Microsoft Sues Salesforce.com Over Patents

WrongSizeGlass writes "CNET is reporting that Microsoft is suing Salesforce.com in Seattle federal court, claiming it infringes on nine patents. Two of the patents in question are a 'system and method for providing and displaying a Web page having an embedded menu' and a 'method and system for stacking toolbars in a computer display.'" Microsoft says it first notified Salesforce more than a year ago about the alleged infringement.

Comments

What's the angle?

[mozumder]

Looking for the MSFT agenda here. Are salesforce.com people going after microsoft sales reps? Has the saleforce.com people brought too much competition to MSFT? What gives?

Re:What's the angle?

[Yo Grark]

Yes, SF continues to win contracts from Dynamics or whatever MS is calling their latest CRM this week.

SF are just WAY too nimble in their catering to companies needs while MS expects companies to buy upgraded hardware, software, consultants, etc to conform data to THEIR system.

SF: Here you go, we figured out how to provide x for no extra charge.
MS: Sorry we can't do that without $100,000 and even then there's no guarantee.

So yeah, SF is kickin MS's a$$ets and putting their attempts at a CRM to shame.

Next up, MS buys SF.com. *sigh*

- Yo Grark

Re:What's the angle?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're obviously taking Microsoft's side in this without ever considering Salesforce.com's position at all. I think you're being rather unreasonable.

Re:What's the angle?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya, homie, ok... maybe you want to check Salesforce's profit margin. Maybe that's going to quiet down this fantasy of yours.

Re:What's the angle?

[no-body]

Maybe they refused that unrefusable offer?

Re:What's the angle?

[Yo Grark]

As a business grunt, I was just alluding to a string of good sites/companies being gobbled up by bigger fish. Makes me cringe as I've never seen the parent company take the product or service in a better direction.

Yo Grark

Re:What's the angle?

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for VMware and we just bought them, so i don't think you need to worry about MS buying them.

Re:What's the angle?

[mjwx]

Yes, SF continues to win contracts from Dynamics or whatever MS is calling their latest CRM this week.

SaleForce.com is winning customers away from Dynamics because Dynamics is an absolute pile of crap. If you managed to wade though the absolutely stupid way to customise Dynamics 3.0 you quickly found out that you needed to start from scratch again with 4.0 because MS changed everything and it's still a pile of crap.

Businesses wont use Dynamics despite MS giving away free licenses with every MAPS and partner subscription.

Oh, and the reasons the parent mentioned.

Re:What's the angle?

[Johan_Munich]

Before you go pushing your agenda to bash Microsoft get some facts right. Firstly sorry Microsoft changed product name from MS CRM to Dynamics CRM a few years ago. Secondly, Dynamics CRM is available as a software as a service just like Sales Force. The only requirement for this model is an internet connection and internet explorer. However many businesses still like the idea of owning software so the tool is available for on premise installation which is the choice for most enterprise solutions. Any serious software roll out will require consultants and customizations because no out of the box solution can cater for all business processes. Small business can be up and running without customizations and consultants using the base Dynamics CRM sales, marketing and service modules. Disclaimer, Yes, I am a Dynamics CRM consultant and just wanted to give what I truly believe is a great business software a fair chance.

Re:What's the angle?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, SF continues to win contracts from Dynamics or whatever MS is calling their latest CRM this week.

SaleForce.com is winning customers away from Dynamics because Dynamics is an absolute pile of crap. If you managed to wade though the absolutely stupid way to customise Dynamics 3.0 you quickly found out that you needed to start from scratch again with 4.0 because MS changed everything and it's still a pile of crap.

Could you elaborate? What don't you like?

Re:What's the angle?

[jon3k]

Microsoft warned them a year ago that they infringed on patents. Salesforce obviously didn't do anything. Microsoft sued them. Quit trying to uncover some conspiracy.

Re:What's the angle?

[Chas]

Small business can be up and running without customizations and consultants using the base Dynamics CRM sales, marketing and service modules.

Sure, if your business process works like an out-of-the-box install. The problems start piling up when you actually want to customize the package and dial it in to how your business process flows. Or use it in a truly multi-user environment CRM package, rather than just an add-on to the Outlook PIM.

THEN it's not so "free" anymore.

Re:What's the angle?

[ckaminski]

Dynamics is a typical Microsoft product. Build 80% of what customers want, including the hard stuff. But don't build the 15% of the Easy stuff that we really NEED, that make your product polished and usable. They go so far to get something great, and then stop.

Dynamics was a checkmark product for Microsoft. "Oh yes, we can do CRM" just like Sharepoint was a checkmark "Oh yes, we can do content and document management." Unfortunately, Sharepoint is a great example of shitty document management. Again, 80% was there, and well done (webdav), but the missing 20% killed me.

The only exception to date is SQL Server (IMHO), which is getting more awesome every year.

Re:What's the angle?

[MoriT]

By which you mean, "Microsoft tried to blackmail them a year ago and they didn't budge". I think it is valid to ask, "why this company, and not others?" The answer with Apple and HTC is obvious. The answer here also seems quite obvious. Of course, this is exactly what patents do: allow those with the largest pile of lawyers to shut down competition and innovation. It's not a conspiracy, it's broken by design.

Re:What's the angle?

[Travelsonic]

What's the angle?

Damn, that triggered a StarCraft quote: Jim Raynor:

Angle? I'll give you an angle, you slimy confederate piece of shi *cut off*

Re:What's the angle?

[Anarchitektur]

I am a CRM consultant; I work mostly with Dynamics CRM, but I know Salesforce.com pretty well also. Some of what you said is true, some isn't.

In Salesforce's favor, they are indeed more flexible, and they have a lot of features out of the box that Dynamics just doesn't have, or require customization to accomplish. Stuff that should be a no-brainer for a CRM system (such as dashboards) are strangely absent from Microsoft's solution (aside from some a measly recent addition to their hosted version), and 3rd party solutions or custom development is the only way you're going to get a dashboard in Dynamics. The out of the box workflow capabilities in Dynamics, though, are far superior to what Salesforce has. It also gives companies the option of going on-premise or cloud, which is important to some companies to have their data in-house. The integration between CRM and Outlook is also in Microsoft's favor, as they damn well should be, since they are both their own products.

All that said, though, Dynamics rarely competes in a "feature" war... the primary selling point for Dynamics is that a lot of their customers are already Microsoft shops, so if they don't already get the product for FREE with some kind of Enterprise licensing agreement, a lot of them still view it as a plus to stick with one vendor. Another big point is that integration with Microsoft's ERP system, GP, is relatively straightforward... a lot of my clients are companies that already had GP, and wanted a CRM for their sales team.

I've helped unhappy Salesforce customers migrate to Dynamics, and I've helped unhappy Dynamics customers migrate to Salesforce. The perception and attitude of the user's is far more a contributing factor to a CRM implementation's success than the actual product itself. It is uncool that Microsoft is having to resort to this kind of bullshittery to try to throw off SF's game, but I'm going to go ahead and tell you that you're dead wrong that Microsoft is going to try to purchase Salesforce. You may not be aware of this, but Microsoft only started developing CRM once Siebel turned down their offer to buy them out. I can guarantee you than any such offer to Salesforce would similarly get turned down.

Damn you msft

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah,

Maybe Imma troll or maybe I've been drinking too much, but it kinda seems like this.

Microsoft: You infringe on our patent about everything:
Salesforce: Fuck Off you Fucking Troll
Microsoft: We're gonna sue you.
Salesforce: Fuck Lff you Fucking Troll
Microsoft: You goto hell now, you die.

Could be stolen code.

[Sowelu]

One angle I could see on this: Sure, everyone might want to make their webpages look this way. But if you rip off the exact code MS is using, change some variables, and get caught, well hey, looky here, we patented that beyotch.

Just a vague idea though.

Re:Could be stolen code.

[Anonymous Coward]

question about this.
I'm not a real 'programmer' but a systems admin.
For example, if I create shell scripts and use them where i work, then use the same scripts that i created at a new job, the new company can get sued for infridgments?

Re:Could be stolen code.

[RobertM1968]

One angle I could see on this: Sure, everyone might want to make their webpages look this way. But if you rip off the exact code MS is using, change some variables, and get caught, well hey, looky here, we patented that beyotch.

Just a vague idea though.

Nah, that would be copyright infringement.

Re:Could be stolen code.

[Anonymous Coward]

Typically employers make their employees sign an agreement when they are hired that any intellectual property they create while performing their job becomes the intellectual property of the employer and the employee loses the rights to it.

Some agreements are even as strict as to say that anything you create while you are employed becomes the IP of your employer. So if you wrote something at home while you are "off the clock" it would still technically be the property of your employer. Booo!

Re:Could be stolen code.

[Anonymous Coward]

Theoretically yes, look up "work product." Depending on how rigid the old company is you can just write it into the contract that you retain copyright of your scripts and they have perpetual and derivative use in any context, or vice-versa, or however you want to structure it.

As a practical matter, it's probably unlikely to come up due to the cost of a lawsuit. (Unless they're really valuable scripts or there's a lot of personal animosity.) Plus they have to find out about it.

There are also issues as to whether the new company will get sued, or just you. Either of you can, of course, but who winds up having to pay is a different question, which probably depends in part on whether the new company knows (or is willfully avoiding knowledge of, etc...) it is infringing, etc...

There are also a number of complexities you'd look into. Injunctions, whether any of these jobs are independent contractor jobs, etc...

Note that the case in the story is about patents, not copyrights. Also, none of this is reliable, but is an off-the-top-of-the-head thought. IANAL.

Re:Could be stolen code.

[RobertM1968]

Taking the code is infringement. Using it would also violate the patent.

But, Microsoft sued them for patent infringement. If they had taken the code and used it in their products, then Microsoft would have sued them for copyright infringement as the fines can be exhorbitant. Heck, look how much a few infringed 99 cent songs can be?

Re:Could be stolen code.

[DarkKnightRadick]

How the crud do you patent HTML? I mean seriously.

Re:Could be stolen code.

[HeronBlademaster]

They didn't patent the HTML, they patented a method for doing whatever it is they did with that HTML. (You don't patent end results, you patent methods or processes. End results are covered by copyright.)

(Please don't construe this comment as support for MS's actions... I think software patents are completely stupid.)

Re:Could be stolen code.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, one angle could be this. Maybe you beat your wife, abuse your children, and have sex with your dog. Just a vague idea, you know.

In different words, stop f*cking making things up.

Re:Could be stolen code.

[kiwix]

No, that's not what patent protect. That would be protected by copyright, which an entirely different beast.

Re:Could be stolen code.

[DarkKnightRadick]

If that's the case, every website ever made with an embedded menu is in violation. Seriously. Just what exactly is an embedded menu anyway? Is that like when you include a menu via javascript or CSS or SSI? If so, I'm in violation too (and darn proud of it!)

Re:Could be stolen code.

[HeronBlademaster]

That's exactly why I think software patents are stupid.

Re:Could be stolen code.

[YttriumOxide]

Typically employers make their employees sign an agreement when they are hired that any intellectual property they create while performing their job becomes the intellectual property of the employer and the employee loses the rights to it.

Some agreements are even as strict as to say that anything you create while you are employed becomes the IP of your employer. So if you wrote something at home while you are "off the clock" it would still technically be the property of your employer. Booo!

I truly do love the terms of my current employment. I'm employed as a programmer, and I retain "dual copyright" over all of my own creations. Essentially, while I work here, I am also contractually bound to not compete with them, but should I ever leave I can take all of my own code with me and fork it (any images, product names, documentation, or whatever may need to be scrubbed/changed though, since they're not my work). In return for this, they got all of the code I had written before I started here, giving them a nice jumpstart in areas that they were interested in but weren't too keen on doing all the basic startup stuff for.

It's a win-win situation and should I ever choose to go somewhere else, I'll only accept it under the same terms - I have such a massive collection of libraries that I've written now for various purposes, that it'd be truly painful to have to start them from scratch again... One day (perhaps after I leave my current employer), I also hope to release a large amount of it under the GPL, since there's a few GPL projects I'd love to get my libraries in to and also see what others can do with what I've started.

Re:Could be stolen code.

[DarkKnightRadick]

I've thought software patents were stupid the first time I heard of them.

Re:Could be stolen code.

[jbengt]

Depending on your contract, your state, and your employer, the company would probably own any copyrights on scripts you wrote.
Depending on your new situation, they would probably never have the information or inclination to sue you over it.
Depending on how original, creative, and expressive you scripts are, they may not be completely copyrightable. A script that is utilitarian and has limited ways of being written might not be copyrightable at all.

Re:Could be stolen code.

[Anonymous Coward]

If they are patenting HTML, does that make Microsoft a non practicing entity?

Re:Could be stolen code.

[nonewmsgs]

How the crud do you patent HTML? I mean seriously.

hmmm. i am now in the process of patenting the tag and the tag. i'm going to be rich soon :D

Re:Could be stolen code.

[DarkKnightRadick]

a what?

Re:Could be stolen code.

[DarkKnightRadick]

code fail ;p

Eh... What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps MS's new path to profit after Google takes over the world is to sue every website that has an "embedded menu" or application with "stackable toolbars"

Reciprocal angle.

[Anonymous Coward]

MSFT must have recently gotten their hands on salesforce.com's source code, and can proceed with euthanizing their competitor. Much better ROI than acquisition.

Nothing new to see here, folks.

Re:Reciprocal angle.

[MightyMartian]

I guess that means Microsoft will finally have a real customer for one of its CRM products.

Re:Reciprocal angle.

[SimonTheSoundMan]

MSFT must have recently gotten their hands on salesforce.com's source code

Yeah, in their web browser they just went to the toolbar and 'View -> Page Source'. They can then see the code in all its raw formatted glory.

If you cant beat them...your Microsoft.

[TRRosen]

The're just pissed that SalesForce is using FireFox in all there screen shots.

Re:If you cant beat them...your Microsoft.

[Anonymous Coward]

damn. you need a grammer nazi following you around.

Re:If you cant beat them...your Microsoft.

