Slashdot Mirror
EFF, Apache Side With Microsoft In i4i Patent Case
msmoriarty writes "Looks like Microsoft has gained some unlikely allies in its ongoing (and losing) i4i XML patent dispute: the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Apache Software Foundation. The reason? Microsoft has decided the strategy for its Supreme Court appeal will be to argue that the standards of proof in patent cases are too high — this from a company that has thousands of patents it regularly defends. The EFF explains in a blog post why it decided to file the 'friend of the court' brief on Microsoft's side."
Electric Frontier Foundation. Man, you're old-school.
Don't get me wrong, I normally am on the EFF side of things, but if you write this: Today EFF, joined by Public Knowledge, the Computer & Communications Industry Association and the Apache Software Foundation, filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case in which Microsoft is trying to make it easier to invalidate an issued U.S. patent. Well... than you did not get it and you lack any connection to the real world. And despite this prob being a bit of 'fun'... rest assure, at MS they take this very serious.
It's the end of days!
...is my friend.
Rule 29: The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less.
________
Entranced by anime since late summer 2001 and loving it ^_^
Microsoft has decided the strategy for its Supreme Court appeal will be to argue that the standards of proof in patent cases are too high — this from a company that has thousands of patents it regularly defends.
Msmoriarty makes a logical leap here without providing any supporting evidence. Of course Microsoft defends its patents - given the current legal landscape, any business that doesn't do so is just plain stupid. It doesn't matter what they think the law should be; they have to behave according to how the law currently exists.
The general principle is somewhat similar to how Apple sold DRM-encumbered music files for a while, even while publicly advocating for the end of DRM. Of course in that case it wasn't a matter of law; it was a matter of the existing policies at the companies who held the rights to the music. Apple did what it had to do from a business perspective even though it wanted the circumstances changed.
Note that this doesn't prove that Microsoft believes patent law needs to be changed, either. We don't really know either way, and for msmoriarty to assume otherwise is without basis. Unless Microsoft makes a public declaration one way or the other, this simply amounts to a legal tactic - nothing more.
#DeleteChrome
Taking something to the US Supreme Court is a big-assed wager.
Sometimes, you get what you want - say, software patents being invalidated (or at least weakened to the point of near-uselessness). This would be a very good thing.
However - any outcome other than what you desired will either make it im-fucking-possible to change later. For instance, a bad outcome would be for software patents to not only get validated, but strengthened to the point where any patent holder (no matter how specious the patent), can promptly send any company they want straight into fiscal hell. Like today, only 10x as worse.
Of course, like the roulette players who only bet on red or black, but the ball lands on "00"? Sometimes, the result is something totally unexpected, confusing as hell, angers both sides, and only ends up making things more complex and ugly all at once.
Seriously? I'd like to see software patents die and all, but there had better be one HELL of a strong case, aligned just right in circumstance, before anyone starts shoving for a USSC hearing on the matter. Thsi case, in which both parties have every interest towards seeing software patents stay alive and healthy? This case damned sure ain't it. The EFF would've been better served leaving Microsoft to choke on its own blood.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
So is the EFF filing an amicus curiae or an amicus diabolus brief?
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
For once I hope Microsoft wins a legal battle, and that's the last thing I would ever expect to feel. I must be going crazy or something. Must be spending too much time on these software projects.
Although if I were Microsoft at this moment, I'd be paying the lawyers overtime to find out why EFF thinks overturning this patent ruling is a good thing. Last I heard EFF wasn't too big on patents and they're not altogether retarded, so... anyway, if I were a Microsoft lawyer I'd be worried enough to make sure I knew where all the chairs were...
Being defended by the ACLU. Sure, it's even more involvement from two completely disparate allies but it struck me as truthful. Sometimes you end up making alliances with your next to worst enemy, so you can make the world more free for us all.
Indeed, I also believe it is about integrity. Defending your principles though it benefits your enemies, is in my opinion highly admirable.
Not just on the part of the EFF and Apache Foundation -- the same thing can be said for Microsoft as well. They must know that if their motion is successful, it helps their competitors just as much as it helps them -- but they have decided to proceed regardless.
Amen, man. I'm a first year law student. NOBODY says they want to be a criminal defense attorney.
Every time we hear a speaker talking about a criminal case, they say the same thing: "Well, I didn't want to be a criminal defense attorney, but then..."
Kinda funny how jaded class can make a person, even only 7 weeks in.
The Free Software community is not the Anti-Microsoft club; it is the Anti-Stupid-Restrictions club. If Microsoft is fighting a stupid patent, they deserve support, no matter how deliciously karmic it is.
Defending your principles though it benefits your enemies, is in my opinion highly admirable.
If you don't defend your principles unto death (or similar) they aren't principles, they're just things you think are good ideas.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Just because you're making doesn't stop you trolling. MS aren't really making a product. They're trying to license OTHER PEOPLE to make a product.
Go ahead: try and buy a Microsoft-made W7 mobile phone.
MS may not be trolling (I think they're FUDDING myself, rather than trolling, but the difference in intent is very similar) but their product isn't why they aren't trolling, dumbass.
