- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Microsoft's Patent on a Pile of Baloney
|
|
|
Comments (59)
39 earlier comments in the full thread.
Quoting:but what a collection of human beings they were.
Yes indeed. Sometimes I tend to thing they were God's sent.
What they left us is what made this country great, not the armies not the arsenals. Some wealth helped. But the question is, are we going to be able to preserve them?
I don't think there is a lack of good people like them, it is because there are too many crooks around that are leaving no chance to anyone else.
Will there be a similar revolution again? I doubt it, otherwise it would be devastating.
Quoting:If Microsoft were to disappear today, the real problem would still exist...
...If you wish to obsess over Microsoft, that is your privilege. Fortunately, others are moving forward.
Dino, you (and some others) really don't get it, do you? Microsoft is the _single largest_ proponent of software patents at this moment. If you read the stories I wrote about software patents (for example, "Software patents in the Banana union"), or if you would read the FFII (ffii.org) site from time to time you would have known. If Microsoft didn't exist anymore, the lobby of the BSA and VSI would come to an end immediately. Then, the balance of BSA and VSI (Taylor Wessing, which even has employers working in the European parliament) against FFII, EFF (and FSF, but they are not focused at patents, the first two are the real opponents) would be gone, and probably so would software patents. If Microsoft wouldn't have 'bought' Ireland an Luxembourg, software patents _surely_ wouldn't be valid in Europe. Because, and _only_ because of Microsoft, it still is unsure these days.
Maybe IBM would also need to disappear, but they are not pushing hard for software patents in Europe, nor have they in the past, at least not that I'm aware of.
So, you really can't say software patents are a problem and Microsoft is only a part of it. Saying Microsoft is a problem, and software patents are part of it would be far more near to the thruth.
>Dino, you (and some others) really don't get it, do you?
News flash: it is possible to see things differently and still get it.
>Microsoft is the _single largest_ proponent of software patents at this moment
So what. For that matter, what does it mean? They talk and make a lot of noise?
What about the IBMs and Oracles of this world? I don't see them lobbying hard for the abolition of software patents. I see them spending a ton of money to build their own portfolios. If that's not a form of advocacy, I don't know what is.
>So, you really can't say software patents are a problem and Microsoft is only a part of it.
I did say that, so, obviously, I can.
>Saying Microsoft is a problem, and software patents are part of it would be far more near to the thruth.
Only on Bizarro world.
News flash: it is possible to see things differently and still get it.
>Microsoft is the _single largest_ proponent of software patents at this moment
So what. For that matter, what does it mean? They talk and make a lot of noise?
What about the IBMs and Oracles of this world? I don't see them lobbying hard for the abolition of software patents. I see them spending a ton of money to build their own portfolios. If that's not a form of advocacy, I don't know what is.
>So, you really can't say software patents are a problem and Microsoft is only a part of it.
I did say that, so, obviously, I can.
>Saying Microsoft is a problem, and software patents are part of it would be far more near to the thruth.
Only on Bizarro world.
Hans, Dino didn't raise the argument that MS was not a threat - only that MS is also megatively affected by the legal system like the rest of us. I don't think Microsoft started the whole patent thing. If so, they have definitely shot themselves in the foot. Yes, MS talks a lot of junk. But they are also subject to the patent laws, like the rest of us. If you solve the patent law problem, you automatically eliminate MS' biggest nuke - the patent infringement claims. They can't claim patent infringement if we remove the software patents, now can they?
Quoting:If you solve the patent law problem, you automatically eliminate MS' biggest nuke - the patent infringement claims. They can't claim patent infringement if we remove the software patents, now can they?
Don:
That is a huge big IF though
If MS had as many patents as other companies like IBM, you can bet and be assured that MS will never try to fix it. It is obvious and they definitely know that their patents against FOSS are weak.
Like Shuttleworth said, MS is suffering from patents and we only have to see how much money it had to fetch out to resolve law suits they couldn't win. But MS does do their assessment carefully. Before infringing on a patent, they look at the bottom line. If the penalties are not as near as the revenue they gain from infringing, they go ahead and infringe anyway and pay the penalty since it is going to be offset by the huge revenue.
I know, I know, I didn't agree with his blog, but that was because he is blaming the patent system soley. What I disagree with him on is that, he is removing any blame from MS. To put it in perspective, it is like removing the blame of some one who used a gun to kill another. My question is, do you blame the gun or its availability for the killing or do you blame the person him/her self???
Well, are you going to remove the gun from the decent citizens who were give the right to own a gun? Or are you going to make sure that that person doesn't kill any one else?
