Microsoft Retracts Patent

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft has retracted their recent controversial patent application. The story was first brought to light by Slashdot on Saturday. Today, Jane Prey of Microsoft announced the retraction on the SIGCSE (Special Interest in Computer Science Education) mailing list. 'Many thanks to the members of the community that brought this to my attention — and here's the latest. The patent application was a mistake and one that should not have happened. To fix this, Microsoft will be removing the patent application. Our sincere apologies to Michael Kölling and the BlueJ community.'"

Comments

Moral is complicated

[chriss]

I have a tendency to believe that humans can err, but are basically good. And even Microsoft consists of humans. So my first reaction was "Oh good, they are not as soulless as we believe, this was an honest mistake." That option had already been pointed out during the discussion on slashdot as a problem within their process:

1. Microsoft collects suggestions from different sources
2. Someone suggests the BlueJ functionality
3. Someone extracts a list of features that should actually be implemented
4. Some developer implements the function, not knowing where it came from
5. At the end someone sees the function, attributed to the developer, does not see the BlueJ connection and suggests it for patent application, because this is the routine way to handle new ideas at Microsoft

So, an honest mistake. But this being Microsoft it took me seconds to fall into conspiracy mode. How could they have such mistakes in their process, if they care about intellectual property? Was the mistake that they didn't hide it well? Did they simply try if they can get through with this? Can an entity that consists of basically good humans be not good in the end? (I'm afraid yes). So I still cannot decide if I can trust them or not, they seem to have lied too often in the past.

Re:Moral is complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

My cynical reaction: The patent application would not have been pulled except for the written admission on the part of a Microsoft developer that the feature was copied from BlueJ.

Re:Moral is complicated

[Frosty Piss]

But this being Microsoft it took me seconds to fall into conspiracy mode.

There's no "conspiracy" about it, this is now common among most big technology corporations: Throw buckets of patent applications at the Patent Office, and see what sticks. Often the "little people" they are ripping off don't have the means to fight it, and while the other big players know it's bullshit, they find it cheaper and quicker to just pay the license. It's not just Micorsoft, they all do it.

Re:Moral is complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

So you know what happens now - MS issues a company-wide edict forbidding staff blog references to the possible origins of new functionality in their products.

Re:Moral is complicated

[sholden]

Except that three people are listed as the inventors on the patent application.

So those three must have thought they'd invented something - otherwise they lied on that application.

Or is it legal to put people's names on a patent application without asking them if what they did is actually an "invention"?

The people at both 3 and 4 have to know they didn't "invent" anything and surely the people at 5 have to ask them at some point?

Re:Moral is complicated

[no reason to be here]

No one ever thinks he or she is being evil (except for cartoonish supervillains and goth teenagers). Someone thought having another patent in MS's portfolio would be a good thing (from his/her perspective); if this person knew about the the BlueJ origins and still thought, "hey, we should patent this!" it's not because they were also thinking, "because that would make us even more evil! Muwahahaha!" but because they saw having another patent as being a good thing. inside the culture at MS, adding to the overall value of the company is likely seen as a higher good than not abusing the broken patent system.

from the vantage point of /., though, it is an honest mistake at best, or yet another example of an immoral unethical action by an evil corporation, at worst. maybe it was only that MS got caught with their hand in the cookie jar that this retraction has occurred. i hope, like you, that it was an honest mistake resulting from the multiple layers of bureaucracy that occur in a corporation as large as MS.

all of this is not to say that there is not such thing as evil, just that, even when everyone else in the world can agree that someone is evil, that evil person will not think that of him/herself that way.

Re:Moral is complicated

[Cedric Tsui]

You're totally right. Companies consist of basically good humans. But a good human within a corporation does not always do the right thing. The bottom line is so overly encompassing. It becomes commonplace to put the bottom line above morality because not choosing the best economic option will get you no end of grief from your fellow bean counters. Much more grief than some consumer down the line, some small company in another state, somebody who's life is not connected to yours. It becomes so easy to hide your face behind the corporate trademark.

From 'The Corporation'

Vandana Shiva: A corporation is not a person. It doesn't think. People in it think and for them it is legitimate to create terminator technology, so that farmers are not able to save their seeds. Seeds that will destroy themselves through a suicide gene. Seeds that are designed to only produce crop in one season. You really need to have a brutal mind. It's a war against evolution to even think in those terms. But quite clearly profifs are so much higher in their minds.

Re:Moral is complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a tendency to believe that humans can err, but are basically good.

Offtopic, but that theory of morality runs afoul fairly quickly, because it includes the word 'good', the moralists favorite word. Unfortunately, this merely shifts the question to, "What does it mean for humans to act good?" I would suppose that most people *think* they are acting good, and in my mind, that is what makes an action good or bad, that is, the intentions of the actor. Of course, the intentions of actors are perhaps some of the most-guarded secrets of humanity, probably hidden to the actors themselves in many cases. For instance, why do I get angry when sentence X is uttered? I find myself not being able to answer that in many situations.

Re:Moral is complicated

[Cheapy]

"How could they have such mistakes in their process, if they care about intellectual property?"
Not everyone has heard of BlueJ. The person(s) who wrote it might have fallen into this camp.

"Was the mistake that they didn't hide it well?"
No, incoming patents can be examined by outside parties. Microsoft knows that all patents they submit will be closely looked at by people outside of the patent office.

"Did they simply try if they can get through with this?"
You never know with these large corporations.

"Can an entity that consists of basically good humans be not good in the end? (I'm afraid yes)."
You stated earlier that you believe human beings to be basically good, but they can err. So, let's look at Ghengis Khan to answer this question (I really hope there isn't a version of Godwin's Law for Ghengis Khan. We'd be running out of people to use examples of). Ghengis Khan was a human being. Therefore according to you he is basically good, but he is allowed to err slightly. Now, this man took over a good portion of the world through military might, raping and pillaging as he went. Of course, he didn't do this alone (although that'd be highly impressive). His army also consisted of men, who being people, were basically good. It's up to you to decide if his horses were good or evil. So, seeing as how raping and pillaging is generally seen as a Bad Thing, a group of basically good people must be able to do not good things in the end. Now that I think about it, the Ghengis Khan analogy is quite fitting to Microsoft and their rise to power.

"So I still cannot decide if I can trust them or not, they seem to have lied too often in the past."
If a man is convicted and jailed for pedophile, it wouldn't matter if he cured cancer or fed the entire world: he'd always be remembered as a pedophile.

Re:Moral is complicated

[illegalcortex]

I have a tendency to believe that humans can err, but are basically good. And even Microsoft consists of humans.

I have a similar belief. However, I would more specifically word it as "Without any other information given, I have a tendency to believe a person is basically good."

For example, if you tell me that person is a member of Fred Phelp's church, I no longer believe that they fall in any category I would classify as "good." The same is true if they belonged to the Earth Liberation Front. This does not mean that this person necessarily classifies themself as "evil." In all likelyhood, they would classify themself as "good."

But working at Microsoft is a datapoint that does change my assumptions about the person. At the very least, they are willing to sacrifice their principles for money. They are willing to work at a company that knowingly and willingly acts as Microsoft does most of the time.

A similar example is Wal-Mart. When employees at a given store tries to organize a union, Wal-Mart tends to close down the store and say "well, we were already going to close it and the union drive had nothing to do with it." No matter if you think unions are a good thing or a bad thing, you can make up your own mind about whether Wal-Mart is telling the truth.

So, while Microsoft might have just made a mistake, I do not trust their word on it.

Re:Moral is complicated

[Frosty Piss]

My cynical reaction: The patent application would not have been pulled except for the written admission on the part of a Microsoft developer that the feature was copied from BlueJ.

A week or so from now, a headless body will turn up floating in Lake Washington off Madina.

Re:Moral is complicated

[kansas1051]

Each inventor listed in a U.S. patent application has to sign an oath (declaration) that states that he believes that he is the first to invent what is claimed in the patent application. So you are correct in that these Microsoft inventors were either: (1) lazy (didn't read the patent application); (2) lying (knew of BlueJ and didn't care); or (3) incompetent (didn't know what BlueJ was).

Re:Moral is complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

At Disney Internet Group, we actually receive an award if we develop something we can patent.

Re:Moral is complicated

[kansas1051]

As a follow up to my own post, inventor oaths are typically made under penalty of perjury, so that if an inventor knowingly signs a false declaration, the inventor may be punished by fine and/or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 1001.

Re:Moral is complicated

[Hatta]

I have a tendency to believe that humans can err, but are basically good. And even Microsoft consists of humans. So my first reaction was "Oh good, they are not as soulless as we believe, this was an honest mistake." That option had already been pointed out during the discussion on slashdot as a problem within their process:

Sure, an honest mistake. But what are they doing to fix their process so it doesn't happen again? If their process is prone to "honest mistakes" and they don't do anything it becomes "willful negligence".

Re:Moral is complicated

[kalleguld]

Not knowing about BlueJ hardly means an inventor is incompetent

Re:Moral is complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to play a little devil's advocate:

Nobody is going to sue MomAndPop.com for patent infringement because its not profitable. They sue the Microsofts and the Apples who have the deep pockets to shell out big settlements. With software patents being the legal quagmire that they are, the only protection these corporations have from others abusing the system is to be the patent holder themselves. So they apply for a patent and this ends in one of a few ways:

They can't get the patent because someone else has it.
They can't get the patent because it is not patentable.
They get the patent.

They've avoided legal confrontation by having the patent office identify the first case. Either of the other two cases means that they can do whatever they were planning on doing without worry of getting sued for millions upon millions of dollars.

If the "little people" are so proud of their inventions, they should patent them. If they are such great ideas they will profit from licensing fees. Willfully choosing to not use the system means willfully choosing to not benefit from the protections and advantages it was designed to offer.

Re:Moral is complicated

[Speare]

I have to say, with all the legal loops that you have to hop to work with corporate lawyers just to get a patent to the submission stage, that this is not just a simple mistake.

In other words, I definitely heard "And I would've gotten away with it, if it weren't for these meddling kids!" running through my head. Zoinks!

Re:Moral is complicated

[russ1337]

>>> "At Disney Internet Group, we actually receive an award if we develop something we can patent."

I hope that 'award' is a share of the royalties and not a plastic Mickey Mouse statue. (They still have thousands left over from the 80's you know.)

Re:Moral is complicated

[Recovering Hater]

I have a tendency to believe that humans can err, but are basically good.

And that last part is where the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Basically good!? Are you kidding me? Sure there are a lot of people that do good things running around, but mankind is not intrinsically good by any stretch. I am just going to guess that you are either:

a. very sheltered

b. very young

or c. very naive

I hope you don't find out the truth the hardway.

Re:Moral is complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not trust and therefore do not particularly like Microsoft.

Good job Microsoft. You have responded quickly and responsibly.

Since you(Microsoft) read slashdot.

