Microsoft Loses Appeal in Guatemalan Patent Claim 174
Spy der Mann writes "A year ago, Guatemalan inventor Carlos Armando Amado sued Microsoft for stealing an Office idea he had tried to sell them in '92. They were found to be infringing on his patent and had to pay him $9 million in damages, but they refused and appealed the decision. Today, just a year after they appealed, the Court confirmed the verdict: Microsoft loses. If that wasn't enough, the amount was raised to $65 million for continuing infringement."
Good (Score:4, Insightful)
This is how the patent system should work. A guy came up with an idea and tried to make his buck. MS stole the idea, which for all intents and purposes ruined his chances of making his money back. So, he sued them and got what he deserved. Eventually.
Of course, 14 years must be a hell of a long time to wait for your money...
I wonder if someone at MS is feeling just a bit stupid right now. Yeah yeah, £65mil is chump change to them, but they do leave with a substantial amount of egg on their face!
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:3, Interesting)
Good luck with that. When has Microsoft *ever* made a public apology for anything? (not a troll -- honest question)
Re:Good (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:2)
Tell them to "come round & watrch a movie" (Score:2)
http://www.bitenova.nl/tt/l294d [bitenova.nl]
Re:Tell them to "come round & watrch a movie" (Score:2)
Yeah (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yeah (Score:4, Funny)
At the very least you could air it and get revenue...pretty sure a Pay-per-view caning of Bill Gates would garner a large audience.
yes (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, this is independent of how the patent system should work. The only goal of the patent system should be to promote innovation. It is not there to "help the little guy get his share from large companies" any more than it is there to "help large companies crush little guys with their huge portfolios".
Only if the chance that other people would come up with this on their own is very small, and if the "original discoverer" would not publish it without getting a 20 year monopoly in return, and if the downsides of this 20 year monopoly don't outweigh the upsides of disclosure, then there could be a justification for granting the patent. On a macro-economic scale, this is not true for software patents [ffii.org].
In this particular case, it's about patent US 5,701,400 [uspto.gov]. Let's have a look at claim 1, which as a whole consists of a single sentence of 506 words. Below, you can find a summary of the meat of that claim:
We have a program with rules operating on data
Each rule is a mathematical or logical expression returning true or false, and its outcomes are associated with text strings (i.e., if-statements with a string as result)
The user can specify the "then" and the "else" outcomes of these "if" statements.
You can apply the if-statements to different inputs, and the output will depend on the input
Those earlier mentioned text strings are stored in memory once those if-statements are evaluated.
Re:Good (Score:2)
If the patent isn't valid to start with, it does of course call into question the whole thing. I'm glad someone can actually distill that patent into something readable.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:2)
I agree with what you say; the patent system should exist to spur innovation, be it in big multi-nationals in vast labs, or people in their own houses.
However, if someone devises something, then the patent system should protect their interest and provide a means to reward them for their work. In this case, the 'big guy' essentially stole the work from the 'small guy', and imho the patent system shouldn't just allow anyone a free ride
Re:Good (Score:2)
You're falling into one of the standard errors of patent proponents. My correction:
No invention that takes little investment, or that might reasonably have more than one person independently think
Re:Good (Score:2)
Are you sure? (Score:3, Interesting)
I've skimmed through the vast extent of it and some points arise:
That is not a reasonable summary of the patent (Score:5, Insightful)
If that were all that the patent said, Microsoft's team of top lawyers would have ripped it to shreds in seconds. The fact is that Claim 1 just describes a component, for which no originality is claimed. The essence of the patent is that it takes a bunch of things, none of which are novel, and combines them in a way which is claimed to be novel. The patent itself says "its individual elements respond to prior art in the following areas: decision-support software and executive information systems, expert systems and expert system building tools, ..." and it cites 7 examples of prior art just in the area of decision-support software.
The patent is bad because it is a software patent. But if software patents are allowed, then combining known elements in a new way qualifies for a patent, because there is over 100 years of precedent in awarding patents for just that in other fields.
Re:That is not a reasonable summary of the patent (Score:2)
That is plain wrong. Every single claim is a granted monopoly, regardless of the number of the claim and of whether it's an independent or dependent claim.
Re:That is not a reasonable summary of the patent (Score:2)
Re:That is not a reasonable summary of the patent (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That is not a reasonable summary of the patent (Score:2)
Holy balls, Eben Moglen is a deep thinker: Visionary Keynote [redhat.com]
Re:That is not a reasonable summary of the patent (Score:2)
Re:That is not a reasonable summary of the patent (Score:2)
"This patent system needs a simultaneous visit from every role Jack Nicholson ever played"
</joker face>
Re:That is not a reasonable summary of the patent (Score:3, Interesting)
"They have no Operating System? Let them use Emacs."
