Slashdot Mirror
Groklaw Says Microsoft Patent Portfolio Now Worthless
twitter writes "P.J. concludes her look at the Bilski decision: 'you'll recall patent lawyer Gene Quinn immediately wrote that it was bad news for Microsoft, that "much of the Microsoft patent portfolio has gone up in smoke" because, as Quinn's partner John White pointed out to him, "Microsoft doesn't make machines." Not just Microsoft. His analysis was that many software patents that had issued prior to Bilski, depending on how they were drafted, "are almost certainly now worthless." ... He was not the only attorney to think about Microsoft in writing about Bilski.'"
Does Turning Machine counts as a machine?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
http://slashdot.org/~SockDisclosure/journal/214377
I think Microsoft wins either way. They are not generally a patent troll company, nor are other large companies (IBM) with massive patent portfolios. If their strategy was to countersue little companies which had (somewhat) frivolous patents as a defensive measurement, they win either way. Either their patents are valid, in which case they have a good defense strategy, or they are not, and neither are the patent-troll lawsuit patents. I read somewhere it costs $10,000 or so to file a patent. This is chump change to Microsoft.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
Sure, but the Microsoft Butt hinge with integrally formed butt straps patent is still valid, so watch out for Microsoft cornering the world market on butt hinges! (I suspect Microsoft does have a fair number of hardware patents for mice, keyboards, etc.)
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Yes, a turning machine, also called a lathe, is a machine. A Turing machine, on the other hand, is an abstract mathematical construct. A real Turing machine cannot exist in a bounded universe because by definition, it can store an unbounded amount of information. You might be looking for a linear bounded automaton, which is this universe's closest counterpart to a Turing machine.
Microsoft has put out some good hardware over the years. They must surely own some patents that cover this stuff.
Apple won't have these problems because Apple likes to sue individuals and small businesses who can't put up enough of a legal fight to contest their patents. Like RIAA, they've made a killing off low legal literacy in the private and small business sector. And each case that gets settled or steamrolled in court can then be used to set precident. There is no justice for the poor and the patent system is the second-best example of this. The first, of course, being family court. -_-
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
The whole reason the patent system exists is so that the "little guy" will have incentive to make a product without fear of the big guy stomping them. Of course, it turns out that the big guy with a 1000 patents a year deters any competition, so, there's obviously going to be more competition if this ruling means as the article says. But, at the same time, if I genuinely do make a product that is new, then, big companies will be allowed to take it. In fact, anyone will.
As such, patents aren't -that- bad, but just imagine if copyrights were also deregulated to a degree. Yeah, people might be able to copy madonna songs more freely (as terrible a thing to do as that is), but, at the same time, the GPL would lose quite a bit of its teeth as its only as good as the rights the code authors have. If you are MS, looking at a billion in Windows development costs a year, suddenly a few hundred million in political "donations" in favor of candidates that are willing to legislate in that open source means public domain, and suddenly Linux is on everyone's desktop, but, it's closed source!
This is my sig.
It's always invigorating to read twitter flamebait in the morning, but I doubt anyone can make a case that Microsoft (or, before CmdrTaco's edits, "M$") is a patent troll, or that it uses patents offensively. Even that FUD about Linux infringing 200+ patents is nothing more than hot air.
If anything, Microsoft has been a large target for patent trolls, and they have been rather successful at it IIRC. I think it's amusing to see people like our notorious troll here obsess with Microsoft's patent portfolio when there are smaller and more dangerous fish to fry in this delightful niche.
Someone might want to call IBM and let them know about this though. And Google. If Microsoft's patent portfolio is "worthless" then so is everybody else's. Which is a good thing, don't get me wrong, but I think it will be a while before courts start punishing actual patent trolls.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
It is great that software patents are finally being examined and reformed. Software patents are incredibly stupid as they can be incredibly broad and are for the sole purpose of stifling innovation. Instead of keeping large corporations from stealing and others inventions and making the inventors effort worthless, software patents do the opposite and allow large corporations from patenting broad techniques that almost always have prior art and leeching off other large corporations or hurting the American Consumer by stifling innovation and creating monopolies.
