Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Wins US Import Ban On Motorola's Android Devices

jbrodkin writes "The U.S. International Trade Commission today ordered an import ban on Motorola Mobility Android products, agreeing with Microsoft that the devices infringe a Microsoft patent on 'generating meeting requests' from a mobile device. The import ban stems from a December ruling that the Motorola Atrix, Droid, and Xoom (among 18 total devices) infringed the patent, which Microsoft says is related to Exchange ActiveSync technology. Today, the ITC said in a 'final determination of violation' (PDF) that 'the appropriate form of relief in this investigation is a limited exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed entry for consumption of mobile devices, associated software and components thereof covered by ... United States Patent No. 6,370,566 and that are manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or imported by or on behalf of, Motorola.' Motorola (which is being acquired by Google) was the last major Android device maker not to pay off Microsoft in a patent licensing deal. Microsoft has already responded to the decision, saying it hopes Motorola will now reconsider."

144 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Justice was fairly served by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you cannot do business honestly, don't do it at all.

    Yeah, if Microsoft were held to that particular standard they would have been out of business a long time ago.

  2. Generating meeting requests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are you f'ing kidding me? The inmates really are running the asylum.

    1. Re:Generating meeting requests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Please read the whole summary carefully:
      from a mobile device

      These 4 words let you rehash any old shit into a patent no matter how obvious.

    2. Re:Generating meeting requests? by Sfing_ter · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What if the androids can Generate Meeting Request From Their ASSES! The same place Microsoft is pulling these patent ideas from not to mention the idiots that make these feeble rulings.

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
    3. Re:Generating meeting requests? by Indigo · · Score: 2

      This is brilliant, really. The old "(whatever)... on a computer!" junk patent space was getting a little played out, but now we can patent "(whatever)... on a mobile phone!" so life is good again! At least for patent trolls.

    4. Re:Generating meeting requests? by c0lo · · Score: 1

      All devices are mobile unless they are constructed in place. Even then you probably could move them.

      Well, yes. Here's the classification:
      - "highly mobile" devices
      - portable devices
      - transportable devices.

      Can't wait the time one will only be able to generate meeting requests on-the-go using their Cray supercomputer in the back of their truck.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    5. Re:Generating meeting requests? by Fjandr · · Score: 2

      Just like Apple and "using a touchscreen." Microsoft's next course will be "using a gesture-tracking interface." As a bonus though, once Microsoft plays that one out it'll be hard for a future company to use the "using a holographic interface" line.

    6. Re:Generating meeting requests? by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      I have patented patenting things that are already patented (invalidly), on a smart phone. My lawyer will be calling Microsoft on Monday.

    7. Re:Generating meeting requests? by santax · · Score: 4, Funny

      Come on, if you can't patent sending a message asking someone to meet up with you, than what is the point to further try to innovate? It probably took millions spend in think-tanks just for the idea! Let alone the implementation!

    8. Re:Generating meeting requests? by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Posting a bond for a royalty rate of 33 cents per device in the US for the next 60 days is a far cry from the original ~$8 per device Microsoft originally wanted. Me thinks Motorola won't have any problem paying that amount to get around the ban (even if, worst case scenario, the pending ban in Germany for Windows 7 and Xbox itself never goes into effect).

      If any inmates are running the asylum, it's the Slashdot editors and the ArsTechnica editors that are using their headlines as cheap click-bait. It's like they both are trying to inflate their traffic numbers for some reason.

    9. Re:Generating meeting requests? by fibonacci8 · · Score: 1

      will BRB, patenting the same thing "to a mobile device"

      --
      Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
  3. Re:Justice was fairly served by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is time to step up and show Google the door. If you cannot do business honestly, don't do it at all.

    I'm not sure if you are trying to be sarcastic or not. I mean, remember, the other party to this suit is Microsoft.

    And oh by the way Google doesn't own Motorola yet, and did not own Motorola when the devices in question were designed. But don't let a little thing like facts get in the way of your shilling or trolling or whatever it is that you're doing.

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
  4. Re:Justice was fairly served by andrew3 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yes, because we all know Microsoft invented the smartphone... wait, what?

    Because we can all see how important Microsoft's smartphone inventions have been to the public, by the success of their phones. </sarcasm>

  5. Glad they found something important to ban by cvtan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Once again - Generating Meeting Requests? That's certainly a good reason to ban a product. That's all I use my phone for!

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    1. Re:Glad they found something important to ban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Once again - Generating Meeting Requests? That's certainly a good reason to ban a product. That's all I use my phone for!

      Yeah, me too. And you know, if it weren't for Microsoft, it wouldn't have even occurred to me to do that! They truly deserve credit for innovating such essential technologies that no one, not even Steve Jobs, could have seen coming.

      Kudos.

    2. Re:Glad they found something important to ban by xyourfacekillerx · · Score: 1

      Once again - Generating Meeting Requests? That's certainly a good reason to ban a product. That's all I use my phone for!

      Dude, that is just hilarious. I wouldn't call it a phone if it didn't have that functionality, anymore than I would call a body ogan an eye if its understood function weren't to "see" (to keep it brief).

  6. Why the google hate? by firesyde424 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Last time I looked(a few seconds ago), Motorola was being sued, not Google. Google was not even thinking about buying Motorola when those devices were made. So how is this Google hate even relevant?

    1. Re:Why the google hate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      google had already purchased Motorola before the lawsuit.. the DOJ, FTC, hadn't given it their blessing at the time though

    2. Re:Why the google hate? by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      This is called a Straw Man Fallacy.

      Note OP said "when those devices were made". Note how your reply says "before the lawsuit".

      Do you see how you altered firesyde's argument so that you could refute it?

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    3. Re:Why the google hate? by DragonWriter · · Score: 4, Informative

      google had already purchased Motorola before the lawsuit..

      Google hasn't purchased Motorola yet, much less before the lawsuit.

      the DOJ, FTC, hadn't given it their blessing at the time though

      Approval from various government agencies is required before the purchase occurs (which is why it hasn't yet, as the Chinese authorities which have to approve it haven't.) So your statement that the purchase had occurred but hadn't yet been approved by the required government agencies is self-contradictory.

    4. Re:Why the google hate? by firesyde424 · · Score: 2

      Wouldn't it be cool if there was a place I could go to look things up on the internet? You could type things into a text box and it would look through the internet and give me a ranked list of answers. If only there was someone who did that.... Perhaps they might even make money from selling advertisements based on the search terms. Yeah...if that existed, it would be so cool....

    5. Re:Why the google hate? by tqk · · Score: 1

      So how is this Google hate even relevant?

      I think I've gone back and re-read everything here about four times. What Google hate? Mentioning Google's trying to buy Motorola's Google hate?

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    6. Re:Why the google hate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is, it's duckduckgo.com. They do sell ads, but you are free to disable them. Search rankings do not suffer from any manipulation, marketing driven or otherwise.

    7. Re:Why the google hate? by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      And Microsoft makes most of theirs from extorting companies, governments, and OEMs to use their products. Your point?

    8. Re:Why the google hate? by philip.paradis · · Score: 2

      Search rankings do not suffer from any manipulation, marketing driven or otherwise.

