Judge Invalidates 13 Motorola Patent Claims Against Microsoft

Christ... by Frosty+Piss · 2013-02-09 19:29 · Score: 4, Funny

This is good. No, it's bad. No, its good. Wait, no, it's bad. Is Apple involved? It's bad. No it's goodâ¦ Jesus, who the fuck knows. As a fanboi, what the fuck am I to do?

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.

Re:Christ... by Derekloffin · 2013-02-09 19:40 · Score: 2

Maybe this is what makes a man go neutral...
Re:Christ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-09 20:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

For Apple, and the rest of the corporate world, it's bad news, because it seems it's getting harder and harder to use patents as weapons. For all the huffing and puffing, most corporations discover their arsenal of patents, is nothing more than paper nukes.
For the consumers (and lawyers involved), it's a very very good thing. Please continue.
Re:Christ... by AK+Marc · 2013-02-09 20:21 · Score: 4, Funny

Lawful or chaotic neutral? We are still lost.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Christ... by jonbryce · 2013-02-09 20:50 · Score: 2

Having read the judgement, I'd say it is good news regardless of the parties involved. Basically it is a patent on encoding and decoding video "on a computer", which doesn't describe how you might actually go about doing the encoding or decoding.
Re:Christ... by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · 2013-02-10 01:50 · Score: 2

For me, it was love of gold. Although others say I was born with a heart full of neutrality.

--
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
Re:Christ... by ewibble · 2013-02-10 04:37 · Score: 2

If stupid patents fall:
For Corporates its good news, they just don't know it, they can just get on with making products.
For small players its good, they can just get on with making products.
For consumers its good, they can get better products. Why don't we have a standard video format that plays on all browsers (patents).
The only people it is bad for, are patent lawyers.

A humble suggestion to tech companies: by lxs · 2013-02-09 19:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

Just a simple plan to help you survive these times of financial strife.

1. Stop wasting money on lawyers.
2. Start making quality products.
3. ??? (actually you can skip this step)
4. profit.

Re:A humble suggestion to tech companies: by bloodhawk · 2013-02-09 19:53 · Score: 2

when everyone is poking everyone else with sharp sticks, the one who stops poking gets skewered. The war was started by patent trolls but they inevitably dragged everyone into it.
Re:A humble suggestion to tech companies: by maxwell+demon · 2013-02-09 20:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

The way to end that war is to take away the sharp sticks from everyone involved.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:A humble suggestion to tech companies: by rtfa-troll · 2013-02-09 22:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

1a. Stop wasting money on patent based acquisitions.
This entire war was started by Apple and Microsoft setting out to block other companies from exactly the strategy the grandparent post proposed and who were exactly failing to buy patents. Microsoft's stupid FAT patents; Apple's stupid "rounded corners" design patents; patents on obvious gestures in a user interface. The companies which were trying the strategy of "just give the consumer what they want" were being sued to hell. The lawyers were making it very clear that if you attempt to opt out of the patents protection racket then their friends, the judges, will make you pay more than you can afford.
At one point, it looked as if Microsoft might honestly have frightened the device manufacturers away from Android. Spineless companies like HTC rolled over and let Microsoft tickle their tummy. Only after Google started acquiring large patent portfolios did some of those manufacturer's get a bit of guts. HTC, on the other hand, will likely never recover.
If you look at the history of this, it's very clear that Google is only succeeding by buying their way through the US legal system. It's very hard then to argue that their investment in "patent based acquisitions" was a waste of money. Just like a certain level of bribery is the cost of doing business in Russia and your people may die if you don't pay it, in the corrupt US justice system you have to be seen to be paying your protection money to the patent barons.

--
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Re:A humble suggestion to tech companies: by maxwell+demon · 2013-02-09 23:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's a government-uttered spell which makes the sticks sharp. If the government utters the counter-spell, the sticks stop being sharp.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:A humble suggestion to tech companies: by Rockoon · 2013-02-10 00:07 · Score: 4, Informative

HTC's problems werent from Microsoft.. HTC was the target of the opening salvo of mobile patent lawsuits, initiated by Apple.

