Microsoft Is Sued For Patent Violation Over .NET

randomErr writes "As reported by Info World, Microsoft was issued a cease and desist order on February 7 of this year by Vertical Computer Systems. The order was for patent infringement by the current implementations of the .NET framework. Both the .NET framework and Vertical Computer Systems' SiteFlash use XML to create component-based structures that are used to build and operate web sites. Vertical Computer Systems is requesting a full jury trial. If VCS prevails, .NET technology implementations as we know them may completely change and Microsoft would probably have to pay out a hefty sum."

Comments

Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern?

[WarwickRyan]

From the patent:

"A system and method for generating computer applications in an arbitrary object framework. The method separates content, form, and function of the computer application so that each may be accessed or modified separately."

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,826,744.PN.&OS=PN/6,8 26,744&RS=PN/6,826,744

I think I might buy some old IT books, move to America, then patent everything in them.

Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern?

[huckamania]

They don't even have to be that old, apparently.

How does this affect the mono project? What about other projects that might use...
"A system and method for generating computer applications in an arbitrary object framework." ...Where...
"The method separates content, form, and function of the computer application so that each may be accessed or modified separately."

I tend to stay away from arbitrary object frameworks, but that's just me.

Hurrah for the MS-haters, I guess. MS has deep pockets and plenty of lawyers. If these other idiots win, I just wonder who's next and whether this will stifle future development across the board.

Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern?

[Anonymous Coward]

Writing a batch file that piped a directory listing into a text file might be a violation of the "patent". Seriously, I read the patent their claims are ridiculous. They're trying to patent ideas that are more than 20 years old, probably more than 30, and they seem to have gotten away with it by including references to the web. The patent examiner should be fired, or left to work in their field of expertise, which obviously isn't computer science, the company and individual in question should forfite all their other patents to the public domain, and their lawyer who's pressing the case should lose his license.

Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern?

[Anonymous Coward]

The patent appears to be on automatically generating an MVC container. It's not very clear because it's written in lawyerspeak to make it appear like they've invented something novel.

A method for generating a computer application on a host system in an arbitrary object framework that separates a content of said computer application, a form of said computer application and a functionality of said computer application, said method comprising: creating arbitrary objects with corresponding arbitrary names of various object types for generating said content of said computer application, said form of said computer application, and said functionality of said computer application; managing said arbitrary objects in an object library; and deploying said arbitrary objects from said object library into a design framework to create said computer application.

What can we say? Prior art on creating arbitrary text to describe arbitrary concepts with a view to being awarded an arbitrary patent and suing Microsoft for an arbitrary sum?

Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern?

[killjoe]

I don't know about everybody else but what would you get by suing mono? Who would pay you and how much could you get out of them?

Anyway MS will pay. They have to because they will be suing people for patent infringement soon. If anything they will purchase this patent and sue other people with it.

Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern?

[dhasenan]

Novell is the biggest single party contributing to Mono, so you could sue them. Of course, once this issue is settled, the Mono project will be covered by MS's patent licenses, which is a good thing, as far as it goes.

Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern?

[julesh]

I don't think what's covered is MVC. Read the first claim, which all the rest are derivitives of:

A method for generating a computer application on a host system in an arbitrary object framework that separates a content of said computer application, a form of said computer application and a functionality of said computer application, said method comprising: creating arbitrary objects with corresponding arbitrary names of various object types for generating said content of said computer application, said form of said computer application, and said functionality of said computer application; managing said arbitrary objects in an object library; and deploying said arbitrary objects from said object library into a design framework to create said computer application. (emphasis mine)

What they've patented is the use of "design mode" with a "toolbox" of object types, in the specific way that visual studio does it.

Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern?

[dhasenan]

This applies not just to having an XML file describing an interface with a codebehind layer in some other language, but to keeping your GUI in one file or set of files and your engine in another set of files, which is a common practice. The former was somewhat novel (at least, I never really thought of it until I saw that Glade and QT Designer had XML output), but from the sound of it, they didn't specifically consider this -- at least, the portion of their patent that would cover this practice also covers using a scripting language that doesn't involve a separate compilation step and keeping the GUI in a separate set of files.

Claim 18 amuses me, though -- it specifically covers using CVS on such projects.

Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

hey! Open office has a form designer, with a designer mode too. Should we be rooting for a Microsoft victory to stop this nonsense?

Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern?

[WED Fan]

So, I write a:

• Data Access Layer (content)
• Business Logic Layer (function)
• Presentation Layer (form)

and, I'm in violation of this patent? You know, I'm all for patents for almost anything, but something like this will just about put me in the patent reform camp.

Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern?

[smallfries]

It sounds more like a patent on a make system. The description in the technical content section describes regenerating web-pages after assets have been changed without a programmer being involved. I'd say that make, or even visual studio would count as prior art. The patent was filed in 1999 but build systems have been around for decades.

Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern?

[joto]

hey! Open office has a form designer, with a designer mode too. Should we be rooting for a Microsoft victory to stop this nonsense?

Of course. Software patents are evil! Or do you really think it's more important to smack microsoft than to fight for principles?

Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern?

[eonlabs]

So what's to say someone can't patent something like "the use of C++ code in the creation of executables." I mean, this sounds exactly like the point of XML to me. It's an open ended language designed for compartmentalizing and tree-like structural definitions. Shouldn't the patent get dropped for this move? It's an obvious use because the language was designed with that in mind.

Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern?

[jacksonj04]

Hell yes, given that if the lose on this one the patent will affect (as far as I can tell) most forms of skinnable application, common UI and widget toolkits. Of course I could be wrong as patents are written so that you need a team of lawyers and a map to work out what they mean.

Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern?

[julesh]

Open office has a form designer, with a designer mode too.

To be infringing, it would need to allow arbitrary objects to be included in the form from the library. I haven't used this feature of OO, but my experience has generally been that this is unusual. Open source projects that I expect would be found infringing include Eclipse, SharpDevelop, probably some content management systems.

Should we be rooting for a Microsoft victory to stop this nonsense?

Yes. We should always hope that all software patent litigation fails, whoever the plaintiff and defendant are.

Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern?

[Tablizer]

To be infringing, it would need to allow arbitrary objects to be included in the form from the library.

Like Visual Basic components? There used to be whole catalogs dedicated to 3rd party add-on VB widgets, starting in the early 90's (and probably still are to less of a degree since the dot-net days). That sounds "arbitrary" to me.

Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern?

[dhasenan]

I read 'object library' differently -- like STL or Java's standard library. Since the patent is not specific enough to differentiate, there's no telling which.

Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern?

[julesh]

Possibly. I never used VB, so I'm not sure. Questions:

1. Did the language, its standard library or its development environment provide any facilities for separation of content, form and functionality?
2. When you used a 3rd party widget, was the process of integrating it into your application automated?

I think the answer to both of these would have to be 'yes', but if they were, MS is sitting on their own prior art.

Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern?

[Tablizer]

1. Did the language, its standard library or its development environment provide any facilities for separation of content, form and functionality?

That probably depends on how you define "separation".

2. When you used a 3rd party widget, was the process of integrating it into your application automated?

It's been a while, but I think after the installation process of the 3rd-pary tool, the new icons/widgets were in the tool palette. In that sense, it was "automatic".

If not, that may be a way for MS to work around it: require an extra minor step to load in new widgets/objects. This is sort of like going 2-click instead of 1-click to get around the dumb Amazon patent.

Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern?

[killjoe]

Novell doesn't "contribute" to mono. It uses mono, it hypes mono it employes some (most?) mono programmers but that's about it.

Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern?

[Danse]

Of course. Software patents are evil! Or do you really think it's more important to smack microsoft than to fight for principles?

If software patents are evil, then we shouldn't be rooting for Microsoft to win the case. We should be hoping they lose and it makes them start pushing for reform of the system.

Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern?

[Jason Earl]

How does this affect the mono project? What about other projects that might use...

Armchair strategists in the Free Software community have been concerned about Mono and patents from day one, but the reality is that Mono is probably the safest technology on the planet. The reason behind this is simple. If you were going to sue someone over patent infringement would you rather sue Microsoft with its billions of dollars in the bank and millions of customers that rely on every misfeature in its product, or would you rather sue the Mono project which has less money than your average chess club and would happily remove features rather than risk going to court.

The answer is so obvious that it is laughable. If you had a patent that both Mono and .NET used you would almost certainly go after Microsoft. That means that the only company that is likely to sue Mono over patents is Microsoft itself. Even Microsoft knows that if it started suing developers that it would be committing suicide. Ballmer was right when he pointed out that the game is all about developers, and only the stupidest of developers would use Microsoft's technologies for new projects if Microsoft starting suing groups that created technologies that integrated with its development stack. At a certain level everyone that programs is in competition with Microsoft. If Microsoft started throwing its patent weight around developers would flee to other stacks in a hurry.

So what does this mean for Mono? It means that, in this particular case hiding in Microsoft's big shadow is probably the safest place to be. The patent trolls will go after Microsoft and if it turns out that the patent troll actually wins then Mono can always remove the functionality in question long before they face a similar suit. Not that a company that takes a large bite out of Microsoft is going to want to waste money and time trying to shake down a Free Software project.

In the meantime Microsoft will continue to talk big words about Linux and problems with "intellectual property" and the money that is supposedly owed them by Linux users. Ironically this will likely help the patent trolls, like this particular company, in their quest to extract some of Microsoft's money, as it will make it very hard for Microsoft to argue against expensive damages in the case that they lose. After all, Microsoft's own executives have commented any number of times about the need to maintain proper patent licenses.

Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern?

[westyx]

"safest technology" wtf? Safe from everyone but microsoft, and microsoft is as pretty much as big a threat as they come.

Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern?

[mr_mischief]

If you're looking to get people to cease and desist instead of just a big payday, then you'd absolutely want to go for the guy who can't fight back very well in court. If everyone ceases and desists using this old and obvious technology except those who are paying you royalties, then you're getting all the money out of the market you can.

Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern?

[toadlife]

"Novell doesn't "contribute" to mono...it employes some (most?) mono programmers..." Care to define "contribute" for the rest of us?

Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern?

[killjoe]

It all depends on whether the hours booked on mono get charged to novell or not.

Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern?

[fusion9290991]

Surely there should be something in place to block things like this? How long as .net been out for? How long has it taken for these guys to realise that their patents are being infringed? I think there should be a counter-suit for being asleep at the wheel, as it were.

Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern?

[mangastudent]

hey! Open office has a form designer, with a designer mode too. Should we be rooting for a Microsoft victory to stop this nonsense?

Of course. Software patents are evil! Or do you really think it's more important to smack microsoft than to fight for principles?

"A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money."

The only problem I see here is that now that Microsoft is starting to use patents offensively (against Linux, at least rhetorically), they've lost a lot of their moral standing to complain about software patents. I think there has to be a sea change in opinion before the laws and practices have a change of significant change, and Microsoft can no longer help there. For now a posture of standing back and watching the fun can be justified.

On the other hand, replace Ballmer and things could change, and this is a very long game we're playing. I'm not sure I should expect real patent reform in my lifetime....

Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern?

[SL Baur]

Writing a batch file that piped a directory listing into a text file might be a violation of the "patent". Not exactly. What they've patented is apparently the 4-GL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth-generation_pro gramming_language

Ugh. I hope they lose this one.

Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern?

[stonecypher]

What is it with people like you? The patent doesn't cover everything that can be interpreted in that one sentence. The claim list is fifty three points . If any ONE of those is different, the patent doesn't apply.

Quit with the "OMG I FOUND A SENTENCE THAT WHEN READ OUT OF CONTEXT SOUNDS OVERREACHING." Honestly. That just isn't how the patent system works. It never has been how the patent system works. Pick any dozen patents at random; if you'd bother to read the patent, you'd know it wasn't like that. Hell, the first textual sentence in the patent makes one stricture clear that isn't covered in what you said, namely that it applies to web applications.

TECHNICAL FIELD OF THE INVENTION

This invention relates generally to systems and methods for generating software applications in an arbitrary object framework, and more specifically to systems and methods for generating web sites in an arbitrary object framework.

Is this an application of model view controller? (MCV? Lord. At least get them in the right order.) Yes. Many patented things are applications of model view controller. Did you notice that Vlissides under IBM patented a variant on visitor pattern the other week? That's what you should be pissed off about.

If you had read the patent, you'd know that what's actually being patented is the methodology of using XML to describe a widget system which can be compiled to target HTML or widget systems equally. The methodology is critically contingent on the trilateral seperation between content as stored in XML, custom interpreter as compiled into application, and presentation as compiled into what Microsoft now calls a manifest. All they've actually patented is a compiled storage mechanism. All Microsoft had to do was implement .NET as traditional libraries, and they would not have fallen afoul of this patent.

The reason they fell afoul of this patent is that they chose to make applications that embedded an interpreter which could handle what amounted to an XML presentation of an application. That's foolish, as it was patented nine years ago, before Microsoft even deployed an XML interpreter with IE.

Does it seem obvious today? Hell yes. Did it in 1999? No . I saw this patent back then, and I laughed at it. I thought it was retarded, bloated and unnessecary. I was dead wrong.

A patent doesn't stop being valid just because a decade later it seems obvious. Indeed, with all the best patents, that's a matter of course. That kid who patented holding alkalai over deep fat fryers, to turn oil into soap to put out fires? His invention was bloody obvious just a month later. But, his patent held.

Look, the fact of the matter is that they came up with the encoding that makes .NET's web transition so powerful long before Microsoft ever did. Microsoft doesn't get to just show up and start using it, even if you think it's over-reaching.

And, in the future, please don't bother to say something's over-broad until you've read it. The karma whoring and FUD are fairly tiresome.

Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern?

[Anonymous Coward]

if you want to create a precedent, you would go for the small guy, and then for the money. There is an issue of jurisdictions to sort out but IANAL.

Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern?

[powerlord]

The reason behind this is simple. If you were going to sue someone over patent infringement would you rather sue Microsoft with its billions of dollars in the bank and millions of customers that rely on every misfeature in its product, or would you rather sue the Mono project which has less money than your average chess club and would happily remove features rather than risk going to court.

The "professional" name attached to this state of being penniless is "Judgement-proof" :)

And you wonder

[El Lobo]

And you wonder why MS is obligated to patent more and more trivial things? Nobody wants to be eaten by sharks.

Re:And you wonder

[gerrysteele]

Microsoft was one of the companies who pushed for the idea of software patents. They get no sympathy when patent triviality bites them in their bloated sagging asses. Their defence mechanism is the fact that they have a huge legal department that is consulted during the development stages of new ideas. I'm sure they are aware they are a target and that is considered an acceptable loss for the net gain they get out of the subjugation of competition.