      That's one of the funniest things I've read all day.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    9. Re:Why the google hate? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      And before Google, there were Yahoo, AltaVista, and many others. The reason I switched from AltaVista to Google was that the AltaVista home page had become so bloated that it took about 30 seconds to load on my modem. The reason I switched away from Google was that they'd made the UI worse four times in a row in under six months. I've not noticed any deterioration in search results: whenever DDG can't find anything, I try Google, and I've yet to find a query where going to Google has resulted in something useful, although the last time I tried I noticed that the Google UI was even worse than when I stopped using it regularly.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  7. They should also sue Google by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

    After all, I can use my iPhone's web browser to visit Google Calendar and send meeting requests from there.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  8. Re:Justice was fairly served by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Motorola did probably as much work on mobile tech in the early days as Nokia/Ericsson.

    When it comes to that really difficult work Microsoft brings nothing to the table.

    (Barnes and Noble didn't pay either and got bought off to drop the case).

    It is not justice really. MS didn't pay hardly anything at all for most of its early stuff. (To Dec etc).

    They shouldn't be able to pull this type of crap. (I don't hate MS anymore due to the fact they have a few quite products now and Gates is trying to do something good.) - (I quite like WP7 / Xbox 360 / Windows 7) - (Prior to Windows 7 I used either Solaris / Freebsd or Linux exclusively from 1999 onwards but it less easy to work with the abominations that are the modern DE's - When e17 is finally released I will probably go back to a *NIX - I am hoping it is before Windows 8 - Due to the work of Samsung it is getting very close to release - (Might as well use the best thing I can when the end of the world happens (Duke Nukem Forever is released) so this is the final thing).

    The patents that are held by the Original pioneers - Nokia / Ericsson / Motorola should in a civilised society be worth far more than any junk software patents.

  9. And the solution is... by roc97007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...don't use Exchange. Then you don't have to have a feature on your mobile device that will generate appointments for it. Problem solved.

    If you're currently using Exchange, perhaps now is the time to think about using a cloud service for email.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:And the solution is... by aztracker1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or... put the exchange client on the Play Store, and make it like a simple install, when you try to add an exchange email account... then they aren't selling the device in a way that violates said patent. MS would then be entitled to a share of what that app generated $0 (because it was free).. or MS can come up with "Outlook for Android" which may be an idea... I'd be willing to use/buy it if it were similar to webOS' mail app, which is similar to Outlook's layout.

      As for the patent suit, it's a ridiculous patent, and f*ck them... it's obvious.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    2. Re:And the solution is... by aaronb1138 · · Score: 1

      I don't know why anyone makes a fuss about this stuff. The majority of the large tech companies all feed the patent trolls, themselves, frequently enough that they get what they deserve.

      If a company stood it's ground and began an advertising campaign centered around exposing dumb patents and stopping their own dumb patent litigation, I could respect the situation then.

      Motorola should just do what has been done a dozen times now. Dig out some worthless patents of their own that they think they can stick in Microsoft's face and setup a cross-licensing agreement. If the patents were really worth anything, these companies wouldn't be trading and sharing them like baseball cards.

    3. Re:And the solution is... by chrb · · Score: 1
      The patent is not limited to Exchange - it covers any implementation of meeting requests on a mobile device. Exchange is only given as an example of the broader class of "personal information managers (PIMs)" that the patent applies to:

      PIMs typically comprise applications which enable the user of the mobile device to better manage scheduling and communications, and other such tasks. Some commonly available PIMs include scheduling and calendar programs, task lists, address books, and electronic mail (e-mail) programs. Some commonly commercially available PIMs are sold under the brand names Microsoft Schedule+ and Microsoft Outlook and are commercially available from Microsoft Corporation of Redmond, Wash. For purposes of this discussion, PIMs shall also include separate electronic mail applications, such as that available under the brand name Microsoft Exchange.

    4. Re:And the solution is... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      The patent is not limited to Exchange - it covers any implementation of meeting requests on a mobile device. Exchange is only given as an example of the broader class of "personal information managers (PIMs)" that the patent applies to:

      PIMs typically comprise applications which enable the user of the mobile device to better manage scheduling and communications, and other such tasks. Some commonly available PIMs include scheduling and calendar programs, task lists, address books, and electronic mail (e-mail) programs. Some commonly commercially available PIMs are sold under the brand names Microsoft Schedule+ and Microsoft Outlook and are commercially available from Microsoft Corporation of Redmond, Wash. For purposes of this discussion, PIMs shall also include separate electronic mail applications, such as that available under the brand name Microsoft Exchange.

      Given that, wouldn't Blackberry (1999) or the Palm Pilot (1996) be prior art?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    5. Re:And the solution is... by Denogh · · Score: 1

      The patent is not limited to Exchange - it covers any implementation of meeting requests on a mobile device. Exchange is only given as an example of the broader class of "personal information managers (PIMs)" that the patent applies to:

      PIMs typically comprise applications which enable the user of the mobile device to better manage scheduling and communications, and other such tasks. Some commonly available PIMs include scheduling and calendar programs, task lists, address books, and electronic mail (e-mail) programs. Some commonly commercially available PIMs are sold under the brand names Microsoft Schedule+ and Microsoft Outlook and are commercially available from Microsoft Corporation of Redmond, Wash. For purposes of this discussion, PIMs shall also include separate electronic mail applications, such as that available under the brand name Microsoft Exchange.

      Given that, wouldn't Blackberry (1999) or the Palm Pilot (1996) be prior art?

      Filed: April 10, 1998

      Blackberry, no.

      I'm not familiar enough with the early generations of Palm's devices to say whether they had a network calendaring app pre-'98.

    6. Re:And the solution is... by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      Can you or anyone explain to me how it happened that, with patents on machines, it is the method and process that is claimed, but with software it is the functionality itself?

      My understanding is that two people can both build, say, a flashlight if the operating principle is different (e.g. shaken capacitor drives a LED vs. solar-charged battery powers an incandescent). But software patents seem to cover the very concept of meeting requests or search suggestions, etc.

      Am I missing something?

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    7. Re:And the solution is... by jrumney · · Score: 1

      I'm not familiar enough with the early generations of Palm's devices to say whether they had a network calendaring app pre-'98.

      The patent is not limited to networked calendaring. The state of the art in 1998 when the patent application was submitted was a non-networked mobile device that synced via a USB or serial cable to a PC. The independent claims in this patent are claims 1, 9 and 17. Other claims are just a refinement of those claims. All three of these claims mention a synchronizing component and sending the meeting request via an email generated either on the mobile device itself, or on the remote device to which it is synchronizing. A completely web based calendar would not be covered by this patent, nor would an online-only calendar app with no synchronization component.

    8. Re:And the solution is... by drkstr1 · · Score: 1

      If you're currently using Exchange, perhaps now is the time to think about using a cloud service for email.

      As much as many of the small office sysadmins want to think, there really is no competition in the large enterprise market for email. No cloud IMAP doesn't cut it. Sadly... People demand tight auth, calendar, mail integration, Exchange handles this really well. (Unfortunately)

      So does Google Apps for the enterprise. (Unfortunately)

      --
      Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
    9. Re:And the solution is... by symbolset · · Score: 1

      I would not trust any Microsoft app on my Android device ever. They play hardball. I wouldn't take Microsoft Office for Linux either for the same reason.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    10. Re:And the solution is... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      What does Exchange do that Scalable OpenGroupware does not? SOGo:

      • Scales to thousands of users on a single server.
      • Integrates contacts, calendar, and mail.
      • Provides web interfaces to all of these features.
      • Provides fat-client integration, including Mozilla Thunderbird / Lightning, MS Outlook (native in 2.0, via a plugin in 1.x), Apple Mail / iCal.
      • Supports mobile clients, including iOS, Blackberry, Windows Phone, and Android.

