Slashdot Mirror
The Dangers of a Patent War Chest
Timothy B. Lee writes "I've got an article in the New York Times in which I make the case against software patents. Expanding on a point I first made on my blog, I point out that Microsoft has had a change of heart on the patent issue. In 1991, Bill Gates worried that 'some large company will patent some obvious thing' and use it to blackmail smaller companies. Now that Microsoft is a large company with a patent war-chest of their own, they don't seem so concerned about abuse of the patent system. I then describe how Verizon's efforts to shut down Vonage are a perfect illustration of Gates' fears."
How often does MS sue smaller companies for petent infringement, compared to how often Microsoft is sued? I think software patents for the most part are bullocks, but given the system exists it would seem smart for any company to try to patent as much as they can to protect themselves, Microsoft included.
The biggest bully on the block never minds abuse of the rules, in their favor.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Thanks God, there are no software patents here ! For how long ? ...
Microsoft should be forced to open up their source code, for all their products.. Office, Vista, search engine, flight sim, drm, media player, etc etc. Then we can find out which patented "methods" and algorithms they are infringing upon. Until then, they should STFU.
"Two of its patents cover the concept of translating phone numbers into Internet addresses."
Patents should not be able to cover concepts only very specific processes. If Gene Roddenberry's heirs patent the "concept" of a teleporter, should that give them rights over someone who actually figures out the physics and machinery to make one? Even if the inventor got the idea from watching Star Trek?
We are all just people.
Big Boss has a patent warchest of death, enter the penguin into this game of mutually assured destruction?
I don't think we can fault Gates from using the current patent rules as best he can to create a profit from microsoft. After all microsoft is going to have to pay the toll to patent trolls like Eolas whether or not they use their own patents as weapons. If they refuse to use patent law as an offensive weapon it just means they are at a relative competitive disadvantage to their competitors who do.
I mean I sure as hell don't think their ought to be a tax break for owning a home but you can sure as hell bet that I'm going to take that deduction so long as it's the law and I expect others to behave the same way. Campaigning to make the rules of the game more fair is one thing, but refusing to use the rules as they are just delays reform (hides problem) and puts you at an unfair disadvantage to all of those using the current rules.
Since Bill Gates seems to still be pushing for patent reform I'm not sure what their is to fault him on about this. Sure we might resent him because we want to win and he is using a stupid rule to get ahead but he is doing nothing immoral. In fact his fiduciary duty to MS shareholders means it might very well be immoral not to use patents against his competitors.
Admittedly if Gates started using MS patents to go directly after free software itself (getting injunctions on linux distribution) that starts to get a bit more grey. However, so long as he is just going after distributors and making them sign cross-licensing agreements it's just part of the corporate game. After all the primary thing that MS gets out of the Novell deal is assurance from novell not to sue for patent infringements, i.e., a defense against the assertion of patents by free software vendors.
As a strategy matter I think the open source movement's failure to accumulate a large centralized patent warchest is hurting us. If the GNU/FSF people actively accumulated a centralized patent warchest I suspect we could have made a deal with MS not to sue for patent infringement. We need to lobby for changes to the patent laws but until then we, just like MS, need to play using the current rules.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
"How often does MS sue smaller companies for petent infringement, compared to how often Microsoft is sued?"
How many companies apart from Microsoft make allegations that Linux violates their patents.
every Linux customer has an undisclosed balance-sheet liability
was Re:who's suing who?
davecb5620@gmail.com
that seeks to maintain the position of power. Politicians are always the quintessential example aren't they? Republicans in office seek to hold power just as the Democrats will do. In 1991 MS was hardly the dominant empire they are today and when the next Great Thing (tm) comes along they will do what previous entrenched powers have done. They sue. I say we get an amendment to some bill that changes our National Anthem's last line to "or the land of the free and the home of the litigious and overly patented". It doesn't rhyme.
load "$",8,1
For anyone who was unsure as well, the author is not TimBL.
since the stupid arguing generates a lot of traffic... just go and fix your legal system, get rid of software patent laws.
