Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Government Patents The Courts Politics News

Microsoft Calls For Patent Law Change 324

Posted by Hemos from the changing-understandings dept.
Elektroschock writes "According to an article of IDG/Infoworld Microsoft calls for a reform of the US patent system . Last month Microsoft Denmark started a backfiring PR campaign to influence the European debate in favour of software patents. Critics of Microsoft often claim that MS was behind the EU lobbying and wanted software patents to kill open source. While it is true that lobbying took place, persons deeply involved in the debate are more cautious to affirm real business interests of Microsoft. In a CeBIT debate today it was concluded that the MS monopoly would not exist with today's software patenting in place back in 1985. Some highly influential stakeholders with real business interests are often forgotten: patent professionals and the patent offices. What if there was no evil MS conspiracy behind all those patent plans? Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith is very concerned of submarine patents and patent trolls for Microsoft's business. He said patent reform should begin at home."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Calls For Patent Law Change More

Microsoft Calls For Patent Law Change

Comments Filter:

  • Don't trust the source (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bigtallmofo ( 695287 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @08:03AM (#11909065)
    Microsoft executives on Thursday stepped up their calls for reform of the U.S. patent process, saying the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) too often focuses on quantity instead of quality.

    What they're saying here seems to make perfect sense, but I really have a hard time trusting anything that Microsoft says about software patenting considering their history. [slashdot.org]

    • I think we can trust the source (Score:5, Insightful)

      by zaxios ( 776027 ) <zaxios@gmail.com> on Friday March 11, 2005 @08:10AM (#11909113) Journal
      because now Microsoft has been stung by the U.S.'s absurd patent law themselves, thanks to Eolas. As Microsoft apparently realize that THEY, being a hugely profitable company and having software products spread across several markets, are the biggest target for rubbish software patents, it's in their clear interests to help fix the system. What we can't trust is that they have influence over government. They won't always be doing the right thing.

      • Re:I think we can trust the source (Score:5, Informative)

        by NutscrapeSucks ( 446616 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @10:44AM (#11910510)
        Not just Eolas. Microsoft was also on the recieving end of a successful patent suit from Apple Computer not that long ago (ending in the "investment" which "saved Apple", or so the Apple&MS spin went).

        Futhermore, MS believes their main competitor is IBM, who happens to be the king of patents, making $billions from enforcing them. And there's no reason to believe that IBM are nice guys here -- they're current enforcing their "GIF" patent against SCO, even though everyone just assumed it was invalid. IBM *could* go after the entire industry with this patent or many others.
      • In addition to Eolas, I can recall a few other patent suits against Microsoft as well:

        Autoplay sues Microsoft [windowsitpro.com], regarding a patent on automatically executing installation programs on CD-ROMs and other devices.

        Timeline Inc. [com.com] successfully sues Microsoft over breach of licence for three patents concerning SQL Server. Timeline actually threatened to sue third party developers and customers using Microsoft's product. Fortunately, they never followed through on those threats.

        Microsoft settles with Intertrus [microsoft.com]

      • I will say it again. Patents are the nukes of the IP world. A singe patent has the potential to destroy an entire business. It follows just like nuke history too.

        Once there were no software patents. Then a few players got them. They blasted their way to economic success useing them.

        Suddendly they become anit-perliferation out of fear of being destroyed themselves. They come up with some effective strategy to keep new players out of their businessm, that is they patent baisc and obvious things that p
    • See, they want small companies to be able to get good patents. Then, they can just buy the company. They have probably just found that it is cheaper to buy good tech rather than invent it.
      • They have probably just found that it is cheaper to buy good tech rather than invent it.

        If, by just found you mean always known, then you're right. Microsoft's entire product history is filled with technology they acquired rather than created.

    • I think you can trust that MS will follow the path most profitable.

      • When will people realize that it's not just Microsoft, but *every* corporation that follows profit. That's kind of the reason they exist.

        The idea that they'll somehow do something nice just because it's nice is naive. Sure, they'll donate money to things, but they'll make sure to position it so that they see increased revenue because of it.

    • Anyone who has read the article will have to concede (myself included) that Brad Smith has a serious point, mr. Anderson...