      So what does MS Exchange do that it doesn't but that you need? This is a serious question - I'd be happy to forward any feature requests to Inverse...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    11. Re:And the solution is... by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      Doesn't work that way. In that case, Google (or whomever made the app) would be on the hook for the same thing Moto was in this bullshit.

      And...wouldn't this patent not survive in re Bilski's tests for patentability?

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    12. Re:And the solution is... by Cytotoxic · · Score: 1

      What does Exchange do that Scalable OpenGroupware does not? SOGo:

      Don't know about features, but it looks pretty interesting, thanks for the link! As for your question "What does Exchange do that Scalable OpenGroupware does not?", the answer seems to be in the release notes. For the past year every release notes that it is focused on "improved stability".

      Despite having a history of being mind-numbingly stupidly designed - particularly in the versions that used the Jet engine for the data store - Exchange has been quite stable in recent years, at least in my experience. And if there's one thing you want in a "scalable groupware" it would be stability. There are very few cases where "thousands of users" and "stability issues" are acceptable bedfellows.

  10. The patent by hawguy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's the patent in question:

    http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=L-ELAAAAEBAJ&dq=6,370,566

    The present invention includes a mobile device which provides the user with the ability to schedule a meeting request from the mobile device itself. The mobile device creates an object representative of the meeting request and assigns the object a global identification number which uniquely identifies the object to other devices which encounter the object. In addition, the mobile device in accordance with one aspect of the present invention provides a property in the object which is indicative of whether the meeting request has already been transmitted. In this way, other devices which encounter the meeting request are capable of identifying it as a unique meeting request, and of determining whether the meeting request has already been transmitted, in order to alleviate the problem of duplicate meeting request transmissions.

    Is that really patentable? Assigning a unique ID to a meeting request to alleviate duplicate requests? How can that not be obvious to someone "skilled in the art"?

    Is there any other solution that's more obvious? "Hey Joe, I keep getting duplicate meeting requests from your Palm Pilot. Oh noooooos! Hey, I know, I'll send each meeting request in a different color, then if you get two purple ones you'll know it's a dupe".

    1. Re:The patent by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Here's the patent in question:

      http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=L-ELAAAAEBAJ&dq=6,370,566

      The present invention includes a mobile device which provides the user with the ability to schedule a meeting request from the mobile device itself. The mobile device creates an object representative of the meeting request and assigns the object a global identification number which uniquely identifies the object to other devices which encounter the object. In addition, the mobile device in accordance with one aspect of the present invention provides a property in the object which is indicative of whether the meeting request has already been transmitted. In this way, other devices which encounter the meeting request are capable of identifying it as a unique meeting request, and of determining whether the meeting request has already been transmitted, in order to alleviate the problem of duplicate meeting request transmissions.

      Is that really patentable? Assigning a unique ID to a meeting request to alleviate duplicate requests? How can that not be obvious to someone "skilled in the art"?

      Is there any other solution that's more obvious? "Hey Joe, I keep getting duplicate meeting requests from your Palm Pilot. Oh noooooos! Hey, I know, I'll send each meeting request in a different color, then if you get two purple ones you'll know it's a dupe".

      Better yet, it is so vague that probably every laptop and table is also in violation of it, well every laptop and tablet not running Windows (ie Apple). My old palm pilot is also probably in violation, too.

    2. Re:The patent by arose · · Score: 1

      And just how would the implementation differ if it was not done from a mobile device but say from a desktop computer?

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    3. Re:The patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Didn't PalmOS do this in the PalmPilot and Treo long before Microsoft thought mobile devices were interesting?

    4. Re:The patent by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I don't quite understand any of it. Doesn't ActiveSync create a layer by which any software (regardless of the kind of device it may be running on) can insert objects into Exchange? Wouldn't it be Exchange itself which would be taking care of any duplication issues?

      Or to put this in really simple terms, is ActiveSync not just an API that allows http(s) access to Exchange functionality? If that's the case, then the patent itself doesn't even actually describe what Motorola (and every other Android phone and iDevice does). Who the fuck cares what the patent says, all these fucking phones are doing is sending some nice little http encapsulated object off to an IIS server plugged into Exchange.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:The patent by Deorus · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, it was Microsoft that pushed for ActiveSync support on the iPhone, in order to keep themselves relevant against RIM's threat at the time. Don't take my word for it, though.

    6. Re:The patent by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      The reality here is nothing to do with meetings or calenders. It is all about being able to remotely update a database. No matter what you name those columns and rows, it is all about updating a remote database. The US Patents office is claiming that every database type can be patented not once but twice, once for fixed location updating and once for remote location updating. Even when everything in between has already been patented, the phones, the computers, the network, the relational database software. Add new rows and columns to a database using any of those devices and you can patent it, think of all those databases that haven't been patented yet, tens of thousands of types and billions in use. So go searching for each and every type of database, search the patents office to see if it has been patented, if it hasn't simply substitute the terms in this M$ patent insert your own and away you go.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    7. Re:The patent by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Actually, no. Microsoft has been tinkering with mobile devices for a long time. As funny as it seems, they were actually one of the pioneers in this field, together with Psion and Apple. Windows CE predates even the first Palm Pilot.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    8. Re:The patent by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      If that were true, they probably gave Apple the license for ActiveSync on the cheap; in which case Apple would really be laughing.

    9. Re:The patent by ihavnoid · · Score: 2

      You are missing the point. It seems that many people on slashdot simply don't understand how patents work.

      The abstract and the description of the patent doesn't mean that the patent owner "owns" whatever described on it. The description is there for the readers so that they can understand how the whole stuff works. It can contain whatever description you want.

      The idea Microsoft "owns" is described as "claims", which essentially describes a mobile device which has a UI, can synchronize to a remote system, and can book meetings and blah blah blah. Since mobile devices which could book meetings were rare at 1998, it seems Motorola attorneys had a difficult time looking for prior art.

    10. Re:The patent by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      Sorry... Not buying that line of thought. Don't know where you're getting your info, but...

      Release date of WinCE 1.0 : November 16, 1997
      Release date of the Palm Pilot 1000: March 1997.

      Hell, the Newton predates the both of them: 1993.

      It does NOT predate Palm and it definitely wasn't the first in the space in question. This, while entertaining, doesn't get to the meat of things. The first smartphones weren't even Microsoft's or Palm's. They were IBM's (Simon- 1992) and Nokia's (Communicator 9000 series- 1996) neither of which used anything of either PalmOS or WinCE. And this is just a fairly recent patent they threw out that really only covers interoperability with Exchange.

      Just because they were tinkering with devices for a long time doesn't give validity to this patent...or to your claims.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    11. Re:The patent by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      From here: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/1996/Nov96/wincepr.aspx, so November 1996 for CE, three months before Palm Pilot.

      And yes, I know about Apple Newton and I even know about Psion Series 3, which was two years before Newton. Should have been obvious if you'd read my post carefully.

      The validity of this patent was not the question anyway - I personally don't consider software patentable at all, which is sort of a common viewpoint in Europe. I just wanted to explain that Microsoft is longer around in the handheld area than people think. Looks like even you didn't knew.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  11. That seems corrupt by Mirkman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would have thought a ruling by a judge would be needed to render something banned from import. So the power to regulate allows government agencies the ability to make profound and legally binding decisions without need for court systems or due process? I was not aware the ITC were experts on IP.

    1. Re:That seems corrupt by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I would have thought a ruling by a judge would be needed to render something banned from import. So the power to regulate allows government agencies the ability to make profound and legally binding decisions without need for court systems or due process? I was not aware the ITC were experts on IP.

