Slashdot Mirror
Windows 7 Under Fire For Patent Infringement
eldavojohn writes "A patent issued in 2003 called 'Method and system for demultiplexing a first sequence of packet components to identify specific components wherein subsequent components are processed without re-identifying components' is now owned by Implicit Networks, who has recently claimed Windows 7 infringes upon it with its Filtering Platform. This is used in Vista, Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008. Implicit is seeking a jury trial and damages. A shocking turn of events; you actually want to cheer for Microsoft this time as Implicit is nothing more than a patent licensing company (troll) and has done battle with Sun, AMD, Intel and NVIDIA."
I never noticed this flaw in US legal system before: one of these litigants has to win. If only *both* could lose...
These folks delay technology advancement and don't actually produce anything themselves.
I hope microsoft wins this. Of course, they will, because there's no one on earth they can't buy if they try hard enough.
The only real winner is the lawyers.
hard to choose which is the less evil side
The best test environment is production. - Me
chrome://browser/content/browser.xul
I am not going to side with MS as they are the ones that caused this landscape of nasty litigation.
seriously? I thought it [networking] had been around since the 60s.
Can't make me root for Microsoft. I hope they lose, and the jury awards the other guys an infinite amount of money. Maybe then we'll see some reform.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
There is nothing I hate worse than being forced to root for Microsoft because someone else is even more evil.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
This doesn’t look substantially different from what any audio/video encapsulation format does, and plenty of those were around before December of ’99...
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
A company who just goes around getting patents to sue others so they can make money, or Microsoft. Hmm, I guess I will side with Linux this time.
The world is how you make it
Just stop Implicit from reaching Texas...
Is this something new ?
By fighting over the fact that the courts cant decide what to do about retarded laws and the scoundrels that scavenge there. Welcome to corporate ethics.
NO patent case makes me cheer for anybody.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
-- this patent is bogus.
De-multiplexing has been around for a long time (circa late 60s or early 70s).
But, even with that out of the way, the patent is basically describing getting offset data after the de-multiplexing to then get at the data.
Both have gobs of prior art in their own rights. As well as this being obvious to anyone skilled in the areas of communications and programming.
The patent office needs a spanking.
Since it is only the lawyers (and trolls) who make money off of this, why aren't those companies banding together to kill software patents?
I can understand copyrights on software.
Is it because those companies see their profits from such patents as larger than the occasional cost of buying off a patent troll?
According to http://www.hometoys.com/htinews/apr00/interviews/becomm.htm Edward Balassanian founded BeComm Corporation in 1996. A privately held company, based in Redmond, WA, BeComm designs next-generation communications technology that focuses on delivering a broad range of Media Appliance solutions. The company’s vision is to create an operating environment that seamlessly manages the flow of media across disparate networks, processors, media types, applications and devices. Mr. Balassanian is responsible for the company’s long-term product, technology and marketing strategy as well as day-to-day operations. He also sits on the company’s board of directors. Prior to forming BeComm, Mr. Balassanian held engineering positions within Microsoft Corporation. He has over ten years experience developing networking software. Balassanian has a degree in Computer Science from the University of Washington. He has recently spoken to audiences at Princeton University, and was recently a featured speaker at DEMO 2000.
Legal Fee's - little company A tries to sue big company B, unless they are going to win - they don't even try because - In Canada - the loser pays for everyones lawyers, as well as the settlement. From what I understand, that is applies across the boar here in Canada. So unless I know I am going to win, hands down - I don't even bring a dog to fight. In the States you only pay your legal fee's - so if you lose, oh well!! That is why you have a guy who slips and falls at a concert, and sues like 100 businesses and 50 people. Anyone not show up, he gets paid and any cases he loses he is not out of money - because he paid for his lawyer already - usually with the "winnings" from the other default judgements. Tell me I am wrong - I will be happy and relieved, since I have family in the US and fear something stupid like that getting done to them by some loser wanting to make a quick buck!
That alone is reason enough to hope this will burn them, very hard. The more punish the big players take because of software patents the bigger chance of brown envelopes changing hands. Brown envelopes is what directs politicians in the right directions. Elections are just a sideshow.
HTTP/1.1 400
It was almost like a tongue twister.
you actually want to cheer for Microsoft
Oh I do? And you...what....can read my mind even before I have made it up?
I knew the "Windows 7 was My Idea" thing would backfire on them
Microsoft has been quite the nasty little patent troll itself in the past -- I do hope they win this one, but it is always amusing to see them get a taste of their own medicine.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
I do not hold grudges. I just want tech to advance. I hope microsoft wins this case. I always support the allegeded infringer in patent suits.
