Slashdot Mirror
Justices Question Microsoft's Vision of Patent Law
angry tapir writes "US Supreme Court justices on Monday questioned whether they should side with Microsoft and weaken the legal standard needed to invalidate a patent, with some justices suggesting there are alternatives to changing established law. The issue arose as part of the case involving Redmond and i4i."
You just don't mess with Redmond, son.
Microsoft, which lost a US$290 million decision in a U.S. district court, has argued that i4i began selling a product with the XML editor included a year before it applied for the patent. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) didn't consider this so-called prior art in granting the patent, but the district court should have, Microsoft lawyer Thomas Hungar argued Monday.
It sounds like they're arguing a product i4i released should count as prior art against a patent i4i later filed.
Huh?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Any subject matter that's close enough to infringe a patent AFTER it's been filed should be likewise close enough to count as prior art BEFORE it's filed.
The two standards for each point, whatsoever they may be, have to match, or you'll have predatory patents pulling the rug out from under established projects.
Again, if it's bad enough to infringe, it's also good enough to invalidate.
While M$ may prevail in this case, the case itself ironically can be used to invalid many of M$'s own patents.
Don't cry foul when what you wish for come back to take a big bite at your ass, Micro$oft !
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Judge, you're fired.
Judges and/or Justices?
Patents are BAD.
Unless Microsoft opposes the patent.
In that case, the patent must be upheld.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
software patents. Insanity and greed at their best.
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
Code folds would be another example.
I seem to remember a product from Bluestone which was released at Fall Internet World in 1999. I seem to recall it had an XML Editor in it. Surely this is Prior Art. http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/234781/Bluestone-Releases-Visual-XML-11.htm
MS is lobying against software patent law? Did I wake up in bizzarro world this morning?
I don't have a problem with software patents per se.
The criteria for validity of any patent should simply be as follows:
1) Must be a truly novel invention or application
2) Must not be imminently obvious given the state and pace of technology at the time of invention.
If you didn't invent auctions and you didn't invent the internet then you shouldn't be able to patent something as simple as running auctions on the internet.
It's only when it hurts them. Otherwise "we are going to defend our intellectual property!!!"
Full transcript here.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/10-290.pdf
If they push patent examination further up into the Supreme Court, they will ensure that only the richest corporations can benefit from the patent system. Which is more important to the richest corporations than any other aspect of the patent system.
It's already set up so that practically any assertion can be documented enough to be patented through a patent "examiner". The patent system now requires that any serious question be tried in a patent defense appeals court, the first time that a judge with any real experience in patents and inventions makes the decision. Which already favors richer corporations, rather than mere inventors. Microsoft and other corporations that trade their equity in stock markets based on government issued monopolies ("patents") want an expensive legal process, that only they can afford, to protect their entire patent business from surprising new entrants.
They want complex and lengthy legal processes to protect their patents. They've got it. And as only lawyers and their sponsoring corporations get to argue about how much more wrangling is part of the process, they'll get ever more of it.
Because actual inventors are the enemy of these incumbent monopolists.
--
make install -not war
Your highness, we don't like being target of patent trolling; we just enjoy being the patent trolls ourselves.
---
Even in the remote hope of an enlightened sentence which invalidates software patents in totum, one can be absolutely sure M$ lawyers will afterwards defend attacking Linux is an entirely different matter. Such is the nature of the scorpion.
This doesn't inherently mean more innovation, but the number of patent filings is up over the past 15 years or so.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
The only plausible reason why Microsoft would go out of its way to reduce patent protections is because the existing "clear and convincing evidence" protection is not in its interest. Given Microsoft's huge patent portfolio, that can only mean that it has greater concern for weakening other patents than it has for protecting its own. Why would that be?
Now we get into speculation. I can imagine two complementary reasons why Microsoft would initiate this course - and remember, Microsoft is not defending itself in court here, it's bringing this action on its own initiative. One reason could be that Microsoft is not producing its own inventions as fast as it could raid others. That's the motive. The other reason is that patents would be more expensive to defend if the law were more ambiguous. Microsoft is big enough to wear out most of its opponents in patent court. That's the means.
Stay classy, Microsoft.
Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
In principle, it should be difficult to overturn a patent. If a patent merely had a 50/50 chance of holding-up in court, then they become nearly worthless. That gives less protection to inventors. The point of issuing the patent is firmly assert that this is an invention.
In practice, the patent office is not doing their job. They are issuing garbage patents and not re-examining them. But is the appropriate solution to take the power away from that office? Are we so sure that the courts and juries are better judges of the validity of a patent?
The patent office should be the most qualified entity for determining the validity of a patent. But that isn't something the courts can address. That is up to Congress who established and administers that office.
<rant>
It seems to me that we have many government offices failing to do their jobs. We have monopolies everywhere (oil companies, phone company consolidating, cable companies buying media componies) and the DOJ and FTC are not intervening. Police departments are in constant scandal (I live in Baltimore, so maybe I am biased by our local police.) We have a patent office that issues patents for everything with the word "on the internet" in the summary. We have a DHS who spends millions of dollars on airport bomb-sniffing machines before even testing to see if they work. Congress can't cut more than 1% of the budget even though the interest payments will eclipse our ability to pay it back in the next decade.
I think the legislating and executive branches are failing at administering the country.
</rant>
I question the Supreme court for the questioning, NONBFN
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
I sometimes wonder if the bigger companies secretly wish they could reduce the number of patents that both they and their competitors hold. Having a bunch of patents makes you a formidable enemy to anyone who doesn't have any, but when two big patent holders go up against each other it's more like nuclear cold war. Do both sides really want this, or do at least some people in the upper echelons secretly wish that everything could simmer down a bit?
It looks to me like i4i's got the upper hand in this patent litigation, and not only because of the U.S. arguing as amicus on its behalf. I've always thought i4i had the better arguments, not to mention the legal precedent and reliance issues on its side.