Microsoft must pay $290m for patent infringement

[Gremlinzzz]

Microsoft's new flag should be the jolly roger
http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=194696&stc=1&d=1307664536[/url]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13722971

[IWantFroyo]

290M. Wow.

I guess to a company as big as MS, it wouldn't really be a bank-breaker, though...

[ki4jgt]

Poor MS :-( I love their stuff, I just love the OS movement more :-)

[nerdopolis]

Wait... Isn't this the suit that Open Source actually wanted them to win, because of the patent issues that we could face?

[jramshu]

They'll just charge a little more for stuff to make up for it anyway.

[Irihapeti]

It seems that we hate software patents -- until Microsoft gets hit by one.

[JDShu]

It seems that we hate software patents -- until Microsoft gets hit by one.

OP and the people agreeing with him are not the whole community here. I for one am quite disappointed.

[PhillyPhil]

They'll just charge a little more for stuff to make up for it anyway.

Don't think so. Do you know how much they were awarded per copy of Word? $98 dollars. Yes, ninety eight dollars.

This is just insanity. There aren't many situations I can imagine where I would feel sympathy for MS, but I do here.

The US patent system (re. software) stinks.

[Irihapeti]

OP and the people agreeing with him are not the whole community here. I for one am quite disappointed.

Good point. It's so easy to generalise and see "the community" as one undifferentiated mass. It isn't. It's made up of people with lots of different opinions.

[3Miro]

This was a hard one to call. On one end if MS had won, then it would have established a precedent that can be used by the FOSS community defend itself against patent trolls. On the other hand, if MS gets hit hard enough, then maybe people will start to pay attention on how stupid the whole system is.

As much as I like seeing MS hurt, I think we lost here too and probably more than MS did.

[Gremlinzzz]

This was a hard one to call. On one end if MS had won, then it would have established a precedent that can be used by the FOSS community defend itself against patent trolls. On the other hand, if MS gets hit hard enough, then maybe people will start to pay attention on how stupid the whole system is.

As much as I like seeing MS hurt, I think we lost here too and probably more than MS did.

Maybe but what comes around goes around.
Who hasn't MS sued?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/27/tech/main6812185.shtml

[earthpigg]

It seems that we hate software patents -- until Microsoft gets hit by one.

Not true, I was rooting for Microsoft in this one.

[Copper Bezel]

Yeah, this is bad, stupid bad. The patent apparently had to do with user-defined XML manipulation, and I just ran into something that listed Apple, Google, and Cisco as supporters of Microsoft's case. This patent suit seems every bit as tenuous as Apple's attacks on Android handsets, and it's being treated as a new precedent in how patent law is handled.

Complete BS. Remind me why again a group of nine government-appointed geriatrics get to decide how software works?

[Irihapeti]

Not true, I was rooting for Microsoft in this one.

You're right. I made a mistake that annoys me when I see other people do it. See my earlier reply.

[handy]

Right or wrong, it still made me laugh out loud.

Even though the dog bit its own bum hard, it still won't own the problem that it created.

[swoll1980]

"Microsoft said in a statement: "While the outcome is not what we had hoped for, we will continue to advocate for changes to the law that will prevent abuse of the patent system and protect inventors who hold patents representing true innovation."

'That was hilarious.

[hhh]

You realize MS has been making $6 to $7 BILLION in profit PER QUARTER recently, right? So for $290 million, it begs the question "So what?"

[PhillyPhil]

On a tenuously related topic: companies filing patents for hand gestures!!: http://io9.com/5808604/10-physical-gestures-that-have-been-patented

And because MS is one of those companies I suddenly feel slightly less sympathetic...
Looking forward to regular reports of companies suing over how users are allowed to move their hands in the future. <sigh>

I suppose this ruling may have a possible positive influence: if small trolls can be this successful maybe eventually big companies will turn their lobbyists around and push for patent reform. Or am I too optimistic?
You realize MS has been making $6 to $7 BILLION in profit PER QUARTER recently, right? So for $290 million, it begs the question &quot;So what?&quot;

$98 per copy of Word that has xml editing, that's what.

[Bandit]

This is tuff. On one hand I am wanting say "yea pay you bastards!" and on the other hand I am totally against patents period as I believe they slow the progress of technology. All tech not just software..

