Tech News
By Steve Ragan Dec 28, 2006, 2:41 GMT
Microsoft patent claim sparks firestorm of controversy
And Also
Latest Headlines in Tech
- 1. Access from any computer: NAS network storage for home users
- 2. Tech gifts for Christmas
- 3. Yahoo improves its search engine
- 4. Internet Explorer: The unloved market leader
- 5. Dutch workers urged to give up email - for 24 hours
Via BuzzFeed
Older Talkback
page: 1
U.S. patent law allows for patents that make major improvements on existing patents. It does not allow for patents that make improvements on ideas in the public domain, unless they are genuinely novel and useful. RSS is currently open source and probably should have availed itself of GPL protection, but the fact remains that the big monopolies are once again taking advantage of the gullibility of the U.S. Patent Office inspectors to hijact yet another good idea they didn't come up with.
Stephen E. Spear
Tepper School of Business
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Even if all of their products were the best in the market, I would still detest Microsoft. They are a company that is only in the game for profit, not for innovation. I would at least appreciate them more if they attempted to act like technology enthusiasts. However, they just rip off other company's ideas and suceed at it. We would all be better off had the Microsoft monopoly been split.
The concepts of 'in common usage' and 'in public domain' protect existing RSS technology as developed by Nick and others, not by Microsoft, from any form of service charge or patent control from Microsoft or any other company.
However, what the MS RSS Patent does appear to do, following Microsoft's comments, is delineate certain improvement elements of Microsoft's RSS implementation that Microsoft is claiming are 'uniquely Microsoft' and 'novel improvements for which Microsoft claims a patent right'.
This door swings both ways. For example, OpenSource or Public Domain RSS readers and coding could be further evolved by Bradbury and others in such a way as it is a) not compatible with those RSS streams that incorporate Microsoft's patented elements/enhancements, thereby locking Microsoft out of the RSS main stream or b) if Microsoft's RSS implementation as found in Internet Explorer 7 and after and in Windows Vista becomes 'generally adopted' by the public media due to IE7's dominant position as the most widely used web browser, in essence, thereby bolstering its 'natural monopoly' with patent protected and Microsoft unique RSS stream technology, then we'd have an almost classic case of allegations of Anti-Trust versus claims under Patent Law. In fact, that seems the more important reason Microsoft filed in the first place.
It seems to this reader, that Microsoft wishes to avoid antiTrust allegations which might associate itself with case (b) above, inasmuch as it might seek shelter behind the spirit of its patent(s) in RSS. Furthermore, Microsoft can also claim that unless Bradbury et al specific RSS incorporates feature compatibility with Microsoft RSS, then in fact, no conflict exists.
However, for Bradbury et al public RSS to INCORPORATE features added to RSS by Microsoft as stated in its patent filing (if granted), then Microsoft could have legal patent infringement claims against anyone who tried to incorporate those features into their RSS products, if Microsoft wanted to sue them or enforce its rights otherwise, it would be legally appropriate for them to do so in that case (if granted, of course, the patents by the USPTO).
What we have here is analogous to Sun JAVA versus Microsoft JAVA plus features added to it by Microsoft for compatibility with Microsoft's Windows. In that situation, Sun reportedly sued Microsoft for violation of contract with Sun and apparently the case settled largely in Sun's favor (at the time). Thereinafter Sun has maintained Java for Windows and one must download it into Windows to use it.
It seems to me that in this case, Microsoft has to face the fact that it has no leverage over RSS in the public domain.
So, it appears the Public / Open Source RSS developers out there, would be well advised to race ahead implementing features not developed uniquely by Microsoft, avoiding infringement, and continuing to evolve RSS so that they are not quelled by Microsoft's patents. Furthermore, they should organize a strong Consortium to oppose domination of RSS not just by Microsoft, but by any one company or individual, and to maintain sufficient momentum to their Public Domain RSS so that it becomes generally adopted rather than that which is unique to Microsoft.