When the first wave of the mobile lawsuit armageddon geared up, the three companies distinctly absent from either end of these lawsuits were Google, Palm, and Microsoft (citation.)

To accuse Microsoft of being somehow a big offender is ignoring the history of these battles. Patent lawsuits wasn't how Microsoft operated, and to a large extent still isn't because nearly every lawsuit that targets Microsoft or is initiated by Microsoft ends in a (cross)licensing deal rather than a judgment and that includes Microsoft taking the short end of it (ex: licensing from Acacia Research.)

I do understand that Microsoft is one of the only companies that have gone after Linux, and its probably unforgivable, but that doesnt make them one of the big offenders in mobile patent lawsuits. Making that claim just doesnt hold up to reality.

--
"His name was James Damore."

Bullshit Headline Again by mdm42 · 2013-02-09 20:10 · Score: 5, Informative

The patents were *not* invalidated.

Some claims within the patents were invalidated.

Go RTFA.

--
New mod option wanted: -1 DrunkenRambling

Re:Bullshit Headline Again by Xest · 2013-02-09 21:43 · Score: 2

Yes, I actually read the first few paragraphs of the very Groklaw article that the summary links and it contradicts in big bold letters that headline/summary of the article.
Do people who submit even read the articles they link? or do they just make up random titles and submit random URLs in the hope that if they do it enough at least some of the stories will appear at least somewhat plausible, even if wrong?
Re:Bullshit Headline Again by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-09 22:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

The headline clearly states "invalidates patent claims", so how come the headline is bullshit?
Go RTFH(eadline).

A Judge did? by MrDoh! · 2013-02-09 20:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

If a Judge (not a Jury) can invalidate Patent claims (are they THAT skilled in the science of these things?) then what the heck's the Patent Office for?
Is there any point in lodging a complaint to the Patent Office, when a Judge appears to be able to do it quicker, and knows the parties involved?
So in future, don't waste time with going the usual route, just get a Judge to decide on complex matters, and then the Patent Office, now with more time on it's hands, can start ruling in criminal trials.
What a mess.

--
Waiting for an amusing sig.

Re:A Judge did? by Redmancometh · 2013-02-09 21:21 · Score: 2

The patent office has the judgement of a drunk 12 yr old today. Also once a patent is granted they almost never invalidate it. Whether by demand or in general. There are still perpetual motion "" machines with patents. Also, do you really think it would be a criminal court judge presiding? Obvious troll is obvious.
Re:A Judge did? by theVarangian · 2013-02-09 22:59 · Score: 2

If a Judge (not a Jury) can invalidate Patent claims (are they THAT skilled in the science of these things?) then what the heck's the Patent Office for? Is there any point in lodging a complaint to the Patent Office, when a Judge appears to be able to do it quicker, and knows the parties involved? So in future, don't waste time with going the usual route, just get a Judge to decide on complex matters, and then the Patent Office, now with more time on it's hands, can start ruling in criminal trials. What a mess.
The summary said US and German courts. German courts haven't had juries since the Emminger reform of 1924, there was an attempt to reinstate juries in 1925 but it was unsuccessful since the verdicts of juries were widely considered to be inconsistent and sometimes downright unjust. Since then German courts have used a mixture of professional judges and lay judges which is a very old German tradition. The lay judges are chosen from the citizenry. People excluded from being chosen as lay judges are those under 30 years old and those who are very high government officials, judges, prosecutors, lawyers, policemen, ministers, priests, or have lived in the community less than one year. I think you also have to be a German citizen but with all the pan-european treaties in force these days I'm not sure. I also vaguely remember reading somewhere that in cases like this lay judges either can be can be impartial experts or such experts are appointed to assist the court. The plaintiff and defendant are of course free to introduce expert witnesses of their own.

No, that's good news for corporations by SuperKendall · 2013-02-09 20:21 · Score: 4, Funny

For Apple, and the rest of the corporate world, it's bad news, because it seems it's getting harder and harder to use patents as weapons.

For Apple it's great news.

No Apple lawsuit has had any real effect to date. The biggest one is a not negligible 1 billion dollar payout by Samsung - but that's not even certain yet.

So by with all these patents folding like a house of cards, it saves Apple a lot of money that would otherwise go to "fruitless" lawsuits.