[bbqsrc]

Grammar. I see that alot, ironically.

Re:If you cant beat them...your Microsoft.

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'm just pissed people still don't know the difference between 'there', 'they're' and 'their'.

Re:If you cant beat them...your Microsoft.

[thegarbz]

"Grammar."

Fragment (Consider Reversing)

- Brought to you by the kind people at Microsoft. While you're here let me tell you about our CRM offerings.

Re:If you cant beat them...your Microsoft.

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'm just pissed people still don't know the difference between 'there', 'they're' and 'their'.

That's because there stupid.

Rage inducing

[Bovius]

I consider myself a pretty calm person. I don't get riled up about much. I've never been one to throw a game controller, to punch a pillow to vent frustration. I see stupid things and I don't like them, I talk about how stupid they are, but that's as far as it goes. I'm about as easy going as they come.

And yet every time I see a story about the activities supported by the US Patent and Trade Office, I want to lift the nearest piece of electronics and dash it against a distant wall.

Re:Rage inducing

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet every time I see a story about the activities supported by the US Patent and Trade Office, I want to lift the nearest piece of electronics and dash it against a distant wall.

Wow, your keyboard can really take a pounding and still work great... which brand?

Re:Rage inducing

[blackraven14250]

Considering keyboards are designed to be pounded constantly...

Re:Rage inducing

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'm fairly sure that if a Model M experiences excessive force, it simply breaks the user and continues on its implacable course...

Re:Rage inducing

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds most intriguing. Can one marry a keyboard?

Re:Rage inducing

[Anonymous Coward]

When the world ends, the only thing left will be cockroaches scurrying across Model Ms.

Re:Rage inducing

[EdIII]

In all seriousness.... Logitech. I have seen somebody literally hit one down the middle so hard (javascript rage) and chuck it against the wall, that every key but TWO exploded from it. Along with the battery cover and all 4 double A's.

Took me about 15 minutes to find the keys. One was actually embedded in the ceiling tile. Another 5 minutes pushing keys into the keyboard, batteries back in... and completely working keyboard.

To this day we all use the saying, "as tough as a Logitech keyboard" around the office.

Re:Rage inducing

[sycodon]

Ummm...

Me :4
Keyboards: 0

Re:Rage inducing

[Yuioup]

I consider myself a pretty impulsive person. I get riled up often. I've always been one to throw a game controller, to punch a pillow to vent frustration. I see stupid things and I don't like them, I rant about how stupid they are, but that's not only as far as it goes. I'm far from easy going as they come.

And yet every time I see a story about the activities supported by the US Patent and Trade Office, I want to cuddle a nearby puppy and take it out for walkies. I don't even own a dog, go figure.

Re:Rage inducing

[twisteddk]

I totally agree.
While I haven't read the specifics of the patents themselves, I have read the entire suit MS is pulling.
"hey, they're using a networked service, we have patent for that".
"hey, they're using cookies, we have a patent for that".
"hey, they're using a browser based manu system, we have a patent for that"
And it just goes on like that. And two of the infringing patents are even identical, presumably just a version update seeing as how it's MS.

I dont care if it's MS or anyone else. This type of blanket copyright is simply killing innovation. Yes, you have a right to your code, to a specific engineering technology, or even to a specific chemical or physical product you have created, or even the process of creating said object. But not to an idea. That would be like me copyrighting the idea of "transforming one gasseous substance into another and through a chemical process using the removed atoms for fueling an organic entity" Or simply put: Breathing. Licensing anyone ?

Re:Rage inducing

[Bysshe]

You probably can in Japan.

Re:Rage inducing

[Hurricane78]

Be sure it’s a Microsoft or Sony product, and it will be a good deed. :)

Re:Rage inducing

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it is only going to take ONE win by the keyboards to win the war.

Re:Rage inducing

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm fairly sure that if a Model M experiences excessive force, it simply breaks the user and continues on its implacable course...

Obligatory: What if the user is Chuck Norris?

Re:Rage inducing

[steelfood]

Chuck Norris uses a Model M.

'nuff said.

Re:Rage inducing

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Zeus turns both into stone.

Leader AND innovator?

[RobertM1968]

"Microsoft has been a leader and innovator in the software industry for decades and continues to invest billions of dollars each year in bringing great software products and services to market," deputy general counsel Horacio Gutierrez said in a statement.

I wonder, if like many other companies do, they included that statement in the court documents? While they have been a leader in various software segments, there isnt a single one they've been an innovator in. Would that obvious bit of perjury in such a document get them in trouble? ;-)

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[RobertM1968]

Yup... they went that far...

Microsoft has a long history of technical innovation in the software and hardware products it develops and distributes.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[davester666]

It would be fascinating to learn what pops up as the definition of 'innovation' in Microsoft Office, as it is installed and configured on the computers used by upper management at Microsoft.

First, it would totally clear things up if it went something like: copy features of competing products into your own product in a hodge-podge fashion, and announce you had planned to add those features long before they appeared in competing products, and/or announce you will be coming out with a product/version that is so much better than any of the competition, while not actually working on or intending to actually produce said product/version.

Second, if it isn't like the above, but is actually the same/similar to the common definition of innovation that we [referred to as "riff-raff" by upper management] use, do they giggle anymore when they drop the i-bomb anymore?

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[man_of_mr_e]

Microsoft, like most other companies, has indeed had it's share of "innovation", popular opinion not withstanding.

It's easy to find things that are "kind of like" a new invention, that can be said for every single product in existence. It's just fun to do it for Microsoft.

Can you name a single software invention by anyone else that was truly unique? Anyone? Bueler? I guarantee anything you name can find something that is "kind of like" something else. That's how invention works, and that's why patents always have a list of references to other patents which the new patent draws upon. Unfortunately, you can't list things that aren't previously patented.

A short list of things which Microsoft has innovated (off the top of my head, without even googling) in would include (whether you like the ideas or not)

The Ribbon
Photosynth
COM (originally OLE)
Internet Explorer Protected Mode

If you google around, you find lots of tongue in cheek and sarcastic comments, and comments like yours that say point blank that microsoft has never innovated anything. It's certainly true they've bought a lot of their technology, but not all of it and even when you consider technology they bought, they've often improved it with their own new technology (IE Protected Mode, for instance).

Also, Microsoft certainly has their share of bad technology they've implemented. ActiveX, for instance. Whether it's a good idea or not, it's still a novel idea (no, plug-ins weren't novel, but auto-installing them, and creating a generic model that could be used by more than just web browsers was).

So in reality, comments like your really are just hyperbole. It's simply not true that Microsoft has never created anything novel. Hell, Clippy anyone?

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[man_of_mr_e]

Laugh all you want, but office has had a number of innovative ideas, whether you like them or not. Assistants (ie. the universally despised clippy), The Ribbon, OLE integration of different kinds of docuemnts within a single document, OLE Automation control (Yes, we all know about ARexx capable word processors on the Amiga, but that was really only a tiny fraction of the capabilities that OLE automation exposes).. hell, Word was the first word processor to provide live spell-checking with the red squigglies.. (again, whether you like it or not.. lots of people do like the feature, lots don't).

Don't you think it's just as dishonest to claim there is no innovation when there is, as claming more innovation than there is?

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[ClosedSource]

Yes, a lot of people act as if innovation was the same as invention, which isn't true.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[JDAustin]

The ribbon is one of the worst UI changes ever to a application. Most experianced Excel users find their productivity going down due to it.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[RobertM1968]

Laugh all you want, but office has had a number of innovative ideas, whether you like them or not. Assistants (ie. the universally despised clippy),

in a word processor which they were not the original authors for, which was the first use of a piece of clipart for a function other word processors already had in help panes, status bars, tool tips or pop-ups... (wow, that's innovation... someone else's idea - with a piece of clipart)

The Ribbon

Which still confuses users of older versions of Office to this day by the way it can take what was a simple, easy to use interface and mangle it - and which other word processors did a long time ago in a better fashion by simply hiding and showing the appropriate toolbars for the task at hand...

OLE integration of different kinds of docuemnts within a single document

...which was an idea long since in existence in the Xerox Star systems...

OLE Automation control (Yes, we all know about ARexx capable word processors on the Amiga, but that was really only a tiny fraction of the capabilities that OLE automation exposes)

While on the other hand, REXX enabled word processors had even greater capabilities than OLE automation, as did various competitor products in the Windows and non-Windows marketplace marketplace... and even in the areas where OLE Automation shone, it also caused a bunch of security issues due to it's poor implementation with no thoughts of the consequences caused by it's design (but thats a topic for a different discussion).

.. hell, Word was the first word processor to provide live spell-checking with the red squigglies..

As long as you discount various TSRs for word processors as old as the DOS (non-Windows) age version of word processors, a variety of other implementations on non-PC systems, and the fact that Microsoft introduced it in Word 95, almost 20 years after a team for IBM came up with the concept and 8 years after Spellbound came out with that functionality you tout as having been a Microsoft innovation.

Other than those points, I guess you are right! Either that, or you bought into Microsoft's propaganda (errr... marketing, I mean).

;-)

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[man_of_mr_e]

What part of "whether you like it or not" don't you understand? An idea doesn't have to be liked or even good to be novel.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[RobertM1968]

I proved you wrong on a bunch of these above... but let's go at it again.

The Ribbon

Already covered in my last post - done better by others before. Or do you think the fact that they call it "The Ribbon" is the innovation part of mangling an idea others already had?

Photosynth

They funded a University of Washington project which became a MS Live Labs project. Their other related "innovations" were acquired by a company called SeaDragon and various others. So, even the ones that are innovative werent innovated by Microsoft.

COM (originally OLE)

Covered above... Xerox Star (and others) and for COM implementation (ie: more than just OLE), it was to catch up with IBM and OS/2, the Mac and numerous other non-PC based implementations.

Internet Explorer Protected Mode

Even if they were first, it doesnt count because it would actually have to work first. And there are already exploits that can bypass IE in protected mode on operating systems (Vista onwards) that support it. That aside, various programs did this far better than Microsoft's implementation before Microsoft licensed various technologies for it and wrote the rest. One such is a package from a big software firewall company (I'll give you a hint...ZA). That aside, Chrome manages it better than IE and Vista/Win7 - even without all the added work that Microsoft did to Windows itself to enable this feature in IE.

So... where were we? Oh yeah... I remember. Microsoft MAY have innovated something, but you cant think of anything. Well, here's one. Edlin.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[man_of_mr_e]

(wow, that's innovation... someone else's idea - with a piece of clipart)

You show a fundamental lack of knowledge of what you're actually talking about. Assistants weren't simply animated ways to access help text, they could actually analyze what you're doing and supply recommendations. That was innovative. Annoying, but innovative.

Which still confuses users of older versions of Office to this day

What part of "Whether you like the idea or not" don't you understand? You or anyone else liking the idea has no bearing on its novelty.

You don't do your argument any justice by making fallacial comments like this.

which was an idea long since in existence in the Xerox Star systems

The star had document embedding, but it wasn't live document embedding. You couldn't edit documents in place, and you couldn't update the document elsewhere and have it be updated in the embedded document.

Don't confuse "Someone once did something kind of like that" with lack of novelty. It's not just the base concept, it's the entire concept.

8 years after Spellbound came out

That's interesting, sicne I can find no reference to any word processor called Spellbound... And the only reference to a spell checker is the firefox extension, which certainly did not come out 8 years before Word 95.

I'm also suspect of your IBM reference, given that you seem to conflate way too many concepts to believe your arguments. Do you have a reference?

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[man_of_mr_e]

done better by others before. Or do you think the fact that they call it "The Ribbon" is the innovation part of mangling an idea others already had?

Saying it does not prove it. Show me the prior art. Bear in mind that merely being a tabbed toolbar doesn't make it the same thing. The Ribbon's functionality is what makes it innovative, not the fact that it has tabs.

Regarding Photosynth, All new ideas are based on research of others. Newton said something about standing on the shoulders of giants, doesn't make his work any less innovative. Photosynth, as a product, was highly innovative.

it was to catch up with IBM and OS/2

Are you fucking kidding me? OS/2 was created by Microsoft and IBM together. Microosft wrote nearly all of OS/2 up until OS/2 1.3, and COM and OLE goes back to 1987, the same year OS/2 was released *WITHOUT A GUI OF ANY KIND*.

Wow, you are ignorant of history. Wow, that's just plain stupid.

And Xeros Star had nothing like COM or OLE. It's object embedding technolgy was entirely different.

Even if they were first, it doesnt count because it would actually have to work first

Now you're just being stupid. Of course it works. Just because it can't protect from every possible exploit doesn't make it useless or "non working". By that argument, just because someone can root a unix box, that means all of it's security doesn't work.

Wow, I just can't believe what passes for logic these days.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[RobertM1968]

(wow, that's innovation... someone else's idea - with a piece of clipart)

You show a fundamental lack of knowledge of what you're actually talking about. Assistants weren't simply animated ways to access help text, they could actually analyze what you're doing and supply recommendations. That was innovative. Annoying, but innovative.

You glossed over the "not the first to do it, just the first to use a piece of clipart" part (paraphased)

Which still confuses users of older versions of Office to this day

What part of "Whether you like the idea or not" don't you understand? You or anyone else liking the idea has no bearing on its novelty.

You don't do your argument any justice by making fallacial comments like this.

You skipped the (again paraphrased) "others did it ages before that by selectively hiding toolbars that did or did not apply to the task at hand" part.

which was an idea long since in existence in the Xerox Star systems

The star had document embedding, but it wasn't live document embedding. You couldn't edit documents in place, and you couldn't update the document elsewhere and have it be updated in the embedded document.

Don't confuse "Someone once did something kind of like that" with lack of novelty. It's not just the base concept, it's the entire concept.

Hmmm... sites that seem to have put far more research into the Xerox Star systems disagree.

8 years after Spellbound came out

That's interesting, sicne I can find no reference to any word processor called Spellbound...

Hmmm... have you tried Google? If so, you just didnt dig far enough. It was released by Sector Software in 1987.