-- R. Marie Stallmanette, shortly before dropping a significant percentage of her height.
Re:That is not a reasonable summary of the patent (Score:2)
Some would argue that DRM counts for intellectual starvation, but I'm talking here of a major "Welcome to Your New Patent Suppository Overlords" meltdown, involving vast cash and minimal substantial case.
Condemning Software patents in the early 90's... (Score:2)
In that time, the concept of Open Source wasn't used yet, it was only known in certain circles. For the other 99.9% of us, all we had was
Re:Good (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:3, Informative)
The abstract and description are merely used to help interpret the claim, but they have little or no legal value and do not directly define what the patent monopoly covers.
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
That's irrelevant. Claims 1 to 12 have all been granted, so each and every one of them defines a monopoly which has been granted to the applicant.
Re:Good (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:2)
If I wanted to register a troll patent (and no, I have not read this one), I would try to make the language it is couched in as unreadable as possible. Make anyone who has to read it want to rip their own head off.
Whatever, I assume Microsoft helped make those rules, and I know they are trying to propagate them to Europe. For that sin, just over $64 million is not nearly enough.
No, it's really a win for Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
Cost to Microsoft: Negligible. (Microsoft's net income was over $12 billion last year).
Cost to the inventor: 14 years of his life spent fighting a legal battle.
Message to anybody else whose work Microsoft steals: if you take us to court, figure on losing 14 years of your life fighting a legal battle, and by the way you'd better have a lot of money before you start, because Microsoft won't hesitate to spend a few tens of millions on the best legal talent available.
Re:No, it's really a win for Microsoft (Score:2)
Re:No, it's really a win for Microsoft (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Good. Good. Good.
This is how the patent system should work. [Creative] came up with an idea and tried to make [their] buck. [Apple] stole the idea, which for all intents and purposes ruined [their] chances of making [their] money back. So, [they] sued [Apple]...
Of course, [4] years must be a hell of a long time to wait for your money...
You could do the same thing with Amazon's One-click patent and achieve similar results. Yeah... I am not saying the dude did or didn't deserve the money. I am just saying it all seems very arbitrary sometimes.
Re:Good (Score:3, Interesting)
To use your analogy, if Creative did create something and Apple decided against using it (licence too high, etc), but then had a change of heart and used it without paying Creative for a licence, then Apple would (imho) be in the wrong.
Now if
Re:Good (Score:2)
Welcome to
Re:Good (Score:2)
Bad (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:2)
I wonder if someone at MS is feeling just a bit stupid right now. Yeah yeah, £65mil is chump change to them, but they do leave with a substantial amount of egg on their face!
This could acutally be very bad for Microsoft. Very little of MS-Windows is genuine. Most is borrowed, bought or infringed from other sources. Microsoft could dye with a 1000 cuts.
Re:Good (Score:2)
They more than likely thought they would lose (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They more than likely thought they would lose (Score:2)
Re:They more than likely thought they would lose (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They more than likely thought they would lose (Score:2)
Misleading summary (Score:5, Insightful)
The lawyers appear to be hoping for more, but it hasn't necessarily been increased to $65 million yet. Personally, I don't think it's worth that much, since the infringing technology is related to:
but heck, that's patent law for you.
Re:Misleading summary (Score:1)
Delicious marketing gimmick?! (Score:3, Interesting)
Why should USERS pay to upgrade to a new version? Why can't Microsoft license the patent in question, instead?
Re:Delicious marketing gimmick?! (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd imagine that's referring to a patch and not something that costs money. Unless you're referring to the human cost of having to patch X copies of Office. Then again, I doubt that Microsoft cares if people actually upgrade - it's probably just important (for legal reasons I imagine) that they _ask_ people to.
Because of 35 USC 271 (Score:2)
35 USC 271: "...whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent."
If the users don't upgrade, they also infringe the patent and can be sued individually for patent infringement. Microsoft has no legal obligation to indemnify its customers (unless they entered into some sor
Re:Delicious marketing gimmick?! (Score:2)
Re:class action suit (Score:2)
The users bought the office suite which included a functionality which is now being removed.
I don't think so... MS may have implemented the same functionality in a different, non-infringing manner.
Also, the EULA stated MS has copyright of the delivered software (which turned out to be a lie).