Basically corporations (not just Apple) kind of have to sue to protect patents. It''s like a legal reflex. With that need removed, they will spend less on litigation.

Apple (and other companies) have done just fine competing in a world where companies are making using of technologies patented by the other side. So the weak patents being thrown out will have no impact.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:No, that's good news for corporations by mitzampt · 2013-02-09 22:49 · Score: 2

Yeah but besides that, why did this piece of thread (didn't mean it, honestly) get to be about Apple anyway? Does this world have only three tech giants? And why do we perpetuate that illusion? Shouldn't it derail to something a little more interesting such as impact on small players on the market? Innovators? Anyone?

--
uhm...

Microsoft undoing their own patents? by jkflying · 2013-02-09 20:29 · Score: 5, Interesting

Microsoft is arguing that as a 'means plus function' patent, it isn't specific enough because it doesn't specifically give an algorithm. Surely if this goes through it will invalidate the vast majority of software patents?

--
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!

Re:Microsoft undoing their own patents? by gnasher719 · 2013-02-09 23:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

Microsoft is arguing that as a 'means plus function' patent, it isn't specific enough because it doesn't specifically give an algorithm. Surely if this goes through it will invalidate the vast majority of software patents?
It's not really about an algorithm per se. It's about specifying precisely what the algorithm is going to achieve. "Pick some block using some algorithm" isn't specific enough. "Pick some block using the following algorith: blablabla" is. "Pick some block by choosing among all blocks with distance less than 5 units the one that minimises the prediction error defined by the formula xxx" is specific enough, even if the implementor has to find their own algorithm.
Re:Microsoft undoing their own patents? by Theaetetus · 2013-02-10 03:35 · Score: 2

Yeah, that's what I'm reading from this, though as said elsewhere, this is some claims in the patents were invalidated, but I'm wondering then can Moto re-apply with more detail? But yeah, does this mean anyone without a full listing of the algorithm (which is most 'with a computer/on the internet' patent these days) has a chance to have parts made invalid?
(i) Yes, but only those claims that invoke means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. 112(6). System claims, method claims, and Beauregard claims would still be valid;
(ii) And no, most "with a computer/on the internet" patents* do include a "full listing of the algorithm". They aren't required to include source code, or even pseudocode, but rather, as the judge notes:

The specification can express the algorithm “in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.” Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted).
And honestly, it's pretty rare that a software related patent doesn't include a flow chart these days. Consider the beloved Amazon one-click patent - it has 5 flow charts, starting at figure 3. The fact that these three patents (really one patent and two continuations with the same specification and figures) didn't include a flow chart is an anomaly, not the norm.
*there are no "with a computer/on the internet" patents. People on Slashdot may characterize them that way, but there are no patents that include a claim of "A method, comprising: [known process], on the internet." The mere addition of the limitation "on the internet" can't be the key to patentability, because the internet is known. As a combination of two known pieces of prior art, it would be invalid under KSR. Instead, you'll always find that there's some additional element in the claim that is not involved in the off-line operation.
I believe this FUD got started because someone saw a dependent claim that said, "The method of claim 1, wherein the network is the internet," and suddenly thought that that was the key to patentability of the entire patent. Not true. It's really just a doctrine called claim differentiation. Patent claims are like Venn Diagrams, where dependent claims are bubbles within the large bubble of the independent claim from which they depend. So, if claim 1 says a network, and claim 2 says the network is the internet, then claim 1 must include other networks including LANs and VPNs as well as the internet. But that's it - claim 1, which never explicitly mentions the internet, must still be patentable on its own.

Trouble on screen for all who write software. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-09 20:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

Software patents are so problematic because if you expose your essential algorithm which uses code blocks then all someone has to do is code to it with different variable names.

It is the same problem as why technology stagnated during the times before the renaissance and then industrial revolution, methods were kept secret by guilds.

We are placing far too much monetary value upon "the intellectual property of software" and if too much software is granted "a Royal Monopoly" like status. Because that status can then be horded we are headed for a technological dark age.

Who can blame the Chinese for employing industrial espionage when much of the technology they seek to achieve is being bartered by those who would squirrel it away in medieval style corporate guilds.