They are not obliged, as you say, to patent trivial things. It is a clear business decision to take advantage of a terrible system

Re:And you wonder

[blowdart]

They are not obliged, as you say, to patent trivial things. It is a clear business decision to take advantage of a terrible system

Oh yes they are; as a listed company they are obliged to their shareholders to protect their investment. If they don't patent their "trivial things" they would leave themselves open to being sued by shareholders because they exposed themselves by not doing so.

Re:And you wonder

[gerrysteele]

Funny how we in the free world survives without these patents. They have no merit for the consumer, they serve only the interest of corporations who exist solely to litigate and gain their earnings from suing other companies.

Re:And you wonder

[suv4x4]

Funny how we in the free world survives without these patents.

Don't be so brave to claim your world "the free world". Last time this happened to USA and see where they are now. Europe is on the track to follow them.

Re:And you wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

They are not obliged, as you say, to patent trivial things. It is a clear business decision to take advantage of a terrible system

Yes and to those who say they have a duty to their shareholders, that isn't true. How much does it cost to run the MS patent department, how much to settle patent litigation and how much do Microsoft bring in through licensing? Once they've excluded their competitors, how much are Microsoft going to bring in through patent licensing?

Oops!

Re:And you wonder

[Knuckles]

They should lobby for the abolition of software patents.

Re:And you wonder

[JonnyCalcutta]

What a load of nonsense. They are obliged to use their best judgement - that doesn't mean they are obliged to take back empty cans for 1/4c each in case they are sued for not increasing shareholder value. Nor are they obliged to ensure the lights are switched off at night to save electricity costs or that envelopes are reused to save stationary costs. Of course anyone can sue anyone for anything, but that doesn't mean you are 'obliged' to do stupid things in case stupid people bring stupid lawsuits. If you wish to argue this point please post links showing the plethora of lawsuits against companies for not taking out patents on obvious or non-original ideas.

Re:And you wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that originally Microsoft was quite anti software patents and only began patenting anything they could after they realised that other companies had the potential to disrupt Microsoft's operations through patenting things which Microsoft used. Of course that was in the past and I can't say much for what they do now, but as far as I know Microsoft now owns a hell of a lot of patents but doesn't often actually bring litigation against companies which infringe upon their patents. Who would you rather have the patents for trivial things, a company which patents the things to protect itself from litigation, or a company which patents things for the purpose of litigating large companies. Microsoft seem to be of the former being more a target for litigation due to their mountains of cash than anything else.

Re:And you wonder

[makomk]

Now Microsoft need software patents to stop Linux from beating them (or at least think they do, which comes to pretty much the same thing). I think they figure they can handle the occasional patent lawsuit from the few companies that are rich (and brave) enough to take them on and don't have any products that are at risk from a counter-suit.

Re:And you wonder

[symbolic]

Their defence mechanism is the fact that they have a huge legal department that is consulted during the development stages of new ideas.

New ideas? This is Microsoft. The standard m.o. seems to focus on taking ideas that are readily available, modifying them in insignificant ways, and calling it "innovation," and then patenting it. This isn't unique to Microsoft, but it's sure a large part of their approach to R&D.

Re:And you wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft was one of the companies who pushed for the idea of software patents.

This is just flat out incorrect. Yes, they have lots of patents now, and use patent-rattling as a weapon against Linux. But historically, they weren't "one of the companies who pushed for the idea of software patents."

Show us the link if you have one.

Re:And you wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

By "free world," you mean the third world, right? The USA became the #1 country in the world due to capitalism and patents, which protect creators from getting ripped off. If I invent something, I damn well deserve to be protected for it because my invention is valuable to the country's economy. But I don't expect trendy, anti-capitalist hipsters to understand that (even as they type their posts on computers made in capitalist societies protected by patents!).

Re:And you wonder

[Chabil Ha']

And you wonder why MS is obligated to patent more and more trivial things? Nobody wants to be eaten by sharks.

Or everyone wants to *be* the shark.

Re:And you wonder

[nschubach]

This is what worries me about the recent patent I read about on some other sites. The patent deal with connecting devices throughout the home and allowing content to be displayed or run on any device from a central point. This is basically Sony's strategy with the PS3/PSP connectivity, remote play and LocationFree.

Link

Re:And you wonder

[koreth]

Then how do you explain the rapid growth of the software industry before software patents became commonplace?

Re:And you wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice troll, I see you've completely flunked American history.

Re:And you wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft patents "trivial things" because if they don't, someone else will. Microsoft, with their large portfolio of software and large bank account is one of the biggest losers in the patent wars.

In the last 50 years or so, courts have given companies and their management/board of directors a lot of discretion. Not even a kook would try to file a lawsuit over not filing a patent application. Which says a lot about you.

Re:And you wonder

[init100]

If I invent something, I damn well deserve to be protected for it

If you and another inventor independently invent the same thing simultaneously, but you file a patent application and he does not, should you have the right to deny him the right to make it into a product and sell it?

This brings up the good question whether or not you should be able to own ideas or concepts. I think not. Note that I don't oppose being able to own an implementation of a concept though.

Re:And you wonder

[jrockway]

> If they don't patent their "trivial things" they would leave themselves open to being sued by shareholders because they exposed themselves by not doing so.

OK, maybe. You're saying that some shareholder (probably not a tech, of course) would some day notice that microsoft didn't patent "Method for moving a cursor via a foot-pedal". He would then organize a lawsuit against microsoft for this reason?

Is anyone that insane? Does anyone have that much free time?

Re:And you wonder

[SillyNickName4me]

The USA became the #1 country in the world due to capitalism and patents, which protect creators from getting ripped off.

Hmm.. the USA became the currently most powerfull economy in the world by ignoring patents and copyrights by others. Obviously they are trying to stop others from doing the same thing.

If I invent something, I damn well deserve to be protected for it because my invention is valuable to the country's economy. But I don't expect trendy, anti-capitalist hipsters to understand that (even as they type their posts on computers made in capitalist societies protected by patents!).

I suggest the first thing you go 'invent' is how to read a history book.

A few billions here, a few billions there

[HuguesT]

Pretty soon, we'll be talking about serious money.

Re:A few billions here, a few billions there

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Not that soon: Bill probably doesn't have a note this small in his pocket, though Steve might have to forego breaking any W^Hwindows this week to cover the costs...

Re:A few billions here, a few billions there

[Anonymous Coward]

Credit where it's due:

http://www.dirksencenter.org/print_emd_billionhere .htm

(although I'm not sure if a misquote in a newspaper means we should credit the speaker or the newspaperman...)

I'm not anti-Microsoft...

[localman]

...but I sort of hope they get bit badly by this. Am I a fool to assume that the only way for patents to be reformed is for the big players to get bit so bad they start lobbying for change?

Re:I'm not anti-Microsoft...

[Tokerat]

That about sums it up, yea.

Re:I'm not anti-Microsoft...

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree with your point.

Also if it was the other way around Microsoft suing someone else, they would take them for all they are worth.

Re:I'm not anti-Microsoft...

[rucs_hack]

more likely this and other cases will make microsoft start patenting more and more trivial crap.

It's going to reach the point where no software company in america will be able to create anything original at all. That will open the stage for new players, like China, India or the middle east (yes, shock horrer they do have smart people there, and software companies too, amazing isn't it...).

I think that's why microsoft is bricking over Linux et al. While Microsoft is being drown in a shitpool of its own making, Open Source is powering ever onward.

Re:I'm not anti-Microsoft...

[nanosquid]

more likely this and other cases will make microsoft start patenting more and more trivial crap.

And how is that going to help them? They're still infringing this patent and Vertical isn't interested in cross-licensing. Furthermore, even if patents were better prior art than--well, prior art--even Microsoft doesn't have enough money to patent all the trivial crap in the world.

Re:I'm not anti-Microsoft...

[tgd]

They won't get bit by it... there's a ton of prior art covering the exact set of claims in the patent.

I doubt anyone at MS is sweating it... I wrote three web development frameworks going back seven years before that application producing web applications from metadata driven definitions of collections of XML-aware objects. They did some cool stuff but were hardly unique.

MS won't have to look very hard to find prior art to get it tossed.

Re:I'm not anti-Microsoft...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Furthermore, even if patents were better prior art than--well, prior art--even Microsoft doesn't have enough money to patent all the trivial crap in the world.

They don't need all of it, only enough to sue irritations like this into oblivion (or to force a hostile takeover with the threat of doing so).

Re:I'm not anti-Microsoft...

[rucs_hack]

I'm not talking about this patent, chances are they are guilty.

No, the thing is that the more patents they have for what we might consider as insignificant crap, the less likely it will be that someone could come along and derail their products by producing a patent to some piece of technology it contains.

It's a no win scenario in any case, the only possible end is an industry that cannot innovate because of the patent fog that obscures all routes to new technology.

It's well established that there are no technologies that spontaniously emerge, everything has a precursor, everything is a slow development of previous ideas and technology. If previous technology is locked up by patents to the extent that small changes to it are challenged in court and payment demanded, then any country that plays by the rules will be crippled.

Then we'll see new not so polite players who will view the old establishment as fools, and do their own thing anyway (much like microsoft and apple did, back in the day). There will be angry protests from patent holders, all of which will do no more then cause the innovators to move to parts of the world where they can't be so easily reached, and the old system will crumble.

This also is a thing that has happened before. That's how hollywood got started. It's even analogous to how the United States got started.

Re:I'm not anti-Microsoft...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not talking about this patent, chances are they are guilty.

Maybe it would be best to avoid the word "guilty"; regardless of whether it's technically the right word, it has the fundamental problem that it implies that something wrong has been done. And I don't think many sensible people believe that it's wrong to implement a trivial idea just because someone else claims to own it.

(There's a slight problem here in that most people aren't sensible.)

Re:I'm not anti-Microsoft...

[localman]

Actually, the patent-arms-race strategy only works aginst companies that produce products and could in theory be infringing your defensive patents. But pure patent trolls exist, where there is no business, just a bunch of purchased patents and lawyers, and there's nothing to counter sue. "Companies" like that are pretty hard to deter.

Re:I'm not anti-Microsoft...

[Anonymous Coward]

You were writing XML aware objects 7 years before this patent was filed, in 1999. That would put us back to 1992, and I'm pretty sure XML didn't show up on the scene until 1997/98. You're a genious! You can write software of the future without the standards being there already!!!!

Re:I'm not anti-Microsoft...

[someone1234]

I start to believe Microsoft actually enjoys these bites. And it is not out of some weird perversion.
They suffer these losses so they could later kill competition by saying:
"We suffered much more due to less established patent claims. But we respect the patent system, you must respect it too."

Re:I'm not anti-Microsoft...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please follow along here, they ARE lobbying for change:

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/19/12 43229

This bill would limit their exposure to some fraction of the profit of the patent owning company, so, nothing in MS terms. On the other hand, infringing on an MS patent would lead to a HUGE bill.

Re:I'm not anti-Microsoft...

[McDutchie]

I think that's why microsoft is bricking over Linux et al. While Microsoft is being drown in a shitpool of its own making, Open Source is powering ever onward.

On the contrary, if things continue like this, Open Source software will become de facto illegal (if it isn't already). If every obvious software method is patented, Microsoft can simply sue Linux, GNU, OO.o, etc. out of existence, at least in the USA.

Re:I'm not anti-Microsoft...

[cybermage]

I sort of hope they get bit badly by this

Either software patents are universally bad, or they're not. Just because it's Microsoft that is the target this time, it doesn't make software patents a good thing.

Re:I'm not anti-Microsoft...

[number1scatterbrain]

That wouldn't be so bad. Half the fun of drinking ended when I turned 21.

Re:I'm not anti-Microsoft...

[nanosquid]

They don't need all of it, only enough to sue irritations like this into oblivion (or to force a hostile takeover with the threat of doing so).

What are they going to sue over? Does Vertical even make any products? And if they did, many of these patents are held by companies that don't make any products.

Owning patents yourself in hopes you can countersue is pointless; it doesn't work.

Re:I'm not anti-Microsoft...

[nanosquid]

No, the thing is that the more patents they have for what we might consider as insignificant crap, the less likely it will be that someone could come along and derail their products by producing a patent to some piece of technology it contains.

And how do you think that works? Patenting something yourself doesn't protect you from patent infringement claims by others. Furthermore, there are too many things to patent, so even if patents did protect them, "less likely" translates into "insignificantly less likely".

Re:I'm not anti-Microsoft...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Owning patents yourself in hopes you can countersue is pointless; it doesn't work.

That's not entirely fair. It appears to work very well as a way for large companies to push small companies out of a market. (Not that this is something to be welcomed, of course, given that it defeats the whole point of having patents...) But you're right, patent-hoarding isn't a terribly effective defence against patent trolls who exist purely to litigate.

We would probably need some sort of "bad faith" mechanism to nullify a patent to beat the non-product businesses. I suspect "We're actively developing something based on it" would have to be an absolute defence to that mechanism, to avoid it being used to undermine legitimate patents or create yet more litigate-until-they're-dead lawsuits.

Re:I'm not anti-Microsoft...

[WNight]

Well, Microsoft is funding legal attacks on open source software, so really whatever hurts them can only be good... Any company afraid of competing in the marketplace is one I don't support. Crime does pay is all Microsoft proves.

And as for software patents, you're right, they always suck. Like land-mines. But at least they blew up on a supporter like MS rather than some innocent bunch of coders. Maybe this'll persuade MS to change their tune and software patents will die, maybe not.

There's no way Linux, etc, and the culture of free software will go away, but companies may stop putting their name on it for a while. No real change to the users, but it could be the death of a lot of IP-camping companies. Don't invest in buggy-whips.

Have Microsoft chosen the road to irrelevance?

[Anonymous Coward]

use XML to create component-based structures that are used to build and operate web sites.

I can smell the raw innovation from this one... oh wait that's not innovation but it is the kind of bullshit Microsoft try to patent. It's about time MS got real about software patents, otherwise they'll be unable to distribute anything 10 years from now.

If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today. ... The solution is patenting as much as we can. A future startup with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price might be high. Established companies have an interest in excluding future competitors.
-- Bill Gates

Silly man!

Re:Have Microsoft chosen the road to irrelevance?

[fmobus]

I love his line of thought. He says patents would have hindered IT industry, so the solution is to patent even more! He also says that killing startups is somehow good to the industry and the society. Way to go, Bill... and he still wonders why we hate him?

