Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Word Patent Case Going To Supreme Court
jfruhlinger writes "Microsoft may have had to change Word after being found guilty of violating a Canadian company's patents, but it's still resisting paying for damages — and is taking the fight to the US Supreme Court. If you can't stand either MS or patents, who do you root for here?"
I hope they lose BIG. This might encourage them to think that other patents they violated (being evil, see!) will also be punished with huge fines, which means the logical thing for MS to do is to start opposing software patents altogether.
If you can't stand either MS or patents, who do you root for here?"
The only side certain to win this.
You can hope the patent and patents like it get invalidated, by the way. The patent can get invalidated with Microsoft still being liable.
There are outcomes that satisfy anyone, unless you hate lawyers and multi-million dollar settlements with big corporations too, in which case, you are boned.
You root for Microsoft, of course. If you don't like Microsoft, you can choose not to use their software. But everyone is affected by the ridiculous state of the patent system right now. I'm not optimistic that the Supreme Court can/will restore any sanity, but it's a much bigger problem than any one company.
Hi... I'm Larry... the shivering chipmunk... brrrrr!... I'm cold... I need a sweater...
I'm rooting for the Word of God.
recreational, universal composition of living thoughts, non-profit until the jews tempted Eve with a PowerPC while Adam was at Burger King in favor of a WOPR rather than a Big Mac...
And it's all in the public domain thank to the Covenanters over in Scotland.
Beat that, Copyright'fags.
So Canadian Court says pay money, so you go above them to the US Supreme Court, aka, Court of the World?
Sig: I stole this sig.
is tired, circa 2002
it's 2010 folks, google is the evil beast you want to take down. yes, i know some of you still look at google like the darling it was... in 2002
some of you really need to update your kneejerk prejudices for the new decade, thanks
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
... Moron...
Just be satisfied that each has to deal with the other.
"Which position do your biased emotions tell you to take?"
Hope that MS loses to a multi-billion dollar lose (say even 100 billion), and that afterwards, either SCOTUS or CONgress will kill forever the evil method patents.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Whatever ever happened to jurisdictional Boundaries? Patents and Copyright don't extend to implementations done outside of one's geography.
If the case of one foreigner prosecuting another foreigner, then I am in favor of Microsoft personel retaliating against this shit. Judiciary is obviously the problem in their not getting enough work, so they try trolling eachother into these international court disputes that never were from the beginning.
It's looking more like dollar-signs before bullets, just as planned by the Jews. Countries are supposed to exist in a proprietary nature, endemic only to the people joined to them, regardless of what anyone says elsewhere.
Who knows. Maybe they will simply say, "hey we already ruled patents had to be tied to a specific machine, not a generic one like that used here", and rule the patent invalid, and thus set the precedent that all software patents on generic systems are invalid. But I guess that would be logical, and we can't use logic when talking about the US and Patents and Court.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
I think patents are just fine, in fact beneficial (although admittedly not to those who want everything for free), and while I have no particular love for Microsoft, I never really understood the hatred either. I guess I'll have to wait for the case to be judged.
It is time to sue the patent office, not the patent holders:
The question the Supreme Court must answer is "What burden of proof is required to invalidate a patent?" The difficulty is that the *legal* answer may not match the *real world* answer. In theory, it should require a high burden of proof because the patent office already examined the patent application, determined it was patentable, searched for prior art, etc. But in reality, the patent office isn't doing that. I wish I could find the public statement where they basically said it isn't their responsibility to search for prior art. This problem is amplified by the fact that recent administrations are relying on the patent office to become a revenue generator.
In my opinion, Microsoft should sue the patent office. If the Supreme Court operates under the assumption that the patent office is following a certain procedure, and they are not, then they should have a case against the patent office. Then, they can go back to the courts and invalidate the patent after they have proven that the patent office is not doing their job.
I'm sure it has been said in other comments by now, but just in case. Let us not forget that the Canadian company in question actually DID have a product related to the patent. They DID work with Microsoft. Microsoft stopped dealing with them and then continued to use the patented technology knowingly without license. THIS is why the court of appeals UPHELD the court findings. MS still doesn't want to pay, so they are taking all the legal approaches available to them to avoid paying. The Canadian company (IMI) in this particular case is NOT a patent troll. In fact they are actually using the patent system the way it was intended - to stop the big boys from destroying the business of the little players. So, you'll excuse me if I root for IMI in this case. MS is not innocent here - the courts even said so. BUT, perhaps if MS is made to play by the same rules they want competitors to play by, perhaps they'll realize the current system is borked and increase their efforts to help change the system. We'll ignore for now MS's role in creating the current cluster-f#$@ system that is in place. Disclaimer - I'm a Canadian. But I don't care where the company came from. MS bullied the company pretty much out of business by stealing their tech, and now doesn't want to pay the piper for their actions. I don't have any respect for anybody that plays that way.