Patents in themselves and Intellectual Property are good at times but when it comes to software patents, all they do is cause abuse. For example many of our largest corporations have had a lot of their money stolen by patent trolls.
Patent law needs to be reformed and the Government needs to something about how large corporations are taking advantage of their resources to prove that they have the right to do techniques such as "webpages", "structured documents", or "contextual advertisements". Such broad things like that really shouldn't be reserved by anyone.
Patents are useful and are necessary in order to reward people and companies for spending R&D money to fund a lab or years of research. But software patents are basically a race for the first patent troll to type up an idea and spend the money to patent it. They don't have any benefit to anyone and they don't encourage anything except for companies to bully others and to squash competition.
Bilski was about business method patents not tied to any machine. The Federal Circuit tried to make this clear in the In re Bilski opinion itself (page 21):
It is true that the validity of many broadly drafted claims may be at issue, but many software claims just do not make sense unless the claims are understood to be tied to computational devices. For example, Beauregard claims, which are claims on a computer readable media adapted to implement a method or system, are considered patentable by the PTO. These kind of claims are very popular because they allow patent holders to go after the software distributors rather than end-users.
It will be harder to enforce software patents, now that the defense lawyers can wield Sec. 101 with more power. But it is a mistake to declare victory against software patents based on a case where all the PTO wanted was for the patent applicant to add "computer implemented" to the claim language.
My company's lawyers wont even challenge a badly-drafted or incorrect patent until there is a six-figure upside. Lawyer costs quickly approach that. More likely the threat results in cross-licensing royalties, usually both ways.
Does this mean mp3 playback 'out of the box,' for Ubuntu, Fedora?
Heh, heh. Phrase-of-the-day, for sure.
Well, somebody had to realize it eventually, and it really isn't isolated to Microsoft; the problem of SCAM - a ubiquitous program which is intrinsic to every element of our society, especially the insurance companies. I'm not sure exactly who originated this, but I have a strange sense that there might be some serious bugs and flaws.
Aside from being quite possibly the most inefficient program in the universe, SCAM, a self-perpetuating indefinite loop which exists solely to transfer "your" money to "my" bank account, suffers from several drawbacks, most especially being an egregious lack of definite terms, not to mention that the code is so obsolete that the rust is causing silicon degradation at the hardware level, something that a piece of software shouldn't physically be able to do.
While props must be given to whoever originated this program for overall brilliance of avarice, it is unfortunately a rather inelegant algorithm, and I think its time may be waning.
Is there some reporting and analysis of this matter from a more impartial source than Groklaw? I'd love to believe what PJ writes, but the history of software patents is one of cleverly worded applications exploiting and widening every possible loophole to expand the scope of patentability. I think Groklaw is putting a very optimistic spin on this.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
dont they make XBOXs ...
I'm sorry... but Joe six-pack does not pass the turing test. There's that little detail about the machine having to display intelligence...
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Reading your comment makes me envision a Mario parody game, where Ballmer throws chairs like Mario used to throw hammers.
I guess he'd be a boss, though, rather than the protagonist.
As of the time of my reply, I see that you've got a "-1, Insightful" score on your post.
Congratulations!
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
So... Who wants to be the first one to try violating one of Microsoft's software patents and test it in court? Hmmm?
A ruling came down from the board of patent appeals and interferences (BPAI) allowing Beauregard claims. a Beauregard claim is a claim for the steps of a method stored on a "computer-readable medium." The FedCirc could rule that the BPAI is wrong on appeal, but for the time being the PTO will still be allowing software claims using the computer readable medium language.
Practical effect: any patent using that language will still be enforceable. Since you can't violate a software patent without storing it somewhere, there is no downside to including that language in the claims.
Algorithms are not patentable in many countries. So what people do to patent them is they say that they apply for a patent on a "computer system running the algorithm described". Which is a reasonable thing to do since it's pretty hard to run algorithms on a sheet of paper these days.