Just to be clear

[Anonymous Coward]

Three processes used to create complex software applications such as web sites are form, function, and content. Form includes graphic designs, user interfaces, and graphical representations created by a designer or a group of designers. Function includes logical functionality, which can be software code created by a programmer or group of programmers. Form includes informative content. Informative content can include written, recorded, or illustrated documentation, such as photographs, illustrations, product marketing material, and news articles. Content can be created by writers, photographers, artists, reporters, or editors

-- from the patent application

So in conclusion they've been granted a patent on creating any application in any API, and anyone using that program to create and render content. Yeah, that'll stand up. At somepoint we got away from public beatings and stocks. Where and why did we go so wrong?

How long until...

[MaXMC]

Microsoft just buy them?

Re:How long until...

[kripkenstein]

No. If Microsoft buy them that will just motivate other small companies to do the same. This is just the same as the SCO-IBM lawsuit - IBM's best play is to sue SCO into the ground. Expect Microsoft to likewise fight in the courts to the best of their ability. They have plenty of money to waste.

Re:How long until...

[john.r.strohm]

They may be praying that Microsoft will buy them. They appear to be in the process of imploding.

Their last 10-K contained a couple of zingers.

"As of the date of the filing of this Report, the Company does not have sufficient funds available to fund its operations, invest in additional resources for growth and repay its debt obligations. Therefore, the Company needs to raise additional funds through selling securities, obtaining loans or increase sales. The Company's inability to raise such funds or renegotiate the terms of its existing debt will significantly jeopardize its ability to continue operations."

"The Company has incurred significant losses from operations for the year ended December 31, 2006. In addition, the Company had a working capital deficit of approximately $10.3 million at December 31, 2006. The foregoing raises substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern. Management's plans include seeking additional capital and/or debt financing. There is no guarantee that additional capital and/or debt financing will be available when and to the extent required, or that if available, it will be on terms acceptable to the Company. The accompanying financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty. Our auditors have included a going-concern paragraph to their audit report."

The entire 10-K makes for interesting reading.

See http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/fetchFilingFra meset.aspx?FilingID=5107317&Type=HTML for more information.

Re:How long until...

[TheRaven64]

I don't know if you are aware of this, but the English language is spoken by people outside America, in places like England (and Australia, Canada, India, etc). In anywhere that speaks non-US English (i.e. the majority of the English-speaking world), companies are regarded as plural from a grammatical standpoint, since they are viewed as a collection of people rather than a single entity.

Slashdot is based in the US, but it has readership from around the world. Feel free to bitch about actual grammatical or stylistic errors (such as the over-abundance of parenthetical clauses in this post), but don't expect anyone to take you seriously if you try to tell everyone that they have to use your dialect.

Re:How long until...

[Jeff Hornby]

So all Microsoft has to do is delay and cause these people huge legal bills (pocket change for Microsoft) and then probably buy up the entire patent portfolio at firesale prices.

Re:How long until...

[XMyth]

BURN!

Re:How long until...

[__aamnbm3774]

...but there is a correct and incorrect way to speak.

your argument instills things like Ebonics, which is just a conscience effort to intentionally avoid learning proper English.

Re:How long until...

[gbjbaanb]

He's an American, Not only does he think you have to use his dialect, but you've simply confused him by suggesting that there are places outside America. :-)

Re:How long until...

[Anonymous Coward]

"In anywhere that speaks non-US English (i.e. the majority of the English-speaking world), companies are regarded as plural from a grammatical standpoint, since they are viewed as a collection of people rather than a single entity."

A company is correctly a singular rather than plural entity in the UK too. It doesn't stop people being sloppy with grammar, but it constitutes sloppy usage nonetheless.

Re:How long until...

[the_humeister]

Is it a valid assumption though? I know several people who own a corporation, and each one is the only employee of his respective corporation.

Re:How long until...

[Anonymous Coward]

yes I agree but can we please tell people the difference between 'to' and 'too'

Re:How long until...

[Anonymous Coward]

As a somewhat old English person: A collection is singular, it is one flock, many birds; one herd, many cows and company, many employees (possibly). So Microsoft buys companies and companies buy Microsoft products, for whatever reason.

By your logic "house" is plural because it has more than one room.

Re:How long until...

[Tablizer]

Microsoft just buy them?

This is akin to paying to get hostages back. It works once, but encourages lawsuits merely for the sake of being bought out to make the owners rich.

Re:How long until...

[alienmole]

There's a correct and incorrect way to write, too. Is your use of "conscience" an example of said Ebonics? In English, we'd say "conscious". Either way, the parent's point is that on /., using either American or English dialects is perfectly acceptable, and doesn't have much to do with the existence of Ebonics. Fo shizzle.

Re:How long until...

[drewness]

...but there is a correct and incorrect way to speak.

your argument instills things like Ebonics, which is just a conscience effort to intentionally avoid learning proper English. No. There's not a thing right in your entire comment. Language is arbitrary. There are a number of dialects of English, which can be divided at several levels of granularity (e.g. at a coarse grained level, American vs Commonwealth English) where different things are considered grammatical or considered to be correct spellings. Everyone (with the exception of people with developmental problems or certain kinds of brain damage) speaks a grammatical language by adulthood. There are social factors that make certain dialects strongly preferable for formal use. But what is "correct" formally can even vary contextually. Almost every journal has its own style guide, newspapers have several style guides they can work from, different professions have their own expected styles, etc. There is no Platonic ideal English that you can pick out of the aether and call "correct English".

As for Ebonics, it was *not* an effort to "avoid learning proper English". It was about as far from that as possible. It was a program that recognized that in poor, urban, primarily black areas children were coming to school who spoke a dialect of English that is just as rule based and structured as Standard American English (SAE), but different enough from SAE that they were having trouble understanding and learning. It proposed teaching them in African American Vernacular English (AAVE) in Kindergarten and slowly mainstreaming them into SAE. It was much like the successful system that is used in many school districts to help children who speak Spanish in the home get mainstreamed into English speaking classes over the course of elementary school.

Re:How long until...

[stedo]

No, it is using the subjunctive mood. Many native English speakers are actually unaware that English has a subjunctive, but it does. The subjunctive is usually just the infinitive, except for the verb "to be", whose subjunctive is "were" (e.g. "if I were to go to town tomorrow, I would buy something"). The subjunctive is used to express doubt, hypothesis, etc. rather that actual fact, so the phrase "If Microsoft buy them" is perfectly correct, and implies that the poster doubts that Microsoft will actually buy them (as is clear from context anyway). The fact that Microsoft is the name of a company is irrelevant. The sentence "It is necessary that Bill Gates buy the company" also makes sense. See here for common examples of the use of the subjunctive in English.

Re:How long until...

[stedo]

Sorry, no. The poster's comment does not imply that he thinks of "Microsoft" as a plural; it is clearly singular. The poster is using the subjunctive mood, and dialect is irrelevant. (See my reply to GP)

Re:How long until...

[poopdeville]

companies are regarded as plural from a grammatical standpoint, since they are viewed as a collection of people rather than a single entity.

Is this true of all collective nouns? For instance, would you say that "a flock fly" or "a flock flies"?

Re:How long until...

[nytes]

Slashdot is based in the US, but it has readership from around the world.

Shouldn't that be "Slashdot are based"? Slashdot is^H^Hare a^H company.

Re:How long until...

[Silver Gryphon]

Yes, it does appear this is their last temper tantrum and/or marketing scheme. The 10K further describes $10 million in negative assets, 16 million debt to the shareholders... and this tidbit suggests their patent's intent was only for one product named SiteFlash which they are now licensing. This is a far different description than I know of the .Net framework, which I would consider the foundation to enable the SiteFlash product to exist. The patent text appears to describe the web technology, and not the .Net / CLR technology. (I'm not a lawyer; they speak a different alien language.)

--

  The Company's primary core internet technology is SiteFlash(TM). The SiteFlash(TM) technology utilizes XML and publishes content on the Web, enabling the user to build and efficiently operate Websites with the unique ability to separate form, function, and content. SiteFlash(TM) uses an advanced component-based structure to separate, parse, and store the various components of even the most complex Web pages, which permits these components to be named, organized, filed and eventually redeployed onto the Web pages of a Website. Once all of the components of the Web page are converted into " objects ," they can be grouped, as required by the user, into the three main types of web page components: content, form and function. Content consists of text, pictures or multimedia. Form includes graphics and web site colors, layout and design. Function refers to the activities performed by or actions executed on the website. In this way, each element of a Website created using SiteFlash(TM) is interchangeable with any other similar element, and these elements may be grouped together in almost any combination to create complex Websites. This separation of form, function, and content also allows for the rapid creation of affiliated Websites. This unique ability is patented (U.S. Patent number 6,826,744) and has many applications in the Web arena. The Company is in the process of licensing this patent. The Company has retained the law firm of Niro, Scavone, Haller & Niro in connection with the licensing of SiteFlash(TM).

Re:How long until...

[dmayle]

(i.e. the majority of the English-speaking world)

I agree with your point about American English not being the only game in town, but I think you are a bit misleading in the phrase I'm quoting just above. Not only do the United States have more people speaking English as their first language than any other country, but there are more people speaking English as their first language than all other countries combined. So, if you want to talk about native English speakers, than we get back to the U.S. being on top...

Final note: even in American English, the GGP is valid English, Microsoft can buy them out.

Re:How long until...

[Phroggy]

Final note: even in American English, the GGP is valid English, Microsoft can buy them out. No it isn't. You're adding the word "can", which is a verb, which allows you to use the infinitive form of the verb "buy" (you could also use "will buy" for the same reason). Without that, if the subject (Microsoft) is singular (which it is in American English), the only correct verb conjugation (without changing other words) is "buys".

location to develop?

[essence]

So how far reaching is this rediculous patent system. The USA is a write-off i know. Things are similar in europe yes? What parts of the world are still 'free' so to speak, in regards to patents? Is there anywhere left where a developer can put together what they want and distribute it without worrying about all this bullshit?

Re:location to develop?

[Omicron32]

Russia and Sweden.

Re:location to develop?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

So how far reaching is this rediculous patent system. The USA is a write-off i know. Things are similar in europe yes?

No. The European legislature has so far rejected attempts to force the EU member states to implement software patents.

This is not to say that no patents have ever been granted on software in EU states. Indeed, one of the few good things about the various failed proposals was that they would have regulated an area that is somewhat messy in some countries at present. But those patents may or may not stand up — I don't think have been any relevant test cases yet — and they are relatively few. We don't have one-click and the like here.

Re:location to develop?

[Anonymous Coward]

No true... The European Patent Office has illegally granted several software patents against the letter and spirit of the law so we actually DO HAVE patents like "one click" ... not that specific patent, but several very similar like the Amazon gift sending patent.

http://eupat.ffii.org/

Re:location to develop?

[TheRaven64]

The patents have been granted, but they are not enforceable in most jurisdictions. This, actually, gives excellent leverage for the anti-patent lobby. We can point to these patents that have been granted and shouldn't have been, and show politicians that companies that haven't been playing by the rules would gain a competitive advantage over those that have.

Re:location to develop?

[Anonymous Coward]

But Swedish pirates will steal your software, and Russion crackers will crack it!!!

OMG.

Look, up in the sky

[kroepoek]

It's a bird! It's a plane!

OMG It's flying chairs from Redmond!

Re:Look, up in the sky

[JonathanR]

A change from flying toasters, I suppose...

And we all change our tune...

[walkie]

Hurray for software patents!

Complex is the key word

[huckamania]

From the patent: "...for use in complex computer applications."

Luckily everything I do is pretty simple. I guess complex would apply to .net as it is that. Even with the security risks, I prefer PHP and mysql over .net and whatever. The way I use PHP, it also alleviates the claim of having seperate content and data, twofer!

Re:Complex is the key word

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello World in old MFC programming violates this patent. Anything in pearl, or nearly any interesting scripting, would probably violate this patent. Like that old Alice thing they did at Carnegie Mellon would DEFINATELY violate this patent. And since that's been producing content, let alone as a concept, since at least 1997 which is when I heard of it, yeah, bs patent. Hell, it was a project started at the University of Virginia, so who knows how old it is at some level of functionality, never mind conceptually. Simple, useful, powerful, at the level where the muscle meets the bones is complicated. This patent is pro entropy, anti work. This patent isn't just helping the terrorists win, it's turning the universe dark.

Re:Complex is the key word

[digitig]

As far as I can see, it's a patent on the MVC model. If you use an MVC model for something that isn't complex and isn't predicted to become complex then you're playing.

I can't see the pictures in the patent (and I don't want to install Apple Quicktime so that I can), but is there anything in the patent that isn't in javax.swing? That goes back well before that patent.

Re:Complex is the key word

[Bastard of Subhumani]

It looks more like a patent on using metadata to control the behaviour of code, or to control on-the-fly code generation (anyone remeber CASE?). There again, it's so vague and broad we could both be right.

Re:Complex is the key word

[Weedlekin]

" is there anything in the patent that isn't in javax.swing? That goes back well before that patent"

Java's very much a johnny-come-lately as far as MVC goes. Trygve Reenskaug described it in 1979 when working at Xerox Xerox PARC, and this 1987 paper on using it with Smalltalk-80 (http://st-www.cs.uiuc.edu/users/smarch/st-docs/mv c.html) has an in-depth treatment. Other notable early implementations were NextStep and indeed the document/view architecture in Microsoft's own MFC C++ framework.

Patents: From bad to worse.

[nocynic]

The patent issue in the US is going/gone from bad to worse. The retrieval form is bloody tough for any regular developer to sit and verify whether or not what he just developed is actually patent free or not! For all we know, there are a ton of ideas, not limited to computers alone, that have been developed by some really smart people who don't know whether or not their idea falls under some patent statement, fearing which, the inventor hasn't brought his creation under the public eye!

Re:Patents: From bad to worse.

[gujo-odori]

I'm a former employee of a certain large software company related to TFA, and interestingly, one thing they tell you when you go to work there (and I suspect other large companies that file lots of patents also do this) is that you should not - never, ever, ever - do any research into patents to try and find out if something you're developing or have developed and may be filing a patent application on might infringe any existing patents.

The reason for this is that if you do, infringement becomes easier to prove for anyone who does happen to sue you, because they can point at you and say "See, these programmers did patent research in this area, then produced a product and/or filed a patent on stuff that does what my stuff does" and if they win, then they will do better in the damages phase because they can present evidence showing willful infringement.

The bottom line was, leave any patent research, including the decision of whether or not to do it, up to the legal department. Don't get anywhere near it yourself.