I'm an Aussie, ya dipstick! I root sheilas....
Opponents of software patents should root for Microsoft here, regardless of how you feel about the company (I loathe their philosophy but like a few of their products).
Believing in justice means believing it applies even to your enemies and opponents. Besides, we don't want the Supreme Court setting some awful pro-software-patent precedent that will haunt less-deep-pocketed open-source developers down the road.
My bicyles
we lose
Pretty much everyone around here loves to bash Microsoft but we will have to have a Microsoft party where we all do a Windows theme for a week on our Linux and Mac boxes if Microsoft does some serious damage to the patenting of software.
Seriously, if MS trashes this whole deranged patent situation they will win the true title of "Do no evil masters of 2011". If you were to compare it to other things on our tech head collective wish lists this would rank at the top with Oracle fully opening up Java, or Network Neutrality. The reality is that not many other companies have the resources to see this through to the end. Even Google tends to roll over in the face of these lawsuits. RIM caved in on one, paying out hundreds of millions, just before the patent was tossed. It seems that MS has realized that Patent Trolls are only going to grow into a bigger problem that cuts into smaller margins.
Yes MS will probably burn some of this Karma by being obnoxious but this is a major deposit in the Karma bank to my thinking.
Thank you Microsoft!
If you can't stand either MS or patents, who do you root for here?
Whatever, that's easy. The supreme court knocks down all patent law, finding it unconstitutional, while simultaneously fining Microsoft a million billion dollars for contempt of court or something. Is this really that hard for you? The solution is so easy. You're welcome.
Qxe4
Obligatory http://xkcd.com/827/ (yes, it's today's!)
Although I would agree that Microsoft has acted in a dishonest and unethical fashion, I'm not sure that redress should be found in the patent court. Can't they sue Microsoft on other grounds, such as breach of trust or violation of their NDA?
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
"If you can't stand either MS or patents, who do you root for here?"
Between two evils you should choose to support neither.
- "They misunderestimated me."
Microsoft Season. Patent Season. Microsoft Season! Patent Season!
I'm going to regard that first post not as a Troll, but as finely crafted satire on the Slashdot groupthink. Seriously, if there's anything trollish here, it's the summary itself. Corporations are not football teams. You don't slavishly follow a brand or a company and excuse it when it behaves badly or condemn it even when it does good. What sort of moron does that make you?
Software patents are damaging and a barrier to entry which reduces competition. If Microsoft (which is a huge organization of people, not a gestalt entity, and thus more than capable of being good in some ways and bad in others), if Microsoft make moves which helps shoot down stupid patents, then that's a good thing.
If you're going to "root" for anything, you root for right action, regardless of whether it's done by sinners or saints (and most are both).
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
The answer is C none of the above.
Patents are good, not evil.
However patents should not be able to change owner, a patent should die with it's owner. In company model this means when a company holds a patent, the patents becomes invalid when the company is subemerged into an other owner. While the owner of the company holding the patent can change, the company cannot give the patent holding to a other company. When a company is bankrupt or inactiv the patent should die.
Same thing with persons holding patents, the patents should not be able to gain a new owner. That way you protect the inventor and their work, but nobody else can capitalize on someone elses work.
With such a model patents would do what they are ment for. Maybe also company patents should have a lifetime restriction, e.g. 15-30 years, as companies might not ever die, or get subemerged into other companies.
You were blend when we walked over to talk with you, now we're leaving you blind. Sure, we could've helped you out of your predicament of being blind, but then that kind of charity would be robbing the service industries that generate tax revenue; a bank loan to be a blind cane and fancy old-people cyclops sunglasses, then the education system for teaching you how to make a living while blind, and the biotech industry that would require you take a bigger bank loan to regenerate optic nerves to implant censors allowing you to see yourself in the mirror after panhandling all those years without sunscreen to enjoy your last years with cancer and herpes.
... but not for their sake.
If MS finds that they are losing enough from software patents, maybe they'll lobby to get them declared invalid.
Common sense?
