B&N Pummels Microsoft Patent Claims With Prior Art

itwbennett writes "As Slashdot readers will recall, Barnes & Noble is being particularly noisy about the patents Microsoft is leveraging against the Nook. Now the bookseller has filed a supplemental notice of prior art that contains a 43-page list of examples it believes counters Microsoft's claim that Nook violates five of Microsoft's patents. 'The list of prior art for the five patents that Microsoft claims the Nook infringes is very much a walk down memory lane,' says Brian Proffitt. 'The first group of prior art evidence presented by Barnes & Noble for U.S. Patent No. 5,778,372 alone lists 172 pieces of prior art' and 'made reference to a lot of technology and people from the early days of the public Internet... like Mosaic, the NCSA, and (I kid you not) the Arena web browser. The list was like old home week for the early World Wide Web.'"

Comments

First post!

[GameboyRMH]

This post is prior art to everything else in this discussion!

Re:First post!

[Gideon Wells]

I wish I could go back in time and patent, copyright and trademark the concept of "First Post!".

Of course it would be useless here. The volume on /. would triple just out of spite that such a thing was patented in protest.

Re:First post!

[0123456]

Why worry about prior art? Just patent it and then sue posters who can't afford to fight your lawyers.

Re:First post!

[GameboyRMH]

That would definitely change things. The meaning of "First Post!" would change to something more like "Ha ha, you gotta pay royalties!"

Re:First post!

[poetmatt]

Royalties on zero $$ are still zero.

Re:First post!

[Aryden]

Not according to the MAFIAA. $0 dollars earned by you means millions lost by them that you owe...

Re:First post!

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you have to pay royalties if you instead used Frist?

Re:First post!

[oakgrove]

Then go for the real win and get a blanket injunction on all "first post" first posts. Don't forget to attach a claim for "frosty piss"

Re:First post!

[Surt]

Just reflect for a moment on what you're suggesting. There was a halcyon day in the past, when the idea of a first post had literally not been invented yet. Some person actually first came up with it, and then it caught fire. It is one of the most successful memes in history, replicated through millions of brains. Quite possibly more brains than any religion. It is a true masterpiece of human thought.

Re:First post!

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite possibly more brains than any religion.

Some estimates of Bible sales (since 1815) are in the neighborhood of six billion.

Re:First post!

[Surt]

And just how many first posts do you imagine there have been? Maybe 100 billion by now, a trillion even?

Follow up should be

[Anonymous Coward]

to pummel Apple with their patent claims and SOPA.

Re:Follow up should be

[Anonymous Coward]

I would love to see Google + Motorola + HTC + Samsung (or for that matter, anybody) shove it up Apple's ass. It has to be done for love of all that's good in the world.

MS and Apple are nothing but patent trolls, no matter how the apologists want to spin it.

*waits for apologists to show up with mod points*

Re:Follow up should be

[mooingyak]

MS and Apple are nothing but patent trolls, no matter how the apologists want to spin it.

Microsoft and Apple both produce actual products, while the standard definition of a patent troll is usually a corporation whose entire business is licensing and/or suing others while producing no products of their own.

MS and Apple are trying to use their patents to make competing products prohibitively expensive. Also reprehensible, but a distinct activity from patent trolling.

Re:Follow up should be

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

I don't think that Apple's using their patents on grounds of competition.

I think Steve was so genuinely butthurt over the Android backstab by Schmidt that's it's personal; not professional.

Re:Follow up should be

[certain death]

Correction - MS and Apple both PAY CHINESE to produce actual products. There, fixed that for ya.

Re:Follow up should be

[icebike]

MS and Apple are trying to use their patents to make competing products prohibitively expensive. Also reprehensible, but a distinct activity from patent trolling.

Except when you follow the links and read the article (I Know, I know) you see that trolling is exactly what is going on here.
Microsoft is trolling by proxy, using MOSAID in Canada as a non-practicing third party holder of these patents.

They (MOSAID) specifically state that they can't be counter sued for infringements because all they do is license patents
that Microsoft purchased from Nokia and deposited with MOSAID (after assigning themselves a free license to use them).
MOSAID does not practice these patents. They fit perfectly your definition of a TROLL.

Further Microsoft themselves don't practice most of these patents either, because they don't make phones. But because they licensed
these patents they are attempting to use them as a club to beat Android. So Troll again.

Nokia, not party to this action, retained a license when they sold these patents to Microsoft and their sock puppet MOSAID. They practice all of these patents, and therefore have stayed out of the way and kept their mouth shut on this issue.

Re:Follow up should be

[Anonymous Coward]

> over the Android backstab

"over losing the battle to Android."

FTFY.

Re:Follow up should be

[hairyfeet]

Not to mention for MSFT this really is a "heads I win, tails you lose' situation. think about it, what is the worst that will happen for MSFT? In a couple of years, maybe more as the case drags on and on AND ON those 5 patents get invalidated. The cost to MSFT? Not really anything, their lawyers are on the payroll and the court fees will be a joke. What do they gain? Well they have already made lots of money off of Android licensees, which BTW won't be affected at all by this since their contract was access to MSFT's patents not just these 5, so their contracts will still be upheld.

So while I have always said software patents shouldn't have been allowed in the first place it was actually a shrewd move on the part of MSFT. They probably scared some away from Android, others they got paid just like they were selling WinPhone, I bet if one looks at the final numbers MSFT will have made a pretty damned nice profit without having to sell a single unit. Man I wish i could get paid for nothing like that, must be nice.

Re:Follow up should be

[Tharsman]

Bit of a derrail here but an interesting point on Job's biography is that Jobs wanted to manufacture their products here, but no one was able to get the high numbers of entry level engeniers needed to operate the factories. He personally told Obama disapointing education standards are to blame. He even stated he was not talking about engeniers with BAs, simply vocational school levels of engeniering education. (Certain regulations were also blamed but only as delay factors, not roadblocks.)

It is sad when China beats us at a contract not due to cheap labor, but due to higher numbers of educated workforce.

Anyways, back to patent trolling!

Re:Follow up should be

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction - MS and Apple both PAY CHINESE to produce actual products. There, fixed that for ya.

Correction - Apple PAYS Chinese to produce actual products, and Microsoft would too if they could find anyone they can sell them to.

Re:Follow up should be

[said213]

> over the Android backstab

"over losing the battle to Android."

Sent from my iPhone

FTFY

Re:Follow up should be

[walterbyrd]

for MSFT this really is a "heads I win, tails you lose' situation

Unless msft gets sued back. Google shareholders just voted to allow Google to aquire Motorola Mobility. That will give Google a nice patent arsenal.

It's possible that Google (and others) are getting fed up with msft's patent-parasite attacks on Android. Paybacks can be a bitch.

Re:Follow up should be

[painandgreed]

Correction - MS and Apple both PAY CHINESE to produce actual products. There, fixed that for ya.

Correction to the correction - MS and Apple both pay the US, Japan, Korea, Germany, and several others for actual products which are all shipped to China where a Taiwanese company is paid to have the Chinese assemble them together.

Re:Follow up should be

[Anthony Mouse]

That's the problem though. Nobody is buying WP7, so an injunction wouldn't hurt them very much and the damages wouldn't be very high.

Of course, if they found some patents that Windows 7 was infringing...

Re:Follow up should be

[nschubach]

I'll call this one:

You'll soon see a news post on how Microsoft wants to reform certain parts of the patent law to protect from patent trolling ...

Someone will come in (probably first post) and state how Microsoft really is a great place to work and even though they are trying to do something good (patent reform) Slashdot will still berate them.

Re:Follow up should be

[Anonymous Coward]

> Sent from my iPhone

Sent from my iToy

FTFY

Re:Follow up should be

[Daniel Phillips]

I think Steve was so genuinely butthurt over the Android backstab by Schmidt that's it's personal; not professional.

I'm glad he was finally able to get over it.

Re:Follow up should be

[hairyfeet]

Nah, I kinda doubt that and here is why: Look at how many companies that HATE each other, like AMD and Intel, or AMD and Nvidia have cross licenses. Even when AMD and Intel were slugging it out in court neither tried to revoke those cross licenses, why? Because they knew that once you get into the thousands of patents you are looking at mutually assured destruction which is why you don't see these megacorps tear into each other as much anymore.

I have a feeling Google bought Motorola not because they give a shit about protecting android OEMs, after all they didn't give a shit before and it wasn't hurting them, no I think its because they still want into the "whole stack" approach ala Apple and MSFT with Nokia so they are buying their own warchest to make sure any attempt to troll them by MSFT will equal MAD.

Sadly the only ones that get slapped around by these things are the little guys. Compare B&N to someone like Google or MSFT and you'll see they aren't even in the same league which is why they are trying to fight back, they don't have as much to lose and every dime counts when they are facing the kindle. For everyone else they'll either cut the check or cross license, just one more way our system helps the big guy and fucks the little guy.

Re:Follow up should be

[Daniel Phillips]

Apropo of nothing in particular, I see the gap between Google and Microsoft market cap has narrowed from about 20% to 10% over the last few months. Looks to me like Microsoft is just another few months away from sliding down another notch in the big n powerful sweepstakes, after first being passed with much fanfare by Apple then quietly by IBM. Who's next, Oracle?

Re:Follow up should be

[myyrk]

You sure it wasn't because he couldn't get people to accept $1.18/hour like in China?

Re:Follow up should be

[Anonymous Coward]

Made my iStone pass my Windows...

http://www.istone.se/

Oh, crap... they are real... Hope they don't sue.. :)

(.. Are they some kind of supplier for government's in the middle-east? :o )

Re:Follow up should be

[Grave]

Nah, I kinda doubt that and here is why: Look at how many companies that HATE each other, like AMD and Intel, or AMD and Nvidia have cross licenses. Even when AMD and Intel were slugging it out in court neither tried to revoke those cross licenses, why? Because they knew that once you get into the thousands of patents you are looking at mutually assured destruction which is why you don't see these megacorps tear into each other as much anymore.

Exactly why I have been perplexed that this patent war has erupted in the mobile space. Yes, Google was lacking in patents to retaliate with, but Apple and Microsoft knew that to directly attack Google could backfire fast, so they went after smaller players. B&N just decided to find out if those patent nukes MS was threatening to throw were actually going to detonate, or if they were duds. Looks like the emperor's got no clothes on.

Now, the real question - if the court decides these patents are bogus (which I can't seem them not doing), what happens to the other companies who licensed from Microsoft? Can they have those agreements invalidated?

Re:Follow up should be

[hairyfeet]

I don't see how as from what contracts have been summed up on the web the contracts are to give them access to the whole of MSFT's patents and weren't written to specifically call out any patents by themselves. it reminds me of that old story from Sun, where IBM basically aid 'If these patents don't get you do you REALLY want us to go back and find some that do?" and they cut the check so they'd walk away.

So from everything I've been taught about contracts frankly it doesn't matter if MSFT came in there with fedoras and acted like Al Capone, all that matters is in the contract itself. And from what has been leaked MSFT's lawyers earned their hookers as it is a standard blanket licensing agreement, nothing more. I don't see how they would have cause since the license agreement wasn't written about these specific patents so their status really wouldn't affect the contract.

Of course you and everyone else is betting they'll get tossed and while i still think software patents are shit that is a BIG IF my friend. hell who would have thought the courts would agree that a square plus icons equals Apple property but that is what they've ruled, and if the courts side with MSFT B&N is gonna be in a world of pain. MSFT can afford to lose, I have serious doubts with the kindle eating their lunch that B&N can say the same.

Re:Follow up should be

[SimonInOz]

last week I couldn't even spell engenier, and now I are one.

Re:Follow up should be

[hairyfeet]

While this is true I think they have an ace in their sleeve and I'm not talking about that POS Windows 8, aka Ballmer's Folly. i'm talking about the X720 which the specs have slowly but surely been leaking and is looking to have either an HD5xxx or 6xxx Radeon GPU and be pretty damned loaded.

I have a feeling MSFT is gonna quietly (while having them sign NDAs up the ass and making it clear ANY leaks that get traced back to them they can kiss XBLA and DLC goodbye) have their top devs quietly cooking up X720 content with MSFT putting out a pretty wild Halo edition (possibly a remix of the first 3 in HD 3D) and then they are gonna spring that sucker when nobody expects it to catch Sony with their pants down. The Halo and Madden fans alone will make it a HUGE hit, money will be rolling and I'm betting they drop the X360 down to $99 and use it like Sony has the PS2 to cover the lower price points.

Don't forget the X360 has been making damned good money these past couple of years and with the exception of Japan which is VERY nationalistic and hasn't had a non Japanese consoles take the top spot in nearly 30 years it has taken a pretty good chunk of the market. if they spring the X720 with kick as hardware and some killer launch titles they are gonna possibly kill Sony outright while giving the casual market to Nintendo. If they play it right they can back up the money truck to the vault and start loading it up.

Re:Follow up should be

[Alex Belits]

ITT: hairyfeet pretends that Microsoft can't be sued for all fraudulently obtained licensing fees, and all legal expenses that resulted from their fraud. US legal system may be toothless, but it's not toothless enough for RICO to not apply after some point.

Re:Follow up should be

[Daniel Phillips]

Holding out hope is always nice, however MSFT's media lunch will be eaten by smartphones and netpads. It's game over for big console. Who cares about another solder melting desktop GPU chip crammed into an inadequately cooled cheapo enclosure sounding like a vacuum cleaner in your living room?

Re:Follow up should be

[hairyfeet]

What are you smoking, cause I'd like some! Smartphones and netpads? yeah for angry birds maybe, you sure as hell ain't gonna get 1080p HD3D on one of those devices. And don't bring up that streaming game service because the bandwidth simply isn't there except for a handful of major markets.

Those devices are fine...for your mom. someone who wants to play columns or Angry birds or maybe some shooter that looks like it was written for a first gen PS2, but the rest of the planet has gotten spoiled to the big 3D physics heavy boom fest. Hell the easiest sales I've ever had were for HTPCs where i just fire up just Cause II and set off some remote charges on the cooling towers. When people see my guy walk into the sunset while half the world crumbles around him into fire and debris? it is "Thank you come again" and cash the check.

This is the US of fricking A my friend, we like big cars, big screens, and big graphics.

Re:Follow up should be

[Daniel Phillips]

What are you smoking, cause I'd like some! Smartphones and netpads? yeah for angry birds maybe, you sure as hell ain't gonna get 1080p HD3D on one of those devices.

First, you're already wrong and second, nobody cares. There's a sea change in the game market. It's away from the likes of Halo and towards easy feel good games played by people with money.

Re:Follow up should be

[hairyfeet]

You're right about one thing, nobody cares...about cell phones. they get them for cheap or free with contract and toss them when the contract is up, never to give a crap about them again. And that is Tegra GPU, that is designed for HD video and NOT for hardcore gaming.

And even with your "sea change" big games are KILLING, or are you gonna say that people are gonna give that up for some Peggle?

