5 ms·

I wonder if Microsoft has employees working on trivial things they can patent, so they can go after other companies with similar technology after that. Is it p

I wonder if Microsoft has employees working on trivial things they can patent, so they can go after other companies with similar technology after that. Is it possible to build something without infringing on some patent anymore? (even if nobody is suing you)

rbanffy 15y ago
I bet that's one of the reasons why Microsoft Research exists.
- TomOfTTB 15y ago
  Well its founder did leave Microsoft specifically to found a company that does nothing but patent trolling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures). Given the number of actual products that have come out of Microsoft Research (One the last time I counted) I'd say patenting things is its primary goal at this point
  - marcf 15y ago
    I'm sure that wasn't the original intent. But given that they have failed generally at commercializing their innovations, patent lawsuits are a good backup strategy and probably gives Microsoft's patent lawyers a good justification for their continued existance.
  - eropple 15y ago
    Plenty of MSR stuff has ended up in the hands of other groups and ended up in shipped projects. Just look at Wikipedia: their C# research (Polyphonic C# became Cw became Joins Concurrency), F#, Seadragon, Accelerator (pretty cool, BTW), freaking ClearType... the list isn't exactly short. Surface aside, they haven't produced commercialized products, but that's not the point. Come on. This stuff is easy. Why the content-free troll?
    - TomOfTTB 15y ago
      F# is probably your only valid point though I'm not sure I'd call yet another functional programming language an innovation. Seadragon is Zooming technology that is, at best, a decent demo at this point (and probably designed to be patented). For people who don't know what we're talking about: http://zoom.it http://zoom.it Accelerator I'd never even heard of which is probably because it was introduced in 2006 and no finished product has ever come of it. Cleartype came out of the Microsoft e-books team which wasn't part of Microsoft Research to the best of my knowledge So giving you F# that makes two products: Surface and F# for $9 billion dollars per year. So either your argument is those two products cost the majority of that money to maintain or I go back to my original point. Microsoft Research's primary function at the company is to patent things
      - webjprgm 15y ago
        Their work is used in the academic community. E.g. they have a suite for examining/debugging concurrency called CHESS which was used in a class I took in grad school and is related to and referenced by some of the research my (former) academic advisor professor does, which work is used by NASA to improve space program software.
        BananaRepublic 15y ago
        Yes, and like their other MS Research projects it's licenced under the 'Microsoft Research Licence' which means that whatever modifications/enhancements you do to the code can only be used within this academic setting. HOWEVER, Microsoft themselves can use your modifications for whatever purposes they want, like sell them. Sweet deal...
        kelnos 15y ago
        As with any other software license (including the GPL), if you don't like the terms, don't use it.
        15y ago
bad_user 15y ago
I wonder if Microsoft has employees working on trivial things they can patent I'll tell you how it works in all these big companies that are growing their portfolio: (1) all engineers are encouraged to look for things to patent, while being actively discouraged to taint themselves by looking at other patents (2) when an engineer thinks he has something patentable, he sends the description in his own words to a patent attorney that also knows engineering -- it's his job to translate the engineer's description into legalese. (3) the internal patents office of the company examines the proposal, looking for prior art and declares it good to go, or sends it back to the drawing board. (4) profit -- after a proposal is good to go, the engineer gets money, even though that patent request hasn't been approved yet by USPTO. Now, the monetary reward isn't that high usually - it amounts to something like 1 or 2 salaries where I live, or something like that - but if you keep churning proposals, you can basically double your monthly revenue.
riffraff 15y ago
notice: everyone is dirty at this game, e.g. google's recent patent application for google doodle "A system provides a periodically changing story line and/or a special event company logo to entice users to access a web page."[1] [1]http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,912,915.PN.&OS=PN/7,912,915&RS=PN/7,912,915 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...
- kelnos 15y ago
  Sure, but they have to do this. I only consider it evil once a company starts suing other companies that they know can't compete based on patent portfolio size.
  - darklajid 15y ago
    No no no NO! This is wrong on so many levels. If you don't like the process, don't support it. Google is _not_ better than any other company out there. Sure, you have sympathies based on previous encounters and actions, but the goal is the same for every company: Make money. You're saying that it's different if Google tries to patent something. It's not. There's no moral involved here, this is just plain business. Either you like patents or you don't. Hoping that 'the good guys' apply for lots of patents is crap.
  - r00fus 15y ago
    This is a static view of a dynamic situation that can often result in a feedback loop. Have patents but losing your monthly revenue? Why not sue others to keep your stock price afloat (instead of innovating your business or products) The mere act of having such legal armaments creates a moral hazard.

rbanffy 15y ago

I bet that's one of the reasons why Microsoft Research exists.