      The logic:

      patents suck

      we cannot get rid of em

      gotta make em suck less

      What Smith proposes is not at shit. Congress should properly fund the USPTO if they want patents to do what they are supposed to do, protect inventors from egregious and abusive violation. The current situation where people abuse the patent system just to make a quick buck is jsut as wrong as domain-name hijacking

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • I can't imagine that this message went over well with the audience. PTO "reform" was one of the first neo-con victories back in the early 90s. But maybe MS is trying to get the group most likely to be hostile to the idea to at least think about it.

        As an aside, in their rush to assume that big bad American corporations are behind the software patent and DMCA-like copyright pushes in Canada, Europe, and Australia, people often forget that these nations are all WIPO signatories. Those nations are actually a

        • DMCA and DMCA-likes go far beyond what is required by the Bern convention and its signaturies.

          DMCA is purely a Mickey-Mouse law.

          It is positevly obscene that Disney (at al) used old. royalty-free stories and turned them in to megabucks and is now denying those same rights to others.

      • Re:Don't trust the source (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @12:07PM (#11911448) Homepage
        Congress should properly fund the USPTO if they want patents to do what they are supposed to do, protect inventors from egregious and abusive violation.

        That's not what patents are supposed to do, however, which is probably why you're out in left field there.

        Patents are intended to promote the progress of useful arts. In practice this means that they are intended to cause people to invent novel and nonobvious useful inventions which they otherwise would not have invented; to cause them to disclose the workings of the inventions; to encourage them to bring their inventions to market so that the public can enjoy the benefits the new technology provides.

        Since the public wants those benefits, but wants to benefit generally, and not pay more than those things are worth, patents should be as minimal as possible in term and scope so that the public gets as much benefit as possible for as little cost as possible.

        The reason software patents seem like a bad idea is because developers are already very heavily incentivized to invent, disclose, and market. The additional incentives patents could provide seem minimal at best. And since patents impose significant transactional costs (e.g. doing patent searches, licensing, etc.), they seem poised to impose a public burden greater than their benefit. This would be a total failure of the patent system in this field.

        The software field is presently unusual. If this changes, software patents might be a good idea someday. For now, they probably aren't.

        I guess at the end of the day people should respect the wishes of authors and creators

        What a bizarre statement. Well, let's see if you believe it. I wrote this post. I wish for you to give me a brand new car. Pay up, if you're so concerned about my wishes.

        Well?
    • So why is it so hard to conceive that MS desires something that is self-serving which simply happens to be good for others as well.

      For example, there are laws against stealing. This protects me (in my interest) and it protects others as well. A law against theft is good for everybody (except the lawbreakers).

      Also note MS is not saying software patents must go away entirely as I suspect that they don't consider that in their self interest.

      MS is not evil for the pure joy of being evil, they are evil for co

  • Cynical Mode on.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TurboTas ( 695871 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @08:06AM (#11909081) Homepage Journal
    It's possible that MS want Patents to be easily accessible to the smaller business so they can then obtain exclusive licenses cheaper than doing original research...

  • In other news, (Score:5, Funny)

    by Eradicator2k3 ( 670371 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @08:07AM (#11909087)
    there's a cold front approaching hell and lows are expected to reach 32 degrees Fahrenheit. When asked about this, the dark one said, "It's gotten to the point where 'A snowball's chance' is actually pretty good.

  • Patent Trolls? (Score:4, Funny)

    by SunPin ( 596554 ) <slashspam@@@cyberista...com> on Friday March 11, 2005 @08:07AM (#11909090) Homepage
    Please... 17 years of silence at Slashdot would do everyone some good.

  • But... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 11, 2005 @08:08AM (#11909091)
    Microsoft evil.... cannot.... understand.... Head exploding!

  • If the USPTO has lost so much money... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RyanFenton ( 230700 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @08:09AM (#11909103)
    If the USPTO has had so much money taken from it, it obviously isn't a cheap operation to run. If we're in the mode of cutting governmental programs.... wouldn't it be a good idea to just cut the functions that the USPTO has to perform.

    For instance - getting rid of software patents, along with biological patents, business-model patents, and the vast majority of method-based patents in general might be a good idea.

    We owe it to our children to not force them to owe so many millions in the name of the ownership of ideas. These types of patent management is equivalent to flushing a large portion of our market down the tubes.