I feel guilty now because Windows 7 was my idea...
This is almost as ambiguous as it gets. When will patent office learn they can't issue patents for broad terms that the company has no EVIDENCE of a working system.... That's like me getting a patent for "Grounding objects to make a different state object" (You can easily turn that into a million different scenarios).
If they like this system so much, I'm sure they will have no problem paying out to all the patent-holders they infringe upon, according to the same idiotic legal principles they believe should protect their own works.
Of course, if any more than a handful of crooks started following these rules, that would make the software industry impossible. Not even Microsoft could ever know what they infringe. Even if the baby jesus came down from heaven today and told them the four hundred thousand patents they infringe, they would be lost again tomorrow, when 10,000 more patents were filed.
The only way this absurd system of legalized corporate mugging is truly going to end is when Microsoft and the other lobbyists behind it themselves lose Real Money (i.e. billions of US monopoly dollars) to other patent holders.
I am wishing Implicit all the best in their bullshit lawsuit.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
Wonder how this could potentially impact on iptables and its state matching/helpers... a broad reading could infer that ipt is also in breach.
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
you actually want to cheer for Microsoft this time
Please don't tell me what I want to do. Thank you.
Some people deserve what they get, even if I wouldn't wish it on anyone else. Patent trolls are abominations, but so is Microsoft, and which of them is the worse one is strictly a judgement call.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
under the ACTA using 7 may get you black listed and if you have the family pack with 3 systems = 3 times braking the law and also under the ACTA you just to need to clame infringement.
*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*
*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*
*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*
*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*
The sound of 10000 slashdotters heads exploding as they try to figure out who to cheer for.
You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
>you actually want to cheer for Microsoft this time as Implicit is nothing more than a patent licensing company (troll)
Actually no, seeing as M$ does the exact same thing as they do, and have been know to force shut downs of companies that directly infringed on these patents, instead of giving them a possible pay out scheme.
I say, M$ needs to get what they give, and learn a lesson from it, so I actually root for Implicit to win, but not because I think Implicit is right, but more so, because M$ is dead wrong so many times, they need to feel it.
"A shocking turn of events, you actually want to cheer for Microsoft this time" --No, the better shock would be for Microsoft to decide, as a result of this, that software patents aren't worth being granted, and push for their dissolution/ban.
I'm just afraid I'll find a finger in my CPU.
nonconformity at work
A shocking turn of events, you actually want to cheer for Microsoft this time as Implicit is nothing more than a patent licensing company (troll) and has done battle with Sun, AMD, Intel and NVIDIA."
Please don't tell me what I want to do.
Here's proof.
MS tell you that when you purchase thier software, you are merely licencing it, not buying it.
Therefore it is a lease not a purchase.
If it is a lease, then you are the lessee and MS is the Lessor.
Much of MS software is evil in my humble opinion, but I think that all will agree that thier office suite, and operating system (eg Vista) are.
Therefore Microsoft, is the lessor of (at least) two evils.
If they get a jury trial, every member of the jury should be required to hold at least a Master's degree in some form of engineering. That's the only way to ensure it's a jury of their peers.
If they just pull twelve random people off the street, their eyes will glaze over in about 30 seconds and they'll vote like they were in the audience of American Idol.
I void warranties.
I really dont (ever) want to cheer for Microsoft. I mean they jumped right onboard and we're one of the pioneers of the whole "patents as a weapon" thing. Actually I'm pleased they got hit. What goes around comes around.
The MNG animation format, published in February 2001, does that. Images (composed of a sequence of chunks) can be reused rather than being retransmitted.
Congress is made up of mostly lawyers. Infer what you will.
In fact, I *don't* want to cheer for Microsoft. Or Sun. Or Apple. Or IBM. Or even Red Hat (much).
Any company that holds software patents and has not worked to eliminate software patents is complicit in this fucked-up mess. This is especially true of any company that has attempted to enforce their software patents (I'm lookin' at you, Microsoft, IBM, Tivoli, Oracle, and any number of other companies).
Yes, patent trolls are the scum of the earth, right there with spammers and people who use off-ramps and shoulders as passing lanes. But those companies that hold software patents and do not fight to eliminate software patents are part of the problem; those that hold software patents and have actively fought to maintain the current system are even worse.
So fuck 'em both.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Congratulations MS, you are now getting your just deserts after what you pulled on Tom Tom.
Monopolysoft gets what coming to them. Monopolysoft has done this plenty of times to companies now it's bad when it's done to them? No thanks I hope this patent mill of a company takes them for everything they got!