Ah, that may be a possibility... although, a straightforward proposal could be: Why punish users to change the code they have alre
Re:Delicious marketing gimmick?! (Score:2)
How can the user, who has no way of examining the source code of a proprietary piece of code, be liable for infringements? Looks like the big businesses have written these stupid laws...
If we had a sane law that forbids EULAs the affected companies might be able to claim damages from MS for this (deliberate?) oversight.
A sane law would be one that made the infringer pay. Not the poor chap who licensed code.
Re:Delicious marketing gimmick?! (Score:2)
Re:Delicious marketing gimmick?! (Score:2)
Re:Delicious marketing gimmick?! (Score:2)
Re:Delicious marketing gimmick?! (Score:2)
Obligatory Nelson Quote (Score:5, Funny)
Ha ha!
Hang on a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
This guy managed to take two packages made by Microsoft and work a way of shifting data between them. So what? I'll guess (given that no reference is given to the actual patent) that given the two packages there are only very few mechanisms, and these are obvious in the context of the software. I can quite understand Microsoft telling him to take a hike for an export/import routine.
As much as it may pain some, this person looks to be a chancer. Just because its the little guy and Microsoft doesn't make it right.
Re:Hang on a minute (Score:4, Funny)
You must be new here.
Here are the rules reg. patents on slashdot:
If it is a patent by google/apple, it is a defensive patent and hence good.
If it is a patent by any other company, it is teh evil.
If it is a patent that hurts Microsoft, then it is good and that is how patents are supposed to work.
Re:Hang on a minute (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hang on a minute (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason why we cheer for some patents, is that it's good to see patent trolls themselves get hurt. In fact, this is the only way to fight -- it is them who get to buy laws, and without them getting ever hurt, our side simply has no leverage to persuade anyone who has any power.
Re:Hang on a minute (Score:4, Insightful)
I think of it like this:
Sure, it's a lot more complicated than that - in either case, I've got a charge of breaking and entering to deal with. Likewise, patents are going to be controvertial whatever happens.
I don't like Microsoft that much. I don't like their business practices, their software, or their vast army of lawyers and patents, and anything that hinders any of those things is good by me. Then again, I'm also against these software patents, and I'm not sure if this one should've even been granted, let alone used.
Using a patent against Microsoft is making the best of a bad situation. Obviously, I'd rather see them both without any patents, like I'd rather not have my thing stolen and have to break into your house to get it back. This is just the next best thing.
Re:Hang on a minute (Score:2)
Actually, the general sentiment I seem to see (and incidentally agree with) is:
Software, "method", and biology patents are generally bad and subject to a large degree of abuse, and need to be done away with.
That being said, some holders of software patents (such as patent trolls or MS's threats against open source) are MORE abusive with them than others.
Seeing a patent abuser getting clubbed over the head by another one is funny, though the assertion remains that neither one should have software patents
Re:Hang on a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe, in the end, I wish they were getting their poetic justice without a patent troll getting paid off, though.
Re:Hang on a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hang on a minute (Score:2)
The huge defensive patent portfolio is great against another gorilla like Sun, Apple or Google who. But against an individual, how could it help ?
--Go Debian!
Re:Hang on a minute (Score:2)
Re:Hang on a minute (Score:4, Insightful)
There's no reference, but I'd wager NO PATENT would've been granted on these lines... more like, "a method to move data from a spreadsheet to a database".
This guy managed to take two packages made by Microsoft and work a way of shifting data between them.
No evidence to the above. Maybe more generic work.
I thought we had all agreed that software patents were a bad idea? All of them.
Agreed. And so, until software patents are declared illegal, any aggrieved party should be able to make the infringer pay.
Just because its the little guy and Microsoft doesn't make it right.
How about vice-versa? With WGA, Microsoft checks every small guy every day. Every day, every one is guilty unless a piece of software decides you are innocent. Two wrongs won't make a right.... and yet, the rights of little men MUST be upheld, until the SYSTEM becomes more equitable.
Re:Hang on a minute (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hang on a minute (Score:3, Funny)
I co
Re:Hang on a minute (Score:3, Interesting)
The reason that I don't cry when Microsoft loses a patent case is because Microsoft is one of the prime movers behind expanding America's broken patent system around the world. Besides, in recent years Microsoft has become very aggressive in its efforts to use its patents to generate huge amounts of licensing fees. In essence Microsoft wants to create a world in which large corporations, with large portfolios of patents to trade, are the only folks that can write software. Heck, Microsoft's most effectiv
Re:Hang on a minute (Score:3, Informative)
The history of this particular patent was that this guy was able to make Excel and Access work together in 1992. Back then they were two separate programs developed independently at MS and not really designed to interface with each other. He found a way for them to interact together and he patented it. He claims that he showed his method to MS but they didn't want to buy his patent. He claims they then used his technique anyway on subsequent versions of Excel and Access. A court has determined his cla
And even more curious... (Score:2)
"It was recently decided in a court of law that certain portions of code found in Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003, Microsoft Office Access 2003, Microsoft Office XP Professional and Microsoft Access 2002 infringe a third-party patent," Microsoft said in an e-mail to customers. "As a result, Microsoft must make available a revised version of these products with the allegedly infringing code replaced."