I hope rullings like this will though get M$ on the same bandwagon that is against patents.

Patents are bad, in software if some jackwad idiot that couldnt program a VCR decides he wants to patent a software "idea" that if you place your mouse over a word its letters should get bigger for him to see. Then 5 years later a software firm that trys to make software for the elderly and blind, writes from scratch the code and unknowingly implements this feature and even if they just give the software away. That idiot we spoke about can sue the software firm for large royalties like what happened to M$. Thats the law.. Believe it or not, this happens way to often.

Now copyrighted software code is different. This prevents someone like myself from writing a a large program and getting it stolen from under my feet. But it doesnt stop a company from liking my idea and writing their own code. Now you may say isnt this bad also, yes is can suck. But what happens is if they implement a new idea that makes the program better, I can also piggy back on that and do the same making mine better and implementing even more new ideas. This PROMOTES software evolution and growth and also prevents companies from overly dominating certain software niches.

[zer010]

Patents on software is just ridiculous. Copyrights are the way to protect software, NOT patents...

There really needs to be some MAJOR overhaul on how these things are handled. Unfortunately, most of the system was setup by lawyers to benefit themselves. I don't see them letting any changes happen to their system without a fight and a lot of money exchanging hands.

[mmsmc]

i know there is a slim chance of this happening, but in my opinion if ms falls it will create a chain reaction, ms and apple are to big to fall



this is a difficult subject though, i am for patent laws because somebody should get credit for there work, but it inhibits anybody else from using it. and i am against it because of the open source community. to bad technology is run off of a capitalistic view point(if somebody wants it, the someone else will take advantage of that situation, one runs the world)](*,)

[hhh]

$98 per copy of Word that has xml editing, that's what.
I didn't understand your point the first time you posted it, I still don't understand it. That's what MS has to pay i4i? Again, big deal, that's the cost of doing business, which is nothing when you are a monopolistic company like Microsoft.

i4i won the original 2007 verdict and won almost every appeal along the way to this unanimous Supreme Court decision. They're a company of 30 employees against this corporate behemoth, it's amazing they could afford the attorney fees. I say good for them. BTW, Microsoft stock, which fell when the decision was announced, ended up recovering and closed up 2 cents.

Here's the legalese...
http://www.ipbrief.net/2011/06/10/microsoft-v-i4i-decided-ip-community-crisis-averted/
http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2011/06/09/microsofts-failed-attempt-to-change-patent-law-forever/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/10/us-microsoft-i4i-idUSTRE7583IS20110610?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

[Sslaxx]

People aren't getting it. If they can hit Microsoft with this patent, what's stopping them going after LibreOffice? Not much, I think.

[Primefalcon]

I deslike Microsoft but.... them losing this one was.... upsetting since this sort of thing was what XML was meant for.... allowing a universal import/export format between programs whether web or desktop based....

And XML is an open standard....

[fontis]

Patents are retarded lol.

I remember when I was a little kid I used to think how awesome it would be if I developed the cure for some epic disease, then patented it and went around not giving **** to ppl :D

Haha, ahh, the weird things that goes through the mind of a 10 year old.

[Swagman]

Taking into account not just the amount awarded to i4i but also Microsoft legal bill AND being the loser also paying i4i's legal fees I'd say that's cost MS a fair whack.

NOW they will lobby the powers that be to reform the patent laws.

[weasel fierce]

The patent system is broken to hell. THat being said, its hard to feel that bad when the leeches who have been abusing the system are hit in turn.

but to be fair, 290 million is not even half the state taxes they dont have to pay
http://microsofttaxdodge.com/2010/02/seattle-news---cover-story-washingtons-candy-land-of-tax-breaks---page-2.html

So hooray. If you live in washington, you have been paying for this.

[Merk42]

People aren't getting it. If they can hit Microsoft with this patent, what's stopping them going after LibreOffice? Not much, I think.Even bigger than that, what's to stop ANY company from going after ANY OTHER company for something like this?