Re:Follow up should be

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

According to the jobs bio, he wasn't concerned with beating android. It was about making cool shit.

He's used to living in the margins.

Re:Follow up should be

[Daniel Phillips]

You're right about one thing, nobody cares...about cell phones.

How's the weather on the planet you live on?

Re:Follow up should be

[gl4ss]

he could just have hired all the auto-assembly guys.
but oh wait he would have had to pay them a salary and take the financial risk of actually building the actual factory - now foxconn is paying the mortage for foxconn city.. he wasn't lacking in engineers, he was lacking in assembly workforce. or perhaps missing in straight out of highschool guys who could build him a robot factory. the excuse would work if apple was building _something_ in usa and scaling that up. but they're not.

(what's wrong with non-entry level engineers anyhow? that they want to get paid something else than mcd pays?)

Re:Follow up should be

[Tharsman]

Right, we all know apple would never spend a penny building anything.
http://gigaom.com/apple/apples-new-north-carolina-data-center-ready-to-roll-2/

what's wrong with non-entry level engineers anyhow? that they want to get paid something else than mcd pays?)

The same thing that is wrong with heart surgeons accepting a nurse position.

Why did everyone else pay?

[oic0]

If it was this easy to beat them and the prior art was that apparent, why did everyone else bow down and pay to troll his toll?

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[_recluso_]

time, money...

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[MightyMartian]

I suspect in large part because most companies' lawyers basically tell them "Paying the licensing fee is cheaper and surer means to an end than fighting." So far as I can tell, it basically amounts to a vast conspiracy of legal departments on both sides of the fence.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

They haven't beaten them, they still need to draaaaag this through the courts, which MS will certainly ensure this is very very costly and last for years. I.e. even though MS are likely to be full of shit, they have a bigger cash pile than almost anyone else which will ensure most companies don't try to fight it, and take the easy licensing options. In legal terms, it's called a shake-down. The mafia used it rather well.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[MozeeToby]

It's possible that these are not the strongest patents Microsoft can bring to bear on the issue. They may just be testing the waters to see how far Barnes and Noble are willing to go with their (to Microsoft) dangerous brinksmanship.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

To me it seems that this patent campaign against Android and its OEM vendor is not only for Microsoft to get money. It seems that Microsoft also offered the companies something else we don't know. I bet that they offered access to their technology and a good deal to get Windows Phone and Windows OEM... or possible they threw some Office license on the agreement ;)

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of them were cell phone makers who were, while paying to make Android phones, getting a bigger stipend to develop Windows Phone 7 phones.
B&N has no interesting in making WP7 based tablet. They choose Android because it was a fairly mature, stable, and most importantly, FREE.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[TheRaven64]

Probably because the other companies asked their lawyers, who looked at how my MS could spend in court and said 'it's cheaper to settle', while B&N asked their developers who looked at the patents and said 'haha! These patents are ridiculous!' I doubt many companies employ lawyers who have the ability to judge the merits of the patents, which is part of the reason why patent trolling is so lucrative: the people making the decision to pay are lawyers and CxOs who will assume that a granted patent means a valid patent.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they're device manufacturers. They're used to this sort of patent abuse; they pay the $10 or whatever and move on with life. I mean, they're doing it for their WP7 phones, it's not like $10 will destroy the handset's profit margin.

B&N, on the other hand, is a bookstore. They picked Android specifically so they wouldn't have to pay a license fee on every device they sell, especially not to someone who had nothing to do with it. They have a legal team that's used to dealing with IP issues; they're a bookstore, IP stuff comes up from time to time. They're not used to being pushed around like this; they're usually the ones doing the pushing around against publishers. They aren't going to just lay back and put up with it.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just hope Google will stand behing B&N on this one and provide the much need help. Google could push MS down without putting much of a dent in their cash.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[HarrySquatter]

Yeah because companies like Samsung and HTC never stand up to patent bullying. Oh wait, they do (see Apple countersuits).

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Barsteward]

Most of them have licences to sell Microsoft software....

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[MightyMartian]

The issue always is time and money. Battling crap patents held by large companies like Microsoft will take years and cost a significant amount of money. Even if you win and somehow manage to get damages, they won't cover the whole bill, and you've spent two or three or even more years in a sort of limbo. You can readily understand why many manufacturers have just said "Fuck it" and paid Microsoft to go away. I'm amazed that B&N is fighting this, because I cannot imagine their lawyers were advising them that this was the way to go.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

all microsoft wants is money.

Apple doesn't care about money from patent suits, they are out to see the their competitors burn.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's only because Apple isn't interested in settling -- the only relief that Apple is seeking is to remove Android from the market.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[SomePgmr]

Someone else suggested it's because they're handset makers that also have WinMo devices (or expect to, at some point).

B&N, otoh, wouldn't care. They're not in the business of making phones.

Though I admit that's a bit conspiratorial. And you'd think Google would've fired first...?

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[HarrySquatter]

You do realize that Microsoft has nearly double the assets (108 billion vs 57 billion), 10 billion more in equity and 15 billion more in cash/cash equivalents/securities than Google, right? It would be even less of a dent to them.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[reimero]

Essentially it went down like this:
MS> Android infringes some of our patents, but if you pay our fee, you can use it.
Potential licensee> What patents does Android infringe?
MS> You'll need to sign an NDA for further discussion.

Companies sign the NDA, and then they're legally obligated not to comment on the specific patents. Microsoft likely doesn't actually expect to win this one. Microsoft expects to send a message that they're willing to enter costly litigation, which would likely be more expensive and more of a hassle than simply paying the licensing fee.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

The first software developer that can succesfully parse a software patent has not yet been born (nor written).

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

MS is very generous with their license stuff, with a flat fee a year you can use all their patents, much like how they do technet subscriptions.
Companies like Samsung know that they need to some real patent license from them anyway so why complain about the dodgy ones that are more or less thrown in for free?

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Hatta]

Do they not cover Kipling in law school? They should.

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
    To call upon a neighbour and to say: --
"We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
    Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
    And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
    And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
    To puff and look important and to say: --
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
    We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
    But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
    You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
    For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
    You will find it better policy to say: --

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
    No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
    And the nation that pays it is lost!"

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[oakgrove]

Quick, does Barnes & Noble have anything Google can "license" when the going gets tough like MS did for SCO?

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[bluefoxlucid]

It's a matter of leverage, really. I could kick your ass right now, that could get messy. How about we don't go down that way? Oh ok you want to be slightly less annoying ... bah, it's too much work to beat the shit out of you, and then the cops show up, and then I have to explain shit to make them go away. Fine whatever, here's a dollar now fuck off.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[inode_buddha]

Not true. The rules of evidence in civil cases require both parties to bring everything they have to the table. They can't ramp it up later on in the suit. Although they may be able to start a different suit after this one is over. Watch closely and see how the judge enforces this. It's going on right now in Oracle vs Google.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[gl4ss]

samsung and htc both manufacture ms platforms.

they get the money fed back to them.

and htc in particular is an old friend of ms, they manufactured almost all windows mobile phones(even those that were sold under qtek, jasjar etc brands) and probably were in bed with ms in dev side to some extent.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[oakgrove]

Sure its possible but then again, what isn't? I hope they bring whatever they have. Barnes and Nobles' lawyers are blowing holes through the current ones like a crackhead chihuahua with a Gattling gun. Send more so we can either invalidate or code around those too. The last thing MS wants is real transparency.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[sgt scrub]

Because the others are not U.S. companies. The hoops B&N are going to have to jump through to get MOSAID (patent troll deeelux) to cooperate is nothing compared to what a company outside of the U.S. would have to do.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[javakah]

Not necessarily. It sounded like there was a pretty strict NDA in place. I wouldn't be surprised if it was to keep Google from knowing what the alleged infringing patents were, so Google may not have had a chance to really fight this.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[bluefoxlucid]

I can't imagine why people don't contract lawyers and insist on the lawyers recovering their legal fees. Shall you win I will pay you up to $X and then beyond that 10% of your legal fees only up to $Y, and you shall independently pursue the plaintiff for recovery of your legal expenses; shall you lose, you shall receive at most $a (less than $X, or maybe a very low rate). We shall provide documentation of agreed upon legal rates and all agreements related to said legal case; you shall supply justification of your rates, such as but not limited to comparison to your normal rate spread.

Reality becomes: Legal battles are back-breaking, legal bullshit raises hell, and shareholders dislike watching you try to dirty the game by lawroom bullshit. Eventually, lawyers don't want to work your cases--or when your lawyer sees this is going nowhere, he strongly recommends retracting the case parts way to inform you that you will need to bid up a new lawyer.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Gerzel]

Court lawyer fees.

That's how the legal system all too often works these days. The monetary cost of raising a case, even if you are on the side of right, is far more expensive than paying off the extortion.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[bluefoxlucid]

The problem is if B&N wins, then everyone else who has had these bandied at them has a countersuit to recover the costs already paid under false pretenses. If MS brings NEW patents, then people will be inclined to look for prior art because fuck, it worked for B&N.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[bluefoxlucid]

I'm not signing an NDA because I'm being sent a Cease and Desist about shit that I'm not being informed about. You can't C&D me without telling me what you want me to C&D. When you raise lawsuit, I will tell the judge that you refused to inform me on what was the problem, and so I declined to enter in legal contracts under vague threats.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[LWATCDR]

Well if they get into a knock down drag out fight with Microsoft and WP7 and or W8 tablets catch on they could be in big trouble. Samsung also makes PCs and laptops. They really don't want to make Microsoft angry.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[poetmatt]

Doesn't matter.

This is public, not under seal. This will have effects that reach far, far beyond this single case.

The strongest patents Microsoft can bring to bear would also suddenly become their biggest and dumbest decision. Why?

Can you imagine how much effort would be dedicated to invalidating them? Hint: a lot.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[c 0xFF]

Good news! If I'm reading Groklaw correctly, Google's starting to get involved.

I think the reason Google hasn't really been involved before is because Microsoft hasn't been attacking them directly. And because companies have just been rolling over, Google hasn't had a chance to back anybody up.

Google will become involved now that someone is planting their feet, hopefully.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[c 0xFF]

Maybe a partnership between B&N and Google Books?

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

The NDA what Microsoft forced company leaders to sign denied from them possibility to sue Microsoft and tied them to agree to other agreements.

Microsoft basicly came in, said "You are infiring our patents, we dont tell what, how many or how much we ask from you and to even get anything, you need to sign this NDA".

And when you signed it, you were done. You didn't have anything against Microsoft to sue or defend. As it would be very pricy even to brake out from the NDA.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[oakgrove]

Yeah, or something real snarky like 50 million digital copies of the Nook Tablet user manual at 10 bucks a pop.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

True enough, but after this suit is over, they can come back with a different set of patents, and keep chewing away.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[icebike]

I suspect in large part because most companies' lawyers basically tell them "Paying the licensing fee is cheaper and surer means to an end than fighting." So far as I can tell, it basically amounts to a vast conspiracy of legal departments on both sides of the fence.

Also a possible reason is that B&N is a US company and could go directly after Microsoft in a court of its choice. HTC, Samsung, et al may have subsidiaries here but they are headquartered elsewhere and can't directly access US courts as easily.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[c 0xFF]

And in the meantime, the patents they bring out will probably be invalidated.

Well, that certainly explains why the patents they're using in this suit are so laughable. Disposable ammunition.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[icebike]

all microsoft wants is money.

Apple doesn't care about money from patent suits, they are out to see the their competitors burn.

Microsoft does not care about money. At best they will only obtain 1/3 of the license fees, the rest go to Nokia and the canadian patent troll MOSAID.

Microsoft wants to make it prohibitively expensive to produce any Android phone.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Riceballsan]

Most likely the way Microsoft cut deals with everyone. I believe the rumor is that microsoft tells the phone manufacturers every dollar they spend on the android patents, will come back to them in free WP8 licenses/marketing for windows phones etc... So basically for the other companies the options are A. Spend money on invalidating it, receive no refund, B. Spend money on something you don't need, get it all back. More or less without fighting they lose nothing unless WP8 completely fails to sell at all. Think of it as if you had a utility company, the electic company says you need to pay them $20 a month for your internet access they don't provide, but they will subtract $20 from your power bill. Does it matter to you? B&N and Amazon would be the few companies that have motivation to fight it, Microsoft has nothing to offer them unless B&N wants to make a windows powered reader later on as well.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[rkhalloran]

The difference between the B&N case and the various handset/tablet makers is that the latter can just add the MS danegeld to the consumers' final bill, where for B&N the Nook is simply an 'enabler' for their main business of selling you reading materials. They want to hold down the cost to hook you easier and recoup their costs quicker. Why pay royalties to MS on what B&N sees as basically a digital shopping bag?

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Jeng]

B&N's brick and mortar stores are going to close up and blow away.

B&N knows that they have to start distributing their titles via electronic means. This is their future, if they just rolled over they may as give up and declare bankruptcy.

So they have a chance if they are successful, but fucked if they don't, so they must try or die.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[GNious]

The problem is if B&N wins, then everyone else who has had these bandied at them has a countersuit to recover the costs already paid under false pretenses.

Wouldn't MS have had a chance (and incentives) to include a clause against this (counter-suit) in the license-agreement they've made the other companies sign?
I.e., "Though the patents are valid and the party is in violation, the party waiver all right to bring suit to reclaim any license-fee, should the patents be proven invalid, or the party shown to, in fact, not be in violation" ...

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[maxdread]

If I remember correctly, didn't MS also give Samsung/HTC rather large ad budgets for advertising their windows phones? I'm willing to bet Samsung/HTC got something out of paying those licensing fees. B&N however has no need/interest in making a windows phone 7 OS based device, MS simply had nothing to offer them.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[bhcompy]

True, but when you win a judgment you usually get your legal fees paid by the other party

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Tomato42]

HTC is selling phones with Windows, Samsung is selling computers with Windows, B&N is not selling hardware with MS soft on it. Do the math.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Tharsman]

Its a complex mess where MS would not even reveal the details of the patents in question to the victims without them signing an NDA and an agreement not to use the information to litigate back, etc etc.

Basically, revelation of the key patents was only going to happen if you already signed away your rights to fight.

I do ponder exactly what legal loophole did B&N managed to use to get out of that contract and be able to use the information in court.

I also ponder why on Earth would the court system allow a patent lawsuit to go on without providing specific information on the frigging pattents!!!

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Gerzel]

Yeah but if you can't afford the risk then it doesn't matter.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Tharsman]

Samsung stood up only after offering to bend over and being rejected by Apple.
Apple does not want Samsung to compromise by bending over, it wanted to kill Android and discourage others from sharing their bed swith Google.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[strength_of_10_men]

Screw the patents! Where can I get a crackhead chihuahua with a Gattling gun?!

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[oh_my_080980980]

And yet Samsung and HTC are paying Microsoft...jackass.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, a friend of mine worked for a company that was destroyed by M$ like this.