Having such financial resources, Microsoft will develop software aggressively, since that is their business. Face it. There is no natural winning position in that competition, other than to COMPETE with them SUCCESSFULLY, and to seek the advise of distinguished Intellectual Property Counsel. I know of no public law that says a company in the business of writing software can neither write it, nor charge money for it if the market will bear. Those last five words are key: 'if the market will bear', and I think Firefox has demonstrated to Microsoft what it has to do to insure it will remain a dominant player in the market.
Having watched this ongoing competition, I've often commented that the Open/Public RSS players are simply not organizing themselves sufficiently, nor are they aggressively positioning themselves enough to offer competing solutions. Such is the PROBLEM with non-revenue generating products - they are very difficult for their proponents to defend when locked in competition with highly commerical revenue generating product companies.
You can't blame them for being commercial, Microsoft. Nor do I blame the open source / Public RSS players for complaining. It's an unfair competition that is a byproduct of the entire Open source / Public Domain concept.
Which is why it was developed all those many years ago during Unix's infancy. Because if you aren't someone that is Microsoft or AT&T's or IBM's size and revenues, you quite literally can't afford to defend private right in such a thing without a grant from Warren Buffet. But Microsoft, AT&T, and IBM can easil defend their own variations of any Open Source or Public Domain product, if they choose to. Recently, I seem to remember reading someone over at Novell left Novell over this very issue.
Defending the nearly indefensible Open Source or Public Domain doctrines, however they differ, is very difficult since there is no reward at the end of the day to pay the lawyers with.
Sincerely yours...
It's the age-old game of Microsoft: 'embrace, extend, and lock-in'. And the Patent Office is just a tool they use to accomplish this. Anything they touch turns to gold for them and to dust for the rest of the world.
Hey Everyone, check out this Microsoft patent 'Secure Online Music Distribution System' Patent Number 6,868,403 on Google Patents and let me know what you think. Here are my thoughts
I have a question about a patent by the Microsoft Corporation, a company which in the past has been involved with illegal monopolistic activity
My question is about Patent Number 6,868,403 and I am simply asking does this Patent
a) 'any' Online Music Distribution System
b) or a 'specific method' of Online Music Distribution.
If it is a) I would say that the patent would be in conflict with
35 U.S.C. 103 Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
Because anybody who understands the nature of the Internet could anticipate an industry for Online Digital Music Stores. It is an obvious idea. That would be like patenting the idea of selling music in a shopping mall before anybody else had done it.
Furthermore I hope that this patent does not patent the most simple way to distribute music online for software engineers, what would be most obvious to them. Because that would increase the cost of Software Engineering to unrealistic levels to do it in an alternative method to the obvious one (that is inherent in the nature of programming and how the Internet operates) and further unfair competition.
I propose a boycott of IE7... If people don't use it and complain to site admin's who's sites are not browser compatible MS RSS will never be adopted...
All patents restrict free trade. Patents were first given by rulers to monopolize markets for favorites from whom the would receive payment for their patents.
The argument that patents spur innovation is nonsense. Patents specifically restrict the use of certain innovations by certain people or organizations so those organizations can profit from these innovations. These restrictions actually impede the flow of innovation.
Most IT patents and the whole idea of intellectual property are pretty dubious, in any case, but when looked at from this perspective they become downright detrimental. I would look for a major change in the structure of the patent system because it is, as shown by the RSS debate, incompatible with the atomization of innovation brought on by the internet. This will come about later, rather than sooner because of the vested interest of large corporations in monopolies and the craven behavior of politicians in the face of these interests that are the hands that feed them. See the extension of copyright laws a few years ago, that among other things, kept Mickey Mouse out of the public domain.
Saying patents stop innovation is seriously flawed. The reason for a patent is to reward the inventor and encourage him to invent. A good example is china and its lack of innovation, this is due to poor patent law. I conceed that some companies try to abuse the system, but overall it needs to be in place or new ideas become worthless as soon as someone can copy them.