And the only reference to a spell checker is the firefox extension, which certainly did not come out 8 years before Word 95.

I'm also suspect of your IBM reference, given that you seem to conflate way too many concepts to believe your arguments. Do you have a reference?

I could just drop a lot of references, but as you've apparently intentionally skipped the important parts of points I have made (as in the first two), why should I bother? Nonetheless, I did give you a few more hints above.

Sure, I am sure Microsoft innovated something... the KIN being one possibly (never seen more than the commercials and a few online reviews, so I am not sure about that one, but it seems a pretty innovative way of integrating many smartphone and other electronic device features in a novel way)... but the stuff you mention does not fit the category. Nor is the "first 32bit PC operating system" claim Microsoft used to make for Windows 95. Or "their" creation of an improved interface for Windows XP (and 95)... oh wait, they licensed that from SDS. Stop believing marketing hype and actually research what you talk about.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[msclrhd]

The ribbon is essentially a tabbed multi-sectioned set of wrappable toolbars.

Borland have had tabbed toolbars for a long time in their IDE and tabbed UIs are not new.

Microsoft have allowed you to create dialogs as components that can be docked to any side of the main window, so complex dockable/docked UIs are not new.

Java and other UI toolkits have had the concept of arbitrary wrappable content for a long time (since at least when Java Swing was created), and a toolbar is just a container of icon-based buttons (and possibly other controls), so this is not new.

Yes, it has some complex reflow logic where pane content is size-dependant. This is probably new and innovative (I can't think of examples). NOTE: This is different to toolbar items hiding when there is not enough room, the items change size/shape and position.

Other than that, though, it is not really that innovative.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or do you think the fact that they call it "The Ribbon" is the innovation part of mangling an idea others already had?

The innovation part is "mangling an idea others already had". That's what innovation is.

They funded a University of Washington project which became a MS Live Labs project

Yep. ...your point?

Even if they were first, it doesnt count because it would actually have to work first...

It does work, Chrome's is not better and definitely came later (why do you think it's better, btw?), and I'm really curious about what Zone Alarm did, but I'm pretty confident that it's different from something built into the browser and you're doing EXACTLY what the GP complained about by pointing to something with some vague similarities and claiming therefore that it's not innovative at all. What technologies, btw, do you think they licensed?

Anyway, fine. Multiprocess tabbed browser. IE8's beta was the first, beating Chrome's beta by about half a year. Or IE8's tab groups. Every time I mention that people point out some extension in Firefox that isn't remotely similar (often they'll pick the one that randomly colours every tab). Or continuous spellcheck. Or the taskbar from Windows 1.0. Or Powershell. The tablet computer. The market may not be roaring, and the iPad has the buzz, but Microsoft was there long ago and in this case it's clearly Apple that's taking that idea and putting an Apple spin on it. Xbox Live. No service compared to it at the time and it's arguably still the best. Notice how Google looks a lot like Bing lately?

It's not just Microsoft that innovates, but the meme that Microsoft -- and only Microsoft -- never innovates, only copies is beyond ridiculous. And citing counterexamples where they did copy (helllllo Zune) doesn't really support the point.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[RobertM1968]

done better by others before. Or do you think the fact that they call it "The Ribbon" is the innovation part of mangling an idea others already had?

Saying it does not prove it. Show me the prior art. Bear in mind that merely being a tabbed toolbar doesn't make it the same thing. The Ribbon's functionality is what makes it innovative, not the fact that it has tabs.

Corel used a similar method, various word processors I use on OS/2 did. They were tabbed toolbars that were dockable and undockable, and hid or displayed different tools depending on task... toolbars - not "the ribbon" - the only "innovative" difference.

Regarding Photosynth, All new ideas are based on research of others. Newton said something about standing on the shoulders of giants, doesn't make his work any less innovative. Photosynth, as a product, was highly innovative.

They WROTE it for Microsoft. And yes, it IS innovative - I already said that. It wasnt Microsoft's innovation though. It was the university's innovation that Microsoft procured and perfected. An innovator is the one who comes up with the novel way of doing something - not the person who buys/funds/procures/packages it. Unless the packaging happens to be really novel too I guess.

it was to catch up with IBM and OS/2

Are you fucking kidding me? OS/2 was created by Microsoft and IBM together. Microosft wrote nearly all of OS/2 up until OS/2 1.3, and COM and OLE goes back to 1987, the same year OS/2 was released *WITHOUT A GUI OF ANY KIND*.

Wow, you are ignorant of history. Wow, that's just plain stupid.

No, YOU are ignorant of history, OS/2 2.0 written by IBM and... oh... just IBM... it was in beta in 1990, already had SOM/DSOM. COM came out in 1993. Microsoft, who had a cross license agreement to the SOM/DSOM (and other OS/2) technology, decided to go it on their own and came up with COM - and still havent managed to make something as versatile as SOM/DSOM. Something, to this day, I notice whenever I am managing a Windows server or using multiple true OS/2 apps in comparison to their Windows equivalents... or when I use the WPS. COM still sucks in comparison.

But again, as you pointed out earlier (the only accurate thing in your post - even though it didnt apply), my likes are irrelevant. So, back to the fact. SOM/DSOM was in testing 3 years before COM was released. And SOM/DSOM was released a year before COM.

And Xeros Star had nothing like COM or OLE. It's object embedding technolgy was entirely different.

Even if they were first, it doesnt count because it would actually have to work first

Now you're just being stupid. Of course it works. Just because it can't protect from every possible exploit doesn't make it useless or "non working". By that argument, just because someone can root a unix box, that means all of it's security doesn't work.

Wow, I just can't believe what passes for logic these days.

No... it does none of what is promised. various ZoneLabs and other products do what it claims to do. It simply put, does not work. Not "works most of the time" but "barely works at all, while Zone Labs and others figured it out in a method that works with more than one browser instead of just IE7+"

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[El_Muerte_TDS]

An not to forget:
- Clippy and the Windows XP Search Dog

Also I think Microsoft is the main innovator on user annoyance technology.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[RobertM1968]

Or do you think the fact that they call it "The Ribbon" is the innovation part of mangling an idea others already had?

The innovation part is "mangling an idea others already had". That's what innovation is.

They funded a University of Washington project which became a MS Live Labs project

Yep. ...your point?

Are you really that dense? Buying something isnt innovation. The gang at UW innovated. Microsoft bought.

Even if they were first, it doesnt count because it would actually have to work first...

It does work, Chrome's is not better and definitely came later (why do you think it's better, btw?), and I'm really curious about what Zone Alarm did, but I'm pretty confident that it's different from something built into the browser and you're doing EXACTLY what the GP complained about by pointing to something with some vague similarities and claiming therefore that it's not innovative at all. What technologies, btw, do you think they licensed?

What technology didnt they? Citrix stuff in partiality for this. And no, they didnt license it, they bought it. Then wrote the rest. ZoneLabs has a utility that effectively sandboxes the browser. Microsoft did NOT make a browser that operated in it's own protected space. What they did was revise the operating system to allow such functionality works - this is why protected mode only works in Windows Vista and up.

Anyway, fine. Multiprocess tabbed browser. IE8's beta was the first, beating Chrome's beta by about half a year.

BINGO! Finally! And from an AC (or the same poster as before sockpuppeting). Yes, that is an innovation, and AFAIK, Microsoft was first.

Or IE8's tab groups. Every time I mention that people point out some extension in Firefox that isn't remotely similar (often they'll pick the one that randomly colours every tab).

There actually is one. MultiTab I think. But I am hazy on that one (I know I used to use it though).

Or continuous spellcheck.

Covered earlier... Spellbound, 1987, by Sector Software (and others that escape me).

Or the taskbar from Windows 1.0.

Huh? What task bar? Not saying there isnt one. I do not know what component of Windows 1.0 you are referring to (that wasnt patterned off earlier designs from Xerox, Amiga, Mac and others).

Or Powershell.

Nice tool... but not first. OS/2 and REXX beat it by 14 years (1992 compared to 2006) - with full access to the OS, Workplace Shell and virtually every aspect of networking, scripted installations (of programs, or of the entire operating system) and on and on and on. And OS/2 and REXX were not the first REXX based implementation. REXX on other IBM systems, and other non-REXX implementations.

You see, you cannot innovate something after it's already been innovated by someone else fourteen years earlier.

The tablet computer. The market may not be roaring, and the iPad has the buzz, but Microsoft was there long ago and in this case it's clearly Apple that's taking that idea and putting an Apple spin on it.

IBM... OS/2 and AIX... Thinkpad 730/750 in 1993. Yes, Microsoft (and Apple and others) will make it popular, but they were far from first. And this (1993) was in a day when an IBM tablet, when running OS/2, could connect to the Internet and surf the web, use a contact based screen interface, speak back to you (ScreenReader/2) and probably even work via dictation - along with running OS/2 and Windows app. And when IBM already had wireless offerings (for those who could afford it).

Xbox Live. No service compared to it at the time and it's arguably still the best.

Best isnt innovative. How is it innovative? How was it

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[man_of_mr_e]

The only word processor Corel had was WordPerfect, and it did NOT do what the Ribbon does. The fact that you can't actually point out any specific thing, just vague hand waving is evidence enough that you're talking out of your ass.

Regarding COM, you seem to be confusing when a product shipped with when it was created. OS/2 2.0 and OS/2 1.3 were done by IBM yes, and COM was released as a product in 1993 (OLE 2 in 1992), but the actual technology was created by Microsoft in 1987, with white papers written in 1998 and 1990.

COM was not originally a product, but was the basis of OLE 2. It existed for several years before OLE did, and the basic concepts were drawn from whitepapers by Antony Williams in 1998 and 1990.

All of this predated OS/2 2.0 by a great deal, and while betas of OS/2 2.0 were in existence in 1990, the workplace shell and SOM were not.

WPS didn't even appear in betas until sometime around late 1991 (after Windows 3.1 and OLE 2 betas were already shipping)

It's relatively easy to know this because SOM is based on CORBA, and COM and CORBA came out about the same time. CORBA was an RPC based technology while COM was a function dispatch based technology. COM and CORBA came at the same problem from opposite sides, and eventually met in the middle with CORBA moving from distributed objects towards component objects and COM moving from component to distributed.

I point you to this article:

http://www.wincustomize.com/article/81265

In which, it says quite clearly that the reason for OS/2's delay from late 1991 to 1993 was WPS.

This message seems to indicate the first beta that included PWS was late 1991.

http://www.rusbasan.com/Humor/OS2_Dream.html

This infoworld article from July 1991 says that it didn't exist in the beta.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft, like most other companies, has indeed had it's share of "innovation", popular opinion not withstanding.

Some poeple restrict innovation to advancements and dont apply it to we need to do it different.

The Ribbon

Ribbon like interfaces were used long before Microsoft introduced them. And usually to a better effect because they hid/hide functions you dont' need at the moment. Having toolbars showing only applicable functions is pretty old and much easier to work with in my opinion. Grouped in tabs or not.
Also I can't say I like the layout of the ribbon. It has no clear layout in each of the groups.

Internet Explorer Protected Mode

Nice implementation, but it was requested by the community for some time.

It's simply not true that Microsoft has never created anything novel. Hell, Clippy anyone?

Intelligent software agents were already described and tested. Clippy was notorious for its annoyance and not much later beaten in annoyance by bonzi buddy.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[man_of_mr_e]

Yes, I did use google. It's very obscure and there exist very few relative links even when adding "sector software" to the search criteria. and it turns out, it was just a TSR like all those others. This is not the same thing.

You glossed over the "not the first to do it, just the first to use a piece of clipart" part (paraphased)

You glossed over the "it does more than you claim it does" part. You're using a ridiculous argument, and not coincidentally, it's the same argument most people who criticize software patents use.. focusing on a tiny portion of functionality and ignoring the rest.

The ribbon doesn't merely hide toolbars that are not useful in a given context. Hell, Word did that going back years. The ribbon is entirely context driven, it builds the toolbars dynamically given the current context. It does live previews of how clicking on buttons will affect your document just by hovering over it, just to name a few of it's features.

By the way, care to explain how Microsoft could have claimed that Windows 95 was the first 32 bit PC operating system when Microsoft themselves had created Windows NT (a 32 bit PC operating system) several years earlier?

I think you're still making things up, and attributing them to Microsoft to "prove" your point.

I might stop believing marketing hype if the hype you claim i'm believing actually existed.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[jitterbug]

Ribbon

It's interesting that you bring up the "Ribbon" as there is prior art for it, yet Microsoft is trying for a patentland grab on a relativity common User Interface concept.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[man_of_mr_e]

Wrong. Most people who claim prior art for something tend to only look at very superficial details. The geniisoft link for instance only shows tabbed toolbars. That's not what makes the ribbon innovative. The ribbon builds it's UI dynamically, and interactively. If you have a smaller screen, it resizes the elements and relays them out, for instance. It also does live previews of how applying the items in the ribbon will affect your document. If you have access to Office 2007 or 2010, try something. Resize the window down to a much smaller size.. pay close attention to the ribbon while you do it. It's really quite interesting.

It's always the people that don't actually *USE* something that seem to claim how it's just like something else that it isn't like at all, other than perhaps a visual similarity.

Stop believing every website that claims prior art. Use some critical thinking, and think for yourself.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[wjsteele]

Also, don't forget that it is both context sensitive and task based. You start preparing your document with the left most ribbons and move to the right.

Bill

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[jitterbug]

My friend, for me me dynamic resizing, and live preview, even if they are included in a tabbed glossy tool bar don't reach my threshold level of "innovative". I've seen it before, but will concede that I haven't seen it in that exact combination. I suspect that we will just have to agree to disagree.

Innovators in the computer world are, for me, people like Alan Kay, Alan Turing, Doug Engelbart, Dan Ingalls, Adele Goldberg, Dan Bricklin and Bob Frankston and many more I will (although tempted) not list.

What I am grateful for, and feel protective of, is the ability for others to build on these peoples work. The ability for others make stuff without having to worry about getting stuck in a mico-innovation patent thicket over a shiny tool bar matters, even if what they are making is not innovative.