First, Stack electronics sues M$ for stealing their technology. It was blatant theft, and M$ lost $23M to Stack. M$ counter-sues saying the only way Stack could have made their product was to reverse engineer M$ apps to figure out how to hook DOS since M$ doesn't document those hooks. Stack loses, since it is true, M$ did not document the hooks, but kept them secret for competitive advantage $3M to M$.

M$ did the simple math 23-3... hmmm... so, they bought stack and destroyed the company.

M$ and their leadership has always been evil. Steal rape and pillage-- its a corporate mission statement.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Tharsman]

They know that wont stop Android manufacturers.

What they want is for Android to lose it's "free" advantage by encoumbering it with patent licesning costs.

They dont want it to fail off their own merits, just to lose that advantage. A world were some one can get a user friendly OS for free is a world that scares Microsoft. Was true with Linux despite it not being too user friendly, and is even more so with Android, due to it being much more user friendly.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[oh_my_080980980]

Microsoft has been going after Android! That's going after Google. Microsoft has been targeting Android makers for sometime. What hell has Google been waiting for???? Google could have easy indemnified the manufacturers, thus protecting them and making Google the target of Microsoft's legal actions. They didn't. Google is only indirectly involved in the B&N case. They are still MIA.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am really getting tired of seeing this on Slashdot...Maybe I should sue with claims of prior art?

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[bhcompy]

This isn't the case of Aureal or 3dfx, though. B&N has enough capital and assets to deal with it, as does most of the companies involved.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because as a result of those threats they raise the price, one part going to MS and the rest becomes pure profit.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[slapout]

Yeah, cause when TV came along all the radio stations shut down. And then when Netflix came along, all the TV stations went out of business.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you ever consider this is good for both parties?

The tech to produce a tablet right now is next to nothing, anybody could build their own fairly easily. I believe the only thing keeping tablets with the big names only is the thought of having to settle patent disputes (Convenient timing of those patent issues just as the price started to drop below $300). I could easily see businesses building personalized tablets even (think Costco Tablet, Sears Tablet, Walmart Tablet) with specialized software for that business interest. I've seen tablets here on sale for under $90, and getting cheaper all the time; even at $200 my bank gave me a free EeePC for signing up so I don't believe this is unreasonable at all and must be a real fear to Apple, MS, and the big tablet makers.

Look how quickly MS changed their pricing and availability of XP for NetBooks when Linux Netbooks started gaining momentum; the above "Patent" problem may just be a business decision to keep incumbents out for the Andriod makers market; and for MS to buy time to get a product/service ready to sell themselves (Win8 maybe??).

Then again, could be that the non-MS Lawyers were too stupid to realize the patents were worthless and would just rather hand over millions for the hell of it...

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[znerk]

I do ponder exactly what legal loophole did B&N managed to use to get out of that contract and be able to use the information in court.

As I understand it, they signed an NDA concerning the contents of the meeting where they were supposed to receive the information on which patents they were allegedly infringing... but that information never came out in the meeting. Later, when they received the packet of information detailing which patents they were allegedly infringing, that particular data was not covered by the NDA they signed referencing the meeting, because it did not occur at that meeting.

At least, that's what I recall of the previous discussion of "how they got away with violating the NDA" - Put simply, they didn't.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Also a possible reason is that B&N is a US company and could go directly after Microsoft in a court of its choice. HTC, Samsung, et al may have subsidiaries here but they are headquartered elsewhere and can't directly access US courts as easily.

Lawyers do most of the work. It's not like the CEO is personally attending to every mundane court case out there.

The main reason for the lack of HTC's and Samsung's lack of litigation could be that it isn't wise to bite the hand that feeds you... HTC makes Windows phone and Samsung make PCs.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Jeng]

And when MP-3's came along the music stores didn't shut down.

Well, actually they did.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was this easy to beat them and the prior art was that apparent, why did everyone else bow down and pay to troll his toll?

Because patents have become a form of legalized extortion moreso than inventor protection. Because our courts are so pathetically screwed up, fighting patents, even when you're absolutely in the clear, is no indication you'll successfully fight it off. And worse, because our courts are so pathetically screwed up, all too often, the party with the deepest pockets when. Add to that, that in this case, the funds being extorted can be added to the cost of sale without anything out of pocket, most companies just find it easier to pay the extortion fees than drag it out and face the chance of being wrong even when they are absolutely right.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[geekoid]

Because instead of just advising, companies allow lawyers to do risk assessment.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[geekoid]

Why not? It's not like there is anything MS can do that would get the courts pissed at them.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the thought that keeps me awake with glee at night.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[geekoid]

"It's not like the CEO is personally attending to every mundane court case out there."
true, but they should.
We would see a lot fewer of these cases.
If corporations are people, and they are accusing me of a crime, don't I have the right to see my accuser? so really, the majority shareholder should have to be there as well.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[mcgrew]

Was true with Linux despite it not being too user friendly

It's been a long time since you tried Linux, hasn't it? Today's distros are far easier to use than today's Windows. Linux has surpassed Windows in most ways, including useability.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft wants to make it prohibitively expensive to produce any Android phone.

Not quite. They want it to be just as expensive to produce an Android phone/tablet as a Windows one. That way,

• 1) Windows phones become more attractive to make and
• 2) regardless of who "wins," Microsoft still makes their money.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because $5 extra dollars on a $200+ purchase makes it "prohibitively expensive".

There's lots of stuff to hate about this case but MS does not have the same goal as Apple. This isn't 'scorched earth' on M$'s part.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Tharsman]

I would argue it still not user friendly enough, based off personal experienc (instalation can be a snap with Ubuntu, provided you already have another OS installed.)

However, do notice "was" in my post.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

i do think that is a big factor but you must also realize that most of these companies have 'their irons in many fires'. some of those other fires might depend on having a good relationship with MS. basically, MS is so intertwined in the digital world that they possess an influential power akin to mobsters and mafia.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[gnud]

Not sure if it's a good legal strategy to withhold the patents you think the defendants are infringing, during discovery. IANAL, but that sounds like acting in bad faith to me.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[hedwards]

No that's not how they work. Right now those patents are valid and enforceable, B&N is challenging them, but until they're declared to be invalid any settlements are legitimate. The USPTO decides whom to grant patents to and as long as MS owns those patents that the USPTO granted they can't be sued for using them to get settlements.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[mrchaotica]

More or less without fighting they lose nothing unless WP8 completely fails to sell at all.

More insidiously on Microsoft's part, the agreement also has the effect of giving the phone manufacturers a more vested interest in having WP8 be successful.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Now... what exactly does the NDA prevent? If these companies were to submit patches to Android OS that just did things in a different way to avoid a MS patent and mentioned that the changes were to work around patents without mentioning the specific ones they were avoiding, would that be a disclosure of the NDA? I wouldn't think so.

If Microsoft were really evil geniuses the NDA would be between the companies lawyers and their own engineers. Of course, nothing would prevent an engineer from being turned into a "Paralegal" long enough for them to "research" the patents they couldn't disclose to "engineering". At least nothing in my TV style legal mind.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[icebike]

Right, because $5 extra dollars on a $200+ purchase makes it "prohibitively expensive".

Citation needed.
Nobody has yet stated the actual cost per handset.

Mostly because Microsoft stipulates in contract that they must NOT reveal EITHER the patents they are licensing
OR the actual dollar value.

The second part is par for the course, but refusing to allow the licensees to specify EXACTLY which patents they
are licensing is very very suspect.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Sleepy]

Most companies will pay tens or hundreds of thousands to license a patent, over the howls of their engineers if need be. A lawyer fight will easily cost more.

Companies stand up to patent bullying when it is life or death for their products.. getting someone's phone "banned" from the EU or the US tends to increase the stakes. Even then, they don't care about the patent's validity, just getting the patent holder to back down. Seeking to overturn the patent is merely a threat... offer a better price on the patent and no corporation will refuse it and keep fighting to overturn the patent. So, you're completely wrong.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[leoc]

Apple does not want Samsung to compromise by bending over, it wanted to kill Android and discourage others from sharing their bed swith Google.

Microsoft likely feels the same way, and this licensing scheme is just the first volley in a larger campaign against Android. What is interesting to me is that Android clearly represents a legitimately big threat to both Apple and Microsoft. It would not surprise me in the least to see them join forces at some point to squash Android (and perhaps all Linux based products).

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[ElBeano]

Because the license fees don't really amount to anything given what MS is offering in return. This has not been disclosed and an NDA probably applies. It could include sweetheart deals on WP7, various Windows OSs, and maybe some free Azure hosting. Who knows?

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

This has been bothering me for years. Transparent things can't been seen! I want opacity! I want the government to be opaque about both the issue and what they're doing about it. I don't want transparent government - I want to be able to see what they're doing!

I realize the idea is that they are being transparent by not hiding the issue - but if you're being transparent, even if you're not hiding the issue, you're hiding what you're doing about it!

Please for the love of god kill this buzzword.

Thanks.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux began to technologically surpass XP circa 2004-2006. After Vista SP1 and Windows 7 were released, Linux on the desktop faltered and failed.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Imbrondir]

I suspect Windows Phone as well as Windows desktop has negotiable OEM prices

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Imbrondir]

What? The library and prices of Amazon.com are great and all, but there is something special about going to a book store. It would be sad thing to see those go away.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[elashish14]

Of course, if there were any such thing as antitrust regulation, then MS would get sued to hell if they changed their Windows pricing agreements because one of their vendors stood up to their anti-Android racket. There's no way in hell that MS should be allowed to attack vendors for defending themselves from this ridiculous shit.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not legal (It's called "Fraud") and therefore not enforceable. No court would back that clause up.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Svartalf]

Heh... You'd be mistaken on that regard... All it takes is working with a Patent Attorney on your own patents to develop at least a bit of that ability.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Svartalf]

Doesn't work that way. Not letting me see the alleged infringements except under NDA doesn't fall under what is expected of the Infringed with regards to Patents. You HAVE to give an opportunity to remediate the problem- and not with those sorts of shackles. If I don't know what I was infringing, how am I supposed to stop?

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Svartalf]

It's something that'll bite them in the backside. They've been doing the rumblings that Linux and Android violate patents they hold for the last 5+ years. At some threshold the Courts will accept Laches as a defense to any prosecution and the actual Infringer (Linux Community, Google...) will effectively be given carte blanche on the patents in question.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Was true with Linux despite it not being too user friendly

It's been a long time since you tried Linux, hasn't it? Today's distros are far easier to use than today's Windows. Linux has surpassed Windows in most ways, including useability.

With GNOME3 and KDE4.x I wouldn't bet on it.
Windows in terms of usability peaked with XP, after that its been going downhill. The irony of course is that the linux counterpart DEs have been going downhill even faster. Right now what Microsoft and thosed deluded Gnome and KDE people want are appliances not computers. So why would they care about usability anymore ?

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't that the entire premise of the A-Team?

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[sabt-pestnu]

I appreciate your learned reference. But the victim of the patent troll, and the victim of the Dane have only one choice, to pay or not to pay.

The best outcome is always to win free of the Dane, of course. But if the victory be Pyrrhic, are you in the end better off than if you had slunk softly into the night?

Of note, though... a better outcome yet is for you and he to fight, for I bear not the cost of the fight, yet gather the fruit thereof. (quoth the raven).

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Thing 1]

Send more so we can either invalidate or code around those too.

You had me at "Send more": remember that old horror zombie movie where the zombies spoke on the cop radio, "send more cops!" Then the paramedics came and they ate them too, and said on that radio, "send more paramedics!" So your post screamed at my alcohol-ridden brain, "SEND MORE PATENTS!"

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Shotgun]

The patents may not have been all that Microsoft was offering to fight over.

"Challenge our patents, and some other services you're looking for may get VERY expensive."

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

The other companies are familiar with patent suits. They know that winning is still a loss. Even if they can defeat five patents, Microsoft will pull another five out of their portfolio of thousands. Sooner or later Microsoft will pull out a patent that is not so easily defeated.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand that. However, if they are found invalidated, is there something in place to not allow the USPTO office from being held accountable.
If I had a company, and I lost money because I thought they were valid, I would feel violated by my own government.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[hedwards]

That's why you have attorneys, even with the most qualified hardest working examiners there's always the possibility of a bad patent slipping through, ultimately it's the responsibility of the courts to determine what the costs of infringement are and if it does infringe. The only solution is reform, once you sign that settlement deal that's more or less it, you've waived your right to contest it in court.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[steelfood]

Sorry, it's been patented already.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[findoutmoretoday]

<quote>Do they not cover Kipling in law school?  </quote>

Kipling, chiefly remembered for his celebration of British imperialism,  would work for Microsoft today.  Maybe he does,  Microsoft says they defend innovation.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Pollardito]

There's a good reason for both Samsung and HTC who wanted to sell Windows Phones (and laptops for Samsung) to come to an agreement with Microsoft. Most of the other companies that settled are also Windows PC vendors

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

They also had patents which would likely be invalidated by prior art. If they played along it kept up the whole game. B&N did not have any notable patents, making it pretty pointless to defend the idea that these kind of patents are valid.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Yeah, cause when TV came along all the radio stations shut down. And then when Netflix came along, all the TV stations went out of business."

Borders has already closed its stores in Downtown Crossing in Boston Massachusetts and on Church Street in Burlington Vermont (both major centers for shopping, both tourist and otherwise), and these are just the ones I know about. While I am aware that B&N and Borders are two different stores this would certainly seem to be writing on the soon to be non-existent wall.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect in large part because most companies' lawyers basically tell them "Paying the licensing fee is cheaper and surer means to an end than fighting." So far as I can tell, it basically amounts to a vast conspiracy of legal departments on both sides of the fence.

It doesn't work that way, when there are many other companies. Sure, one small company can't fight microsoft. But it take only one 'fighter' to invalidate a patent, which then becomes useless. Microsoft can't use that patents against any others. And those already paying can simply stop when a patent is invalidated. So if winning seems realistic, perhaps other companies with an interest will help with the legal bills. . .

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[niftymitch]

There's a good reason for both Samsung and HTC who wanted to sell Windows Phones (and laptops for Samsung) to come to an agreement with Microsoft. Most of the other companies that settled are also Windows PC vendors

With Blackberry in trouble (some might say not at all)
the mobile devices that interact with Outlook well and
in a secure encrypted way could become a wide open
market. No hardware vendor is going to ignore this in totality.

The cloud vendor that can match Outlook's appeal with a
replacement mail service on Android and iOS is going to
make a solid living.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[niftymitch]

Now... what exactly does the NDA prevent? ...snip.....

Not a thing if a party to the NDA believes that a law has been
broken. There may need to be some compartmentalization
and closed legal actions to initiate the tearing down of
these tangled legal webs but with the number of interactions
it is hard to believe they are all pure as fresh show.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[niftymitch]

Do they not cover Kipling in law school? They should.

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation

    To call upon a neighbour and to say: --
"We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,

    Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,

    And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld

    And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,

    To puff and look important and to say: --
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.