Apple has "Mac vs PC", Microsoft has "Laptop Hunters", Linux has recession
You've broadened it beyond Software Patents which is what I explicitly referred to. That's a different matter. Software can be protected by copyright which is fair. Applying patents usually amounts to saying that only one group is allowed to solve a problem, which is not.
As regards being able to sell on patents, this is entirely right if the patent itself is right. Certainly they should have a resonable expiry period, but saying that only the person that comes up with an idea is the person who can implement and manage the production of the idea is hugely inefficient and limiting for all parties.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
You don't slavishly follow a brand or a company and excuse it when it behaves badly or condemn it even when it does good.
Well, you're not supposed to behave that way. However, many people do exactly that. Just look at the Apple / Linux / Microsoft flamewars.
The lawyers.
Granted, but the sentence after that one went: 'What sort of moron would that make you?'. *sigh* You're right so, I suppose the answer would be "the prevalent sort". :)
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Software patents are damaging and a barrier to entry which reduces competition.
Except that, in this case, Microsoft is fighting software patents because they're actually removing a barrier to entry. Traditionally, if you were a small startup that did anything interesting and innovative - especially if it needed to interface with Microsoft products - you risked Microsoft cloning your product and driving you out of business.
Microsoft could integrate with their own products in a way no third party could and piggy-back on the fact that everyone uses Microsoft software to drive uptake regardless of the actual merits. At one point, they could drive innovators out of business merely by suggesting they would make a competing product at some point in the future.
They tried exactly this with i4i. They integrated a clone of i4i's software in every copy of Office, paid for by the Office licensing fees. You could still get i4i's software, and it even still sort-of worked with the new version of Office, but since it required a copy of Office you'd have to buy Microsoft's clone equivalent anyway. This would've worked, but they were blocked by the fact that i4i had software patents.
Reasoning: If MSFT loses, they might start lobbying for abolition of software patents.
If Microsoft loses, we get to take joy in the loss. If Microsoft wins, we get to take joy at Microsoft for narrowing patent law to its own long-term disadvantage.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Well, you have to bet on Microsoft. Come on -- it's our Supreme Court and the biggest corporation has the most rights.
If you're going to "root" for anything, root for something practical that benefits all...A comet strikes D.C. the day of the hearing. No losers!
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
I first parsed that as "Microsoft Patents Going to the Supreme Court" and thought "What a brilliant strategy! Making people use your patent to fight your patent claims!"
Microsoft will not be arguing software patents are ludicrous before the supreme court; it will be arguing the patents are not valid. Translated: the rules apply, just not to Microsoft.
Let them get bitten in the ass by their own supported rules, and hope it happens enough times so they'll reconsider their stance.
It's not as if the patent system is on trial.
MS will continue scamming, bullying, and extorting; regardless of the outcome of this trial.
Other companies will also attack MS, but MS has the upper hand, because MS has more money.
Patents (and copyrights for that matter) may have started out with noble ideals, but today they are distorted to such an extent that their net effect is extremely harmful and very much evil.
Patents were supposed to encourage innovation, but today they actually impede innovation significantly. Even Bill Gates has said so.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
I dunno, because I don't have an irrational hatred for companies nor do I really support them in any way aside from buying their products... Poor Slashtards, please get professional help. You're a bunch of raving lunitics.
Both Microsoft and software patents are evil and powerful, but Microsoft's power is ebbing away while the corrosive effects of the patent system are still hurting software developers. I'm rooting for Microsoft 100% in this case since the patent system, much more than Microsoft, is capable of leeching the lifeblood from software development.
If Microsoft is successful here, then it will be easier to invalidate questionable patents, especially when using prior art or other evidence not considered by the Patent Office. This is significant because the Patent Office often does not have the time or resources to search all possible prior art, especially art that has not been neatly cataloged and indexed for search (e.g. that ancient piece of software you remember using in the 80s that did exactly what the patent claims but isn't sold anymore).
An important feature of this case is that even if Microsoft wins at the Supreme Court level, the patent may still be found valid and infringed. If Microsoft wins and the case goes back down to the trial court, it's entirely possible that the judge will say "nope, the evidence still doesn't meet the new lower standard; pay up."
Modded troll for your foolish/ignorant philosophy of not responding to AC's. Not everyone who has something positive to contribute wants an account.
You've broadened it beyond Software Patents which is what I explicitly referred to. That's a different matter. Software can be protected by copyright which is fair. Applying patents usually amounts to saying that only one group is allowed to solve a problem, which is not.