    Ryan Fenton
    • The US PTO is has been a profit center for the government for many years now. That's part of the problem, no one wants to cut a revenue source. Doing better examination would reduce profits, and eliminating any class of patent would do the same.
      • Doing better examination would reduce profits

        It does depend on what is meant by "better examination". I don't know how many examiners you know, but every single one I've ever met has at least one story where s/he knew an application should have been rejected but was overturned on appeal. Some of these stories are absurd - stuff like "claim for operatively connected", prior art shows "bus", and the board was apparently confused as to why the examiner felt that mass transit constituted "operatively connected". In that case, the examiner knew exactly what s/he was talking about, but was told to issue the patent anyway.

        Another issue is that applications are supposed to be examined in specific areas, with specific teams of experts, but all too often they get misclassified and rather than transfered to the correct area, it appears that some examiners are cavalier about it and examine it anyway. (I also understand that there is resistance to transfer by some - it requires a willing sender and a willing receiver, and one or both might be reluctant to participate.) It's an eye opening experience to file 10 related applications and have 1 of them misclassified. From outside the office, you can't do much about it, and that 1 misclassified application will have a drastically different prosecution.

        As with any large organization, personal egos of the people in power and personalities come into play as well. If anything, I'd say that the treatment an application receives is too inconsistent. A more consistent process would be "better examining" and I don't believe it would significantly influence the flow of revenue.

  • Just another propaganda trick (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 11, 2005 @08:10AM (#11909111)
    They want the EU software patent directive so bad that they pose themself as the 'good guys' at home. So their patent promotors can point to this statement and tell: 'see, we are all reasonable and only want the best'. Don't belive it for a second, their only motivation is to get *their* way through...

    Things are bound to get hot in the next three months (because that is the time limit until the EU parliament has to decide what to do) and you will see much more 'double talk' in this respect from other large companies.

    • Re:Just another propaganda trick (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mordors9 ( 665662 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @08:38AM (#11909298)
      I think M$ may actually be torn on this one. On one hand they would like to be able to ignore software patents (at least they would have been patented under the new system) as they have in the past. That way they can continue to assimilate any and all technologies into their OS that they think will benefit them. On the other hand they would like to be protected against others so that they can continue to enjoy their current OS monopoly (and yes I use Linux and have used MacOS in the past).

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @08:11AM (#11909124)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Thank you, Microsoft. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by k98sven ( 324383 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @08:11AM (#11909127) Journal
    Straight from the horse's mouth:
    "The system has to work for everybody," said David Kaefer, director of Microsoft's IP Licensing Program. "It's only a system that works for the largest companies."

    I'm sure this quote will come in handy.

  • It may appear foolish... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wild_berry ( 448019 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @08:12AM (#11909130) Journal
    It may appear foolish, but I trust the large corporations when they say they patent things to protect themselves. Submarine patents are a huge threat to the legitimate employment that these companies provide, to the real effort expended by their employees in developing solutions to the problems computers have (and "embracing and extending" these problems...) and to the money that funds this development. So it seems to make sense that Microsoft are seeking to limit their expenses in litigation by pushing for reform in the patent process.

  • crap crap crap (Score:5, Insightful)

    by l3v1 ( 787564 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @08:13AM (#11909135)
    I for one - having developed big software, and just in the process of starting up a small company - just care for one thing: patents stay out of Europe, and M$-like patenting behaviour stay out of Europe. I don't want no big company coming here, patenting everything from water to stars and making us pay for them. I don't want to spend my life checking whether the lines of code I've written are already owned by some big bull.

    Big companies on sw-patenting sprees are only good for one thing: killing off smaller companies instantly and middle size companies on the long run. Many see and know this, still nothng is done.

    And hell, why would anything be done, in Africa hundreds die a day in hunger and still nothing is done.

    • M$-like patenting behaviour stay out of Europe

      Before you go off on one at MS, don't forget that *every* major tech company is patenting software, including IBM and Apple. (and Apple has patents on stuff like dragable progress bars in media players...)

  • The grammar about the sentence... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Torville ( 263917 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @08:13AM (#11909137)
    Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith is
    very concerned of submarine patents and patent trolls for Microsoft's business.