A. Isn't this a questionable thing to patent.

B. Isn't this kind of weak patent bad for a industry that exists on innovation and there for bad for business.

Re:Moral is complicated

[Subliminalbits]

I believe it was Napoleon who said, "Never attribute to malice that which may be explained by incompetence."

Re:Moral is complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd go with lazy --- some dumb paperwork came over from legal and it has to be handled by the end of the week. It's 18:45 on Friday; I don't want to be here; I don't want to read this stuff; the blank signiture line is probably on the last page; there it is; signed; stuffed into intra-campus mail envelope; go-y home-y.

Re:Moral is complicated

[Mateo_LeFou]

"maybe it was only that MS got caught with their hand in the cookie jar that this retraction has occurred" ...

ya think? (Hint: how many times have they retracted a patent application *without getting caught like this ...

reminds me of all the crappy pop singers who get caught lip-syncing and *swear that on every other night of their lives they sang for real, it's just that they had a sore throat that day and ... etc. etc.

Re:Moral is complicated

[mavenguy]

You are correct. For any doubters/curious you can down load a pdf of the application documents (including the declaration signed by the inventors) here.

Re:Moral is complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

To the user who said `each applicant for a U.S. patent has to sign on the dotted line saying that they believe what they have invented is unique...' -- In even semi-large corporations, this is not always true. I have filed a patent (in automated theorem proving / program verification) while at a semi-large company and never had to sign such a thing. I did of course believe my work to be novel at the time, still do though I have issues with software patents. But it definitely is NOT the case that such an oath must always be signed. The process for filing for patents at large companies is so automatic and lawyer-centric; I remember all I did was write up the technical achievements for the patent, send them to the team of lawyers, and they produced a 150 page document within a matter of weeks with background information, all sorts of other research couching the content of the patent in context, etc.

I am against software patents in many respects, but it is a tricky game. If you aren't Microsoft, but are a semi-large software company with tons of employees and share-holders and all of that, you really *do* have to file patents regularly for your work JUST to PROTECT yourself from someone like Microsoft later developing the same thing and patenting it when you didn't. Just like with this BlueJ example. I'm finally resolved to believing that the real problem is within the *law*, smaller companies, whether they disagree with the law or not (most of us did), have to some extent play within the rules of the game to make sure they stay afloat. I hope that changes, but I think the biggest change needs to be a legal one.

Re:Moral is complicated

[j00r0m4nc3r]

I would like to hear the "inventor"'s explaination of this and why they shouldn't be prosecuted for perjury and/or fraud.
Gautam Goenka
Partho P Das
Umesh Unnikrishnan

Re:Moral is complicated

[Jonnty]

That doesn't work with software patents, as many developers (like me) find them morally objectionable or wrong for some other reason, don't have the money to do it initially, or don't have the time or skills to draw up a patent application. Also, even if they did patent it, like in this case, if they release the product under any licence (not just FOSS ones) that means it's free then re they won't make a penny from royalties.

Re:Moral is complicated

[joe slacker]

Only for the autopsy to reveal decapitation by a flying chair

Re:Moral is complicated

[Don853]

Hint: how many times have they retracted a patent application *without getting caught like this ...

I don't know. How many? Do you know, or are you just making an accusation?

Re:Moral is complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

Not knowing about BlueJ hardly means an inventor is incompetent

The implementation is nearly identical, To have not known of BlueJ would be beyond belief.

Re:Moral is complicated

[samkass]

Throw buckets of patent applications at the Patent Office, and see what sticks.

Even if BlueJ had 9 out of 10 claims of the patent covered with prior art, it's possible Microsoft could have gotten at least one original claim out of it. And considering they have lawyers on retainer for this stuff, it doesn't hurt them to try. The only thing that hurts them is if they think they'll lose sales over the hubbub.

As someone else mentioned, though, someone at Microsoft did commit perjury (even after it was retracted) by claiming to invent this feature since Microsoft engineers admitted in writing in a public forum that they were influenced by the success of BlueJ's features.

Re:Moral is complicated

[DittoBox]

XIE: Cross-Industry Extortion.

1: Develop simple and standard software ideas.
2: Patent lots of simple and standard software ideas.
3a: License lots of simple and standard software idea patents.
(OR)
3b: Send in the Litigation Army(TM) to sue them into oblivion (and/or beyond).
4: ???
5: Profit!!!

Brilliant! I think I'll patent it...

Re:Moral is complicated

[Chyeld]

With a chair embedded in the torso.

Re:Moral is complicated

[Mateo_LeFou]

alright, i'll go see if i can find actual data from the patent office's website

Re:Moral is complicated

[mike2R]

Nobody is going to sue MomAndPop.com for patent infringement because its not profitable. They sue the Microsofts and the Apples who have the deep pockets to shell out big settlements.

Patent trolls aren't going to sue MomAndPop.com, true; as you say they want money so they go for Microsoft or Apple. But Microsoft or Apple may well sue (not that it'll ever go to court) MomAndPop.com if they come up with something that could threaten established markets and business practices.

Re:Moral is complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

Not knowing about BlueJ hardly means an inventor is incompetent

Inventor of what??????????????

Some shithead who clones someone elses software is not an inventor. They are a shithead.

Re:Moral is complicated

[nexuspal]

The big guys don't pay for others patents. Instead, they cross-license patents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-licensing/), which is sharing Patent portfolios to prevent mutually assured destruction (in litigation) because every big company cannot be in business WITHOUT violating some other mega corporations patents.

The little guy does indeed get screwed over as you pointed out. Doesn't that go against the original intent of the Patent system?

Re:Moral is complicated

[kansas1051]

All inventors listed in a U.S. application must sign an oath stating that he believes himself to be the first and original inventor. I've signed several of these for my applications and they are typically part of a power of attorney or assignment (I'm sure your company made you assign the application to them). You probably don't remember what you signed because the oath isn't conspicuous (its typically a paragraph added into a document that includes dozens of other paragraphs).

The Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. 115, expressly requires that every "applicant shall make an oath that he believes himself to be the original and first inventor of the process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or improvement thereof, for which he solicits a patent; and shall state of what country he is a citizen." The Patent Office wont even review an application until you submit the oath.

Re:Moral is complicated

[zotz]

With software patents being the legal quagmire that they are, the only protection these corporations have from others abusing the system is to be the patent holder themselves. I don't believe that. The big guys could get software patents done away with in no time if they wanted to. That is my take. Naturally, I could be wrong and often am, but I doubt it in this case.

all the best,

drew

Re:Moral is complicated

[h2_plus_O]

perhaps your username is inaccurate; the 'recovering' part, in particular.

I agree with the parent; people are generally good, they're just insanely bad at judging how to fulfill their good commitments. For example, you're willing to tear down the idealistic in order to prevent them having their feelings hurt later on. That's a laudable commitment, (i.e., you're basically a good person) but in a certain sense, it accomplishes the very harm you'd like for them not to be heartbroken by (you've diminished the parent, but 'for their own good').

I hope you don't find out the truth the hardway.

The truth is that nobody knows the truth; they've only got their own particular view. There's a lot of valid angles from which to behold the same thing, and each one presents a different, but valid view. Please, don't preach the brand of 'truth' that renders its believers into paranoid, cynical haters. It's just annoying.

Re:Moral is complicated

[the_womble]

More usefully, someone who lives in the US should formally report it to whover handles cases like this.

Follow it up in writing, ask why they are not prosecuting given that the evidence is public.

Either

1) it will lead to a prosecution and a deterent for others who might do this, or
2) you will be told it is not worth prosecuting over something like this, which gives us clear evidence that the penalty of perjury is a fiction.
3) You will be ignored.

Either 1) or 2) is a useful result, 3) might be avioded with enough follow up, depending on how things work in the US.

Re:Moral is complicated

[Chris Burke]

No, there's a fourth option: They didn't know what BlueJ was, not because of incompetence but because they deliberately didn't seek it out under the express instructions of the company patent lawyer.

Since knowingly infringing a patent is treble damages, it's SOP for companies to tell their engineers not to do patent searches or other prior art searches before submitting patents or using ideas. The other half of this strategy is to patent as many things as possible. This way when you violate someone else's patent you can sit at the negotiating table and point all the patents of yours that they are also violating, the goal being to settle with a cross-licensing agreement that is more favorable to the party with the bigger pile of patents and with more key patents.

That exact mechanism of treble damages may not apply in this particular case, but I still wouldn't be surprised if it was corporate policy to not try too hard to discover prior art.

That a letter was found indicates that someone at MS did know about BlueJ, though, is probably what is actually getting them in trouble and causing them to drop the patent. Which just means they're going to enforce the policy of deliberate ignorance even more in the future.

Re:Moral is complicated

[Wolfbone]

"Nobody is going to sue MomAndPop.com for patent infringement because its not profitable. They sue the Microsofts and the Apples who have the deep pockets to shell out big settlements."

Not true. UncleAndAunt.com will sue MomAndPop.com and even BroAndSis.org. (cf. KAM v. JMRI). Out and out litigation is just the tip of the iceberg btw: far more usually, licensing fees or cessation of infringement is demanded. EvilPatentTroll.com or AnyCorp.com with an aggressive IP licensing program will also attack MomAndPop.com - especially with weak patents they would risk losing if they attacked a company large enough to fight back in Court (cf. SBCL v. Museum Tours).

"They can't get the patent because someone else has it."

Sadly, the POs are incapable even of identifying relevant prior art in there own databases, let alone the vast wealth of non-patent material in the software realm. There are many duplicate and overlapping patents.

"Either of the other two cases means that they can do whatever they were planning on doing without worry of getting sued for millions upon millions of dollars."

Sometimes yes. But Microsoft spends around $100,000,000 every year defending itself against some 30-40 patents and it just isn't possible to protect yourself from patents - not even if you have the legal resources of a Microsoft:

"If you think that's easy, then you should be aware that Microsoft tried to use an LZ77/LZRW1/etc variant, specifically designed not to infringe existing patents, in its MS-DOS V6 operating system, and ended up having to pay Stac about $80m in the resulting patent lawsuit." -- Ross Williams.

"If they are such great ideas they will profit from licensing fees."

Not necessarily. Unless they are non-practising entities, if they assert their patents against a large company, they will quite likely end up paying an offset fee in recognition of the larger company's much more extensive portfolio and, of course, lose the benefit of exclusivity of their own patents.

"Willfully choosing to not use the system means willfully choosing to not benefit from the protections and advantages it was designed to offer."

To assume that it will, as a matter of course, offer such benefits and advantages would be economically naïve. To assert that it does so would be simply fallacious.

Re:Moral is complicated

[CDarklock]

Disclosure: I work as a contractor at Microsoft.

I'm of the opinion that most software patent applications are bogus. The problem is that if you don't get your bogus claim in before the other guy, you have to spend lots of money proving you didn't steal his bogus invention.