I work in an industry where we are in a constant patent battle with our competitors and I have done many patents myself. We have teams of research people working on new inventions so we can have a market edge. Without patent protection why would we even have a research department, we could just copy the compition. I hope you can see my point.
Why does this article not surprise me? The whole idea of intellectual 'property' and software patents is at best absurd. It demands a recognition of the inherent ethical weakness of current U.S. corporate culture and structure, and the blatantly obvious absolute absurdity of software patents. Corporations are non-human entities without feelings, empathy or beliefs allowing people within them to act as they so choose with impunity. They are created by lawyers as instruments of profit and regulated by laws often promoted by money. From their inception, microsoft has been a classic example of the ultimate perversion of intellectual freedom through the use and abuse of the legal system. They absorb every one they come into contact with - this is widely known. Software patents, as they now exist, are unethical; period. The legal ramifications of this are a mute point - like proving 1+1=3 using flawless logic by starting with a false assumption. Software patents are just a way of extracting coin from others to finance and promote intellectual oppression. Until society finally gets this, the pattern will continue.
JDD
I hold patents. I am very familiar with the process. Saying that China has not progressed because of their patent laws is a stretch. It is also along with a lot of other claims about patents:
1. Protecting inventors (the costs involved in getting a patent and defending it preclude all but the very richest of inventors from going through the process without selling off much of their rights, thus putting more monopoly power in the hands of corporations).
2. Stirring innovation. (Patents stir a drive for monopoly, whether it stirs innovation, is a different matter).
3. As for your China statement, the purpose of international agreements on patents and trademarks are concerned, they serve to make sure that Third World countries never get into the patent hunt. They serve to ensure that resources flow out of these countries to further enrich those that hold patents in the developed world. Take for instance the patenting of genes or the fight to get cheap Aids medicine to Aftica
4. The trade offs that the less developed nations have to make in terms of patent agreements in return for being able to enter the world economic system are not only unfair, pitting the very weak against the very strong and thereby threatening the weak's very survival. It is immoral. A lot more immoral than anything that Microsoft is trying to do with its RSS patent.
5. The system is showing signs of falling apart at the seams. Because, having its roots in monopoly, it will not be able to survive the age of innovation we are entering.
The strength of laws is only measured by one's ability to police them. Patent and copyright laws will become increasingly hard to police. We are going though the beginnings of a sea change in commerce, that As far as I can see, will swamp the ability to enforce patents. Companies will be continually involved in lawsuits and agreements will be more and more ignored once competitor countries master basic technologies that are now patented.
If, in fact, patents did serve any useful purpose, say in the 19th Century, that purpose is long gone.
Just a short note/rant on the current 'patent laws', stop and picture using the patent office the way it is used now, a hundred years ago. These are funny but sad truths,referances arent real but ull get the idea. First gee Ford would be the only one allowed four wheels, Toyota is the only one allowed to use a round steering wheel, Dodge woulda got the patent on four wheels, Boing got the one for putting seats on the floor (McDonald Douglas had to put thiers on the roof)...... were would have it ended. In my humble opinion our patent laws, combined with our liability/warranty laws are stifling our development. There needs to be some rules governing the use of a patent, like if you hold a patent and dont use it for x years it goes to public domain.
This is why software should have been left under copyright and not Patent.
Microsoft is certainly entitled to protection of that code which it it's creation but not the functional operation that is the code of someone else's creation.
Software Patents destroy innovation.
Patents and copyrights should have their own DRM bomb. If not actively developed or made available as a product to the public, after 5 years the protection becomes void and goes into the public domain. Active patents can be renewed every 5 years for a defined number of cycles.
Microsoft is an evil company, and it is a dying company. After 4 1/2 years of development they produced a disaster of a software called Vista. They are incapable of developing anything new, so the only way for them to survive is to steal ideas of the others.