Questions that come up:
1. How could any 3rd party obtain ac
Re:And even more curious... (Score:2)
And people thought just running Windows was punishment enough...
Tom
Re:And even more curious... (Score:2)
I meant source code. How else can infringement be proven?
Lastly, where are you getting this forced upgrade information from?
From the linked article: "Although existing customers can keep using older versions on current machines, any new installations of Office 2003 will require Servic
Clippy? (Score:2, Funny)
Powerful ally (Score:3, Insightful)
After couple of court loses like this, I don't think there's anyone in MS who still believes that their huge patent portfolio will help them. It used to be that you simply amassed patents and when your competition sued you for patent infrigment, you sued them back, finally settled outside of court and signed mututal patent exchange with them.
Now, there are companies that don't do anything, just sue left and right, so you have no possibility to sue them back for patent infrigment[1]. You might even bankrupt them by prolonged court proceedings, but they are like hydra: those same people, will resurface in some other company and continue to extort money.
Robert
[1] unless you own a patent on a business method
Re:Powerful ally (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Owning patents does not protect you from a non-producing entity (NPE, a firm that owns patents but makes nothing, so infringes nothing and cannot be sued).
2. It is impossible to define new software standards that cannot be undercut and held hostage by NPEs.
3. It is impossible to build new software products that cannot be undercut and held hostage by NPEs.
4. It is impossible to define software patents that canno
Re:Powerful ally (Score:2)
Can you clarify how GSM standard is a software patent and if it really is patented. AFAIK,
Re:Powerful ally (Score:2)
Simply do a Google search for "gsm patent", it's pretty clear the impact these patents have, which is mainly lawsuits.
The GSM
Re:Powerful ally (Score:2)
For instance, insurance companies routinely offer minimum settlement knowing that one of two things will happen. Either the claimant is poor and must accept the substandard settlement, or the claimant has means a
sixty five mill... (Score:2)
Let's hope... (Score:2)
Ballmer's Comments (Score:3, Funny)
steal now, pay a low low price later (Score:2)
Bad Summary (Score:2)
The appeals court said it would let the lower court decide how much, if any, of escrow funds should go to Amado.
Morrison & Foerster said it is hoping that the federal court will award Amado further damages for continuing infringement, out of an escrow account that now has more than $65 million in it.
"We are hopeful that the District Court will now award Mr. Amado substantial monies from that escrow account when the matter is returned to the court."
evil yet good (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft got targeted by this patent because they have money. But, in the end, that's good: Microsoft has been such a big proponent of "intellectual property protection" in recent years that they should realize that they have a lot to lose themselves from bogus patent claims, probably more than any of their competitors. Let's hope they'll change their lobbying as a result of such claims.
(Incidentally, this is a US patent case; the only thing Guatemalan about it is the inventor.)
Have to side with Microsoft here (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody should get pushed around by stupid patents, and that includes your enemies. Don't side against someone simply because you don't like them. It's in your best interests to defend Microsoft here...
Melissa
Re:Have to side with Microsoft here (Score:2)
Submittor Failed to RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
This is one of those crap patents (Score:3, Interesting)
6 million, 65 million... (Score:2)
This is just the cost of doing business.
Re:Is this why Gates stepped down? (Score:2, Interesting)
a)This case has nothing to do with Vista. The patent is related to with some sort of communication between Access and Excel (sounds kinda bunk to me)
b)I don't think that a $65 million lawsuit (and this isn't even necessarily for that much) would make a decent significant enough in Microsoft to cause the resignation of Bill Gates...
Re:Is this why Gates stepped down? (Score:1)
:'(
Re:Do they care? (Score:5, Interesting)
We have a radio station in town that was similar. They would regularly violate FCC broadcast power and obscenity rules. However, the extra distance ( power ) and listeners ( obscenity ) far outweighed the fines they incurred and just made jokes about it ( on air even ). The process continued for years until they were top dog in that market and didnt need to do it anymore.
Re:I have trouble with "all patents bad" (Score:2, Informative)