    Very concerned of? I'm skeptical for that's correct...

  • Well, if MS can't get the Patent office to change it's ways, MS will just have to buy it in a hostile takeover.

  • Prior Art? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GFunk83 ( 686657 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @08:15AM (#11909149) Homepage
    How about reform in which USPTO case workers (or whatever they may be called) are educated as to how to go about searching for prior art (particularly, but not limited to, in the tech space)? Also, whatever happened to patents only being licensed when the product is clearly demonstrated (that is, instead of patenting an *idea* for a product)?
    • How about reform in which USPTO case workers (or whatever they may be called) are educated as to how to go about searching for prior art

      how are they educated currently as to searching for prior art?

  • Two-faced (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 11, 2005 @08:16AM (#11909156)
    Interesting then that patents4innovation.org [patents4innovation.org] (probably the larget pro-software lobby organization in Europe) lists Microsoft as one of its members (look under About Us [patents4innovation.org]).

    Ironically, the site is built using FLOSS (PHP)...

  • Microsoft doesn't use patents aggressively (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AArmadillo ( 660847 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @08:18AM (#11909169)
    Perhaps I'm just ignorant, but I cannot think of an instance where Microsoft used one of its patents aggressively against a competitor. It uses them more as a protective shield: as long as it has a patent on something, no small patent company looking to make a quick buck in the legal system will be able to sue them over it. In fact, Microsoft has been known to buy out companies not for the people that work for the company or the products the company has, but solely to get the patents registered to that company. As the article says, Microsoft has lost far more money to patents than it has gained. This, of course, doesn't garauntee that Microsoft will never use its patents agressively in the future; but that is all the more reason to reform the patent system now.
    • Dunno, but patents are not to defend companies but to offer a incentive to open up classified material for innovation of the rest of us.

      Since nobody today uses patents what they are really for, you can conclude that it is misused by all concerned parties, companies use it as a stick towards other companies, but worse is that governments see it as a easy tax grab on tech without having to do anything for it.

    • Perhaps I'm just ignorant, but I cannot think of an instance where Microsoft used one of its patents aggressively against a competitor.

      You might be right - if I were CEO of any SW big company, in current system I would run as hell to get as many patents as I can get, just for defending reasons. It might be the case with MS here - maybe they really do not have bad intentions, which is still somewhat hard to believe.

      But let us consider the usage of same portfolio as a threat: when you are powerful enough

    • maybe you don't remember the DOS filesystem case. They have at least four patents on it, and when each and every digital camera used DOS (to be compatible) they started to demand license fee from camera vendors. That is indeed a very good example on submarine patents - by Microsoft.

    • Re:Microsoft doesn't use patents aggressively (Score:4, Interesting)

      by mikael ( 484 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @01:35PM (#11912655)
      I cannot think of an instance where Microsoft used one of its patents aggressively against a competitor

      They don't need to use litigation. All Microsoft need to do is to scare the investors, with a few words:

      "We are planning to enter this market in the near future...".

      No VC will consider funding a company if Microsoft intend to enter that market.

      Microsoft also uses EULA agreements with their compiler software to restrict the development of products that rival Microsoft Word.

      Another line used by Microsoft is:

      "Microsoft claims to own unspecified patents related to this field".

      This frequently comes up when you read about programmable graphics hardware. A recently slashdot comment described how Electronic Arts was scared to develop games for the Linux for fear of litigation from Microsoft.

  • Before you rant about MS... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Transcendent ( 204992 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @08:20AM (#11909179)
    ...RFTA.

    Microsoft also called for a patent system that is more accessible to small investors, and executives recommended that the U.S. Congress end patent filing fees for small companies, nonprofit groups, universities and individual inventors. "The system has to work for everybody," said David Kaefer, director of Microsoft's IP Licensing Program. "It's only a system that works for the largest companies."

    Concidering that MS is one of the largest companies, the reform they are pushing for is not in their best interest. They are going to have to end up paying more to file their patents if the proposed shift in the patent processing fee takes place.
    • I did RTFA.

      Concidering that MS is one of the largest companies, the reform they are pushing for is not in their best interest. They are going to have to end up paying more to file their patents if the proposed shift in the patent processing fee takes place.

