Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Is Sued For Patent Violation Over .NET

Posted by Zonk on from the is-it-weird-to-root-for-the-megacorp-on-this-one dept.

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."

17 of 288 comments (clear)

  1. Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern? by WarwickRyan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern? by joto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

    3. Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern? by eonlabs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
  2. And you wonder by El+Lobo · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --
    It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
    1. Re:And you wonder by suv4x4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  3. I'm not anti-Microsoft... by localman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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?

    1. Re:I'm not anti-Microsoft... by rucs_hack · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  4. How long until... by MaXMC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Microsoft just buy them?

  5. Re:location to develop? by Omicron32 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Russia and Sweden.

  6. Other affected by suv4x4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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).

  7. Re:Haha? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!

  8. Does this affect Mono? by jonwil · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Does this affect Mono? by julesh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  9. This is why GPLv3 encumbers patents by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  10. What about WSC (Windows Script Components)? by N8F8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
  11. Re:Huh? WTF? by joto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.