[Maheriano]

Patents are bad, in software if some jackwad idiot that couldnt program a VCR decides he wants to patent a software "idea" that if you place your mouse over a word its letters should get bigger for him to see. Then 5 years later a software firm that trys to make software for the elderly and blind, writes from scratch the code and unknowingly implements this feature and even if they just give the software away. That idiot we spoke about can sue the software firm for large royalties like what happened to M$. Thats the law.. Believe it or not, this happens way to often.
Not true. If you patent something, you have a limited amount of time to prove you are working towards implementing your idea or your patent becomes void. It's set up specifically to stop this what you mentioned.

[weasel fierce]

Even bigger than that, what's to stop ANY company from going after ANY OTHER company for something like this?

Nothing. Thats why companies with patent folios can collect "protection money" from smaller companies that lack the legal muscle, even in cases where the patents may be dubious.

[hhh]

This patent does not affect the XML format, it affects a non-XML specific proprietary extension. i4i wouldn't sue LibreOffice anyway because LibreOffice is not a for-sale product, unlike Word. What would they sue for, a percentage of sales revenue on a product that costs users nothing?

http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/News/i4i-OpenOffice-Doesn-t-Infringe-Our-Patents

[themarker0]

You realize MS has been making $6 to $7 BILLION in profit PER QUARTER recently, right? So for $290 million, it begs the question "So what?"

Legal precident. The suit could've been for four dollars. They still would've fired with all guns.

[hhh]

@themarker, we're in agreement, I'm siding with i4i on this. The "So what?" was for those thinking that this might cripple MS in any way other than them being able to charge for a product that uses someone else's proprietary code.

[PhillyPhil]

I didn't understand your point the first time you posted it, I still don't understand it. That's what MS has to pay i4i? Again, big deal, that's the cost of doing business, which is nothing when you are a monopolistic company like Microsoft.
How much does a copy of Word cost retail? Add $98 for any future purchases, or expect to see the functionality of Word reduced to avoid that (much more likely). Thank you i4i, for this backwards step.

i4i won the original 2007 verdict and won almost every appeal along the way to this unanimous Supreme Court decision. They're a company of 30 employees against this corporate behemoth, it's amazing they could afford the attorney fees. I say good for them. BTW, Microsoft stock, which fell when the decision was announced, ended up recovering and closed up 2 cents.

So what if they're small, and MS is huge? Patent trolls don't exactly need a large staff.

You're taking a very, very narrow view of this.
The patent was a software patent, it isn't exactly groundbreaking anyway, and the price awarded per copy of Word is absolutely crazy.

But worst of all, this has set a terrible precedent for invalidating bad patents. From now on you need the extremely difficult ''clear and convincing evidence'' (70-80% of the evidence needs to support your case) instead of ''the preponderance of the evidence'' (over 50% of the evidence in your favour).

Very bad news all round.

EDIT:
@themarker, we're in agreement, I'm siding with i4i on this. The ''So what?'' was for those thinking that this might cripple MS in any way other than them being able to charge for a product that uses someone else's proprietary code.

Oh man, just saw this. I don't think you understand patents. They did *not* use anyone's proprietary code, or anyone else's code. All they did was create xml editing software, that turned out to have similar functionality to i4i's system.

''A system and method for the separate manipulation of the architecture and content of a document...''
That's the patent in a nutshell. Broad enough for you? Any software that does this could potentially infringe on this patent.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=y8UkAAAAEBAJ&dq=5787449

[Macskeeball]

You realize MS has been making $6 to $7 BILLION in profit PER QUARTER recently, right? So for $290 million, it begs the question "So what?"

You mean "raises the question." The phrase "begs the question" specifically refers to a logical fallacy in which the conclusion restates a premise using different words.