In reality, most software "inventions" aren't really patentable. Look at the BlueJ feature in question. How else could you implement it? What other format would be even remotely understandable? It's obvious; that's pretty much the only way you could do it. So much so, in fact, that if you did invent another way to do it - you would be filing TWO patents.

But that doesn't stop people! They patent obvious crap all the time! So patents aren't just filed when you invent something, but also when you write something you think someone else could and would patent. And since most patent filings are bogus... that means anyone who is working seriously in the software industry needs to file a lot of bogus patents.

What's not clear is where exactly the line is between a patent that's bogus by nature, and a patent that's only bogus in the way every software patent is bogus.

Bogus, bogus, bogus. I like to say bogus.

Bogus!

Re:Moral is complicated

[dmadzak]

I think you all have this wrong about how it works at large companies. At my company we are told to submit a patent application for anything that seems innovative. What happens next is that a group meets and decides whether the submitted ideas are good patent candidates.

After that patent lawyers look the ideas over to ensure that there is no prior work, etc and that the idea can be patented. We then meet with the lawyers to draw up the patent application and then sign some papers.

The engineer really has no idea if it has prior work or not and are in fact told to just keep submitting ideas and let them deal with determining if an idea is patentable or not. In fact we are specifically told not to look at prior work in case we are infringing, that way if it turns out down the road that we are infringing on a patent, the company cannot be sued for triple damages.

So in summary, the engineers were
1) Not lazy - they were doing their jobs.
2) Not lying - because they shouldn't be checking if a patent is valid, that is what the lawyers are for.
3) Incompetent - because they were probably told to submit all ideas even if they suspected it might not be unique.

Re:Moral is complicated

[Rallion]

Most everybody IS good -- saying that they aren't is an error of limited perspective.

Re:Moral is complicated

[wjsteele]

There are several examples of independent inventions where the product is nearly identical. Sir Frank Whittle (UK) and Hans von Ohain (Germany) both invented jet engines on their own. Neither one knew of the other's efforts, yet, both are very similar in what they do and how they do it.

Bill

Re:Moral is complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

But working at Microsoft is a datapoint that does change my assumptions about the person. At the very least, they are willing to sacrifice their principles for money.

Or they went to work there because they figured they could make a bigger difference working on the inside than they could bitching on slashdot.
I started training testers to write exploits and put those exploits in front of the devs whose code they pwned. 6 months later, guess what? The whole org did a 'security boot camp', the result of which was XPsp2. I'm not saying I caused that singlehandedly, but I am saying that I brought a hell of a lot of pain to where it was desperately needed, and I trained dozens of others to do the same thing. The result: dev takes security much more seriously than they ever have, which is a good thing.

We each make the difference we can in the world. We do so via very different paths, and it's not always about the money. MS doesn't pay especially better than anybody else, now that the dot-com boom is history and they don't award options any more- but they do write the software that most people use. My contribution is to make that software work better than it otherwise would.

Are the Marketing and Lawyering groups here annoying? You betcha. We curse them as regularly as you do.

Re:Moral is complicated

[bram]

Everytime Microsoft does something people restart their process of assesing what happened and come to the same result: yes, they do have a hidden agenda and no, they're not thinking of the customers.
Yes they have bad motives.

Everytime though, people go through the same cycle asking themselves, did MS finally see the light?

It surprises me that this continues, again and again, over and over.

You might say: Don't cry wolf, but somehow that doesn't apply.

Re:Moral is complicated

[darkonc]

Sir Frank Whittle (UK) and Hans von Ohain (Germany) both invented jet engines on their own. They both invented jet engines, but different jet engines. This patent application was apparently little more than documentation of core parts of the Blue Jay product. Generally independent developments of similar ideas will have the fingerprints of the inventor on them. The fingerprints on this patent don't seem to be from MS.

It's like if I walk up to you in the parking lot, while you're opening your car I put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. Then when the gun jams, I ask you for a light and go on about how "Oooh, how did that thing end up in my hand? I was really just here to ask you for a light ... and the guy with the body bag goes slinking off into the back alley.

Yes, this may be innocent, but MS has a history of stealing other people's IP and claiming it as their own... Even here, we now have the second example of them trying to claim this almost-10 year old invention.

If the three people who signed on to this patent didn't know about Blue Jay, then someone higher up made an explicit decision to hide the source of the enhancement request from them. Those higher ups would have also been more likely to have seen this patent request as it went through the levels. As you go up the levels in this, the pool of possibly innocent management gets smaller and smaller.

When you have a rap sheet like Microsoft's the presumption of innocence, in a case like this, starts to look more like suspension of disbelief.

Re:Moral is complicated

[sholden]

How it works in a large company should be irrelevant, what matters is did they follow the law.

Either they invented this from scratch and it just happens to be exactly the same as something that already exists, in which case whomever didn't do the prior art search properly was incompetent. This seems unlikely given the previous public statements.

Or they implemented a design/overview/whatever given to them by someone else, in which case they didn't "invent" it and the person who gave it to them should be the listed inventor. But in that case that person must have known where the design was copied from. So that would be perjury no matter which of the two signed the form.

And this isn't hard to find prior art, this is a work of academia - there's publications galore going back a long way (such as http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/ing96objectoriented.ht ml and it's building on other things). This isn't a case of "Joe Smith did that in his ABC software (used by ten people) ages ago", this is published in academic journals. It seems a rather trivial prior art search, how does a patent lawyer manage to screw that up?

I tutored students using the object workbench in Blue a decade ago - well OK a in a couple of months it'll be a exactly a decade ago. Nice to see the "real world" catching up :)

Re:Moral is complicated

[Kanasta]

Microsoft doesn't have to worry because clearly if there was prior art, the patent office would inform Microsoft of their mistake right? Because that's what the patent office's job is. Oh...

Re:Moral is complicated

[Darundal]

So you know what happens now - MS issues a company-wide edict forbidding staff blog references to the possible origins of new functionality in their products.

Whats so funny about that? That's probably what will happen, regardless of whether this was intentional or not...

Re:Moral is complicated

[wjsteele]

Please explain what you mean by "different jet engines." There are several different types of jet engines, but both inventors produced similar centrifugal designs - a lay person would not be able to tell the difference between them. The Germans later decided to go with a different design called an Axial Flow engine, the Jumo 004, for their first production jet (Me-262) and the British stayed with the simpler and more robust centrifugal design for their first jet (the Gloster Meteor) which was powered by the de Havilland Halford H.1 (later to become the de Havilland Globlin.)

Bill

Re:Moral is complicated

[bzipitidoo]

Deterrent? The patent system and the consequences of "justice" are already a huge deterrent, must you add threats of jail time? I don't believe that the 612 billion dollar fine RIM was forced to pay was just, but at least they weren't facing the possibility of a stay in a penitentiary. The other punishment the justice system considered was the complete shutdown, and thankfully they decided that wasn't a good idea. Sure, liars should suffer consequences, but at some point the severity of the punishment is counterproductive.

Societies should strive to get the most justice with the least punishment. Punishment is expensive for everyone, even the predatory authority that gets to collect the fines. An example I keep in mind is my experience with parking at two airports, DFW and LAX. At DFW, you get a ticket with a time stamped on it when you enter, and when you leave, they compute what you owe based on the time you were in the airport. At LAX by contrast, they went with a parking meter system. You must figure out in advance how long you will need. It's tempting to play it close to the wire to save a few nickels, but if there's some problem like the flight was delayed, then you've got to run back out to the meter. Safer to overpay, perhaps. But then, the meters puprposely have limited capacity, so overpaying is sometimes not an option. If you slip up, and get caught, then you get punished hard, with a fine that is around 100 times the cost of the parking. Well, it's pretty obvious that LAX's system is designed to maximize revenue not through their regular fees but by tempting people to infringe the rules a tiny bit and nailing them when they do, or by nailing them when they accidentally break the overly fragile rules. I knew how much time I had, knew that I was on time if only barely, yet found a parking ticket on my car when I went out to add more change. So, I didn't add change, reasoning that they couldn't give me another ticket. LAX actually lost money by doing that, as I refused to pay the fine either. Many banks do this same sort of stunt-- just saw a news bite this morning about banks making debit cards default to honoring the charge when funds are insufficient, and then socking the customer with a big overdraft fee, when customers would prefer having the charge denied. Really sick when the "authority" starts moralizing to people that they "did wrong" and "made a mistake" and must "pay for their mistakes".

Another example is auto accidents. Typically, someone gets blamed. Some years ago, State Farm started a program that asked whether the road might be at fault rather than the drivers involved in any particular accident. Even further back there's Nader's famous "Unsafe at Any Speed", looking into whether the automobile could be safer. Until that watershed work, it was a knee jerk reaction to perceive the driver as being in total control, and blame the driver for losing it. If it was a mechanical prob, it was still the driver's fault for not properly maintaining the vehicle.

And that's where I feel the Intellectual Property system is now: overly regulated, expensive, punitive, monopolizable, and gameable. In short, broken. And it's all so needless. It should be possible to think without breaking the law. It should be possible to reward thinking without setting up this monstrous property rights system to do so. That judge who told the Napster defendents they had created a monster had the monster's identity all wrong-- the monster is the very concept of intellectual property, the idea that ideas can be owned.

Re:Moral is complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

You're incompetent because you don't know what I've programmed.

Re:Moral is complicated

[phookz]

To be fair, it is possible that the inventors did not know of the BlueJ functionality. It is also possible, I think, that nobody else involved in the patent process was aware of the BlueJ functionality.

A company the size of Microsoft will have a legal department - they'll be the ones responsible for putting the patent together, doing prior art searches, and filing the documents. It is conceivable, and likely, I think, that the inventors developed the concept independent of BlueJ and submitted it to the legal department. They perform a prior art search, which will probably focus mainly on existing patent and patent publications. If the keywords they use for their search don't turn up BlueJ, they won't find it. I'm not certain if BlueJ even has any patents. If not, then the most of the prior art searching will be in vain, because it won't find them anyways.

Sure, it would be nice if the inventors could search for the prior art, but that's not their area of expertise. Let's face it - it's not trivial to find out if someone else has done something before you. Sure, you can google it, but how do you ensure you search for the correct keywords? Add to that the inventors are engineers - they're probably already up to their neck in existing work and simply don't have the time to perform the searches.

It is possible that Microsoft was trying to patent something they knew had already been done, but I doubt that. I think it is more likely that the people involved with the patent didn't know that the concept had already been done.

Is this was some no-name company that tried to do this, it wouldn't even make /. - we're discussing it because it's Microsoft.

Re:Moral is complicated

[MysteriousPreacher]

You're incompetent because you don't know what I've programmed.

Anything that involves the marquee tag a spinning 'mail me' gif doesn't count as 'programmed'.

Re:Moral is complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

And you're a flaming faggot who probably couldn't program your way out of a wet paper bag.