Digital Shogun
Open Source = Open Target for Microsoft Patents/$
Just the thought that there may be some $ and the stock bumps. MSFT is bottom feeding in this 10 year phase of its cycle. Apple's top feeding and just maybe Novell's Open Source otions will make it some $.
Microsoft has never may a dime off original ideas/inventions/thoughts - except its marketing truths-or not; you decide.
Dig and the truth shall set you free.
Most of these comments here are sheer lunacy. I'm not the biggest Microsoft fan, and acknowledgethe fact that they have stolen, borrowed, and twisted other peoples' ideas. This is a given. Any big corporation will do that.Its not a new practice, and its something that is going to happen as long as there are corporations and money drives these corporations. However, there is no such thing as an evil corporation, since a corporation is a thing and not a living, breathing entity capable of thought by itself. Corporations do what they're supposed to do: make money. End of story.
As a would-be inventor, however, I recognize the protection and piece of mind that a patent can give to me. Although our patent laws may be a little antiquated, they're there for a reason. Let's take a fictional example:
Joe Smith invents a new type of propulsion system for planes, a system that runs on, say, potato skins for fuel. In addition to the hardware that he had to spend a LOT of time, money, sweat and blood to create, he also writes special software that will optimize the performance of a wide-range of engines simply to get his special engine to work. The patents on these inventions will protect him so that, say, Toyota can't legally backwards engineer these things for their own profit. If Joe Smith doesn't get his patents, then its only right that someone comes along and takes the idea for themselves, since in today's world (as it was throughout ALL of history), might makes right. Joe Smith's patents, however, will give him some firm footing to stand on and 'weapons' with which to fight back.
A more recent, and non-fictional, example: the human genome. Many corporations, particularly pharmacuetical corporations, are patenting genes. Why should this be allowed? None of these organizations actually created these genes, they simply used the information that was 'decoded', rebuilt parts of it, and simply put in their own 'markers' to identify them. This is no different than putting markers into explosives to identify where they were manufactured. It doesn't mean that the manufacturer 'invented' these explosives, or these genes, simply recreated them. Granting patents to 'gene makers' is simply absurd.
If Microsoft has actually added innovations to RSS, it has a right to defend itself, and a patent is one level of defense. However, if all they've done is made minor modifications to RSS so it looks prettier, then there should be no patent, since all they've done is put a different cover on the same 'book' everyone has been reading for years. Instead of complaining about it, folks, either let the courts decide or actively do something about it. Simply crying out that 'Microsoft is evil' does nothing except give the company more attention than it needs.
angrygodz
To say patents stifle innovation is ridiculous at best.
I will reiterate the point of DrJDD...
With out patents, why would a company bother to do product and market research, and follow through with development and marketing a product? These processes can cost 100s of millions if not billions of $! All of that work could then provide a market for some third party to make the EXACT same product with out having to invest the capital to develop the product and market. Their prices could be lower because they did not invest that capital and do not have to recoup those monies.
Why would ANYTHING get developed? Because you want it to, Toc? You may hold patents, but I suspect you do not have a thriving business...or if you do you are lucky. Because it is pretty obvious to me you don't understand what is protecting you from being put out of business by having your prices undercut by competition.
BTW, if you really believe it is a good idea not to have patents so innovation can thrive, why do you have patents on YOUR products? Or are you just flat out lying and you own no patents?
Microsoft has apparently adopted a legal policy whereby they intend to intimidate whomever they choose, with legal action; or alternatively, those parties will be forced to stand by while the ideas are stolen - to become part of the Microsoft monopoly
Another way that this could be viewed is as an opportunity for the open source community to get Microsoft to do some work for them. Since this patented technology is a derivative of existing copy righted work (GPL) then they would have an obligation to share all of their code. They probably would not do this automatically but it would be another great opportunity to bring them in to litigation and give them another black eye.
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story