      They're not, and you're right ... they just ban stuff because a lawyer makes a convincing argument to a bureaucrat who hasn't the slightest idea of what the subject matter is, or how it relates to the product class in question. This will still go to court, and ultimately I suspect the ban will be lifted. The ITC is where everyone goes to get fast action without any court time.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:That seems corrupt by DragonWriter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I would have thought a ruling by a judge would be needed to render something banned from import.

      Its not.

      So the power to regulate allows government agencies the ability to make profound and legally binding decisions without need for court systems or due process?

      "Government agencies" have very little in terms of inherent power. What they do have is the power conferred on them by Congress acting under its Article I powers, which often include the ability to make decisions of first instance in certain controversies. Due process is required in such proceedings by the 5th Amendment.

      These decisions are, generally, subject to review, sometimes by special courts set up for review of agency decisions (Article I courts), and -- either initially or subsequently -- by the regular (Article III) courts.

      I was not aware the ITC were experts on IP.

      Since their role is narrower than that of, say, the regular federal trial courts, and IP is specifically central to it, there's far more reason to expect that the ITC members are IP experts than that the federal judges and juries that would hear cases in Article III courts would be.

    3. Re:That seems corrupt by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      In this case, it's physical goods that appear to be in violation of a patent, and their import into the country. Legally, it's sound.. even if the suit is pending, and the patent is ridiculous, until the suit is done, you shouldn't be able to sell said items (which are likely in conflict).

      I don't agree with this instance of a patent, but someone who is violating a worthy patent shouldn't be allowed to keep violating it while the suit takes place.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    4. Re:That seems corrupt by tqk · · Score: 2

      ... but someone who is violating a worthy patent shouldn't be allowed to keep violating it while the suit takes place.

      Why? What happened to the presumption of innocence? If it's determined that it infringes, assign damages.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:That seems corrupt by chrb · · Score: 1

      A government that has the power to ban your competitor's products also has the power to ban your products. Perhaps, at some point, someone will get a patent injunction against some essential features of Windows or Office and then refuse to license the patent...

      "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today. The solution to this is patent exchanges with large companies and patenting as much as we can." - Bill Gates

    6. Re:That seems corrupt by chaboud · · Score: 1

      It's a civil matter, rather than a criminal one. You can only presume inanity.

    7. Re:That seems corrupt by Lisias · · Score: 1

      And once it's proven that the claim is false, who will pay for the harm done?

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
    8. Re:That seems corrupt by symbolset · · Score: 1

      ALJ in the pdf refers to "Administrative Law Judge".

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    9. Re:That seems corrupt by jrumney · · Score: 1

      The end customer always pays in the end.

    10. Re:That seems corrupt by tqk · · Score: 1

      It's a civil matter, rather than a criminal one. You can only presume inanity.

      Is that really a word?

      Jeebus, your legal system [sic] is fscked up, especially your tort law. So, no presumption of innocence in civil cases? You are way fsckin' doomed. Your time has come. Repent sinners, the Rapture awaits your arrival! Doom to those without legal representation, and go fsck yourselves too, we don't much care about you proles. Ptui!

      And I was hoping for such great things from you guys. You started out so well.

      Fine. "Nuke 'em from orbit, ..."

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    11. Re:That seems corrupt by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      And if the patent is ultimately ruled invalid, who compensates the business that lost sales and marketshare due to their product not being on sale?
      Such a system is far too ripe for abuse, you will get a bunch of tiny shill companies setting up to file entirely frivolous suits and then tie them up for as long as possible for the sole purpose of harming a competitor... When the suit finally gets thrown out, the shill company has no money left and so cannot compensate their victim.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    12. Re:That seems corrupt by daath93 · · Score: 1

      In civil cases there is no guilty or innocent. I don't see the difficulty, you aren't prosecuting a criminal act. If a guy from Motorola beat the F out of some guy from Microsoft, then yes, he would be innocent until proven guilty. The law is ment to protect people from losing their freedom (jail), not to prevent corporations from annoying each other. And I believe "Inanity" was a joke, and not a legal term.

    13. Re:That seems corrupt by daath93 · · Score: 1

      LoL, Motorola will lose a negligible sum of money in the 5 seconds it takes them to remove the software. They settle these things for breakfast. By noon their CEO will be having a drink with Steve Balmer chuckling over their "loss", "Good one Steve, I'll get you next time." While colluding with each other on how to screw you out of more money.

    14. Re:That seems corrupt by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      If it were about IP concerns that they did things, in re Bilski would have had an impact. Specifically, it's an invalid patent that they're infringing upon here. Which, one would think, if it were as you claimed, would count and this wouldn't even be a discussion- but it's not.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    15. Re:That seems corrupt by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      Since their role is narrower than that of, say, the regular federal trial courts, and IP is specifically central to it, there's far more reason to expect that the ITC members are IP experts than that the federal judges and juries that would hear cases in Article III courts would be.

      You mean "there's far more reason to suspect ITC members are former IP lawyers." It's quite possible the Article III court would be less beholden to industry interests.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    16. Re:That seems corrupt by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      I would have thought a ruling by a judge would be needed to render something banned from import. So the power to regulate allows government agencies the ability to make profound and legally binding decisions without need for court systems or due process? I was not aware the ITC were experts on IP.

      Actually, they are, and it involves due process and a court system. The ITC has administrative law judges, who are tech experts because that's all they do, who exclusively do IP infringement importation actions. The parties get to argue and brief and file motions and do discovery, but it's a super accelerated docket because the ITC isn't handling terrorism or interstate commerce stuff.

    17. Re:That seems corrupt by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Since their role is narrower than that of, say, the regular federal trial courts, and IP is specifically central to it, there's far more reason to expect that the ITC members are IP experts than that the federal judges and juries that would hear cases in Article III courts would be.

      You mean "there's far more reason to suspect ITC members are former IP lawyers."

      No, thanks for trying to help, but I meant exactly what I wrote. (If they were IP lawyers -- which are a proper subset of what I was referring to as IP experts -- they wouldn't stop being either lawyers or IP specialist when they became members of the ITC.)

      It's quite possible the Article III court would be less beholden to industry interests.

      That may be true, but its orthogonal to the point I was responding to, which was about expertise and not bias.

    18. Re:That seems corrupt by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      If it were about IP concerns that they did things, in re Bilski would have had an impact. Specifically, it's an invalid patent that they're infringing upon here.

      There are a whole hosts of inconsistencies in the patent law applies to ITC decisions vs. how it applies in Article III courts, which is bizarre to the point of insanity, but a direct result of the way Congress has constructed the patent-related powers of the ITC. Particularly, the ITC is not, as ridiculous as this seems, bound by many aspects of the Patent Act, there's confusing case law on which patent defenses the ITC may or must consider, and ITC exclusion decisions are issued under much looser standards than apply to permanent injunctions in the Article III courts.

    19. Re:That seems corrupt by tqk · · Score: 1

      In civil cases there is no guilty or innocent. I don't see the difficulty, you aren't prosecuting a criminal act. ... The law is [meant] to protect people from losing their freedom (jail), not to prevent corporations from annoying each other.

      I think that distinction is a bad idea (civil vs. criminal). It's an anachronism that we still do that. Hell, the RIAA/MPAA swears they're being raped every day. Yeah, civil means your bank acct. is going to grow or shrink, and criminal means either someone's going to jail or not. Still, I don't see much point in making the distinction. IANAL, however.

      And I believe "Inanity" was a joke, and not a legal term.