How's that e-penis feeling now you piece of human garbage?

Re:Moral is complicated

[mpcooke3]

Small/medium players may pay up, big companies don't, and if they get sued they counter-claim.

US software patents are mainly useful for threatening small innovative startups that can't afford legal fees and don't have a massive portfolio of 'obvious' patents to counterclaim with.

Re:Moral is complicated

[CheckeredFlag]

And they have time on their side. As overloaded as the patent office is, examiners often only have a few minutes to devote to each application. This means that odds can be good that one can sneak in a duplicate patent that will be inadvertently granted.

Then there are the years it can take to contest a patent and have it revoked. Many tiny companies can't afford the legal fees to fight it nor absorb the loss of revenue during the time their idea has been stolen. Even if a tiny company can survive bankruptcy, they most likely will be forced to settle out of court or be bought by the thief (if they're lucky) with perhaps a mere "mea culpa".

In the meantime, a thief can rake in millions.

Re:Moral is complicated

[Paradise Pete]

There are several examples of independent inventions where the product is nearly identical.

I don't just mean that they achieve the same end or have the same functions, I mean the step-by-step walkthrough is nearly identical, right down to the dialog boxes.

Re:Moral is complicated

[Euler]

I'm sure most bank robbers know they are committing evil acts. So we don't need to be completely apologetic for Microsoft. Signing and submitting legal documents is something that isn't taken lightly, perjury is a big deal. As a corporation, they act as one legal entity as a person does. Just because the communication broke down between the engineering dept. and legal is no excuse.

That being said, Microsoft probably wasn't going out of its way to steal someone else's tech. It has probably just become the culture in big tech companies to wrap a patent around anything that moves. This is indicative of how badly broken the USPTO is and how devalued and poisonous patents have become. I'd just use this more as evidence against the patent environment than as a condemnation of Microsoft.

Re:Moral is complicated

[dmadzak]

We are talking past each other you are talking about the company and I am talking about the developer on the patent which is what the parent is talking about.

Developers at large companies are not supposed to look for prior work and submit all ideas to their patent board which is what they did. I am willing to believe that the developers signed in good faith that their idea was unique as far as they knew. If they did know then their are not following company policy which I am willing to bet is just like mine is. Don't search for prior work.

I agree that they need a new patent lawyer though. What an easy miss and a PR nightmare.

You also need to brush up on what constitutes a perjury charge. to be convicted of perjury you have to have had the intention (the mens rea) to commit the act, and to have actually committed the act (the actus reus)."

Let not miss my point developers if they are doing their job, didn't and shouldn't have had a clue. Is Microsoft innocent in this, don't know, don't care. I have better things to worry about.

Re:Moral is complicated

[sholden]

But that's the bit I don't understand. There is no way the developers were given a vague idea of what to implement and just happened to implement the same dialogs as bluej and use almost the same name.

Either they knew about bluej, in which case they should not have signed their name to the patent. Or they were given a design spec to implement (written by someone who knew about bluej) in which case they shouldn't have signed their name to the patent since they didn't do the inventing - they were just the code monkeys.

Of course my idea of what constitutes and invention is a few orders of magnitude above what the patent office does.

Signing a document saying you invented something when you know you didn't (because someone else gave you the spec you implemented, or you copied an existing work) seems like intent and committing to me. Of course perjury charges never happen for such things, otherwise half the IP lawyers in the US would be in jail for sending DMCA notices that are complete lies.

The patent application is marked as filed October 20, 2005. Yet there's a comment to a post on one of the "inventors" blogs dated May 22, 2005 (http://blogs.msdn.com/parthopdas/archive/2005/02/ 09/369659.aspx). So I guess he doesn't read his own blog - though he posted a comment himself later on answering a question a couple of days after it was posted (after the question was posted, which was months after the pointer to bluej was posted) so I guess he does...

Re:Moral is complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay now why tear on the guy's karma? You think he saw the one above modded 5 and decided to use the exact same joke? It obviously wasn't there when he loaded the page, and he came up with the same humor.

Ruthless mod. See that little thing in there about "concentrate on promoting, not on demoting"? Something important could have been modded up, but no.

Asshole.

Re:Moral is complicated

[the_womble]

What are the consequences of making a false claim like this? AS far as I can see, none. The RIM case is, if anything, an encouragement to patent trolls, not a deterrent.

There is a reason for requiring that the "inventor" sign under penalty of perjury: it is precisely to provide a detterent. If it is not enforced, there is not reason not to "have a try" at patenting other people's ideas.

The same applies to lots of other laws that have similar provisions (DMCA, to pick an example familiar to slashdot) for similar reasons. Fail to punish and you make the signed statements worthless.

You say liears should uffer consequences. It is clear given that 1) there are huge numbers of patents filed, 2) many are dubious, and 3) noone gets prosectued for their false claims that there are no consequences.

Re:Moral is complicated

[Frosty Piss]

But it's basically the same thing: I want to use your patents, you can use some of mine.

Re:Moral is complicated

[rtb61]

We can only hope the reason they won't be prosecuted is because they point the finger at the lying M$ executive who made them sign the piece of paper in the first place.

Re:Moral is complicated

[darkonc]

The difference I was thinking of was Axial vs centrifugal. I didn't realize that the Germans first came up with centrifugal, but it's worth noting t hat they ended up being more comfortable with the Axial.

Clearly, I'm not an aero engineer, and if both the Germans and Brits came up with centrifugal engines first, I can easily believe one of them stole it from the other -- but it still stands that they put recognizably different engines into production.

And I still stand by my point that the MS's patent is far too similar to the Blue Jay product to accept that it really was an independent creation without some sort of proof in that direction. I can see having a lot that's similar, but there comes a point of diminishing probabilities, and MS seems to have passed it.

Re:Moral is complicated

[LordSnooty]

Something to do with a chair.

Re:Moral is complicated

[somersault]

That made me laugh out loud (doesn't happen too often on /.!). But you make a good point, they probably are getting screwed if they don't get royalties on stuff they invent, at least in the long run.

Also I wonder if Disney Internet Group are related to DIGG? ;)

Re:Moral is complicated

[Machtyn]

Having spoken with a Microsoft developer who was at our university speaking about legal issues, contract issues, and other Ethics & Law type stuff relating to the industry; he mentioned that he, as well as all other developers, were not allowed to look at patents. That since they were in the creation of new software, they had to keep themselves aloof of what others are developing to avoid the chance that they would duplicate someone else's work. So, it can't be (1) since they are not allowed by contract. It is possible it could be (2). My vote is on (3), but not so harshly stated. It is possible, with the thousands (millions?) of developers out there, there can be 2 or more different groups working on the same idea and not know about each other. For me and the field I work in (computer repair), I try, but can't, keep up with all the different anti-virus, anti-malware, firewall software that is out there.

Re:Moral is complicated

[pruss]

That may be, but I hope they don't prosecute the guy who admitted this, since it would have a chilling effect on others who might like to make similar admissions.

Re:Moral is complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when do we need an autopsy to reveal decapitation?

Re:Moral is complicated

[bzipitidoo]

In most cases, only the inventor, if anyone, will ever know for sure whether some other work was unintentially duplicated or deliberately copied. Intellectual property cases are notoriously difficult. Hard to determine whether some new invention is a copy of some other existing invention, never mind determining whether it was accidental or deliberate copying. And there are shades of grey-- George Harrison was notorious for coming up with songs he thought were original but turned out to be very similar to some music he heard years ago and mostly forgot. Would you have made George swear an oath, and then thrown him in jail? "My Sweet Lord" which as far as anyone could tell he believed was original, is very similar to the Chiffons' "He's So Fine". Maybe he was that good a liar, but the court decided the copying was unintentional. Nevertheless, he was forced to give up most of the royalties off that song, for the weirdly nebulous "crime" of "subconscious" plagiarism.

When it's hard or impossible to ever know the facts, or judge whether a necessarily vague standard was infringed or not, or tell whether and how much anyone actually got hurt, especially when there's a possibility "victims" were instead helped (as the Chiffons were by all the publicity), society should be careful about going on jihads and dishing out severe punishments. And I think reaching for perjury is going too far.

In case you don't feel like clicking

[tehwebguy]

Here is the description from the linked slashdot post, if you were wondering what this patent was about:

"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."

Re:In case you don't feel like clicking

[gregarican]

In more detail this feature is something akin to an Object Inspector, something that has been a part of Smalltalk languages for probably 20 years in a GUI form. Funny thing, seeing how Visual Studio 2005 has an Object Browser, which is another throwback to the System/Object Browser feature of various Smalltalks dating back to Smalltalk-80 :-)

It's a good start...

[Anonymous Coward]

but what we all really want to know is when MS will start calling for the abolition of software patents altogether. It's not this specific application, it's Software patents as a whole that should never have happened.

Re:It's a good start...

[tomstdenis]

hey they have a lot of legitimate patents, like the one for the task scheduler (cron jobs). There is absolutely no prior art (UNIX) for that before MSFT came around. :-)

Companies like MSFT/IBM/etc shouldn't get patents, not because they don't invent anything, but because they invent so little and patent so much.

The hardware world scares me though. On the one had they collaborate as academics to share results, and on the other hand they patent everything in sight. No, you can't have an XOR gate, not yours!

Tom

Re:It's a good start...

[ivan256]

Really, they're more likely to push for "first to file" instead of "first to invent" so that patent applications like this will actually be valid.

Re:It's a good start...

[kalleguld]

IANAL, but isn't a patent invalid if you can prove prior art?

Re:It's a good start...

[Rey Willie]

As a general matter, under the current "first to invent" system, you are right. But, the parent post mentioned a "first to file" system (as used in many other countries). Under "first to file" prior art doesn't matter. All that matters is who wins the race to the patent office.

The argument for "first to file" is that it is a simpler system, and thus has lower transaction costs. Further, "first to file" is a big incentive to file a patent ASAP, instead of waiting to perfect the invention (or hiding the invention as the case may be). The theory is that this introduces knowledge of innovations to the public faster.

OTOH, "first to file" would tend, I think, to encourage more filing of groundless or obvious applications, because an inventor would be afraid of getting scooped at the patent office. Further, such a system would tend to reward those who spend money on the aggressive prosecution of patents, at the expense of those who spend money on pursuing technical innovations.

For more, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_fir st_to_invent

Re:It's a good start...

[Anonymous Coward]

For the record, you've conflated prior art searches with interference proceedings, which are actually two separate concepts. No one automatically gets a patent just because someone else filed an application for what amounts to the same thing. Prior art is considered after the question of who came up with their "invention" first is settled. For more, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_proceedi ngs

Re:It's a good start...

[Rey Willie]

You are quite right. Post in haste, repent at leisure...

Re:It's a good start...

