Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Justices Question Microsoft's Vision of Patent Law

Posted by Soulskill on from the pipe-down-clarence dept.

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."

16 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. Re:I'm confused by clang_jangle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think the idea is "they released it without protection and after it had been on the market available for copying and/or reverse-engineering then they screwed us by seeking a patent".

    --
    Caveat Utilitor
  2. Re:I'm confused by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 4, Funny

    I guess that, in Microsoft's world, you can't patent something after releasing it. i4i isn't so impressed by that idea:

    Microsoft's assertions that i4i included the XML editor in a product before applying for the patent and that it destroyed source code are "utter nonsense," Owen added.

    Still, this is all just a bucket of dren. No one should be able to patent anything involving XML, and the reasoning is simple: the kind of cruft that accumulates in XML files (and, by extension, application-specific XML parsers) is analogous to biological evolution, and therefore XML is a phenomenon outside of human control. It would be like patenting natural genes or something! And we all know that would never be legalized.

    --
    Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  3. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    patents have to be filed within 1 year of the invention being made public

  4. ... and Microsoft will pay for its own success by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 !
    1. Re:... and Microsoft will pay for its own success by nmb3000 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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 !

      Microsoft might be many things, but a patent troll isn't usually one of them. That's one reason that Apple and Google are siding with them on this issue, the other being that these big technology companies are the primary targets for genuine patent trolls like i4i.

      The entire patent system is in need of serious reform. Microsoft pushing to make it easier to invalidate all the completely stupid and pointless patents the USPTO has gotten into the habit of granting is only a good thing. It's the first step in (hopefully) bringing some sanity back into the system, and I don't care if it's Microsoft, Apple, or ScumSoft doing the legwork and footing the bill.

      PS: That doesn't help your "argument".

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    2. Re:... and Microsoft will pay for its own success by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Informative

      Microsoft don't generally have a habit of being a Patent troll

      Microsoft claims that free software like Linux, which runs a big chunk of corporate America, violates 235 of its patents.

      http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/index.htm

      Why Did Microsoft Sell Off 22 'Linux-Related' Patents?

      http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/Why-Did-Microsoft-Sell-Off-22-LinuxRelated-Patents-618335/

      TomTom gets allies in Microsoft Linux patent lawsuit fight

      http://blogs.computerworld.com/tomtom_gets_allies_in_microsoft_linux_patent_lawsuit_fight

      Microsoft's Linux patent bingo hits Google's Android

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/29/microsoft_htc_linux_patents/

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    3. Re:... and Microsoft will pay for its own success by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Microsoft claims that free software like Linux, which runs a big chunk of corporate America, violates 235 of its patents.

      And yet it has never done anything about that. It hasn't sued all the distros to stop the operating system. They did use the claim for a bit of FUDdery, but that is not being a patent troll.

      Why Did Microsoft Sell Off 22 'Linux-Related' Patents?

      That question was posed two years ago. Has there been an answer? Does posing a question that ultimately proved to be a big pile of nothing have any point other than being a bit of FUD back in the other direction?

      TomTom gets allies in Microsoft Linux patent lawsuit fight

      Microsoft licenses FAT32 to others. It is one of their products. TomTom used and refused to abide by the terms of the license. If they did a similar thing to the GPL license then nobody would think it wrong to go after them. And since this case, has Microsoft gone after any distros that include the file system?

      My rule of thumb is that patent trolls don't have products, they just wait in the wings with their patent portfolio. I recently stated that I don't consider i4i to be a patent troll either, because they actively use their patents in a product of their own. I don't think that it is a good patent, but they got it so they might as well protect their IP.

      Microsoft's Linux patent bingo hits Google's Android

      To be fair, the phone industry seems to thrive on cross patent agreements and lawsuits. Who isn't suing everyone else? For example, Microsoft may have done a deal with HTC but Apple did actually sue them. Why does nobody claim that Apple is going after Linux when they do this just as they do about Microsoft?

    4. Re:... and Microsoft will pay for its own success by somersault · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You could just move to one of the many sane countries that doesn't recognise software patents.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    5. Re:... and Microsoft will pay for its own success by somersault · · Score: 3, Informative

      Have you looked at their "patent"?

      A system and method for the separate manipulation of the architecture and content of a document, particularly for data representation and transformations

      Similar standards and applications which make use of the standard have been around since at least 1986.

      --
      which is totally what she said
  5. Re:I'm confused by Arguendo · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yup. You don't get to release a product to the public and then 20 years later try and go patent it. You've got one year from the release of the product to file for a patent. If not, you are out of luck.

  6. Ah, by alienzed · · Score: 3, Interesting

    software patents. Insanity and greed at their best.

    --
    Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
    1. Re:Ah, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've said it before and I'll say it again. Patents are government issued monopolies, which completely fail at their primary goal of fostering innovation.

      Not only do patents discourage the patent holder from continuing to innovate by shifting their opportunity cost analysis away from innovating and towards monopoly maintaining, but they prevent other prospective innovators from engaging in progressive collaboration, building off of what those before them have done. --And the real salt in the wound, they even prevent the innovations, that DO get developed, from helping society as much as they could, since the monopoly creates an inefficient level of production.

      I honestly don't know how they are still seen in such a favorable light. Democrats should be against them, since patents tend to favor big business. Republicans should be against them, since republicans should be capitalists and believe in a free market; free from government intervention and monopolies. People who don't affiliate with either party should just straight-up be smart enough to figure this out on their own...

  7. Re:I'm confused by QuantumG · · Score: 3

    In the USA, the only country with such stupidity.. in the rest of the world patents are seen as a way to assure people they need not keep trade secrets.. if someone has already released the secret (by putting it in a product that can be reverse engineered) why would you then give them a patent?

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  8. Re:I'm confused by jav1231 · · Score: 3

    Pot, meet Kettle...

  9. Re:I'm confused by jcorno · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, you pretty much describe the system as it exists. The 1 year period the GP refers to is for a provisional patent. You file the provisional patent saying "I'm about to release a cool new invention that does X" and then you have one year to release it and file for a non-provisional patent, which lasts for 20 (or 14 if it's a design patent covering the form rather than the function).

    No. It's only considered prior art if it's offered for sale in the U.S. more than 1 year before the filing date. See 35 USC 102(b). This has nothing to do with a provisional application.

  10. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent.

    A person shall be entitled to a patent unless - ...

    (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States ...