[hhh]

Phil, did you check any of the links I posted? Microsoft already changed Word to comply with the patent for every copy of Word released after January of last year (6th paragraph)...
http://business.financialpost.com/2011/04/18/high-noon-in-i4i-microsoft-fight/ ... so there won't be any fines on "future purchases". They aren't patent trolls, they are a software company with a slew of legitimate customers...
http://www.i4i.com/customers.htm

I did a LOT of Googling before I posted in this thread, and everything I've read said that this patent doesn't regard XML, in which tags are embedded in the content. This is specifically regarding the docx format, where tags are placed outside of the XML...
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/custom-xml-the-key-to-patent-suit-over-microsoft-word/3712

If i4i's code wasn't proprietary, why didn't Microsoft just argue that? Microsoft never made that argument, they were just arguing that i4i's patent wasn't valid because they didn't have the evidence to show they came up with the idea first. Microsoft filed for it's own similar patent...
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/08/microsoft-granted-patent-on-xml-word-processing-files.ars

And the "preponderance of evidence" ruling PROTECTS small patent holders by in effect saying that the first one to file a patent is probably the one who came up with the idea (Sec. III, paragraph 4)...
http://www.dailytech.com/Microsoft+Loses+US+Supreme+Court+Decision+Fined+29 0M+USD/article21868.htm

It's large companies like Microsoft and Google who are esentially trolling, buying up every patent they can get a hold of (to protect themselves against litigation or to make profit on the patented products produced?)...
http://www.cioinsight.com/c/a/Latest-News/Google-Offers-Nortel-900-Million-for-Patents-867627/

You're saying I'm taking a narrow view. I'm not, I realize it's a very complicated issue, I just think the Court is right in essentially saying "whoever gets X patented first is going to have a better time proving the validity of their patent in a court of law". I'm not denying that members of the IT community are against this ruling, but don't deny that there are others who support it...
http://www.i4ilp.com/papers.php !!!
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/microsoftpri0/2013785625_morethan100companiessupportofi4iinmicro softsupremecourtcase.html
Also here, under "Interest from the Industry"...
http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2011/04/14/microsoft-i4i-at-supreme-court-patent-law-at-a-crossroads/

Here's the verdict...
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-290.pdf

[hhh]

You mean "raises the question." The phrase "begs the question" specifically refers to a logical fallacy in which the conclusion restates a premise using different words.
Correct. I knew that too, dang it. Forrestcupp recently had a nice thread going about logic where we covered logical fallacies.

[Bandit]

''A system and method for the separate manipulation of the architecture and content of a document...''
That's the patent in a nutshell. Broad enough for you? Any software that does this could potentially infringe on this patent.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=y8UkAAAAEBAJ&dq=5787449

This..

[PhillyPhil]

Phil, did you check any of the links I posted? Microsoft already changed Word to comply with the patent for every copy of Word released after January of last year (6th paragraph)...
Then I was spot on. Reduced functionality (innovation) thanks to patent abuse.
They aren't patent trolls, they are a software company with a slew of legitimate customers...
Yes, but they're also using patents as a form of income by suing. It may be on the harsh end of the application of 'patent troll', but IMHO it fits pretty well.

I did a LOT of Googling before I posted in this thread, and everything I've read said that this patent doesn't regard XML, in which tags are embedded in the content. This is specifically regarding the docx format, where tags are placed outside of the XML... No, the patent *isn't* restricted only to xml - it covers anything captured by it's description. In this case it was XML related (not a surprise, as i4i's business model was previously centered around XML).


If i4i's code wasn't proprietary, why didn't Microsoft just argue that? Microsoft never made that argument, they were just arguing that i4i's patent wasn't valid because they didn't have the evidence to show they came up with the idea first. Microsoft filed for it's own similar patent... You're not getting what patents are. There is no code of i4i's in question. That would be a copyright issue. No-one is accusing MS of using someone else's code. The fact that they wrote all their own code from scratch without seeing anyone else's is irrelevant, unfortunately.

And the ''preponderance of evidence'' ruling PROTECTS small patent holders by in effect saying that the first one to file a patent is probably the one who came up with the idea (Sec. III, paragraph 4)... You're talking about two unrelated concepts: filing first meaning the invention is yours, and the ruling that preponderance of evidence in insufficient to invalidate (I suspect preponderance doesn't mean what you think it means).
Yes, this has potential to protect little guys, but it means it's going to be very hard for anyone to have bad patents invalidated, because the majority of evidence will be insufficient: you'll need an overwhelming majority.

It's large companies like Microsoft and Google who are esentially trolling, buying up every patent they can get a hold of (to protect themselves against litigation or to make profit on the patented products produced?)...
Sure, there's something to be said for the view that MS is a patent troll, but that doesn't change how i4i will be perceived. Google OTOH is not a patent troll: they use their patent portfolio for defence, not attack.

