in making an application, and the peril should be real.

Today's policy seems to be denial that a problem exists. I submit that improving software patent quality should improve the active pursuit of perjurers: referral of applications from an examiner to a criminal investigator during examination or re-examination, and we must carry that process through to conviction on a regular basis.

This is something that the U.S. Patent Office can do without changing a single law. The law-enforcement authorities exist, the public sympathy is there for enforcement against white-collar crime, nobody's whining that Ken Lay got in trouble. So, United States Patent Office, let's hear an annoucement that you are going to be vigilant about referring perjurers for criminal enforcement, more than four times a century.

Re:Sick Software "Patents"

[Dufftron 9000]

For $180 you can submit the reference to the USPTO to make sure they see it. I fully preemptively agree that paying sucks, but unfortunately it is your only course of action if you actually care about it.

How-to submit the reference: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/document s/appxr_1_99.htm

Burden of Patent on the Patenter

[Doc Ruby]

This kind of patent abuse should be remedied with action against the abuser. At the very least the patent attorneys should be barred from filing or working on patents for a period of at least 10% of the duration of the patents they are abusing. And the filer (eg. Microsoft), if guilty of conspiracy to abuse (provable by repeated offenses) should be barred from filing or working on patents for a similar period.

That kind of consequences would force the filers to carry most of the responsibility for researching prior art and other patent invalidators, rather than the incompetent/overloaded PTO. And weed out many of the crooked patent lawyers who make money regardless of how badly they construct the artificial government monopolies they attempt to create.

Re:Go To The Source

[Dufftron 9000]

Aside from the fact that this is an APPLICATION and not a GRANTED Patent? What are you going to charge them with? Allowing someone to file a patent application? If it gets granted, then by all means go nuts on them, but if the reference is easy to find it will likely get rejected.

Microsoft is not a single entity

[Per Abrahamsen]

Except in the legal sense, Microsoft is not a single entity. It is a collection of people who does not always know what each other do.

The story seems to go like this:

BlueJ becomes popular in academia. When Microsoft ask people in academia which new features they would like to see in Visual Studio, naturally they suggest some of the features that makes BlueJ popular.

Now some people from Microsoft gets assigned to implement this new feature, and for extra credit also write a patent application (or submit the idea to the people who write the patent application).

Later, another person from another subdivision, who happen to be an active blogger, get wind of the BlueJ people are angry that Visual Studio has a new feature copied from BlueJ without acknowledgment. So the blogger find out that it was most likely BlueJ that inspired the academicians to suggest the feature, and acknowledge the fact.

And now, because people think of Microsoft as a single entity, they are angry because Microsoft both patent the idea, and at the same time acknowledge where it came from.

Re:Sick Software "Patents"

[lymond01]

I see a website which takes and publicly sums donations from people using Paypal, to collect money to combat bad patents. The sie could allow people to vote on which dodgy patents the money will go towards combatting.

I should so patent that idea.

Re:Sick Software "Patents"

[echinda]

Uhh - apparently you wandered in from an alternate universe. The RIM case has been debated ad nauseum on /. but one thing is clear - Campana's "heirs" (which in bizarro universe apparently is the word for lawyers) got a payout that is in no way proportionate to Campana's contributions to the world. No one believes that Campana's inventions added one iota of knowledge to the process that ended up with RIM selling Blackberries. Campana's attorn"heir"s just got incredibly lucky that Campana won the race to file in a moronic patent system.

And that is a bizarre thing to be trumpeting as a laudable achievement. ... oh yeah ... bizarro world .. backwards is forwards ... I get it now ... you were just exhibiting a sly and subtle wit. Well played my friend, well played indeed.

Re:Sick Software "Patents"

[Anonymous Coward]

Reform of the patents system? By this i hope you mean "throw out software patents".

The patent system was setup to encourage invention, and give incentives for people to make their work public. Patents are only needed in areas in which invention or innovation are lacking, or are regarded with to much secrecy so as the industry doesn't move forward. Software is a industry where problem solving is a everyday occurrence, and there is no need to give any huge incentives to people. Software is also covered by copywrite, and is one of the few industries protected by copywrite AND patents (the only one i know of actually, but im sure there are a few others probably).

Software is not a industry of the physical world, in which invention needs encouragement, the entire idea of software requires the ability to solve problems, to do things not done before, and overall, to innovate. If a company wants to succeed in software, then they must produce software that keeps on innovating, or they will soon fall behind and customers will then jump to some other software company to get the services they need.

When patents get involved, things go bad. Patents give inventors incentives by giving them a temporary monopoly on their patented idea, forbidding other companies from taking that idea without permission, or until the patent expires. This monopoly immediately discourages innovation within the claims of the patent due to the government approved (thus legally binding) monopoly that cant be removed. Normally, this downside is outweighed by the benefits of the invention within the public domain, once the patent expires, the monopoly ends, and the patent falls into the public domain for any use.

The need for invention is the key to patents. Monopolies granted by patents is a big turnoff to innovation, and this must be remembered when deciding what should or should not be allowed to be patented. Software is already protected by copywrites, also important to remember. Software requires innovation, something patents discourage in the short term (short being the patent expiration term), in the long term, does the software industry really benefit from patents? The answer would be no. Software patents only cover ideas used in software, not actual software. The ideas used would have been created by the need for them by a programmer. Sooner or later, some other programmer would have also come up with the same ideas. Not only that, but software patents try to be generic as possible, they don't just cover implementation, but the whole idea of something. This is what kills innovation in software. Without patents, innovation will flourish as companies wont be scared to death about coming under fire by patents, allowing them to innovate and move the industry as a whole forward. Without software patents, the industry will not suffer from a lack of invention, as stated, the industry requires it just to exist, and if a company did decide "hey, without patents, why should i invent anything?", with will soon find themselfs in a world of hurt when their customers start switching to other software makers (hey, just look what happened to Microsoft and Mozilla, Microsoft won the browser wars with Netscape, and from then on didn't work on IE, Mozilla meanwhile caught up to IE and even surpassed it, forcing Microsoft to update their browser in fear of losing even more people to Mozilla/Firefox and other browsers gaining headway.).

Competition is good in industries, and in the software industry, you compete and succeed by inventing (yes, success is also being bought out by other companies). As noted by Microsoft, without competition, why even bother innovating and inventing? Patents remove competition, and in a industry who's main goal is to innovate and invent, removing competition is what makes companies sit on their ass.

Beware of Submitting Prior Art

[RallyDriver]

If you do, and as is typical the patent office drops the ball and issues the patent, then that prior art is lost forever to you as an anti-patent defence, and cannot be used in a court case.

This is why companies rarely challenge inappropriate patent filings via the USPTO, and save prior art until they need it in a court of law to challenege enforcement of a bad patent, so they can have it argued by their own experts.

The system is broken in many ways, this is just one more.

Re:Sick Software "Patents"

[Haeleth]

in the US we consider a corporation to be a "corporate personhood". So a corporation is practically indistinguishable from a person under our laws.

Actually, there are many differences:

• Corporations cannot be sentenced to death or sent to jail. Humans cannot be ordered to be split up.
• Corporations do not have the vote.
• Corporations pay different taxes.
• Corporations cannot hold passports or driving licenses.
• Corporations cannot marry or adopt children.
• Corporations do not have to have been incorporated for 21 years before they are permitted to purchase alcohol, nor do they have to have been incorporated for 14-18 years before they are permitted to screw their customers.