    We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;

    But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld

    You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,

    For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,

    You will find it better policy to say: --

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,

    No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,

    And the nation that pays it is lost!"

Yes and in political science class too.
Here it is sometimes called foreign aid.
There are pull and push models...

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[sjames]

Because no matter how much of a slam dunk it should be, it can still be terribly expensive to take this to court, there's no assurance MS won't try again and again with more fluff patents, and because a demented slug understands technology better than the courts do so it's still a gamble.

There may be a number of reasons why B&N choose to fight it. Perhaps it's volume. There's a lot of Android based phone vendors out there, but not so many ebook readers. Perhaps they see the Nook as key to their long term survival and that any dependance on MS to be merciful is unacceptable. They might even just have a lot of backbone and a genuine sense of right and wrong.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[thetoadwarrior]

Yeah because they don't want to be forced into paying money to MS *and* Apple. There is no need to fight MS because MS uses it for blackmail basically and in effect gives the money back when they give into selling WP7 phones where as Apple won't give them anything because their interest is in protecting their property.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft wants to make it prohibitively expensive to produce any Android phone.

That's the only way that their braindead Windows Phone 7 will be able to compete and overtake any of the large platforms.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to go AC here (it's been 7+ years since I've posted anything here, so I doubt I could remember my login if I tried).

B&N is the last of the major book retailers, now that Borders is gone. And while Amazon does cut into them quite a bit, I doubt their brick and mortar goes anywhere, as they're the only ones left.

The B&N near my house is ALWAYS busy. The ability to browse, and sample is generally better as well (imo), and being able to get the book the day you find it has its advantages over waiting 3-5 business days. I wouldn't be surprised if they scale down some of their larger stores (the 2/3 story megastores that exist), but I don't see them closing up and blowing away.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[MightyMartian]

At the end of the day, I prefer books to LCD screens. Bookstores aren't going away any time soon.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

B&N knows that they have to start distributing their titles via electronic means. This is their future, if they just rolled over they may as give up and declare bankruptcy.

I do not think they will switch to exclusive electronic means. Many consumers (myself included) much prefer holding an actual book.
Plus, I know that an arbitrary decision by some Corporate Greed Master won't 'turn off' my book so I cannot read it anymore.

And finally, when I can go to the store (or Amazon) and buy a dead-tree version for $7, but they want $13 for the electronic version, there's something fundamentally wrong here.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Transparency means that you're able to see what's behind the things.

When you say you want opacity in government, that means you're ok with them doing things behind closed doors. Transparency allows you to see what they're doing.

MS wants opacity because they want to say "we have patents" and everyone will pay them the license fees. Transparency in this case allows you to see through the bullshit and know exactly which patents they have, and how much they're worth.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[mcgrew]

IMO there isn't an OS on the planet that's "user friendly enough". But I've owned computers since 1982, the first two were tape driven, BASICcentric, then DOS, then Windows, then when I got sick of Microsoft, Linux.

Windows has a lot of catching up to do in most respects. Having to reboot every Patch Tuesday isn't user-friendly at all, and it's even less user friendly because you have a boot every time a third party piece of software updates. In Linux, a boot is only required if you update the kernel.

Having all of the programs and documents that were open when you do boot Linux (say, you just want to save electricity and shut it down at night) reopen when you boot is user friendly; having to manually reopen every one as required by Windows is not. Having a choice to whether or not this is your machine's default, as linux, is far more user friendly than having no choice at all.

An example of Windows finallly catching up with Linux is now, you can set your machine up to not require a password on boot. Linux has had this for over ten years!

My newest machine, an Acer Notebook, has a "feature" where if you tap the pad that substitutes for a mouse, it sees that as a click. It took me a month to figure out how to disable that in Windows; it's nowhere in Control Panel where you would expect it to be (and Control Panel itself in Win 7 is less user-friendly than XP; it's a jumbled mess). It took less than five minutes in Linux.

As to installation, installing Windows is a huge pain in the ass that takes forever (see another's comment on this). And that's another user-hostile move on Microsoft's part -- due to the fact that the Windows Registry grows every time you use the PC, in a year it gets dragged down so it's too slow to use and you have to reinstall Windows and every single application. Not needed in Linux, no stupid registry to drag your system down.

When (if, most people don't) you update Windows (or any MS program) to a later version, you have to relearn the app all over again. They have a bad habit of playing Musical Menus, every release changes everything. That's not the least user-friendly. Not so with Linux. I just updated kubuntu from 9 to 11 last weekend, and the only differences are marked improvements. Snappier, faster (every new release of Windows is slower, and usually your old machine won;t even run a newer version) more features, but they didn't remove the old ones.

Of course, I don't need my computer to be friendly, I want it to be obedient. Windows isn't. You have to do it the Windows way or not at all. That isn't the least bit friendly. Windows is in charge of the user, the user is in charge of Linux.

The "Windows is user friendly and Linux isn't" is so mythical it's a flat out lie, but one of those lies that's believed because it's been repeated often enough. Fifteen years ago it was true that Linux wasn't user friendly, but that's not been true for a long, long time. Friendly? Windows is user-hostile!

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[jgagnon]

"User friendly" is not just a valuation of the UI after install. It's a full assessment of everything from installation, driver updates, system updates, software compatibility, file compatibility, device compatibility, stability, etc. Linux is a great kernel and there are many distributions that add to that greatness, but as a complete OS package, Linux + GNU has a long way to go compared to commercial alternatives like OSX and Windows.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[mcgrew]

I have no experience with OSX, for all I know it's head and shoulders above Linux. But I use kubuntu, XP (at work) and Win 7. Of the three, kubuntu is far in the lead in useability. Your list:

• driver updates: Painless and transparent in Linux. Requires a reboot in Windows. Plus, I never had a Linux update break anything in the ten years I've been using it. But when I upgraded from 98 to XP, the next day the internet stopped working. Microsoft had replaced a perfectly good network driver with one that didn't work at all! A non nerd wouldn't have been able to reinstall the original driver, let alone figure out what the problem had been. How is that in any way user-friendly?
• Installation: Linux is a breeze to install, Windows is total a pain in the ass. With Linux, put the CD or DVD in, start the PC, answer a few questions ("What is your time zone? What user name do you want? Password?) and 30 minutes later you reboot, and you have a fully functional computer. With Windows (at least XP, I never installed 7 or used Vista) every question is ten minutes apart. When it's done there are several reboots needed, then you have to reinstall each and every app; in Linux most apps you need are installed with the OS. And of course, reboots with every installed app in Windows, not in Linux. There's no contest and no comparison here. When it comes to installation, Linux is a brand new Porche and Windows is a rusted out Yugo. Remember, I use both OSes and have installed different flavors and versions of both. Anybody who says Windows is easier to install than Linux is either lying, or never has had experience installing both.
• system updates: Far easier in Linux. I upgraded kubuntu to version 11 last week, Saturday there were tons of updates. Click "ok", enter the root password, forget about it. No reboots, just a message on the screen telling you it's done. Far more useable.
• software compatibility: Everything that ran on the first version of Linux I had ten years ago runs fine on the latest distros, and I'm sure the first Linux app ever created would still run. OTOH, when I upgraded from 95 to 98, most of my DOS games woudn't run (you can compile a 40 year old Unix program with a Linux compiler and it will run). When I upgraded from 98 to XP, likewise -- hald the programs were incompatible, including the CD burning software that came with my burner.
• file compatibility: Again, Linux wins. Microsoft goes out of their way to make their OSes and apps incompatible with everything else. Microsoft isn't even compatible with itself! I can't tell you how many tinmes at work I can't open a Word document because there's an older version on my machine than the machine sending the file. I never saw that in OO. When they upgraded Access (I hate that damned program), none of the apps I'd written would work; it was completely incompatible with files from the earlier version, so I had to completely rewrite EVERYTHING. You call that user friendly? I sure don't.
• You didn't mention networking. I can access my Win7 files from my Linux box just fine with Samba, but according to the Windows help file you have to have Win 7 Professional on one of your PCs to be able to network at all. This is user friendly?
• device compatibility: This did indeed use to be a problem with Linux, but I've seen no compatibility problems lately. In fact, I was surprised to find that the buttons on my cordless mouse and keyboard that didn't use to work in Linux work flawlessly now. And then there's the two bluetooth dongles I bought, one for the Linux box and one for the Windows box. In Windows, I had to run an install script from a mini-CD to make it work (and there's no CD on the notebook, I had to copy the files to a thumb drive in the Linux box to make bluetooth work in the Windows box), in Linux I just plugged the dongle in and it was ready. And you seriously think Windows is more device-compatible?
• stability: Are you kidding me? Seriously? A Windows fan would bring up stability? Yes, Windows is far more stable

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[jgagnon]

I have installed Linux many, many times, as well as maintaining dual-boot systems for years. What you say is true, to a point, for a technically inclined person. It is NOT true for the vast majority of users out there. Sure, distros like Ubuntu make installation painless for most people. Windows/OSX take it one step further by already being there and not needing installation. Most folks can't handle installing Windows/OSX, either. It's the fact that they don't need installing in the first place that gives them a win.

You can compare XP to Linux all you want, but fact is it is OLD. Compare modern Linux to Windows 7 or Vista if you want an accurate comparison. By all means, though, forget about Vista since it was a piece of crap. Windows 7 is better in every respect and has been out long enough (over two years) to justify using it as the "Windows standard".

And nice of you to throw the fanboy card around. Is everyone that thinks Linux is too messy for most users a fanboy of some other system by default? Can't the Linux folks handle a little criticism? Isn't it possible that Linux may be in need of improvement? Isn't it possible that Linux may be "worse" in some people's minds and those people's opinions matter as much as yours?

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[jgagnon]

I forgot to mention that for every example you gave, I could easily give a counter example where Windows or OSX bested Linux in user experience. But that likely won't matter to you.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[hazydave]

It's possible they have more in reserve, which could be applied in a new suit if this one is lost.

In general, they company with the patents is after money. They don't want to go to court, so they try to make the licensing easy, and the costs of fighting it high. I was a technical advisor for Commodore, when IBM went after the Amiga systems with a big stack of patents. And most were total garbage.. typical of early 80s software patents, the prior art was so thick you'd need a chainsaw to cut it. For example, IBM had a 1984 patent on cut and paste between text buffers! The thing was, IBM wanted money but also cross licensing. So their fees changed for 1, 2, or 3 or more patents. If we had fought off 24 of the first 25, it was pretty clear they'd be back with another stack of 25. It was ultimately cheaper to pay.

But if MS has put all their cards on the table, this is an even larger problem for them, particularly in today's climate. If done right by MS's legal team, these things are never supposed to go to court. If a couple of these patents are shown to have crazy and obvious prior art, the court these days might put them all up for review, rather than the individual cases you might have expected in the past. And if the patents are struck down, that kills all existing licenses, all that money, and may generate a backlash against Microsoft at the current liscensees. So they really structure things to get each company approached to be quiet, first, then roll over. B&N right now is doing pretty much everything that gives these kind of lawyers nightmares. Makes me want to put a nook on my Christmas list.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they need to use subterfuge to help B&N with this. Unlike the SCO case, Google doesn't need to avoid being seen helping B&N.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[hazydave]

Yup. I spent enough time working with legal folks to understand the whole patent thing. This was originally reading them to help lawyers decide if the patents actually read on our stuff, then working on patent applications.

Part of the fragility of many patents is simply due to the way they're written. It's not uncommon that the patent is simply not an accurate description of the "preferred embodiment" of the invention (eg, the thing you actually built), because the lawyers didn't understand it very well, and the engineers were too busy to fix these problems.

Sometimes the claims are bogus. The PTO actually approves a patent based on the description of the invention, not the claims. They are supposed to reject it if there is a claim not properly supported in thst description, but the claims are secondary in the approval process. One granted, the claims are what they "read" on you stuff to determine infringment. Snarky lawyers try to write these so they seem to cover way more than described in that actual invention.

And so on. And that's even before you get to prior art. That alone is a mess, because the PTO usually only looks at prior patents. Before 2007, they weren't even functionally allowed to use "coommon sense" as a test of obviousness, and particularly for software patents from the 80s and 90s, pretty much any one can and should be challenged, simply because the PTO didn't have software engineer examiners on staff. The Constitutional basis for patents requires a test of obviousness by one "skilled in the art".

I think Microsoft's main point here was to use fees on Android as a means to push Windows Phone. Thus, their going after the Windows Phone mfgs first, leaving the other Android suppliers to what should have been a relatively simple clean-up effort.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[minchazo]

I use my Windows computer for gaming and web-surfing, very little else. Is Linux more user-friendly for games? Does Linux have more gaming options than Windows?

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[mcgrew]

If you're gaming and surfing, a Linux computer and an X-Box would suit you better. Linux for surfing (much safer) X-Box for gaming (made for games).

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[mcgrew]

I could easily give a counter example

Then please do so, it looks to me like you already tried and failed.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[mcgrew]

Sure, distros like Ubuntu make installation painless for most people. Windows/OSX take it one step further by already being there and not needing installation.

Linux installs have been as painless as Ubuntu since at least way back in the Mandrake years. Yes, Windows comes with your computer, but what's the user to do when his registry grows so big that the computer slows to a crawl or he's infected by some virus? Hire someone to reinstall it and all his apps... or install Linux. You don't have to be very technically proficient to install Linux, as a test of this I had my daughter install Linux when she was 12. Yeah, she's bright, but any adult with average intelligence (or even less) could install Linux.

Windows is indeed a pain in the ass to install. Not difficult or technically challenging, just a pain in the ass.

You can compare XP to Linux all you want, but fact is it is OLD. Compare modern Linux to Windows 7 or Vista if you want an accurate comparison.

I have no idea how hard or easy Win 7 installation is, but it came on my new notebook, and it's even less user-friendly than XP was, especially to someone used to Windows. Why does Microsoft insist on changing EVERYTHING about every OS or app they sell when they come out with a new version?

In comparison, I just updated kubuntu from 9 to 11. It works the same way 9 did; the only things that changed is Samba is installed by default in the new version (a nice surprise), flash works better, it seems "snappier", there are a few other niceties, but it didn't take getting used to like a new version od Windows does.

I will agree that Win 7 is better than XP; far more stable and secure. But it still has a long way to go to catch up with Linux in useability, stability, and safety.

And nice of you to throw the fanboy card around. Is everyone that thinks Linux is too messy for most users a fanboy of some other system by default?

No. Most people who think Linux is "too messy" simply haven't tried it because of the FUD. "Windows fan" isn't any more of a put down than calling a Cubs fan a fan (actually "cubs fan" is imo a put down, the Cubs are losers and have been for over 100 years. Can't say that about Microsoft). Note I did NOT use the derogatory term "fanboy" or the more derogatory "fanboi".

Can't the Linux folks handle a little criticism?

If the criticism is warranted, then Linux devs usually get to work on it. Unwarranted criticism (like saying Windows is more useable or stable) can be safely dismissed or easily argued.

Isn't it possible that Linux may be in need of improvement?