That was the point of my original post and why I also included this .

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[NekSnappa]

I would say that it shouldcbe a goo idea in order to be considered "innovative."

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[CFBMoo1]

I hate that damn ribbon, half the time I can't find the things I want and when I do find them and try to go back again later I don't remember where I found them before. If I wasn't forced to use Office at work I would have wiped it off my drive long ago.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[Anonymous Coward]

With one exception (The Ribbon and that is a questionable innovation) all the innovations listed took place more than ten years ago.

Microsoft yesterday's software today.

I say that as a very happy SalesForce.com user

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[Anonymous Coward]

well to complete this discussion.

CORBA drives from DCE (Distributed Computing Environment) which drives from NCS (Network Computing System) created by Appollo which are RPC like systems (which is wat COM does). Similarly you have SunRPC which is used as that basis voor NFS (networking file system) and other techniques.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eclipse IDE/RCP had a ribbon like user interface before MS Office had them. Eclipse IDE called them perspectives. Changing a perspective would relayout the toolbar as well as sidebars. You could even move the perspective changer around the screen, making it look the ribbon or keeping the default (top right of the window).

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[Cyberax]

"Saying it does not prove it. Show me the prior art."

Borland Delphi - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Borland_Delphi_4_screenshot.png

"Are you fucking kidding me? OS/2 was created by Microsoft and IBM together."

COM (circa 1987) is not new as well - it was just a standard on vtable format, nothing more. There was _no_ OLE in 1987, not even close. One of the first usages of COM, in fact, was MAPI.

OLE and IDispatch came much later, in 1992 developed mainly for office automation. And by that time they were nothing new as well. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoeba_distributed_operating_system had not just dynamically accessible objects, but _distributed_ dynamically accessible objects.

So sorry, your examples of innovation are stupid.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[RickRussellTX]

How is The Ribbon (trademark, whatever) different from the palettes in Adobe creative products that have been there since the early 90s, or the tool palettes any number of programs? The main difference seems to be that the Ribbon can't be moved or resized like those palettes, and its controls cannot be customized or changed.

Honestly, I don't see anything here that is conceptually different from, say, Superpaint circa 1990, or MacDraw Pro, or... sheesh. They all had dockable tool palettes with a combination of buttons, menus, and dialog box poppers. If you want fixed palettes of controls, go to (for example) Adobe Photodeluxe circa 2001.

I mean, I give credit to MS for realizing that menu bars were an early 90s solution to the problem of organizing software functionality, and a palette arrangement could expose more functionality on new displays with more pixel space. But others had come to that conclusion much earlier, and the fixed palette they call "The Ribbon" does not have new features that you would not find in any number applications that use tool palettes.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[RickRussellTX]

Prior art:

http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/photoshop/ig/20-Years-of-Photoshop/Photoshop-Elements-1-0-2001.htm

Button and menu controls on the palettes, tabs to switch between control palettes, all of it. Just 'cause the Ribbon is blue doesn't make it new.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[rhk]

Nope. edlin is a lot like "ed", which is a very very old unix editor.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[Dragoon235]

Yes, all of these things are interesting and innovative ideas, but in and of themselves, they are not products that should be patentable. Take the following examples:

An english teacher marks up a term paper with red pen. Is this infringing on microsoft's red squiggle? I'm fairly certain that red pens have been used far longer.

I arrange all the tools on my desk in a line, pencil/pen cup, phone, coffee mug, parts directory, etc. Is this infringing on the "toolbar" or "ribbon"?

In conclusion, an idea is not necessarily a product.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I just stumbled into this thread and you, sir, sound like a dick. Looking at your comment history it's apparently a trait you have, not you just having a bad day.

That and the MS fanboism has me dry heaving.

Go outside. Find something else to do than just sit there being a dick.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[fr4nko]

I think that MS have made some minor innovations from time to time but the point is that they have acquired an almost complete monopoly over OS and software market in general by always using *unfair* methods. To my point of view their most unsupportable way of doing is the continuous tentative of silently introduce proprietary protocols/formats to lock the people to their products. If MS it was for Microsoft even TCP/IP will not be used and it would have been replaced by IPX/SPX and not to mention the Office closed formats with the fake XML attempt. And the list could be infinetely long because in every domain MS have attempted to use the same strategy. These are the reasons why I don't use MS products even when they are technically better than the alternatives. For the same reasons I'm happy to use Linux even when, in some cases, you need to accept some limitations. Francesco

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you go down the road of patent liability equivalence, then Xerox Parc is owed about $15 trillion dollars from every tech company in the world

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[man_of_mr_e]

Dan Bricklin? The guy that took the standard ledger and made a computer program that did the same thing?

Look, I agree those people are all innovative, but the same arguments can be applied to most of their works. All of it was derivitive in some way or another. You think they were innovative because they did it on a computer first.

What's the difference between "doing it on a computer first" and "doing in first?"

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[man_of_mr_e]

Why? There are tons of innovative ways people have gone broke, for instance. Tons of innovative ways people have killed themselves... etc.. etc.. etc..

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[ckaminski]

Eclipse has prior art (at least), resizeable toolbars, etc. Maybe the only innovation seems to be the Live Preview bit.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[man_of_mr_e]

COM has nothing to do with RPC. Where did you get that idea?

DCOM uses RPC, COM does not.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[ckaminski]

Multiprocess tabbed browser. IE8's beta was the first, beating Chrome's beta by about half a year.

Hmm, I can't seem to recall if MyIE [url:http://www.myie2.com] did this or not?

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[dhavleak]

No, YOU are ignorant of history, OS/2 2.0 written by IBM and... oh... just IBM... it was in beta in 1990, already had SOM/DSOM. COM came out in 1993. Microsoft, who had a cross license agreement to the SOM/DSOM (and other OS/2) technology

I guess you'll just say anything you can to make your point -- truth be damned.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[man_of_mr_e]

What part of "a tabbed toolbar is not what makes the ribbon unique" don't you understand?

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[man_of_mr_e]

Clearly your experience with the ribbon consists of looking at a picture of it. There is nothing unique about the visual look of the ribbon, that is completely true. There is nothing about it being tabbed that's unique either.

Given that, how is your comment even relevant? All you're talking about is what it looks like.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[man_of_mr_e]

What part of "being a tabbed toolbar doesn't make it unique" do you keep having trouble understanding? You're talking about things that have nothing to do with the ribbons novelty.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[Cyberax]

And what makes it unique? A patent from Microsoft?

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[man_of_mr_e]

An english teacher marks up a term paper with red pen. Is this infringing on microsoft's red squiggle? I'm fairly certain that red pens have been used far longer.

And accounting ledger books have been in use for centuries, so therefore Visicalc wasn't innovative either.

All ideas are derivative in some way or another, we can't just come up with something in a vacuum.

Even Einsteins theory of relativity is derivitive, not just of work at the time, but he claimed to have thought of it while looking at church clocks in the eurpoean countryside and noting how distance played a part in how you percieved time.

If you want to argue that because something is based on something else, then you are basically arguing that there is no such thing as novelty or invention.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[Anonymous Coward]

No True Scotsman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[RobertM1968]

By the way, care to explain how Microsoft could have claimed that Windows 95 was the first 32 bit PC operating system when Microsoft themselves had created Windows NT (a 32 bit PC operating system) several years earlier?

I think you're still making things up, and attributing them to Microsoft to "prove" your point.

I might stop believing marketing hype if the hype you claim i'm believing actually existed.

Very simple. Windows NT wasnt going anywhere. Microsoft had been touting a new 32bit OS for everyone for a while, and NT wasnt cutting it in that marketplace. So, they tried pushing Windows 95 onto the masses as that OS, full well knowing that 99% of the computer users out there would not know better. They also mis-stated the memory requirements on the original box. They also had press releases out stating (either through implication or directly) it's non-reliance on DOS. Besides the fact that much of this is in the DOJ docs from the antitrust case against them, I was there, working for CompUSA, and tasked by Microsoft themselves to be their support representative in our store. If anyone was a CompUSA technician at that time, and on our video teleconfernce (it was one way video from MS to all the stores, with live call ins from the stores) with Microsoft before Win95 release, they will remember one particular tech that called into the call to call Microsoft's marketing bullshit on those matters. Those of you who were on that call (if there are any of you here), that technician, was me. When they blocked our number after the first call, I called back from my GM's line. Any of you remember that little tech teleconference call? It was quite humorous... they asked for my GM on my second call - not knowing he's the one who gave me his phone (knowing it would not be blocked) so I could call back with the rest of our concerns... and one of the idiots (one very famous for his assinity) asked for my GMs name, and was quite upset when I told him I was calling from the GMs phone, at his behest and was more than willing to put him on the phone.

Ah... fun times.

But, anyway, since you, oh probable Microsoft employee and/or zealot, probably wont believe me, TO THIS DAY Microsoft STILL has documents on their site that state as much:

Windows 95 is a 32-bit operating system with built-in connectivity support

Microsoft TechNet

In their defense, they have since added this disclaimer which basically states "we know we lied our asses off with many of these claims, so dont believe what this document says" - here it is in it's original form without my more accurate paraphrase:

Archived content. No warranty is made as to technical accuracy. Content may contain URLs that were valid when originally published, but now link to sites or pages that no longer exist.

You can keep on living in your own little world, but Reality doesnt care. And Reality isnt what you seem to believe it is.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, I am sure Microsoft innovated something... the KIN being one possibly (never seen more than the commercials and a few online reviews, so I am not sure about that one, but it seems a pretty innovative way of integrating many smartphone and other electronic device features in a novel way)... but the stuff you mention does not fit the category. Nor is the "first 32bit PC operating system" claim Microsoft used to make for Windows 95. Or "their" creation of an improved interface for Windows XP (and 95)... oh wait, they licensed that from SDS. Stop believing marketing hype and actually research what you talk about.

Microsoft Bob. Gates was so impressed with the innovation that he married the project manager, Melinda French (now Melinda Gates) in order to produce Gates 2.0. She also was behind Microsoft Encarta, but Encarta was just a cheap copy of Encyclopedia Britannica which existed at the time in electronic form.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ribbon

It's interesting that you bring up the "Ribbon" as there is prior art for it, yet Microsoft is trying for a patentland grab on a relativity common User Interface concept.

As opposed to a relativistic common UI? I'm sorry, what is the current stardate.. erm, year?

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[RobertM1968]

No, YOU are ignorant of history, OS/2 2.0 written by IBM and... oh... just IBM... it was in beta in 1990, already had SOM/DSOM. COM came out in 1993. Microsoft, who had a cross license agreement to the SOM/DSOM (and other OS/2) technology

I guess you'll just say anything you can to make your point -- truth be damned.

Really? Which portion?

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[RobertM1968]

Nope. edlin is a lot like "ed", which is a very very old unix editor.

Ah well... I tried... ;-)

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[RobertM1968]

Sure, I am sure Microsoft innovated something... the KIN being one possibly (never seen more than the commercials and a few online reviews, so I am not sure about that one, but it seems a pretty innovative way of integrating many smartphone and other electronic device features in a novel way)... but the stuff you mention does not fit the category. Nor is the "first 32bit PC operating system" claim Microsoft used to make for Windows 95. Or "their" creation of an improved interface for Windows XP (and 95)... oh wait, they licensed that from SDS. Stop believing marketing hype and actually research what you talk about.

Microsoft Bob. Gates was so impressed with the innovation that he married the project manager, Melinda French (now Melinda Gates) in order to produce Gates 2.0. She also was behind Microsoft Encarta, but Encarta was just a cheap copy of Encyclopedia Britannica which existed at the time in electronic form.

LoL! As much as I would like to blame that "innovation" on Microsoft (1995), Packard Bell and others came up with the idea first. Packard Bell Navigator (1993), Apple At Ease (1992) and probably others.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[dhavleak]

http://pages.prodigy.net/michaln/history/pr/87apr_m3592.html

Switching topics for a second: why do you think companies fund research in universities? For shits and giggles?

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[man_of_mr_e]

"is a 32 bit operating system" is not "Is the first 32 bit operating system".

That was your claim. And Win95 was a 32 bit OS as much as OS/2 was (you do know that OS/2 had 16 bit underpinnings as well, right?)

Microsoft never claimed Windows 95 was the first 32 bit operating system.

Also, while Microsoft did claim that Windows 95 no longer ran on top of DOS very early in it's development, that was the plan.. things changed, and compatibility became more important, which necessitated a real DOS subsystem. It's still a matter of semantics as to whether or not it "ran on dos" because in reality, Windows 95 took over and ran the DOS session in it's own process, then routed various interrupt routines through it. Although this was not that much different from what programs like DesqView did.

While you certainly *CAN* hold Microsoft or any company responsible for claims they made about a product 3 years before it shipped, doing so is rather pointless. Products always end up different from the original plans. And not just Microsoft has that problem.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[RobertM1968]

http://pages.prodigy.net/michaln/history/pr/87apr_m3592.html

Let me clarify, as I thought this was a topic that everyone understood.

Microsoft and IBM worked jointly on OS/2 1.x - which is what the press release you point to is discussing.

Microsoft backed out of OS/2 development to work on Windows NT. IBM rewrote massive (ie: most) portions of OS/2 without Microsoft's work or input for OS/2 version 2.0 and onwards. Remaining pieces of code were in areas such as HPFS, virtual FAT (in kernel), vDOS and of course Win3.x support (with even large sections of that to be rewritten for OS/2 desktop based sessions where OS/2 controls and folders were used and simply redressed as Windows ones (a reason they use OS/2's frame and border settings as opposed to whatever is defined in the full screen Windows sessions). Many other key areas were written from scratch (ie: never in OS/2 v1.x) such as the WPS, SOM, DSOM - or largely rewritten (such as the new kernel designed for 386 machines an up - to replace the 16bit 286 kernel from OS/2 1.x).

WPS and SOM were IBM inventions for OS/2 2.0 and onwards.

Now, does that make sense?

