Google accuses Microsoft of patent trolling

Using patents to collect royalties should be outlawed.

Because that makes you a patent troll.

Software should be without any patents at all.
 
Totally agree 120%

Patents on software weren’t allowed until the late 1980s, and even then the concept worried Bill Gates, who in 1991 wrote that “the industry would be at a complete standstill” if software patents were allowed. Gates worried that, “some large company will patent some obvious thing, enabling the company to take as much of our profits as they want.”
Click to expand...

if you want see how it all broke down from the 1980, well actually the late 90's is when it really started to go haywire check this(Can Download it from them as well).

Also on YouTube but in 2 parts:

[video=youtube;-GbVjbViUdY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GbVjbViUdY[/video]

[video=youtube;hKF-P1dNRB8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKF-P1dNRB8[/video]

And dont think the new Patent reform is going to help us either. Previously the used of Prior-art to defend some cases worked but the new system will be 1st to file.

Problem is:
Someone in SA could invent(Program, remember in SA we have no software patents) something and if a company in the USA sees your invention they can copy and market it as their own. In that way they can make money off your invention. Even worse they can charge you license fees for your invention when you start to market it in the USA.

  • Under the Prior-art defense you could claim you invented it some time ago and have been using it in SA for a while therby not paying to use your own invention.
  • Under the new first to file system you have no right to your own invention as the one that filed 1st in the US gets the right to enforce the patent.

Now add to this that there are many Open Source developers in countries that dont use software patents, and you can see where this will become a nightmare in the future.
 
The_Librarian said:
Using patents to collect royalties should be outlawed.

Because that makes you a patent troll.
Click to expand...

A patent troll is a shell company that doesn't produce any products and didn't develop any ideas, that has bought a number of patents and now only exists in order to extract patent licenses from other companies. I don't see how this can be applied to Microsoft.

The_Librarian said:
Software should be without any patents at all.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but so should everything else as well.
 
icyrus said:
A patent troll is a shell company that doesn't produce any products and didn't develop any ideas, that has bought a number of patents and now only exists in order to extract patent licenses from other companies. I don't see how this can be applied to Microsoft.
Click to expand...

In my view they still troll as they use their portfolio to fight off anything that could compete. Forget the fact that they bought loads of smaller companies in the past and killing them, adding the patents to their portfolio.
 
acquiring patents during acquisitions is normal.

for a (more) accurate list of MS acquisitions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Microsoft

Visio, Powerpoint also didn't come cheap.
I'm sure the original publishers of Visio/Powerpoint are still crying (after getting millions form MS during the 80's/90's.)


talk of sour grapes (Google)
They do the same (Motorola anyone?)
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2391094,00.asp
http://wmpoweruser.com/the-real-value-of-motorolas-patents-when-compared-to-others/
 
The_Librarian said:
Using patents to collect royalties should be outlawed.

Because that makes you a patent troll.

Software should be without any patents at all.
Click to expand...
Sadly that's not the way our commercially driven world works -- you have to charge money for your work, otherwise you can't put food on the table.

To put what you are saying into perspective; imagine having to go to work and receive no differentiated reward for your work (sounds a little like communism?).

Sound crazy / unfair? -- then how can you expect this to be any different for software.

If doing things for free was sustainable then, linux i.e. not windows would be the biggest OS on the market. Similarly all the support for using these free packages would not cost you a dime -- not possible as even Canonical (ubuntu) charges for support (btw most of the successful open source projects have a revenue stream -- without this most would not exist)

Ask yourself what differentiates similar technology today; -- partially design, but primarily software.

So if software is the bit that determines whether something is either very successful or a complete flop; how can you say that this should be free, surely you understand that this is what costs the companies the most to refine -- hence they should be entitled to protect this or even choose to charge for it.

Remember that unless you change the operating fundamentals of a democracy / commercially driven world -- people need to put food on the table, and this cannot be done if everyone (software programmers included) is expected to work for free.

Patents need to be reformed, not destroyed...
 
Last edited:
[)roi(];7178057 said:
Sadly that's not the way our commercially driven world works -- you have to charge money for your work, otherwise you can't put food on the table.
Click to expand...

No one here was commenting on giving away software for free. That is not what a software free patent world is about either. If you look at the rest of the world that dont use Software patents, its not falling apart or a everything for free world either.

You should do yourself a favor and actually go read up on software patents and how it differs from say Europe vs America. Software should in my view only be protected under copyright and not both copyright and patent law.