You're saying I'm taking a narrow view. I'm not, I realize it's a very complicated issue, I just think the Court is right in essentially saying ''whoever gets X patented first is going to have a better time proving the validity of their patent in a court of law''. I'm not denying that members of the IT community are against this ruling, but don't deny that there are others who support it...I haven't denied anything...
I'm not actually saying that I think the court shouldn't rule that MS infringed on the patent. I think they did. (I do think the court should have ruled the patent invalid if MS had a preponderance of evidence though)

What I'm saying is that the patent system that allows broad, obvious or software patents stinks, that the $98 per copy is ridiculous, and that the precedent ruling that preponderance of evidence is insufficient is truly horrible.

BTW, note that patents aren't for ideas, they're for inventions.

[alaukikyo]

people aren't getting it. If they can hit microsoft with this patent, what's stopping them going after libreoffice? Not much, i think.

gpl

[zekopeko]

gpl

I LOL'd. Are you serious? Please do explain. :popcorn:

[neu5eeCh]

Funny how when Microsoft gets sued, they're being sued by anti-competitive patent trolls. How did they put it? -- MS will "protect inventors who hold patents representing true innovation". The companies involved couldn't possibly represent "true innovation". Having just won a patent lawsuit against HTC, wherein they doubtlessly represented "true innovation", and wherein they now receive licensing fees for every installation of Google's Driod OS, what comes around goes around -- including money.

My own prediction? Now that smaller companies see that Golliath can be smacked down, expect the flood-gates to open. Microsoft has the deepest pockets. I hope Microsoft gets the p*** sued out of it.

Besides that, every time MS claims the mantle of "true innovation", the god of hypocrisy comes down with dyspepsia. They, of all companies, who owe their very existence to having ripped off Apple's OS. Only when these companies get their fill of lawsuits will anything change.

So... sue, baby, sue! What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Merk42]

Funny how when Microsoft gets sued, they're being sued by anti-competitive patent trolls. How did they put it? -- MS will "protect inventors who hold patents representing true innovation". The companies involved couldn't possibly represent "true innovation". Having just won a patent lawsuit against HTC, wherein they doubtlessly represented "true innovation", and wherein they now receive licensing fees for every installation of Google's Driod OS, what comes around goes around -- including money.

My own prediction? Now that smaller companies see that Golliath can be smacked down, expect the flood-gates to open. Microsoft has the deepest pockets. I hope Microsoft gets the p*** sued out of it.

Besides that, every time MS claims the mantle of "true innovation", the god of hypocrisy comes down with dyspepsia. They, of all companies, who owe their very existence to having ripped off Apple's OS. Only when these companies get their fill of lawsuits will anything change.

So... sue, baby, sue! What's good for the goose is good for the gander.Right, because this doesn't set a legal precedence that's bad for every company regardless of size or software license. Nope, what's bad for Microsoft is always good :rolleyes:

[Bandit]

gpl

No no my friend I will try to explain.. Grab pop corn.. :popcorn:

A end user license such as the GNU/GPL does not have anything to do with Patents. Its pertains only to Copyrights of a programs actual code.

You can still write software and patent every new feature in that program and then place the code under the GPL AND still file law suites on everyone who made programs with those said new features. The only thing the GPL is regulating is the code, allowing others to see the code and use the code as long as the part of the code they are using does not violate any patents.

A PERFECT example of this is LIBDVDCSS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libdvdcss).

Libdvdcss and its code is under the GPL, anyone can download the code in any country, anyone can study the code and how it decrypts DVDs. It its self is legal, what becomes illegal about it like here in the US is when you actually use libdvdcss to decrypt said medium. Its the method of displaying media by decrypting said media thats currently encrypted thats illegal by violating the patent.

Hope this helps.

[neu5eeCh]

Right, because this doesn't set a legal precedence that's bad for every company regardless of size or software license. Nope, what's bad for Microsoft is always good :rolleyes:

So you think whining helps. :rolleyes: Let the companies sue each other to a fair-thee-well until they finally discover that it's in their interest to change the law. They're the only ones who can apply enough political pressure to change things.