Everything made by man is in need of improvement; Linux is far from perfect.

Isn't it possible that Linux may be "worse" in some people's minds and those people's opinions matter as much as yours?

If they use both OSes regularly, their opinion is as valid as mine. But most people who bash Linux either haven't even tried it, haven't tried it in this century, or gave it maybe ten minutes. Those people's opinions are as worthless as my opinion on the merits and demerits of Lamborghini vs Porche.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[jgagnon]

That is the problem, though. The better or worse comparisons are entirely subjective. That makes them "equal" in my mind. I do agree that total exposure time is a significant factor in one's ability to appreciate the merits of a piece of software. Windows Vista/7 sucked at first for me until I was used to them, now I can't stand going back to XP. I used to prefer KDE until I had many problems a version of Kubuntu and have since preferred to stick with other desktop environments.

On a personal note, I've had more machines have driver issues with Linux than I ever have with Windows, especially when it comes to wireless network adapters. Don't get me wrong, it's a problem on nearly every system, but in my experience I've had many more issues on the Linux side of things. I haven't had a lot of exposure to wireless adapters on OSX, but the few I have tried had issues as well (resulting in the equivalent of registry hacks to fix/install).

Video card and motherboard drivers have been another sore spot for me over the years. About two years ago I had a system that refused to install three different variants of Linux (Ubuntu, Linux Mint, and Slackware, if I remember correctly) because of motherboard and video card driver issues. None of them would give me a desktop and Mint wouldn't even let me see a shell prompt. That was frustrating so I reinstalled Windows and it went through flawlessly. Go figure. Since that time, most of my issues have been with add-on peripherals like a USB to serial cable I had (though that one is likely fixed now) and many other non-mainstream gadgets.

As for updates and reboots, Windows 7 gets about one update a month that requires a restart (though I'm usually restarting more than that because of other things). Most installs that are "Windows 7 aware" do not require a restart after install, either. Many that require XP compatibility do, however.

As for file compatibility, it is most definitely an issue for Linux users that must frequently cross over to the Windows world. Microsoft Office is a biggie. And before you mention Open/LibreOffice, it is NOT to a level of compatibility needed for many businesses. One word: macros.

Stability is another one of those subjective topics. I've never seen a BSOD (or equivalent) in Windows 7 during normal use, but I have had some related to waking from sleep/hibernate and some poorly made drivers. I can't exactly blame Windows 7 for this because in every case for me, it was third party drivers that caused the crash. But from a "always running" standpoint, Windows 7 is rock solid.

I will admit that over the last several years the vast majority of my Linux exposure has been with Ubuntu and its offshoots (Linux Mint being another primary one). I have given strong consideration to going back to using Debian and will for sure when I set up some test machines coming up in a few months.

Honestly, my experience with Windows far exceeds my combined experience with Linux and OSX. Of the three, OSX is my least favorite as a user and as an admin. I have a soft spot for Linux on the technical side, but as a daily user of computers Windows 7 fills more of my needs than Linux can right now.

Bill Gates, visionary

[ackthpt]

Much was made of Bill Gates failure to recognise the prominent role the Web would play when he rolled out his book(!) The Road Ahead. Not to surprised the company seems to go around blinkered. Though much of the IP they're claiming is not used for visionary purposes, as this assault on Android illustrates, it's venal.

Re:Bill Gates, visionary

[vakuona]

Bill Gates was a typical geek. He just happened to be in the right place at the right time and became the richest person in the world.

He is obviously a somewhat talented person, but he built a company that dominates because that is the natural "steady state" for the industry he was in.

If you look at some of his opinions and comments, they would not have been out of place had they been made by cmdrtaco. He just happened to be a billionaire making those pronouncements and so he happened to have a large audience.

Such gems like:
  - The one thing Apple's providing now is leadership in colors

Not very different is it from
  - No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame

Once Microsoft got Windows 95 out the door, and once that became a success, their dominance of the PC industry was assured. They would have had to be extremely incompetent to not dominate, and they nearly managed it.

One may have many criticisms of Jobs and Apple, but every customer of Job's Apple or Pixar made a choice to buy the product because it appealed to them.

Re:Bill Gates, visionary

[Thing 1]

One may have many criticisms of Jobs and Apple, but every customer of Job's Apple or Pixar made a choice to buy the product because it appealed to them.

And I am no longer an Apple customer, because they acted like Microsoft. I had an iPhone 3G. They allowed the IOS 4 to install on it, and it slowed it down to molasses. I refuse to let action by Apple convince me to upgrade. Well, almost; I upgraded to an Android and will never look back.

Fraud

[the eric conspiracy]

I find it inconceivable that Microsoft's technologists did not know of this prior art. Since patent law requires that prior art be disclosed at the time the patent application is filed, and not doing so is a violation of law sometimes turned patent fraud, I think the DOJ should go after these rat bastards for these violations.

Re:Fraud

[Desler]

You mean except for the fact that the patent in the summary DOES mention a number of examples of the claimed prior art in its background section? For example, it specifically mentions Mosiac in it. So what fraud do you mean?

Re:Fraud

[ackthpt]

I find it inconceivable that Microsoft's technologists did not know of this prior art. Since patent law requires that prior art be disclosed at the time the patent application is filed, and not doing so is a violation of law sometimes turned patent fraud, I think the DOJ should go after these rat bastards for these violations.

Microsoft's early hires probably knew all about it, standing around the water cooler reminiscing the good old days when they used a mouse on a drafting board on some ancient single use computing device. Then the legal department showed up and told them to shut up about knowing such things as they were busy patenting them hand over fist, like they had just invented these technologies.

Re:Fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it inconceivable that Microsoft's technologists did not know of this prior art. Since patent law requires that prior art be disclosed at the time the patent application is filed, and not doing so is a violation of law sometimes turned patent fraud, I think the DOJ should go after these rat bastards for these violations.

Oh, certainly, it's inconceivable that they wouldn't know of it. They were most likely fully aware of it.

They were also most likely fully aware that they are a very big company with lots and lots and lots of money and lawyers and this patent system is the US's patent system. Those facts clearly trump the prior art argument until someone challenges it. As evidenced, this has paid off for Microsoft until now. And most likely, the license fees they've extracted from others will be more than the legal fees they'll spend fighting B&N, and the licenses are most likely non-refundable even in the face of the invalidation of the patents thanks to Laywer Magic(tm).

Re:Fraud

[WindBourne]

The problem is that USPTO has been hiring foreign born engineers that come over here, finish a PhD, get their citizenship and then get on with USPTO. They have little knowledge of state of the art, and more importantly, little to none of the PRIOR ART.

Re:Fraud

[Salamander]

It probably has something to do with the difference between claims and description in a patent application. Claims are the part that matter. Often the claims are constructed so they *just barely* pass the obviousness test, e.g. by taking two ideas that are too obvious by themselves, but combining them in a way that's less obvious. The description can then be far more general, and is often shared between many patents, but that doesn't affect the validity of the claims *at all*. To determine the validity of a patent you have to look very carefully at what is being claimed, and only refer to the description as background to understand the claims.

Disclaimer: IANAL and I don't give legal advice. I've just been through this nearly a dozen times.

Re:Fraud

[HarrySquatter]

But the point is that if the are mentioning proper art in the background and in the patent references where is the fraud? Just because they don't point it every example b&n throws at them (of which not all may be held as prior art by.the court) doesn't mean they were defrauding anyone.

Re:Fraud

[MozeeToby]

Yeah, except workers at the patent office have been explicitly told that it is not their job to look at prior art, that it is up to the courts to decide. This was largely in an effort to get through their enormous backlog more quickly, but any idiot could have seen that it was going to lead to abuse. Incidentally, if you're an engineer looking for a good job, I know when I graduated USPTO was recruiting heavily, they'd even put you through law school if you specialized in patent law.

Re:Fraud

[WindBourne]

It is not fraud on MS's part if they mention the prior art and the inspectors did not have enough knowledge to decide intelligently. That is a fact. My point is that many of the engineers that USPTO hire are foreign raised and have no real knowledge of prior art. At this time, the bulk of prior art remains in the west. Over the course of the next 30 years, is when we need to have foreign raised engineers. But at THIS time, the majority should be Westerners, or even more so, Americans.

Re:Fraud

[WindBourne]

Yeah, except workers at the patent office have been explicitly told that it is not their job to look at prior art, that it is up to the courts to decide. This was largely in an effort to get through their enormous backlog more quickly, but any idiot could have seen that it was going to lead to abuse.

Holy crap. That explains what I am seeing. In one patent that I will have to fight against, the diagrams were of something that was sold back in the 60-70's. You could tell that she had seen it and simply put it down as a patent. For the life of me, I could not image how ANYBODY would pass that, unless they had never seen it themselves (which was impossible since many homes had this). And in each of these cases, I saw that the engineers were likely foreign raised (china specifically). But an order like that, would make as much sense as well.

Thank you for the information. But what a fucking PITA. Now, I will have to deal with GD lawyers and courts. That is in NOBODY best interest.

Re:Fraud

[The Great Pretender]

I was having a similar conversation with one of our Patent Attorney's the other day. We wanted to file something, but the landscape analysis deemed there may be prior art. His advice, don't worry about it, it'll cost more for someone to challenge and highly unlikely that they'll waste their time. Sadly, we went ahead and filed and didn't worry about it, contrary to my request for a better legal opinion.

Re:Fraud

[sgt scrub]

While they are at it they should stomp on MOSAID. How in hell do they think they can open a U.S. base of troll then tell someone fighting back to go through Canadian courts.

Re:Fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

Even with the USPTO these days one can send a letter to the Examiner with prior art (explain why it is relevant; what is known from the documents you send and where the Examiner can find it in a document), and the applicant will have a hell of a time to get something granted.

Re:Fraud

[geminidomino]

Wait...

First you say

I will have to deal with GD lawyers and courts

And then you say

That is in NOBODY best interest.

I think you're misunderstanding the rules of the game here, pally.

Re:Fraud

[bill_mcgonigle]

Now, I will have to deal with GD lawyers and courts. That is in NOBODY best interest.

Your lawyer's boat salesman disagrees.

Re:Fraud

[garyebickford]

I've been told before that it's better not to search for prior art at all. Then you can claim ignorance. But if you searched and found prior art or a prior patent, then if you proceed to get a patent you can be subject to counter claims and possibly prosecution for fraudulently obtaining the patent.

So the author is not doing the prior art search, and the USPTO is not doing the prior art search. So it's finally up to the accused infringer and the courts to do all the work.

Re:Fraud

[russotto]

So the author is not doing the prior art search, and the USPTO is not doing the prior art search. So it's finally up to the accused infringer and the courts to do all the work.

At which point it's too late, because the courts give great deference to the USPTO. So the bad patents often stand.

Re:Fraud

[drinkypoo]

Since patent law requires that prior art be disclosed at the time the patent application is filed, and not doing so is a violation of law sometimes turned patent fraud, I think the DOJ should go after these rat bastards for these violations.

So do I, but given that the DOJ had Microsoft nailed for antitrust violation and then Bush's dog Ashcroft gave them a free pass, and given that Obama is just another tool of the corporatocracy (the list of unkept promises is at least as long as the list of kept ones ... and filled with more high-value items) do you really think there's any chance whatsoever that any such effort would be more than a scam designed to dupe us into thinking they care?

Re:Fraud

[b4dc0d3r]

I've been told, never search because intentional infringement is treble damages. Even if you didn't find what you were looking for, it is easily "proven" in court that you would have been aware of it due to your previous searching.

So even if you have your own similar patent, your product infringes. You now have patent dismissed due to prior patent, plus intentional infringement, plus whatever the patent office punishment is for omitting prior art.

Easily "proven" with a subpeona for your browsing history, and you're done. And by proven, I mean enough to convince a judge or jury.

Re:Fraud

[garyebickford]

Thanks, that was well said.

Re:Fraud

[initialE]

Hopefully enough cases finally go to court that the patent office is fined for misconduct - they are currently just pushing the responsibilities of their job onto the courts, transferring their backlog into someone else's problem

Why were other companies so lazy?

[HigH5]

Why on Earth nobody else had the guts to stand up against MS if prior art seems to be so easy to find?

Re:Why were other companies so lazy?

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess is: Many patent disputes are settled with cross licensing deals. "Let me use your pantents and you can use mine." B&N is not a tech company so they don't have many chips to bring to this game. This gives them a stronger incentive to fight the patents.

Re:Why were other companies so lazy?

[ZombieBraintrust]

Most people are cowards. Most people can't or won't lead. B&N is a company living on the edge of oblivion. 5 years from now they may or may not exist. They are not in the mindset of giving up.

Re:Why were other companies so lazy?

[tverbeek]

Mod parent +1: Bullseye.

Re:Why were other companies so lazy?

[Rakarra]

Why on Earth nobody else had the guts to stand up against MS if prior art seems to be so easy to find?

Because "standing on principle" often means you get screwed while your competitors jump ahead. "Being Right," rarely means you actually get the money you think you're owed.

Re:Why were other companies so lazy?

[MurukeshM]

Prior art being easy to find doesn't always translate to quick invalidation of the patent in question. Other handset makers probably had business relations with MS they didn't want to spoil. Also, M$ had forced other companies to sign an NDA over these patents, so Google couldn't (legally) do anything to stop them. Barnes & Noble didn't sign the NDA, so they have added an 800lb gorilla called Google to their team to counter the 1600lb pound troll that is MS. Oh, and I am not in the US, but looking through some past cases, I think most juries and judges no fuck-all about software and software patents. And MS is only out to make a quick buck, unlike Apple, so like most people, most companies would simply pay them to go away.

Re:Why were other companies so lazy?

[Locutus]

check to see how many of those who did sign, and signed quickly, have some kind of tie to Microsoft Windows. Also notice that Motorola publicly stated they would no longer do Windows CE/PocketPC/Mobile/etc and B&N does not ship any Windows based products. You should notice that most of those who signed sell products which require them to have a Microsoft Windows license of some sort and therefore not only was their leverage but also a means to make it easy if Microsoft wanted to. They can make it easy by charging them say $15/license for Android devices but then pay them an equal or greater amount for putting some kind of Microsoft logo on something else. Marketing kick backs are a feature of doing businesses with Microsoft.

LoB

Re:Why were other companies so lazy?

[Anonymous Coward]

what idiot modded this offtopic?

Different corporate culture?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to wonder if because B&N are from a different field, where the BS of software patents isn't prevalent, that they're approaching this with a more reasoned perspective than traditional tech. companies do. That is, most software is pretty much the same fucking thing as 20 years ago, and letting people patent shit for tacking on the phrase "on the internet" or "on a tablet" is fucking ridiculous. Thus they have a huge laundry list of examples. Then again, it could be pure naiveté and a losing strategy, as judges are generally even more inept at making reasoned assessments of technology than the utterly incompetent and over-burdened patent clerks, and might do better with only a few examples.