      Got that. I believe I may have been suffering from a bad case of Scotch (if such a thing is even possible) at the time. :-) I try to limit myself to only laughing at *really* funny stuff.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  12. Generating meeting requests by kramerd · · Score: 1, Informative

    Like an email list and a a send all message with a click to respond and a pop up reminder x minutes beforehand? Like I had when I used prodigy in 1998?

    Normally I'm a fan of Microsoft, but this sounds unreasonable.

  13. 'generating meeting requests' by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 2

    Wow, remove it and continue to ship.

    -AI

    --
    For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
    1. Re:'generating meeting requests' by Cytotoxic · · Score: 1

      That was my first thought as well. Pretty simple solution to a problem.

  14. The claims by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    FTFA: claims 1, 2, 5, or 6 of the United States Patent No. 6,370,566

    FTFP:

    1. A mobile device, comprising:

            an object store;
            an application program configured to maintain objects on the object store;
            a user input mechanism configured to receive user input information;
            a synchronization component configured to synchronize individual objects stored on the object store with remote objects stored on a remote object store;
            a communications component configured to communicate with a remote device containing the remote object store; and
            wherein the application program is further configured to generate a meeting object and an electronic mail scheduling request object based on the user input information.

    2. The mobile device of claim 1 wherein the application program is configured to generate the meeting object with a global identifier property uniquely identifying the meeting object among a plurality of other objects.

    5. The mobile device of claim 1 wherein the application program further comprises:

            a contacts application program configured to maintain objects on the object store indicative of contact information wherein the contact information includes address information indicative of a fully qualified electronic mail addresses for individuals identified by the contact information; and
            wherein the application program is configured to obtain the fully qualified electronic mail address of potential attendees identified by the contact information by interaction with the contacts application program.

    6. The mobile device of claim 1 wherein the application program is configured to generate the meeting object and the electronic mail scheduling request object such that properties of the objects are compatible with at least a second application program associated with the remote object store and different from the application program.

    Claim 1: A mobile device.

    Claim 2: Using a GUID.

    Claim 5: And an address book.

    Claim 6: Which talks to a remote server.

    ...

    We're fucking doomed.

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
    1. Re:The claims by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      We're fucking doomed.

      Oh, but, no the system can't be irreparibly broken. That would be uncomfortable and put a damper on my chronological ethnocentrism.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:The claims by jrumney · · Score: 2

      Why are we doomed? A device would have to infringe on all of those, not any of them to be injuctified.

      There are 23 claims in patent 6,370,566. Only 4 of those have been infringed by Motorola, and their device has been injunctified. So no, a device does not have to infringe on all the claims, legally only one is sufficient

    3. Re:The claims by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      It remains to be seen if it's even patentable in the post in re Bilski world. If it's not patentable, it doesn't matter what claims you're infringing.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    4. Re:The claims by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      1. A mobile device, comprising:

      an object store;
      an application program configured to maintain objects on the object store;
      a user input mechanism configured to receive user input information;
      a synchronization component configured to synchronize individual objects stored on the object store with remote objects stored on a remote object store;
      a communications component configured to communicate with a remote device containing the remote object store; and
      wherein the application program is further configured to generate a meeting object and an electronic mail scheduling request object based on the user input information.

      Claim 1: A mobile device.

      Not necessarily. It would have to be a mobile device that has those additional features, including synchronizing data with a remote server and generating a synchronized meeting object and an email scheduling request. My iPod, for example, is a mobile device that synchronizes objects (mp3s) with a remote object store (my media server), but it doesn't generate emails or meeting requests.

  15. disgusting by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    a Microsoft patent on 'generating meeting requests' from a mobile device

    Roll that around in your brain for a second.

    I really wonder why anyone would have one bit of respect for any intellectual property laws when they are being perverted in this way.

    And they wonder why there is hostility toward our current economic system. Maybe it's because the people at the top of that system have completely broken the social contract.

    Between this story and the notion that Facebook, a corporation that produces nothing, employs almost nobody, and whose users are not their customers is now worth >$100billion, and the fact that the young founder of Facebook is has greater net worth than the bottom 1/5th (!) of the entire US population, I think a picture of an economic system in its death throes starts to take shape. I can't see how it can last much longer, nor can I think of a reason why it should.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:disgusting by Theaetetus · · Score: 2

      a Microsoft patent on 'generating meeting requests' from a mobile device

      Roll that around in your brain for a second.

      I really wonder why anyone would have one bit of respect for any intellectual property laws when they are being perverted in this way.

      Because people who have respect for IP laws realize that someone's description of the patent may not actually be what the patent claims? Consider, Toyota has a patent (several, actually) on the Prius hybrid engine. But if I just said "a Toyota patent on 'a vehicle engine'," people who didn't realize that there's more to it would think it was insane. Why, there's more than a century of prior art! Disgusting, huh?

      There are issues with the patent system, but basing your evidence for those issues on someone's description of a patent is misplaced.

    2. Re:disgusting by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Because people who have respect for IP laws realize that...

      Patents on software are not worthy of respect.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  16. Can anyone reading this story by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    not think that patents are utterly useless and absurd?

    The "invention" in question is laughable beyond belief.

    The defendent and plaintiff are mutlinational corporations. Not a little guy that needs protecting.

    How do the lawyers whose lifework is this nonsense make sense of their lives? At the end of the day, in your old age, what is the value of your life's work? Did you make anything? Did you help anyone? Or did you shuffle words around a disgusting nonsensical argument foisted on some other lawyers for the sake of absurd privations? What a completely and utterly useless and despicable existence.

    Why do we as a society tolerate this useless sideshow? Oh, because of all the money involved, right.

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:Can anyone reading this story by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      I believe you. However, here you are preaching to the choir. You may want to champion your beliefs at, say, IP Watchdog.

      I learned there that you should apply for software patents before any code has been written, and that thinking of the idea is the hard part. Coders just do what they're told -- that stuff is simple. It takes a really smart ass^H^H^H guy to come up with ideas like this patent.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    2. Re:Can anyone reading this story by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      does that justify highway robbery? kidnapping? extortion? murder?

      if something is wrong to do, it is wrong to do. that it might put food on the table is the only justification needed? ever hear of morality? civilization? fuck you you parasite

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    3. Re:Can anyone reading this story by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      I think the real problem is that no one outside of slashdot and business people follow this kind of news. It truly illustrates why ideas are not property, and why when you try to make them such, everyone loses; but to most people, this is not on the radar. When they think of patents, they think of keeping some Chinese company from 'stealing' some American's genius invention, not the billions of dollars wasted on pointless inter-corporate patent wars and the damage done to the companies and citizens who get dragged into them without millions to spend on legal teams.

      The same goes for copyright. The lawsuits against the actual artists and the fear of legal retribution to people doing what really ought to be legal (like producing their own works with some relation to corporate-owned ones), along with the economic costs of what amounts to a digital infrastructure tax, are not considered by the common people; they think of the old "starving artist" who is having their livelihood stripped away by that evil pirate selling copied DVDs on the street corner, even though every possible aspect of that scenario is fictitious.

      The real important point here is that people are stupid and happy to be so. Combine that with a general terror of change and around half of the country labeling any attempt to improve the lives of the majority of people "socialism" and you have a recipe for a slow collapse into corruption, insignificance, and civil strife.

    4. Re:Can anyone reading this story by deblau · · Score: 1

      We patent lawyers write, attack, and defend patents for the same reason that any other schmo gets up in the morning and goes into work: someone pays us to. Maybe that type of existence doesn't align with your worldview, but it's nevertheless a perfectly logical explanation.