TomOfTTB 15y ago
Well its founder did leave Microsoft specifically to found a company that does nothing but patent trolling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures). Given the number of actual products that have come out of Microsoft Research (One the last time I counted) I'd say patenting things is its primary goal at this point
- marcf 15y ago
  I'm sure that wasn't the original intent. But given that they have failed generally at commercializing their innovations, patent lawsuits are a good backup strategy and probably gives Microsoft's patent lawyers a good justification for their continued existance.
- eropple 15y ago
  Plenty of MSR stuff has ended up in the hands of other groups and ended up in shipped projects. Just look at Wikipedia: their C# research (Polyphonic C# became Cw became Joins Concurrency), F#, Seadragon, Accelerator (pretty cool, BTW), freaking ClearType... the list isn't exactly short. Surface aside, they haven't produced commercialized products, but that's not the point. Come on. This stuff is easy. Why the content-free troll?
  - TomOfTTB 15y ago
    F# is probably your only valid point though I'm not sure I'd call yet another functional programming language an innovation. Seadragon is Zooming technology that is, at best, a decent demo at this point (and probably designed to be patented). For people who don't know what we're talking about: http://zoom.it http://zoom.it Accelerator I'd never even heard of which is probably because it was introduced in 2006 and no finished product has ever come of it. Cleartype came out of the Microsoft e-books team which wasn't part of Microsoft Research to the best of my knowledge So giving you F# that makes two products: Surface and F# for $9 billion dollars per year. So either your argument is those two products cost the majority of that money to maintain or I go back to my original point. Microsoft Research's primary function at the company is to patent things
    - webjprgm 15y ago
      Their work is used in the academic community. E.g. they have a suite for examining/debugging concurrency called CHESS which was used in a class I took in grad school and is related to and referenced by some of the research my (former) academic advisor professor does, which work is used by NASA to improve space program software.
      - BananaRepublic 15y ago
        Yes, and like their other MS Research projects it's licenced under the 'Microsoft Research Licence' which means that whatever modifications/enhancements you do to the code can only be used within this academic setting. HOWEVER, Microsoft themselves can use your modifications for whatever purposes they want, like sell them. Sweet deal...
        kelnos 15y ago
        As with any other software license (including the GPL), if you don't like the terms, don't use it.
        15y ago

bad_user 15y ago

I wonder if Microsoft has employees working on trivial things they can patent I'll tell you how it works in all these big companies that are growing their portfolio: (1) all engineers are encouraged to look for things to patent, while being actively discouraged to taint themselves by looking at other patents (2) when an engineer thinks he has something patentable, he sends the description in his own words to a patent attorney that also knows engineering -- it's his job to translate the engineer's description into legalese. (3) the internal patents office of the company examines the proposal, looking for prior art and declares it good to go, or sends it back to the drawing board. (4) profit -- after a proposal is good to go, the engineer gets money, even though that patent request hasn't been approved yet by USPTO. Now, the monetary reward isn't that high usually - it amounts to something like 1 or 2 salaries where I live, or something like that - but if you keep churning proposals, you can basically double your monthly revenue.

riffraff 15y ago

notice: everyone is dirty at this game, e.g. google's recent patent application for google doodle "A system provides a periodically changing story line and/or a special event company logo to entice users to access a web page."[1] [1]http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,912,915.PN.&OS=PN/7,912,915&RS=PN/7,912,915 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...

kelnos 15y ago
Sure, but they have to do this. I only consider it evil once a company starts suing other companies that they know can't compete based on patent portfolio size.
- darklajid 15y ago
  No no no NO! This is wrong on so many levels. If you don't like the process, don't support it. Google is _not_ better than any other company out there. Sure, you have sympathies based on previous encounters and actions, but the goal is the same for every company: Make money. You're saying that it's different if Google tries to patent something. It's not. There's no moral involved here, this is just plain business. Either you like patents or you don't. Hoping that 'the good guys' apply for lots of patents is crap.
- r00fus 15y ago
  This is a static view of a dynamic situation that can often result in a feedback loop. Have patents but losing your monthly revenue? Why not sue others to keep your stock price afloat (instead of innovating your business or products) The mere act of having such legal armaments creates a moral hazard.