As regards being able to sell on patents, this is entirely right if the patent itself is right. Certainly they should have a resonable expiry period, but saying that only the person that comes up with an idea is the person who can implement and manage the production of the idea is hugely inefficient and limiting for all parties.
So, you're telling me that there is only one solution for a developer to do something? That's funny. In this case i4i has plainly said that other implementations of working with XML to do the same thing they do, do not violate their patent. A for instance is Open Office. i4i looked at their code and said, no problem.
This instance of evildoing by MS is so blatant, so one sided, so much a case of a bully thinking they can destroy the little guy so quickly that they won't have a chance to fight back, that MS clearly deserves to lose. If there is any justice left in this world, i4i deserves its payoff. MS stole their technology, which no one else in the world was using at the time and is the reason that the US government went to them and asked them if they would work with MS after 9/11, and after they stole it went directly after everyone of i4i's customers. MS came close to completely destroying i4i after i4i had done the right thing. MS deserves to be whacked, and whacked hard.
Software patents are no different than normal patents in that it restricts one group from solving a problem. That is what a patent does, to reward the person who solved it first for a fixed period of time.
Really, any argument you make for the physical analogy...i.e. physical patents are for specific implementations can be applied to software equivalents.
The problem is that software patents are not screened and are granted without any process...eg granting a one click purchase patent...that was not something that was invented or a problem solved. Software patents themselves however are not a bad thing. If an AV company comes up with an amazing heuristic to negate malware they should be able to protect and license their solution if they want, something copyright and trade secrets don't allow.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Yup.
Originally patents were designed to help innovation. Rather than keeping your thing secret, you told everyone how it worked -- in return for a temporary monopoly on that thing. And by "thing" I mean "specific implementation". Something that passes a rigorous test of "obviousness to one skilled in the art", prior art (including prior art that everyone knows about but isn't covered by patents), etc.
The state of patents, particularly in the USA, is much different today. Patents are granted without proper examination by experts (for example, in the first 10-or-so years of their granting software patents, the PTO didn't have a single software engineer as an examiner). They're granted on "business methods"... basically, just on ideas, not implementations, which is completely counter to their original purpose.
And large companies have evolved with this. IBM, for example, turned their patent department into a profit center back in the 1980s, and they learned to manipulate the system. Rather than investigate patenting things that were clearly new and innovative inventions, they took a different approach -- they patented anything that COULD be patented. They examined every little thing IBM engineers produced, and filed crazy patents. For example, IBM got a patent, in 1984 (now expired, at least) on cut and paste between text buffers. I saw them demonstrate this patent using Emacs... using a set of keystrokes that would have worked perfectly well on RMS's original TECO Emacs back in the 70s.
-Dave Haynie
Relatedly, Harper v. Maverick Recording Co. (Docket number 10-94), an RIAA case which concerns the innocent infringer defense, was denied cert at the same conference.
So, you're telling me there is only one solution for a developer to do something?
To be fair, there is usually, at any given time, only one (sometimes a few) "best" way for a developer to solve a given problem. Regardless how the code is written (which has an exponential number of ways to be written) there is usually only one "best" method/algorithm to be used. Are we going to force all developers to be inefficient to avoid being sued?
Software patents are no different than normal patents in that it restricts one group from solving a problem. That is what a patent does, to reward the person who solved it first for a fixed period of time.
Really, any argument you make for the physical analogy...i.e. physical patents are for specific implementations can be applied to software equivalents.
The problem is that software patents are not screened and are granted without any process...eg granting a one click purchase patent...that was not something that was invented or a problem solved. Software patents themselves however are not a bad thing. If an AV company comes up with an amazing heuristic to negate malware they should be able to protect and license their solution if they want, something copyright and trade secrets don't allow.
In theory, you are correct that the analogy of physical patents are for specific implementations can be applied to software equivalents. In practice however, software patents are granted for ideas. Algorithms. Not specific implementations. That's the problem and why, as a developer, I detest them. If I come up with an idea and implement it, I have to wonder if someone else came up with that idea already and no matter how they implemented it, I can get sued for using the same idea. When you're dealing with software and development, the idea is all what matters. You can implement an algorithm in hundreds of ways some are more efficient than others. However, software patents don't cover a specific implementation of an algorithm, they cover the algorithm itself. It's like patenting a mathematical formula. It shouldn't be allowed because it restricts progress more than any benefit it may provide to the person who came up with it.
In addition, frequently many developers come up with the same idea for the same algorithm at the same time, but worlds apart. Why should one be allowed to use his idea and the other not allowed just because one of them got to the patent office faster? Even though they came up with different ways of actually implementing the idea?