[sydbat]

2 things...

1) Software patents are ONLY in the US. This is why the court cases all took place in the US and went to the US Supreme Court.

2) The complete irony of a Canadian company using the US court system to sue a US-based company with their own tactics. The other irony inside this irony is the fact that the Canadian company has US patents for software, which is the only place in the world that has a software patent system (see point 1).

3) OK, so I have more than 2 points...sue me (see point 2)...The solution to software patents will not be a change in an idiotic US "law", but the movement and creation of software outside the US, where there are no software patent systems (at the time of this writing). Therefore, all existing bits of proprietary and open source software that have been created outside the US (really, the majority of it) remain unaffected by this US Supreme Court ruling.

So, to all the US members of this forum, please take note of this and stop making universal claims about software patents. Thank you.

[mkendall]

Doesn't matter where the software was created if it's distributed in the US.

[Bandit]

2 things...

1) Software patents are ONLY in the US. This is why the court cases all took place in the US and went to the US Supreme Court.

Other countries DO infact have patent laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Patent_law_by_country

Now please dont spread fud..

[PhillyPhil]

So you think whining helps. :rolleyes: Let the companies sue each other to a fair-thee-well until they finally discover that it's in their interest to change the law. They're the only ones who can apply enough political pressure to change things.

The problem is all the damage that can cause in the meantime (plus there's no certainty big companies will ever lobby for patent reform). In this case it's the ruling that preponderance of evidence is not enough to invalidate a patent.
This is very unfortunate, and something that should upset anyone not impressed by the rampant abuse of patents we see these days.


Other countries DO infact have patent laws.
Now please dont spread fud..

He means only a handful of countries have *software* patents.
Doesn't matter where the software was created if it's distributed in the US.

The company would also need a presence inside the US to be sued. Otherwise any ruling against it would be toothless.

[Bandit]

...



He means only a handful of countries have *software* patents.
...


Software patents are ONLY in the US.

Not to argue, but he said ONLY.. his words not mine. :)

[zekopeko]

No no my friend I will try to explain.. Grab pop corn.. :popcorn:

A end user license such as the GNU/GPL does not have anything to do with Patents. Its pertains only to Copyrights of a programs actual code.

You can still write software and patent every new feature in that program and then place the code under the GPL AND still file law suites on everyone who made programs with those said new features. The only thing the GPL is regulating is the code, allowing others to see the code and use the code as long as the part of the code they are using does not violate any patents.

A PERFECT example of this is LIBDVDCSS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libdvdcss).

Libdvdcss and its code is under the GPL, anyone can download the code in any country, anyone can study the code and how it decrypts DVDs. It its self is legal, what becomes illegal about it like here in the US is when you actually use libdvdcss to decrypt said medium. Its the method of displaying media by decrypting said media thats currently encrypted thats illegal by violating the patent.

Hope this helps.

Most of your post is factually incorrect. The wording in GPLv2 doesn't give an explicit patent license but it has implicit wording to that effect. The courts would need to determine how wide that implicit patent grant extends. GPLv3 does have an explicit patent grant.

Either of those apply only to patents that the author of the GPL software has or those that distributed it and only to those patents that cover that particular piece of the GPL software.

EDIT: Also libdvdcss isn't illegal in the US because of patents but because of the DMCA which forbids tools with explicit purpose to circumvent copyright protection.

[murderslastcrow]

We'd certainly be better off with a different culture and understanding of software patents, and a lessening of seriousness among them, than with this egg-shell industry full of inconsistency and fear concerning legal issues.

I do find it amusing how easily people are willing to be happy when Microsoft's screwed, even if it they get screwed as a result. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is your enemy, too.

I don't think Microsoft can do no right or do no good. It's just like Zemlin said about 'kicking a puppy'. Microsoft is still in trouble financially, and they've been incredibly ineffective with their anti-competition, and they have a horrible reputation. It's not going to get any better, so I think it's safe to stop injuring their image and allow them to make up for some of the mistakes and problems coming from the company over the years.

The part of it that ticks me off the most is that the people personally responsible for infringement and these sorts of issues aren't being directly affected by the courts. It's just the company as an entity. It's almost sad to see.