So, will the font rendering technologies patented by MS and Apple now be free to use in freetype/gnome/kde?
uh, everyone knows that 'Erris' here is the same person as 'twitter' who submitted this story, right? why is he being modded up? reward for using multiple accounts to play around with slashdot, or what?
Turing machine cannot exist in a bounded universe because by definition, it can store an unbounded amount of information.
What if you use virtual memory?
Ha!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Astroturfing is so '90s, dude.
The counter attack there being the "not obvious" leg of patentablity. Using a tool for it's intended purpose is considered obvious, and therefore not patentable. Since running algorithms is what computers do, by definition, it's a short step to an "obvious, therefore not patentable" attack.
Basically, the argument is if you have a nail that isn't patentable and a hammer that was specifically designed to hit nails with then hitting the nail with the hammer is obvious and not patentable.
--MarkusQ
This is a happy day for the entire science and industry of information technology, and the decline of the Microsoft empire.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
I want to know if this kills that stupid "wish list" patent that turned into a lawsuit vs the little guys because your grocery list could land you in court with these patent trolls.
n/t
you had me at #!
So now we are not afraid of Moonlight anymore?
Yeah, Turning engine/Turing engine, joke funny, ha ha. (My laptop's hostname is, BTW: "turing")
But what really does constitute a "machine"? It's easy to name examples that ARE machines, such as the BMW parked in front of my office. That's a machine; no contest.
On the other hand, a math function written in polynomial notation is definitely NOT a machine. That's been found over and over again.
But computers combine the two; It's easily possible to create a "virtual machine" in software, using a 3D toolkit. Not a "virtual machine" like VMWare, I mean a 3D representation of a physical machine. For example, you can simulate engine parts, pistons, bearings, etc. You could, using a 3D toolkit, create a fully functional copy, part-by-part, of the BMW parked in front of my office. You could compute the air compression within the cylinder walls, you could compute the coefficient of drag, in short, it IS a machine, rendered in software.
You can look at it, and using a joystick/keyboard, interact with it; you can enter it and "drive". Since you can even take it apart with virtual "tools", put it back together again, and since it obeys the laws of physics within its virtual world, how is it NOT a machine?
Auto manufacturers do this all the time - "create" cars virtually for crash, drag-coefficient, and general performance testing prior to making prototypes. It saves billions of dollars annually, as well as dramatically reducing time to market.
But is that a machine from the perspective of the patent office? Based on my understanding, the answer is probably no.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
This guy is infamous. The conversation above is mostly him talking to himself to deny the obvious.
A real Turing machine cannot exist in a bounded universe because by definition, it can store an unbounded amount of information.
You messed this up a little.
It's quite possible that I screwed up the nomenclature; I am not a doctor[1]. Let me correct "a bounded universe" to "the observable universe".
The problem is that the tape going into the Turing machine is unbounded, and on the account of its theoretical endlessness is not part of the machine as such.
And the machine can still store an unbounded amount of information on the tape. So where does the tape fit?
Were the tape bounded, it could be considered to be a part of the machine. If the tape is endless, then the Turing machine is a machine like a water mill is a machine and the tape is a non-machine like the river is a non-machine.
A Turing machine without the tape is like a computer without RAM: uselessly incomplete. But then the point is that useful programs for a computer do run in bounded memory and eventually halt, as Anonymous Coward pointed out. So why do we almost always speak of "Turing completeness" and not the "LBA completeness" of the machine sitting in front of you?
[1] Of medicine, of law, or of philosophy in computer science.
...if I were a creationist I could piss all over your parade and say "everything".
But, as I'm not, well...
You got me there.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Let me rephrase the question:
Is an algorithm a machine?
NO SIG
Forgive the leap into philosophy and ethics...
It doesn't take a lot to get from Bilski to no patents being valid ever. At that point, new medicines cease to be affordably developed, new sources of energy and clean water don't happen. University research as savior? Think again. Who will endow the research?