Switching topics for a second: why do you think companies fund research in universities? For shits and giggles?

No, I dont. But that doesnt mean the company innovated - it oft times means that they paid someone else for their innovation. Microsoft has a bigger track record of buying innovations, or finding people who are innovating and funding them in a fund/procure process than they do with coming up with ideas and paying someone else to create their (Microsoft's) innovations. The list includes (very short version) WoW and IE's protected space derived from Citrix's VM technology, DOS (well, they didnt buy it... IBM did and gave it to them), DOS 6.22 disk compression (ok, they didnt buy it... they stole this one, but you get the point), Internet Explorer (Spry Networks I think), the desktop enhancements and themes for XP (and earlier and later versions) from SDS and others... and too numerous more to list. On the aquisition front, here's a short list: Wikipedia: MS Acquisitions - and that does not even cover products bought, licensed or stolen.

The point is this. If Company X produces Innovation Y, and then Company Z buys/acquires/steals Innovation Y to use as is or to incorporate into their products (unless the incorporation method in itself is novel), then it is Company X that innovated, and Company Z who was acting intelligently by acquiring Innovation Y.

Thus, in many cases, Microsoft did not innovate - they acquired the innovation. In other cases that the OP listed, they were simply not first - being second or third or fourth (ie: copying someone else's idea) is not innovation.

And again, I am sure that Microsoft does have innovations... others here (including me) have pointed out a few. Those innovations though, simply do not include the ones listed by the OP.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[RobertM1968]

"is a 32 bit operating system" is not "Is the first 32 bit operating system".

That was your claim. And Win95 was a 32 bit OS as much as OS/2 was (you do know that OS/2 had 16 bit underpinnings as well, right?)

Windows 95 was DOS, 16 bit Windows 3.1 and a few 32bit extensions and workarounds. The second/updated release of Windows 95 improved that to some extent.

OS/2 version 2 onwards was a 32bit operating system that incorporated 16bit code for backwards compatibility for OS/2 1.x programs and certain drivers. It was not a 16bit (heh, 32bit? what was MS smoking) GUI thrown onto a 16bit DOS, using a 16bit memory subsystem with kludges added on for semi-32bit memory access and claimed (but false) 32bit disk subsystem (what parts were, were once again workarounds that tried to bypass DOS whenever possible - which wasnt all the time).

The thing most people forget about Windows 95 was that OSR2 is what finally lived up to the claims of being closer to a true 32bit operating system - NOT the first Win95 release.

Microsoft never claimed Windows 95 was the first 32 bit operating system.

There are marketing materials out there - sorry I did save them the last 15 years.

Also, while Microsoft did claim that Windows 95 no longer ran on top of DOS very early in it's development, that was the plan.. things changed, and compatibility became more important, which necessitated a real DOS subsystem.

Yet they still claimed it even after Win95 was released. This can be seen in "articles" (Microsoft provided press kits with some random author's name attached for publication) and other documents.

It's still a matter of semantics as to whether or not it "ran on dos" because in reality, Windows 95 took over and ran the DOS session in it's own process, then routed various interrupt routines through it. Although this was not that much different from what programs like DesqView did.

While you certainly *CAN* hold Microsoft or any company responsible for claims they made about a product 3 years before it shipped, doing so is rather pointless. Products always end up different from the original plans. And not just Microsoft has that problem.

True... but (1) Microsoft continued to make many of those erroneous claims during and after the release date. (2) Microsoft does such things to try to prevent others from buying competing products while Microsoft's promised product is still in vaporware status or completed with less features. (3) Microsoft was found guilty in a court of law of those practices (multiple courts of law... DOJ Antitrust case, EU antitrust case and others).

So, while other companies indeed do such things, the big difference is Microsoft, in the past and recently, have done so intentionally, in violation of the law, and with various nefarious motives driving such behavior.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[dhavleak]

First you said this: "OS/2 2.0 written by IBM and... oh... just IBM... "

Now you're saying this: "Microsoft and IBM worked jointly on OS/2 1.x"

So excuse me a minute while I question your credibility.
.

Next, you're claiming this: IBM rewrote massive (ie: most) portions of OS/2 without Microsoft's work or input for OS/2 version 2.0 and onwards.

The massive re-write was version 3.0 I'm afraid. And it was done my Microsoft. And it ended up being called Windows NT. Reference. IBM needed to rewrite as well: but not to remove MS code. It was because of their initial bad decision to target the 286 - and the need to modernize for the 386 (protected mode, pre-emptive multitasking, etc.)
.

Switching topics for a second: why do you think companies fund research in universities? For shits and giggles?

No, I dont. But that doesnt mean the company innovated.. *explaination omitted*

They have a research department, and a research budget, and areas they target for research. They funded some good research, and brought it to frution as a product. Your definition of innovation seems to simply exclude any and everything done by Microsoft. To each their own. Peace to you brother.
.

Those innovations though, simply do not include the ones listed by the OP.

So your purpose is just to pedantically keep rubbing his nose in it (with dubious facts and logic, if I may add)?

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[RobertM1968]

First you said this: "OS/2 2.0 written by IBM and... oh... just IBM... "

Now you're saying this: "Microsoft and IBM worked jointly on OS/2 1.x"

So excuse me a minute while I question your credibility.

Do you just like arguing?

Let me try again. OS/2 Version ONE POINT X was written by MS and IBM. OS/2 Version TWO POINT X was a massive rewrite by IBM without collaboration with Microsoft. Microsoft had long since abandoned OS/2 development to work on NT, while IBM, fed up with Microsoft's programming and design deficiencies (like the presentation manager interface that was duplicated for NT and Windows 3.x and earlier) - and due to the OS being moved to a 32bit 386 and better platform decided/needed to take over the development to create the 32 bit version of OS/2 known as OS/2 2.0 (and higher) - which was the replacement for the MS/IBM 16bit OS/2 1.x

The WPS and SOM (which was the topic of discussion) came out with OS/2 TWO POINT X and above - and was written by IBM.

Now do you understand? The key point is, IBM wrote SOM. IBM designed SOM. SOM was designed because the Windows 3/2.x Presentation Manager interface that MS kept pushing was pathetic, antiquated and limited in capabilities. Thus, SOM and WPS were born.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[dhavleak]

the Windows 3/2.x Presentation Manager interface that MS kept pushing was pathetic

Presentation Manager was driven by IBM with some paradigms carried over from their other platforms Reference. And another reference. So you're claiming MS designed (or 'kept pushing') Presentation Manager and Windows 3.x simultaneously, but chose a different co-ordinate system altogether?

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[QuietObserver]

To further support your point about Windows 95 not being the first 32 bit OS, Apple wrote the original Lisa and Macintosh Systems for the 68000, which had a 32-bit instruction set architecture from the beginning (the 68000 was 16-bit internally, and the family didn't become a true 32-bit architecture until the 68020), and Apple released their first true 32-bit hardware in 1987. Commodore also wrote the Amiga OS for the 68000, though I don't believe they released a 68020 machine. Any way you look at it, the 68000's 32-bit instruction set requires a 32-bit OS, and Apple therefore beat Microsoft to a true 32-bit OS by more than a decade.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[RobertM1968]

"Presentation Manager was codenamed Winthorn and developed primarily at the IBM Hursley Labs in UK (with substantial input from Redmond). It was a cross between Microsoft Windows and IBM's mainframe graphical system (GDDM)."

IBM wanted to extend it into a real desktop environment, as they realized it's limitations. Thus, the WPS was born. Microsoft, on the other hand, was happy with it, thus NT and Win3.1 continued to use the Windows version of it. This was one of the big divergences of opinion on the matter. Later (Windows 95), Microsoft realized they needed something better and released the Win95 shell. Various internal IBM and Microsoft emails (see DOJ case and IBM/MS breakup agreement and docs related to that) show all of this.

WPS runs on PM, but handles all GUI tasks. Keep pulling references - as many as you want... but I have actually programmed for PM and WPS and SOM.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[RobertM1968]

To further support your point...

Yup! And thank you. :-)

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[RobertM1968]

See? Microsoft made a PM clone (in look only) while IBM continued PM development using their paradigm to be able to layer the WPS on top of it. (Just in case I didnt state that correctly in my most recent post).

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[QuietObserver]

You're most welcome. Sadly, I had to give up the opportunity to moderate you in order to support your point.

Re:Leader AND innovator?

[dhavleak]

Keep pulling references - as many as you want... but I have actually programmed for PM and WPS and SOM

Paraphrased: keep providing evidence, as much as you want, but I reserve the right to keep ignoring it and twisting stuff.

Competition

[mysidia]

1. Force.com is a direct competitor to Windows Azure. Who needs Microsoft's PaaS, when SF has a better one?
2. MS wants to get in the same business, likely. But another company already has a hegemony there. MS does what they do best, (usually) embrace, extend, extinguish. They have already embraced PaaS, and are working on extend... this is their first move towards extinguishing the dominant leaders in this industry
3. They are pissed, possibly, that SF is written using Java server pages, and using SOAP for web services, instead of the .NET framework, and MS proprietary APIs?

Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[Grond]

Once again a Slashdot patent story is posted with reference to the titles of the patents. Patent titles are legally meaningless. The patentee doesn't even have to supply one; the Patent Office will write one for you if you leave it out. What matters are the claims read in light of the specification.

Anyway, from the complaint, the patents in question are:
7,251,653
5,742,768
5,644,737
6,263,352
6,122,558
6,542,164
6,281,879
5,845,077 (the leading 5 was left off in the complaint, but this is the right patent)
5,941,947

The '768 patent was originally assigned to Silicon Graphics. It was one of several SGI patents assigned to Microsoft in 2002 as part of a $62.5 million deal.

Some of the patents are related. The '164 patent, for example, was the result of a continuation application based on the application that eventually became the '879 patent.

Anyone looking at these from a prior art perspective should bear in mind that the patents have quite early priority dates. Most of them seem to date from the mid-90s. The '164 and '879 patents, for example, stretch back to June 16, 1994.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[Trepidity]

Some of the patents do have claims are more specific than the titles would lead you to suspect, but some of them actually aren't much more specific. The '077 patent, for example, is literally patenting the following: generate a list of installed software, send it to a remote server, the remote server checks for updates, and sends back notification of available updates to installed software, with a description of the problems those updates fix. Essentially, any update scheme that checks on the server side (fortunately, this means something like Debian's 'aptitude' is not covered, since it compares the list of available updates to the list of installed software on the client side). Is the idea of asking for a list of updates to a list of installed software really non-obvious, even in 1995?

For reference, this is Claim 1 in its entirety:

In a computer system having a first computer in communication with a remote second computer, the second computer having access to a database identifying software remotely available to the first computer, wherein at least one item in the database identifies software installable on the first computer, a computer implemented method for identifying computer software available for installation on the first computer, the method comprising, at the second computer:

retrieving from the first computer to the second computer an inventory identifying at least certain computer software installed on the first computer;

comparing the inventory of computer software with the database to identify computer software available to the first computer and not installed on the first computer;

preparing for presentation at the first computer software information indicating software available to the first computer and not installed on the first computer; and

sending the software information to the first computer, said information including an alert about a defect in software on the first computer correctable by software available to the first computer and not installed thereon.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[phantomfive]

I love the fact that the '768 patent uses Netscape in its screenshots. The main claim seems to be that they are using an applet (or separate chunk of code) to create a menu.

So the standard HTML drop down menu wouldn't apply, it is a menu created with a separate chunk of code. I'm not sure I saw that kind of thing before 1998, so there may not be any prior art. However, that doesn't mean its not a silly patent. It should have been obvious to any programmer who was thinking about that sort of thing. I don't think I even have a problem so much with software patents, although they are a bit annoying. I have a problem with patents that are so obvious that anyone could figure them out. 1-click purchase is an obvious example.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[Anonymous Coward]

wtf?
Why the fuck was this even patentable in the first place?

does that mean that if I have the same system setup, but a THIRD computer recieving the data from the second computer and doing exactly the same thing, it's a different setup? hey only mention 2 computers in the patent.

Shit. I have to pay royalties now because there's a patent for the "method of creating data wherein there exists software thereof where therein there exist thereof finger actions representing said data thereof therein the unsaid hardware therein. Thereof."

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[Giltron]

So if you look at 7,251,653, it basically describes a method for implementing customization of multi-tenancy for databases. (pivot tables) If this is allowed to stand then it basically means most companies delivering SaaS offerings can be sued. I see it was filed in 2004. I'm thinking maybe Salesforce was already using this prior to the patent filing.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[jrumney]

I'm having trouble seeing how this could be relevant to salesforce.com at all, as there is no software installable on the first computer - it is all run on the server.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[man_of_mr_e]

Actually, I can't think of a single software vendor that was doing what Windows Update did in 1995. Can you?

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[man_of_mr_e]

The problem with ideas is that they seem obvious in hindsight. Prior to that, clearly nobody had implemented it.. so the idea couldn't have been that obvious. Obvious ideas have lots of simultaneous prior art because, well, they're obvious..

The thing about knowledge is that if you know it, it's obvious. If you don't, it's not. 2+2 = 4 is obvious to us, but it wasn't before the invention of math. Hell, the concept of "0" seems obvious to us, but nobody figured it out for centuries after math was around until the Arabs thought of it.

The question is not "Is the idea obvious today, given hindsight". It's "Was the idea obvious when it was patented".

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[man_of_mr_e]

Also, the first claim is always the most general. The patent must take all claims into account, not just the first one. It's patenting everything together, not each indidvidually.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[Trepidity]

My understanding is that patent claims are standalone, so it's not only the most narrow conjunction of claims that's actually claimed.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[Trepidity]

My comment wasn't a prior-art comment, but an obviousness comment. It's sending a list of software, and getting back a list of updates, which can then be installed. I have trouble believing that someone "skilled in the art" as of 1995 would have considered that to be an actual invention, as opposed to an obvious and straightforward application of existing technology.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[phantomfive]

And in this case, and many other software patents, the answer is, "hell yeah, that was obvious"

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[man_of_mr_e]

Yes and no. More specific claims are built upon less specific claims. The more general the claim, the more likely the claim is to not withstand a validity test.