...is this (lowering the bar) really the goal, ie lowering the bar or actually getting rid of software patents? To me, 'lowering the bar' says that software patents are valid, because we have 'agreement' as to what constitutes a line in the sand for good/bad patents. Somethings rotten in Denmark (& elsewhere). I think lowering the bar IS what M$ is really after.
A man spends the first half of his life accumulating stuff, the second trying to get rid of it all.
Duels were fought over matters of principle. Think about it, people were willing to risk death over what they believed was right!
MOMMY! The game is too hard for me to win! Make it easier pl0x!!
Boredom is bliss.
There are some differences with this case compared to a basic patent troll case.
First off, i4i actually had a product that was shipping, though in a targeted market. A patent troll is an organization that collects patents for the sole purpose of suing other organizations. The lawsuits themselves become the revenue model.
Second off, i4i tried to work with MS for a period of time prior to MS breaking off communications with i4i and building their own system. This makes this whole thing a little more than a basic patent violation, but it moves into a misappropriation of trade secrets; and who knows how much actual code was misappropriated.
The original purpose of the patent system was to protect the small inventor from having their inventions from being exploited by large companies that have the finances to saturate the market and lock that inventor out of being able to benefit from the invention. In a lot of ways, this has been usurped by large companies cross licensing to each other and largely keeping themselves out of any significant patent disputes, as well as using the litigation system as a way to bankrupt inventors that don't have the capital resources forcing them to often just give up their patents for almost nothing. (NOTE: this comment is regardless of what a person thinks of software patents specifically, it is just the intent of the patent system in general).
What MS did was extremely unethical, not because they violated a patent, but they used a previous business relationship to do so. That on its own deserves severe penalties.
PS. As for my personal feeling about software patents, I am not against them per se, however because of the nature of the software industry, I agree that the system has gotten out of hand with the majority of patents being issued that should not have been issued. Maybe a possible suggestion to fixing the situation would be to have variable length patents. The 17 year patent was probably applicable 200 years ago, however today it is not all that useful for software patents where the cost of entry into a market isn't all that high. Something like a mechanical patent would remain at 17 years, products that have a huge cost/time of entry such as pharma (which may take 15 to 20 years just to get onto the market) could be longer, and software might get say a 3 to 5 years of protection. With that shorter time period, the inventing company gets the lead time to market the product, but not so long that it becomes irrelevant long before the patent expires (GIF was on its way out before the patent expired for example). Another issue with the GIF patent specifically is that the LZW patent was a component of a larger patent. A patent should be treated as a unit, and not be allowed to be broken down.
The action is not a direct dialog with the respondent and it has no hope of success with the target. It's an action to elicit motion from an outside audience. They're not trolling Moto here, they're trolling everybody else. If Microsoft gets other licensees for their IP, or some traction with WP7, the bait is took. Maybe "Chumming" is a better word than trolling, but trolling is a better understood symbol.
Microsoft has no hope of successfully suing Motorola over cellular software patents. They have to know that. Motorola invented the cellular phone. Moto has tens of thousands of patents in the field, and emerging technologies Microsoft must have to survive, and billions of dollars. Moto has more engineers who actually invent things than Microsoft has lawyers who patent obvious implementations of others' inventions, but Moto has hundreds of lawyers too. Moto has honest partners who need them to continue to invent things, notably the US Department of Defense and NASA. Microsoft might as well sue Intel for all the good this will do them.
So yeah, it's a troll in that the lawsuit is a direct statement that is intended not to convice the direct counterparty, but in the hope of eliciting a response from the audience - much like a trolling lure isn't to feed a specific fish. It's a simulation of bait to catch all of the fish that might bite. Microsoft's not going to like the response. They've got a great white shark on and they're going to need a bigger boat. But fine, that's part of the game. It's scary only in the implication that Microsoft would dare to do such a thing for short term gains when it's obviously a suicidal move in the longer term. I want to see this play out, but it will be fifteen years before we really know what happened here.
Regrettably when Microsoft agrees to settle the issue we're not going to know how much they paid for this misstep because that's not how such things are done. The settlement is always secret, and Moto has too much class to rub their nose in it.
The thing is, repairing this relationship is going to cost more than money and it won't be over when the settlement is made. The executives may come to a legal settlement, but the people who actually make stuff at Moto are now energized with the idea that Microsoft just called them a bunch of thieving bastards. I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of that energy. Those guys know stuff. Deep stuff. They know how to invent things, and I think the things that are hurtful to Microsoft will be on their minds for many years no matter what the folks in suits do.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I never expected to see a day when the EFF would argue in court on Microsoft's behalf. Patent litigation certainly creates strange bedfellows. I'm not sure the Court will go for it, though. The entire patent system is weighted in favor of encouraging the issuance of patents -- which the "clear and convincing" standard is meant to facilitate, and which the EFF obviously wants to debilitate by replacing it with a "preponderance" standard. Odds are that, if Microsoft did win this round, it would later regret it, as soon as it became a plaintiff in some other big-ticket patent enforcement suit.