Shuttleworth have a business objects in his blog, and time will tell what it is. In my opinion, Shuttleworth is looking for a good deal with MS to expand his business. I am sure there must have been a "gentlemen's" agreement with Michael Dell before they made the deal to distribute Ubuntu. I could be wrong, but time will tell.
>I know, I know, I didn't agree with his blog, but that was because he is blaming the patent system soley.
The patent system being the root of the problem doesn't mean that Microsoft isn't a nasty player, it just means that the patent system is the root of the problem.
So long as the means exists to extort and profit, people will rush into extort and profit. Microsoft is far from the worst in this category. There are companies who buy up patents solely for the purpose of extorting money from others who can be convinced that a jury might find them to be infringing. Lots of them pay up because the extortion is cheaper than the risk.
The patent system being the root of the problem doesn't mean that Microsoft isn't a nasty player, it just means that the patent system is the root of the problem.
So long as the means exists to extort and profit, people will rush into extort and profit. Microsoft is far from the worst in this category. There are companies who buy up patents solely for the purpose of extorting money from others who can be convinced that a jury might find them to be infringing. Lots of them pay up because the extortion is cheaper than the risk.
I fully agree with what you said and I wasn't saying that the patent system doesn't need fixing. All what I was saying is we should not forget that MS deserve the blame in using a bad thing to get to their objects. Shuttleworth in his Blog is perceiving MS as victim like us instead of a villan.
That could be fixed easily. Make it a law that, a patent have to be implemented by the owner before it can become effective. When a patent is purchased, they must have a use for it, otherwise, they have no right to to claim any damages.
Quoting:There are companies who buy up patents solely for the purpose of extorting money from others who can be convinced that a jury might find them to be infringing.
That could be fixed easily. Make it a law that, a patent have to be implemented by the owner before it can become effective. When a patent is purchased, they must have a use for it, otherwise, they have no right to to claim any damages.
>That could be fixed easily. Make it a law that, a patent have to be implemented by the owner before it can become effective.
That's already the case. Patents are for inventions -- ie, implemented ideas.
>When a patent is purchased, they must have a use for it, otherwise, they have no right to to claim any damages.
Bad idea. The notion of intellectual property rights is to provide benefits similar to those surrounding physical property, which includes the right of alienation. IE, inventors should get the full benefit of their invention, which may mean selling its rights to somebody who can market them more effectively.
That's already the case. Patents are for inventions -- ie, implemented ideas.
>When a patent is purchased, they must have a use for it, otherwise, they have no right to to claim any damages.
Bad idea. The notion of intellectual property rights is to provide benefits similar to those surrounding physical property, which includes the right of alienation. IE, inventors should get the full benefit of their invention, which may mean selling its rights to somebody who can market them more effectively.
Quoting:which includes the right of alienation. IE, inventors should get the full benefit of their invention, which may mean selling its rights to somebody who can market them more effectively.
That is fine, but what I am saying is to stop alienation for the sake of profiteering without implementation.
Doesn't that make sense? In other words, when an entity purchases a patent, they must need it to produce a product, not to just sit on it waiting to sue someone. They still can sue if someone infringes on it as long as it is actively implemented. There must be a way to stop patent profiteering.
>In other words, when an entity purchases a patent, they must need it to produce a product, not to just sit on it waiting to sue someone.
Fine...but, the problem is this:
How do you distinguish that from somebody who wants to make something but can't get financing, partners, whatever?
Sometimes the law just isn't good enough to do what we really want from it.
Fine...but, the problem is this:
How do you distinguish that from somebody who wants to make something but can't get financing, partners, whatever?
Sometimes the law just isn't good enough to do what we really want from it.
Quoting:How do you distinguish that from somebody who wants to make something but can't get financing, partners, whatever?
How about labeling the patent owners. Companies that have or purchased patents that are not related to their line of business or companies that has no business other than buying patents should be easy to identify.
Laws are made flexible to suit certain needs, aren't they? Laws are constantly being ammeded, adopted and changed sometimes for no apparent reason. I see lawyers always finding ways to twist laws in all sorts of ways.
Abe -
> Laws are made flexible to suit certain needs, aren't they?
Laws are the result of a collaborative process between a bunch of people who might see some things the same way, but ain't likely to be eye-to-eye on everything. As a result, most laws compromise something you care about. Tis the nature of representative government.
The bigger problem is that such a law would run into a million stumbling blocks.
First problem, is that patents aren't issued with relation to any business. They are issued with relation to inventions. Who's to say what technology is appropriate for what business? After all, one hallmark of innovation is the ability to use old technology in new ways.
For example -- I'm an inventor on a couple of patents (now lapsed) . They cover the automatic routing of telephone traffic to call centers based on routing tables and real-time predictions of agent availability. What kind of business is that related to? My employer at the time was a large retail chain with a catalog division. The patents were sold to IBM along with the division I worked at. IBM used them in a B-to-B long distance business. Different strokes for different folks, but same technology.