[dedazo]

Well, maybe you should talk to IBM. Aren't they the darlings of the open source crowd? They are the largest patent holders in the planet. Or maybe Microsoft will start doing that when they stop being sued by patent cliques that cost them billions, despite the fact that RMS likes to constantly remind everyone of the "dangers" of a company who has rarely used patents offensively, and rarely aggressively at that. FAT32 and an email to some media player developer about the ASX patent come to mind. Hell, Google and IBM send nastier cease and desist lawyergrams than Microsoft.

As for this of course it's being squeezed to the max by the unwashed masses - dammed if they do ("OMFG, M$ IS TEH SUXX"), dammned if they don't ("Hi, we're Eolas. Bend over") and dammned if they screw up and apologize.

Re:It's a good start...

[WolfWithoutAClause]

s a general matter, under the current "first to invent" system, you are right. But, the parent post mentioned a "first to file" system (as used in many other countries). Under "first to file" prior art doesn't matter. All that matters is who wins the race to the patent office.

I'm sorry, but you're quite wrong on this. In the UK we have a first to file system and prior art does matter to an ridiculous degree- you are not allowed to publish your invention prior to filing. The logic is that patents are intended to encourage people to reveal 'trade secrets', and if you've told everyone anyway, then it's not a secret, so no patent!

The only time the race matters is if two people independently develop something, and then try to patent it, in that case the first one there wins. I think that that's fair enough, and the patent date is at least inarguable, whereas you could quibble for decades about when you thought of something first.

Re:It's a good start...

[Rey Willie]

You're right. I'm wrong. You're smart. I'm dumb. You know. I don't. I forgot. You remembered.

That's why I tried to apologize for this yesterday http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=219410&cid=178 04650 Argh.

Apparently, my reply "You're quite right, etc." to an anonymous comment correcting me yesterday (which now seems to be gone?!) is linked to my original, erroneous, bad, wrong, dumb post, instead of to the correct, anonymous, informed, and now missing post.

The phantom AC post made the point that resolving interferences (where there are two or more applications for the same claimed invention) is a distinct matter from whether prior art bars a patent. That statement is, as I believe you'll agree, correct.

Sorry AGAIN for the goof.

Would it have killed the editor...

[ivan256]

...to include half a sentence describing the basics of the patent in the hyperlink?

"The patent discussed on saturday" isn't significantly shorter than "the patent on a copied IDE feature" but contains more useful knowledge and less useless knowledge.

Re:Would it have killed the editor...

[SydShamino]

There's still research going into Integrated Drive Electronics? I thought SATA had replaced that.

/joking. Seriously, throwing an acronym into the summary doesn't make it any more clear.

Re:Would it have killed the editor...

[Jerf]

I thought "<a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01 /27/147243&tid=109">controversial patent application</a>" covered the bases pretty well, it's both shorter and more informative than even your suggestion. (Well, without the space.)

(Links on the web aren't an incidental thing, they are a vital part of what is being communicated.)

Re:Would it have killed the editor...

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm yes, since IDE has nothing to do with SATA, which is a bus. IDE drives come in SATA and PATA forms. Also USB and Firewire.

Re:Would it have killed the editor...

[ivan256]

That's such a cop-out. The link should be there, sure, but there is no excuse for giving a poor description of what can be found via the hyperlink when you could just as easily given a good description. Your way is only marginally better than the universally despised as poor practice "here" links of the mid '90s.

Congratulations on showing me how much more "web savvy" you are than me though.

Re:Would it have killed the editor...

[mabinogi]

It's a convenient single click away.
Do you want someone from Slashdot to come round to your house and read it for you too?

Re:Would it have killed the editor...

[SydShamino]

That shows I don't work on commercial PC hardware. The marketing line for hard drives and drive controllers used to be IDE, now its SATA. (I'm talking about what Fry's puts in its ads, or what's on the description page on Newegg, etc.) Listening solely to the marketing, SATA is "new" while IDE is "old".

*shrug*

Both are "off topic".

Um...what did Slashdot have to do with it?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

The story was first brought to light by Slashdot on Saturday.

Um...what did Slashdot have to do with it? It looks like this fellow started complaining on Friday:
http://www.bluej.org/mrt/?p=21

Re:Um...what did Slashdot have to do with it?

[Aladrin]

When Slashdot did the 'bringing to light', it was Saturday. The developers 'brought it to light' for their crowd on Friday. To 'bring it to light' means that you've made some portion, usually a significant portion, of a group of people aware of it. The majority of the Slashdot crowd did NOT know about this before it was announced on Saturday, so it WAS 'brought to light'.

Happy?

Re:Um...what did Slashdot have to do with it?

[jimbojw]

The story was first brought to light by Slashdot on Saturday.

Um...what did Slashdot have to do with it? It looks like this fellow started complaining on Friday: http://www.bluej.org/mrt/?p=21

Obi-Wan: "The article that I'm looking for should be right ..." (points at screen) "here."
Librarian: "If an article is not on Slashdot, then it does not exist." (Turns abruptly and walks away)

Re:Um...what did Slashdot have to do with it?

[nametaken]

Erm, there's a good chance it would have gone largely unnoticed for months if the story hadn't made /.

To be fair, months can mean the difference between sinking thousands of dollars into a patent and deciding to defend it, or cutting it loose.

Re:Um...what did Slashdot have to do with it?

[Silver Sloth]

Librarian: "If an article is not on Slashdot, then it does not exist." (Turns abruptly and walks away) Or rather, Oook!

Re:Um...what did Slashdot have to do with it?

[dacaldar]

The story was first brought to light by Slashdot on Saturday. Um...what did Slashdot have to do with it? It looks like this fellow started complaining on Friday: http://www.bluej.org/mrt/?p=21 Obi-Wan: "The article that I'm looking for should be right ..." (points at screen) "here." Librarian: "If an article is not on Slashdot, then it does not exist." (Turns abruptly and walks away) Obi-Wan: (waves hand) "These aren't the nerds you're looking for"

Re:Um...what did Slashdot have to do with it?

[Dunbal]

what did Slashdot have to do with it? It looks like this fellow started complaining on Friday:

      Ahh, you see - but he only saw the light when his server crashed from a decent slashdotting... ;)

Re:Um...what did Slashdot have to do with it?

[Dunbal]

The story was first brought to light by Slashdot on Saturday.
Um...what did Slashdot have to do with it? It looks like this fellow started complaining on Friday: http://www.bluej.org/mrt/?p=21
Obi-Wan: "The article that I'm looking for should be right ..." (points at screen) "here." Librarian: "If an article is not on Slashdot, then it does not exist." (Turns abruptly and walks away)
Obi-Wan: (waves hand) "These aren't the nerds you're looking for"


Yoda (to the Jedi children): Gone is the website, yet the packet loss remains. Who will explain this?
Jedi child: Master Yoda - someone has slashdotted the site so that it can't be found in the library?

Re:Um...what did Slashdot have to do with it?

[dotdash]

To 'bring it to light' means that you've made some portion, usually a significant portion, of a group of people aware of it. The majority of the Slashdot crowd did NOT know about this before it was announced on Saturday, so it WAS 'brought to light'.

That light has been burning for some time now, and reached Slashdot only last Saturday. Quite a few people did keep that light burning between May 2005 and now.

The way the story is worded gives the impression that Slashdot broke the story, which it did not. IMO, it would have been better to say something like "This story was on Slashdot first on Saturday". Why the urge to claim to be the "light bringer"?

You have to admit that it is somewhat ironic that Slashdot made this poor choice with a story about giving due credits.

Re:Um...what did Slashdot have to do with it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, as if there are not other tech sites, blogs, and publications that could have reported it.

Arrogant BS.

Re:Um...what did Slashdot have to do with it?

[h2_plus_O]

Mod parent up

Why does it not surprise me...

[abscondment]

Why does it not surprise me that someone named Jane Prey is involved in a Microsoft patent SNAFU?

Re:Why does it not surprise me...

[Anonymous Coward]

because you don't know the difference between "prey" and "predator"

Re:Why does it not surprise me...

[Anonymous Coward]

prey, v., intr., preyed, preying, preys

1. To hunt, catch, or eat as prey: Owls prey on mice.
2. To victimize or make a profit at someone else's expense.
3. To plunder or pillage.
4. To exert a baneful or injurious effect: Remorse preyed on his mind.

Re:Why does it not surprise me...

[Anonymous Coward]

If it makes you feel any better, Jane Prey used to work for the UVa Computer Science department.

Re:Why does it not surprise me...

[Volante3192]

Now is that prey(n) or prey(v), because prey(v) would still fit, as in 'People in Microsoft's patent department prey on tiny companies for sustenance.'

Re:Why does it not surprise me...

[mrmeval]

That's Dr. Jane Prey to you!

http://www.itap.purdue.edu/tlt/conference/wipte/pr ey.cfm

Has a book
http://www.amazon.com/Impact-Tablet-Pen-based-Tech nology-Education/dp/1557534349/sr=1-1/qid=11701004 65/ref=sr_1_1/002-4935735-1745604?ie=UTF8&s=books

She's an academic who went ROGUE!

Re:Why does it not surprise me...

[chrism238]

Actually Prof. Jane Prey is a very active member of the ACM Computer Science Education community (ACM-SIGCSE) who has, on many occassions, provided a very helpful interface between Microsoft and our academic community. I am completely unsurprised that it has been Jane who (must have) raised this delicate issue within Microsoft, overseen its resolution, and acted as a communication medium between the large company and our community. Your attempt at humor is somewat out of line.

SIGCSE

[Anonymous Coward]

Your acronym is missing a G. It took me all of 3 seconds to find out that SIGCSE is the Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education. You can even copy and paste from the first google result if you're feeling especially lazy. I'm guessing you are.

In recent news.

[Raynor]

Microsoft recently retracted their patents on the internet and pants.

A microsoft spokesperson said 'Many thanks to the members of the community that brought this to my attention -- and here's the latest. The patent application was a mistake and one that should not have happened.'

Everyone knows Al Gore invented the internet...

Would they have withdrawn without the outcry?

[sehlat]

I'd be a lot happier if the Empire's own minions had noticed the problem
and withdrawn the patent BEFORE the outcry arose. As it is:

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- Wendell Phillips, (1811-1884)

Modern addendum: "And the price of open software."

Re:Would they have withdrawn without the outcry?

[prelelat]

You be crazy brotha. If they had removed the patent would you have even heard about it to say thank god they withdrew their patent? Who knows if they ever have or if they ever will but I doubt you will be posting about it on /. People only have stories where things have gone wrong or horribly right, not when something happens how its suppose to.

Don't celebrate

[greg_barton]

Watch now for patents that come as close as possible to stepping over the line, but stop just short. Microsoft easily has the resources to toss up nuisance patents that block possible future development of BlueJ.

Mistake?