So while claim 1 may not be valid as a patentable item, when claim 13 is based upon claim 12, based up upon 11, etc.. is.

For example, if you created a new mousetrap, and wanted to patent it, your claim 1 would probably sound a lot like every other mousetrap in existence, but your final claim would not.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[VortexCortex]

The problem with ideas is that they seem obvious in hindsight. Prior to that, clearly nobody had implemented it.. so the idea couldn't have been that obvious

You're saying: because something hasn't been implemented yet means it must not be obvious?

I'm saying: Perhaps M$ just got to the patent office first with an obvious idea... (much like the Bell's Telephone)

Since the patent examiners are not professionals skilled in the art It's obvious that they aren't qualified to make the non-obvious distinction, or else we wouldn't have so many of these obvious patents.

----

FYI Menus existed in 1995. Menus on a webpage == fnck!ng obvious esp. to any professional skilled in the art of making menus and web pages.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[man_of_mr_e]

As an example, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim_(patent)

Possible invalidity of base claim: It is impossible to know, when beginning the application process and even at the time of patent issuance, if a patent claim is valid. This is because any publication dated before the application's priority date and published anywhere on earth in any language can invalidate the claim (excluding publications by the inventor published during the grace period in certain countries such as U.S., Canada and Japan). Furthermore, even applications that were not yet published at the time of filling, but have a priority date prior to the priority date of the application, can also invalidate the claim. As it is impossible to gain an absolute and complete knowledge of every publication on earth, not to mention unpublished patent applications, there is always some degree of uncertainty. If the independent claim is determined to be invalid, however, a dependent claim may nevertheless survive, and may still be broad enough to bar competitors from valuable commercial territory.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[man_of_mr_e]

No, but my point is that if something is truly obvious, then prior art will exist. If, as you say, it should have been obvious, where is the prior art?

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[man_of_mr_e]

You're confusing obviousness with theft of idea.

The telephone was not an obvious idea when invented, but yes, Bell made it to the patent office first.

In fact, your example proves my point. The telephone patent was a case where prior art existed, and the patent should not have been granted or should have been invalidated. It wasn't an "obvious" idea.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[Trepidity]

I agree that's often the case, but even for obvious things, someone has to be the first to do them. I don't think you should get a patent for something just because you were first, unless it was also sufficiently novel...

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[Percy_Blakeney]

The problem with ideas is that they seem obvious in hindsight. Prior to that, clearly nobody had implemented it.. so the idea couldn't have been that obvious.

This is true in perhaps many cases, but not so with the '768 patent. Displaying menus using applets? That wasn't an innovative idea, it was taking a very, very old idea (menus) and implementing it using the technology-of-the-month (applets). If you consider this patent to be non-obvious, then you'll be really impressed with my next innovation: menus using the HTML5 canvas tag! Or my other one: menus using SVG!

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[man_of_mr_e]

The question of novelty can be solved by whether two or more people independantly come up with the identical idea (not merely similar) without any knowledge of each others work (or anyone else with similar ideas).

Think about the wheel. If patents had been around when the wheel was invented, would the wheel be obvious? It certainly is to anyone today, and you can list lots of reasons why. But the wheel was probably based on rolling logs. Someone looking at a log on the ground and watching it roll around may or may not consider cutting it to create smaller logs to allow the transportation of heavy objects.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[man_of_mr_e]

Given that both menus via HTML5 canvas tag and menus via SVG already exist, there's prior art.. and lots of it. So you wouldn't be able to get a valid patent on it.

I agree the the 768 patent is pretty vague, and probably would not stand up to scrutiny, but given that it was filed in 1996 by Silicon Graphics, and awarded to them (before Microsoft bought the patent as part of a patent portfolio sale) I wouldn't blame Microsoft for it. SGI patented it.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[hokusai]

It would've been awesome if the patents were actually some really hardcore CRM/sales models. Not some arbitrary "webpage with menus" crap :(

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[msclrhd]

The point was not that examples exist, but that a technology (HTML5 canvas tag or SVG) do not supply them inherently and the concept being applied already exists. It's like TV concepts where you say "this is XYZ... in SPACE!"

Lets say you create a new programming language (like Google's Go) and don't provide in-built support for certain data structures. Is implementing a linked list or queue in that programming language innovative (given that no-one has written one in that language yet (not Go, but the new programming language you have created))? Sure, the different paradigms (procedural, object-orientated, functional) allow you to implement them in different ways, but the concepts are already there.

Now, you could say that template meta-programming in C++ is innovative because it was not known that templates created their own turing-complete language that you could use to compute complex static results at compile time. That was something that was non-obvious in the facilities provided by the language.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Actually, I can't think of a single software vendor that was doing what Windows Update did in 1995. Can you?

rsync, a UNIX utility that can perform this task not just on software but any file, "updating" both client and server side (if asked to). Developed in 1996 but based on the idea of "rdist" from 4.3 BSD released in 1986, which in turn was based on earlier such ideas going all the way back to 1960s.

In short the insanity that are software patents is quite handsomely illustrated here: most software is simply a variation on previous ideas, each iteration adding some quite obvious to any skilled programmer, but labour intensive improvements. There are very, very few true "innovations" worthy of consideration for the (highly flawed to begin with) idea of a "patent" in the software world and most of them were thought of in the heyday of computing pioneers in 1950s-1970s, where pretty much every worthwhile idea from a "file system" to "virtualization" was cooked up, with some like the concept of a Turing tape machine - which most modern computers are a variation of - even older then that, dating to 1940s.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[Todd Knarr]

True, 2 + 2 = 4 wasn't obvious before the invention of math. But, after the invention of math, applying that math to solve the problem of adding 2 and 2 was obvious. The invention of math may have been novel and patentable, but it's application to that specific problem isn't.

And that nobody's done it before is irrelevant. No matter how obvious something is, someone had to be the first to do it. If nothing else, someone had to be the first to address the problem. You don't look at obviousness in hindsight, but neither do you look at it from the standpoint of no motivation at all. The place to look at obviousness is at the point where a person having ordinary skill in the art is asked to solve the problem in question. An obvious solution can even involve a certain amount of creativity, if that creativity is within the realm of what a PHOSitA would be expected to have.

See the Supreme Court's unanimous holding in KSR v. Teleflex.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[man_of_mr_e]

You seem to misunderstand what is being asked. This was not about syncing two files, it was doing the specific functionality, which was going to a server, retrieving a list of updates given a list of files and versions. Then providing that list.

Rsync doesn't do that.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[man_of_mr_e]

By your argument, all ideas are obvious. Ideas occur to someone to solve a problem. If someone comes up with an idea, it must be obvious.

What seperates an obvious idea from an inobvious one? If it wasn't obvious, how did the inventor come up with it?

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[VortexCortex]

You're confusing obviousness with theft of idea.

The telephone was not an obvious idea when invented, but yes, Bell made it to the patent office first.

I assure you I'm not confused. I suspect you missed the point: "He who submits a patent first" should not have any merit over obviousness.

If a skilled professional creates something and thinks: "This is too obvious to patent",
and someone else comes along and patents that something then we have a "Theft of idea," and prior art can corroborate...

However, if a skilled professional takes A and applies it to B to produce AB it's not innovating, it's down-right obvious to any professional skilled in the art.
It's stealing of the future ideas of everyone. The very next person that approaches the problem and arrives at the same solution without prior knowledge of patented technology isn't "infringing" so much as they are proving the patent is obvious.

Patent law is designed to prevent such "I got here first" patents... However, patent examiners are ill equipped to make the obviousness distinction themselves (being uneducated and not professionals well versed in the art or trade over which they grant patents for), and so we have these oh-so-obvious patents on the books.

As a professional skilled in the trade of both websites and menus when my boss asked me in 1996 to produce a menu for our website, I did so.
It was obvious how to achieve this goal. I had no knowledge of prior art. It was so fnck!ng obvious I didn't need to go searching for someone else's work...
I just did what was asked of me.

Now, I know that our company was "infringing" on a M$ patent that should have never been granted due to obviousness claims.

If you ask any professional in the field how to achieve a task and they come up with "It can't be done," then the patent for that achievement should be granted.

However, If you ask any professional in the field how to achieve a task and they come up with a solution and implement it,
and use it without a second thought thinking "This is too obvious to patent", not realizing that M$ had in fact patented the technology already, then perhaps the patent is over-broad and/or too obvious to patent.

Just because someone thought of something first doesn't make it patentable.

We're all building off of the ideas and culture of our forefathers. Voice = communication. Reproducing Sound = already invented. Telegraph = wired communication. Voice over wire = obvious. Patenting the fundamental process for converting sound into electrical signals and reproducing sound is so obvious that two "inventors" (aka implementors) separately arrived at the same solution... on the same day... there was a race? (This reeks of obviousness folks).

Everyone is standing on the shoulders of Giants saying: "I climbed highest! Give me the monopoly!"

I say: Screw that. I'll get to that same height eventually. Simply having enough money to help you achieve a goal first doesn't give you the right to a monopoly over the goal itself, but that's what our broken patent system does (due to uneducated unskilled non-professional patent examiners).

Also: If our patent system weren't such a joke we wouldn't have Swinging side to side instead of forward and back as a patent.

And if "obvious" patents could actually be revoked in a sane manor then the above swinging on a swing patent wouldn't still be a valid patent...
(They could have asked any child about this perpendicular swinging motion claim -- but they didn't because the patent system is a joke.)

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[man_of_mr_e]

However, If you ask any professional in the field how to achieve a task and they come up with a solution and implement it,
and use it without a second thought thinking "This is too obvious to patent", not realizing that M$ had in fact patented the technology already, then perhaps the patent is over-broad and/or too obvious to patent.

Or maybe you saw it in a microsoft product, maybe not even realizing it, and your subconscious now "invented" it.

It's hard to tell. It takes years to process and get a patent accepted. If you just implemented something you feel is obvious, and there is already a patent on it, that means the concept has been out there for at least 5 or 10 years, making your claims of obviousness biased.

The question is, did you invent it without any knowledge (consciously or subconsciously) of the other work.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[SharpFang]

No, this is not it.

TV has been invented. Now that is a very novel invention. Patent A. They worked out the apparatus and technique to broadcast a celluloid tape film over TV without use of a cinema screen and in perfect sync of frames. Patent B. But then someone patents broadcasting movies - "A method of showing cinema movies to the TV audience, patent C" that consists of "load up a tape that contains a movie into apparatus from patent B, proceed like in patent B". Most of data stored on tapes are movies. This is an obvious and simple application of patent B. It wasn't obvious how to broadcast movies at reasonable quality before Patent B was invented. But once it was - it became obvious. Using it to broadcast any kinds of media that are stored on tape is not patent-worthy.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[IgnoramusMaximus]

rsync does all that and more. In one of its modes, it takes a list of files and compares it against another on a server and then sends down "updated" (i.e. "newer versions") of files down to the client. The files can be programs and the versions can be simply dates of change or MD5 hashes or what not. The precise version tracking mechanism (of which there are literally an infinite number) is irrelevant.

Microsoft's update uses a small portion of that functionality, with a specific version tracking method. Rsync is far more universal and extensible (nearly any conceivable versioning method can be added to it in addition to the powerful built in ones) and thus a super-set of the Microsoft's "innovation".

On top of that rsync uses a sophisticated comparison mechanism designed to deal with hundreds of thousands of files, in contrast to the pitiful, horrendously inefficient and slow Microsoft update method that has hard times with a few hundreds of Windows DLLs, not to mention that rsync is capable of many modes of operation, such as bi-directional and on local file-systems.

There are of course other schemes, such as the RedHat Package Management or Debian's "apt-get/dpkg" systems which are designed to provide different (and far superior to the Microsoft's kludge "invention") functionality specifically designed to provide database functionality to program management (i.e. keeping track of each individual file in the system and a multitude of interdependencies of programs and their libraries) but they go far, far beyond the scope of the mundane, innovation repellent intellectual mediocrity that is Microsoft "update".

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[man_of_mr_e]

You're still not getting it. Syncing is not the same thing. Sending the actual files is not what the patent does.

The patent covers, sending a list of versions of files to a server, the server goes through it's archive and determines which files are out of date. Then it sends a list of those files, including summaries of what the files are, etc.. to the client so that this list can be displayed to the user, then that user can decide if he wants install any given update.

So, rather than syncing files, it actually says "Blah.dll" was updated in service pack 3, therefore to update that file you need to download and install service pack 3.

This is not the same thing. Inarguably, rsync does a lot more, it just doesn't do what the patent we're referring to does, and no matter how you wish to twist it, it's not the same thing.

It's like claiming that a semi truck is the same thing as a Jaguar XK8 because they can both get you from point a to b.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[daid303]

Lowest patent number in there is 5,644,737, highest is 7,251,653. Now I wrongfully assume that between those two numbers there are only software patents. which makes 1,606,917 patents. How in the hell are they making sure none of those patents cover the same thing? And how in the hell should I find out if something I made infringes any of those patents?

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[dwandy]

...idea...

just a quick nit-pick before we start, you are not supposed to be able to patent an idea: you are only supposed to be able to patent the implementation. Of course, the system is broken and they're happily patenting ideas, precluding anyone from implementing the same idea differently.

Prior to that, clearly nobody had implemented it.. so the idea couldn't have been that obvious.

So at the risk of approaching reductio ad absurdum, you're suggesting that because the Mayans didn't invent the drive-thru it's non-obvious?
They had no need for the drive-thru, nor all the necessary bits in between (cars for example) to make a drive-thru even a consideration.
All things are built on those that came before, and it's quite disingenuous to assert that if it's not been done before it's by definition non-obvious.

Obvious ideas have lots of simultaneous prior art because, well, they're obvious..

The telephone and radio are two great examples where (at least) two people "invented" the same thing at the same time. Are/were these obvious by your definition? And if not, why should only one person get the patent when clearly multiple people worked on it and solved the problems, often in the exact same way simultaneously and independently?