Think about it if patent law as it stands today was practiced at the start of the computer revolution we would not have things like copy & paste that makes it easy for humans to interact with them. Simple things like menu's with icons would not exist or even icons on a desktop with text underneath. Face it patents blocks/hamper innovation not promote it.

Even worse, what if the computer games start using patents to stop others, what if ID Software patented 1st person shooter back when Doom or Wolfenstein was created. Do you think we would still have the rich selections we have today? Now add to that driving games or strategy games like Command & Concur. We see innovation in games all the time, even while they copy ideas, in fact you can argue that games like Battlefield 3 is so good just because there is so much competition that they forced to bring new ideas.

And yes Microsoft is using the system to hamper competition, we can see it in the way they target Linux OEM's and not Google or Red Hat directly. What I find interesting is that they also block the OEM's from disclosing any details about the deals. Microsoft also hold the cards close to their chest not showing what actual patents are infringed upon.

Some more FUD as Athur calls it.
http://eupat.ffii.org/int/intro/index.en.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate
 
Last edited:
Thanks. The above post clarifies it a lot.

I do recognize the need for a programmer's work to be protected, but to use software patents simply to bankroll easy money is wrong.
 
Elimentals, the reason I say it's Google FUD is because Google knows only too well that Microsoft did not invent or even support the software patent system. In fact, billg is on record over many years as a vocal opponent of software patents, and the company was built without patents, relying only on copyright law. However, the US Patent Office went ahead anyway in granting software patents, and Microsoft was sued by dozens of companies demanding royalties and damages for the use of these patents. Once this new regime came into play (driven largely by IBM and Apple), Microsoft adjusted its views to protect itself from these lawsuits, and the only way was to start patenting itself, which it started doing aggressively. Google is no less a user of the patent system, and doesn't for a millisecond hesitate to enforce its own patents. Trying to call others on this is rank hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
Arthur said:
Elimentals, the reason I say it's Google FUD is because Google knows only too well that Microsoft did not invent or even support the software patent system. In fact, billg is on record over many years as a vocal opponent of software patents. However, the US Patent Office went ahead anyway in granting software patents, and Microsoft was sued by dozens of companies demanding royalties and damages for the use of these patents. Despite its opposition, Microsoft reluctantly had to adjust its views and protect itself from these lawsuits, and the only way was to start patenting itself. Google is no less a user of the patent system, and doesn't for a millisecond hesitate to enforce its own patents. Trying to call others on this is rank hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

I understand that, but I have to ask why they only target Android, and not Meego or iOS or RIM or even Symbian? I know full and well that they where against the patent system in the past, but it does not excuse the fact that they now using it to block competition. Why not simply tell the world what exactly Linux is infringing on? Why all the closed door license deals?

All the world, not only Google but the entire Open Source world is asking is Show us the patents.

Interesting writeup about it here
 
Last edited:
Elimentals said:
I understand that, but I have to ask why they only target Android, and not Meego or iOS or RIM or even Symbian? I know full and well that they where against the patent system in the past, but it does not excuse the fact that they now using it to block competition. Why not simply tell the world what exactly Linux is infringing on? Why all the closed door license deals?

All the world, not only Google but the entire Open Source world is asking is Show us the patents.
Click to expand...
The patents are a matter of public record and can be found by searching the registrars in the various jurisdictions where software patents are granted. This takes time and money. Neither Microsoft nor most others regard it as their obligation to provide that info for free - this only adds expense and saves that cost for competitors, ie it shifts money from you to your competitors. That would be insane for any business.

As to only targeting Android: that is not so. Android makes the news/media/forums, driven largely by Google and its legion of backers, fans, users and supporters. The Google vs Microsoft "war" is a classic corporate battle for hegemony, and this intrigues people and gets column-kilometres. Also, with most other infringers settlements are reached before court cases. It wasn't very long ago that Microsoft was the darling of the PC and investor world when it was the target of dozens of lawsuits, and hundreds of millions of dollars were extracted from it in often very dicey lawsuits. I know from the inside that the decision was eventually taken that the company had to protect itself from this severe hemorrhage. It was a very reluctant but necessary move, and it was vital that it act quickly and aggressively otherwise the patent regime threatened the software-only company's survival.
 
Last edited:
Arthur said:
The patents are a matter of public record and can be found by searching the registrars in the various jurisdictions where software patents are granted. This takes time and money. Neither Microsoft nor most others regard it as their obligation to provide that info for free - this only adds expense and saves that cost for competitors, ie it shifts money from you to your competitors. That would be insane for any business.
Click to expand...

What is so wrong with simply telling us what the 235 patents are? And saying all patents is public record tells me you never seen the mess that USPTO looks like. trying to find the exact ones that Microsoft thinks Linux breaks is next to imposible esp seeing that 30% of patents are duplicated and the wording is so vague that what Microsoft thinks is valid might not be seen in the same light by other people or the courts for that matter.

As to only targeting Android: that is not so. Android makes the news/media/forums, driven largely by Google and its legion of backers, fans, users and supporters. The Google vs Microsoft "war" is a classic corporate battle for hegemony, and this intrigues people and gets column-kilometres. Also, with most other infringers settlements are reached before court cases. It wasn't very long ago that Microsoft was the darling of the PC and investor world when it was the target of dozens of lawsuits, and hundreds of millions of dollars were extracted from it in often very dicey lawsuits. I know from the inside that the decision was eventually taken that the company had to protect itself from this severe hemorrhage. It was a very reluctant but necessary move, and it was vital that it act quickly and aggressively otherwise the patent regime threatened the software-only company's survival.
Click to expand...

This case has nothing to do with Microsoft past and how they got their patents for protection against litigation, its about how they use their patients against competition. Simply put how they troll.

I can simple see Microsoft license meetings going like this

My own introduction to the realities of the patent system came in the 1980s, when my client, Sun Microsystems--then a small company--was accused by IBM of patent infringement. Threatening a massive lawsuit, IBM demanded a meeting to present its claims. Fourteen IBM lawyers and their assistants, all clad in the requisite dark blue suits, crowded into the largest conference room Sun had.

The chief blue suit orchestrated the presentation of the seven patents IBM claimed were infringed, the most prominent of which was IBM's notorious "fat lines" patent: To turn a thin line on a computer screen into a broad line, you go up and down an equal distance from the ends of the thin line and then connect the four points. You probably learned this technique for turning a line into a rectangle in seventh-grade geometry, and, doubtless, you believe it was devised by Euclid or some such 3,000-year-old thinker. Not according to the examiners of the USPTO, who awarded IBM a patent on the process.

After IBM's presentation, our turn came. As the Big Blue crew looked on (without a flicker of emotion), my colleagues--all of whom had both engineering and law degrees--took to the whiteboard with markers, methodically illustrating, dissecting, and demolishing IBM's claims. We used phrases like: "You must be kidding," and "You ought to be ashamed." But the IBM team showed no emotion, save outright indifference. Confidently, we proclaimed our conclusion: Only one of the seven IBM patents would be deemed valid by a court, and no rational court would find that Sun's technology infringed even that one.

An awkward silence ensued. The blue suits did not even confer among themselves. They just sat there, stonelike. Finally, the chief suit responded. "OK," he said, "maybe you don't infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents. Do you really want us to go back to Armonk [IBM headquarters in New York] and find seven patents you do infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?"

After a modest bit of negotiation, Sun cut IBM a check, and the blue suits went to the next company on their hit list.
Click to expand...
 
Elimentals said:
What is so wrong with simply telling us what the 235 patents are? And saying all patents is public record tells me you never seen the mess that USPTO looks like. trying to find the exact ones that Microsoft thinks Linux breaks is next to imposible esp seeing that 30% of patents are duplicated and the wording is so vague that what Microsoft thinks is valid might not be seen in the same light by other people or the courts for that matter.
Click to expand...
So you seriously expect Microsoft or anyone else to save its competitors extra expense because a government institution is chaotic? Microsoft (and everyone else) also have to find out what patents others have at their own expense (and Microsoft owns only a small fraction of the patents it uses). Nothing remotely conspiratorial or nasty here.

Elimentals said:
This case has nothing to do with Microsoft past and how they got their patents for protection against litigation, its about how they use their patients against competition. Simply put how they troll.
Click to expand...
Yup. Ditto Google. Apple. IBM. Oracle. Sun. Motorola. Intel. And the ten thousand other companies that routinely enforce their patents.

Elimentals said:
I can simple see Microsoft license meetings going like this
Click to expand...
That's a bit of a giveaway - dreamland fantasy stuff written only to make this particular enemy look bad. This particular example of the "fat lines patent" is an old canard infecting tens of thousands of websites. IBM could not and did not get a patent on some aspect of Euclidean geometry. It got a patent on very nifty and clever algorithm for bit/blt memory operations that resulted in a very efficient way of getting a fat line. This was important in days when memory was $25,000/megabyte.
 
It basically comes down to what's been said all a long. You can't expect the big players to not drag each other to court and stockpile software patents, that's the game they have been forced to play. The problem here isn't the companies, software patents are the issue and I strongly believe they should be abolished entirely. Its only going to get worse as patent portfolios grow.

Copyrights are sufficient protection for software.
 
Blackhand said:
Copyrights are sufficient protection for software.
Click to expand...
They used to be. But sadly no longer, at least not in the major jurisdictions. There's a history to how we got here.

As computer industry growth exploded in the 80s and early 90s, copyright litigation increased exponentially. Many countries had to update their laws to accommodate the new category of computer software (copyright laws have their genesis in written publications, artworks, etc). Also, the size of claims for damages increased hugely, sometimes reaching dozens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. At the same time, the technicalities to prove or rebut copyright lawsuits were so complex, arcane, and quite often beyond the competence of juries and judges, and even lawyers. Often the core evidence was highly technical and very complex. Some bad or at least highly questionable decisions were made by courts, so there was pressure to look for other ways of establishing proprietal rights to the IP, one that courts, juries, lawyers and judges could understand. Lawyers, politicians and some IT companies increasingly put pressure on the US Patent Office to permit software patents. The philosophical, legal, and technical issues are more complex than it appears at first sight, and this eventually opened the door. Apple Computer Inc is a prime mover.

Bad cases make bad law, as has often been observed. Now software companies have no option but to patent, else they open themselves to massive IP theft, since courts increasingly look to patents rather than the far more complex issue of giving evidence of copyright violation.

With the acquisition of Motorola's mobile arm, Google will be in the top five holders of software patents. An order of magnitude more than Microsoft. I am sure they intend to use them.
 
Some of the patents at least the ones used in the barnes and noble case are known and are quite laughable.

Remote retrieval and display management of electronic document with incorporated images

A browser remotely retrieves electronic documents from a remote computer network for viewing by a user. For enhancing responsiveness, the browser initially displays an electronic document without a background image so that the electronic document is initially displayed more quickly. The browser also prioritizes downloading of embedded images of the document by their incorporation in the currently visible portion of the electronic document. Further, the browser dynamically creates additional connections for retrieving resources incorporated into the electronic document from the remote computer network.
Click to expand...

Loading status in a hypermedia browser having a limited available display area

Described herein is a portable computer having a limited display area. An Internet or other hypermedia browser executes on the portable computer to load and display content in a content viewing area. During times when the browser is loading content, the browser displays a temporary, animated graphic element over the content viewing area. The graphic element is removed after the content is loaded, allowing unobstructed viewing of the loaded content.
Click to expand...

Selection handles in editing electronic documents

A computer system and method for highlighting and selecting elements of electronic documents is disclosed. In one embodiment, a selection area identifies an initial selection of data, and one or more selection handles appear on the selection area to allow dynamic resizing of the selection area to select a larger or smaller portion of data or number of items.
Click to expand...

Method and apparatus for capturing and rendering annotations for non-modifiable electronic content

A system and method for capturing annotations for a non-modifiable document is disclosed. Once it is determined that an annotation is to be created, the system determines the file position of the selected object. The file position of the selected object is stored along with the created annotation in another file or a non-read only portion of a file storing the document. Using the file position, the annotation may be properly identified with the selected object without modifying the non-modifiable document.
Click to expand...

System provided child window controls

New varieties of child window controls are provided as system resources that application programs may exploit. The preferred embodiment of the present invention provides a dynamic link library (DLL) for implementing the new child window controls as part of an operating system. The new child window controls include a header bar control for providing header bars in application programs. The new controls also include a hot key control that allows a user to view and edit hot key combinations. The new controls further include a tab control for establishing tabs that differentiate amongst pages in user interfaces provided by application programs. An image list data type is defined and functions are provided for manipulating the image list data type. Image lists include multiple like-sized images that are stored efficiently in a single bitmap.
Click to expand...

Now these are the patents being used against Barnes&Noble, I am not sure what other patents are being used against other android OEMs, of these the first 3 seem almost funny and pretty weak considering the exhorbitant licensing fees microsoft is asking for, through I don't blame microsoft for trying to enforce them it's mainly the US patent office that didn't do it's due diligence.

Link: http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/21/mi...infringement-on-barnes-noble-android-devices/
 
Last edited:
Talking about Barnes & Noble, they asked for a probe into Microsoft's tactics.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...u-s-to-probe-microsoft-on-mobile-patents.html

Barnes & Noble Urges U.S. to Probe Microsoft on Mobile Patents

Nov. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Barnes & Noble Inc. asked U.S. regulators to investigate whether Microsoft Corp. seeks to monopolize the mobile-device market by demanding patent royalties on electronics running on Google Inc.’s Android operating system.

“Microsoft is embarking on a campaign of asserting trivial and outmoded patents against manufacturers of Android devices,” Barnes & Noble said in an Oct. 17 letter to Gene Kimmelman, the Justice Department’s chief counsel for competition policy. “Microsoft is attempting to raise its rivals’ costs in order to drive out competition and to deter innovation in mobile devices.”

The world’s largest software maker accused New York-based Barnes & Noble of infringing five patents and filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission in Washington, seeking to block imports of the Nook readers. Barnes & Noble made its letters to the Justice Department public in a filing with the commission yesterday.

Microsoft, based in Redmond, Washington, contends it owns patented inventions that are used in the Android operating system, and has struck licensing deals with companies including Samsung Electronics Co. and HTC Corp., two of the biggest makers of Android phones.

Barnes & Noble cited as examples Microsoft’s participation in a group of companies including Apple Inc. to buy the patents of bankrupt Novell Inc. and a three-way licensing agreement with Nokia Oyj and Mosaid Technologies Inc.

Cost ‘Tactics’

Those actions were part of a “series of tactics designed by Microsoft to raise its rivals’ costs and prevent Android- based devices from taking away sales of Microsoft’s Windows operating system,” Peter Barbur, of Cravath Swaine & Moore in New York, said in the Oct. 17 letter to Kimmelman.

A trial on Microsoft’s patent claims against Barnes & Noble is scheduled for February in Washington. Laura Young, a spokeswoman with Microsoft, said the company had no comment on the Barnes & Noble filing.

The case is In the Matter of Certain Handheld Electronic Computing Devices, 337-769, U.S. International Trade Commission (Washington).
Click to expand...
 
Elimentals said:
No one here was commenting on giving away software for free. That is not what a software free patent world is about either. If you look at the rest of the world that dont use Software patents, its not falling apart or a everything for free world either.

You should do yourself a favor and actually go read up on software patents and how it differs from say Europe vs America. Software should in my view only be protected under copyright and not both copyright and patent law.

Think about it if patent law as it stands today was practiced at the start of the computer revolution we would not have things like copy & paste that makes it easy for humans to interact with them. Simple things like menu's with icons would not exist or even icons on a desktop with text underneath. Face it patents blocks/hamper innovation not promote it.

Even worse, what if the computer games start using patents to stop others, what if ID Software patented 1st person shooter back when Doom or Wolfenstein was created. Do you think we would still have the rich selections we have today? Now add to that driving games or strategy games like Command & Concur. We see innovation in games all the time, even while they copy ideas, in fact you can argue that games like Battlefield 3 is so good just because there is so much competition that they forced to bring new ideas.

And yes Microsoft is using the system to hamper competition, we can see it in the way they target Linux OEM's and not Google or Red Hat directly. What I find interesting is that they also block the OEM's from disclosing any details about the deals. Microsoft also hold the cards close to their chest not showing what actual patents are infringed upon.

Some more FUD as Athur calls it.
http://eupat.ffii.org/int/intro/index.en.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate
Click to expand...

Sorry don't agree; patents are there to ensure that the companies investing the time and effort can be guaranteed their rightful rewards. Many proponents of the "software without patents" do not take into account that without this guarantee, most companies + investors would not be willing to be first i.e. innovation stalemate... Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Twitter, ... would not exist without a guarantee of return on investment -- yes it costs money to develop software...

Once something becomes indoctrinated into society, it appears to be common sense -- which should not discount the effort it took to make it such.

In some respects we can agree i.e. the patent system is by in large edging towards becoming self-defeating (it has the potential to stifle innovation - btw this hasn't happened yet)

I still believe that it needs to be reformed not abolished.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X