      --
      This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
    5. Re:Can anyone reading this story by Lisias · · Score: 1

      Why do we as a society tolerate this useless sideshow? Oh, because of all the money involved, right.

      What's money, anyway?

      Can you eat it? It will nurse you when sick? Protect you from a bullet?

      What will happens to these guys when the money they think they have became worhless, as no one will have more to trade?

      Money it's worthless. It must exchange hands in order to have some value. Any kind of action that encumbers this dynamics should be dealt as a crime against the People.

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
    6. Re:Can anyone reading this story by esarjeant · · Score: 1

      Agreed. It looks like something a grade school student could have written - not a multi-national corporation with billions of dollars in assets. Unfortunately, it's a criteria businesses use to measure the viability of a software company.

      During the .com bubble, I was asked more than once to develop a description of a software system and/or methodology that could be submitted for a patent. Fortunately, I took the time to prove this work was not something entirely new and that these were designs I had already used at previous companies.

      Investors are looking for protection. If they pour millions of dollars into something they don't want it to get "stolen". In the world of software, this kind of protection is unreasonable. The best you can do is protect yourself from someone copying your work exactly - which is a copyright -- otherwise its called competition.

      --

      Eric Sarjeant
      eric[@]sarjeant.com

  17. Re:Justice was fairly served by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you cannot do business honestly, don't do it at all.

    Yeah, if Microsoft were held to that particular standard they would have been out of business a long time ago.

    Microsoft has hardly been an innovator. I wonder who they bought the patent from.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  18. Patent portent by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    These things should not be patentable per se (which isn't to say that particularly clever implementations couldn't be patented):

    1. Doing something on a wireless, portable, or handheld computer that is already done on a desktop (and not covered by a patent there.)

    Joins my old favorite:

    2. Anything that exists in the real world, a simulation is not per se patentable. Again, unless the real world thing is patented, and subject to the "clever implementation" issue.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  19. Re:Justice was fairly served by man_the_king · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Story - Microsoft Wins US Import Ban On Motorola's Android Devices - Posted by Soulskill on Friday May 18, @05:38PM .
    First comment praising Microsoft - a properly worded, properly paragraphed, properly punctuated, comment, with a link with description - all of this taking up a 100 words not including punctuation - Posted by kdps (2642743) on Friday May 18, @05:38PM .

  20. Can't wait for 2032 by seyfarth · · Score: 1

    Just think in 2032 all these silly patents will have expired and software will be free from this legal nightmare. Unless -- the government extends the life span of patents to 40 years or there might be a whole slew of new patents for quantum computers or computers with monkey brain memory. You know in your heart that this is all non-productive and unfair. You also know that our corporatocracy will never give up any perceived monopoly powers.

    --
    Ray Seyfarth, ray.seyfarth@gmail.com, http://rayseyfarth.blogspot.com
  21. Re:Justice was fairly served by TrueSpeed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google has a long history of trying to weasel out of agreements and payments just because they're 'Google'. In turn, Microsoft spends billions an year towards their R&D (Microsoft Research). They also work with the pioneer in the industry, Nokia, which has developed pretty much all the technology we base mobile phones today on. They deserve to be paid.

    Not only do I see victory for justice, but a long term crackdown on Google's illicit business practices. It is time to step up and show Google the door. If you cannot do business honestly, don't do it at all.

    Justifiably, you were marked for the troll that you are. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist (US vs Microsoft), a stealer of IP and code (Stacker, i4i), a saboteur of companies (Wordperfect/Novell) and a financial backer to SCO. They're also anti-open standards as evidenced by the people they tried to pay off to try and ratify their failed document format standard. As for their R&D - all I see from their labs are useless kinect experiments that have no practical or commercial value.

     

  22. Did you sign the contract? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Maybe it's because the people at the top of that system have completely broken the social contract.

    Sorry, but 'social contract' is a fairy tale that's told so you can pretend like you're not supposed to be getting screwed, but instead they're they're just breaking the rules. Bad boys, they need to be brought back in line.

    The reality is that you getting screwed is the rule of this socio-economic system. Big governments and their corporate creations locked into a tight positive feedback loop. Hold on tight - these systems all halt eventually (visualize a pair of binary stars spiraling towards each other).

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Did you sign the contract? by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      "Big governments and their corporate creations locked into a tight positive feedback loop."

      Are you implying, as has been falsely implied many times before, that a small government results in a lower probability of a corrupt, monopolistic economy arising? I would have thought seemingly intelligent people would have moved past that. Governments might aid corporations due to corruption, but when you give it all over to an unregulated "free" market, nobody needs corruption to screw over the people; they just do it. "Big governments" at least have the potential to work; free markets, by their nature, will fall into monopolies which are astronomically more abusive than governments.

      The correct answer is regulation and a watchful populous which punishes corruption in elections. I'd also like a flying rainbow pony.

    2. Re:Did you sign the contract? by drkstr1 · · Score: 1

      "Big governments and their corporate creations locked into a tight positive feedback loop." Are you implying, as has been falsely implied many times before, that a small government results in a lower probability of a corrupt, monopolistic economy arising? I would have thought seemingly intelligent people would have moved past that. Governments might aid corporations due to corruption, but when you give it all over to an unregulated "free" market, nobody needs corruption to screw over the people; they just do it. "Big governments" at least have the potential to work; free markets, by their nature, will fall into monopolies which are astronomically more abusive than governments. The correct answer is regulation and a watchful populous which punishes corruption in elections. I'd also like a flying rainbow pony.

      I would rather the government focus its time and energy into giving us the tools to regulate ourselves. What if the government's primary role was to enforce criminal and contract law between consenting adults, and all lawyers were public servants?

      --
      Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
    3. Re:Did you sign the contract? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Are you implying, as has been falsely implied many times before, that a small government results in a lower probability of a corrupt, monopolistic economy arising?

      So, a government that grants monopolies and immunizes people from responsibility is the way forward?

      I would have thought seemingly intelligent people would have moved past that.

      No, we read history. Look into medieval Iceland, for an example of this working. Chronological ethnocentrism doesn't help here.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:Did you sign the contract? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but 'social contract' is a fairy tale that's told so you can pretend like you're not supposed to be getting screwed

      Well, yes and no. I do believe that there has at various times been a noblesse oblige where you would see people at the top of the pyramid acting with some concern for the people around them. Those that did not want only to be the richest man in a poor country.

      But when a certain level of income polarity is reached, there is no social need for such decency, because a virtual "breakaway society" has been created, where the richest live in a completely different world than the rest of us.

      Access to better medical care, better food, better education, better technology. At some point, we won't even share a culture with people like the Romneys and the Kochs. I'm not sure we'll even share a species.

      There have been numerous studies of the toxic effects of income disparity. After a certain point, societies that are so polarized become very very sick. Here in the US, we are now on the dark side of that threshold, and there is no sign of any willingness to slow down the breakdown.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Did you sign the contract? by sesshomaru · · Score: 1

      "At some point, we won't even share a culture with people like the Romneys and the Kochs. I'm not sure we'll even share a species."

      H. G. wells would have put them among the ancestors of the Eloi, and the rest of us among the ancestors of the Morlocks...

      A bright future for their offspring, then....

      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
  23. Litigate, not innovate. by lexsird · · Score: 1

    This is a sign of weakness and corruption when they can't just compete, but cheat with crooked bureaucrats and filthy politicians. First it was Apple being whiny punks, now M$ follows suit. (pardon the pun) Personally for their pathetic actions, I am boycotting both companies the best that I can. I will go back to smoke signals and an abacus before giving these bastards one worn out penny.