The patent system is badly broken. It's used chiefly to exclude new competition (incumbents cross-license, MAD-style) or by patent trolls extracting a rent from the economy without contributing anything back.
From all the economics I've read on the subject, patents are at best economically break-even but realistically they are a net cost/loss and should be abolished. Unfortunately you can buy a lot of laws with monopoly rents and for some reason we think that Big Companies are a desirable goal, so I don't see patents going away any time soon. The best we can hope for is some much needed reform. One such much needed element is the "independent invention" defense. That would take the teeth out of a lot of these patents and allow real competition to flourish.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[boxwood]

thats bullshit. Programmers spend a good amount of their time writing code that is the first do something in a specific area. Because if someone else had already done it before then we'd just use the software someone else already wrote for that task.

Oh look I just "invented" using recursion to descend down a tree of XML nodes to find a certain condition. Is that patented? Maybe it is, but it shouldn't be. I've never seen this done before but its obvious to any decent programmer that when dealing with data in a tree structure, you use recursion. But when they first came out with XML someone had to be the first to do this. But its completely obvious. Its just applying an algorithm thats in every CS textbook to a new technology.

The patent in question? If I didn't have javascript available on the browser and someone told me they wanted a menu on the webpage I'd probably sit down and write some code that would be in violation of the patent. Nowadays I'd do the menu in javascript, possibly using ajax (depending on how complicated the menu had to be). Ohhhh using ajax for a menu... is that patented yet? In five seconds of thinking about implementing menus on a webpage I thought of that one. But if no one's done it before then its not obvious!

Dude, you can't argue this isn't obvious. The menu is the most common UI element out there. When they added the applet tag to html, its not very innovative to say "hey lets use the applet funtionality to implement a menu!" Old concept applied to new technology is obvious.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[IgnoramusMaximus]

You're still not getting it. Syncing is not the same thing. Sending the actual files is not what the patent does.

Oh for Pete's sake, how do you suppose the "syncing" occurs? By telepathy? Or perhaps "actual files" are sent from the rsync server to the rsync client?

The patent covers, sending a list of versions of files to a server, the server goes through it's archive and determines which files are out of date. Then it sends a list of those files, including summaries of what the files are, etc.. to the client so that this list can be displayed to the user, then that user can decide if he wants install any given update.

And keep telling you that this is a subset of a functionality of any rsync type utility. rsync client sends a list of versions of files to the server, the server compares the version to its archive and determines which are "out of date" (or simply different, depending on options). Then it sends the list of those files to the client and the user (if he chose that option at invocation) gets to decide if he wants to install the "updates", then the client downloads them and "installs" them. Of course rsync, unlike the Microsoft screwball hack, can do far more then just that.

So, rather than syncing files, it actually says "Blah.dll" was updated in service pack 3, therefore to update that file you need to download and install service pack 3.

And the end result is what exactly? The file "blah.dll" ends up "synced" to the Microsoft update server, does it not? Or are you trying to insinuate that doing such trivial and obvious things like dividing the rsync server archive into sub-directories (and calling each a "service pack" or "hot fix" or what not) is somehow a cosmic break-through that requires 70 year patent protection? Not to mention that rsync would actually save on bandwidth by only syncing files that are different within each "service pack" as opposed to the mental retardation of the Microsoft "method" that requires complete downloads for each "hot fix".

This is not the same thing. Inarguably, rsync does a lot more, it just doesn't do what the patent we're referring to does, and no matter how you wish to twist it, it's not the same thing.

No two software applications, barring actual bit-for-bit copies are "the same thing". The point however is that the bullshit patent covers a sub-set of functionality of utilities made long before Microsoft ever heard of "online updates".

And as to wishful thinking, it is the Microsoft lawyers and lobbyists who wish that their childish "innovations" somehow entitle them to "ownership" of obvious ideas.

It's like claiming that a semi truck is the same thing as a Jaguar XK8 because they can both get you from point a to b.

Bullshit. Its like claiming that a semi-trailer truck is a super-set of a 3-wheeled motorbike "truck" conversion made by a bunch of incompetent mechanics whose daddy lawyers then run to the patent office and file patents that cover all trucks, including all models and makes of the aforementioned semi-trailer types.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[Theaetetus]

just a quick nit-pick before we start, you are not supposed to be able to patent an idea: you are only supposed to be able to patent the implementation.

That's not true. The patent protects the idea. I believe - but correct me if I'm wrong - that the distinction you're making between "idea" and "implementation" is that you're saying the idea is a general concept while the implementation is a specific way of doing something or a specific machine. If so, this is an incorrect distinction. Both are ideas, one is simply more general than the other.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[Theaetetus]

Lowest patent number in there is 5,644,737, highest is 7,251,653. Now I wrongfully assume that between those two numbers there are only software patents. which makes 1,606,917 patents.

Yeah, that's pretty wrong. Patent numbers are on all patents - they don't have different numbering schemes for different areas.

How in the hell are they making sure none of those patents cover the same thing? And how in the hell should I find out if something I made infringes any of those patents?

Google Patents, Patentstorm, or even the USPTO's own search tool at http://patft.uspto.gov/.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[Theaetetus]

Some of the patents do have claims are more specific than the titles would lead you to suspect, but some of them actually aren't much more specific... For reference, this is Claim 1 in its entirety:

In a computer system having a first computer in communication with a remote second computer, the second computer having access to a database identifying software remotely available to the first computer, wherein at least one item in the database identifies software installable on the first computer, a computer implemented method for identifying computer software available for installation on the first computer, the method comprising, at the second computer:

retrieving from the first computer to the second computer an inventory identifying at least certain computer software installed on the first computer;

comparing the inventory of computer software with the database to identify computer software available to the first computer and not installed on the first computer;

preparing for presentation at the first computer software information indicating software available to the first computer and not installed on the first computer; and

sending the software information to the first computer, said information including an alert about a defect in software on the first computer correctable by software available to the first computer and not installed thereon.

And the title of the '077 patent, for reference, is "Method and system for identifying and obtaining computer software from a remote computer". I'd say that that claim is a LOT more specific than that title. For reference, a hypothetical claim that would be equally specific would be:
1. A method, comprising: identifying computer software from a remote computer; and obtaining said computer software from the remote computer.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[Theaetetus]

My comment wasn't a prior-art comment, but an obviousness comment. It's sending a list of software, and getting back a list of updates, which can then be installed. I have trouble believing that someone "skilled in the art" as of 1995 would have considered that to be an actual invention, as opposed to an obvious and straightforward application of existing technology.

But the burden is on you (or the person seeking to invalidate the patent) to prove that it was obvious, back in 1995. You can't just say, "duh, of course it's obvious!" because it's 15 years later and hindsight is always 20/20.
To show an invention is obvious, you don't have to find a single piece of art that anticipates it, but can find a combination of prior art that inherently or expressly teaches or suggests every element. So, if the claim is "A+B+C+D" and you can find art that says "A" and other art that says "B+D" and still other art that says "C" and it would be reasonable to combine them, then you can show obviousness. But you have to use references from 1995 or earlier.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[VortexCortex]

However, If you ask any professional in the field how to achieve a task and they come up with a solution and implement it,
and use it without a second thought thinking "This is too obvious to patent", not realizing that M$ had in fact patented the technology already, then perhaps the patent is over-broad and/or too obvious to patent.

Or maybe you saw it in a microsoft product, maybe not even realizing it, and your subconscious now "invented" it.

It's hard to tell. It takes years to process and get a patent accepted. If you just implemented something you feel is obvious, and there is already a patent on it, that means the concept has been out there for at least 5 or 10 years, making your claims of obviousness biased.

The question is, did you invent it without any knowledge (consciously or subconsciously) of the other work.

Or maybe I was using a Macintosh and Gem Desktop before I had ever seen MSWindows (All of which have menus).

Perhaps I had already been programming pages on our Intranet using applets.

Perhaps when someone said: Hey, can we have a menu for those choices? I went right ahead and unknowingly violated Mircosoft's patent because it was obvious.

There's a damn good chance that any skilled individual (knowing how to utilize applets and HTML) when asked how to create a menu on a web page will tell you -- "Hmm... we could use an Applet!" That's obvious for you, and obviousness invalidates patent claims.

I think that the most interesting points I'm taking away from this conversation are:

1) You were not skilled in the art at the time of the patent filing (I doubt you have ever used HTML and <applet> yourself) and are therefore unqualified to make the obviousness distinction (just like the patent examiners that granted the bogus patent).

2) Coders should be the ones granting patents for code. Mechanical engineers should be granting mechanical patents, and Doctors medical patents. Not some random Joe with an inkling of interest in the area who happens to be working at UPTSO.

3) The "secrecy" granted patent applications is to blame. Date and time of patent application should be enough to prove a patent's application time -- which can be used as a selection factor among similar patent applications. One or more individuals skilled in the art of the components of the patent should be consulted to determine obviousness of said patent. Free consultation is available via the Internet for many technology claims if only the initial secrecy was abolished.

4) It's much too expensive to make a counter-claim of obviousness against any patent for the ordinarily skilled in the art folk to deal with these bad patents after the fact, so they should be consulted prior to granting a patent.

5) I should patent the above method and implementation of inexpensive determination of a patent's obviousness because of only one of the following:
        A) I'm a fnck!ng Genius! (Geniuses are better than most people, they can earn monopolies.)
        B) The UPTSO is filled with morons that don't even read the applications (see: swinging on a swing patent).
              or
        C) I'm the first person to ever think of this, therefore it must be non-obvious!

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[Todd Knarr]

No, not all ideas are obvious. There are plenty of ideas where, given the body of knowledge available in the art, a person of ordinary skill won't know how to make the jump from that to the solution. Those are the patentable ideas. There is a line, it merely isn't drawn at zero. It used to be, the courts considered the PHOSitA to be a mindless drone who could only do exactly what'd been previously taught exactly the way it was taught. The Supreme Court merely moved the line, saying the courts had to assume the PHOSitA had the ordinary skill and creativity you'd expect from a skilled practitioner. Patents aren't supposed to reward that, they're supposed to reward the extraordinary skill and creativity needed to come up with something an ordinary practitioner wouldn't think of.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[Theaetetus]

Yes and no. More specific claims are built upon less specific claims. The more general the claim, the more likely the claim is to not withstand a validity test.

So while claim 1 may not be valid as a patentable item, when claim 13 is based upon claim 12, based up upon 11, etc.. is.

For example, if you created a new mousetrap, and wanted to patent it, your claim 1 would probably sound a lot like every other mousetrap in existence, but your final claim would not.

1) We almost never write chains of claims that long... claim 11 may depend on claim 1, but so might claim 12, and claim 13. It's rare you go more than two or three layers deep, simply because dependent claims are a way of claiming alternate embodiments.
2) When we write the application, the independent claims do start out pretty broad, but by the time the patent issues, we've amended such that they are patentable. You wouldn't get a patent where claim 1 sounded like every other mousetrap in existence, even if you wrote it that way originally.
3) Finally, when you said earlier "The patent must take all claims into account, not just the first one. It's patenting everything together, not each indidvidually," this is incorrect. Each claim is its own separate invention, and a suit for patent infringement will name specific claims that are allegedly infringed. The better way to say what you meant was that each dependent claim must be read along with the material it depends upon, so, given the following:
1. A method, comprising A+B+C+D
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising E
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising F
Claim 2 would be read as a method comprising A+B+C+D+E and claim 3 would be read as a method comprising A+B+C+D+F. But I just claimed three inventions, not one.

/I am a patent agent. I am not your patent agent. This is not legal advice.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[Todd Knarr]

Actually, if you read the case law patents aren't supposed to protect ideas, they're supposed to protect exactly implementations. Eg., you can't patent the idea of smelting iron into steel, you can patent a specific method of doing that. And if someone implements the idea of smelting in a different way using a different method, you don't get to touch them.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[Theaetetus]

Actually, if you read the case law patents aren't supposed to protect ideas, they're supposed to protect exactly implementations. Eg., you can't patent the idea of smelting iron into steel, you can patent a specific method of doing that. And if someone implements the idea of smelting in a different way using a different method, you don't get to touch them.

Go back and read my post. They're both ideas. The only distinction is that one is broader than the other.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[man_of_mr_e]

Patents don't protect *ONLY* an idea. You can't have an implementation without the idea. So to have an innovative invention, you must have an innovative idea. Simply having an idea is not enough, but the idea is a requirement.

They didn't invent the drive-thru until the 60's or 70's, despite having cars and previoiusly thought of drive-ins.

The drive-thru couldn't have been obvious, or people would have been doing it since the invention of cars.

Regarding the telephone, there's much debate of whether it was simultaneously invented or whether it was stolen by bell, given that both showed virtually identical prototypes. Also, the telephone was derived from the telegraph, so it was a derivitive work.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[man_of_mr_e]

thats bullshit. Programmers spend a good amount of their time writing code that is the first do something in a specific area. Because if someone else had already done it before then we'd just use the software someone else already wrote for that task.

Have you never heard of Not invented here syndrome? It's chronic in software developers. The reasons are many, but often the reasoning is "Well, that other version doesn't do what I need in exactly the way I need it" or "I don't want to pay a royalty for that" or "I can do it better/faster/cheaper".

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[ckaminski]

And the beauty of this is that Tridge could have gotten a patent on rsync as a superset of the Windows update functionality, claiming Microsoft's prior art, licensed it to SF.com, and then Microsoft would have to STFU and dance.

Remember, you can patent an improvement to ANYONE's patent, and then license it for free to the world.

Re:Patent titles in the summary are meaningless

[man_of_mr_e]

I agree, my point would be better phrased as you say.

However, my point was just because claim 1 is very general and may not stand up to a patent validity test, doesn't mean the entire patent is invalid.

It also doesn't mean that because my claim 1 has a vague claim that you are barred from implementing it, because if the claim is sufficiently vague, it's also sufficiently difficult to protect.

