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.'"

Comments

Re:What is a machine?

[LinuxIdiot]

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

It doesn't matter...

[nebaz]

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.

Re:It doesn't matter...

[UnknowingFool]

Yes, but MS has thinly veiled patent threats against Linux which are now even weaker. Before it was just FUD to keep people from moving to Linux. MS could never actually launch any suits because their partners like HP and IBM have huge Linux investments and large patent portfolios and would have to get involved. Now, MS can't really bring use these threats as effectively because people would point to the Bilski decision to counter.

Re:It doesn't matter...

[morgan_greywolf]

Right. But it's effectively no change... Microsoft really can't afford to piss off IBM with a patent suit against anyone over Linux. That's what SCO v. IBM has shown the world -- IBM is the world's largest patent holder, they've staked a good portion of their business on Linux, and if you mess with Linux, IBM is going to send their Nazgul after you, just as they 'blackened the skies of Lindon, UT' with lawyers.

Even Microsoft can't go up against IBM in a patent fight. Tring to beat IBM in a patent fight is like trying to take down an F-22 with a slingshot.

Turing machines and turning machines

[tepples]

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.

Bilski wasn't about software patents

[The Empiricist]

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):

We further reject calls for categorical exclusions beyond those for fundamental principles already identified by the Supreme Court. We rejected just such an exclusion in State Street, noting that the so-called "business method exception" was unlawful and that business method claims (and indeed all process claims) are "subject to the same legal requirements for patentability as applied to any other process or method." 149 F.3d at 1375-76.[Fn23 Therefore, although invited to do so by several amici, we decline to adopt a broad exclusion over software or any other such category of subject matter beyond the exclusion of claims drawn to fundamental principles set forth by the Supreme Court.]

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.

Re:Good

[StreetStealth]

Even that FUD about Linux infringing 200+ patents is nothing more than hot air.

If it's backed, however tepidly, by an army of Microsoft lawyers, does it still count as hot air?

Granted, Microsoft's stance is far removed from the sniping virulence of the average patent troll. Still, a troll's a troll, even if it's the lame level 5 in the dungeon entryway.

Re:"Microsoft doesn't make machines."

[Tastecicles]

let's have a look at the innards of my son's xbox crystal which he just drowned in orange-flavoured soda...

HDD: Seagate. No.
Processor: Intel. No.
Memory: Samsung. no.
Northbridge: NVidia. No.
GPU: NVidia. No.
various I/O, timer and controller chips: Texas Instruments. No.
Controller ports: I have no idea. Possibly not, although they are in essence, usb ports with slightly more robust terminal connections. ...in fact, I don't see one single component in there that has a Microsoft logo on it. Given that the HDD and some other components actually state "made in Taiwan" somewhere on the label, I can only conclude that the box was assembled in China. The software, on the other hand...

kernel/UI: is a multiboot system. He has the choice between the classic xbox Win2K kernel/UI (Microsoft), the extended interface that allows him to copy games directly to the HDD and do all manner of other wonderful and weird stuff to the system and play any of several thousand in situ games via any of the dozen or so emulators (almost certainly not Microsoft), and Linux (ha!).

So no, they don't make machines. Their scrollwheel mice were built by Logitech (albeit maybe to Microsoft's specification). The kernel software that shipped with the xbox classic was... well, sort of. Microsoft codeveloped NT with IBM under the label "OS/2". OS/2 died a horrible death, NT was a victim of its own success.

Re:"Microsoft doesn't make machines."

[Tastecicles]

no, NT was a rename of the OS/2 3.0 development snapshot which Microsoft ended up with after their spat with IBM in the early 1990's and continued to evolve into the NT kernel, which they first used in NT3.1, released on 27 July 1993.

The reason NT started at version 3 is because versions 1 and 2 were already released as the collaborative effort and named OS/2 versions 1 and 2.

(sources: MSDN, Technet, Wikipedia - all correspond with each other timeline-wise and factually, so they can't /all/ be wrong).

Re:Good

[dedazo]

Patents are like nuclear weapons. The big boy have the majority of them, but there's a tacit agreement (ala Mutually Assured Destruction of the Cold War) that they are for deterrent purposes only. The third-world Chihuahua dogs of the patent scene like Eolas are using their limited arsenal as they can to wrest some cash from the big boys. Sometimes that works, and sometimes it doesn't.

What we all need is complete disarmament, so the big boys can't bluster about theirs and the little yapping dogs can't use theirs either. Everybody wins.

Fresh off the wire: Apple sued over iPhone web browsing, by another little patent troll. Reform is needed to stop this. I think companies like Microsoft, IBM, Google and Apple would be more than happy to stop pursuing defensive patents if the IP laws in the US and elsewhere ensured that they are not going to get nailed by the yapping dogs.