      The more I think about this, the more I believe that more expensive patents are in Microsoft's best interest. That seems to be the tone of their entire argument - make it more expensive to patent something and further make it more expensive to to en
    • The chain of events here is:

      Cheap/free patents for small companies means that new ideas for software come along and get patented by the developer (hey it's free), and a product gets built.
      If it's a good one, MS get to buy them out for a snip.

      If the patent is too expensive for the new idea (for a small company/solo developer), then to get the idea out, and get recognition, the route may well be through Open Source.
      In which case, the whole world gets to use it unencumbered. And if it's a real killer app/id

    • Re:Before you rant about MS... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Wylfing ( 144940 ) <brian@wy l f i ng.net> on Friday March 11, 2005 @09:37AM (#11909770) Homepage Journal
      "The system has to work for everybody," said David Kaefer, director of Microsoft's IP Licensing Program. "It's only a system that works for the largest companies."

      Concidering that MS is one of the largest companies, the reform they are pushing for is not in their best interest.

      Not so! Microsoft has historically explicitly valued the startup. Vast amounts of Microsoft's offerings started out as brilliant external startup companies that MS later bought and put their name on. Excel, Visio, PowerPoint, Internet Explorer...the list goes on for quite some time. The last thing they want is for that source of new, purchasable ideas to dry up.

      This is good business sense -- let someone else do the R&D and prove the concept. Of course, the methods by which MS acquires these startups are often, well, shady to say the least. But that doesn't change the fact that they like startups. Therefore, they want to cultivate a market in which these startups are happening, which means dispelling the cloud of patent litigation that is currently suppressing new ideas.

      (It's also true that one of the biggest threats to a company like MS is this new crop of IP holdings companies that don't make products. But that has already been well stated by others.)

  • The profit, the loss (Score:3, Insightful)

    by zoefff ( 61970 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @08:21AM (#11909185)
    Having patents can bring a lot of money. Philips biggest winners were the shuffle button and 'read data through a window/layer' when they introduced CD technology two decades ago.

    But the recent years shown the drawbacks of patents. For Microsoft alone 524 million at eolas and a 100 million in costs a year for going to court because of infringements by themselves as well as others infringing on their patents. Even for Microsoft, that is a lot of money.

    No wonder they want to reform from quantity to quality.
    • "reform from quantity to quality"

      Oh yeah ? Why submit a patent for the NOT operator then ?
      Why submit a patent for the FAT system ?
      Why put a copyright on the term Msgbox ?

      MS could start helping the patent industry immediately by controlling themselves and not submitting useless patents covered by prior art in the first place.

      MS for a better world ? I'll believe it when I see it.
  • If Microsoft is so concerned with submarine patents, why did they put pressure on Denmark to export the patent mess overseas?

    So what if Microsoft says they couldn't have come into existence in today's patent environment. Do you think Microsoft cares about that? Well, I do, actually... but not in the sense they seem to be trying to imply. I think they would be really unhappy about another Microsoft coming into existence. They already exist, a monoply like theirs in another field could only hurt them.

    Hey, will you look at that. The Xerox Unistroke patent did a real number on Palm, and forced Palm to give up one of their competitive advantages over the Pocket PC... the efficient Graffiti shorthand system.

    Yeh, I think the current patent environment is in Microsoft's favor, and I don't think they really believe US patent law can be reformed. This is all a PR smoke-screen to distract attention from Europe.
  • What if there was no evil MS conspiracy behind all those patent plans?

    Oh my God, I've accidentally logged onto the Bizarro World Slashdot!

    Next there will be stories on why Apple's design sucks, why Open Source will fail, and how SCO is the greatest company in the world. And there will be no story dups!

    • Oh my God, I've accidentally logged onto the Bizarro World Slashdot!

      Next there will be stories on why Apple's design sucks, why Open Source will fail, and how SCO is the greatest company in the world. And there will be no story dups!

      But even on Bizarro World Slashdot, there will still be typos.
  • I think all of these proposals would be beneficial except changing for changing to a first to file system. One advantage of a first to invent, is that the true first inventor will receive a patent. A first to file system would likely protect corporations with well established patent departments. I agree with MS that the first to invent system can lead to uncertainty and litigation, but I think this is an acceptable cost.

