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."

23 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 Danse · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    2. Re:Sounds like a patent on the MCV pattern? by Jason+Earl · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

  2. 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.

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

    Microsoft just buy them?

    1. Re:How long until... by john.r.strohm · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:How long until... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative
      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.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  4. Re:And you wonder by gerrysteele · · Score: 4, Informative
    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

  5. Look, up in the sky by kroepoek · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    OMG It's flying chairs from Redmond!

  6. Patents: From bad to worse. by nocynic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!

    1. Re:Patents: From bad to worse. by gujo-odori · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

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

    Russia and Sweden.

  8. The whole concept by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  9. 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).

  10. 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.

  11. Let's propagate some FUD by javilon · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.


    --


    When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
  12. 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.

  13. Some basic background information by udippel · · Score: 5, Informative

    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 ... !

    1. Re:Some basic background information by mavenguy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  14. Not anywhere near a billion by pallmall1 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Kodak and Sun settled for $92 million.

    --
    3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
  15. 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.