Follow my thought process:
Almost every "machine" made these days is powered by firmware of some sort and has "logic". Consumer electronics, cars, manufacturing equipment, appliances, vacuum cleaners ...... if software tied to a machine isn't patentable, then nothing is fully patentable anymore.
Meanwhile, to apply manufacturing equipment to make a new gear or camshaft or brake pad isn't very different than to apply a programming language to solve a problem that hasn't been solved before or to solve it better than before, is it? An educated mind, some appropriate tools and a problem that needs solving.
And how about taking what is known about properties of chemicals and characteristics of medical conditions and mixing chemicals together differently than someone before you in order to create a new medicine? Patentable or just an algorithm?
It seems that it is a short leap from Bilski to making a positive Return on R&D Investment virtually impossible no matter the product.
I'm not arguing for or against here but this subject is a lot more complex than most of us think. It is the equivalent, in a corporate sense, of debating will to live. You need to consider the answer and what the trade-offs really are for yourself in your own country, political setting, religion, source of income and ability to think systemically.
At the very least, give the courts and patent office some credit. They aren't neanderthals that can't get out of their own way. They are overworked, understaffed and perhaps behind the times a bit but the implications of changes we'd all have them make are substantial.
Your post reminds me of what Republicans say when things done by the Bush Administration are brought to their attention:
So? Democrats do it, too?
twitter M$ sockpuppet moddown donotfeedthetrolls
"So no, they don't make machines."
I don't see anything in your post that demonstrates that at all.
What I see is you making a specious connection between parts being supplied by different companies than MS being some proof they don't make machines.
However, you, intentionally I'm certain, ignore that assembling other companies parts into a whole does in fact constitute a machine by anyone's measure.
Except yours, apparently, but that essentially disqualifies your measure from consideration.
Or are you genuinely arguing that assembling another companies parts into a device does not constitute "making a machine".
Because that's genuinely absurd.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
This is the fraking best analogy I've seen on this whole patent crap.
You linked to one article that is a year and a half old, and talks about plans that in the mean time have not been implemented in any way and you use THAT to justify to yourself that they're patent trolls.
If that's what you've got then, NO!.
Your bias doesn't change that.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
In this day and age where we can simulate software in hardware, and vice-versa, nevermind the advent of Artifical Life, just what IS a machine, anyway? Does it even make sense to have a "clear" demacation between a "software machine" and a "hardware machine?"
When the whole notion of patents was itself invented(!), "software" didn't exist (though there may be a couple of exceptions that proves that rule!), and "machines" were fairly simple by today's standards.
And how does DNA fit in all of this? It has both aspects of "software" and "machine". Many would probably argue that gene patents shouldn't be allowed either.
But truly, what is it that really defines a "machine"? If I build an abacus in software or hardware, are not both functionally equivalent? What makes the physical version so "special"?
MS have so much money and so many lawyers that, just like the RIAA/MPAA and your local protection racket gang, you pay before it goes to court.
That you think this means they haven't used their patents to sue people shows how badly your brain works.
So, what's this mean for IV's patents? And OneClick and other "business methods"?
I'm no fan of Microsoft, software patents in general, or the many dumb patents, but I have to wonder. . .
Microsoft (and many other companies, I presume) spent, I presume, an awful lot of money on patent application fees, not to mention attorney's fees, engineer time, etc to develop and submit the patents, under a regime which had previously, I believe, been recognized as 'legal'. That is, they played the game by the rules as they were at the time. Now, after all that money is spent, the judiciary decides to change the rules on patentability, which will likely result in many of those patents becoming invalid.
Will all the companies and individuals who spent money applying for patents that would now declared invalid under the *new* rules, be able to get back their application fees?
I don't so much mind that the rules are being changed, because I think it's an improvement over the old situation. Still, it doesn't sit right with me that the government arbitrarily changes the rules after taking your money. Seems like the 'old' patents should either be 'grandfathered' in the system (that is, they remain valid because they were filed under different rules), or the people and companies who are losing their patents should be compensated somehow.
Best post in a week, easily.
This is my sig.