[neu5eeCh]

The problem is all the damage that can cause in the meantime (plus there's no certainty big companies will ever lobby for patent reform).

Right, but the question is: Under what circumstances are they more likely to lobby for reform? If lawsuits begin to suck them dry, then lobbying will be more likely. Microsoft's argument was, in effect, a form of lobbying. They wanted to change the laws through "judicial activism". Now that MS's butt has been handed to them, you can be sure that they're already lobbying for change (if behind the scenes).

[Merk42]

Right, nut the question is: Under what circumstances are they more likely to lobby for reform? If lawsuits begin to suck them dry, then lobbying will be more likely. Microsoft's argument was, in effect, a form of lobbying. They wanted to change the laws through "judicial activism". Now that MS's butt has been handed to them, you can be sure that they're already lobbying for change (if behind the scenes).

Or they could use the same precdent to go after someone else, when Microsoft wins that, then the losing defendant goes after a third party to recoup their loss. Then that third party goes after a fourth...

[silex89]

It seems that we hate software patents -- until Microsoft gets hit by one.

^This! :D

+1000000

[zekopeko]

Right, nut the question is: Under what circumstances are they more likely to lobby for reform? If lawsuits begin to suck them dry, then lobbying will be more likely. Microsoft's argument was, in effect, a form of lobbying. They wanted to change the laws through "judicial activism". Now that MS's butt has been handed to them, you can be sure that they're already lobbying for change (if behind the scenes).

What kind of reform? If you think they will lobby to end software patents you are naive.
They will lobby to limit software patents to what helps them and that means removing non-practicing patent entities from the pool.

[sydbat]

Not to argue, but he said ONLY.. his words not mine. :)And I will stand by that until you can prove to me otherwise...and not some Wikipedia list, but clear, "this is the exact software patent law in a country other than the US, from their own government website" kind of proof. If you can, I will retract my "ONLY in the US" comment.

[neu5eeCh]

What kind of reform? If you think they will lobby to end software patents you are naive.
They will lobby to limit software patents to what helps them and that means removing non-practicing patent entities from the pool.

Ah, the "if then" straw man argument. Well... if you believe anything will change without incentive then you are naive. They may indeed try to remove non-practicing patent entities, but the idea of the "non-practicing patent entity" is itself considered a myth (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2010/tc2010021_330487.htm) in some informed circles. We'll see... Microsoft already indicated the direction they would like reform to go (if their defense is any indication), and it's not what you've asserted.

[JDShu]

Ah, the "if then" straw man argument. Well... if you believe anything will change without incentive then you are naive. They may indeed try to remove non-practicing patent entities, but the idea of the "non-practicing patent entity" is itself considered a myth (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2010/tc2010021_330487.htm) in some informed circles. We'll see... Microsoft already indicated the direction they would like reform to go (if their defense is any indication), and it's not what you've asserted.

A Businessweek article written by an IP Lawyer? Really?

Patent trolls do exist and they do hinder progress. Look no further than Graphic Properties Holdings, Inc, the dead law practicing remains of SGI who's patents (considered obvious by developers) actually hinder us as Linux users.

[PhillyPhil]

Right, but the question is: Under what circumstances are they more likely to lobby for reform? If lawsuits begin to suck them dry, then lobbying will be more likely. Microsoft's argument was, in effect, a form of lobbying. They wanted to change the laws through &quot;judicial activism&quot;. Now that MS's butt has been handed to them, you can be sure that they're already lobbying for change (if behind the scenes).

The only time we are likely to see that is when big companies are virtually drowning in lawsuits from patent trolls. If that ever happens there's going to be a long, extremely painful (for everyone but the trolls) period leading up to that.
This lawsuit will have made no dent in MS's love for patents.
Ah, the &quot;if then&quot; straw man argument. Well... if you believe anything will change without incentive then you are naive. They may indeed try to remove non-practicing patent entities, but the idea of the &quot;non-practicing patent entity&quot; is itself considered a myth (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2010/tc2010021_330487.htm) in some informed circles. We'll see... Microsoft already indicated the direction they would like reform to go (if their defense is any indication), and it's not what you've asserted.

Haha! Like JDShu pointed out, this was written by an IP lawyer! What else would you expect from one?