    --
    Take the Red Pill.
  24. the world roots for NK and I? by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    It's crap like this, that the world is going to start rooting for the Iranians and N Koreans just to put a thumb, or stake, in the US gubermint's eye. As a kid, I was glad some of my great grandparents left Germany decades before WWI and then the Nazis. Guess it's time to pay them forward.

  25. ethernet and predecessors by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    Sounds like ethernet or any previous network device, just addressing people instead of devices.

  26. WooHoo Cheap Xooms for the 7 billion outside USA by grege1 · · Score: 1

    WooHoo Cheap Xooms for the 7 billion of us who live outside of the USA. A nice 32gb Xoom for about $200 - sounds good to me.

  27. Patent office should be held responsible by Grieviant · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Generating meeting requests? Seriously, how the fuck is that an innovation that someone skilled in the art would not be able to come up with? It's time the patent office was held responsible for enabling patent trolling by lowering the bar to the ground. How about a system where any patent that ends up being overturned requires the patent office to pay the associated legal fees? You'd need a 3rd party to conduct the reexaminations to avoid conflict of interest, but it might do something to stem the tide of handing out junk patents like penny candy.

    1. Re:Patent office should be held responsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      filed in 1998... did you think of scheduling a meeting request from your Zach Morris cell phone back then?

  28. The march towards an US of A free of smart phones by c0lo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's certainly a good reason to ban a product. That's all I use my phone for!

    Use it while you still can. Next in line, Google and Apple dusting off some of their patents and banning each others phones, including the MS one.

    Getting around the bans will be possible: except the smart phones won't be that smart anymore, each one will need to eliminate the "smartness" covered by the patents of the others.

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  29. How about a telex machine by currently_awake · · Score: 1

    This sounds like a telex machine, they were used by ships to schedule shipping (meetings of ship and cargo). Every message would have a unique id, mobile (by ship), used to schedule meetings, meeting requests created as objects (paper), determine if sent (you get a response when sent), used an address book (a routing indicator book).

    1. Re:How about a telex machine by ihavnoid · · Score: 1

      If you compare the telex with claim 1, the telex machine doesn't have an application, not used for storing data on a remote storage, and certainly doesn't have a synchronization mechanism. Finally, telex machines doesn't seem to qualify as a mobile device.

      If something doesn't EXACTLY match the description of AT LEAST one claim, it isn't an infringement. Actually, that's why many patents are quite easy to bypass.

  30. Microsoft scores own goal in Moto patent battle by symbolset · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let's look at what Microsoft won and lost here.

    Eight of the nine patents in suit are rendered useless. As soon as the last one is worked around, nine of nine. Everybody will work now to avoid these litigious patents. Microsoft's licensing strategy is to not reveal the patents at all because they can be worked around.

    They don't get the $15 per device license fees, in perpetuity, they wanted.

    Moto has to pay $0.33 per device, and only on the few devices found to infringe, and might actually get that money back if they bother to try. But regardless they save $14.67 per device - and that's just starting now. They don't pay any back money for prior devices.

    Moto and Google have probably already worked around this patent and the cure is in testing. Once it's applied the net cost to Moto goes back to zero until the next time.

    By successfully suing Moto for using Microsoft's patented Exchange API, they've recommitted to a course of prevention of interopability in a core Office product some had claimed was behind them. Way to go! We get to bring this up every time someone tries to say things have changed, or you should use some Microsoft technology and it will be OK (Mono, C#, and so on).

    They don't get to cross-license Moto patents, ever. Moto has a LOT of patents.

    Moto gets to be bitter and sue them back over every single thing they can, like H.264 patents, wireless patents and so on. Microsoft has to drop the DVD codecs from Windows 8, for example.

    Everybody else who's paying Microsoft for Android gets to see that it is more economical to fight than to pay. Moto gets a $15 per device cost advantage on their Android devices, the better to compete with.

    In return Microsoft may have earned the princely sum of One MILLION dollars, less lawyer expenses. (Based on 3 million devices imported before the issue is sorted out.)

    Way to go guys! That's how you win in the digital age. Keep doing stuff like this and you'll earn your just reward.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:Microsoft scores own goal in Moto patent battle by SurfsUp · · Score: 1

      By successfully suing Moto for using Microsoft's patented Exchange API, they've recommitted to a course of prevention of interopability in a core Office product some had claimed was behind them.

      Interesting. Didn't the EU already fine Microsoft $billions over that very thing?

      --
      Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
    2. Re:Microsoft scores own goal in Moto patent battle by DECula · · Score: 1

          No doubt, their bean counters were using an older version of Excel to calculated the profits v damages.

      http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.excel/browse_thread/thread/2bcad1a1a4861879/2f8806d5400dfe22?hl=en&pli=1

      --
      dreaded scurrilous bit-twiddler from Oklahoma
  31. So they replace a few lines of code by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

    or disable the function or start paying Microsoft.

    They'll be not importing for a couple of days while they implement their workaround, which has already been worked out in anticipation of the ruling.

  32. Re:Practice makes perfect by chaboud · · Score: 1

    This is an ITC ruling. It's far from over.

  33. ridiculous by Frankie70 · · Score: 1

    Fuck man - this is as ridiculous a patent as the round corners one from Apple.

  34. Re:Justice was fairly served by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Informative

    have you even heard of Microsoft Research?

    Yes.

    Here's a list of their output. http://www.quora.com/Microsoft-Research/What-products-have-come-out-of-Microsoft-Research

    Perhaps you'd like to select a few highlights of genuine innovation for us to discuss here?

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  35. Re:Justice was fairly served by sinan · · Score: 2

    This is so on topic. Whoever modded this offtopic has to be astrosurfing..

    It is very insightful, that the grandparent is the first posting , yet it is so detailed...

  36. The ITC's mission by Nalez · · Score: 1

    The mission of the ITC is to "serve the public by implementing U.S. law and contributing to the development of sound and informed U.S. trade policy"

    Exactly how is banning a good chunk of mobile phones from entering the country (HTC and Motorola, and making insane decisions "developing sound and informed trade policy"?
    I am just waiting for samsung devices to be banned too.

  37. I need a Razr Maxx by QQBoss · · Score: 1

    I travel between China and the USA, and when I am in the USA I want 4G support, so buying a non-4G version of the Razr Maxx is out of the question (what is sold in Asia is all non-4G as far as I have found). I already know the Verizon version is supported on China Unicom's 3G network, so using it in China isn't a problem.

    I wonder what the chance is this ban, even temporary, would allow me to pick up a 4G Razr Maxx for less than the fairly crazy US$649/no contract price it goes for in the USA... Surely some have to fall off the backed up shipping crates in Guangzhou (they haven't made it to Taobao yet, though :( )... I wish I had a mustache to twirl right now...

  38. Re:Justice was fairly served by Eskarel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's not entirely a fair statement. Most companies are founded by people with knowledge or skills specific to the companies core product so generally speaking the first outside person they hire is going to be someone who has skills they don't have, a lot of times that's going to be someone in admin as opposed to a lawyer, but I'd be seriously surprised to find many software companies whose first employee was a developer.

  39. Re:Justice was fairly served by Eskarel · · Score: 1

    No he said DNF was released, which was one of the first signs of the end of the world. The final sign was the release of Enlightenment DR17, which has been in development since 2000 and will probably still be in development until long after I am dead. It's one of those projects where the developers are striving for an impossible degree of perfection and so never actually finish. It's not been quite as long as GNU Hurd, but E16 was a damned fantastic window manager(a bit out of date now) whereas GNU Hurd is a kernel no one cares about except RMS.