You sound like an ass. An unoriginal, regurgitating ass.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
MS, or any large company, will rightly ignore any form of minor nuisance - including being sued for patent infringement - as long as it remains a minor nuisance. "Hey, we can either swat these flies one by one, or we can lobby for changes to the law and in the process lose the leverage we get with patents under today's system?" Guess which one they'll choose.
That's exactly it. The trial isn't about righting a wrong, it's about the patent troll being able to broadcast the strength of their hand. If it's a weak hand MS will prior art them. If it's a strong hand then the trial will continue. But only up to a point - MS will evaluate the probable damages and pitch them a settlement number based on the perceived strength of their position.
The whole patent thing isn't going away any time soon. I'd love to see it die as much as the next /.er, but it won't. There is an insane amount of money in patent portfolios. That's a lot of cash to suddenly invalidate.
For example, my last job.
I worked at a company that made a widget. I'm not going to talk about the widget because that might attract unwanted attention. Nonetheless though - a widget. In a tightly controlled abusive patent space competing against maybe six other companies who make a similar widget.
We would hold meetings to come up with patent ideas, to beat our competition over the heads with. Cross licensing was rampant just so anyone could put a widget - any widget - on the market. There was one famous event where our sales team got in a fist fight with another company's sales team at a trade show. Throwing punches. No kidding. Lots of hard feelings, lots of abuse of the system. And about $50 million in sales every year from our company alone hanging in the balance.
So along comes this Megacorp. Our owner wants to retire, so Megacorp comes in and buys us. A few months pass...then they buy out our rival FistFight. And a couple others! They want to be the only company who makes this widget, and the easiest way to insure that is to purchase entire companies simply for their patent wealth.
The problem? That's all they wanted. MegaCorp has sufficient manufacturing and engineering resources already, thank you very much. And despite reassurances that they intended the company to continue it was evident they did not. The companies were purchased, stripped of their IP, and closed down. Everybody loses.
It's a cautionary tale about abusive patents, sure. But consider MegaCorp. They now own half a dozen companies purchased for God-Knows-What. My company was pulling in $50 million a year. I can only imagine what the sale price was. And half a dozen others. Probably half a billion dollars if I had to guess for the whole lot. Just to own the patents. And for no competition in that particular widget space. They actually got to purchase a monopoly. Think about that - the advantage they hope to gain with this move. And how much money that advantage is worth.
Now imagine if someone comes along and kills software patents. Half a billion bucks spent and it - overnight - becomes worthless. The monopoly goes away like a puff of dust. Sure, they deserve it. They closed half a dozen engineering firms, fired people that had worked on assembly lines for 30 years (no kidding). They totally deserve this.
But at the money they must have paid, I'm sure they'd fight this to the death. And that's just one company. Imagine the wealth tied up in patents from someone truly huge like IBM or Microsoft. No. This isn't going away anytime soon. God knows I'd love it if it did, but there is simply too much money that would go *poof* if that happened. It might even cause the kind of financial meltdown we had last year over housing. Really - there is that much money in this. Odd to think about but true.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Remember kids, NO ONE wins the Dairy Challenge... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV6In1K8zKk [fast forward to 3:00 mins in]
That patent description sounds somewhat like what the "header blocks" are for at the beginning of an electronically-transmitted tax return, per IRS specifications. I'm aware that electronic tax returns have been getting transmitted significantly before 2003, so maybe that would be "prior art" to overturn this patent.
That sounds so obvious, not only have I thought of it, I believe I've implemented it in software... several times. Surely a company with the vast resources of Microsoft should be able to find some prior art to fight this with!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Yeah. Patent Trolls should be encouraged, helped, and blessed. If enough of them win, it'll bring this whole insane Patent and Economic system to a screeching halt. Then, and only then, will something be done, reforms be implemented and sanity restored. Until then, slow death drags on.
Does anyone else find it comical that the alleged patent troll's company name is "Implicit"?
people loose sight on two key thing about Patents. (Ignoring the fact that the patents in this case most likely have Prior Art.)
First, they expire a lot faster then copyrights.
secondly, they make concepts avalable to people and are one of the bedrocks for development. If I develop a process, be a new way to mix chemicals or a new way to search a database, I as the developer have three options.
1) Say "out of the goodness of my heart, anyone can have this"
2) Keep it a secret, and having only my product improved. Lets use the database, I make a database that can search 10% faster, however, as soon as my new database is released, Microsoft and oracle will in the end use my work to figure out how it works, and then add that to my product, and my company, the one that created the innovation, will be crushed like a egg.