[MaggieL]

Anyone who thinks this was an innocent mistake in "implementing a suggestion" probably hasn't seen the screenshots comparing The VS screens with BlueJ. ( http://www.bluej.org/vs/vs-bj.html )

Personally, I'm convinced the most plausible explanation for the *extremely* close replication of the BlueJ screens in the MSFT product is that the BlueJ source was ported to C#, probably using an automated tool.

Re:Mistake?

[drinkypoo]

Personally, I'm convinced the most plausible explanation for the *extremely* close replication of the BlueJ screens in the MSFT product is that the BlueJ source was ported to C#, probably using an automated tool.

That's a bunch of nonsense. I mean, it's not impossible, but it's ridiculous to jump to that conclusion. There are tons of workalike tools in Unixland that look and behave just like the programs they're knocking off. Does that mean they were developed by porting the original program? I just made some documents that look amazingly like some other documents in-house (I'm a graphic artist, and I needed some documents very similar to some old ones but with new graphical elements, and couldn't find the originals.) By your argument, the most rational explanation for the existence of these documents is that I loaded up the originals and altered them. The new document is just so similar!

Maybe the GNOME desktop is actually a port of Windows' source code, since it looks so much like Windows?

Re:Mistake?

[MaggieL]

That's a bunch of nonsense. I mean, it's not impossible...I just made some documents that look amazingly like some other documents in-house (I'm a graphic artist...

That's funny, I'm a programmer...perhaps a *wee* bit more qualified to comment.

I'd say the evidence is circumstantial yet compelling. Of course, as long as the MSFT source is secret there will be no proof one way or the other.

There's a world of difference between deliberately cloning a UI or a document and having deep similarity in appearance in a myriad of essentially non-functional ways just by accident. (Kind of like those perhaps-apocryphal rudder pedals that showed up on the Russian B-29 clone that said "Boeing".)

If MSFT wants to defend themselves from this obvious conclusion (I mean, c'mon, *look* at those screen shots), all they would have to do is release the source code involved. I bet they won't and I bet I know why.

Re:Mistake?

[Anonymous Coward]

No; the source to (that part of) BlueJ is not available. There is no way anyone at MS could have got their hands on it.

Re:Mistake?

[MaggieL]

No; the source to (that part of) BlueJ is not available. There is no way anyone at MS could have got their hands on it.

Decompiling Java classes is so easy a caveman could do it. If he had a computer.

Re:Mistake?

[drinkypoo]

That's funny, I'm a programmer...perhaps a *wee* bit more qualified to comment.

By a certain standard, I'm a programmer too. (I'm not a very good one nor do I have a degree, but I am forced to write code on a regular basis.)

There's a world of difference between deliberately cloning a UI or a document and having deep similarity in appearance in a myriad of essentially non-functional ways just by accident.

No one said they didn't deliberately clone the UI. My argument is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the program resulted from a port (automated or no) from BlueJ. In fact the linked article even shows a dialog that is not present in BlueJ.

It seems to me much more like Microsoft simply decided that BlueJ had a beautiful implementation, and decided to copy it from front to back because they could.

If MSFT wants to defend themselves from this obvious conclusion (I mean, c'mon, *look* at those screen shots), all they would have to do is release the source code involved. I bet they won't and I bet I know why.

Yeah, I bet I know why too. Because their business model depends on keeping their source closed. Nice FUD though.

Re:Mistake?

[MaggieL]

Yeah, I bet I know why too. Because their business model depends on keeping their source closed. Nice FUD though.

To clear up this issue, they could disclose just the relevant source without impacting their "business model" one whit. Nobody's going to use that much code to clone VS.

Nice misdirection though.
   

Re:Mistake?

[drinkypoo]

To clear up this issue, they could disclose just the relevant source without impacting their "business model" one whit. Nobody's going to use that much code to clone VS. Nice misdirection though.

It's not appropriate to accuse me of misdirection when you simply miss the point entirely. That is not my fault.

Their business model depends on keeping their source closed for two reasons. One, they are on a crusade against Open Source in order to support their business, and it would make them look more like the hypocrites they are. Two, they have to be able to point at their product and say "trust me, it's better" without anyone being able to prove them wrong.

Perhaps you were simply ignorant, and not FUDding.

Re:Mistake?

[MaggieL]

It's not appropriate to accuse me of misdirection when you simply miss the point entirely. That is not my fault...
Their business model depends on keeping their source closed...

I dodn't miss your point, I just think it's bogus. Disclosing enough source to demonstrate that this component was independently developed (an otherwise highly implausible proposition) doesn't rise to "endorsing open-source". The disclosed code would not be useful to anyone for any other purpose.

Re:Mistake?

[drinkypoo]

I dodn't miss your point, I just think it's bogus. Disclosing enough source to demonstrate that this component was independently developed (an otherwise highly implausible proposition) doesn't rise to "endorsing open-source".

Look, it's like the War on Drugs. We all know it's unwinnable, but if the gov't admits that they'll have a hard time continuing to get support and funding, so they have to keep lying through a big grin. Opening the source is simply not something Microsoft is interested in. Remember what we all went through last time they let people look at any of their source? That kind of circus was necessary for them to support their position of closedness.

The disclosed code would not be useful to anyone for any other purpose.

You're making a common mistake. This isn't about reality. It's about the perception of reality. Of course it's all bullshit. We're talking about Microsoft here. That doesn't change why they're doing what they're doing. Frankly it's a brilliant bit of ongoing marketing in my book, even though it is incredibly sleazy.

Re:Mistake?

[MaggieL]

You're making a common mistake. This isn't about reality. It's about the perception of reality.

Pardon me; out of the profound depths of my naivete I was actually discussing reality.

That reality as I see it is:

1) the code in question was in all probability the output of applying reverse-(decompiling) and forward-(Java-toC# translation) engineering tools to the BlueJ class files and

2) short of a very expensive (and highly unlikely) lawsuit that would force MSFT to disclose their source code during discovery (you know, like the one their sockpuppet SCOX is losing as we speak), we'll never see that code, even though the disclosure would benefit an innocent MSFT, because

3) They're not innocent.

Of course I could be wrong, the offshore MSFT folks named in the patent might actually have carefully hand-coded something that came out looking exactly like BlueJ.

But I know which possibility my money would be on...

Other protestations as to how unMSFTlike such behavior would be are irrelevant to this. Disclosing a fragmentary part of their source code to demonstrate that it actually was independantly developed has nothing to do with open source.

Re:Mistake?

[drinkypoo]

the code in question was in all probability the output of applying reverse-(decompiling) and forward-(Java-toC# translation) engineering tools to the BlueJ class files and

Again, there has been no compelling evidence whatsoever to even suggest that.

In addition, it would be just stupid to decompile the compiled program when you have the full source code available. Are you just adding spurious details to make your comment sound more plausible? Or in an attempt to confuse me and make me go away?

short of a very expensive (and highly unlikely) lawsuit that would force MSFT to disclose their source code during discovery (you know, like the one their sockpuppet SCOX is losing as we speak), we'll never see that code, even though the disclosure would benefit an innocent MSFT, because

Please explain how a disclosure would benefit Microsoft.

They're not innocent.

Hooray for assumption of guilt! Maybe you should have someone look at that knee.

the offshore MSFT folks named in the patent might actually have carefully hand-coded something that came out looking exactly like BlueJ.

Again, even a chump like me could make (for example) a program that looked just like Microsoft's calc.exe. I could do it in a web browser for fuck's sake, and again, I'm really not much of a programmer. Why don't you believe that some Microsoft engineers could make a program with dialog boxes similar - they're not even identical - to an open source program?

I'm not saying Microsoft is innocent. I'm saying that frankly there is no reason to believe that they translated the source code.

Other protestations as to how unMSFTlike such behavior would be are irrelevant to this.Disclosing a fragmentary part of their source code to demonstrate that it actually was independantly developed has nothing to do with open source.

Again, we are not talking about reality, but the perception of reality. Microsoft wants us to believe that every line of their code is so golden that to reveal it to a competitor would be equivalent to giving away the keys to the castle. It's utterly irrelevant that is not actually the case - it's what you can make the majority of people who matter believe that counts. As such, your bringing reality into the equation is not only unwelcome, it is unwarranted.

Re:Mistake?

[MaggieL]

Again, there has been no compelling evidence whatsoever to even suggest that.

The evidence of my eyes looking at the screen shots, coupled with what I know about programming, compels me. I don't find it plausible that that UI was created any other way. Despite the large number of monkeys and typewriters they have available, when they publish and then try to patent Hamlet, somehow my first thought isn't "Gee, what a coincidence."

YMMV.

In addition, it would be just stupid to decompile the compiled program when you have the full source code available. Are you just adding spurious details to make your comment sound more plausible? Or in an attempt to confuse me and make me go away?

Apparently it is unnecessary to confuse you. And, given your curious persistance in holding forth on an issue about which you don't seem to know very much, I certainly don't expect you to go away.

The decompilation would be how the MSFT minons would have gotten compilable Java source for the BlueJ functionality, since it was pointed out that BlueJ only releases source for the code editor. MSFT would then have pounded it though an automated converter to take Java source to C# source; not a huge jump for typical code.

The source that I proposed disclosing would be their allegedly independantly-developed source that does not map directly to decompiler output from the BlueJ classes, evidence that their tool isn't a deriviative work of BlueJ. Personally, I don't beleive that exists...although I'm sure they could come up with some ex post facto if it was in their interest to do so.

It would benefit them by disproving the obvious supposition that their code is a derivative work.

Re:Mistake?

[drinkypoo]

Despite the large number of monkeys and typewriters they have available, when they publish and then try to patent Hamlet, somehow my first thought isn't "Gee, what a coincidence."

Again, you're looking at similar screen shots and referring to them as identical. They simply are not. In fact the Microsoft dialogs have content which simply is not in the other dialogs.

It's not impossible that they did what you say and then altered them to look less similar... but the fact that M$ is actually adding a dialog where BlueJ doesn't even have one is, I believe, the strongest argument against your assessment.

It would benefit them by disproving the obvious supposition that their code is a derivative work.

And again, that would benefit them how? There is no penalty for not proving such a thing.

Re:Mistake?

[MaggieL]

Again, you're looking at similar screen shots and referring to them as identical.

No, I'm not. "Identical" is your word, not mine. My words were "*extremely* close replication" and
"deep similarity in appearance in a myriad of essentially non-functional ways".

I'm not saying they didn't add *any* code, clearly at the very least at some point they would have had to make a glue layer compensating for the difference of the hosting environments. And that they added a dialog says nothing about what codebase they started from.

But I think the stark parallels are just far too numerous to be coincidental, and Occam's Razor argues strongly for the "derivative work" theory over the "carefully crafted imitation" theory. After all, if the offshore team had copious time to develop this feature, they could have actually done their own design starting from the *concept* of an object workbench; I doubt they had the luxury of using time to polish the UI to their independently developed tool to look that much like BlueJ just because they admired BlueJ that much.