One of the problems with his article is that he thinks people ''deserve'' rewards for a good idea, invention or composition. That's rubbish. The market, and only the market, determines what you ''deserve''.

[zekopeko]

Ah, the "if then" straw man argument. Well... if you believe anything will change without incentive then you are naive. They may indeed try to remove non-practicing patent entities, but the idea of the "non-practicing patent entity" is itself considered a myth (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2010/tc2010021_330487.htm) in some informed circles. We'll see... Microsoft already indicated the direction they would like reform to go (if their defense is any indication), and it's not what you've asserted.

Extremely poor argument you have there. Let me expand on why my observation are more likely to be correct than yours.

First off, Microsoft has some ~30000 patents. They spend between 7 and 8 billion dollars each year on R&D. Those are significant investments which any company would like to protect and patents are one of most important ways to do it. Eliminating software patents only leaves their investment vulnerable to competitors to copy. So competitors have to invest less money in R&D because Microsoft already did it for them.

What Microsoft would want is more "high-quality" patents because they can invest more in creating them. Getting hit by low quality, more than obvious patents is going to hurt them because virtually every piece of software they make is going to hit on those patents. "High quality" patents can give them the competitive advantage and a stream of revenue from licensing.

Let me also expand on "non-practicing patent entities". I was using a more fancy name for patent trolls. Companies whose sole purpose is to acquire patents and then sue for infringement. Those companies haven't created those patents nor are they using them in a product.

[zekopeko]

One of the problems with his article is that he thinks people ''deserve'' rewards for a good idea, invention or composition. That's rubbish. The market, and only the market, determines what you ''deserve''.

Patents are a way to protect the market viability of the invention. Somebody who made the invention most likely invested time and money into it. Imagine if your idea could be easily copied by a competitor who didn't have such expenses. They could easily undercut the inventor and his fair market share.

[neu5eeCh]

Extremely poor argument you have there.

It's not my argument, if you're referring to the direction indicated by Microsoft's lawsuit. It's Microsoft's. Instead of persuading me that your argument is better, maybe you should write Balmer and explain to him why your argument is better than his.

[zekopeko]

It's not my argument, if you're referring to the direction indicated by Microsoft's lawsuit. It's Microsoft's. Instead of persuading me that your argument is better, maybe you should write Balmer and explain to him why your argument is better than his.

No I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to your "reform will happen once they get sucked dry by the patent trolls". It is pretty obvious that companies will lobby for a reform come that but you haven't addressed what kind of reform will happen which is far more important.

Your comments implied a positive out come of such reform for FOSS which is unrealistic. I do agree with you that patent trolls suing huge companies is probably the quickest way for a patent reform but I wouldn't get my hopes up that the reform will benefit FOSS.

[neu5eeCh]

No I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to your "reform will happen once they get sucked dry by the patent trolls". It is pretty obvious that companies will lobby for a reform come that but you haven't addressed what kind of reform will happen which is far more important.

Your comments implied a positive out come of such reform for FOSS which is unrealistic. I do agree with you that patent trolls suing huge companies is probably the quickest way for a patent reform but I wouldn't get my hopes up that the reform will benefit FOSS.

The status quo is obviously not working. According to some, if MS had won, the result might have been beneficial to the FOSS community (if only by default). Our government (US) is a plutocracy. Until the FOSS community can start "buying" the laws they want (which is what other companies will do once they get tired of paying lawyers), I don't see FOSS being all the relevant.

[disabledaccount]

Somebody who made the invention most likely invested time and money into it. Imagine if your idea could be easily copied by a competitor who didn't have such expenses. They could easily undercut the inventor and his fair market share.
This is common misunderstanding of how patents works and of the difference between patent and copyrights.
See, if You want to implement an idea developed and implemented by someone else You need time and money to implement the same idea in Your application/system - and that is not neccesarily easy, because it can involve dramatic changes of the architecture (data structures, etc) or/and partial rewrite of app/os. So implementing someone's idea is not equivalent to "stealing" an idea, because You have to do it from scratch and change co-operating parts of the system.
That's why I'm fighting against patents - that is the way to stop innovation and patent trolling only makes things worse.