Re:Patents: From bad to worse.

[Tony Hoyle]

Wilful infringement is triple damages. Therefore that advice is given by all clueful companies, unless they want to head quickly into bankcruptcy.

Re:Patents: From bad to worse.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're skilled in the art and come up with something infringing without having sight of the patent - isn't that absolute proof that the patent is void because it was obvious?

Re:Patents: From bad to worse.

[gujo-odori]

IANAL, but generally, no. First of all, there is no such thing as absolute proof in patent law.

Secondly, if two people skilled in the art (hereafter referred to as "geniuses") come up with the same thing independently and with no knowledge of the other's research or patents, that is proof of nothing but the fact that two geniuses independently came up with the same, or substantially the same, idea. It may, however, be useful for the patent holder to argue against obvious, on the grounds that if it took a genius to devise it, then it's not obvious.

However, if two very average people (herafter referred to as "idiots") both independently come up with the same idea with no knowledge of the other's work, then you probably have something obvious. If any idiot could think of it, and at least two did so independently, it probably should not be patentable.

Again, IANAL, but one of the challenges in defending an infringement suit or in trying to invalidate a patent based on obviousness and/or prior art may that the work of geniuses has historically been much easier to find than the work of idiots. Google changes that more than a little, but it's still easier to find the work of geniuses, I suspect.

Re:Patents: From bad to worse.

[Jessta]

The retrieval form is bloody tough for any regular developer to sit and verify whether or not what he just developed is actually patent free or not!
It's actually pretty easy. Any software you make is covered by some patent.
You can only hope that you don't have enough money for someone to notice or that you can find prior art for everything your software does.

Re:Patents: From bad to worse.

[harry666t]

harry666t wrote:

I don't like Poland anymore

Well, at the moment I think Poland is not so bad after all. Software patents would be limiting my creativity. I'm really happy to live in a country where no software patents apply.


Shit, it was weeks since I wrote a line of code, I'm moving.

Re:Patents: From bad to worse.

[trifish]

Umm, slightly more sensible advice would be:

DO search the patents for possible infringement, and:

1. If you find out what you have been programming is patented, do not release it to avoid patent infringement OR buy a license for the patent.

2. If you find it is not patented, go ahead and use it. You will be able to show beyond reasonable doubt that your use should classified as "in good faith".

Re:Patents: From bad to worse.

[jez9999]

I bet that worked really well when the legal folk walked up and announced that your last 2 months of work were wasted and had to be scrapped, because something that was fundamental to the design happened to infringe on a patent.

*Glad not to be in the US*

Re:Patents: From bad to worse.

[julesh]

DO search the patents for possible infringement, and:

1. If you find out what you have been programming is patented, do not release it to avoid patent infringement OR buy a license for the patent.

2. If you find it is not patented, go ahead and use it. You will be able to show beyond reasonable doubt that your use should classified as "in good faith".

The problem with this approach is that (a) there are so many patents out there that seem to cover everything that a developer is likely to never be able to produce anything and (b) it's very easy for somebody who isn't trained in patent searching to miss one.

Re:Patents: From bad to worse.

[Seraphim_72]

Who knew that life had bonus points?

Re:Patents: From bad to worse.

[trifish]

there are so many patents out there that seem to cover everything that a developer is likely to never be able to produce anything

Is that a reason not to perform a patent search? Is that a reason to risk patent infringement?

it's very easy for somebody who isn't trained in patent searching to miss one.

Is that a reason not to perform a patent search? Is that a reason to risk patent infringement?

What the OP advised is rather silly (euphemism).

Re:Patents: From bad to worse.

[SillyNickName4me]

It may, however, be useful for the patent holder to argue against obvious, on the grounds that if it took a genius to devise it, then it's not obvious.

The requirement is to be non-obvious to someone skilled in the field, hence that reasoning ought to fail.

This all is pretty irrelevant because obviousness in patent law has little to do with the dictionary meaning of obvious anyway.

In patent law, you should read 'obvious' as a pre-existing documented motivation to combine pre-existing ideas. In other words, it is just a variation on prior art.

And no, that was not the intention of the law for all I can tell, but it is what it currently comes down to. How many people would come up with the same idea independently is of no relevance here, regardless of those people being experts or complete idiots.

Re:Patents: From bad to worse.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it is a reason not to perform a patent search. Specifically, because it does NOT eliminate the risk of patent infringement, and increases the danger of being found guilty of WILLFUL patent infringement. Potential damages in court are greater for willful infringement. The reasoning goes like this:

1. Even if we DO search the patents, the odds of our being safe from legal action is low. The problem is too large to be solvable with reasonable resources. (for the reasons the grandparent gave.)

2. Since we cannot reduce our risk to a point that makes successful lawsuits highly unlikely, we will avoid being in the position of being willful infringers by not searching any patents - ignorance is partial protection as the law is written. In the process, we also become more efficient in development and make more money that will help offset any legal judgments against us.

There are reasons large companies adopt these policies, and I assure you it's not stupidity. There are significant financial incentives to handle the matter in this fashion.

Re:Patents: From bad to worse.

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad we've entered into the realm of patenting the use of technologies for their intended purpose and the patent office doesn't give a damn and nor do the courts.

Re:Patents: From bad to worse.

[rastamafoo]

If folks would bother to do a little research they could avoid this kind of calamity. If Vertical Computers wins against Microsoft and any other development base their lawyers go after, it will be because Microsoft managers and developers used precisely this idea of 'if I don't see it elsewhere, it never existed'. Well, that's a convenient approach if you are confident you have something nobody else has done or has worked out... but... Vertical introduced their technology in Feb 2001. They produced a product called XML Enabler Agent IBM retired their XML Enabler in 2001 and introduced VCSY as among the top innovators in the US. Microsoft introduced Hailstorm in Mar 2001. It was a flop. IBM and Vertical XML disappeared from the scene shortly thereafter. Microsoft continued their rant on 'owning XML' due to some patents they touted. We don't hear word of those Microsoft patents any more do we? Do you want to know why? Because, when the SiteFlash patent was granted in November 2004 (right around the time Ballmer threw the chair at Lucovsky and drove XMLhttpRequest/Ajax into the arms of Google). Do you remember the Microsoft shut down public demonstration of all but the most simple XML projects back then? Why? Did they know? If they did not know about Vertical, their legal teams and managers are incompetent. Now the question lays 'Were they incompetent or did they have criminal intent?' Folks should get used to hearing about Vertical, SiteFlash, the XML Enabler Agent, Emily, WebOS, extensible micro-kernel operating systems and the works because the brain trust under Vertical's wing is skilled in this art because THEY are among those who have DONE the prior art... and YOU read about it in a book or scratch it out on the back of a paper bag and call it 'MINE'. It's not yours. You only borrowed it for a time. Vertical wants it back and any of the money you made on it because you failed to look up similar art (the patent application dates to 1999 - how many of you 'developers' were out of high school then?) because your managers told you not to. HA HA HA This is too funny. 'Honest judge. We didn't know!' 'Then what's that Dr. Dobbs magazine sticking out of your pocket? heh heh ... BANG. GUILTY.'

Re:Patents: From bad to worse.

[gujo-odori]

My example was *precisely* that of something non-obvious to someone skilled in the art; don't look now, but it's not my reasoning that's failing here.

The patent law meaning of non-obvious is really something more like "novel." The problem we are having is that the bar is set (far) too low for what is considered novel/obvious, with the result that very pedestrian solutions - often with prior art out there - get awarded patents.

If multiple people came up with the same idea independently and they did so before your patent, and especially if they weren't even people particularly skilled in the art, that has great relevance. Not only is your patent then in danger on prior art grounds, but also on obviousness grounds.

I'm not a lawyer, but one thing is clear: you need no such disclosure. It's patently obvious.

Re:Patents: From bad to worse.

[SillyNickName4me]

My example was *precisely* that of something non-obvious to someone skilled in the art; don't look now, but it's not my reasoning that's failing here.

Really?

What you said is:

Secondly, if two people skilled in the art (hereafter referred to as "geniuses") come up with the same thing independently and with no knowledge of the other's research or patents, that is proof of nothing but the fact that two geniuses independently came up with the same, or substantially the same, idea. It may, however, be useful for the patent holder to argue against obvious, on the grounds that if it took a genius to devise it, then it's not obvious.

It is your reasoning failing here. You start with suggesting that those skilled in the art are 'geniusses', and you then argue that since it took a genius, it can't be obvious. However, yor first statemnent invalidates that.

Re:Patents: From bad to worse.

[trifish]

On the contrary. What you advise is a WILLFUL act. You know you can infringe but INTENTIONALLY choose not to verify you do.

If you do your best to make sure you're not infringing, you will be acting in good faith.

Ask any decent lawyer what "in good faith" means, and what WILLFUL ignorance of a possibility of infringiment means, and what consequences they have.

Mono?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone know if Mono is affected by this?

Re:Mono?

[hotdiggitydawg]

Does it matter? Suing an open source project would be like trying to shoot a ghost.

Re:Mono?

[Taagehornet]

You can't sue the individual contributors - at least I hope you can't, but then again, IANAL - but you can definitely sue Red Hat, Novell, Canonical, and other distributors. You can force sourceforge to remove a project, and you can force an ISP to close any website offering the infringing piece of software for download.

So yes, it matters.

The whole concept

[Z00L00K]

of patents and copyrights seems to be due for a major overhaul. It's OK to get patents for a limited time to protect your investments. On the other hand - other companies may also invest in similar or the same solution. As it is now it's first come, first served when patents are handled, which means that even though there are several different vendors for an invention, there will be only one "winner", which ultimately is bad for competition.

One problem is that patents are filed and granted for "inventions" that has too low technical merits. By raising the standard requirements for patents this may help things a bit. One problem is also that the patent offices gets their revenue from the patents, and that doesn't help a bit. Instead that causes the patent offices to grant patents based on the fact that they get the money from it!

In today's world with software development it's a complete minefield to have patents on software. In the end it will limit the functionality of the software we use and require us to pay more for less.

When it comes to copyright, the issue is a bit more complicated. Movies and music has a rather long market lifetime, so a decades issue shouldn't be a problem here. When it comes to computer software the issue is different. In my opinion the copyright should be rendered invalid for commercial software packages whenever support for it is terminated. (Think MS-DOS, CP/M etc.) Even on movies and music there should be a "bail-out" option that allows for the copyright to be released. E.g. when the copyright holder no longer can be located with reasonable efforts.

Re:The whole concept

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with your views on patents, it's proving impossible to apply them to information products such as software.

Yes and no on copyright, virtualization has the potential to create a commodity market for old software.

Re:The whole concept

[FrostedWheat]

due for a major overhaul

The trouble with overhauls is that they tend to be driven by the people who benefit most from the systems failings.

Re:The whole concept

[Richard W.M. Jones]

of patents and copyrights seems to be due for a major overhaul. It's OK to get patents for a limited time to protect your investments. On the other hand - other companies may also invest in similar or the same solution. As it is now it's first come, first served when patents are handled, which means that even though there are several different vendors for an invention, there will be only one "winner", which ultimately is bad for competition.

Well we could start by doing some scientific studies into whether having patents and copyrights (government-granted monopolies which limit free market competition) actually work to promote the arts and sciences. Much anecdotal evidence says they don't. What's the truth?

Just a thought ...

Rich.

Re:The whole concept

[LordLucless]

One problem is that patents are filed and granted for "inventions" that has too low technical merits. By raising the standard requirements for patents this may help things a bit.

No, it probably wouldn't. There is already a standard requirement for patents that the invention be not "obvious...to one having ordinary skill in the art". That means that if you come up with a mechanism for something (say, one-click-shopping) if a programmer of ordinary skill could figure out how to do it, given the specifications, then your mechanism should not be patented. Even if you succeed in getting your patent granted, that doesn't mean nobody else can use one-click shopping. It means nobody else can use your particular method of it, so artificially increasing the complexity of your mechanism to bypass the obvious test doesn't get you anything, since all you have is a patent on an overly-complex mechanism, and any competent programmer will just use a simpler one to get the task done.

This seems to me as a good standard. The problem is, its not applied. Either the people processing patents don't know what is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, or they simply don't care. Changing the standard won't help. Enforcing it might.

Other affected

[suv4x4]

From the wording of the patent (overly broad of course), other affected may be:

Adobe's FLEX platform (the XML language being MXML)
Sun's Java JSP
W3C (the language being.. XHTML)

as well as smaller players like Laszlo and a myriad of other platforms with a procedural part and declarative part in XML (including platforms I've written myself for PHP and Java).

It's laughable, I hope the court acknowledges the loads of prior art. Few years ago someone patented interactrive CMS system (i.e. web appsf or managing sites) and the community was outraged, as the patent was directed straight at everyone using Java/Flash/JS for creating online CMS systems in the form of rich internet applications. The "reference" implementation used Flash.

Nothing came out of it. My advice is don't worry and let Microsoft take care of those clowns (hopefully this doesn't pan out like the Eolas case).

Re:Other affected

[julesh]

From the wording of the patent (overly broad of course), other affected may be:

Adobe's FLEX platform (the XML language being MXML)
Sun's Java JSP
W3C (the language being.. XHTML)

Have you actually read the patent? I don't know anything about FLEX, but I'm sure neither JSP nor XHTML are infringing. The patent says nothing about XML, nor is it about separation of procedural and declarative components. It's about automatic application generation by maintaining a library of component types that can be integrated into an application by some means.

Re:Other affected

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea of using MVC, to create a 'component' library framework, has been around for a very long time. VCL for instance, COM, ActiveX. Is the difference in the patent that it uses XML, and it's applied specifically to web applications? It seems strange they'd allow a patent that invents 'nothing' new, and simply involves a particular combination of already existing technologies. But about every patent I've ever seen mentioned on slashdot is beyond belief. There is prior art written all over this... I don't think Microsoft even deserves to be left to the sharks on this. Hopefully they'll wake up and realize what the ridiculous patent interpretations they've promoted are leading to.

Shut up! It is so old!

[dildo]

Old! Lame! Unoriginal! Enough with the damned chairs!

Re:Shut up! It is so old!

[fermion]

OK, I will stop. Just don't throw a chair at me.

Re:Shut up! It is so old!

[springbox]

The chairs are one of the few running jokes that are funny around here. You should be yelling at the Soviet Russia and the overlords people.

Re:Shut up! It is so old!

[Viraptor]

In Soviet Russia overlord welcomes you!

Re:Shut up! It is so old!