That's One

[mpapet]

Now the slashdot echo chamber will have a moment of self-satisfaction while more theft, more corporate domination and fraud at the expense of consumers and entrepreneurs.

Most importantly: We don't have to get out of our chairs and participate in our political system to make the government we want. Woohoo!

Patent transparency is a good thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did Microsoft employees lie about inventing this? Obviously, dishonesty in the workplace is a serious offense, and I'm sure Microsoft will severely punish employees who falsify invention claims. And no doubt the in-house patent attorneys failed to catch this serious error.... what's to become of them? Sounds like a few people might end up on the streets of Redmond.

I mean Microsoft wouldn't just want to file bogus patents ... Right?

Well, maybe Microsoft will now review all of the claims submitted by these bozos to make sure they didn't screw up before. Good thing these applications are all public - transparency is a critical part of the patent system.

Re:Patent transparency is a good thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who made the claim of invention are, according to the filing:
      Inventors: Goenka; Gautam; (Hyderabad, IN) ; Das; Partho P.; (Hyderabad, IN) ; Unnikrishnan; Umesh; (Redmond, WA)

So the big question: Did these guys make the claim themselves, or did management or the IP team put them up to it? Or was it all a strange coincidence?

Re:Patent transparency is a good thing.

[Dunbal]

Microsoft will severely punish employees who falsify invention claims.

      "No Jack, we're not going to fire you over this."

      "You're not?"

      "No -cough- there is, however, the minor matter of your reassignment. It's a cushy position - work from home really. We've taken the liberty of routing our 1-800 number for Vista activation to your home telephone number. And I'd like to be the first to welcome you to the Windows Validation department... Jack? Are you ok?"

Microsoft will now review all of the claims submitted by these bozos to make sure they didn't screw up before.

      You obviously have little understanding about how a large corporation works. Those "bozos" have probably been promoted...

Re:Patent transparency is a good thing.

[hypnagogue]

Did Microsoft employees lie about inventing this?

I don't think you understand the concept of a software patent. There is no invention -- it's all about implementation. There's not really any way to invent something in software -- the concept just doesn't apply. Software just describes a procedure -- a formal description language. If there is any inventing going on, it happened long before the project got to software.

In this case, requirements were presented to the Visual Studio developers, who then implemented code that satisfied the requirements. The requirements weren't the invention, because they came from users of Visual Studio. The users didn't invent anything either: they simply wanted a system that would illustrate object-oriented principles. Object-oriented principles aren't the invention, the object-browser-container-fiddly-widget isn't the invention -- there is no invention. There never was. There are simply people trying to effectively describe abstract concepts to one another.

Unfortunately, Microsoft is a big corporation with deep pockets. With the patent system broken like it is, Microsoft has a fiduciary responsibility to attempt to patent anything they can if there is any chance that the attempt might possibly slip past the dullest of patent examiners. If they don't, someone else will. Those deep pockets are actually holding part of grampa's pension, and your kid's college fund -- it's not "evil" money, it's your money. If Microsoft doesn't try to protect it from the scumbags of the patent system, then they aren't being good citizens.

Evil begets evil, stupid begets stupid, worlds without end.

Missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft's apology changes nothing about the fact that all the original factors that caused this embarrassing mistake by them are still in play. It is very lucky that Microsoft's misbehaviour in the BlueJ example was quickly noticed, carefully documented and forcefully exposed by the BlueJ people themselves, but it is not and should not be an inventor's job to police the behaviour of big companies like Microsoft. The next time Microsoft misappropriates somebody else's invention, the problem is unlikely to be exposed so quickly. Microsoft should deal with the underlying factor behind this problem: Employees are still being encouraged to file as many patents as possible on the wrong assumption that it is a good indicator of employee merit. This is part of a deeper problem in the Microsoft executive which is fanatically pushing the meretricious concept of software patents around the world to places that have studied the idea and rejected it (EU) as harmful to the interests of small businesses.

I'm not so sure

[Infonaut]

Watch now for patents that come as close as possible to stepping over the line, but stop just short. Microsoft easily has the resources to toss up nuisance patents that block possible future development of BlueJ.

After publicly admitting the misstep with the original patent, I'm not sure what the value to MS would be in aggressively trying to thwart BlueJ. It seems their strategy here is to hold themselves out as an ethical player. They have to know that they're on notice now about BlueJ, and any attmpts to block it would be immediately picked up by the technology press, not to mention by existing BlueJ users.

Maybe I'm being too optimistic, but it seems it would be monumentally stupid for Microsoft to attempt to destroy BlueJ through legal means at this point. Perhaps they'll have to suck it up and just compete on technical merits. ;)

patent first, ask questions later?

[192939495969798999]

I disagree with the idea of just attempting to patent absolutely anything, and then only when the app comes back as "has issue", the company says, "Oops! heh heh, never mind that one..." and just keeps on going. It's pretty clear that even if the patent office was great at detecting dupe patents, prior art,etc., that if there are 10,000 patent apps a day or whatever coming in, how do you have time to check them all? Surely a lot are slipping through and being granted based on this "apply first, worry later" stuff.

Re:patent first, ask questions later?

[tomstdenis]

What I don't get is the rush to pass them. Should just be round-robin through the owners. So even if you submit 9000 patents today, only one will be looked at before looking at the others.

That way if a company feels the need to apply for a shiatload of patents they'll get the joy of knowing they won't get looked at anytime soon.

Anyone who is not really annoyed at the state of patents should try googles patent search. Enter any trivially understood idea like "task scheduling" or "integer multiplication" and have fun reading patents about blatently obvious ideas.

Tom

Apology

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Okay, this whole thing is not too surprising. The patent system is broken and all major companies end up using a shotgun approach to get as many, mostly invalid, patents as possible. They apologized publicly for this instance. That was the right thing to do, and MS did it for a change. Good job MS.

As the other AC pointed out...

[abscondment]

Oh, I think I do.

The predator preys on weaker animals (like... BlueJ?).
The prey is preyed upon.

In case you're still unclear about my use of words, the important nouns have been italicized, while the important verbs have been given a bold face.

Thank you for turning a tongue-in-cheek play on words into a grammatical pissing contest.

Off-shore development

[Mr 44]

Is everyone going to completely ignore the fact that this feature is one of Microsoft's very, very few that aren't developed in Redmond??? The Microsoft India Development Center in Hyderabad, is responsible for this whole feature area.

Draw your own conclusions, but at a minimum, it would increase the chances of mis-communication...

Re:Off-shore development

[castle]

I would tend to agree, cultural and language barriers like that could have contributed to what this resulted in. Many of the Indian comp-sci graduates are quite talented and intelligent folks, but they don't stew themselves in (or at least within the periphery of) US patent law as much as your typical US corporate software development employee.

Microsoft *could* have been trying for naughty shenanigans, but they did the right thing in this instance, after it came to light. Overall it is a good indication that they need to improve their patent submissions process, and perhaps internal corporate communications, if they indeed are planning on becoming a less antagonistic member of the marketplace. Though I personally doubt it based on past experience.

Prior art detected

[Ravear]

(A)ssimilate? (Y/Y)

(4)

[Mateo_LeFou]

Quite confident that they could buy their way out of any resulting trouble using the money from licenses for the thousands of other patent applications on which they did something like this and did not get detected.

now if the scumpuppies at Rambus would do this...

[swschrad]

and donate all their licensing income derived from patenting sync ram that was derivative of early standardization attempts in an industry technical committee, we might start getting someplace.

if not, hey, what the hell, it's only ethics and morals. I'm sure it did not influence any other large companies in the field, like HP and SCO.

In Other Words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Psyche! Ya caught us. We were just kidding, anyway. He he. Move along and go buy [whisper quiet] that lease to [/whisper quiet] Vista now.

Would USPTO have issued the patent?

[Anonymous Coward]

My question is, would the USPTO have issued the patent?

We can argue over if it would have been overturned eventually or not .. but would the USPTO have issued a patent for this? I'm sure they'd like to say "no way, we would done due diligence and known prior art exists".

if busted then issue appology

[countSudoku()]

I still stand by my new sig:

Microsoft's new tag line for 2007: Pilfer, Plagiarize, Patent.

Actually MS was right along along

[neildiamond]

Personally, I'm convinced the most plausible explanation for the *extremely* close replication of the BlueJ screens in the MSFT product is that the BlueJ source was ported to C#, probably using an automated tool.

Adding a "J" after Blue Screen (BJOD) does not mean you invalidate MS's patent on the BSOD! Sorry, I think they got there first.

Good start, but

[dotdash]

To fix this, Microsoft will be removing the patent application. Our sincere apologies to Michael Kölling and the BlueJ community. What about listing BlueJ in Visual Studio credits?

I'm sure there are more ....

[3seas]

just yesterday I decided to check out googles new patent search engine.
I typed in "Virtual Interaction Configuration" and up pops a patent.

I'm very anti-patent when it comes to software and the virtual interaction configuration is my own project that started back in 1988. I've only glanced over the patent so far and I intend on addressing each claim and explaining how each does not qualify for patent consideration. I intend to explain it in terms of Abstraction Physics, the common human characteristic in creating and dealing with abstraction.

At some point software patents will come to their end.

Off to the next one

[Boreras]

So, Microsoft admitted it, no problem, let's try it again with another program!

They will keep trying with lots of these totally unfair patents, and when people respond too late, or too weak, the previous prior-arts will have to go to the court, and because of Microsoft's money and lawyers, you're risking a hell of a lot cash to guarantee something you made up, so you probably won't or have to invest a ridiculous amount of time and effort into it. Yet another new patent for Microsoft.

They will keep trying...

Should've assigned it

[FishCalledOscar]

Microsoft could have assigned the application to the EFF or something like that. There might have been something patentable in their application and it might as well be patented as protection against some other evil empire. They already paid to have it examined, so let the examiner decide. They would have to disclose the prior art though, which is easy using an IDS (invention disclosure sheet). Still, microsoft did right by abandoning. They could have done better by assigning. Oh yeah - I am a lawyer. A patent lawyer in fact. (flame on)

Re:Should've assigned it

[Creepy Crawler]

I see lawyers as big guns.

It just depends who the big guns are pointed at ;-D (not me please..)

"nothing to see here"

[mary_will_grow]

Move along... It was "just a mistake".

What about the zillions of other patents just like this one that they apply for every day? Is the burden really on ME to make sure that Microsoft hasn't been attempting to patent stuff I've clearly got "prior art" for?

This is terrible. Stop acting like "The system works". This is one example where a prior-art holder had the means to notice someone's faulty patent claim.

I'm not even sure where the burden of proof should lie. When you hire a patent attorney to do a "prior art search", they just give you a pile of existing patents that matched some keywords. How do you do a _real_ prior art search, beyond just what has already been patented? Its not even possible. The system is so hosed that every patent that resulted from it should probably just be thrown out.

