8 ms·
Microsoft and Google jointly sue a patent troll who has sued 397 companies
- singular 16y agoThis is great news. It's nice to see two rivals joining forces on something which is not only morally wrong, but actually generally damaging to the industry as a whole. Hopefully (if successful!) this sets a precedence and sends out a message to other patent trolls.
- dogas 16y agoWhile I absolutely agree with you, I believe you were looking to use the word precedent.
- singular 16y agoYou're right, ack, embarrassing. Unfortunately I seem unable to edit the post now. EDIT: As an aside I think it reminded me too much of the concept of precedence in maths, so the brain-burp was probably sourced from there.
- palish 16y agoIt doesn't matter at all. Don't be embarassed. Anyone who reads your original comment will know exactly what you meant. Some of the smartest people I know frequently mis-grammar a sentence every now and then. Sometimes even frequently. A language is a tool for conveying ideas. If a given paragraph conveys the same mental result for each reader, then it doesn't matter if any given word is wrong; the tool has done its task. I wish more people would realize this and stop condemning frivolous mistakes...
- Lost_BiomedE 16y agoYes, it is about time to allow some wiggle room. I am glad that grammar and spelling correction became a meme. At one point, it looked like the web was going to deteriorate into all lol speak. It was also leaking into offline writing, as well. Ebb and flow has a great end result, but the process is often painful and/or annoying.
- pjscott 16y agoCase in point: I'm pretty sure that using "mis-grammar" as a verb (or at all) is not the officially approved way of saying what you wanted to say, but it got the point across just fine.
- tuhin 16y agoIdeas especially in the field of software design should never be patented IMHO. Algorithms, hardware definitely but not the idea. For example, what is the point behind Apple patenting multi touch gesture technology? I mean why? (FWIW I am an Apple fan). I remember somebody suing twitter for they have the patent for an ecosystem that allows celebrity to come together and do some stuff in an "online" environment. I mean wow! To all such people, step back and think what if the guy who made chair had patented it. What about wheel, fire? I know this sounds crazy but seriously why should ideas be patented. I could genuinely have the same idea without having seen yours (idea) first!
- singular 16y agoAbsolutely. I think John Carmack put it best:- "The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying." [1] [1]:http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_D._Carmack http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_D._Carmack
- albertzeyer 16y agoWhereby this again now is not about the idea but the implementation. But in many cases, this is also right. See Amazons 1-Click as an example. I haven't really looked up the implementation details they describe in their patent but I guess it mostly follows the straight-forward implementation of this.
- singular 16y agoThis applies to ideas too I think - if I have a general 'idea' of how to perform a task, that can be expressed as an algorithm which I then implement in [whatever language]; I could then be unwittingly violating a patent on the idea.
- fakelvis 16y agoThe implementation details of the 1-Click patent are still fairly broad/generic: http://www.google.com/patents?id=O2YXAAAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents?id=O2YXAAAAEBAJ It's worth noting that while the USPTO granted the patent (and even after multiple reexaminations still granted parts of the patent), the patent was never granted at all in Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click#Patent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click#Patent
- gst 16y agoWhy is someone abiding to the patent law a "troll"? What's wrong with suing 397 companies if (i) you have a valid patent (ii) the law says that those companies violate your patent? If you don't like how the patent system works lobby your government to change the patent laws, but don't blame the companies who utilize those laws to make money.
- pmjordan 16y agoGoogle and Microsoft claim there is prior art, which would nullify (i). Wrt the rest of your comment: sorry, I can't figure out what point you're trying to make.
- lkozma 16y agoI think gst's comment makes a lot of sense, although it might or might not apply to this particular case. The assumption is that the patent system is one that is fundamentally broken, resulting (among other things) in such patent trolls who exploit it to their own benefit. Suing them for patent infringement can be seen as fighting "within the system", in effect legitimizing the system, instead of calling it out for being totally absurd in the first place. With the danger of falling under Godwin's law, here is an analogy: imagine someone is persecuted by an oppressive regime for being part of an ethnic minority. Someone might oppose this persecution by pointing out that the person is in fact only 25% part of the ethnic group (one grandparent), whereas the law applies only above 50%. This could be seen as a worse response than taking to the streets to protest against the regime. EDIT: I am explaining what I understood to be gst's point, I hope I am not totally misrepresenting it.
- pmjordan 16y agoI can only assume the original commenter had a problem with the terminology. Obviously patent trolls aren't doing anything illegal (at least not intrinsically), considering their business model relies on working within the current legal system.
- 16y ago
- yaix 16y agoThey wanted software patents on trivial ideas. Now they have them and don't like them? Well, I hope the "troll" wins, maybe the big ones then start lobbying against "patents on ideas".
- statictype 16y agoIn the defense of Microsoft and Google, they typically filed patents as defensive measures to mitigate against what they saw as a broken system.
- naner 16y agoMicrosoft has used patent threats to extract a "Linux tax" from vendors such as Amazon and a number of smaller companies. Microsoft has also directly sued for software patent infringement. (TomTom got sued for using Fat32, presumably for refusing to pay Microsoft's "Linux tax".)
- beagle3 16y agoExcept Microsoft _has_ used patent threats in the past (e.g. against the VirtualDub project, and there are a few more). When the threat comes from Microsoft, and it goes to what is essentially a one-man-show open source project, you don't actually need to get to court. It's called "a chilling effect". Furthermore, Ballmer was, and still is, FUDding all the time about Microsoft going to enforce patents that Linux infringes (though not name anything). Even though no action was taken, it also has a chilling effect. Your defense is acceptable for google. Microsoft deserves to be patent trolled.