At the risk of sounding corny, US President FDR had it right. The only thing to fear is fear itself. Microsoft has no colorable patent claims, IMHO, and I'm a lawyer. There are probably several good defenses to their patents: 1) prior art; 2) obviousness; 3) limits on patenting math. And right now there are 1,415 people who have signed a list asking Microsoft to sue them. We need business leaders to start signing this list, because plenty of grassroots people have signed the list already. You can find the sign-up page here:
l e=SMFM_list_page_12
http://digitaltippingpoint.com/wiki/index.php?tit
Of course, please consult with a lawyer if you are making serious plans to challenge Microsoft in court. Also, of course it goes without saying that you should probably consult other big players on the FOSS side, such as the Linux Foundation and the Open Innovation Network, etc. So while I can't give legal advice to anyone, really folks, I don't think there's any there there, to quote Gertude Stein. Just my two cents.
In fact, I believe that Microsoft is doing this patent stuff because they want to ease into distributing GNU Linux themselves, and they want to be the market leading GNU Linux distro. They really kind of are forced to do it. GNU Linux and FOSS are eroding their revenue base. They have read Clayton Christensen's work. They know what a disruptive innovation is. They know that the only market leaders to have survived disruptive innovations are those who spun off an independent separate little company that sold the disruptive products or services. As that spin-off grew, the companies who were smart enough to do it, like Quantum spun off Plus, eventually found that the disruptive little company grew to a point where the two companies could merge, and thus gracefully transition to the new disruptive market. Microsoft is planning to buy a distro, and they are insulating themselves from legal attack once they get there. They are also probably planning to try to bust the GPL in court, which is why they need this legal protection. They are looking to bust the GPL down to something that they like, such as a BSD or MIT or Apache-type license.
So in the meantime, let's make them earn their place. Let's challenge them. Let's unmask their FUD. Sign the list!
And keep software under Copyright? If so, I agree. As long as software authors can protect themselves for whatever their reasons: keeping it open to getting rich.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
The Constitution doesn't spell out the way IP has to work. Congress actually has the power to grant patents for only certain industries if it chooses to do so. Personally, that's the way I lean these days because so little seems to be new and innovative outside a select few industries. It would be perfectly fair--and legal!!--for Congress to issue 10 year patents for nanotechnology, 20 year patents for drugs and 2 year patents for software algorithms.
...who wants to produce the proof?
So instead we end users are forced to watch this insanity as we are prevented from doing things for ourselves that we would otherwise be able to do, as the proof would most certainly expose such a great deal of false constraints imposed upon the users that it would then be considered illegal consumer deception/fraud.
In short, proof of the non-patentability of software would in part come from non-novel and obvious solution direction of anyone within the given field, not just programmers/coders. I.E. one click online shopping.
So it must be very very clear that stories like this one are based on consumer deception continuing, rather than genuine exposure of the real problem.
Back when BillG made that comment, the primary threat to a company was another company who made things. In that environment a patent war chest is a defense: since that other company makes things, if they sue you you can search your war chest for patents they might infringe upon in return. Today, though, the primary threat is from IP holding companies. Against them, the size of your patent war chest doesn't matter. They don't make anything, they don't do anything, therefore there's nothing you can go after no matter how many patents you hold (unless you happen to be the lucky soul holding the patent on sueing people for patent infringement). I think even Microsoft is slowly coming to the realization that patents pose a greater threat to them than their value as a weapon.
Timothy Lee (from the Cato Institute :) )titles his piece "Patent Lie", which is very accurate because he lies about the price of a patent. See http://www.uspto.gov/go/fees/fee2007february01.htm
:)
small entity:
basic filing fee $150
fee after 3.5yrs: $450
fee after 7.5yrs: $1150
fee after 11.5 yrs: $1,900
total: $3,650
Is $3,650 spread over 12 years an onerous charge?
Can you write your own patent? absolutely. I've done it 5 times.
Of course the American Government believes software should be patentable but are there any other countries who believe in this madness?
some companies deserve this. An example, Vonage they desearve to be taken down this way. Its as if you have little else left such as a patient war chest to put all things right. Vonage is a horrible, evil company. I experienced this personally. They adopt the same practices of other evil empires and make it nearly impossible for you to get 'excellent customer service'.
After my problems with Vonage I did some research and found countless complaints against Vonage and there deplorable behavior in there treatment of customers. Doing a simple Google or Yahoo search for complaints against Vonage and the tactics they use you find the number is overwhelming. I even found out that Vonage's membership in the BBB was revoked, because of there practices, and now along with Texas, California and other states class action lawsuits are being brought against Vonage.