Second problem is that there is nothing illegitimate about a company that does nothing but buy, sell, and promote patents.
There's a company here in Chicago that does something similar. They deal in old products, ie, products that used to be popular but are no longer available. They buy the product rights and then try to get the things made and marketed again.
It's easy to see a problem and devise a solution, but sometimes the solution is worse than the problem.
> Laws are made flexible to suit certain needs, aren't they?
Laws are the result of a collaborative process between a bunch of people who might see some things the same way, but ain't likely to be eye-to-eye on everything. As a result, most laws compromise something you care about. Tis the nature of representative government.
The bigger problem is that such a law would run into a million stumbling blocks.
First problem, is that patents aren't issued with relation to any business. They are issued with relation to inventions. Who's to say what technology is appropriate for what business? After all, one hallmark of innovation is the ability to use old technology in new ways.
For example -- I'm an inventor on a couple of patents (now lapsed) . They cover the automatic routing of telephone traffic to call centers based on routing tables and real-time predictions of agent availability. What kind of business is that related to? My employer at the time was a large retail chain with a catalog division. The patents were sold to IBM along with the division I worked at. IBM used them in a B-to-B long distance business. Different strokes for different folks, but same technology.
Second problem is that there is nothing illegitimate about a company that does nothing but buy, sell, and promote patents.
There's a company here in Chicago that does something similar. They deal in old products, ie, products that used to be popular but are no longer available. They buy the product rights and then try to get the things made and marketed again.
It's easy to see a problem and devise a solution, but sometimes the solution is worse than the problem.
Thanks Dino for your time. I guess I should go back believing in one post when I said that the patent system can not be fixed. I was hesitant when I said that, but now I am more convinced.
> I said that the patent system can not be fixed.
In a philosophical sense, you are probably right. In fact, I'm not sure the system -- if it were run the way it is supposed to run -- is all that bad.
The problem is that, over the last 20 years or so, the PTO has gone bonkers -- handing out patents for software and for business processes, and, for all I know, for the discovery that bread lands butter side down.
I have hope that recent Supreme Court decisions will trickle back down and widen into a torrent of correction.
In a philosophical sense, you are probably right. In fact, I'm not sure the system -- if it were run the way it is supposed to run -- is all that bad.
The problem is that, over the last 20 years or so, the PTO has gone bonkers -- handing out patents for software and for business processes, and, for all I know, for the discovery that bread lands butter side down.
I have hope that recent Supreme Court decisions will trickle back down and widen into a torrent of correction.
Quoting:What about the IBMs and Oracles of this world? I don't see them lobbying hard for the abolition of software patents. I see them spending a ton of money to build their own portfolios. If that's not a form of advocacy, I don't know what is.
They're silent. It doesn't seem they bought 'countries' and EP-members like Microsoft did. Oracle is in OIN, which means it agreed to not attack Linux. So they're no threat, nor do they actively try to push trough enforceability of software patents as far as I am aware. That's a big difference with Microsoft. It's just stupid: Microsoft pays more money to license software patents of other companies then they earn from it, and still they actively try to make software patents enforceable. Now, as said earlier, I haven't heard of IBM, Red-Hat or Novell offering free ice-creams to MEP's. I haven't heard of Sony, Oracle or Philips hiring people to act like they were representatives of small and medium business, and tell MEP's software patents are good for SMB. I haven't heard of SAP or Google getting discounts at lobbyist firms, which employed the representatives of juridical committees of large EP parties. I haven't heard of Nike or GM asking the US government to threaten with the WTO taking measures against countries which don't respect IP. I haven't heard of Intel or Motorola becoming the main-sponsors of political meetings in countries, and following that leaders of those countries defending the point of view (pro enforceability of software patents) of those companies, and making countries that had a different point of view shut up. In case you didn't knew, Microsoft _did_ do all this. If you do get this, and chances are big you do, I almost can't imagine how you are sure software patents are the problem instead of Microsoft being the problem. Sure, companies like SAP and IBM are problems too, but that's of a whole different order.
Of course USPTO and EPO do earn from software patents and are part of the problem, but that's their job. If software patents wouldn't be enforceable, USPTO and EPO wouldn't make money out of software patents anymore, and they wouldn't be assigne anymore. Of course, Microsoft didn't invent software patents. Neither did Microsoft invent DRM (Intel did), but at this moment they are also one of the large proponent of DRM (Microsoft was the company that took DRM out of the dust after Intel ditched it), and because of the monopoly of Windows the most important company. If they would be against DRM, it would probably be gone within a few months, at least it would be gone from 95% of all PC's worldwide. If they were against software patents, I bet enforceable software patents might as well be gone within a few months, or Oracle and IBM should stop being quiet. But don't forget IBM and Oracle are as much victims of software patents as Microsoft is.