Or perhaps this just stems from B&N not having the same paradoxical "we hate software patents because they hurt us but love them because they let us bully others" attitude of say Google or MS or Apple. Either way, fight the good fight B&N. You'll probably lose, but you're right.

Re:Different corporate culture?

[MightyMartian]

I don't know if there is anything beyond the fact that B&N doesn't want to go forward with someone perpetually having a hand in their pocket. I'll wager their lawyers are screaming bloody murder about this, and certainly as a short-term strategy, it's probably better just to pay Microsoft's extortion demands, but in the long-term, if you trash Microsoft's crap patents, you deny them any involvement in your affairs.

Re:Different corporate culture?

[Anonymous Coward]

That reminds me of a great patent I have to get to: taking a dump . . . "on a tablet."

Re:Different corporate culture?

[Anonymous Coward]

My point was concerning the massive number of examples of prior art, in contrast to most patent defenses we see from tech. companies. For any particular software patent, it's quite likely someone was doing pretty much the same thing well before any currently applicable patent was granted, but when tech giants fight we don't really see this sort of history-lesson-cum-defense-strategy. I think there's likely something about the corporate culture that tech companies see software patents in a different light than other long-lived companies when they first have to deal with such an arbitrary system of having the most minute tweaks be deemed patentable innovations.

Perfect move by B&N

[future assassin]

Looks like they did their homework and so did their lawers. Even if they were not to win this is a HUGE way to attract customers to their hardware/online stores especially when they win. You couldn't get a more massive good will gesture then this especially before christmas shopping holiday.

Re:Perfect move by B&N

[Anonymous Coward]

except other than the people that read slashdot, no one fucking cares because it isn't newsworthy.

Re:Perfect move by B&N

[future assassin]

So what? People in the Slashdot crowd have money too and if that crowd can bring down servers, thats a big crowd. Most sane businesses don't care who you are as long as you are spending money with them.

Re:Perfect move by B&N

[ZombieBraintrust]

Don't think this will have much effect. B&N strategy is to convert their customer base from books to ebooks and avoid losing those customers to Amazon. Their customers are not on groklaw or slashdot reading about patents. They are in bookstores, libraries, or book blogs. This will have minimal effect compared to what they do for Black Friday.

Re:Perfect move by B&N

[Anonymous Coward]

with all the pointless bitching that goes on here, I'm going to feel safe in the assumption that /. is rife with talkers, not do'ers.

not to mention most of these idiots can't possibly have graduated from mom and dads basement to a self-sustaining lifestyle that includes disposable income.

-AC

Re:Perfect move by B&N

[oakgrove]

I lost count how many people have asked for and taken my advice on which smartphone/laptop to buy. When they come to me asking which eReader/tablet do I recommend and provided they all more or less will meet their needs, which do you think I'll ultimately suggest?

Re:Perfect move by B&N

[Eponymous Coward]

I wonder why companies like B&N don't look for help from the community on digging up prior art. If they would have sent out a call for help and managed to get it noticed by outlets like Slashdot, I bet they could have doubled the size and quality of their list. There are a lot of old farts here that helped build the stuff that's being patented 20 or 30 years later.

Re:Perfect move by B&N

[Anonymous Coward]

Counterexample: I've bought my nook just because of the lawsuit.

Re:Perfect move by B&N

[Jeng]

The signal to noise ratio would have made it unmanageable.

Get a few experienced people looking for prior art would work better than having two thousand people who don't do this on a regular basis.

Slashdot seems to think that old Star Trek shows count as prior art, I doubt that would cut it in the court of law.

Re:Perfect move by B&N

[Anonymous Coward]

I am already steering my girl friend into getting a Nook instead of a Kindle because of this case. I think it will drive more business to them as people like others who stand up to bullies.

Re:Perfect move by B&N

[Eponymous Coward]

Slashdot seems to think that old Star Trek shows count as prior art, I doubt that would cut it in the court of law.

Are you talking about when Samsung referenced tablets from Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" as prior art?

Re:Perfect move by B&N

[Anonymous Coward]

People on Slashdot don't read books? Really? The intelligent people on groklaw dont' read books? Seems like the word "grok" comes from a certain sci-fi book....

I know that I, for one, installed Nook on my tablet for the first time this week because of what B&N is doing. I have been a big customer for Amazon on the Kindle app. I'll continue to do business with Amazon for a lot of things. But for books, it's B&N all the way.

Re:Perfect move by B&N

[iceaxe]

I am a long time B&N customer, and have also been on slashdot for a while. I doubt I am alone in this.

Re:Perfect move by B&N

[Xphile101361]

Hear, hear!

Re:Perfect move by B&N

[Anonymous Coward]

That case involves design patents. It seems reasonable that you can use TV shows and the like for prior art of design, but not for software.

Please can we do this to Apple too?

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on Samsung, and Google. Patents were supposed to spur innovation, not squash competition. The system is broken.

Re:Please can we do this to Apple too?

[WindBourne]

I wish that I had mod points. Yeah, method patents have ZERO value. What amazes me is that with the recent patent changes, that these were not wiped out.

Re:Please can we do this to Apple too?

[Daniel_Staal]

No. If they only had zero value, you could defend keeping them as 'maintaining current regulations'; changing the regs has a cost, both direct and indirect. (The latter in everyone trying to work out exactly what the new regs mean.)

Method patents currently have a negative value: They actively prevent innovation and reduce the growth of the economy. As such, the relatively small cost to revamp the regulations to remove them would be worth it. We will make back the cost.

What about the others?

[WindBourne]

This will sound dumb, but what about the other companies that cut deals with MS? Can they back out of it and sue MS? It would be interesting to see law suits started against MS again, but this time, make it in multiple nations.

Re:What about the others?

[MightyMartian]

I can't imagine any company going into a licensing agreement with any other company not having a clause that says "We stop paying you if the patent is invalidated."

Re:What about the others?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the patents are rendered invalid, the terms of the license are broken. The licensee will be on the end of lawsuits for fraud. The issue here though, is MS are giving licensees backhanders and discounts, so no money is really changing hands. Not so for B&N. They aren't PC box shifters like those that have been paying the fees.

Re:What about the others?

[WindBourne]

Don't you think that the fact that they entered into these agreements speaks loudly about the ppl that run these companies and kind of shoots down your argument?

Re:What about the others?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd imagine the best they can hope for is courts to order them to pay back legal fees and whatever they have collected.

Re:What about the others?

[oakgrove]

You've said "I can't imagine" a couple of times in your posts here. Do you speak from authority? I almost always appreciate what you have to say and want to know.

Re:What about the others?

[Sloppy]

Really, you can't imagine it, even if Microsoft wrote the licensing agreement?

If I were going around extorting people over bogus patents, the sign-this-or-else papers that I handed out would not have anything in them, saying things would get better for my victims if it turned out that some of my patents were declared invalid. If anything, if the agreement did have a clause covering what happens if any patents were invalidated, the agreement would say it makes no difference.

And then if they stopped paying me, maybe I wouldn't have good grounds to sue them for patent infringement anymore, but I'd have a piece of paper saying they agreed to pay, which they'd then by in violation of.

The agreement would also have an NDA, so that my victims wouldn't be allowed to tell the rest of the world what the agreement was.

This is Extortion 101 and if Microsoft fucked this up then some lawyer is getting fir-- a generous severance packa-- no wait, the premise is that the lawyer is comically incompetent -- he's getting fired.

Re:What about the others?

[Missing.Matter]

They aren't PC box shifters like those that have been paying the fees.

Not all of them are PC manufacturers. One example I can think of is Onkyo, who manufactures stereo equipment.

Re:What about the others?

[Anonymous Coward]

That if anything would surely get them in trouble with RICO. Courts seem to have an almost endless amount of patience with microsoft, but there's an and to everything. If they did things like that, it'd be hard to ignore for any court that isn't outright crooked.

Re:What about the others?

[Tomato42]

Go after those companies and see which one of them doesn't sell gear with MS soft on it. Just nullifying "rebates" would make most of this gear uncompetitive on the market.

Re:What about the others?

[HarrySquatter]

How is it fraud? They are legally issued patents.

Re:What about the others?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they do that they're all most all WP7 vendors also and probably get the amount they pay per-android phone refunded to them in WP7 license discounts

Nooks for the Holidays

[Anonymous Coward]

That's it, everyone in my family gets a Nook this year.

Anyone care to recommend the Simple Touch, Color, or Tablet and the pro's and con's? Links to good reviews are sufficient.

Re:Nooks for the Holidays

[Daetrin]

The Simple Touch is great if your primary interest is an eReader. My girlfriend just got one and it works great for that. Using Calibre i was even able to transfer over a little more than half the books she'd already bought from Amazon on her phone. (I'm still looking into how to handle the rest of the books.)

On the other hand if you want a more tablet like experience you should go with the Color or Tablet. Given the marginal price difference i think the Tablet is the best buy. It's probably a tough decision for those who already have a Color to decide whether to upgrade or not, but that doesn't seem to be where you're at. In both cases it seems like "rooting" it is a simple case of installing Cyanogen on a SD card and plugging it in, something i think most people on Slashdot can probably handle.

Here's one review i found though it's focused more on the differences between the Nook Tablet and the Amazon Kindle Fire, and gloomily predicting that the Kindle will overshadow despite the Nook's superior hardware.

Re:Nooks for the Holidays

[Microlith]

In both cases it seems like "rooting" it is a simple case of installing Cyanogen on a SD card and plugging it in, something i think most people on Slashdot can probably handle.

Sadly, it's unlikely Cyanogen will happen for the Nook Tablet as they've put in the effort to cripple the device with a signed bootloader and checksummed kernel. Much like all the crippled Motorola handsets, the best you'll be able to do is workarounds and half solutions.

Re:Nooks for the Holidays

[gknoy]

I love my Nook Color -- mostly I end up playing Sudoku while falling asleep, but it supports Pandora and web browsing too. I've read a bunch on it, and it's a very good experience; I especially like it when reading at night or on the couch. The e-ink screen is neat on the older Nook, but I can't read in the dark with it.

If you were choosing a Nook now, the Color is a very powerful cheaper option. If you're after the best toy, the newer Tablet looks better, but you mainly get things like HD video and netflix streaming. (oooooh. I do want that.)

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/u/Compare-NOOKs/379003181

The Nook Tablet is like the Nook Color, but adds:
- Same size screen
- faster processor (it's never seemed slow)
- double the RAM
- HD video, better battery life while playing video
- A bit more battery life while reading, but not enough for me to care. (11h vs 8h)
- Hulu/Netflix integration.

The greyscale Nook (Touch) doesn't have the bells and whistles, but for READING is likely better. It's lighter, and has a six month battery life, which is practically forever compared to the Color/Tablet. If someone in your family really likes reading, and not so much on the other stuff (or already has a laptop), you might get them the cheaper reader.

I mainly use my Nook Color for Sudoku right now, as I really like their app for it (bundled with it for free), and do most of my reading in the dark, so I am glad I got the Color last year.

Re:Nooks for the Holidays

[ArhcAngel]

If you are serious then there are plenty of resources.

B & N has a pretty good comparison on it's own page of the devices as well as a comparison of the Kindle Fire.
Cnet has a good review of the Nook Tablet and you can pick up a refurbished Nook Color for around ~$149

Re:Nooks for the Holidays

[DrgnDancer]

I haven't used the tablet yet, so no opinion there per se; but my wife has a classic and I have a Color. I've used both pretty extensively. Long story short, the classic and simple are e-ink. They're going to better for reading e-books, assuming you plan to do so in normal reading conditions (well lit). They're less good for magazines, textbooks, computer manuals... anything with a fair number of pictures, especially color pictures. The Color and Tablet are (obviously) color and better for low light conditions besides. I tend to read for a while after my wife has already gone to sleep. Not needing a second light source is nice. Some people find reading straight text on the LCD screens uncomfortable, it doesn't bother me.

Of course the Color and Tablet are also both limited function tablet devices. You can get e-mail, surf the web, play some games, and use a limited selection of apps. You don't have access to the full Android Market by default (you can either root the device or boot to a Micro-SD to get it, but the default UI is rather nice for the stated purpose of "e-book reader"), but the store isn't empty either. The Color is, in my opinion, not the greatest tablet. It wasn't meant to be. It can be used as one, and isn't complete crap like a lot of the really cheap Android devices out there, but it's definitely no iPad or GalaxyTab even with stock Android installed. The Tablet is a lot more powerful though, so it may well be a closer match to that use case.

Re:Nooks for the Holidays

[Daetrin]

That's seriously disappointing. It seemed like an easy choice when i thought i could install Cyanogen on either version. What with all the good press B&N has been getting the Nook Tablet was even tempting me away from the Transformer Prime. Well, i'll still wait a bit and see. I'm sure _eventually_ someone will manage to crack it, it just depends on how difficult that process ends up being.

Re:Nooks for the Holidays

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, I love my Simple Touch. I picked it over the kindle because 1. I like the buttons on each side of the screen to page if I want. 2. I can add more memory to it, and just store all my books on the device. 3. More open on the format, EPUB seems to be the future, and it's basically html. I've already created a couple of books.
   

Re:Nooks for the Holidays

[Anonymous Coward]

That's it, everyone in my family gets a Nook this year.

Anyone care to recommend the Simple Touch, Color, or Tablet and the pro's and con's? Links to good reviews are sufficient.

Actually, I like the Original because of the way it balances in my hand. However, it's more brickable than rootable and I think they're clearing out the inventory. For straight reading, I prefer e-Ink to LCDs. However the Color Nook does make a killer mini-tablet and rooting it is as easy as lifting a rubber flap, inserting a chip and cycling power. The Table is the Color Nook on steroids, plus has improved color range.

Re:Nooks for the Holidays

[NuShrike]

Uh, I can do Netflix and HD video quite well on my Nook Color, right now, with CM7 on it

There's zero reason for me to step up to a Nook Tablet without CyanogenMod on it, except for the better CPU/gpu. If they never get CM on it because of B&N's idiotic locking, then stepping over to the Fire. B&N, wise up.

Re:Nooks for the Holidays

[Anonymous Coward]

In both cases it seems like "rooting" it is a simple case of installing Cyanogen on a SD card and plugging it in, something i think most people on Slashdot can probably handle.

You must not have read the comments in any of the Apple jailbreaking articles!
Most slashdot users are not capable of that.

Back in those articles, thousands of slashdot users absolutely railed against how hard it is to root an iPhone.

The process is - 1) Type url in browser. 2) Click button.
We can shorten those two steps to "use website"

Despite the fact they all did that (and more, plus typing!) to post on slashdot that they can't do the same actions, but they were very loud and vocal about how impossibly hard it was to do.

Now, you want them to 1) go to website, 2) download software (We will call those two steps "use website" also), and then 3) copy a file?!?!

If using a website is impossible for them, there is no way they will be able to use a website then copy a file!

After all, no one can expect their grandma to "use website" on an iPad, or "use website + copy file" on Android. Not if the 1000 IQ slash geek finds it impossible. It will never take off.