[alienmole]

I, for one, welcome our new yelling at the Soviet Russia and the overlords people overlords.

Kodak vs. Sun set a precedent for this

[MarkEst1973]

Kodak won $1 billion from Sun for (spurious?) patent violations in Java. I would not be surprised to see MS lose this fight.

And considering how similar C# and Java are, I'm surprised Kodak isn't alleging the same patent violation.

Re:Kodak vs. Sun set a precedent for this

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft paid Kodak and Sun to have a fight in court, and Microsoft paid Sun to lose it.

So no, Kodak aren't very likely to try to sell Microsoft a licence to this particular patent.

Re:Kodak vs. Sun set a precedent for this

[Civil_Disobedient]

The actual settlement was $92 million, a far cry from the $1 billion they asked for.

Which was about 92 million more dollars than what they deserved, but still, when your business model (film) becomes obsolete, whatcha gonna do? Innovate? Ha!

Sweet Karama

[pembo13]

Couldn't happen to a better company.

Re:Sweet Karama

[unity100]

talk about what goes around comes around

Can't Microsoft fight back?

[muukalainen]

I suppose they could threaten them with a batch of their own patents, say something like "mouse click", "graphical interface", ...

Re:Can't Microsoft fight back?

[nanosquid]

Are you trying to be funny? Microsoft didn't invent any of that (neither did Apple, for that matter).

Furthermore, who are they going to threaten and with what? That company probably doesn't care, they just want money from Microsoft.

Re:Can't Microsoft fight back?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you trying to be funny? Microsoft didn't invent any of that (neither did Apple, for that matter). We're talking about patents, what does inventing it have to do with anything?

Let's propagate some FUD

[javilon]

Now it is the perfect time to show Microsoft that FUD works both ways:

LEGAL WARNING:

If you use .net to develop software, in the future your projects can be taken down because of patent infringement.

Using Microsoft products is a legal minefield!!!

You should consult your legal department before purchasing any Microsoft product.

Re:Let's propagate some FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

And also consult your legal department before installing any patch or upgrade for any Microsoft product, because the EULA may change with each patch!

Re:Let's propagate some FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's mail all the Asian governments that Ballmer threatened to sue if they used linux.

Re:Let's propagate some FUD

[Ctrl-Z]

Yes, I remember how well that worked when Microsoft had patent issues with SQL Server. Hmm. Well, it was a nice thought.

Re:Haha?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we (slashdotters generally) hate their underhand business practices (eg: SCO) and shoddy software. There are 2 recurring themes in these types of story. The first is that software patents are wrong even if the litigation target is pro-software patent. The second is that the target supports the system and deserves all it gets; live by the sword, die by the sword.

Whichever view you take, everyone can appreciate the irony. Haha indeed!

Vertical computer systems?

[matt me]

omgzz they've patented standing your computer up? Quick, everyone flip your towers over before the patent police get to you. They have equipment that can detect the orientation of your motherboard from outside your home.

Re:Vertical computer systems?

[Anonymous Coward]

you're just about as funny as Cho

Re:Haha?

[Anonymous Coward]

We may dislike (I would not go as far as hate) MS, but nowhere near as much as we hate Patent bullsh1t. Patents like this can and will be the thing that blasts us back into the stoneage. MS Patents threaten to wipe out prior art in the form of OpenSource projects, and stupid whiny patents like this, or the one about modems in STB's, or the SCO thing, the RIM vs Blackberry thing should simply be thrown out. I personally think that a patent in software should only be granted for a maximum of 2 years (which may even be overly generous) as if you cannot bring a product based on this to market in that time, you must be trolling. Equally - software patents must ONLY be examined by highly technical engineers with experience and at least bachelors degree education in pure computing, software architecture, software engineering and be able to answer regular questions on what has been happening in computer technology recently as well as being law savvy, and not merely lawyers who do not have a clue - the rest should not be allowed to even have an official opinion on the matter. Cluebats on the ready - it is time to go bludgeon the whole patent office (European and US).

Although I have singled out software, I am probably not wrong in saying that patents for other areas (while lower profile) are probably equally spurious and useless because companies take advantage of the completely useless incompetant blaggers in the patent office. I suppose at least having such people in the patent office means they arent sponging off the dole queue - although maybe I take that back - they would be doing a great deal less HARM were they on the dole.

Does this affect Mono?

[jonwil]

Or does Mono not implement the relavent bit of .NET?

Re:Does this affect Mono?

[Nurgled]

I assume from the description that this is referring to XAML, which is a format for expressing an arbitrary heirarchy of objects usually GUI controls in XML. This was introduced in .NET Framework 3 as part of the new Windows Presentation Foundation. The Olive project over at Mono is aiming to implement this new stuff, and reportedly does have a XAML implementation, but they don't yet have any completed implementations of the GUI widgets XAML is usually used for.

So I guess the answer is "maybe". :)

Re:Does this affect Mono?

[Anonymous Coward]

So I guess the answer is "maybe". :)

Translation: Hopefully

Re:Does this affect Mono?

[Shados]

From the wording "making a component with XML used in web application", it sounds more like datasets. Which Mono has.

Re:Does this affect Mono?

[julesh]

No, it doesn't refer to XAML. The article makes it sound like XML has something to do with it, but if you read the actual patent what it's about is having a design-time facility that allows you to select components from a library and automatically integrate them with the object you're building, like Visual Studio's design mode does.

Re:Does this affect Mono?

[maxwell demon]

If XAML is the problem, then what about Mozilla's XUL?

BTW, wouldn't a web site with separate HTML (content), CSS (form) and Javascript (function) be affected that patent as well?

Re:Does this affect Mono?

[dhasenan]

On the other hand, this *does* affet GtkSharp, Glade, QTDesigner, et cetera. So Mono would be affected, as would other open source projects (and TrollTech).

MVC?

[nagora]

"The method separates content, form, and function of the computer application so that each may be accessed or modified separately. The method includes creating arbitrary objects, managing the arbitrary objects throughout their life cycle in an object library, and deploying the arbitrary objects in a design framework for use in complex computer applications."

Sounds like Smalltalk and a serialised Model View Controller to me. Using XML for the resource file isn't exactly rocket science either since that's the sort of thing XML was designed for.

TWW

Re:MVC?

[Random Guru 42]

Yeah, this patent smells of prior art and overbroadness -- just another troll. Of course, IANAPL, but this just has bullshit written all over it.

Re:MVC?

[hey!]

The truth is that when you describe objects in XML according to an XML schema, you are for all practices creating a program, albeit one in a language with very restricted semantics.

So what is patented here is building a computer program using components written in two different languages.

If there is any originality in this, it is this: to enforce a separation of concerns by coding the presentation layer in a different language incapable of expressing business logic.

If you had to look to prior art, then I would point out the old Macintosh resource system. Arguably when you edited a dialog using the resource editor you were doing visual programming. This is exactly the kind of enforced separation of concerns that systems like XUL and XAML are about, the only difference being the storage of the data in a textual program rather than in binary form.

Re:MVC?

[asylumx]

For that matter, in the Java world -- Netbeans & JFormDesigner are in deep shit, eh? This suit is retarded, even if this company succeeds in their attempt to stick a thorn in MS's foot, it isn't going to change the world.

Never trust proprietary software

[plopez]

You never know when the vendor will be whacked with a patent or copyright infringement suit.
They then will be forced upon losing to make changes to the software which could leave you with the rug pulled out from under you.

Open source software is much superior in this regard since:
1)It is transparent and open for review, making identification of potential problems easier.

2)The OS community is much more, IMO, sensitive to *not* changing the interfaces in the software (just the implementation) than propretary vendors. So if changes do occur they are less likely to be painful for the users. Just link in the new libraries and go.

3)There is less money in it. If MS didn't have a bazillion dollars, they would not be getting sued. And in conjuction with point 2 above, I think that this suit could drive gratuitous changes in API which could be used to drive more sales. They could just say "You can't use anything prior to .Net 4.0, you have to upgrade (buy) 4.0 to insure you are not in patent or copyright infringement. 4.0 is *not* compatible with 1.x, 2.x, or 3.x". I think which ever way the case goes, MS wins due to this.

Anyway, proprietary software is inherently *very* risky.

Re:Never trust proprietary software

[Antique Geekmeister]

MS isn't just the person with the deep pockets. They're known for discussing "projects" under non-disclosure and non-compete agreements, then abonding the "project" and creating their own new product that directly violates the old agreement. It's why you don't start such a "project" discussion with Microsoft unless you're absolutely sure they're not interested in trying to do it themselves, or have really compelling prior art to slap them in the head with when they try this stunt.

Re:Never trust proprietary software

[Shados]

#1 is fairly silly to compare this case against, since anyone can go and read the code of the higher level stuff in .NET. The patent is, I'm fairly sure, hitting at Datasets in .NET and their derivative (like XmlDataDocument). I've looked through that code quite a few times. Reviewed it 10 times over.

bullshit

[nanosquid]

Getting sued over patent infringement is no reason to go patenting things yourself: you can still be sued for infringement anyway. And I doubt Vertical Computer Systems will be interested in a patent cross-license agreement (and they are monopolistic anyway).

Microsoft patents a lot because they hope to be able to kill open source competition with it--open source competition they have not been able to outcompete otherwise and where their usual monopolistic tricks have failed as well.

Vertical's patent is, of course, bogus. But I do like Microsoft getting hit by these kinds of lawsuits; maybe sooner or later they'll see that software patents aren't the way out for them.

Re:bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

This is broken, moronic logic. Microsoft patents anything and everything so that they can hold something over someone suing them's head.

This is why GPLv3 encumbers patents

[Antique Geekmeister]

Summing up a bunch of comments: the current insanity of software patents, and the risks of this kind of nuttiness, could be extremely nasty to lots of open source projects. Microsoft and other big companies develop big patent portfoloes to protect themselves, and to use against competitors with even vaguely similar projects.

Open source developers have no such protection. It's exactly why Sendmail rejected using Microsoft's patented "SenderID", as described by Eric Allman here . And it's exactly why GPLv3 has all this complex and oddly writtten patent material (at ), as mentioned in other old Slashdot stories. Even if you think it's silly, or think that software patents are a burden to the market that should be thrown the heck out. it's a necessary licensing step to protect us from this sort of whackiness.

I hope the Mono project can be re-licensed under GPLv3 to avoid repercussions from this sort of suit.

Re:This is why GPLv3 encumbers patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft and other big companies develop big patent portfoloes to protect themselves, and to use against competitors with even vaguely similar projects.

That's one theory, that the only patent trolls are these huge conglomerates. In reality, small predatory licensing companies without any products or interest in cross-licensing are going to start hurting the bigger players.

It's exactly why Sendmail rejected using Microsoft's patented "SenderID", as described by Eric Allman here.

Err, no. Are you thinking of Apache?

it's exactly why GPLv3 has all this complex and oddly writtten patent material

Microsoft distribute SFU which contains GPL code. All we have to do is resync against the Microsoft distribution to be freed from the constant threat of patent lawsuits on the stuff they're redistributing. The original SenderID license had similar patent language designed to shield Microsoft, unfortunately for them it was not sub-licensable and therefore unworkable.

I hope the Mono project can be re-licensed under GPLv3 to avoid repercussions from this sort of suit.

Really? I hope it dies a horrible death.

Re:This is why GPLv3 encumbers patents

[Anonymous Coward]

>I hope the Mono project can be re-licensed under GPLv3 to avoid repercussions from this sort of suit.
I don't think GPLv3 would provide any protection here. GPLv3 doesn't allow you violate patents, but prevents users from distributing GPLv3 software if they enforce a patent on that code.

More like

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha ha for software patents.

Almost everyone here is laughing that MS are getting bit HARD by patents. Nobody really is saying patents are good in software, just that it's good to see the biter bit.

Re:More like

[Creepy]

I don't care so much about software patents as the duration that patents. In the USA, this is the same as hardware inventions, 17 years. 17 years was once very important - it gave small inventors time to shop their idea, ramp up manufacturing to build it and market it, and get their feet off the ground. In the software world 17 years is 5 or 6 generations of a product, over which time you own a complete monopoly - easily enough time to establish a practically indomitable monopoly.

I support MSFT in this issue

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

The patent is too broad too obvious. Ideally it should not stand in court. Jope MSFT fights these trolls and invalidates the patent Or it can pull an RIM and pay a large sum and thus give this patent credibility it does not deserve. With the money from MSFT this company can wreck havoc in the small underfunded and unfunded Open Source projects.

Re:I support MSFT in this issue

[killjoe]

They might pay the company on the condition that the company go after adobe. 10 or 20 billion is nothing to MS but it would crush adobe like a grape.

Some basic background information

[udippel]

As former patent examiner I am appalled that something like this was granted; or had to be granted:

Claim 1. A method for generating a computer application on a host system in an arbitrary object framework that separates a content of said computer application, a form of said computer application and a functionality of said computer application, said method comprising: creating arbitrary objects with corresponding arbitrary names of various object types for generating said content of said computer application, said form of said computer application, and said functionality of said computer application; managing said arbitrary objects in an object library; and deploying said arbitrary objects from said object library into a design framework to create said computer application.

This grants the patent owner all rights to royalties to a system that any third party brings to the market within the time frame of validity of this patent, and that uses this method.
In technical terms it is obvious; and probably anticipated a few hundred times. In legal terms this is different. As patent examiner you'll find yourself in a quagmire: you may have prior art for the concept, but not for the wording. I agree, that anticipating the concept should be enough. But the vultures of lawyers will pull you apart within minutes, and the chambers and courts of appeal will usually folllow (and your bosses rebuke your rejection of the application). You will be asked for a document to anticipate the wording, and that might not exist.
Only in high-profile cases will the parties drill down to the concepts. Why ? Because that is very costly, and if nobody forks out these costs, the average examiner will have to grant.
Of course, the wording is overly broad. But try to cite a 'library' against it: would it be a 'object library' ? Is pulling in a function ('printf') pulling in a function of a 'object library' when C is doubtlessly not object oriented ? Let us continue with the 'object framework'; more so one that separates: content - form - functionality. Where in the 'prior art' cited here can we make out 'various object types' (not one, that is !). How do you anticipate the 'managing ... objects ... in a library'; as well as 'deploying ... objects ... into a design [!] framework' ?
FYI: All this would have to be anticipated in a (usually) single document, before October 1, 1999.