  • I disagree with their proposal (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @08:27AM (#11909226) Homepage
    Patent application fees serve some critical purposes:

    1. They weed out non-serious applicants.

    If anyone can apply for a patent for free, the PTO will be flooded in a wave of applications that have no real basis. They'll be time consuming and costly to dispose of. By requiring fees, only serious applicants will pursue the process of applying, and they will likely have made sure that they have a decent chance of getting their patent since they will not want to waste money in futile attempts.

    Additionally, even where an applicant has a good invention that is patentable, a patent is a significant burden on the public and should not be granted lightly. Applicants should be thinking seriously about using their patent commercially rather than just sitting on it. If it is an investment to them, then they'll be thinking of it in a business mindset, and will likely try to use it or license it to others for use. If they can get it for free, there's less likelihood that the patent will be used productively. It's better for inventions to enter the public domain than to be patented in such situations.

    2. They can fund the PTO

    Patent examination -- when it's done right -- is fairly time consuming and somewhat expensive. This doesn't just include prior art searches, but making sure that the government can hire examiners that are familiar with their fields, and competent in the law so that applications can be checked for legal requirements as to structure, contents, etc. Plus of course there are numerous administrative costs to just keep the PTO running; applications will likely get copied, marked on, published, etc. and these things aren't free.

    • Whereas at the moment, large companies with money can churn out patent applications that have no real basis at will.
      These serve to clog up the Patent Office to such an extent that the patent examiners, not having time to check in detail for prior art (the possibility pool is simply becoming far too large for most of the applications that may be covered), do a cursory check, and pass the patent, relying on the hope that if Prior art is then discovered, the courts will overturn the Patent, doing their job fo

      • Re:I disagree with their proposal (Score:4, Interesting)

        by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @09:10AM (#11909558) Homepage
        There are already lower yet substantial fees for small inventors. I do agree that examination should be more thorough, but this sounds to me as though it still could be subsidized by higher fees for large inventors. Lowering the bar for challenges wouldn't be a bad idea either.

        But for small inventors, we're not talking about vast sums. The PTO fees are in the thousands of dollars. If your invention is likely to rake in more than that, it's not an insurmountable investment. There are costs to doing business.

        For a product with an obsolescence cycle of about 4 years (maybe 5 at the outside), a patent length of 25 years is simply ludicrous.

        I agree. Of course, I now kind of wonder at your familiarity with the system, since patent terms are 20 years from filing, not 25.

        Putting patents into this environment will only feed the lawyers, and stifle real innovation.

        Nothing wrong with lawyers. But I don't see how dropping application fees will possibly help. I think it'll make things much worse. There are reforms that are probably useful, but that's just not one of them, IMO.
  • "Critics of Microsoft often claim that MS was behind the EU lobbying and wanted software patents to kill open source."

    Straw man! Whether Microsoft was behind the efforts, they definitely supported them. Showing that other groups may have been the prime motivators for this misguided legislation doesn't change the fact that Microsoft's actions were directed to supporting it.

  • Unbsubstatial (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Halo1 ( 136547 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @08:32AM (#11909262)
    The reform [eweek.com] they are asking for is generally quite unsubstantial. For example, they want to keep the money coming in from patent applications at the US patent office. That's how it goes at the European Patent Office. Consequence? You get a closed economic system trying to optimize itself. Patent Offices should get funds to achieve certain policy goals, not just to do whatever they want.

    Prior art submission by third parties during examination is of course nice, though one could wonder how many third parties have the resources (time, money and people) to keep up with the deluge of patent applications that is submitted and published, and to additionally spend time on finding prior art. This is definitely an extra cost of the patent system which should be factored in when evaluating its efficiency.

    The "administrative challenge" as permitted in Europe does not really help. In 2001, 5.7% [european-p...office.org] of all granted patents were opposed. I can't find the link currently, but I previously read (also somewhere on the European Patent Office's website) that in about 70% of opposition cases, the patent is maintained. This means only about 1.7% of granted patents is rejected using this procedure. In 2002, the opposition rate even declined to 5.4%

    Depending on how the "willful infringement" clause is reformed, it may become less dangerous to search the patent database for information. Then again, this assumes that you can actually decipher those patents to get the useful information out, of course. Most people will still find scholar.google.com more useful, probably.

