how-to block ads
|
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Microsoft is not the problem
It needs to be said: the problem is not that Evil Microsoft wants to patent every idea in sight. The problem is how the patent system works with respect to software.
If you're playing a game where the rules are such that, if you buy property you land on, then it has the dual benefits of allowing you to collect money from other players while preventing them from using the property to collect rent from you, then you'd have to be pretty silly to try and win the game without buying a certain amount of property.
If you don't like the way the game works, then it's kind of fruitless to point out that the other players are playing by the rules. You need to get the rules changed. | |
Steve
R.I.P. 3B2
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Tustin, CA
| said by dave  :It needs to be said: the problem is not that Evil Microsoft wants to patent every idea in sight. The problem is how the patent system works with respect to software. There's actually a middle ground here where one might actually find Microsoft evil: whether this is a defensive or an offensive patent.
"Offensive" patents are where you patent the thing in question and then go after others for using it. This is the reason that everybody assumes you patent something for, but it's not.
"Defensive" patents are used strictly to deflect attacks by others, and to trade when settling a patent dispute. They're never used to go after other.
I have a customer who's in an industry dominated by huge corporations with enormous patent portfolios, and everybody involved patents everything in sight. My customer hates it, has never gone after anybody, but he needs these in his quiver should the big guys decide to go after him. When this happens, he pulls out his patents, they cross-license, and go away.
So the question is whether Microsoft actually goes after anybody for violating these patents, or if they use them strictly to defend themselves.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site | |
nil
Java Geek
join:2000-11-27 | reply to dave
yes.. just further proof that the current patent system is ridiculous when applied to software.
--
Life is too short to be boring | |
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio | Absolutely.
dave (holder of a couple of patents) | |
MS is piracy
@verizon.net
| reply to dave
said by "dave":
It needs to be said: the problem is not that Evil Microsoft wants to patent every idea in sight. The problem is how the patent system works with respect to software.
Except that they DO want to patent every idea in sight. They recently proposed to reform patent law with respect to software - and, get this - REMOVE the "novelty clause". Essentially, they can patent anything and everything that they can get to filing first on - even techniques already widely practiced in the industry as public-domain!
So you're wrong - MS really ARE greedy bastards, that DO want to essentially "patent the 1s and 0s".
Instead of lowering the bar - I personally would like to see it raised. Instead of mere "novelty" being a requirement, I would like to see "independently verified and attested novelty". I think that any patent proposal, in order to be *proven* to be novel, and thus awarded *exclusive* rights (as a patent does), the patented invention being proposed would have to be shopped around to some other non-affiliated "expert" parties, *other than* the patent filer and the PTO examiner's office (such as the filer's competitors in the industry), and if they were also working on some similar "in-development" effort, that would be covered by the patent, and that is provable, then they would let the PTO know that. But if they were not, they would also be legally required to notify the PTO of that fact, and that would form the essence of the "independently verified and attested" novelty of the invention.
The basic idea being, that if something was being developed simultaniously by several competitors, internally, then no matter which company (if any) is given a patent on that development, the public would still gain the utility and benefit from that invention. Thus, the awarding of a patent doesn't serve much use for that purpose any more, and instead, unnecessarily restricts both the freedom of commercial parties to develop their own innovations and to profit from them. In essence, it's a secret tax on R&D, that leads to less investment in R&D in the long run - that is, unless companies are essentially guaranteed the right to be allowed to commercial make use of their development investments, as I am proposing. But if a development is truely novel, then this process would allow the PTO to discover and verify this fact, and then would give them reason to award the patent, granting the exclusive owner the commercial benefit of futher developing and releasing that onto the market, and providing documentation of such.
Essentially, I'm arguing for a non-market-restricting "shared patent", essentially, that doesn't unnecessarily hamper the competition in a market, nor hamper the ability of a company that is willing to truely invest in "innovation", to commercially gain from that investment.
The alternative that MS proposes, is arguably diametrically-opposed to the original spirit of patent legislative intent, and would allow them to simply sit in waiting, for the true innovators to take an arrow in their back, and then turn around and steal their innovations, by virtue of the number of lawyers that MS employs, and by virtue of the size of their already-existant patent portfolio, that might allow them to threaten one patent innovator with some sort of infringement suit, and force them to transfer patent rights to MS (for a fee generally not commensurate with the true worth of the patent), so as to avoid being sued into the ground. | |
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
edit:
July 23rd, @11:41PM
| Whoops, duplicate post | |
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by some anonymous troll:
So you're wrong - MS really ARE greedy bastards, that DO want to essentially "patent the 1s and 0s". Please try and follow along. I did not make any comment on whether Microsoft are or are not 'greedy bastards'.
My point was that, if you award software patents, then companies will apply for software patents. If you award software patents for trivialities, then companies will apply for software patents for trivialities. That should be easy enough to understand, no?
Fix that, and it won't matter at all whether or not greed is involved, because the legal system will prevent the issuance of innovation-stifling patents. | |
phxmark
What Country Are We Living In?
join:2000-12-27
Glendale, AZ
| reply to dave
said by dave :It needs to be said: the problem is not that Evil Microsoft wants to patent every idea in sight. The problem is how the patent system works with respect to software. If you're playing a game where the rules are such that, if you buy property you land on, then it has the dual benefits of allowing you to collect money from other players while preventing them from using the property to collect rent from you, then you'd have to be pretty silly to try and win the game without buying a certain amount of property. If you don't like the way the game works, then it's kind of fruitless to point out that the other players are playing by the rules. You need to get the rules changed. Can we say "MONOPOLY",
--
High speed is dangerous. Too many MP3s, not enough time. | |
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL | And what does that have to do with anything? | |
MS is piracy
@verizon.net
| reply to dave
said by "dave":
Please try and follow along. I did not make any comment on whether Microsoft are or are not 'greedy bastards'.
No, I made that comment, in reference to your comment about MS being "evil". And I am "following along", unlike you. My response was directed at your comment:
said by "dave":
It needs to be said: the problem is not that Evil Microsoft wants to patent every idea in sight.
Which was simply incorrect. The fact that MS wants to remove the "novelty" part of patent law, and in fact lower the barrier instead of raise it, *proves* that. If the problem today is that too many patents are granted, for decidedly non-novel things (to a person so experienced in the related field), then the solution is to raise the bar for the issuance of a monopoly-granting patent, not lower it.
Otherwise, we will be moving *even faster* towards "patent gridlock" of the entire software market. Which is precisely what MS wants.
History has shown us that when one or several few companies gain the majority control over a market, then they seek to have the laws and regulations changed in their favor, to raise the "barrier to entry" into that market, for potential competitors. This is what MS is trying to do. By patenting anything and everything under the sun that they can concievably file a patent for, they will have an essentially un-challengable position of legal power within the market, that any newcomer software development firm dare not challenge. Only the older, pre-existing software companies, with their own patent portfolios, would have a chance in competing in the market with the juggernaut.
Do you understand now? | |
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL | reply to MS is piracy
"They recently proposed to reform patent law with respect to software - and, get this - REMOVE the "novelty clause"."
Is there a link to this? | |
|