No, I am not all trying to defend the vultures of applicants. This patent ought to never have been granted.
But one should keep the following in mind as well: The USPTO was never willing to grant software patents, actually refused to do so, but was - in the 1981 case of Diamond v. Diehr - forced to do so by the U.S. Supreme Court. It was not the - then - P.T.O. that started the insanity. It wasn't your House of Representatives or the Senate. Though the House would be very much encouraged to change the legal framework ... !

Re:Some basic background information

[EMB Numbers]

The parent post very nicely explains things, and contributes to more sleepless nights for me. As described by the parent post, software patents are indeed a hopeless situation.

The parent notes that prior art may be irrelevant, but here are some possibilities anyway.
ARINC Specification 661-2 Cockpit Display System Interfaces to User Systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARINC_661
NeXT/Apple Web Objects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebObjects
http://www.mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.13/13. 05/WebObjectsOverview/index.html
http://sunsite.uakom.sk/sunworldonline/swol-05-199 6/swol-05-cs.html
http://www.byte.com/art/9609/sec9/art1.htm
NexT/Apple Interface Builder

Re:Some basic background information

[Anonymous Coward]

One other possibility is Delphi ('94/'95ish). I'm not sure what the dates are on the parent's. .Net is quite similar to Delphi in many ways, and was designed by one of the same people, Anders Hejlsberg, and it's probably the closest non-.net thing to this patent you can get.

Re:Some basic background information

[mavenguy]

As another ex-examiner I agree with the points you have made. I took a quick look at the prosecution of this application. There were three non-final rejections made before the application was allowed. The examiner spent a good deal of time in laying out rejections under 35 USC 102 (anticipation) and 35 USC 103 (obviousness), using a two column format with the claim limitations in the left column and relevant sections from the prior art in the right column. The applicant made essentially no substantive changes to the claims and just asserted that examiner didn't show what was asserted. I think the examiner made a big mistake in the second and third rejections of failing to respond to the arguments made by the applicant in the amendments; this was noted by the attorney in the last amendment after which the application was allowed.

There are three things one must keep in mind in figuring out exactly what is covered by a patent. Fundamentally it is the claims that measure the invention, not the title or abstract, or random pieces of the specification. However, the language and terms in the specification must be interpreted in light of the description given in the specification. So, if a term in a claim is an "object library", for example, it wpould be interpreted as this term is discussed in the description. Finally, and relevant to the failing pointed out in the previous paragraph, the scope of the claims is further qualified by the back and forth of the comments and arguments made by the examiner and the applicant. If the applicant tries to avoid a rejection by arguing that a prior art reference feature is not covered by some limitation in the claim the applicant will be bound to this interpretation in any infringement action should a patent be issued. One of the purposes of making rejections, even if it might not be spot on a limitation is to flush out and clarify such possible ambiguities. This is particularly applicable here where an examiner decides to allow a claim previously rejected with no further limitation added. If an applicant is going to squeeze through a narrow "hole" in the prior art not coverable by an obviousness rejection it is important to make sure it is as narrow as possible. By failing to engage the attorney's arguments in the following rejections here the examiner weakened this aspect of prosecution. Instead it looks pretty much like set arguments back and forth, with the examiner essentially saying "OK, I give up, you win" with no further comment.

Fianlly, I see that a continuation has been filed, but, so far, has been stripped to just claim 1 of the issued patent (with one misspelling). There will clearly be a preliminary amendment filed with claims applicant wants to prosecute, but have no idea what this might be.

Re:Some basic background information

[ralphdaugherty]

As another ex-examiner I agree with the points you have made.

      Thanks for the insight from you and GP ex-patent examiners. I will go back to recent thread on proposed patent law overhaul and see whether the GP's point about Supreme Court (idiotic) ruling that required granting patents like these is addressed and overruled, so to speak.

  rd

Re:Some basic background information

[udippel]

As another ex-examiner ...

Welcome to the club ! - Are you in for a drink ?

I don't have access to the prosecution, though from the outside I might side with the examiner. There is so-called production pressure, meaning your promotion goes with the number of cases, not necessarily with the quality. My wild guess is that the chap knew how fishy the application is, argued for anticipation and obviousness (obviously, what else !?); though knowing deep inside that it would be costly in time (too costly) to follow it through. He might have rather shown a brave face, and rejected for sanity instead of being convinced of his success.

'In the light of the description' is usually applied and accepted in cases of different subject matter (have no good example at hand); and .Net doubtlessly infringes the underlying publication. Also with respect to the description; so no 'little helper' or easy way out here.

The continuation - just reading claim 1 for being lazy - seems to focus on that mis-spelled word. You deploy the objects to a framework. Obvious. Think of RPC or agents, deploying copies of a centralised object library out to the organisation, network, whatever. Think thin client, web 2.0, web-based office.
And the misery continues ... :(

Re:Some basic background information

[autophile]

But the vultures of lawyers will pull you apart within minutes...

Best collective noun ever. I propose that it be added to the appropriate page in Wikipedia.

--Rob

Re:Some basic background information

[ScrewMaster]

I gather from your comment and that of the previous ex-examiner that there's a reason you don't do this for a living anymore. Patent examiners catch a lot of heat here on Slashdot, and I suppose some of it is justified, but it does seem as if the game is very much rigged, and not in your favor.

A Date Projection for You

[Mateo_LeFou]

"It's going to reach the point where no software company in america will be able to create anything original at all"

I agree. This will almost certainly happen by 1998, and definitely by 2001

Re:A Date Projection for You

[rucs_hack]

do I detect a cynic?

heh

reboot?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Get a clue and read the Wall Street Journal or something else
> outside of /. occasionally, to reboot your grammar.

You are correct, I don't buy the Wall Street Journal. Where can I buys the publication here in English speaking England?

Re:Gaotse!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are tempted to look at this, don't. It contains an image of an old man stretching his anus wide open.

Well that sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

I've long suspected that software patents had become a semantic game.

Want to infringe on a software patent? Completely rename everything including core concepts and you can't possibly infringe. How can you violate a patent on a method to execute bytecode when your virtual machine "masticates bitcandy"?

It appears it has gotten that bad.

Re:Well that sucks

[Tablizer]

Want to infringe on a software patent? Completely rename everything including core concepts and you can't possibly infringe.

"Object" and "Library" have no mathematically-precise meanings, which means that lawyers can go hog-wild if they want and interpret everything as a library or object or visa versa.

Microsoft Patents

[dj.short]

I wonder if Microsoft has the patent for crappy Operating systems.... You know for anything pre-XP...

Has anyone else thought this?

[bjinatj]

I seriously wonder is M$ considers patents when coming up with new ideas. I mean seriously why waste their legal departments time. I personally see M$ thinking more like thes: Make a product, sell a product, get sued, they still come out on top. I haven't seen a lawsuit take them out yet. Why spend time having the legal department researching patents when they can just have them defend one they stepped on. All in all I am sure the profit from .NET outweighs any lawsuit / fines that will be thrown at them. And in the end it just give M$ a way to make and sell you another shitty copy of their "New and improved flavor of the week" -Ronnie

.NET

[iviagnus]

Lets keep our fingers crossed and hope they do.

Not anywhere near a billion

[pallmall1]

Kodak and Sun settled for $92 million.

Re:Not anywhere near a billion

[Anonymous Coward]

Willy Shih, Kodak senior vice president, said in a statement. "We are pleased that the Court has validated these fundamental Kodak patents and we now look forward to building a more productive relationship and continued collaboration with Sun, with whom we have enjoyed a close partnership for nearly two decades." Oh man, what a way to screw over a long-term partner.

Patent Defense Network?

[defile]

Microsoft and any other legitimate technology company must be decidedly anti-patent. While Microsoft could benefit from collecting tolls on dumb patents, they're at far greater risk of paying out on dumb patent violations. The moment they try to enforce a patent claim against someone else they legitimize every jerk who patents a link-list and sues them for $100 trillion. Their position must be decidedly anti-software patent.

Isn't it time for a technology patent defense network? Every technology company could enter into the network and hereby agree never to bring a patent infringement claim against any other member company. In exchange, each participant receives a license to claim each member company's patents in its own defense if ever sued for patent infringement. With the membership fees in place a board representing the network could busily proceed patenting every ridiculous thing under the sun to strengthen the defense network.

Heck, while we're living in fantasy land, lets go all out: eventually the software patent system goes away and the government will acknowledge what a terrible mistake it was and refund everyone's patent application fees.

To satisy the anti-M$ and anti-patent crowd ...

[CustomDesigned]

we might see M$ successfully defend against this stupid patent by citing Java as prior art. The evil patent shark is smacked down, and M$ is publically embarrassed. What could be better? Oh wait, what about the Sun haters...

What about WSC (Windows Script Components)?

[N8F8]

The method separates content, form, and function of the computer application so that each may be accessed or modified separately. The method includes creating arbitrary objects, managing the arbitrary objects throughout their life cycle in an object library, and deploying the arbitrary objects in a design framework for use in complex computer applications.

Sounds like any application framework to me. Just because the language syntax is different, why should it be patentable just because it's XML? This was granted in 2004, what about MS's own WSC (Windows Script Component) component architecture fro mth lat 1990's? Isn't that the predecessor to .NET component architecture?

I love software patents

[Vexorian]

Look at this! "A system and a method to do something with XML" And now they can sue microsoft!

Everyone should take this opportunity let's just have ideas of how to combine the different available technologies with different objectives and PATENT THEM! I don't even think we have to produce anything.

Let's patent "A method to sort an array by swapping specific indexes"

Re:I love software patents

[Jare]

Thankfully they didn't patent the "... on the Internet" version. Oh wait...

Bogus "companies"

[Gonoff]

In the UK,if a company goes titsup, I think directors can be disqualified if they areproved to be at fault.

Cold this happen on your side of the pond?

If this was the case, I could see MS using that as an unspoken threat, or even doing it to some of the worst golddiggers.

Nero just fiddles

[stabiesoft]

as america burns down by sueing each other over lame ideas. Meanhile, in china, they are planning lunar bases, new satellites and making everything we buy. I'm sure many chinese plan on retiring on our beaches after we sell it to them to pay off our debts. What else do we make anymore except legal lawsuits.

Re:Nero just fiddles

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanhile, in china,

TrollBoy:
http://www.friends-of-tibet.org.nz/occu.html

Re:Nero just fiddles

[Anonymous Coward]

That does not negate the facts that the grandparent poster brought up.

The irony of suing a supplier....

[jbfung]

I bet Microsoft is just shaking their heads at this: Now Solutions is a wholy owned subsidiary of Vertical Computer Systems, and they sell a packge that is "100% web-based and built on Microsoft .NET" (see http://nowsolutions.com/index.html).

Yeah!

[Cyphertube]

Not that I think software patents are good by any stretch.

But, I have found that .NET has resulted in some of the lousiest programmers ever. So, ditched another POS would be fantastic.

Re:Yeah!

[Tarwn]

There is some good logic.

"There are people that write really bad code in language X, therefore we should get rid of language X."

I have personally seen absolutely horrible Java, PHP, ASP, VB.Net, C#, VB6, Fortran, Basic, Pascal, Bash, Python, VBScript, Javascript, HTML, XHTML, etc. Should we get rid of all of those just because amateurs have figured out how to write code (or copy and paste from the internet)? .Net itself is not to blame for bad coders. No matter what your dream language is, I guarantee there are numerous examples on the internet of how not to write code in that language.

If you have personally found .Net (in general) to be a POS, now might be a good time to go back and review what you have done to ensure your not adding to the list of "how not to do it".

Re:Yeah!

[Cyphertube]

No, I would say .NET is not crap due to bad coders. Mostly it's crap due to an awful IDE. Most of the bad code written by people who have been considered real programmers in whatever language it is, happen to suck primarily because they have a simple IDE that lets them get far without really knowing anything.

I have seen lots of crap in lots of languages. The difference I've found with .NET (not so different from VB6) is too many Microsoft-dedicated companies that feel they HAVE to use Microsoft platforms for everything, and then end up hiring people with limited real programming experience to work with Visual Studio to create everything. Which, in my experience, has created plenty of bugs all over the place.

Unfortunately, my current position doesn't allow me to make those programming decisions. In a previous life I had banned VB6 from anywhere, and I didn't allow contractors to write code in Perl (just because if they didn't bother to comment, then it could be a pain to decipher - write it one way, write it a thousand).

Re:Yeah!

[RightSaidFred99]

It's official, you're an idiot. Not so different from VB6? What the hell are you talking about?

Perl - not so different from a receipt.

Java - not so different from a can of blue paint.

Linux - not so different from a left shoe with green shoe-laces.

Sweet Jumping Jesus, do you even know what the hell .NET is?

Re:Gaotse!

[totally bogus dude]

an image of an old man stretching his anus wide open

Who wouldn't be tempted to look at that?!

This becomes interesting

[thewils]

When you figure that Microsoft will be attempting to find prior art to invalidate the patent. If they fail, they will be hosed, if they succeed then the concept is something that they will be unable to patent and therefore will be available to the open-source community.

how2blow one's credibility with a single letter

[mysticgoat]

...Anything in pearl...

Sniggle. Maybe parent post said something that was really insightful and maybe it didn't. I'll never know because I couldn't get beyond that foopaw.

Credibility is a terrible thing to waste.

Re:how2blow one's credibility with a single letter

[Marcion]

Maybe he meant Pearl the 1970s language, the Process and Experiment Automation Realtime Language?

Re:how2blow one's credibility with a single letter

[krbvroc1]

...beyond that foopaw... Sniggle. At first I thought your criticism was really insightful, but I'll never know because I couldn't get beyond that fau pau

Re:how2blow one's credibility with a single letter

[HiThere]

Perhaps you meant "faux pas"? I think that means "false step". It's probably from French. (Possibly Norman French? It feels more modern, though.)

Re:how2blow one's credibility with a single letter

[poopdeville]

For fucks sake, it's spelled "faux pas".

Re:how2blow one's credibility with a single letter

[Councilor]

*psst* Faux pas. Seriously?

Re:how2blow one's credibility with a single letter

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, I thought it's spelled "foo bar".

Re:how2blow one's credibility with a single letter

[ixl]

Sniggle. Did you mean faux pas? ;-)

Re:how2blow one's credibility with a single letter

[mysticgoat]

That was originally spelled "FUBAR". It was an acronym that first gained broad usage among USA Quartermasters in World War II concerning discrepancies between supplies requested and supplies delivered. Then it was adopted in the 1960s by early COBOL programmers to describe the results of changing project specifications after big chunks had already been coded. It loosely stands for "Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition", and is closely associated with SNAFU: "Situation Normal: All Fouled Up".