    "Increasing harmonization across international boundaries" probably refers to "get those software patents in the EU going asap". Not Good (tm). Not sure what it has to do with a reform of the US patent system either (unless they mean they want to get rid of software patents in the US, which I somehow doubt).

  • Its time for a United Front... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by voss ( 52565 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @08:35AM (#11909274)
    Could you imagine if Linux Users and Microsoft were working TOGETHER to make patent laws more sensible, getting rid of submarine patents and making software patents harder to get. Obviously we would like it if software patents were scrapped altogether, but at least with a united front we could target the worst abuses first. Microsoft doesnt need software patents, it has plenty of protection through copyright.

  • Wouldn't fix the problem (Score:5, Informative)

    by NigelJohnstone ( 242811 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @08:36AM (#11909282)
    They're suggesting:

    Dropping the fee for small businesses applying for patents. I don't think that helps, patents are worthless protection, its the *lawsuits* protecting the patented idea that cost the money not the patent application. Without the lawsuits a patent offers no protection at all.

    Patent office to focus on quality not quantity. The problem I have with this is how is the patent office supposed to determine if software is new and novel. i.e. I think they're patenting rubbish simply because they don't know all the prior art available. Its all closed source and cannot be determined.

    Microsoft are complaining about the patent situation in the USA *after* the vote in Europe. Before the vote they held shows for the Commission showing how innovative they are and for all the mentions in this story their lobbyists were there.

    So I doubt they're angels here.

  • What Microsoft wants - patent rape (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dyfet ( 154716 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @08:36AM (#11909285) Homepage
    What Microsoft wants is to change the fundimental nature of the software business to their benefit. While traditionally software has enjoyed copyright protection, Microsoft wishes to change this into one where it is normal for software, in fact all software industry-wide, to be protected by patents as well, and for protocols and other "standards" to be patent encumbered and hence "patent licensed" (like their XML document formats) in ways which control who can make or produce "standard compliant" products and services.

    A software industry where patenting becomes common in the way copyright is today, even for software not made by Microsoft, is a software industry that is also fundimentally hostile to free and open source software. That medium and large companies can then cross-license means software would operate as a cartel, where those who make it can then choose who else could be permitted or denied the right to produce software.

    For the small company, Microsoft's genorosity is a trojan horse. If it becomes easier for small software companies to gain a small patent of their own, then they will still need to negotiate cross licensing deals, for they would not be able to produce anything without access to patents others would then hold. Cross-licensing for patents for a small company under this new regime means surrendering it's patent to the big guys who can then choose to copy it and compete with you, in return for the basic right to even enter the market. Yes, it is also a good way for large and lazy companies to aquire and capture the benefits of R&D of smaller ones.

    One thing Microsoft claims in patent reform is claimed to be about getting rid of the pesky underside of sharks, who use one patent wonders to hold larger companies hostage. But consider, after all, if one wishes to be able to be able to openly bully small companies into surrendering their few patents, one must also disarm their potential ability to retaliate, which can actually be possible today even with a tiny patent portfolio and a willingness to not produce products.

    In short, this is not patent reform, but patent rape.

  • Microsoft & software patents, Disney & cop (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Daniel Jansen ( 241941 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @08:45AM (#11909354) Homepage
    "In a CeBIT debate today it was concluded that the MS monopoly would not exist with today's software patenting in place back in 1985."

    Or circa 1980 to prevent Microsoft/Seattle Computing from ripping off CP/M.

    In a similar vein, Disney would not be what it is today if copyright had been applied to fairy tales and the like - and then never allowed to expire.

    But now that they've taken advantage of the way things were, they want protection from others doing the same to them.

    Turnabout is fair play.

    Daniel Jansen

    • Re:Microsoft & software patents, Disney & (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @09:36AM (#11909766)
      "In a CeBIT debate today it was concluded that the MS monopoly would not exist with today's software patenting in place back in 1985."

      Or circa 1980 to prevent Microsoft/Seattle Computing from ripping off CP/M.

      It sounds like the CeBit article (disclaimer, I haven't read it, merely your quote from it) is disingenuously putting forth a pro-software patent argument.