An Algorithm is a specific implementation of a solution to a problem. To use an example in my previous post, if an AV company comes up with an amazing methodology to preemptive detect viruses and remove them, then they should be allowed to protect and license this. copyright and trade secrets are simply not enough.
The problem is where to draw the line. At the least, a certain level of complexity should be enforced. This would prevent people getting patents on things that inevitably have been thought of and used by many other people, i.e. QuickSort.
It is not enough with a software patent to patent a specific implementation of the algorithm, as this could be easily bypassed by making some modifications. Of course the current system is far too abstract, there needs to be some compromise.
Another example, RAR archives. AFAIK know the format and algorithms were the work on one guy, but even if not lets assume it was. The format is sufficiently unique that the work done was not negligible, and is complex enough that someone inventing the same thing by accident are unlikely. So, that guy should not be allowed to license and profit of the fruit of his labors? Nonsense.
A complicated software patent is not simply a mathematical equation. It can simply be reduced to that, but any digital TV show can also be reduced to math,you would hardly say it is just math however. A lot of work goes into an advanced program, and the fact that it *can* be reduced to just math is basically irrelevant.
A main point of consideration is that it is much easier to program things than it is to actually physically invent them, so we have a higher occurrence of people trying out ideas and coming up with implementations than we do in the real world. The main difference this would make in my mind is only that there should be a much shorter time period for a patents lifetime. Maybe 7 years as opposed to 20 for physical patents.
As per your last point....I don't see how that has anything to do with software patents. That is something that affects inventors in the real world two...., all the time. History is full of people who invented the same thing at near the same time, but didn't realize they got beat to it or didn't get to the patent office first(which is meaningless in the US, which is a first to invent not first to file country). As above though...ensuring a minimum level of complexity and uniqueness for software patents along with a shorter period of enforcement to compensate for the much greater number of developers and ease of development would be a start.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
However patents should not be able to change owner, a patent should die with it's owner.
Sometimes, a hit man is cheaper than licensing. Bonus if you can split the cost of the hit with several other corporations that are interested in producing a product using your patent.
That is what a patent does, to reward the person who solved it first for a fixed period of time.
That's something a patent does, but not it's point. It's intended to be a trade. You give me a great idea and I reward you for sharing the idea. Software patents rarely work that way, because I don't need your help, I can solve the problem on my own, if you didn't already have a patent. Thus, the trade is one sided and not really a trade or even promoting a useful art.
I will route for the person that knows the difference between route and root.
True but that is a crime, why there are crime investigators. If we concider crime as a way of living when shaping our laws. Well what is then so crimial with crimes?
See my subject above metrix007? Prove to us all that you've actually done some work in programming by showing us some work you've done online such as a program that's been rated well in the eyes of others in written publication. Otherwise? All your *talk* is nothing more than that, and bullshit walks (and you're the bullshit).
Still, the patent would expire prematurely. And you think that a multi-million-dollar corporation couldn't find a way to get away with it? Laws should not create the means for a corporation to benefit from someone's death. You would be creating an incentive for them to creatively eliminate patent holders. And they are quite resourceful. More so than law enforcement.
Still people normally have higher bars for commiting a murder, than commiting an economical crime.
It's all about the indiviual view on moral, and the comunitys view on moral. That shapes the laws. If it's lawful to kill someone, then it's not a murder is it? But it's still just as wrong morally.
Yes some companies with leaders with no sence of etics would fine ways. But is it according their views laws should be formed?
Yes. Laws should never create a public benefit to murder.
If I came up with a magic-bullet cure for cancer and patented it, holding out for the drug companies to meet my demands, they could easily turn half the country into headhunters after me so they can use the patent without paying me.
It seems to me that a SCOTUS ruling for Microsoft in this case would likely have numerous significant repercussions for patent litigation -- for instance, (1) it could leave many more patent holders vulnerable to harassment by excessive litigation from large corporations; (2) it would probably serve as the basis for invalidating many patents post-issuance; and (3) it could give the FTC more leverage in ending reverse-payment settlement agreements. I think this is a case in which the Court should very seriously and carefully the policy basis of the current law and the consequences if it is overturned.
In such a case, if you do have too high licens costs, you erned it;)
But no, you should still be allowed to benefit from your research. Why many contries addopt the social way when it comes to health care. The inhuman americans never get. In those moddels the state payes the bill for research in these fields in short hand. Then thoug your taxeted for it.