  40. Are you 'fer it or agin it? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    I honestly can't tell from the lukewarm list of 'products'. The best thing on there is the kinect, which Sony more or less abandoned with the Eyetoy. The rest of it was intern projects (The Path of Go) and stuff the wrote while playing catchup to google (all the map stuff).

    Code metrics sounds kinda neat, but I bet it ends up boiling down to IBM style 'pay by the line' management if it gets used anywhere...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  41. Re:The march towards an US of A free of smart phon by Splab · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or you know, just stop selling smart phones in the US and concentrate on the rest of the world instead, where software patents aren't an issue...

  42. Die Microsoft Die (The Microsoft, The) by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    Microsoft should just go away and quit trying to collect money for things they had no part at all in creating. To the fools that claim that Motorola or Google deserve it, It's not punishing Motorola at all. It's picking money out of your pockets for every Moto product that you buy to enrich Bill Gates even further.

    If the feature cannot be removed or worked around (and I'm betting that it can), then ship in the phones with no operating system installed -- hence no infringement at the border where this is all being checked. Load the OS after the phones have passed by the import ban and continue merrily along the way.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  43. Re:Tough luck by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    The only reason why Google acquired Moronola was to get ahold of the patents. Their products are a useless piece of shit, so nothing of value has been lost really. Hard to choose between Microsoft and Moronola as both companies seem to specialize in mediocre products.

    I disagree Mr. Coward. I've had 4 Motorola phones going back to the revolutionary in its time StarTac and loved everyone one of them. I presently have an original Droid and no desire to upgrade it to anything newer yet because it is great at doing everything I ask of it.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  44. Re:The march towards an US of A free of smart phon by symbolset · · Score: 1

    Oh it's not going to stop at phones. Moto is getting a ban on xbox and Windows in the Eurozone.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  45. Re:Justice was fairly served by phonewebcam · · Score: 1

    This cut 'n' paste astroturfer thinks everyone on Slashdot is as gullible as a WP7 user. And yes, I do mean all 3 of them. This post is his *first* one ever, and was made the instant the original story broke.

  46. Ignorance is ... profitable! by l3v1 · · Score: 1

    I would never allow any patent to go through which describes something obvious and/or being already done before just beause it involves implementatin on mobile devices. Why? Because they are just that, re-implementations on another device. It doesn't matter how much extra lines of codes it needs, it's nothing new involved besides a few technicalitiries. I know pro-software patent people will not agree, but hey, you already got your ever lasting christmas when sw patents became possible, with that you've exhausted all your wishes for this lifetime, plus eventually sentencing the sw ecosystem to death, good job there geniuses.

    --
    I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
  47. Phones should be free now by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but if MS and Apple literally own all the rights to everything on my phone, its features, where it's sold, if it's sold then necessarily we are, at best, renting a device from them. More typically though the phones should belong IN THEIR ENTIRETY to MS or Apple and we get to use them for free,

  48. Re:Justice was fairly served by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 2

    I know. I got modded off-topic for mentioning that this is kdps first and only post. I didn't even look at the timestamps.

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
  49. Re:Justice was fairly served by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm sorry but they actually do have some good stuff. Last month we studied one of their research about Poisson Image Editing, which was awesome to say the least.

  50. Re:Justice was fairly served by Blue+Stone · · Score: 2

    So, we're saying kdps is a shill account being operated by the /. 'editors' to provoke and promote 'discussion' and a 'debate'; that we're being manipulated and incited in order to increase pageviews and comments?

    --
    Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
  51. Re:The march towards an US of A free of smart phon by Xest · · Score: 2

    It doesn't work like that, Google got a ban in place against Microsoft products in Germany but a US court ordered Motorola not to enforce the German ban even though frankly it had fuck all to do with the US court as it as a German issue. Here's hoping a German court orders Microsoft not to enforce the Motorola ban and see how American sfeel about German courts enforcing their power on US soil, doubt it'll happen though.

    Basically whatever Microsoft wants Microsoft gets. People think Ballmer has achieved nothing since Gates left, it's not true, from OpenXML to various nonsencial court rulings favourable to Microsoft, to various investigations of Google when Microsoft/Facebook are guilty of the same things on the same/larger scale - Ballmer has achieved something, he's made Microsoft arguably the best tech lobbyist in the world, the problem is, Microsoft is the company we probably least want to be the best tech lobbyist in the world. Microsoft learnt well from the antitrust litigation how to avoid the wrath of politicians and courts and how to use them against your competition.

    Apple seems to be pretty decent on the lobbying front, but Google has been too naive over it, hence their haste and will to buy Motorola- they were caught with their pants down putting too much faith into other companies playing fair and now they have a mad rush to catch up on the lobbying/patent/general dick business front so don't count on them managing to get their way. It's a sad illustration of the current state of the US tech industry, innovation is no longer relevant, it's all about how you play the politicians and the courts and in that scenario, Microsoft is king.

  52. @ AC Re:Justice was fairly served by nukenerd · · Score: 1

    Wrote :-

    I don't hate MS anymore due to the fact they have a few quite products now and Gates is trying to do something good

    I guess you are referring to Gates' charities. But what else can he do with so much money that it would be physically impossible to spend it on himself over the remainder of his lifetime? Money he got from you and me by foul means remember. Sorry, I'm not impressed.

    He is following the path of other staggeringly wealthy men as they got old and started to worry how history would record them, guys who were total arse-holes during their business careers. Nobel for example (described in his lifetime as "The Merchant of Death"), Carnegie and Rockefeller.

    As you illustrate yourself, some people are taken in by it.

  53. Microsoft is still evil and always will be. by gottabeme · · Score: 1

    Anyone who says Microsoft isn't so bad anyone is either a fool or has something to gain from their success.

    --
    "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
  54. Re:Justice was fairly served by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

    Awesome is not the same as innovative. Re-inventing and improving the work of Adobe and others is nice, but not innovative.

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  55. Re:Justice was fairly served by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

    What, you expected a comment with Microsoft "support" from a proper idiot!?

    They did post a very easily debatable fact in an open forum full of Microsoft haters... one can debate if his comment was made to be supportive of Microsoft or to be undermined.

    --
    120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
  56. Re:Justice was fairly served by Akzo · · Score: 1

    That is a list of products to have been produced using their research, it is not a list of research that has been done or patents they have filed.

    --
    Sig is for Signature, so you don't have to manually sign every post.
  57. Re:Justice was fairly served by tbannist · · Score: 1

    It seems more likely that one of Microsoft's PR firms has a subscription, and an employee (of the PR firm) created a new account to post a ready-made astroturf response.

    --
    Fanatically anti-fanatical
  58. Re:Justice was fairly served by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

    kinect was licensed.

  59. Re:Justice was fairly served by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

    I don't hate MS anymore due to the fact they have a few quite products now and Gates is trying to do something good.

    You do realize Gates is now working on monopolizing donations for non-profits right? He wants to channel all donations through his foundation, take his cut, keep the donor list, and then give the money out. Foundations like United Way are *DAMNED* pissed at this.

    Additionally, if you take their money, you have to use Microsoft based platforms.

    Also, their donations to countries come with strings attached, strings that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, such as antimalaria donations to a country, but only if they change their IP laws to something Gates Foundation likes.

    *YOU* think he is becoming less evil. I beg to differ.

  60. Re:Justice was fairly served by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    We all got mod-bombed on this one. Interesting.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.