Slashdot Mirror
How Linus Torvalds Helped Bust a Microsoft Patent
New submitter inhuman_4 passes along this quote from an article at Wired:
"Last December, Microsoft scored a victory when the ITC Administrative Law Judge Theodore R. Essex found that Motorola had violated four Microsoft patents. But the ruling could also eliminate an important Microsoft software patent that has been invoked in lawsuits against Barnes & Noble and car navigation device-maker Tom Tom. According to Linus Torvalds, he was deposed in the case this past fall, and apparently his testimony about a 20-year-old technical discussion — along with a discussion group posting made by an Amiga fan, known only as Natuerlich! — helped convince the Administrative Law Judge that the patent was invalid."
That's what I would like to know! It was unfortunately upheld in Germany, citing that it takes effort to come up with technical software solutions (i.e. having ideas is hard), that's why there should be software patents. Perhaps I remember incorrectly.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Well if patents are really to reward innovation, and if the patent office was right that this is an innovation, presumably Microsoft will be stripped of the profit it made by stealing his invention and the money given to him?
No?
Ahh, I thought so, patents are just a game. The USPTO believed it could create IP assets by simply issuing more patents and did a huge load of damage in the process to everyone except lawyers.
Linus: (b) do the long filenames by fooling around with several consecutive minix-type directory entries. Depending on how you do it, you can make old binaries see only th first characters of a extended filename, while new binaries see them all. Besides, this means you won't waste a full 64-char direntry for short files, but instead use several entries only when necessary. The downside is that it's a bit more work in the kernel.
Reading about saving bytes and caring about storage... um, gave me a semi...
I can imagine the Laywer vs Torvalds.
Lawyer: Are you sure this alledged discussion happend before the MS patent ...
Linus: Yes, I'm sure, in fact the timestamp is right there: Dec 23 1992, 8:34 am
Lawyer: 20 Years is a long time ago, how can you be so sure?
Linus: the timestamp is right there: Dec 23 1992, 8:34 am
Lawyer: So there is no doubt you might remeber the date wrong.
Linus: No.
Lawyer: Really, So when did this discussion happend?
Linus: Dec 23 1992, 8:34 am
Lawyer: I see, are you sure about the date?
Internet 1, Lawyers 0
Thank you internet news groups for documenting these old discussions.
A major problem with the way courts have analyzed software patents is their low-balling the skill level of a "Person having ordinary skill in the art". This is significant since anything such a person can do given the prior art is considered "obvious" and non-patentable. Basically, judges don't understand software well enough to distinguish true invention from routine solutions to problems.
In the case of software patents, many of them (the long-filename patent, the BCD patent [invalidated by the Supreme Court on other grounds] and so on) are for solutions that a typical developer will propose given the problem. But, because PHOSITA is basically taken to be an idiot the "obviousness" limitation on patentability has no effect unless by some chance an actual person bothered to write down this solution in the past.
Except that in the light of the discussion submitted by Linus Torvalds, the exact way Microsoft is using for long fat names was done BEFORE Microsoft even thought about it...
In case of a retrial in Germany, this will be brought on the table and the patent will also be invalidated there (well, IANAL but it's common sense).
Looks like that stupid patent is dead...
Microsoft recently got this patent:
http://www.reghardware.com/2011/09/23/microsoft_contemplates_mobiles_with_interchangeable_accessories/
Now, go to http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/26/how-would-you-change-sony-ericssons-xperia-x1/2#comments and do a find in page for the word "bottom" or "pop out" ... ok read that description .. now if you scroll up to the top of the article you can see a photo of the Xperia X1 which is being talked about .. notice that a combination of the Xperia X1 and the comment exactly fit the patent of microsoft? If you read the actual patent it becomes even clearer they stole the idea from that engadget comment.
Also, "known only as Natuerlich!"?
The post has a complete e-mail adress from somebody at the computer science department of the university in Darmstadt attached to it.
I agree. Let it drop. We all know the Atari ST sucks, while the Amiga still kicks $ss!!!!
Be sure to let us know when you've managed to get your Amiga to boot from a hard disk...
No sig today...
ummm lets see every Amiga after the 1000/500 ie 1500-3000 and even the 500 with a conversion could boot from a hard drive.
This shows how important it is that mail list (& similar) archives of very old discussions are kept on-line. They are not just a matter of academic/historic interest, they can have real benefits.
So: if you do host something like this and are thinking of removing it because it is old, out of date, ... please think again. Thanks.
Sure, but the Amiga was dead by then...
No sig today...
Its clearly an Atari thread that was discussed in court. If the attorneys were incorrect, they jeopardized their case out of ignorance, if it was the guy who wrote the story, he should be taken out back and shot.
I don't care if its been decades since both camps lost the fight with IBM/Microsoft, but they deserve to be represented properly.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
the patent will also be invalidated there (well, IANAL but it's common sense).
Yeah, do you honestly believe common sense factors in anywhere when it comes to this kind of blatant patent garbage?
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
As I recall the Amiga and the ST had different specialties. The ST excelled at music and the Amiga at video. While I can't speak for the ST, I saw many Amigas with Toasters still being used for video far into the Windows era.
No. The ITC is an administrative body that only rules on trade issues. It does not have the authority to invalidate a patent. That is a job for the district court.
Microsoft sued at the ITC because they want to block imports. If the ITC believes the patent to be valid and infringed, then it will block imports of the accused devices. If it believes the patent to be invalid or not infringed, then it will allow importation of the accused devices. In either case, the parties will then go to the district court to get an actual decision on validity/invalidity and infringement/non-infringement.
Microsoft started at the ITC because it works much more quickly than the district courts. A favorable decision at the ITC is almost as good as winning in court.
The purpose of patents is to promote the publication of useful technical solutions. An inventor describes their solution in their patent application, which then becomes public, and in return for making it public gets a time-limited monopoly on it.
When someone constructs a special connector to prevent interoperability, the connector itself isn't valuable. Patenting (and publishing) it doesn't make society richer, since its main purpose is to *prevent* devices from working together. Once the patent has run out and the connector becomes available for anyone to manufacture, it becomes useless, since it can no longer be used to prevent competition. Patenting it only has a cost for society (decreased competition), not any benefit.