I do enjoy knowing that the underlying concept of foobar has now become firmly entrenched in analyst/programmer teachings. There is no question that the subliminal message that too much foo will cause an irreversible state of bar is valuable. Understanding the relationship between foo and bar and FU and BAR is critical to developing good software.

I've sometimes wondered why foobar came down to us through C language teachings while nothing like snafoo has survived. There are some large software houses around that could be described as places of snafoo. But my puzzlement has never been strong enough to motivate me to look into the matter.

I thought foopaw was similar enough to foobar to trigger a different set of reactions than the ones seen in this thread. I have enjoyed the thread quite a bit-- it just didn't go in quite the direction I expected.

Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

This is possibly one of the most ridiculous claims I've seen yet. If Vertical Computer Systems wins...it will be very bad news for the industry as a whole.

Huh? WTF?

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

FTFPA: A method for generating a computer application on a host system in an arbitrary object framework that separates a content of said computer application, a form of said computer application and a functionality of said computer application, said method comprising: creating arbitrary objects with corresponding arbitrary names of various object types for generating said content of said computer application, said form of said computer application, and said functionality of said computer application; managing said arbitrary objects in an object library; and deploying said arbitrary objects from said object library into a design framework to create said computer application. (emphasis mine)

julesh: What they've patented is the use of "design mode" with a "toolbox" of object types, in the specific way that visual studio does it.

WTF?

This is all GIBBERISH!!!

PS: Whaddup wit duh word "a" in TFPA?

a host system in an arbitrary object framework that separates a content of said computer application, a form of said computer application and a functionality of said computer application

Why didn't they use the word "any"?

any host system in an arbitrary object framework that separates any content of said computer application, any form of said computer application and any functionality of said computer application

As a last resort, if I were M$FT's lawyers, I'd tell the court that

the particular "a host system", the particular "a form of said computer application" and the particular "a functionality of said computer application"

as used by M$FT in .NET differ from

the particular "a host system", the particular "a form of said computer application" and the particular "a functionality of said computer application"

as used by Vertical Computer Systems in SiteFlash.

I mean seriously - ain't Grammar Fascism kinda the entire point of the generic law school curriculum & bar exam?

Re:Huh? WTF?

[joto]

Software patents are written in obscure ways because they don't really exist. A software patent is always describing a system consisting of a computer and software, as only devices are patentable. And they have to make it sound complex, otherwise there would be nothing to patent. There are probably other workarounds the lawyers have to consider to make software patents possible. The legalese is there for a reason, it's because software patents aren't valid by law, only by some court decision made a long time ago, and every lawyer has to make their patent application look like that one!

You can't argue with common sense against stuff like this. That's why lawyers are paid to do the job for you.

Re:Huh? WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

> You can't argue with common sense against stuff like this.

Actually you can make a fine case against it with common sense, that's why the majority of developers abhor software patents. Can I patent a fictional plot if I phrase the application so that it's a part of a physical device for conveying a story?

Sooner or later the supreme court is going to rule on information patents and there's only one common sense way for that ruling to go.

Re:Huh? WTF?

[maxwell demon]

Can I patent a fictional plot if I phrase the application so that it's a part of a physical device for conveying a story?

You mean, like a certain arrangement of pits on a DVD, causing the playing of that DVD to show a movie based on that plot? Maybe you should also add a claim for specific arrangements of color particles on Celluloid generating that same plot. Oh, and the arrangement of ink, toner or other colored material on paper or other surfaces to form an arrangement of letters which, when read, results in a story following that plot.

Re:Huh? WTF?

[julesh]

Actually you can make a fine case against it with common sense, that's why the majority of developers abhor software patents. Can I patent a fictional plot if I phrase the application so that it's a part of a physical device for conveying a story?

Device, or process. Specifically, a process of relaying a story having a unique plot. Not granted as yet, but it hasn't been rejected either.

Re:Huh? WTF?

[julesh]

You mean, like a certain arrangement of pits on a DVD, causing the playing of that DVD to show a movie based on that plot? Maybe you should also add a claim for specific arrangements of color particles on Celluloid generating that same plot. Oh, and the arrangement of ink, toner or other colored material on paper or other surfaces to form an arrangement of letters which, when read, results in a story following that plot.

Are you sure you aren't a patent attorney? 'Cause if you aren't, you could probably make a fortune if you switched careers.

Re:Huh? WTF?

[joto]

Device, or process. Specifically, a process of relaying a story having a unique plot. Not granted as yet, but it hasn't been rejected either.

Then again, the authors covered their asses, and included various variations of "information storage medium containing information of a story having...". I'm not sure process alone would have been patentable. But who am I to grok this legalese. I'm not a lawyer, and not even an American.

In a way, I really hope the patent is granted. Only when laymen are able to understand how ridiculous software patents are, something will be done with the patent system.

To fix the patent system you can either:

[Weezul]

1) eliminate it entirely --- This will solve the worst problems, but it'll make new much smaller problems that people will bitch about, and it'll create havoc on wallstreet.

2) reduce duration to 7ish years from "going to market" which no infringment by older products --- This means your patent is not yet "active" even once filed and anyone may infringe freely, but you may later "activate" your patent by declaring it used in a specific product. No truely new products may directly infringe upon your patent once activated, but old products may still be produced, and even "updated". In addition judges may look at the product(s) you claim activate your patent. If your products do not preform the same function as some new infringing product, he may force you to negotiate a lissence of the patent to the new product, or even invalidate the patent if he feels its not relevant to the function.

So my point is "first to file" is stupid, we need "first to market" to shut these patent scammers down.

Re:To fix the patent system you can either:

[McGiraf]

This is a realy good idea, it will open the way for a whole bunch of business models.

1- Monitor the new patents
2- Implement them as soon a you read them
3- Profit!

1- Wait until someone come and see you to invest in a new product
2- Implement it yourself before he finds investors
3- Profit!

Patents are public, you would need to wait until you are ready to make a product to file them, if you do not have the money to bring it to market by yourself , how do you protect your invention while you are looking for investors?

Major loop hole, I hope the legislators think this trough a bit more before writing a patent reform than someone making a post on slashdot :) ( What? I can dream)

Re:To fix the patent system you can either:

[Weezul]

Nope, those are not problems, those are good things!

Yes companies will occasionally break patents by bringing products to market quickly. But bringing products to market is the whole point of the patent system! And you've still got your paptent to keep the latecomers out.

Yes you may take the inventers idea but he still owns the patent! If you don't pay him, you'll never get any patent monopoly yourself. So your competitors will kill your profit margines once you make the product popular.

I did not mention one detail, you'll likely want some extra patent protentsion when facing a monopoly. For example, you may ask the court for "activation without product vs. monopoly" if you can argue that your industry is dominated by a specific monopoly. It'd be bad for you too, as you start burnning your 7 years without a product, and presumably you can't enforce the patent against anyone but that monopoly. Yet it sems like a wise idea when an industry is dominated by a monopoly.

Congratulations

[Anonymous Coward]

You win this weeks cryptic patent puzzle and have been placed in the USPTO prize draw. Each year the winner will receive 5 minutes unlimited usage of the famed USPTO rubber stamp.

The USPTO, ensuring societies monumental innovations are disclosed to the public in a clear and concise manner for 2 centuries.

Completely change as we know it

[nurb432]

Nah.. worst case microsoft buys them out and passes the bill along to the consumer.

I doubt anything will *fundamentally* change with .NET as its far too ingrained in Microsoft now. ( incrementally, sure, but not fundamentally )

Well,

[Anonymous Coward]

If you like that, check this out. It's the same guy, but this time he has a two liter bottle in his ass.

Re:Gaotse!

[McGiraf]

You must be new here

Asinine

[ToxicBanjo]

System and method for generating web sites in an arbitrary object framework

Abstract

A system and method for generating computer applications in an arbitrary object framework. The method separates content, form, and function of the computer application so that each may be accessed or modified separately. The method includes creating arbitrary objects, managing the arbitrary objects throughout their life cycle in an object library, and deploying the arbitrary objects in a design framework for use in complex computer applications.

 

This patent is from Oct 01 1999. XML was introduced in 1996, OOP has been around since 1965, I've had re-usuable code objects in TurboPascal, Basic, C++... yeah pretty much every decent language released in the last 15 years. So WTF?? How can one company say they own USING pre-existing technologies?

... oh yeah, it's for the interwebs! Funny that their patent is the exact time of the dot-com bubble. This smacks of "Hey, lets take something we already have and patent it for use on the net... we can make bank!".

I thought any patent based on prior art was invalid, regardless of where the "new" one is implemented, am I wrong?

How Can They Win a Jury Trial?

[littlewink]

Will a jury made of mostly non-programmers be able to understand the subject matter?

Kudos to the lawyer who tutors the jury well enough to make a wise decision.

Re:How Can They Win a Jury Trial?

[greenbird]

Will a jury made of mostly non-programmers be able to understand the subject matter?

No, a jury made of exclusively non-programmers. I'm sure they find a way to ensure no programmers are on the jury. They want a jury trial specifically because they don't want the people determining the outcome to understand the subject. A judge would have a reasonable chance of understanding and recognizing the ridiculousness of the patent and thus telling them to take a hike. A jury won't understand a thing from the technology standpoint and they can win the case with an emotional argument based on big old Microsoft stealing the poor little guys technology and by doing so causing poor little guys company to fail. They most assuredly don't want the case determined by anyone who can understand the technological details.

Vertical Computer Systems

[Anonymous Coward]

Or "Horizontal Computer Systems" after Microsoft finish with them.

New patent used, can't see

[Tablizer]

Somebody applied "a method to render a website non-functional to external parties by attracting the sufficient attention of multiple hyper-link-capable users within an effective time-range". In other words, we slashdotted the article.

Donald Knuth puts it well..

[orbitalia]

In his letter to the PTO

I just hope the EU manages to keep software patents away..

Next on the list...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ruby on Rails,
any MVC framework,
J2EE,
Jboss Seam

This is a patent on the MVC development paradigm. Not to mention it seems to cover just about any system which separates from, function, and data... I've written plenty of systems (using MVC and also not) that do that, I've written XMLRPC libraries that hold all the functionality/business logic which then can be called by client programs, web sites, whatever. These libraries get data from files or DBs in another isolated class library. You can't sanely develop software and not infringe on this patent.

Won't Happen

[Nom du Keyboard]

This is being treated like it's the end of Microsoft. That their entire programming paradigm will have to change, and that they'll be paying out crippling amounts of money. I would predict at at worst it costs them $1billion, and they don't make more than the most minor changes in .NET. And that's after years of litigation. They can probably buy Vertical Computer Systems for less than this worst case, and are likely considering that as one option. I, for one, don't expect to see big changes, if any changes, ever.

Rubbish!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't patent software, it's patented as part of a device. Thus, it's the end user that infringes by running software, vendor indemnification is a separate issue.

Back on topic, avoid Mono unless you pay protection to Novell/Microsoft.

So basically,

[Lord Duran]

the PTO is being legally bullied by large software companies into accepting each and every one of those ridiculous software patents granted to said companies. Does the American public find that acceptable? I sure don't, and I do believe I have to abide by those patents under Israeli-American trade agreements. As an Israeli, however, I'm powerless to do this. So can I ask you to write your congressman?

Occams Razor

[d34thm0nk3y]

I just don't buy it. I though big corporations only though about the short term.

MS is loosing billions a year in patent disputes, right now.

And they are supposedly pro software patents because they might be able to sue some open source projects in the future? Just who would they sue anyway?

The reality is, patent applications are cheap. If they get sued by a big player a big portfolio offers some protection. The patent trolls who don't produce anything on the other hand will force MS to lobby for patent reform.

Re:Occams Razor

[init100]

And they are supposedly pro software patents because they might be able to sue some open source projects in the future? Just who would they sue anyway?

The point in suing an open source project wouldn't be to cash in on huge damages, but to prevent a competitor from operating, and thus increase your own profits.

Slashdot got this wrong

[teknopurge]

I actually submitted the real story but it has not been approved yet.

Vertical is not going after MVC or Visual Studio. Vertical's patent pertains to something much more devistating to Microsoft: the CLR.

Vertical's patent directly covers taking arbirtrary object code and transmuting it for use on arbitrary platforms - think VB.NET, c#.NET, COBOL.NET, etc.NET...... This is/was .NET's claim-to-fame: create an interpreted platform by letting the developers write in whatever language they are comfortable in; eventually it all ends up as CLR bytecode.

Re:Slashdot got this wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

`and wouldn't that cover java, or any vm kind of language spec?

Re:Slashdot got this wrong

[dfoulger]

CLR may be an important target, but I've read through the patent filing and would tend to agree with others here that the real issue is the separation of form, content, and function that is described, in the first paragraph, as the core of the "invention". CLR plays a role in that, but only a partial role. Its not just compiling arbitrary languages into an intermediate format, which is admittedly one of the characteristics of .net, but the pairing with XML and other elements that allow content and form (both of which tend to be expressed with variants of XML to be fully separated from function (which is the core of what you compile into CLR). Even if CLR is the only issue, there is a huge amount of prior art on this. UCSD P-System did the exact same compilation of arbitrary languages into intermediate form such that it could be run on arbitrary processors in the 1970's. The Java Virtual Machine provided another widely used CLR-like in the mid-1990's. There have been plenty of others along the way. But CLR is not the only issue, and there is plenty of prior art on it too. Various efforts to separate content from form and function occurred throughout the 1980's as user interface programming became important. I'm most familiar with the work I was associated with, so I'll document that here, but I'm sure I wasn't alone on this path. Bricklin had at least some of it in his roughly 1982 prototype development system and many of the claims in the patent might be asserted to have been implemented in early versions of SmallTalk. As for work I was associated with, a colleague of mine at IBM Research, Richard Redpath, created an early system for separating interface content from code in about 1986. We used it initially to trivially translate a program into about 25 languages, but we applied it fairly generally and I think he may have received a patent for the work. My third generation user interface generator (about 1987) extended that separation form (specified with an XML-like language), function (compiled to a intermediate p-machine), and content (also specified in an XML-like language) in roughly 1987. We initially built a prototype SGML word processor with it. Another team in IBM Research, led by Stephen Boies, took that concept and developed it much further than I did, producing an IBM product that was widely used for building Kiosks. I would imagine they wrote relevant patents as well. I used that platform in 1996 to implement a collaborative web surfing application that that displayed arbitrary content encoded in HTML in a user interface specified in XML within a system written in REXX and Java that was compiled to a Java Virtual Machine that displayed in a variety of browsers (Netscape, IE, Opera, etc) on a variety of platforms (Windows, OS/2, UNIX, and so on). We wrote a number of patents on that project, but there was so much prior art on separation of form, function, and content that we would never have dreamed of filing a patent on that aspect of the system. I'm sure I am hardly alone in having done such things at least three years before this patent was filed. It is hard to believe that this patent is worth the money it will cost Vertical to litigate MicroSoft on it. It's hard to believe that they spent the money to force this through the patent process after three rejections. They can't possibly win.

