Slashdot Mirror
Corporate Espionage Involving a Patent At Microsoft
thefickler writes "Microsoft is taking a former employee, Miki Mullor, to court for securing a job at the company in order to steal information that would help with a patent infringement case he filed against PC makers Dell, HP, and Toshiba (in which Microsoft quickly became enmeshed). And while it appears that Mullor did the wrong thing, some pundits are asking: 'If you believed that your patent had been infringed, wouldn't you be tempted to do the same thing?'"
Has the inanity and anti-logic of the patent system finally become so bad that peoples' basic judgement is now impaired. Has the concept of "Intellectual Property" so twisted the fragile mind of the commentators, and public at large, that we now must see it not only as a fundamental right, but as (Paraphrasing DeValera) an institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law and morality.
Personally, no, I don't see that a patent is so important that I should break not only the law, but also the trust and confidence other people have in me, simply to defend my rights to some obvious "invention". I may be a little behind the times here, but I can't say I would be overly tempted, no.
May the Maths Be with you!
He claims he revealed his patent when joining MS.
MS claim they were allowed to nick his IP rights since he failed to reveal this when he joined the company (although they also tried to licence the technology prior to him joining)
So the wrong thing was viewing some documents he shouldn't have? Not having your IP rights stolen, then.
No, but you can steal someone else's labor, by not paying them for the information they produced, or the metal car pieces they welded, or the floors they sweeped, or.....
Theft of labor is a human rights violation and if a person does produce a new idea or item, and XYZ corporation takes that idea/item without compensation for the labor involved, a crime has been committed.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Yeah, after all, it's not as if Microsoft ever steals other companies (cough Netscape, Corel) ideas or software, or been involved in U.S. or EU patent infringement cases and found guilty. I'm sure they are completely innocent with nothing to hide and would comply with a court order to turn-over information, rather than shred documents.
Yep.
The cops routinely use undercover "spying" in order to catch criminals, such as drug traffickers. I don't see why it's wrong to do the same in order to obtain documents prior to their shredding. It might have been smarter to hire a private P.I. (ala Matlock or Perry Mason) to do the dirty work, but otherwise I think you need to do what's necessary to catch the incriminating documents before they become confetti (or before the drugs get flushed down the toilet).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I suppose it all depends on what you see as being the "Right Thing". I would suggest that:
Now, in best Groklaw tradition, IANAL, however this seems to me that when it comes to fairness the guy might have been able to get similar information from 'dumpster diving' and certainly seems to have been vindicated. So what we're really seeing here is:
It would not surprise me if they try their old dirty tricks and try to put the US case on hold whilst they visit global MS friendly courtrooms to get some judgements onside in other jurisdictions just as they did with Lindows.
Bastards.
They lost the cotton. The difference between tangible property and information is that if someone else takes your tangible property then you don't have it any more, and if someone takes information then both of you have it.
Put another way: only one person can use a boll of cotton. An unlimited number of people can use an idea. Someone else using my idea does not preclude me also using it; Microsoft publishing a book I wrote does not preclude my also publishing it. It may make it impractical for me to profit from the book I wrote, but that falls under the category of "unfair competition," not "taking away a piece of property that I own." It's wrong, and it's also fundamentally different from stealing.
The language of copyright holders - "own an idea," "intellectual property," "stolen ideas," "piracy," is calculated to make the public forget the fundamental differences between ideas and objects, and support laws and policies that equate intellectual property with physical property. This is to the benefit of copyright (and patent) holders, who can then rely on the government to bear the cost of enforcing their copyrights, among other benefits.
The preponderance of people who claim that we have a "right" to "own" and profit from ideas shows how well this brainwashing is working. Apparently it goes so far as to make some think that a company can "steal" profits that haven't even been earned yet. The reality of intellectual property cases is quite different; see Polaroid v. Kodak.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Well, actually no one so far disputed the case Microsoft makes. Mullar does:
Now, I personally find there should not be patents at all. It is a shame to see the defamation campaign of Microsoft. The case shows that the patent system does not have any benefit at all for software. Small inventors cannot enforce them against ruthless big companies: