May 16, 2007 4:02 AM PDT
Experts say Microsoft's patent quest won't go far
- Related Stories
-
Microsoft agitates for open-source patent pacts
May 14, 2007 -
Report: Microsoft says open source violates 235 patents
May 13, 2007 -
Supreme Court loosens patent 'obviousness' test
April 30, 2007 -
Supreme Court sides with Microsoft in patent spat
April 30, 2007 -
Microsoft makes Linux pact with Novell
November 2, 2006 -
HP memo: Microsoft planned open-source patent fight
July 20, 2004
(continued from previous page)
Another issue complicating Microsoft's case is the widespread belief that patent infringement is the rule rather than the exception. "People are infringing other people's patents all the time and don't pay for it," said Mark Radcliffe, an intellectual property attorney with DLA Piper.
"By sitting in my chair right now I'm probably violating somebody's patent," adds Matt Asay, vice president of business development for open-source document-management firm Alfresco and a competitor with Microsoft's SharePoint software. Asay, also a lawyer, doesn't want to violate Microsoft's intellectual property rights, but he, too, said Microsoft needs to take the initiative of describing what patents Alfresco might be violating. "Until we know--and IBM knows Red Hat knows--what can we do?"
VP, Alfresco
Microsoft wouldn't say whether it believes any of its products infringe patents held by other companies with which it doesn't have a licensing agreement. It also wouldn't say whether it requires its own programmers to check if their software infringes others' patents, whether the company routinely checks to see if its products infringe or whether it ensures its products don't infringe before shipping them.
Horatio Gutierrez, Microsoft's vice president of licensing, said in an interview that the alleged open-source infringement is "not accidental." As evidence that the infringement is intentional, the company points to a 2006 speech by Richard Stallman, who single-handedly built much of the intellectual and legal framework of the free and open-source software movements.
Stallman didn't come close to a detailed analysis of where problems might lie or even a definitive admission, though. In it, Stallman refers to a 2004 study funded by Open Source Risk Management, a start-up selling insurance in open-source intellectual-property matters. "Two years ago, a thorough study found that the kernel Linux infringed 283 different software patents, and that's just in the U.S. Of course, by now the number is probably different and might be higher," Stallman said.
The quality factor
There's a wide gap between being accused of infringing a patent and being found in a civil lawsuit to actually infringe. And a recent Supreme Court decision means the gap likely will be getting wider.
In a unanimous April decision, the court sought to set a higher standard for weeding out patents for obvious technology. "Granting patent protection to advances that would occur in the ordinary course without real innovation retards progress and may, in the case of patents combining previously known elements, deprive prior inventions of their value or utility," the court said in its opinion, a decision that could make it easier to challenge patents' validity or harder to obtain them in the first place.
Microsoft believes its patents are solid. "Our patent portfolio scores very high on patent quality and science linkage," the company said, pointing to its second-place ranking among computing companies by the Patent Board, a patent analysis firm.
The court's decision was welcome news to those who complain about the quality of software patents. Improving patent quality to ensure patents are "truly novel, truly not obvious and truly useful" is one major part of the CCIA's patent reform agenda.
Mike Dillon, Sun Microsystems' top lawyer, said his company was "hit with two new patent troll cases" in April but is cautiously optimistic about the effects of the Supreme Court's move. He called spurious patent suits a "tax on innovation."
Those sentiments were echoed by Dillon's colleague, Sun Chief Technology Officer Greg Papadopoulos. "Are software patents useful? My answer is, mostly no. Copyright appears to be mostly better for maximizing innovation while giving individual copyright holders the ability to modulate compensation and derived works."
Torvalds was more direct. "The bulk of all patents are crap," he said. "Spending time reading them is stupid. It's up to the patent owner to do so, and to enforce them."
See more CNET content tagged:
patent,
infringement,
engineer,
Linux kernel,
intellectual property

I gave Bill Gates credit for alot of developments including making the Windows operating system the OS choice of the masses. But like Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde, Bill Gates and Microsoft has become an evil empire who's only focus is to destroy all competitors, and crush free thinking.
The real Operating systems were here before that geek stabbed everyone in the back to make the $$$, those are his only motivations in life. I think him getting married was the best thing for him, because his wife gave him some humanity back, but he's still a robot in a sense.
His partner who started the company with him, got out, he's the smart one, who needs endless billions, the mountain of money will eventually ruin a person, you can't spend it anyhow.
lifetime by pulling the wool over stupid IBM by making the
exclusive contracts for his DOS (which was purchased from others -
another story).
"There are several reasons why engineers should not read other people's patents, only their own. And it's not a 'hide your head in the sand' issue, it's a very practical issue of it being a waste of time," Torvalds said.
That's pretty hard to deny. It simply isn't responsible.
Perhaps this is the wakeup call that open source needs to protect themselves from getting nailed for their ignorance later. If they continue to ignore it, well... then they deserve to get what they have earned.
I hope one day when you get stolen and complain to the Police the thief sues you for having as onlu focus to destroy all thiefs and crush free robbery.
Why won't Xerox just tell Microsoft to forget it.
Lets remove the gui from windows once Xerox in court wins.
Windows and MS is just running scarred, F@#$ them, that's what you get for being an *******.
MSFT as a bunch of lawyers who got their hands on an OS is an old paradigm for interpreting the company's direction (or lack of). This latest gambit indicates that the lawyers are not only in control but that they're completely out of their minds. If someone actually takes these idiots seriously, MSFT may end up with another company pulling the trigger on the company first and it is certain the company would lose some part of the contest in court.
In this way, the lawyers really are pushing the company into harm's way for no good reason other than their own savage entertainment. FOSS is not going to go away. MSFT knows that. Unfortunately, it has no imagination about how to work with it other than pretending it can manipulate contracts and courts to make it disappear, very much indicating a 'childlike belief in their own omnipotence.'
After the Vista train wreck and pathetic consumer electronics plays, it is clear the company is at sea now without a chart or a compass. What's worse is that at the helm is one big fat chair-throwing, psychotic, narcissistic fool taking navigational directions from passel of deranged, whining child men shouting that the land must come to them.
The next few years are going to be incredibly ugly for this company. Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of guys.
It'd be hilarious to see Xerox, Lucent, IBM, Apple, Siemens, Matsushita, RCA, HP, Unisys, etc. just get together, rummage through their patent portfolio, grab some easily identified instances of MSFT infringement and sue MSFT first.
Like all crazy bullies, they'll be shocked when the big kids get sick of him and stuff him in the dumpster behind the school.
would be a huge public relations disaster, giving users yet another
reason to abandon Windows.
They have to be really scared of Linux to believe that lawsuits are a
better option.
Even deravative works, building on other peoples efforts are perfect so long as you honor the original work.
If I build that 200 mpg Fuel Injection system for use on GM cars...I've done the world a good thing and deserve my patent and GM if they didn't invent it doesn't.
system. Because if a person knows about a
patent that is supposedly being infringed, they
have to pay triple damages, and because the
USPTO has been handing out patents on absolutely
everything, odds are there are multiple firms
with the same or similar patents. And because
they're handing out patents on obvious changes,
odds are every program infringes something.
The software industry is a bottom-up industry.
Rarely (if ever) is software created from
nothing; generally, new software is built on top
of old software, and innovation happens in an
incremental process. In such an industry,
patents do more to STOP innovation than help it
along, as all a company has to do to claim
monopoly over a specific branch of software
development is get a patent for something near
the bottom. This, in fact, is what Microsoft is
trying to do (claiming that they have patents on
kernel stuff, so therefore their OS is the only
legal one).
It's exceedingly wasteful of all that effort and resources to reinvent the wheel.
The idea that Torvald recommends ignoring patents and building the product anyways and then claim ignorance afterwards- yeah, doesn't say much about responsibility there.
The patent and copyright systems are manners of protecting those efforts - of providing incentives and potential rewards for those discoveries or expressions that we so value, or may learn to value.
Regardless of what one thinks about MSoft's tactics here - the underlying private property-based system does work, and shouldn't be cast aside because some feel poked in the eye by MSoft's statements.
MSoft isn't the only company who has patents, or protects vigorously its IP portfolio. This quest to protect that property remains valid on its own no matter who's doing it.
The real problem with Microsoft's tactics is that they are demanding payment for use of their patents without revealing which patents they claim are being used, leaving no possible means for developers and users to defend themselves. It is not a whole different than a land owner who hasn't bothered to put up fences and/or No Trespassing signs accusing you of trespassing on his property and demanding that you do the research in government records to determine what land he owns and the surveying to find out where the boundaries are if you want to defend yourself. Or we could use the analogy provided by the judge in the SCO/IBM case where you are accused of shoplifting in a large department store and the store insists that you know what you stole and only providing you with a catalog of all of the products in the store to find the item yourself.
It just doesn't make sense to take Microsoft's claims seriously until they are willing to produce a list of the patents they claim are being infringed.
Wow. I really had respect for this person, but it's been shaken by this irresponsible comment. He's done a great disservice to the open source community and damage to his own credibility as a representative in the field. I just can't believe he said that. It's just... so irresponsible.
Thanks Linus. Should we follow your advice and ignore reality when we design our next product? Hey, here's an idea- I'm thinking of making a new OS and calling it, oh, I don't know... 'Linux', maybe? Nah, too short. Let's call it 'Red Hat Linux'. Yeah, that sounds better. And since you don't want anyone to bother with checking for patent infringements, I should be perfectly in the clear to go ahead and sell the product. With your logic, when RedHat comes along and wants me to stop, I shouldn't have to, right? I mean, you told me to ignore doing any sort of patent research so I can't be held liable for my actions, right?
Geez, I swear the guy is getting more senile by the day. Reality check time!
examine M$'s patents. In fact, Linus has a point. If you never
look at patents, yet you write code that violates a patent, doesn't
it show that the patent in question is at least somewhat obvious?
How can the code be "stolen" if you have never seen it before?
And if it is obvious, should it have been patented in the first
place?
Besides, the onus is on M$ to protect it's patents, not on
everyone else in the world.
This is all just a bunch of fear tactics used by a lumbering
dinosaur that doesn't want to become extinct yet won't adapt.
FOSS has them running scared and they're seeing the vultures
circling above them. The only way they know to defend
themselves is to throw rocks at them.
Let M$ die. It will be good for the world overall.
A few things:
It would take years to do thorough research.
If a person or company can come up with what a patent covers, it just proves that the patent should never have been granted. But it would cost $100,000 minimum to get it invalidated.
Most software patents are total BS anyway.
It seems you advocate closing off software development to all but a few huge companies.
Pull your head out and breathe some fresh air.
All patents owned by Microsoft are well defined, it should not be a complicated matter for s/w programmers to see if their s/w has violated any patents owned by Microsoft.
Analyzing patents may be excruciating for me, but I don't write software.
Software programmers need to read up on the ethics of software programming, software licensing and software patents, how can learning about patents/licensing etc be any less important than writing code?
Accusing Microsoft is not the answer.
Before discussing the speck of dust in another person's eye, it would be instructive to look at the log in one's own eye.
All these corporations and foundations have attorney's and programmers on staff, let them look into Microsoft owned patents.....or stop ********.
So you're stating that everytime I write a few lines of code, I should review hundreds or thousands of patents to see if I violated someone's patent.
I know. I'll hire 50 lawyers to go to software development school and they can then sit with 50 programmers. It'll be like XP, only instead of faster development, you get no development.
Let's all stop being stupid. Get to work.
3-d objects easily examined. If you read them you are contaminated in your own thought processes in what you are designing forever after, not a very logical or good idea!
Basic argument: In order to overturn the bad caselaw that extended patent law in the USA to cover patents, a court case will need to be launched. Is the SFLC goading Microsoft to become their unwitting ally on eradicating software patents?
Will the comfortable relationship that BSD now enjoy become sour if BSD is successful?
It would be interesting to look at BSD. perhaps the Linux folks should examine BSD s/w....no hint of patent violations....yet......
That is what is wrong with this system.
http://www.unido.org/en/doc/3651
Just because you can link to a model doesn't make it legitimate.
Seriously, how do you remember to breathe?
When you think about it, most Microcomputer software uses patents that the early Mainframes used.
Not only that, but I own a copy of a book called "Software Psychology" by Ben Shneiderman that discussed how to make software and operating systems more human friendly. I am sure that the Macintosh, Windows, Amiga, OS/2, etc all used ideas from that book which are now patents that are part of the public domain.
By the way, most F/OSS Linux companies offer the same code in different software packages. For example Red Hat offers Fedora Linux for free, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux for a fee. So basically the Linux companies use almost the same model as Microsoft, except with one difference the source code is open and the low end product is free for download.
In fact, the Linux companies that didn't have a "commercial" version of Linux or that didn't charge for tech support went out of business in the Dotcom busts. Those that did charge money have stayed in business like Red Hat.
I developed medical software for the last employer I worked for, and we developed a program and limited the features for each version. As my ex-boss explained it, the product is a bucket, and based on what they are willing to pay, they will fill the bucket up so far. If they pay the highest price the bucket is filled up all the way, if the pay the middle price the bucket is half-way filled, if they pay the lowest price the bucket is one third way filled. The only difference in the F/OSS business model is that the low end software is usually given out for free with limited support until support is charged for later.
A crime is a crime, even if "everyone" does it...those who think that Microsoft violated their patents do, in fact take Microsoft to court.....those who can get money from Microsoft actually do so......
Why should Linux be treated any different if it did indeed violate patents...Linux vendors may have to cough up either way......
Supporting a patent free world is a different issue, Linux has been sold in a world of patent rights. The same laws apply to Linux as well...
The double standards in the Linux-fan-mindset are evident.....
Since MS is unwilling to do this, the obvious thing to do is dismiss its claims as pure FUD. MS has already told us why it is afraid to be specific. It's because it knows that its claims would be thoroughly investigated, and then its patents either shot down with prior art (meaning the patents are completely specious), or coded around by industrious Open Source programmers.
Curiously, that is precisely what is *supposed* to happen, too. But then MS wouldn't be able to bully people with vague patent claims any more, would it?
Why are all the idiots who have no clue about software and software development spouting drivel?
Speaking of thieves, I wonder where you got your catchy subject from? LOL I guess plaguarism is OK.
Of course it would be interesting to see how many patents Microsoft is infringing upon. I would take a guess and say more than Open Source combined.
Everyone knows that all of Microsoft's products are copies of someone else's stuff.
But their code is closed and therefore it it not open to scrutiny as much. It only means that they can hide infringments where as Open Source is more honest in that it is there for all to see.
The FSF should (if they can) sue Microsoft for infringing on GPL. Then Microsoft could be forced to reveal their code for scrutiny. If they find any GPL code, then guess what? Windows is now open source.
The FSF should take Microsoft head on, the pay off could be immense for Open Source in many ways.
Leaving things as they are is not good for Open Source. Bring all things out into the light, just as Open