In the case of Vonage it seems this is the only way to get some justice. Even if using patient war chest is not a good idea. It is made necessary, because of all the underhanded, sympathetic judges, mostly Republican, backward dealing, that goes on with these billion dollar empires to circumvent the law and take away the consumers rights.
"Evil does as evil gets"
Someone has to patent something almost necessary. And sadly this isn't even "life threatening" We already have patents on treatments and no one really cares that they cost a lot of money, what we need is a patent on an everyday occurrence. Driving, walking, sitting, breathing something that we can't live with out but we expect to have. Then get the patent holder to litigate to the point you can never do it with out paying them some exorbitant feet. Only then will people understand why patent law is wrong.
I've commonly pointed out that if the hammer was patented any other idiot could make hammers but they would be forced not to. However even that doesn't sell people on why patents are useless because people also see a need for patents. What needs to happen is people to realize exactly what can be patented, and how much you can charge for the use of a patent. We don't need to make them worthless, but litigation over them is easy because you don't have to make your patent available at a reasonable course, and you can infringe on a patent with out realizing it.
The biggest bully on the block never minds abuse of the rules, in their favor.
That's a poor assessment of this situation. MS is a bully but they are not using their patents. Their patent warchest seems defensive in nature. MS has deep pockets and is a prime target for the lawsuit happy patent portfolio companies that create nothing other than lawsuits. For a company with deep pockets, the patent warchest is an unfortunate necessity.
I think software patents for the most part are bullocks, but given the system exists ...
If they are nonsense to begin with, why don't we just say so, change the laws to eradicate them and quit wasting time and money on them?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I like what Lee says about pattents but the Communist era graphics are offensive. Mass murder was committed under posters like that and many of the victims are still alive. Free software is NOT communism because software and ideas are not property, so the imagery is inappropriate to begin with.
Oh wait, look "WHERE WE WORK"
A large grain of salt should be taken when reading their stuff. When the Cato Institute brings out yellow stars on red backgrounds, they are usually flaming someone.
Other people have also written about the dangers of software patents from a more fundamental perspective. It's not enough to say that software patents can be economically harmful because they are also morally and legally wrong. If we apply tests like that, we can avoid the financial harms later. When we don't we end up where we are.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Microsoft was already a big company in 1991. I don't think this can be called a "change of heart". It's closer to an "adaptation to the market", because they're not the only company to patent a wide range of processes and concepts, and because that's basically related to their business, as unfair and stupid as it seems. The problem is with patents and the patents laws, not with the companies who ask for them and obtain them. You won't fix that problem by forbidding Microsoft or Verizon or any big company from obtaining more patents, but by changing the policies of the patent office.
____
nico
Nico-Live
I love this aspect of American. We turn a blind eye to government policies that obviously favors the wealthy and the corporation at the expense of everyone else. Why? Because one of these day now, we might become rich and famous. It is the American dream that we are protecting...Same with patent. The current law might be flawed, but it favors patent holder. Maybe one of these days, I'll also hold a patent that's obvious but somehow worth millions!
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
"some large company will patent some obvious thing" and use the patent to "take as much of our profits as they want."
2 another+patent%22
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=microsoft+%2
The Indians call this "speaking with a forked toungue". I wonder how they say "fuck you, bill" in Commanche.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
So anyone outside of the FSF that writes about patents should be automatically dismissed, correct?
No kidding.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
When did MS start inventing stuff?
First of all, Steve Ballmer needs to shut the fuck up. There that felt better. In addition, I would remind everyone that Microsoft got where it is today by profiting from cloned versions of IBMs "BIOS".
Regardless of what Microsoft's escaped zoo animals say, it has absolutely no interest in interoperability, their interest is to remain the only desktop and server software vendor, and NOTHING else.
I would also suggest that open source developers don't actually need Microsoft's help or money, but if Microsoft wants to help they can grant patent rights to implementations of NTFS or SMB, including modifications and all future users of those modifications. Those are valid patents I'm sure, the rest is invalid, you can't patent universal ideas.
Do you suppose when Bill though "'some large company will patent some obvious thing' and use it to blackmail smaller companies" it was one of those evil moments of clarity, like when L. Ron Hubbard thought "The way to make real money is to invent a religion".
Paul Gogarty