      It is true that if software patents had existed in 1980 the Microsoft monopoly probably wouldn't exist. However, it is also true that free software wouldn't exist. Nor would the Internet, the World Wide Web, ubiquitious and universal email, or most of the modern software we use and enjoy.

      The entire software industry would essentially be where it was in circa 1985 at best, because all of the patents on basic software design would just now be expiring, and all the patents on the next generation of ideas (which were around in 1985 or so) would just now be kicking in.

      I hate the Microsoft monopoly as much as anyone, and I despise what they've done to the industry. They've held computing back a good 10 or 15 years in many respects, but compared to what software patents will bring, Microsoft is harmless. To use their anti-competative practices to justify and argue in favor of government entitlements to monopolies on ideas, however basic or advanced, is so rich in absurdity and irony it boggles the mind.

      Software patents are a reality. They probably will get shoved down the Europeans' throats, and the era of breakneck software innovation and advances will come to an end. This will suit the entrenched business and political interests that are pushing so hard for software patents just fine ... it is easier and cheaper to exploit an existing business model, than to remain limber and innovative in a changing market.

      Expect the snail-paced progress that follows to be spun by the media and pundits as "the technology sector has matured." A mature market is doublespeak for a market that has been regulated into stagnation ... often (though not always) through our patent regime.

  • Double talk. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anne Honime ( 828246 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @08:45AM (#11909355)
    Well, perhaps it's not really double talk, but more "adaptative" talk : while pushing sw patents in the EU to secure the market there against EU companies, because US firms already have the lion's share of all the patents, I guess MS position is far less easy in the US. I would bet that patent wise, they're dwarfs compared to... say IBM. As things turn out, relationships between MS and IBM are as bad as can be, and the outcome of the SCO case could very well be an appetizer for IBM.

    I think that MS is following the easy money path as usual. Do as we say, not as we do.

  • problem is... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SQLz ( 564901 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @08:52AM (#11909410) Homepage Journal
    The patent office doesn't think it needs to reform. I'm from Arlington, I know two lawyers who work at the patent office and both of them specialize in software patents.

    First, they believe they are doing our country a service by protecting the 'inventors' of the software. You can't tell them otherwise. Bringing up things like prior art just pisses them off. According to them, prior art is not their responsibility, its the responsibility of the person filing the patent to show any prior art. They don't have 'time' to be hunting around the for this so called 'prior art'. If they grant an invalid patent, let the courts sort it out. Its the courts job to validate and rule on prior art.

    Second, they don't need to have software development experience to approve software patents because all they do is look through an internal database see if key things are already patented. If it is not, boom, granted.

    So, I don't think we're going to see patent reform any time soon, especially when they don't want to be reformed.

    • Re:problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lonewolf666 ( 259450 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @10:21AM (#11910226)
      If so, the USPTO needs some external pressure. For instance, it could be made liable for legal expenses if a patent is overturned in court, thus demonstrating that the examiners were sloppy.

      This would rapidly remove the incentive to approve all sorts of trivial patents.
  • When it gets sued, the patents are obvious and there is plenty of prior art. When it is suing, they are not obvious and there is no prior art.

  • "While patents are a really important way to reward innovation ... today we see a crisis of confidence in the U.S.," Kaefer said. "At lot of people are asking, is the system as good as it could be?"

    Could the above be the understatement of the day?

  • Microsoft Jobs for Ireland this Week -Coincidence? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Microsoft announces 120 'high quality' jobs coming to Ireland. There was a prominant annoucement featuring this on the 6 o'clock news headlines on RTE this Wednesday.

    This was after Irish comissioner Charlie McCreevy's (internal market) endeavors in the EU Commission this week to procede with the software patents directive (after a meeting Bill Gates), and Irish minister Mary Harney's dubious endeavors in the Council of Ministers (Irish EU presidency) last May to get a yes vote on the directive.

    So now Micr
  • What if there were no "evil" Microsoft conspiracy keeping IDG/Infoworld afloat with all kinds of press releases, ads and other sponsorship? Maybe the truth about patents could be discussed at places like CeBIT, without Microsoft rigging all the PR.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The great question... which I have not been able to answer... is, `What does woman want?'" -- Sigmund Freud

Close