- kenjackson 16y agoThe VirtualDub case is an interesting one. I wish the author would have pushed it a bit more. I suspect that there was no threat of a lawsuit, but rather an engineer who saw VirtualDub and was POed. Legal at companies like Intel, IBM, and MS generally won't let someone from the actual product team call another company on a legal matter. My suspicion is that it was just a rogue employee who frankly probably wouldn't have had support from legal, since legal at these organizations tend to be more strategic than tactical (they don't care about one-off infringers, but are usually pushing a bigger strategic story, where patents infringement is just part of it).
- nopinsight 16y agoI wonder, why don't large corporations join forces and lobby the government and congress for changes in patent rules and laws? Of course they themselves may have benefited from the current rules quite a bit too, but they still can benefit more with some changes to the rules that remove the chance for these leeches from sucking blood from them and the whole economy. (For large enough players, growth in the economy as a whole will also affect their growths and profits.) Large corporations generally have both positive and negative impacts on everyone's wellbeing, but these patent trolls, who don't produce anything of value, only consume resources, are clear negatives.
- Blankwood 16y agoPart of the reason they don't join forces more often is that the IP lawyers often are kept busy by looking at other large company portfolios. Their business is both offensive and defensive.
- Rariel 16y agoThat's actually not true, IP lawyers look at ALL patents when they're going after a patent troll or trying to invalidate, not just large companies. That would be pretty poor due diligence.
- chalst 16y agoLarge companies benefit from the current patent regime as well: it is hard to acquire a patent portfolio, and once you have done so, you have an advantage over companies that don't. Increased barriers to entry is good for large, established businesses.
- scott_s 16y agohttp://www.patentfairness.org/learn/about/ http://www.patentfairness.org/learn/about/
- kenjackson 16y agoI wonder, why don't large corporations join forces and lobby the government and congress for changes in patent rules and laws? Some do. In fact Microsoft is doing just this right now and many companies are supporting MS, including Google. Unfortunately, more companies came out AGAINST MS and in support of the current patent system. See: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/microsoftpri0/2013785625_morethan100companiessupportofi4iinmicrosoftsupremecourtcase.html http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/microsoftpri0/20137856... It is interesting to note that the companies in support of MS are largely in the tech sector, while those against are largely in pharma/agriculture. Note, this case is about changing the standard of proof in patent cases to a "preponderance of evidence" rather than the higher standard of proof, "clear and convincing evidence". While it doesn't get rid of the patent system, it should make it easier to beat weak patents in court.
- sfghrjtrj 16y agoClick on our website: ╭══════════════╮ http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec ╰══════════════╯ ╭══════════════╮ http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec ╰══════════════╯ Website wholesale various fashion shoes, such as Nike, Jordan, prada, also includes the jeans, shirt, bags, hats and decoration. Personality manufacturing execution systems (Mes) clothing, Grab an eye bag coat + tide bag Air jordan(1-24)shoes $30 Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i d&g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $15 Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30 Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $15 New era cap $12 Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $20 accept paypal and free shipping ╭══════════════╮ http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec ╰══════════════╯ ╭══════════════╮ http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec ╰══════════════╯ ╭══════════════╮ http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec ╰══════════════╯ ╭══════════════╮ http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec ╰══════════════ ╭══════════════╮ http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec ╰══════════════╯ ╭══════════════╮ http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec ╰══════════════╯ ╭══════════════╮ http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec ╰══════════════╯ ╭══════════════╮ http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec ╰══════════════╯
- DjDarkman 16y agoFunny fact about US software patents: - software can be patented - math cannot be patented - all software is basically math (very simple interpretation, but it scales)
- bostonpete 16y agoIsn't that like saying...? - Books can be copyrighted - Words can't be copyrighted - All books are basically words
- naner 16y agoNot really. Software can be copyrighted. Words can be trademarked. Books can't be patented. Just because the analogy falls apart when you change the subjects doesn't mean the original was wrong. Though I think you can make a much stronger case than the OPs simple analogy.
- bostonpete 16y agoI wasn't making the case for software patents -- just pointing out that the logic doesn't work. Just because the constituent parts of a whole don't satisfy some legal criteria doesn't mean that the "whole" itself doesn't.
- naner 16y agoMy issue is you restated his analogy changing the legal categories and the subjects and then disproved your interpretation. Patent law and copyright law are not the same and math's relation to software is not the same as the relation of individual words to a book. His argument is weak, but you are attacking something else.
- raganwald 16y agoTo grind it right down to its essence, facts cannot be patented, but the application of facts to solve a problem can be patented. Charcoal burns and produces heat. Water boils when heated. It produces steam. Steam has a larger volume. The increase in volume can move a piston. A piston attacked eccentrically to a wheel causes it to rotate about its axis. All these things are natural facts that cannot be patented. But put them together to solve the problem of turning fossil fuels into mechanical energy, and you've got a steam engine. The difficulty with complaining that patenting software is patenting math is the difficulty of complaining that patenting steam engines is patenting facts of nature. The patent is for the application of facts to solve problems, and that applies equally to facts of math as it does to facts of nature. Now patents may be a bad idea, or perhaps a good idea badly executed, but that is a different argument. I assert that if you can patent the application of nature to create a steam engine, you ought to be able to patent the application of math to create a program.