Hmm this patent seems way too bogus

[I!heartU]

http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT7251653 From what I can derive from the claims. They patented database stored views? They do have the magic wort Piviot in there.. whatever that means. All I can derive from the pivot table is, its another table defined by table data. Not like every database in existence is implemented this way already.

wow, these patents are bad

[yyxx]

Look them up: these patents are absolutely awful; they make the FAT patent look innovative by comparison.

Who to root for?

[Anonymous Coward]

One gang of vertically integrated enterprise shovelware merchants is squaring off against another - who to root for?

Re:Who to root for?

[tehcyder]

On slashdot if it's x versus Microsoft you root for x, in the same way that if it's y versus Apple you root for Apple.

Patent Armageddon?

[recoiledsnake]

First Apple turns patent troll on HTC, now it's MSFT's turn? I thought these two were kinda well behaved and used patents only as a defensive measure, guess I was wrong.

Re:Patent Armageddon?

[Anonymous Coward]

When have either of the two been well behaved? I must have missed that bit.

Re:Patent Armageddon?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I thought these two were kinda well behaved and used patents only as a defensive measure, guess I was wrong."

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAAaaaaahh.. Thanks for the nice laugh ;-) You actually BELIEVED that??

Re:Patent Armageddon?

[ultranova]

They are using patents as a defensive measure; namely, as a defense against being outcompeted by superior products.

And Microsoft has never been well-behaved, they earned their reputation as the Mordor of computing.

Re:Patent Armageddon?

[NickFortune]

I thought these two were kinda well behaved and used patents only as a defensive measure, guess I was wrong.

That's a good point. Wasn't it only yesterday that we had a half dozen MS apologists stepping forward to explain how Microsoft only ever used Patents defensively and would never ever ever use them offensively?

Everyone who made that claim, go stand at the back of the class. You know who you are.

Re:Patent Armageddon?

[steelfood]

Microsoft and Apple are Mordor and Orthanc respectively.

Now we're just waiting on the Numenoreans of the White City and the riders of Rohan to respond.

Bill Gates

[Enderandrew]

I remember a few years back when Bill Gates said that Microsoft had been sued over patents, but never sued anyone else. They insisted that like IBM and other big companies, they had massive patent portfolios just to protect themselves. But then they sued TomTom over FAT patents and now this. What happened to Microsoft doesn't believe in suing over patents? Is this indicative of Gates handing the reigns over to Ballmer, the guy who threatened to sue anyone running Linux?

Re:Bill Gates

[yuhong]

Yea, I know. In fact, I still remember the Amazon 1-Click patent disaster, where something similar happened, and it was covered on Slashdot over the years, and I always have wondered why too.

Re:Bill Gates

[man_of_mr_e]

Microsoft sued TomTom over a range of patents, one of which was the FAT patent. It wasn't specifically about the FAT patent, and in reality, TomTom had threatened MS with patent suits first. Microsoft responded to the threats by actually filing a suit, effectively calling their bluff when they settled so fast after a feeble attempt to modify their original threatened suit to be a counter-suit. TomTom was no saint and had sued a half dozen other companies previously after shakedown attempts. They chose the wrong victim when they went after Microsoft.

This is, to my mind, the first time Microsoft has ever filed a truly offensive (as in offense, not offending) patent lawsuit. I have to think there's more to the story here than meets the eye. Microsoft is seeking injunctive relief, not damages. As such, they're not using this as a revenue model.

Re:Bill Gates

[Anonymous Coward]

TomTom actually threatened MS first, MS's suit realistically could be considered a defensive use of patents, TomTom were the bad guys.

Re:Bill Gates

[tokul]

As such, they're not using this as a revenue model.

They are using it to suppress competitor. It is still about revenue.

Re:Bill Gates

[RighteousMeh]

This is, to my mind, the first time Microsoft has ever filed a truly offensive (as in offense, not offending) patent lawsuit.

It might be, but it isn't the first time they use patents to threaten competition. I guess they just found someone who didn't give in to the threat of fighting Microsofts vast lawyer army. Here's an example of what Microsoft has actually done (or tried to do) to its competition with patents: http://jonathanischwartz.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/good-artists-copy-great-artists-steal/

Re:Bill Gates

[man_of_mr_e]

You really don't understand what that meeting was about. Microsoft was most likely trying to get a cross licensing deal, and if you read between the lines, that's most likely exactly what happened.

Microsoft has been doing that for years, going to companies and saying "You violate our patents, what have you got for us" and the answer is usually "Well, how about we give you the right to use our patents, you give us the right to use yours", shake hands and walk away.

Re:Bill Gates

[Hurricane78]

And you expected WHAT from Microsoft?

1. Those who don’t remember history, are doomed to repeat it.
2. Once a liar, always a liar.

Re:Bill Gates

[Enderandrew]

What history?

Are you referring to the entire company history of Microsoft in which they never sued anyone over patents from 1975 to 2009?

That is why I've suggested this seems to be a newer trend.

Re:Bill Gates

[tepples]

Microsoft has been doing that for years, going to companies and saying "You violate our patents, what have you got for us" and the answer is usually "Well, how about we give you the right to use our patents, you give us the right to use yours"

So then Microsoft says "You happen not to own any patents that interest us. We're suing anyway." How should one respond to that?

Re:Bill Gates

[man_of_mr_e]

How about when the aliens land and say "Please die", how should you respond to that?

What if's are pointless.

Re:Bill Gates

[shutdown -p now]

Microsoft has been doing that for years, going to companies and saying "You violate our patents, what have you got for us" and the answer is usually "Well, how about we give you the right to use our patents, you give us the right to use yours", shake hands and walk away.

My impression was that it's the norm in the industry as a whole, not just MS.

About that menu...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to pick sides but the salesforce.com menu looks nearly the same as microsoft.com's. Even the page is structured the same way.
Top-level menu is horizontal, hovering pops up a box beneath; the sub-menu titles are bold, the items are stacked beneath; everything's arranged into columns. When I look at it I actually think "this looks like Microsoft's".

(Yes, I know there are probably other sites like this. Question is: are they infringing on the (admittedly stupid) patent too?)

East Texas

[Fnord666]

CNET is reporting that Microsoft is suing Salesforce.com in Seattle federal court,...

A software patent trial outside of East Texas? How will the court system ever know how to handle such a thing?

Re:East Texas

[rahvin112]

If you have a public company with a massive workforce and huge PR campaigns that pretty much everyone from the entire metropolitan area knows someone who works for them personally you hold your lawsuits in the city because of the home court advantage. It would be silly for MS to sue anyone outside the Seattle metro area because of the effect being a massive local employer will have on the Jury. It'll be damn near impossible for salesforce to reject every Juror that has a direct family connection to MS and in a case where the decision is preponderance of the evidence rather than unanimous the effect of those connections could be the difference between winning and losing. Picking Seattle could also force salesforce to settle rather than risk a trial in MS's home court.

Re:East Texas

[man_of_mr_e]

I think they're depending on a large bias in the jury pool towards Microsoft, given that a large percentage of the population depends on them either directly or indirectly.

Is this defensive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't people usually pop up in the Microsoft stories to tell us that "at least Microsoft only uses its software patents for defense" or some such thing?

Because I'm pretty sure this is a big counter-example...

Re:Is this defensive?

[ClosedSource]

No, they say that about IBM (which is even more ludicrous)

Re:Is this defensive?

[Your.Master]

They do tend to say it about Microsoft, because I think this is the fourth exception ever, and I think at least some of the previous exceptions were not software patents (?). Also, salesforce.com isn't exactly a small, scrappy garage business just trying to break into the field. For most of their history (~35 years), it had simply never happened.

Still, this definitely is a great way to lose some of the remaining little drops of sympathy in the vast desert that is slashdot's favour for Microsoft.

I refuse to wade through the legalese to figure out if I think any of these patents have merit (I'm not necessarily sold on the idea that software patents are a bad idea, though I'm also not sure that they're a good idea; the arguments I usually see on both sides drift into topics I don't care about).

Wait, Seattle? Not Texas?

[Nyder]

Guess I better go register to vote so I can hopefully get jury duty for this. lol

Hahaha I've got them

[presidenteloco]

Microsoft is screwed.

I have a patent (#666666) on applying basic logic and common sense, with a smattering of visual composition intuition, to any problem at hand.

You've been punk'd

Re:Hahaha I've got them

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is screwed.

I have a patent (#666666) on applying basic logic and common sense, with a smattering of visual composition intuition, to any problem at hand.

You've been punk'd

Microsoft has never infringed on your patent

No you haven't

[LukeWebber]

Nope. No way have Microsoft ever applied common sense. You'll never make money from that patent.

They'll be fine

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think they have anything to worry about, at all.

I think I might care no its just gas

[skyggen]

Did Microsoft hire everyone SCO had to lay off?

Ms is so made of love !!!

[unity100]

im calling for ANY possible (if there can be any left) microsoft boys to defend this action of ms. suing for providing 'an embedded menu in a web page'.

Re:Ms is so made of love !!!

[shutdown -p now]

im calling for ANY possible (if there can be any left) microsoft boys to defend this action of ms. suing for providing 'an embedded menu in a web page'./quote.

It was a Flash menu. ~

The mousetrap is the END RESULT

[Anonymous Coward]

The mousetrap is the END RESULT. You patent the END RESULT not the method of reducing vermin by catching them. That copyright covers the end result of a software patent shows that software patents are null and void.

Re:The mousetrap is the END RESULT

[HeronBlademaster]

Nope, it's not the fact that you caught a mouse that's patented, it's the method you used to do it.

In other words, "a mousetrap" is not patented; what is patented is "a method to catch a mouse by baiting it into stepping on a switch releasing a spring-loaded lever which traps or kills the mouse". Or "a method to catch a mouse by baiting it through a one-way door, trapping it in a confined space until it dies". There are probably a dozen more methods to catch mice that are all patented by different people.

I stand by my original statement - it's the method that's patented, not the end result.

That's what rsynch DOES

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what rsynch DOES. It checks to see what needs to be updated by sending a list of what's installed etc. The only difference is what happens after it decides what to do with the information on what needs updating.

Re:That's what rsynch DOES

[man_of_mr_e]

And that difference is the basis for the patent. You seem to be glossing over that. "Well, the only difference is everything".

Yes, I get it. You love rsynch, it does all kinds of neat stuff. I agree. What it does NOT do is what the patent covers.

"Boys"

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny choice of words, since I've found the biggest % of females employees in Microsoft than any other software companies I worked for. And in LCA, they are pretty much all girls.

Re:"Boys"

[unity100]

boy, as in fanboi

"What if" case: Cars

[Anonymous Coward]

The classic analogue. If Microsoft started manufacturing cars now, within few years they would sue all the other car manufacturers for patent infringements like "using a wheel for steering" or "moving a landbased vehicle on four rolling tyres".

"it's very obscure"

[Anonymous Coward]

"it's very obscure" means it existed. Yet earlier you said it didn't exist. So which is it? Did you find it and it was obscure or did you not find it and you're lying this time?

Also, if someone invented it first, how can it be innovative to do it second (8 years later)?

It could be both

[Joce640k]

Assuming Microsoft has some stupid patent on a line of that code, they can sue for whichever they think is more likely to stick.

Terrorist mafia countries

[Hurricane78]

From now on I declare every country that allows patents like

system and method for providing and displaying a Web page having an embedded menu

a terrorist and mafia state. Get out there while you still can... and before we nuke the place. ;)

Are there even websites out there who don’t have an embedded menu? Hell, everything that offers a choice, can be seen as a menu.

A smart move by MS

[walterbyrd]

Not just this latest bogo lawsuit, but msft's overall strategy. I think msft is smart to become a litigation company, as opposed to a company that actually producing anything.

Bottom line, msft is in business to increase it's value to shareholders. In the US the ROI from litigation is much better than the ROI from being productive.

What is the point of being a true "innovator and leader?" It is far more profitable to simply acquire a boatload of patents, and skim profits from the true innovators (aka suckers).

Aside from patent trolling, msft seems to be investing in other activities that also have a superior ROI, such as buying political influence, buying media influence, and astroturfing.

Although they may offer some advantages, msft's latest products are hardly compelling, and I suspect that real sales have been disappointing. Creating products is expensive and risky. I'm sure that patent trolling is far more lucrative.

Innovative software

[Joce640k]

There's (figuratively) tons of software things which should be patented because they require extremely clever thinking and/or a lot of work to design and get working. There are things out there that the average programmer would *NEVER* come up with, eg. the BWT transform used for bzip compression.

OTOH that's only a tiny fraction of software patents. Most of it is pure junk

Maybe there's another reason....

[Ensign_Expendable]

Why Microsoft is angry. http://valleywag.gawker.com/384221/salesforce-to-become-an-all+mac-shop Revenge is a dish best served cold. (Or something like that.)

Those who can compete, do...

[QuietLagoon]

Those who cannot compete, sue.

Re:Those who can compete, do...

[BSDetector]

You must mean Apple then too! Right???

Re:Those who can compete, do...

[QuietLagoon]

In some respects, yes. However, lately Apple is getting sued more than they are suing.

Re:Those who can compete, do...

[BSDetector]

Poor Apple! BOO HOO! What comes around - goes around!

Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe this has something to do with the 10mil MS just lost themselves? Pot meet kettle.....

I love this patent for "embedded menus"

[hkgroove]

I would say a good 60% of high-content sites have used some form of this over the years - many now with just CSS and little-to-no JavaScript. Initially invented by SGI and involves a java applet... 14 years ago.

Patent 5,742,768

I have no faith in the judicial system when it comes to understanding patents and why MS has never gone after another rival who uses these and expect them to rule in favor of MS.

Lest We Forget...

[BSDetector]

http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/02/the-complaint-apples-patent-lawsuit-against-htc-is-all-about-android/

Ballmer - King of the Nazgûl

[RockDoctor]

So ... Bill Gates as Sauron and ... home many senior VPs of This'n'That are there at MS? If it's nine, I'm going to start to feel my blood run cold whenever Steve Ballmer lifts a chair.

Does Linus get an aching pain in his shoulder whenever Ballmer flies nearby?