Mod parent +1 funny

[mackyrae]

Please

Re:Mod parent +1 funny

[mackyrae]

No wait, maybe he should be informative and the idiot to whom he responded is funny for correcting a misspelling with a misspelling.

Re:Mod parent +1 funny

[krbvroc1]

Exactly, my correction of a misspelling with a mispeling was supposed to be funny. Oh well.

ugh? and they know everything ?

[freaker_TuC]

No offense to them lawyers, but, to my opinion a lawyer is more occupied in law and a programmer is more occupied in software. Wouldn't it be difficult for a lawyer to describe a software process while being active in law?

ok, before you bite, there are specialisations ; some lawyers are better in patents, trademarks, assets ... but still, would a lawyer be the one (good) person to write down a software process and patent? I think the first problem lies there; by not fully understanding the matter and not knowing what exactly gets patented..

No, that's not a subjunctive, that's a plural.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

That is an indicative plural. Subjunctives are ungrammatical in that context; people don't say things like *How long until he act stupid? (I'm using the '*' to indicate ungrammaticality, as is conventional in linguistics.)

Nouns like company or committee are called "collective nouns" in many grammars. Since they denote collections of entities, it is very common for them to trigger either singular or plural agreement (which is, furthermore, subject to significant dialectal variation).

Depending on the content of the sentence, however, sometimes the plural agreement is impossible: The committee was/*were dissolved. In this sentence, the predication can only be (easily) construed as being about the committee itself, as opposed to its members.

Not quite

[Anonymous Coward]

...only devices are patentable. Patents can include other things too. For example, you can patent a method for manufacturing a chemical. Software patents are, in principle, perfectly legal. However, most of them take a lot of legal acrobatics to make them seem original, when in fact they are very unoriginal. In fact, I've never seen a single software patent that hadn't already been used in practice by others before the application was filed, or was just plain obvious (like the XOR cursor patent).

antecedent basis

[Anonymous Coward]

Claim 1 includes the step: "deploying said arbitrary objects from said object library into a design framework to create said computer application."

However, after reading the patent, I do not understand the antecedent basis of the claim. What is a "design framework?".

References include:
Arbitrary object framework: 9
Arbitrary framework: 4
Design framework: 3
Hierarchical framework: 1
Framework 4
Object framework 1

Narrowing it down further, the three references to a "design framework" are given as:
1) The method of this invention includes creating arbitrary objects, managing the arbitrary objects throughout their life cycle, and deploying the arbitrary objects in a design framework for use in complex computer applications.
2) The method of this invention includes creating arbitrary objects, managing the arbitrary objects in an object library, and deploying the arbitrary objects in a design framework for use in computer applications.
3) At step 24, objects can be deployed from the object library into a design framework to create the software application.

Note that in 1 and 2, the arbitrary objects are deployed in a design framework for use in computer applications, while in 3, it is described as deploying the objects into a design framework to create the software application.

Nowhere does it say what the heck a "design framework" is.

When filing the patent, you need to explain why the invention is better than the prior art (i.e. what is so innovative). They explain this by the following fragment:

"A critical distinction between the present invention and previous object oriented development systems is the need to know how a function can be called and what to expect it to return, rather than just knowing the function's name. This means that typically the system administrator calls the name of an object and passes parameters to the object."

Having worked with sysadmins in the past, I do not recall any of them ever having to call the name of an object and passes parameters to the object. What are they talking about? By phone ;)

Maybe Leggo will win...

[milette]

Putting components that snap together into a container sounds an awful lot like a box of Leggo blocks. The concept of a "tool box" or putting related objects together in some kind of container has been around a lot longer than any kind of software. Makes about as much sense as a company being able to trademark or patent something found in nature, like a color. (UPS Brown)

Things [in books] I wished I'd patented ...

[peetm]

Funny, I recently noticed some stuff in an old book I wrote:

http://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/~peet/patent/
 
Pity patents can't be retrospective!

All your bad joke are belong to us!

[Petersko]

This is the slashdot way. Some idiot wakes up one morning to the stunning realization that if he substitutes "Windoze" for "Windows" scores of jackasses across the land will find him amazingly funny and smart. Tens of thousands follow in his footsteps, because original humour is more difficult, while derivation is relatively easy.

Foolish assesment of the situation

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft has publicly threatened to sue governments for using Linux, what part of their .NET strategy escapes you? You also assume that Microsoft won't litigate by proxy (like they did with SCO).

Do you expect us to believe MSFT shareholders will care about developers to the tune of a billion dollars in the unlikely scenario mono becomes popular on linux?

Hey, let's not find out!

Re:Foolish assesment of the situation

[Jason Earl]

Microsoft hasn't publicly threatened to sue anyone. It's executives have, on occasion, talked about the threat that "Intellectual Property" poses to Linux, but that's not even close to the same thing. Microsoft has a long and storied history of using Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt to sell software. Microsoft doesn't, on the other hand, have a history of suing its customers, and Mono users are all Microsoft customers. The reason that Microsoft submitted the specifications to C# and large portions of .NET to ECMA was that Microsoft realized that unless .NET was seen as open that Java would win by default. The threat from Java hasn't gone away even though .NET has done well in the marketplace. Microsoft's technologies can't be seen as a tool for vendor lock in, and there is no quicker way to do that than to start litigating against companies that provide .NET integration tools. In the end Mono is basically an integration tool.

As for litigation by proxy, that only works in situations in very distinct situations. Microsoft was more than willing to help SCO sue IBM (as was Sun), but this strategy wouldn't have worked if SCO's executives wouldn't have been willing to throw away the company on a mad gamble. When all is said and done SCO's investors are going to have spent far more trying to destroy Linux than Microsoft and Sun did. Even worse the gamble was almost a complete and utter failure. Linux is still gaining marketshare at a remarkable pace, and SCO is a hair's breadth away from being completely destroyed.

hefty sum??

[MadKad]

hefty sum?? to Microsoft hefty sum would be in the billion's and not the million's, it will not hert them and this is a shame

When do you think the legal dept. will find out?

[rastamafoo]

I'm placing this here in case any honest and trustworthy souls would like to examine a bit of historical and topical information on Vertical Computers and their technology. There are a number of places to look but perhaps it would be easiest if you start here with my difficult to assail opinions and observations: http://ajaxamine.tripod.com/

Sounds like a run on somebody else's bank.

[rastamafoo]

The following appears to indicate Microsoft not only knew about Vertical's development but that they shadowed that development with their own all along. Given the smallness and insignificant profile of Vertical at the time (today is a totally different story) one might assume Microsoft was simply keeping their own development alive in the sad but likely event that VCSy would not exist past 2002... say... summer of 2002. Hmmm. We wonder who might have convinced them to think that way. Or one might wonder what source inside Microsoft could offer such an assurance.

For the casual reader, consider what Microsoft was doing circa 2001 in pursuit of some sort of .Net Framework (of which they've only recently arrived at in 2007...??? where has their XML capability been before now? Hmmm? Buried in client systems no doubt. ooooo I wonder what those clients will say to Microsoft now that they may receive a cease and desist order similar to what Microsoft received February 2007 [the 6 year anniversary of VCSY introducing the XML Enabler Agent).

Do you think Mister Softy's clients will be able to excise the offending stuff out of their systems? I don't.

http://www.perfectxml.com/articles/xml/dotnet.asp

Excerpts from end of article. More at URL.

# .NET in the short term
The final versions of the full set of .NET components (whether this concerns the development tools, or products from the .NET server family) are unlikely to be available before mid -2001, going by the most optimistic predictions.

"Old" applications built on the Microsoft DNA architecture will still function on Windows 2000 servers equipped with .NET generation tools. The two generations of applications will be able to cohabit without interference.

We therefore do not see any short-term threat for current and future DNA-based applications.

Microsoft points out that tools and assistants to help with migration will be provided with the .NET platform. However, we do not feel that this is an ideal solution, for various reasons. Firstly, migration assistants can never carry out 100% of the modifications necessary. Consequently, it would be advisable to devote sufficient time and resources to this migration. Secondly,transforming an ASP/VBScript application into ASP.NET/VB.NET will not automatically make it a.NET application. It will in all likelihood be necessary to alter the application architecture, so as to benefit fully from the new possibilities offered by .NET.

In future articles we will try to answer some of the questions that you are undoubtedly asking yourself if you have Microsoft DNA applications in production. We will try and draw an accurate schema of the optimum .NET architecture, and will show you the best way to write DNA applications which can be ported to .NET.

# .NET in the long term
Whether or not Microsoft achieves what it has set out to achieve with .NET, it cannot be denied that the way we design applications is going to undergo some changes. With the advent of e-commerce and B2B exchanges, there is already a need for interconnected applications which communicate via an enterprise network or through the Internet.

With this in mind, we can see that with .NET, Microsoft's main aim is to supply tools which can be used to develop applications as easily as Visual Basic did a few years ago, during the golden age of the client-server application.

# What's the verdict?
Pragmatically speaking, and casting aside any preconceived ideas about the Redmond vendor, a clever strategy would be to carry out sustained technology tracking of .NET and as its alternatives, together with the technologies on which all of these are based, i.e. XML and SOAP.

Until the final version of .NET appears, we will continue to keep you informed of technological and strategic developments, with further TrendMarkers articles on Microsoft's DotNet. Stay tuned!

If you want to know from the other side of the arg

[rastamafoo]

Those of you in denial and angst regarding the allegation (heavens me how could those nice young boys and girls in Seattle do anything like what has been alleged?) of patent infringement and general bad acting by Microsoft development and management (and I suppose that includes the lawyers) should check out the conversation at these various points.

VCSY message board at Raging Bull public message board

VCSY - A Laughing Place #1 at ProgrammersHeaven private message board

VCSY - A Laughing Place #2 at Tripod blog

Trying to keep up with a discussion here is like playing chess in a BART station.

Join in the discussion anytime you feel comfortable. Don't get your feelings hurt though if you go in like you know the score and somebody heats up your bathwater. If you don't know what you're talking about Those longs will tear your boxers to speedos going the wrong way. Just fair warning so you don't go sniveling and all.

VCSY just finished a long lawsuit with CDC/Ross Systems for cheating and fraud... and CDC settled with a little money and a little something for the road.

It's that 'something for the road' that makes us all think CEO Wade knows exactly what he's driving at.

Note to self: Dear self...

[rastamafoo]

Here I am dragging the mountain to Mohammed to have a Come to Jesus meeting with a tribe of heathen Wanga Pangy just like my mother said I would end up. You have to wonder why I do this sort of dangerous work. It's because I'm a wild game guide and hunter... and this looks like it's going to be one of the wilder games of the 20th Century.

From Professor R. R. Squared of the Department of Vertically Antiquated Cultures, late of the Boston Belfry movement and ... well Saint Ferdinand's fuzzies, I do declare! By great synchronicity and serendipity, I do believe his field of study is precisely the Wanga Pangy. We are most fortunate to see this transcript of the professor dressing down a novice enthusiast. Quiet please!

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?boar d=VCSY&read=183184
By: RapidRobert2
24 Apr 2007, 12:03 PM EDT
Msg. 183184 of 183237
(This msg. is a reply to 183175 by bart2e.)

bart2: You are the easy one to answer first, so I will start with your poorly thought out post.

You state "I hope, however, that the serving and processing of lawsuits doesn't become the main business strategy of the company. Vertical would have a lot more credibility if they were actually selling Siteflash - and other products and services - through their own salesforce. A license or two would also do wonders".

The company IS using 'SiteFlash' and other patent(s) in other products, along with a big partner. Hold onto something when we get the news, or you WILL get blown over or blown away, either works for me. Not only does the USE of 'SiteFlash' with a partner bring in money and/or other things in the future but also REINFORCES the lawsuit, both in URGENCY and AMOUNT of the suit...That means MORE money because of damages (HARM) done to VCSY with infringing on the VCSY patent(s) and selling competing products that take money away from VCSY and their partner. PRIOR USE of a patent is MUCH better than just filing a lawsuit and saying someone is 'using' the patent(s) with no harm because it wasn't being used anyway. MORE CLOUT in the court and MORE CLOUT for a settlement and license agreements, with royalty a year for income. NICE! FOR VCSY...NOT FOR MSFT!

If anyone thinks the partners of MSFT are going to be silent and play 'ignore them' when they learn that the product they BOUGHT or DEVELOPED with MSFT is using software illegally, YOU ARE WRONG and IF it can be proved that those 'other' partners of MSFT KNOWINGLY used the STOLEN software in their development of other products...Watch out. And, for those innocent MSFT partners that are in the middle, THEY WON'T LIKE IT AND THEY WON'T BE SILENT TO MSFT.

And this statement indicates you still don't understand management or the business of VCSY. You state "As was rightly pointed out, 4 years of stealth for 2 million dollars was hardly worth it. In fact, in retrospect, if that was what was going on, it was complete nonsense".

Duh! Sorry for being rude but I have been through this all with you before and I 'guess' you either didn't understand it or simply forget you knew what was going on when you first complained about these things on THIS board and YOU HAD the information in front of you to read from the response of LONGS on this board.

Forget the money from the Ross suit, although I think getting CASH of about $2.5 MILLION from Ross is nice and don't forget Ross also paid almost one million to the VCSY lawyers and add another million Ross paid to their own lawyers and the amount of the award is more impressive. IF VCSY lost, they would have had to pay those fees. THEY DIDN'T LOSE IT, THEY WON IT and arthurarsley...IT WAS NOT A TECHNICAL WIN for VCSY...The company did it with PROOF, FACTS and EXCELLENT WITNESSES! Ross wouldn't have settled if it was some made up 'Technical' win as you made up and posted today. VCSY did it the hard way, THEY EARNED THE WIN. I just don't know where the heck

Introducing another laughing place

[rastamafoo]

Oh well, the webmaster has shut down the VCSY - A Laughing Place at ProgrammersHeaven site. We've known for quite some time he intended to shut the site down and now he's made good on it. Oh well, we would be stupid to not plan ahead and we're not stupid. May I introduce to you VCSY - A Laughing Place #3 http://vcsy.blogspot.com/ It will take a bit to get the place in shape but we got time.