This is also why slash-group-think states as fact that iPhone will fail and only sold 5 units ever.

With news from opera

[Oswald McWeany]

With news from opera that they have duplicated the faster than light neutrinos does that mean that future art is now as valid a defense as prior art?

Incompetence

[Overzeetop]

More to the point, anyone skilled in the art should have know of such things - including any competent patent reviewer.

Re:Incompetence

[suutar]

and there we find the problem. Competent patent reviewers (especially in the numbers needed) cost more than the PTO can afford, especially with Congress siphoning off much of their revenue (from patent applications). So you get either too few good ones or many not-so-good ones, and either way they can't handle the workload.

Re:Incompetence

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on now...

This is the U.S. PTO office we're talking about. It isn't like they're supposed to be good at their jobs.

Well, unless your job is to do the exact opposite of what you're supposed to do.*

* see US Congress for present example

Re:Incompetence

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this where free markets come to play? I mean demand and supply, just raise the fee it costs to submit a patent-form. (well, raise the fee for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th form exponentially to the first) That will allow the occasional inventor to get protection from patents. but companies like Apple, Microsoft and IBM need to think twice before they submit a form. Ofcourse, when you add the patent-portofolio of a company you buy to your own portofolio, you need to pay the PTO again to revalidate the patents.

Re:Incompetence

[Anthony Mouse]

Not only that, they give you time limits on searches. They'll only pay you for e.g. 2 hours to search for prior art for a patent application. And of course, if you do a search and it returns 5000 seemingly relevant results, you haven't the slightest hope of so much as reading the abstracts of all of them in the time allotted, much less doing a thorough job.

Re:Incompetence

[yuhong]

I think the America Invents Act already does this, though unfortunately it do not address the issue of congressional appropriations.

Re:Incompetence

[Imbrondir]

Sometimes I wonder though if it's truly incompetence bringing those crap patents to become reality, or corrupt malice.

Re:Incompetence

[rsborg]

and there we find the problem. Competent patent reviewers (especially in the numbers needed) cost more than the PTO can afford, especially with Congress siphoning off much of their revenue (from patent applications). So you get either too few good ones or many not-so-good ones, and either way they can't handle the workload.

Think about this when you hear the GOP operatives and sympathizers whine about how "government is too big" and how they want the government to be "small enough to drown in a bathtub"... they systematically, on orders from their corporate funders, cut the funding to the very institutions that were set up to regulate and police them.

The Democrats are not any better these days, like the rest of government, they have capitulated and are just as captured.

Re:Incompetence

[green1]

Well... next time they cut funding to the patent office, have them correspondingly cut the authority of patents.

Big government is not the answer to too much IP, less IP is synonymous with smaller government. (No government at all would have no rules for intellectual property and anyone could copy anything) (just to clarify, I'm not advocating an end to government)

Prior art, Who cares.

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought with the new laws it was first to file. so prior art doesn't matter anymore.

Re:Prior art, Who cares.

[WindBourne]

First off, not for another year. However, prior art STILL matters. You can not patent what you did not invent.

Re:Prior art, Who cares.

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck does first to file have to do prior art ya dumb shit? The rest of the world has always been first to file. Always motherfucker. There is still prior art poo pusher.

"Prior art" does not mean what you think it does

[Theaetetus]

Prior art is any publication (or product) that is in the relevant industry (i.e. "art") that is "prior". That's it... That something is prior art doesn't mean it invalidates the patent. To invalidate a patent claim, you need to find either one piece of prior art that anticipates the claim - i.e. discloses, either explicitly or inherently, each and every element in the claim; or find a combination of multiple pieces of prior art that, in combination, teaches or suggests each and every feature of the claim (thus showing that the claim would be obvious to one with access to the art that existed at the time of filing).

So, yes, everything listed by B&N is prior art, but it's not necessarily all art that anticipates Microsoft's patents, or even necessarily renders them obvious. This is merely a list of prior art generated by a keyword search... B&N hasn't yet said which piece or pieces of art, alone or in combination, teach or suggest each element of the claims. In fact, they explicitly note that some of the references Moreover, while the prior art references listed below are categorized by patent-in-suit, the references listed relate "to the general knowledge".

Basically, it's a bit premature to claim that the list counters the patents. It may, once they've been mapped to the claims, but until then, it's just a list of art.

Why isn't B&N in Europe?

[AftanGustur]

My wife wants a e-reader and when I saw what the new B&N Nook Reader can do I wanted to buy two. But it appears that B&N doesn't do business in Europe..

So, sorry B&N, you would have gotten 2 new customers if you would just sell your books and stuff to Europe.

Re:Why isn't B&N in Europe?

[Tritium3.016]

There is a rumour that Waterstone's will rebrand the Nook tablet reader as part of the 2012 ereader push. The Sony reader was dumped from their stores since Sony installed their own ebookshop on the devices thus side stepping Waterstone's online. Waterstone's wants a complete ereader experience and rumour has it that the Nook tablet could be the hardware component. They kinda did it already with the iRiver Cover Story, except that was a bit pants (imho).

Re:Why isn't B&N in Europe?

[LWATCDR]

Media deals. Publishing is just so odd and backwards when it comes to the modern world. You often have to get a different set of deals for every market. I do not if the EU would require just an EU deal or one per country.
That is one of the reasons that the US is so important as a market. It is one big market.

Re:Why isn't B&N in Europe?

[Djehuty3]

I brought back a nook Wifi back from the States when I went to see STS-133; I was also irritated when I tried to order a Color earlier in the year and was unable.

Very annoying; I don't want to have to buy one off eBay.

Stability

[ZombieBraintrust]

It has to do with stability. These other companies are willing to pay because they are stable enough to take the hit. It is not worth the risk of fighting it in court. B&N is not stable. B&N might not exit in 5 years. So B&N is going to take risks that other companies will not take.

Re:Stability

[laederkeps]

Wait a minute. Barnes and Noble (founded 1873) "isn't stable, might not exist in 5 years"? When compared to companies like HTC (1997) or Google (1998)?

Re:Stability

[LoudNoiseElitist]

Considering their primary revenue generator is *selling books*, no, they are not stable (anymore).

There is more, no MS license

[SmallFurryCreature]

All the other tech companies are used to dealing with Microsoft itself as partner, either for a product or in commitee. B&N probably has no relationship with MS other then as an end customer of Windows. Now that alone is enough to fuel a bitter hatred.

But basically, B&N has nothing to loose. If they loose they have to pay the same fee as if they didn't. It is not as if MS can hurt them in any other way.

Meanwhile MS has in one move ruined ALL its attempts to appear as if it wasn't the old evil MS anymore. The MS apologists who claim MS is no longer against openess or unwilling to play fair... well... they got to crawl back under the rock they came from and claim that this time MS Mobile Windows Phone Gazillion will be it!

Re:There is more, no MS license

[Junta]

But basically, B&N has nothing to loose. If they loose they have to pay the same fee as if they didn't. It is not as if MS can hurt them in any other way.

Well, they do have something to lose. If they lose, Microsoft will seek a more drastic action. I think the assumption is they feel confident they can win, and if other companies reached the same conclusion that they could 'win' in court, they would still 'lose' on their business relationship.

Re:There is more, no MS license

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone see a BSA audit coming to B & N soon?

Re:There is more, no MS license

[Anonymous Coward]

In the beginning, BN.com was a Microsoft shop. Hell, I think they got everything free from Microsoft to run the place: SQL Server, NT, everything. Microsoft even had SQL Server engineers on site tuning things for a while (it was still a disaster). B&N ditched SQL Server for Oracle at some point and has been on a push to move the site off ASP to an open stack.

I think there's some disdain for Microsoft over at B&N. Perhaps this lawsuit is seen by B&N folks as a way to extort money from a company moving off their ecosystem. If there's already bad blood, you're more likely to fight than pay up.

Re:There is more, no MS license

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they have "something to loose". Their lawyers!

Cry "Havoc!" and let slip the attorneys of war!

Re:There is more, no MS license

[Svartalf]

With the stuff they're fielding...they've got a better than even chance of making a hash of Microsoft's little extortion racket over Android "infringements".

Re:There is more, no MS license

[Anonymous Coward]

"B&N probably has no relationship with MS other then "

The olds are good, but not assured, that B&N is a Windows shop with a
big fat site licence. Perhaps an opportunity for some up and coming
Linux distro.

YOU SHOULD PATENT THAT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Method for producing patentable ideas.

1. Locate currently circulating ideas. For methods, see our other patent applications "Trolling the database of existing patents to extract ideas" and "Observing the behavior of already existing software to extract ideas."

2. Append the phrases "on the Internet," the phrase "on a tablet," and "on an Internet tablet" to separate copies of the idea acquired in step 1.

The result is three new patentable ideas.

Re:YOU SHOULD PATENT THAT!

[Narnie]

While we're patenting things, we should patent the process of how to submit a patent. That way we can sue everybody applying for patents.

gates is the most overrated idiot going.

[WindBourne]

Well, gates has a false legacy all around him. For starters, he was not the one that picked DOS. IBM did. Later on, Gates bought the rights to Unix, merged it with DOS and then sold Xenix on 286s. When it had zero performance, it was others that pointed out how foolish he was. ANother set of employees had to convince him to stick with DOS and skip Xenix. Then gates ran around screaming that 640K was more than enough. The net we all know about. I mean it continues on and on and on. The man was NOT that bright. Just in the right places at the right time, with the right ppl.

Sadly, since MS has such a dearth of talent (esp. with that idiot balmer), they have to resort to illegal tactics.

Re:gates is the most overrated idiot going.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, but he who has the gold writes the history.

Re:gates is the most overrated idiot going.

[Rakarra]

Later on, Gates bought the rights to Unix, merged it with DOS and then sold Xenix on 286s. When it had zero performance, it was others that pointed out how foolish he was. ANother set of employees had to convince him to stick with DOS and skip Xenix.

I kindof wish that MS had sunk its resources into improving Xenix instead of going the DOS route. How different could things have been?

Then gates ran around screaming that 640K was more than enough.

As far as we can tell, that quote is apocryphal and never happened. Despite its supposedly been issued in 1981, the very earliest reference to it was made in 1985, but again, a reference that was only ever repeated second-hand. There appears to be no first-hand evidence that Gates ever said that in any interview, speech, and so on. The closest we can get to something Gates actually said was a 1989 speech: "I have to say that in 1981, making those decisions, I felt like I was providing enough freedom for 10 years. That is, a move from 64k to 640k felt like something that would last a great deal of time. Well, it didn’t – it took about only 6 years before people started to see that as a real problem." So we know at least he was surprised that applications hit the 640k limit so soon. But there's no evidence he thought no one would ever need more.

I'd like it to be true, but I've never seen any evidence that it is. It seems like one of those stories that circulates, like the one of Marie Antoinette saying "let them eat cake" (she didn't).

Re:gates is the most overrated idiot going.

[Lexx Greatrex]

gates is the most overrated idiot going.

Now that Jobs is dead, Gates has definitely moved up the list.

Re:gates is the most overrated idiot going.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then gates ran around screaming that 640K was more than enough. .

Gates never ran around screaming that 640K was more than enough.

Re:gates is the most overrated idiot going.

[WindBourne]

LOL. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So much truth in that damn statement. I would say that those that control the politicians are the ones that get to re-write history. Sadly, that is the ones that control the gold.

Re:gates is the most overrated idiot going.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then gates ran around screaming that 640K was more than enough.

I have a tough time believing anything from someone who keeps repeating dumb internet myths with no evidence for them.

Re:gates is the most overrated idiot going.

[Imbrondir]

I'm also surprised how many people I've met that credits gates for the invention of the computer. Even some techies! Yes, that's worth the exclamation mark.

Re:gates is the most overrated idiot going.

[Princeofcups]

Well, gates has a false legacy all around him. For starters, he was not the one that picked DOS. IBM did. Later on, Gates bought the rights to Unix, merged it with DOS and then sold Xenix on 286s. When it had zero performance, it was others that pointed out how foolish he was. ANother set of employees had to convince him to stick with DOS and skip Xenix. Then gates ran around screaming that 640K was more than enough. The net we all know about. I mean it continues on and on and on. The man was NOT that bright. Just in the right places at the right time, with the right ppl.

Sadly, since MS has such a dearth of talent (esp. with that idiot balmer), they have to resort to illegal tactics.

This doesn't really jibe with the history that I remember.

Someone at IBM chose DOS over CP/M, but it was Gates who presented DOS as his product after quickly buying it from the real developer.

Gate's Unix failed not because of performance, but because MS changed focus to OS/2 instead. OS/2 was definitely merged with DOS, but I'm not sure that there was much if any DOS in their Unix.

The 640K quote is well known to be an urban myth, and anyway, would have been before the development of OS/2 anyway.

I despise just about everything that he accomplished, but he was definitely a brilliant business man. He used the existing powers against themselves and each other. He bought and sold politicians like he bought and sold companies. He really never understood where the business was heading, but he could recognize when another company was blazing a new trail, and would quickly buy up companies and crush the competition to control and own the new business. Ruthless, criminal, and probably autistic, but brilliant none the less. Balmer? He's nothing but a yes man and follower, and has none of Gates abilities.

Re:gates is the most overrated idiot going.

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny that you mention the 640K thing as fact when talking about Gate's "false legacy" - that's probably one of his most famous legacies, and it's quite false.

Re:gates is the most overrated idiot going.

[Rakarra]

Interesting. A factual investigation of whether Gates mentioned the quote is "Flamebait?"

Re:gates is the most overrated idiot going.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then gates ran around screaming that 640K was more than enough.

Bill Gates has never said that 640K of memory was enough for anyone. This is a mis-attributed quote and I'd like everyone to stop spreading false information.

Creative effort:

[kixome]

If only microsoft would put more effort either into new ideas (that are not stupid like metro) or into actually improving the performance of any of their products instead of wasting all their money, time, and effort suing people and incorporating drm into their products, well they just might stay relevant. I think as everything is going mobile microsoft is becoming obsolete.

Easy...

[Junta]

Think about the companies they went after to date. Samsung and HTC both partner with microsoft on endeavours outside of Android (laptops and windows mobile). For both of those companies, caving in may have been considered a safer move from a business relationship move.

Now B&N has absolutely no worries about being penalized on a business relationship they simply do not have. It's worth it for them to fight.

Re:Easy...

[hawguy]

Think about the companies they went after to date. Samsung and HTC both partner with microsoft on endeavours outside of Android (laptops and windows mobile). For both of those companies, caving in may have been considered a safer move from a business relationship move.

=

Or more likely, they were compensated on the Windows side. "Here, sign this secret agreement saying you'll pay us $X million for Android licenses, and we'll make sure you'll pay $X million less for Windows Phone licenses, and if you act now, we'll throw in another $Y million in marketing when you release your Windows Phone!"

Re:Easy...

[Pence128]

Here, sign this secret agreement saying you'll pay us $X million for Android licenses, and we'll make sure you won't pay $X million more for Windows Phone licenses...