>If you do get this, and chances are big you do, I almost can't imagine how you are sure software patents are the problem instead of Microsoft being the problem.
You know, it's funny. I take a lot of flak for my sometimes harsh positions towards Richard Stallman. With regard to software patents, he and I agree about as completely as I ever agree with everyone, and yet...I take flak! What the heck is going on here?
As to IBM being as big a patent victim as Microsoft?
Dream on. IBM has the biggest patent portfolio and best lawyers around. They are king of the hill.
You know, it's funny. I take a lot of flak for my sometimes harsh positions towards Richard Stallman. With regard to software patents, he and I agree about as completely as I ever agree with everyone, and yet...I take flak! What the heck is going on here?
As to IBM being as big a patent victim as Microsoft?
Dream on. IBM has the biggest patent portfolio and best lawyers around. They are king of the hill.
Quoting:But don't forget IBM and Oracle are as much victims of software patents as Microsoft is.
Quoting:Dream on. IBM has the biggest patent portfolio and best lawyers around. They are king of the hill.
hkwint,
In all fairness, one must realize that all companies love their patents. Some, like IBM, their patents bring in a substantial revenue. Others they have patents for protection.
The reason most companies are pledging not to sue FOSS is because it doesn't threaten their business and survival as it does with MS. Most of these companies are actually benefiting from FOSS and also helping them to compete against MS. Linux is threatening Windows, OpenOffice & ODF are threatening MS Office. These two are MS's bread and butter and their biggest cash cows.
Before FOSS, the majority of companies were at the mercy of MS and they all had better join MS or suffer the consequences. Actually the MS monster was create by many companies who had no choice but to support and endorse MS. FOSS changed all of that and actually, when it becomes main stream with a substantial market share, those companies will flourish and wont feel threatened by MS. They just have to compete and against MS and each others. That is a more comfortable feeling in the long run for them than being under the mercy of MS and having to constantly bow to them.
MS helped a great deal in creating its own problems and demise.
>Actually the MS monster was create by many companies who had no choice but to support and endorse MS.
I disagree about having no choice. It's more like making a choice that comes back to bite you.
Before Microsoft was a nasty 800 lb gorilla, IBM was a nasty 800 lb gorilla. Networked pcs offered and alternative to expensive mainframe solutions. Companies used more PC solutions They also went to Unix solutions, albeit at a hefty price differential that couldn't be maintained once PCs grew up.
It's why I don't view Microsoft as "the" problem. They are merely the latest incarnation of the problem.
I disagree about having no choice. It's more like making a choice that comes back to bite you.
Before Microsoft was a nasty 800 lb gorilla, IBM was a nasty 800 lb gorilla. Networked pcs offered and alternative to expensive mainframe solutions. Companies used more PC solutions They also went to Unix solutions, albeit at a hefty price differential that couldn't be maintained once PCs grew up.
It's why I don't view Microsoft as "the" problem. They are merely the latest incarnation of the problem.
OK, so our only point of disagreement is if a incarnation of a problem is the problem itself or not. My point of view is, without the incarnation the problem would be gone, and other ones above would say the problem still exists without incarnation, like a smoldering fire.
Probably doesn't matter that much.
And Dino, don't wail because I agree with you a lot of times, but not this time. Richard Stallman doesn't have anything to do with how I think about patents probably, because we have the FFII for that, which isn't associated with the FSF. My point is, one incarnation doesn't equal every different incarnation of the same problem, every reincarnation is different. For example, you could say France and the US are the same incarnations of the same problems over time, and Google could well be the next incarnation of the current Microsoft incarnation, but that doesn't equal the incarnations.
Some incarnation are and behave better / worse than others.
Probably doesn't matter that much.
And Dino, don't wail because I agree with you a lot of times, but not this time. Richard Stallman doesn't have anything to do with how I think about patents probably, because we have the FFII for that, which isn't associated with the FSF. My point is, one incarnation doesn't equal every different incarnation of the same problem, every reincarnation is different. For example, you could say France and the US are the same incarnations of the same problems over time, and Google could well be the next incarnation of the current Microsoft incarnation, but that doesn't equal the incarnations.
Some incarnation are and behave better / worse than others.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
You're right, to be honest, but I should have been a bit clearer...I'm not counting server revenue and licenses. You don't run Office on a server unless you're a fool. I was really meaning the Windows desktop. It's in MS's interest to let the pirates run rampant with it (or was until they tried to make $$ with a lot of DRM).