Queen Elizabeth the First at the end of her reign had the foresight to abolish the monopolies, we are reversing the trend and it will eventually cause stagnation and strife in the advancement of technology if left unchecked to run amok. The same as the imaginary mortgage security products market did to us all.

We either open up the patent system and let the best engineers and manufactures win or have a bunch of coders at desks trading ideas for imaginary devices in a ponzi scheme of so called intellectual property rights for products and services.

Re:Trouble on screen for all who write software. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-09 21:46 · Score: 4, Informative

Software patents are so problematic because if you expose your essential algorithm which uses code blocks then all someone has to do is code to it with different variable names.
No that's copyright that covers variable names, and you'd have to do a lot more than just change variable names to make it an original work. Patents will cover the algorithm itself regardless of variable names or even implementation language.

It is the same problem as why technology stagnated during the times before the renaissance and then industrial revolution, methods were kept secret by guilds. ... too much software is granted "a Royal Monopoly" like status. Because that status can then be horded we are headed for a technological dark age.
What a load of bullshit. It was patents that opened up the guild secrets, by allowing guilds to make inventions known without competitors being able to take advantage of that. It's the lack of patent enforcement in China and the lack of software patents in most of the world that is keeping software like Google's locked up in the cloud. What's their current search algorithm? What AI breakthroughs do they secret away? We may never know because the inventions they value the most they don't even patent, they can't be used against them.
Parent post makes no sense. If you work on closed-source code and you are against software patents then you are pro-guild, pro-dark ages.
Re:Trouble on screen for all who write software. by gnasher719 · 2013-02-09 23:05 · Score: 2

Software patents are so problematic because if you expose your essential algorithm which uses code blocks then all someone has to do is code to it with different variable names.
WTF? Are you on drugs? That's what patents are all about: You _publish_ the invention, so that others _can_ replicate it, and then they have to pay you license fees if they use it. They can also replicate it, _improve_ it and get their own patents. Making it possible for others to reproduce it is the _purpose_ of the patent.
Re:Trouble on screen for all who write software. by erroneus · 2013-02-10 00:54 · Score: 2

This is essentially true. If a software patent was required to have sample code implementing (thus making more precise) the patent claims, it would be exposed as a mathematical operation and one that is completely independent of the hardware. It becomes a method patent which, guess what, has been practically negated by Bilski.
There actually is no middle ground. Software patents exist now because they have gotten away from hiding the truth for so long. And after watching so many court battles over technology issues (and especially software technology issues) it has become quite evident that ignorance is the weapon most often wielded in these cases.

Invalid patent claims, not invalid patents by kbdd · 2013-02-10 00:14 · Score: 2

The title sounds a little sensational, but the reality is less so. Please read PJ's post at Groklaw. Patents are good, just some claims in them were dismissed.

Microsoft had already agreed to license the patents, so the real fight was over the RAND rate for those, and the possible penalties for willful infringement. Seems like that part is mostly over.

Please get the headline right!? by erroneus · 2013-02-10 00:48 · Score: 4, Informative

I consider Groklaw to be an extremely reliable source of fact, insight and opinion. The patents are NOT invalidated, but the claims cited within are. It's a software patent, after all.

Matters of law vs. matters of fact by Theaetetus · 2013-02-10 03:24 · Score: 2

If a Judge (not a Jury) can invalidate Patent claims (are they THAT skilled in the science of these things?) then what the heck's the Patent Office for?

The Patent Office doesn't make law or decide legal issues - they decide factual ones. The patents in this case were not invalidated as obvious or anticipated by some prior art, which would be a matter of fact. Instead, the judge determined that 35 U.S.C. 112(2) requires disclosure of an algorithm when claims utilize the means-plus-function format of 35 U.S.C. 112(6). That's a matter of law. In other words, the "science of these things" is the science of jurisprudence, not the science of video encoding.

Or, short version: the Patent Office applied the law as it was properly understood at the time. The judge has now said, "no, that's not the proper law, it's this instead."

Slashdot Mirror

Judge Invalidates 13 Motorola Patent Claims Against Microsoft

31 of 109 comments (clear)