FTFY

The Android Patent Pool

[TrueSpeed]

Google should make a change to their Android licensing terms. If you want a licence to the Google services or to even use Android commercially you must allow your patent portfolio to be used to defend the Android OS. With other companies in collusion and forming patent pools to attack Android this seems the best solution to smack down these patent trolls.

Glad B&N is fighting this!

[jishak]

I am fed up with hearing how companies extort each other using NDA's and then litigate them into annihilation. I am glad Barnes & Noble is fighting this. I wish more companies would fight this type of patent and copyright abuse. I think a law should be passed to require companies to publicly identify which patents are infringing by a technology rather than fearmongering. Put up or shut up.

The eventual showdown

[TrueSpeed]

Their stock and their products have been stagnant for the past 10 years and I don't see that changing any time soon. It's pathetic that such a large corporation must stoop to this level considering all of the bad PR it brings along with it and the image it tags you with. Perhaps they'll come to the conclusion that they're better than this and focus on technology and innovation instead of using their position to try and crush their opposition in the court room.

But, they're fighting a war they can't win because they'll eventually need to face Google if they continue down this path. Although, I must admit it would be glorious to see Google shred through all of their frivolous and prior art ridden patent portfolio.

The age of those patents

[TrueSpeed]

The description of some those Microsoft patents seems to indicate they're quite old. I wonder how many of them will be expiring soon.

Re:"Prior art" does not mean what you think it doe

[Anonymous Coward]

This is merely a list of prior art generated by a keyword search...

I am sure that their lawyers looked into this in details and it wasn't a simple keyword search. For example, the patent number specified relates to retrieving the background and text differently so as to handle loading of a page over a slower connection. The patent was filed in 1996. However, this "tech" was part of HTML 3.0 and Netscape 1.1 which was released in 1995 (see Auto Load Images and Background attribute).

For Those Interested In The Product

[hercubus]

The Nook Tablet (unrooted) is slightly more open than the Kindle Fire (unrooted)

Some links:

• side-loading apps to the Nook Tablet
• lightweight comparison
• slightly better comparison

My takeaway is if you have your gold geek card, get the Fire (less money) and root it. If you're less adventuresome, get the Nook for more openness, but get an micro-SD card or you're stuck with only 1GB of free memory.

Re:For Those Interested In The Product

[samwichse]

In your last comparison, they said the Nook was superior in most every way... and it's ultra-easy to just pop i n an SD card with an alternate OS install... no need for fancy hackery.

Really the extra RAM does it for me. I wouldn't want less than 1GB, and the Fire has only 512.

Re:For Those Interested In The Product

[adolf]

My A855 Droid does perfectly OK with less RAM than either of those figures.

Just saying.

Note to B&N

[phorm]

Open your product for sales to Canada!

I will DEFINITELY buy the Nook Tablet if you let me!

Re:Note to B&N

[Imbrondir]

They don't make that much profit on the tablets. If you want to support them, buy some of their ebooks.

Re:Note to B&N

[phorm]

Once I can buy the tablet, I'll probably do both

In other news - Motorola vs. Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

I know, I know. but still.
http://www.slashgear.com/motorola-anti-icloud-patent-suit-success-tipped-for-2012-18196549/

Re:In other news - Motorola vs. Apple

[TrueSpeed]

The hunter is now the hunted.

Re:In other news - Motorola vs. Apple

[znerk]

I know, I know. but still.
http://www.slashgear.com/motorola-anti-icloud-patent-suit-success-tipped-for-2012-18196549/

Reposted because some might find it interesting that Motorola is suing Apple, even if it's slightly off-topic in that it has little to do with Microsoft vs. Barnes and Noble. It seems to me that it's on-topic, in that it has to do with "Established Operating Systems vs. Android".

I also took the liberty of making the URL into a link.

As an aside, I think a little tit-for-tat is deserved in this case - Samsung can't sell its Android offering in Australia, and Apple may soon not be able to sell its iOS offering in Germany. Eye for an eye, and all that.

Quinn Emanuel

[Anonymous Coward]

The Groklaw link mentions that Quinn Emanuel is now involved on the B&N's side against Microsoft. It's funny - a year or two ago I "donated" a really old and out-of-date C++ book to them. It had a section about the general concepts of object-oriented programming. In return, a partner in their San Francisco bought me a brand-new C++ book.

Perhaps I am indirectly helping fight ridiculous patents. Yay! Anyway, let this be a lesson to anyone with a stack of old and worthless tech books. Maybe a lawyer will buy them from you (and probably bill their client thousands of dollars).

Mod parent FLAMEBAIT

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft has been going after Android! That's going after Google. Microsoft has been targeting Android makers for sometime. What hell has Google been waiting for???? Google could have easy indemnified the manufacturers, thus protecting them and making Google the target of Microsoft's legal actions. They didn't. Google is only indirectly involved in the B&N case. They are still MIA.

I can't think of any other reason for someone to freak out and ask a question that was answered in their parent, than that you are having histrionics in an attempt to receive attention.

Your entire post was answered by the central remark of the parent post.

I think the reason Google hasn't really been involved before is because Microsoft hasn't been attacking them directly. And because companies have just been rolling over, Google hasn't had a chance to back anybody up.

Reading comprehension. Hello.

Doesn't make it true

[Fujisawa Sensei]

MOSAID can say anything they want, it doesn't make it true.

Support B&N

[Taty'sEyes]

Guess I'm buying a Nook...

To the two that modded the GP down

[WindBourne]

Let me point something. You are an engineer, you have to look over a patent and decide its viability. That basically means that one of them is, is it physically possible. I suspect that they still get perpetual motion machines to this day. Now, the other issue is PRIOR art. Most of the engineers that are making these decisions are in their 30-40s. That means that these ppl were born in the 70s and 80's. What was imports like in China or even India back then? Most of it was NOT from the west. It was from local or even USSR. Now, how can you KNOW about prior art, unless you have seen it at least once? The other choice is to go through search engines, but that takes time to figure out variations on it. Well, if you have limited time and you have not seen it, then you have no choice but to not worry about it. That is obviously part of why the USPTO has told these engineers to not worry about it. HOWEVER, it is creating a NIGHTMARE for all of us. It is better to have a backlog of patents and have ppl screaming at CONgress for not doing their jobs, then to allow shady patents through. I do not blame the engineers. Nor was it racists in any fashion. What I maintain is that foreign raised engineers are NOT the right ppl CURRENTLY for USPTO when considering prior art. Oddly, in another 15-20 years, they will make better ones than Americans since we have gutted our manufacturing since 1981.

What is interesting, is that this is actually an opportunity for AI work. Google and USPTO are digitizing everything. By making it available, it should be possible for an AI engine to look at various designs and compare to previous patents. What is interesting about that, is that it would make a great X-prize.

Re:To the two that modded the GP down

[Thing 1]

Now, how can you KNOW about prior art, unless you have seen it at least once? The other choice is to go through search engines, but that takes time to figure out variations on it. Well, if you have limited time and you have not seen it, then you have no choice but to not worry about it.

Reading this I started the comment, then saw that you basically got to the same point I reached, in your final paragraph: Watson will be the next (and soon, only) US Patent employee.

On the Arena browser...

[yuhong]

Don't forget that browser was one of the first (in 1995) to support the CSS drafts that existed at the time (first dating back to October 1994!).

barnes & noble is a google's sco

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't kid yourself Google has been in this complaint
from the beginning. They've been waiting for someone
to step forward, Barnes & Noble is it. It didn't surprise
me at all. I'm guessing their paying the bill.

BS - access to courts isn't the issue

[PatentMagus]

Every venue statute I've ever read makes it fine to sue anyone/anything on the defendant's own turf. For federal law, check 28 USC 1391.

For patent cases against corporations, check 28 USC 1400(b) and see how it relates to 28 USC 1391(c). Basically, you can file a patent infringement suit against a corporation like microsoft in any federal district court..

Will that still be true?

[Goonie]

I wonder how much of Apple's determination to use IP to force competitors out of the marketplace was due to Steve Jobs personally. A more pragmatic boss might take a different view.

Re:Will that still be true?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Apple's drift from "make a new and better product" to "refresh an old product, sue competition to gain market share" approximately correlates with Steve's health declining.

Not saying Jobs was a saint, but it'll probably get only worse.

You're doing it wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not how it works.

The PTO looks at the patent, does a preliminary search of what's already patented, makes sure all the t's are crossed and i's are dotted, then GIVES YOU THE PATENT. There is no test for obviousness, there is not test for prior art, THERE CAN NOT BE ONE. The PTO is of the position that it's the burden of the patent holder to ensure they have a strong patent, and if the patent shouldn't have been granted then it will easily be invalidated in court.

HOWEVER, the courts are broken, and costly. They are resistant to invalidating the bogus patents. Here you have the PTO relying on the good faith of the businesses and the Judicial system, and THAT is where the real FAILURE is.

Re:"Prior art" does not mean what you think it doe

[Anonymous Coward]

Go read the patents. Go read B&N's statements. I lived and through the "time of the filing" of which you speak as an individual ordinarily skilled in the said arts. B&N is right, these patents are not only iterative and trivial, they are also either inapplicable to the Nook, or MS is unable to specify HOW the Nook infringes the patent! Not only that, but I find that many of MY OWN creations prior to the patent filing are examples of prior art.

Accept it: These are bogus disposable patents.
Realize that: MS has other patents.
Conclude that: These are anti-competitive business practices aimed to tax Android out of existence.

I'll see the DOJ involved or I'll be leaving this shit-hole of a country.

One more reason to love B&N

[mcrbids]

I don't mind giving money to a company that's gone to the trouble of making a pleasant place for me to go and find an enjoyable book to read. They have comfortable lounge chairs that I can sit in for a while and read whatever I like. They serve decent coffee that I can enjoy while I read my book. They have a good selection of books, and my nook account shares seamlessly between my 1st gen Nook and my Verizon Droid2 phone.

Because of the local store, I would very much rather give them my money than Amazon or any other "pure online" retailer.

But now they are fighting patent trolling? Oh yeah!

Re:Pedantic Tripe

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, yes; and I've read the pedantic tripe you're spouting off before as well. As if you're so much more clever than everyone else that you're higher IQ only serves to make you that much more dense.

Too dense to enable you to read and accept the intent that you claim to recognize as well as the obviousness that the absolute application of the “opaque” that you claim to prefer would in the end have the same effect as the “transparency” that you deplore - the obfuscation of facts and intent.

That you spout such foolishness on /. considering the recent application of selective variable transparency to various GUI components over the past few years would seem to indicate a terminal case of “head up his arse”.

I have an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

(1) Submit the problem a patent is supposed to solve to ten independent peer reviewers (*not* patent clerks, but experts in the field).
(2) Collect their proposed solutions (just drafts).
(3) The more reviewers hit on the solution described in the original patent, the more expensive the application becomes (exponentially), e.g.:
- no hits: base rate (say, to put a number: 100 dollars
- one hit: base rate * 10
- n hits: base rate * 10^n

Once you commit to the process it's "pay or the patent goes to the public domain"

(I guess the one-click patent would have cost around 10^9 dollars :-)

Score 5 annoying...

[doccus]

Just to be off-topic for a moment.. My mod points are wasted and unusable as *every* post on every thread seems to have been marked 5 interesting or 5 informative by some one, making the whole system worth shit

Installation is not use

[Zero__Kelvin]

Installation isn't a user function, and if every PC came with no OS and a Windows disk with instructions on how to install it then we wouldn't be having this exchange (excuse the pun.) In other words, due to Microsoft's illegal monopolistic practices people erroneously believe that Windows is "easier to use."

I can assure you that my mother finds Linux far easier to use than Windows, even though she doesn't know the difference between a dialog and an icon, as she has told me many times without my even asking.

Furthermore, installing Windows is far more time consuming, certainly no easier, and required periodically in many cases. It took me more than six hours to go from factory default to properly updated Windows to eliminate a particularly nasty piece of malware the other day. This required constant hand-holding and rebooting so that I had to be constantly watching the process. Once this was done I still had to worry about installing each proprietary software tool separately, which obviously took even more time and effort.

Once that was done I installed Linux, which took less than an hour and when I was done I already had every software tool the typical user could want and more installed. Updating involved clicking on an update icon, entering the root password, and just waiting for the process to complete, which took far less than six hours.

Left hand Right hand -- java

[Anonymous Coward]

With Sun (now Oracle) attempting to extract fees for mobile java
and with Microsoft attempting to extract computer system fees
it is clear that classification of systems is a tangle.

Current smart phones have more compute power and graphics
power than some GTX class SGI computers of historic interest.
At $10-40,000 these SGI systems would clearly qualify as COMPUTERS
for java licencing yet a phone of the same or more capability is not a computer
and incurs mobile java licencing fee.

I can see Oracle and Microsoft making conflicting sworn testimony in
litigation both attempting to extract fees and impose FUD on the
new phone and tablet market. Where those sworn testimony
are in conflict I wonder what the resolution is.

Of interest these sealed NDA settlements and agreements can be
torn up when law is being broken. I expect to see sealed "amicus curiae"
filings that disclose (to the court) some of these sealed contracts where it "appears" that
laws are being violated.

For example patent agreements that extract a fee yet in other sealed
contracts those same amounts are offset by discounts as part of a larger
manipulation of the market place. Like live locks in multiple processor
systems these need to be inspected to discover A-B, A-B-C, A-B-C-D
exclusion, live lock and lockout strategies (Per Brinch Hansen has some good books
on this topic). The interesting bit from Per Brinch Hansen is that some
contracts might establish locks on objects while other agreements would
establish monitors to enforce control.

In the above disclosure is a "system and method" for the
management of contracts and agreements to establish or avoid
legal or illegal business practices and models that are often
at issue in domestic and international trust litigation. An additional
claim includes data representation digital or on paper to this end and
an additional claim includes the use of such a system in a judicial
setting for binding arbitration or litigation. In addition this system
has application claims involving whiteboards, cork boards, black boards, slate
boards, Post It -notes, crayons, number 2 green pencils, permanent
markers, felt tip markers, foam presentatin boards, 8x10" glossy photos
with a paragraph of writing on the back, HTML markup, TeX markup.

At this point the list of patents is secret...

[Anonymous Coward]

At this point the list of patents is secret...
So which of this list applies.....
        Results of Search in US Patent Collection db for:
        AN/microsoft: 18907 patents.
I suspect that without disclosure of the list
the court must accept and consider prior art amicus curiae
filings for any and all of these patents. Including
any patent that mentions any of these 18907 patents.

To minimize additional filings the court would need
to disclose that only patents assigned to Microsoft
are part of the litigation. If patents not assigned to
Microsoft are involved then any patent (millions of them)
with any sniff of prior art of other conflict need
to be taken at issues to dispose of in the court.

The point is that they still applied

[Anonymous Coward]

but they didn't say how this patent was not covered by prior art or an obvious extension thereof.