Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
This post is prior art to everything else in this discussion!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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?
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.
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.
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.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Come on Samsung, and Google. Patents were supposed to spur innovation, not squash competition. The system is broken.
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
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?
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
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.
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!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
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.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
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.
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.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
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.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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!