I can't believe people are buying this "It was a mistake" B.S.

Re:"nothing to see here"

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the burden really on ME to make sure that Microsoft hasn't been attempting to patent stuff I've clearly got "prior art" for?

Yes. Clearly, it is more reasonable for you to have knowledge about something you've created than people who've never heard of you.

Honest as My @#$%#4ing Ass!

[Mateo_LeFou]

Sorry for the profanity, but *please, people!!

"Sure, an honest mistake. But what are they doing to fix their process so it doesn't happen again?"

It happens *daily or damn near it. Give us a break!

Here's their patent (filed Dec 28, 2006) for having the opacity of your windows change when you hit Alt-Tab.
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=200602944 75&OS=20060294475&RS=20060294475

Anyone with a clue stopped giving MS the benefit of the doubt about 15 years ago. Ugh.

Even simpler: path of least resistance

[Trails]

It's not really a question of good or evil. It's that the process you've outlined above is essentially the path of least resistance.

We can assume that for every piece of working, checking it against a given criteria (e.g. "Did we get this idea elsewhere?") costs money. Therefore adding a given check to their process implies a cost to each piece of work.

The rationale of balancing this goes something like:
1 For a piece of work does criteria X apply?
1.1 Yes Do we increase profit by performing the check?
1.1.1 Yes Include criteria check in process END
1.1.2 No Is there legislation requiring us to check?
1.1.2.1 Yes is probability of getting caught * cost of getting caught > cost of implementing check?
1.1.2.1.1 Yes Include criteria check in process END
1.1.2.1.2 No Ignore criteria check END
1.1.2.2 No Ignore criteria check END
1.2 No Ignore criteria check END Note: I tried to get this rendering nicely with nested lists, but /. doesn't seem to let one nest more than 3 layers deep.

Re:Even simpler: path of least resistance

[Anonymous Coward]

Man I'd hate to see your if statements.

patent application spree

[AlgorithMan]

you see, this is exactly the problem with patents
companies just try to patent ANYTHING, because if the patent is bullsh*t, then they don't have to be afraid of any harm, except losing the patent application fee (peanuts)

if you really want to stop companies from going on crazy patent application sprees, you have to make them pay big time for trying to patent obvious or non-innovative ideas

I mean a patent gives you a lot of power on a market - if you try to get that much power without really doing something for it, it should be punished like a white-collar crime...

And would've gotten away with it too...

[merc]

If it wasn't for those meddling F/LOSS kids!

*ducks*

Kettle calling the pot black...

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft and it lawyers go after people who "violate" its patents and now it needs to retract a patent after it was discover, it stole, someone else idea. It is funny that Microsoft didn't do any due diligence work on its side before submitting the patent application and with a corporation a big a Microsoft I'm surprise is did with all of the fan fare.

Re:Kettle calling the pot black...

[Anonymous Coward]

do they?

When?

I've never heard of a Microsoft patent case that had them on the plaintiff side

Brought to light *by* /.?

[r_jensen11]

I call BS on that, especially seeing that the submission on /. included two links to stories related and neither was a direct link to an application. Brought to light to Slashdot? Yes, that I can believe.

Feel free

[Don't be a Zealot]

to give credit to Microsoft for retracting the patent application. Your credibility is nil if you bash them for submitting the application (erroneously) and then don't at least acknowledge the retraction. It is stuff like this that drive people away from our good work like Linux, Firefox, etc. It makes us look like zealots.

Re:Feel free

[svartrev]

I'm sorry, but to give credit to M$ here would be like giving credit to the thief that snatches a little old ladies purse, then, noticing a cop watching, gives it back and pats her on the back. Should we be saying "Well, at least he saw the error of his ways" ?

What M$ did was wrong, clearly wrong, and they knew it at the time, and now that they can't get away with it they are trying to pretend it was all a misunderstanding and they're not really bad people.

M$ has a history of repeatedly doing things like this, and worse, not just to other companies, but to their paying customers (forcing unstable/insecure ie code on them, anyone?). Not to mention what they might be planning (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070128 08444146).

This sort of thing is the main reason I don't want to live in a world with M$ in it...

/me quietly leaves for a M$ free world of linux only, where he's in control of his own computer, and politely closes the door behind himself

Re:Feel free

[Don't be a Zealot]

Unfortunately, your analogy makes no sense whatsoever. They applied for a patent erroneously, they didn't steal something from someone. Then, they retracted the patent application. To say that "this sort of thing" is the "MAIN" reason...wow...come on. If this is what drives you to not want to live in the same world as with a M$ product, that seems like a reach. M$ and Open Source can and will coexist peacefully in this world, unless attitudes like this prevail. Again, I say, open your mind and stop curtailing our movement. I don't want to be lumped in with a crowd of nitpickers and what not. Don't Be A Zealot

Re:Feel free

[svartrev]

Of course they tried to steal something from someone, they tried to steal concepts from BlueJ.

Your assertion that "[they] applied for a patent erroneously" is hopelessly gullible. M$ has a history of using any and all tactics they can to force competitors (and even non-competitors) out of the market, and trying to bully, frighten or delude customers and potential customers into choosing their products instead of someone elses, and hurt innovation wherever they can if it means preserving their hold over something.

Their tactics have been downright despicable in the past, and this is more evidence that they are still up to their old tricks. There is no doubt that they knew exactly what they were doing when they did this, and had every intention of getting away with it if they could, moral or other objections not being a part of their decision making processes. Everything not Microsfot must be crushed or assimilated, according to the Gospel of Gates.

I still maintain that I do not wish to sign away my computer to a company that actively seeks new ways to limit my freedom for no good reason. Amen.

Re:Feel free

[Don't be a Zealot]

I know better than to get into an argument with an uninformed, opinionated zealot. I wish that people like you would see the damage that you are doing to the Open Source movement. I, for one, am disappointed in this kind of mindset in that it is slowing down the process of actually showing people the benefits of open source. There is no chance in hell that open source software will be any more than a novelty or a niche player unless the attitudes of our community change. I, for one, do not welcome this type of "education". Hopelessly gullible? If the shoe fits... Don't Be A Zealot

I believe this will explain everything ...

[deek]

  Never assume malice, when incompetence will suffice.

Microsoft Calls for Reforms to Patent System

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2005/m ar05/03-10PatentReform.mspx

Microsoft Calls for Reforms to the U.S. Patent System

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 10, 2005 -- As U.S. thought leaders and legal scholars gather today to consider patent reform at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith proposes a series of reforms aimed at improving critical issues in the current U.S. patent system.

Smith, the keynote speaker in a panel discussion today, has outlined reform proposals designed to ensure patent quality, curb excessive litigation, promote harmonization of international patent systems and increase accessibility -- changes he says would benefit companies and inventors, advance technological progress worldwide and boost the global economy. The AEI is one of America's largest and most respected think tanks. ...

PressPass: What key issues is Microsoft targeting for reform?

Smith: We believe that reform is most likely to create meaningful, lasting improvements in the system if it focuses on four fundamental issues:

Ensuring high patent quality amidst increasing patent quantity

Curbing excessive litigation and litigation abuse

Promoting international harmonization of patent law

Increasing accessibility for individual inventors and small companies around the world

The issue of quality of U.S. patents is linked to the issue of quantity. The combination of globalization and the rapid pace of innovation in new technologies has created an enormous increase in the quantity of patent applications. The PTO has witnessed a tripling of patent applications since the 1980s, with more than 350,000 applications now filed each year. This dramatic increase has strained the resources of the PTO and imposed unreasonable demands on the PTO examiners. We believe the onus for ensuring patent quality is not the PTO's alone, but instead should be borne by those companies like Microsoft that are both customers of the PTO and dependent on an effective patent system.

Regarding the issue of excessive litigation, recent estimates show that the number of patent lawsuits filed annually in the United States has risen from under 1,000 in the early 1980s to over 2,500 today. It is too easy for a holder of a weak patent to look to a lawsuit as the ultimate lottery ticket. This situation is exacerbated by the availability of triple damages and injunctive relief -- court action to compel a party to do or refrain from doing a specified act that can have the effect of bringing someone's business to a halt until a dispute is resolved. As a result, the American system, which has historically encouraged innovation so effectively, can be used too easily to stifle the innovation of others through litigation. If we don't act quickly to put the system right, we risk undermining the technological advances that patent laws are designed to encourage in the first place.

Regarding international harmonization of patent laws, the globalizing economy is making the world's patent protections less accessible to new inventors, especially small start-up firms and individual inventors. This is due in part to the fact that each of the 182 member nations in the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has its own patent regime. These regimes are similar in most important ways, but they differ in the specific "nuts and bolts" of how good patent systems should work. We believe international commercial laws -- including patent laws -- often benefit from harmonization. Lack of harmonization builds inefficiency into the global economy. We're not suggesting that the world line up to adopt the American system chapter and verse. We are well aware that harmonizing our laws with those of our trading partners will require some changes to our own system.

Finally, inc

Thank you Microsoft

[Derring]

Regardless of why they did it, they backed off, apologized and cancelled the application. I know I'm coming close to invoking Godwin's Law here, but imagine if Mr Bush were to back off, apologize and cancel the invasion. As in this case, I wouldn't even care why he started the process, I would simply be impressed that he had what it takes to say "whoops" and then stop it.

tons of knockoffs in Unixland ..

[rs232]

"There are tons of workalike tools in Unixland that look and behave just like the programs they're knocking off"

Assuming that were true, where did the Open Source developers try and patent these tools.

"Maybe the GNOME desktop is actually a port of Windows' source code, since it looks so much like Windows?"

So it's a total co-incidence that both applications look and behave uncannily similar.

was: Re:Mistake? (Score:4, Mod trolled up)

Retract one, file another...

[init100]

Microsoft has retracted their recent controversial patent application.

Only to apply for another (sorry, only in Swedish). According to the article, Microsoft has applied for a patent for modular operating system upgrades, which sound quite similar to the various package management schemes (Yum, Apt, etc) used in Linux and other Unix-like operating systems.

Not an honest mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that the developers are patenting things that they know came from outside suggestions. You may argue that the layers between the idea, the developer, and the patent filers make this a reasonable mistake, but those layers should not be there! There is a reason that the inventor's name needs to go on the patent and not the name of some lawyer or corporate patent assignee: the inventor is supposed to be the person who came up with the idea. Having the inventor sign off on the patent ensures that, at the least, the inventors themselves legally attest that the idea is original.

Microsoft has other cases of patenting outside suggestions and filing patents without developer input. This is not responsible corporate behavior. But corporate behavior is determined mostly by profit motive, and there are rarely direct financial consequences for filing a patent application that the inventor knows to be unoriginal, even if it is technically illegal. So it ends up being cheaper for Microsoft to file patents without taking up valuable developer time to make sure that patent applications are legit -- not an honest mistake but a cost-saving measure.