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.'"

11 of 219 comments (clear)

  1. What is a machine? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Funny

    Does Turning Machine counts as a machine?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:What is a machine? by LinuxIdiot · · Score: 5, Funny

      I sure dont know about a Turning Machine, but a Turing Machine just might count!

    2. Re:What is a machine? by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Having your AI arbitrarily misspell important terms is not an effective way of passing the Turing Test. You fail. Your post was quite obviously generated by a machine.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  2. Re:Turing machines and turning machines by sakdoctor · · Score: 4, Funny

    Linear bounded automaton, AKA Joe Six-pack

  3. "rent-seeking patent jackals" by xbytor · · Score: 2, Funny

    Heh, heh. Phrase-of-the-day, for sure.

  4. Re:Mice, keyboards, xbox, ... by hachete · · Score: 2, Funny

    patents on mice. That'll keep their monopoly intact.

    --
    Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
  5. Not so fast by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.
  6. Re:It doesn't matter... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm not sure that isn't a pyrrhic victory. I mean... before, it was like this:

    M$: Boohoo, Linux is stealing our valuable patented IP!
    Everyone else: Show us some of those "patents"?
    M$: Um, sorry, gotta go, bye!

    Now it'll be:

    M$: Boohoo, Linux is stealing our valuable IP!
    Everyone else: Show us some of that "IP"?
    M$: It's a trade secret!

    Well, or something like that - you get the idea. Before, they made specific claims which we could call them on ("show us the patents we supposedly violate!"); now, it's just going to be nebulous claims which, while less convincing, will also be harder to actually refute.

  7. Re:Turing machines and turning machines by Sentry21 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Do we really want to limit ourselves to a single universe? That's the kind of short-sighted thinking that led us to the Y2K bug.

  8. Re:If the only hammer you have is a tool... by julesh · · Score: 4, Funny

    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

    OTOH, patent lawyers' heads are also not patentable, but hitting them with a hammer is not obvious, and might in fact be patentable.

  9. Re:"Microsoft doesn't make machines." by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 2, Funny

    That was the informative part.