3) Patent it, I get a few years of exclusive use, or I can licence it out to other companies for a fee. No startup, even if they have a database that searches 10% faster, is going to be able to take on a Oracle and win, however the innovator is rewarded and the consumer gets a improved product.
Is there need to improve Software Patent law? sure, software patents need to have less time, and many of them are poor patents due to prior art. However, if the open source community wanted to do something REALLY smart, they sould use patant law to their advantage, patent ideas developed in open source, and put them in a holding company that freely licences out it to open source software, but extracts money or prohibits close source developments from using those ideas.
First this happened:
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/02/microsoft-sues-tomtom-over-fat-patents-in-linux-based-device.ars
Then this happened:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/tomtom-sues-microsoft-back-for-patent-infringement.ars
In the end they both settle and drop their lawsuits.
New Economic Perspectives
for the method of granting idiotic patents, then sue the USPTO into oblivion.
Since it's basically impossible to say what would be "surprising to an expert in the art" (or whatever the standard is), and since soooooo many obvious things have been patented that were patently obvious, you adopt a new standard.
A product (or even a business technique) is patentable if and only if:
(a) It has been economically feasible to do for 20 years
(b) It has not been publicly described or implemented
The idea is this:
Even a simple idea, which for whatever reason has not been described or implemented, could be brought to market because of this. If you have a simple improvement on, say, the broom, you are just going to sit on it, because (a) you don't know who to talk to at the many many broom manufacturers (b) if it's simple anyone else could copy it, so it's not worth it to start making brooms yourself, etc.
It should prevent the current patenting of obvious things that simply haven't been done because people haven't been doing business over the internet or selling stuff on cell phones or whatever. The obvious stuff that any smart engineer would figure out will get done in that first 20 years, and only the hard (or easy, but hard to think of) stuff will be left.
The justification for granting a patent is that the world has been given time to figure this out, and they haven't. Therefore, it makes sense to give you monopoly for 20 years (short time in the big scheme of things) so that the idea gets out there, which is the whole point of it from the Constitution's perspective.
Another way to do it:
(a) It has been feasible for X years, but not described or produced, you can have patent for X years. That way if you're working in a new field, you can still get protection, but not lock everyone out for 20 years. So, one-click could have gotten protection, but only for four years or whatever.
Obvious flaw: how do you decide when it started to be "feasible"? But I think that's a lot easier to come up with a standard for than "obviousness", which is plagued by the fact that a lot of things seem obvious after you see them.
Liberty uber alles.
I'm probably too late, but I want to get in on this patent game. I will patent, "Turning on a computer and doing stuff with it." It's just like living, but with a computer. Anyone who does anything with a computer will have to pay me and my crack legal team of digital ambulance chasers. All of your profits will belong to me's.
1. Find a task
2. Append "with a computer"
3. Patent
4. ???
5. Profit!
If we're going to rewrite patent law, let's make patents contingent on a good-faith attempt to exploit the idea. Make them beat the bushes for someone to turn out products or the patent expires in two years.
Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
Doesn't sound like there's any moral high ground here at all. I propose a scenario whereby Microsoft throws enough lawyers at the case to bankrupt the patent trolls, then the FSF buys the patent at the bankruptcy auction just before prevailing in the suit.
The claims look quite similar to compressed RTP, which is used to shorten IP/UDP/RTP headers for VoIP calls from 40 bytes to 2 and has been an RFC since 1999. For that matter, this patent could describe MPLS as well.
isnt there something about patents that are soposed to expire after XX number of years at which point it passes in to public domain or is that copyrights???
seems like the problem would be averted if all theses things had a time to live and at which point can not be refiled or enforced.
I'm neither cheering for Microsoft nor for Implicit... I'm just watching with a bowl of popcorn...
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
The intent appears to be to get a performance improvement by having the ethernet or network driver pass a specific set of packets to a special purpose program that takes those packets and in the language of the patent "converts" them directly into data of a single format (eg video or audio). The hoped for performance improvement would probably be realised because the packets don't have to be copied through all the layers of the ISO network model. (Err, right)
Obviously, for most modern user machines this is pointless. It was a useful technique back in the days of the IMP when machines couldn't keep up with the network at all. Even today, it's sometimes useful in embedded applications or on the server side for example 'sendfile()' and kernel based file servers, web servers (IIS, kHHTPd) and so on. Linux even got user space support for this sort of thing back in '00 in terms of the QUEUE target of iptables, though you can do it with most filewall+packet capture combinations. But, AFAICS, nobody's ever really put together a generic framework for this, (unless you count iptables, or maybe the old DOS packet drivers) not much reason to.
So prior art looks far too easy to find; Microsoft will squash this flat.