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."

Comments

Legal System Flaw

[Khelder]

I never noticed this flaw in US legal system before: one of these litigants has to win. If only *both* could lose...

Re:Legal System Flaw

[commodore64_love]

It's possible to have a "no winner" situation if MS can show prior art existed before the patent was issued, and then the judge will nullify the patent.

Re:Legal System Flaw

[JeffSpudrinski]

Personally, I would consider that a win for Microsoft in this case.

On a side note: I refuse to say anything nice and/or positive about Microsoft in respect to this case. Everytime I have done so around here results in my being modded way down.

Wait...will saying that get me modded down?

-JJS

Re:Legal System Flaw

[Penguinisto]

Actually, if you look up the AT&T v. BSD *nix lawsuits, both were found to have infringed on each other, forcing both parties to basically cross-license their stuff and call it a loss (which turned out to be a pretty solid win for those of us out here in Geekdom).

Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you

[Dadamh]

Seriously though, I dislike patent squatting.

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.

Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you

[V!NCENT]

"I hope microsoft wins this."
I hope they lose. They trolled Tom-Tom for using the DOS filename patent. Tom-Tom navigation runs Linux and uses the 'patent'-code to read out SD cards... Needless to say Microsoft needs to lose this.

What goes around comes around!

Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you

[Tim C]

No, they need to win it - every company doing this sort of thing needs to lose, to send a clear message that sitting on a patent then suing people who independently discover the claimed invention is wrong and should not be considered a viable business method.

I know how tempting it is to sit there and laugh and say "serves them right!" but every time a patent troll wins, the entire industry (and by extension, humanity) loses.

Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you

[the_womble]

No, its best if MS, and other big tech companies lose a few of these. Then they will start lobbying for better patent laws, and perhaps even an end to software patents.

Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you

[Anonymous Coward]

"I hope microsoft wins this." I hope they lose. They trolled Tom-Tom for using the DOS filename patent

... right after TomTom tried to sue them for using navigation software to give directions. In the end, they both settled, and TomTom, the aggressor, didn't get its payday.

And yet, Microsoft is somehow the bad guy in this. Yep. This is definitely Slashdot.

Trust Me

[OwMyBrain]

The only real winner is the lawyers.

Patentable?

[clone53421]

This doesn’t look substantially different from what any audio/video encapsulation format does, and plenty of those were around before December of ’99...

Filing date: Dec 29, 1999

What is claimed is:

1. A method in a computer system for processing a message having a sequence of packets, the method comprising:

  providing a plurality of components, each component being a software routine for converting data with an input format into data with an output format;
  for the first packet of the message,
  identifying a sequence of components for processing the packets of the message such that the output format of the components of the sequence match the input format of the next component in the sequence; and
  storing an indication of each of the identified components so that the sequence does not need to be re-identified for subsequent packets of the message; and
  for each of a plurality of packets of the message in sequence,
  for each of a plurality of components in the identified sequence,
  retrieving state information relating to performing the processing of the component with the previous packet of the message;
  performing the processing of the identified component with the packet and the retrieved state information; and
  storing state information relating to the processing of the component with the packet for use when processing the next packet of the message.

(...)

I might be one to bash MSFT but --

[dwiget001]

-- 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.

And yet there are still software patents.

[khasim]

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?

Re:And yet there are still software patents.

[Sinning]

Is it because those companies see their profits from such patents as larger than the occasional cost of buying off a patent troll?

Yes. Also, defending yourself from these types of patent issues discourages competition by greatly increasing the cost to enter the market.

Re:And yet there are still software patents.

[SlowCanuck]

I suggest two reforms: 1): Company has to prove they actually used said patent in a product that they developed and was sold by their company sometime before the lawsuit, or patent is void and given to the party they are suing for infringement. This would be a stipulation on top of prior art, and should be easy enough to prove. 2): You lose, you pay - for everyone's lawyers fee's!! If company cannot pay fee's upon reasonable amount of time after judgment, then the losing company is then owned by winning company until it is either liquidated or all financial obligations are complete. Then again, I am one of those socialist Canadians!!

Re:And yet there are still software patents.

[Zordak]

I live and breathe patents every day, and I really don't think the system is as broken as its reputation. That's not to say there are no bad patents. I have personally defended several clients against patents that were almost certainly invalid, and that the clients almost certainly didn't infringe even if they were valid. I have been involved in some classic "patent troll" cases, and I think it's terrible that it's happened.

But I've also seen clients work hard on new ideas and then have others just copy what they did. So I've got a sort of double perspective: on the one hand, defending against patents, where the motivation is to limit them, on the other hand, writing patents, where the motivation is to want broad protection.

If we get too aggressive with the anti-troll backlash, we will throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think the only real answer is better examination in the first place, which means not only rejecting invalid claims, but rejecting them for the right reasons, and also allowing good claims (because both of those have been a problem). People on here complain about patents being rubber-stamped, but the reverse is actually true. There is HUGE incentive for examiners to reject, reject, reject. The problem is not that they're rubber stamping patents. It that they're issuing sloppy rejections on almost everything because that was the only way to keep their count up. And sloppy rejections means that you're usually arguing about the wrong stuff, which means bad patents. And it's not necessarily the examiners' fault. The whole system was broken.

I didn't vote for Barack Obama, and I disagree with him a lot, but I have to give him credit for appointing David Kappos to replace Jon Dudas, who was one of Bush's political cronies and was not even statutorily qualified for the position. That by itself was a major step forward.

Re:And yet there are still software patents.

[Zordak]

As for me making more money on inventions than my clients, this is how it works. If you come to me with a real, legitimate innovation, a good business plan, a plan for raising capital, the motivation and energy to weather the storms that will inevitably occur, and maybe even a decent exit strategy, then your patent will be an investment in your business, and your profit just might dwarf whatever fees you pay me. But I will tell you up front that there is always risk. If it were safe and easy, we'd all be millionaires.

On the other hand, if you come to me with a "clever" little gadget idea and your only business plan is "I want to file a quick, cheap provisional patent application, and then sell it to Big Box Retailer(R) and sit back in my easy chair and collect royalty checks," then you maybe have a 1 in 20 chance of ever making any money at all, and what you do make will probably not be a lot. In fact, if anybody buys your patent it will probably be one of these patent trolls, and they will buy it at a fire-sale discount, flat fee, no royalties, after you've invested all the money to get it issued. You'll be lucky to break even.

If you're still willing to pay my fees after I give you that little lecture, I'll be happy to represent you, and I'll do my very best for you. But I will not promise you results. Clever little ideas are a dime a dozen. Good entrepreneurs aren't.

Author of Patent used to work fo Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

My Idea

[Fred The Toaster]

I feel guilty now because Windows 7 was my idea...

Agreed. Microsoft lobbies for software patents.

[Concern]

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.

pop

[ThaReetLad]

*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.

simmer down

[nomadic]

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.

Exactly

[Weaselmancer]

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.

He got it in Reverse order

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

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.