×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Windows 7 Under Fire For Patent Infringement

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the i'm-so-torn dept.

Microsoft 241

eldavojohn writes "A patent issued in 2003 called 'Method and system for demultiplexing a first sequence of packet components to identify specific components wherein subsequent components are processed without re-identifying components' is now owned by Implicit Networks, who has recently claimed Windows 7 infringes upon it with its Filtering Platform. This is used in Vista, Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008. Implicit is seeking a jury trial and damages. A shocking turn of events; you actually want to cheer for Microsoft this time as Implicit is nothing more than a patent licensing company (troll) and has done battle with Sun, AMD, Intel and NVIDIA."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

241 comments

Sup Wigguhs. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30309886)

Sup.

Shocking turn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30310782)

"A shocking turn of events, you actually want to cheer for Microsoft this time" --No, the better shock would be for Microsoft to decide, as a result of this, that software patents aren't worth being granted, and push for their dissolution/ban.

Legal System Flaw (4, Funny)

Khelder (34398) | more than 4 years ago | (#30309888)

I never noticed this flaw in US legal system before: one of these litigants has to win. If only *both* could lose...

Trust Me (5, Insightful)

OwMyBrain (1476929) | more than 4 years ago | (#30309924)

The only real winner is the lawyers.

And yet there are still software patents. (4, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310016)

Since it is only the lawyers (and trolls) who make money off of this, why aren't those companies banding together to kill software patents?

I can understand copyrights on software.

Is it because those companies see their profits from such patents as larger than the occasional cost of buying off a patent troll?

Re:And yet there are still software patents. (4, Insightful)

Sinning (1433953) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310082)

Is it because those companies see their profits from such patents as larger than the occasional cost of buying off a patent troll?

Yes. Also, defending yourself from these types of patent issues discourages competition by greatly increasing the cost to enter the market.

Re:And yet there are still software patents. (5, Interesting)

SlowCanuck (1692198) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310234)

I suggest two reforms: 1): Company has to prove they actually used said patent in a product that they developed and was sold by their company sometime before the lawsuit, or patent is void and given to the party they are suing for infringement. This would be a stipulation on top of prior art, and should be easy enough to prove. 2): You lose, you pay - for everyone's lawyers fee's!! If company cannot pay fee's upon reasonable amount of time after judgment, then the losing company is then owned by winning company until it is either liquidated or all financial obligations are complete. Then again, I am one of those socialist Canadians!!

Re:And yet there are still software patents. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30310358)

If you are one of those socialist Canadians, you should have seen that this would basically allow a company with lots of money to take over any smaller company.

With enough money you can win almost any lawsuit, just by stalling and bleeding the opposite side dry. So just attack a company, drag out the process till they can no longer afford to defend themselves et voila: new aqcuisition.

Re:And yet there are still software patents. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30310818)

Isn't that how it works in the US already?

Re:And yet there are still software patents. (1)

Zordak (123132) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310878)

Then you would strip all universities and research institutions of the ability to survive by inventing new technologies and licensing them legitimately. Or do you believe that manufacturing is the only legitimate business model?

Re:And yet there are still software patents. (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310434)

More importantly for them, it discourages startups and individuals from entering the market...
Microsoft know how to deal with commercial competition, they are big enough that they can drive them bankrupt or buy them out. Competing against open source is much more difficult for them.

Re:And yet there are still software patents. (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310580)

Well for one if you get a reputation of fighting off the patent trolls successfully then you gain a reputation of being hard to sue and makes suing you a risky endeavor thus people will sue you less.
Secondly if you get a reputation for winning patent lawsuits then people will be careful on infringing on your patents as well be open to more out of court settlements.

Sure it is hypocritical in terms of ideals. But it is business and you expect business to do what will effect the bottom line. Fighting off trolls and winning or even if they loose the trolls loose too, then Microsoft gains an advantage over its competition. Thus makes more money.

 

Re:And yet there are still software patents. (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310808)

it's because if MS loses software patents, they have nothing to threaten OEM's with to prevent them from distributing linux or other OS's.

Re:Legal System Flaw (4, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310094)

It's possible to have a "no winner" situation if MS can show prior art existed before the patent was issued, and then the judge will nullify the patent.

Re:Legal System Flaw (4, Funny)

JeffSpudrinski (1310127) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310140)

Personally, I would consider that a win for Microsoft in this case.

On a side note: I refuse to say anything nice and/or positive about Microsoft in respect to this case. Everytime I have done so around here results in my being modded way down.

Wait...will saying that get me modded down?

-JJS

Re:Legal System Flaw (1)

jgostling (1480343) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310314)

Prior art to when the patent was issued? Doesn't prior art need to be from before the date of the application?

Cheers!

Re:Legal System Flaw (1)

Zordak (123132) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310898)

Preferably from one year before the application date. That way it's an absolute bar.

Thinking for me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30310218)

you actually want to cheer for Microsoft

Oh I do? And you...what....can read my mind even before I have made it up?

Re:Legal System Flaw (4, Interesting)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310468)

Actually, if you look up the AT&T v. BSD *nix lawsuits, both were found to have infringed on each other, forcing both parties to basically cross-license their stuff and call it a loss (which turned out to be a pretty solid win for those of us out here in Geekdom).

Re:Legal System Flaw (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310682)

In this case, I wouldn't mind Microsoft winning...if they go about doing it by changing their position on in re Bilski. In other words, if they go for invalidating software patents in general. Otherwise, I would see both of them losing, not that this would be possible.

Re:Legal System Flaw (1)

Zordak (123132) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310840)

I never noticed this flaw in US legal system before: one of these litigants has to win. If only *both* could lose...

That's really not true. I've seen plenty of cases where everybody loses, including the lawyers. (If you think that's not possible, it's because you've never had to try to collect legitimate fees from a broke client. I only wish I could get paid for 100% of my time.)

Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you (4, Insightful)

Dadamh (1441475) | more than 4 years ago | (#30309892)

Seriously though, I dislike patent squatting.

These folks delay technology advancement and don't actually produce anything themselves.

I hope microsoft wins this. Of course, they will, because there's no one on earth they can't buy if they try hard enough.

Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you (4, Interesting)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#30309980)

"I hope microsoft wins this."
I hope they lose. They trolled Tom-Tom for using the DOS filename patent. Tom-Tom navigation runs Linux and uses the 'patent'-code to read out SD cards... Needless to say Microsoft needs to lose this.

What goes around comes around!

Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you (4, Insightful)

Tim C (15259) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310042)

No, they need to win it - every company doing this sort of thing needs to lose, to send a clear message that sitting on a patent then suing people who independently discover the claimed invention is wrong and should not be considered a viable business method.

I know how tempting it is to sit there and laugh and say "serves them right!" but every time a patent troll wins, the entire industry (and by extension, humanity) loses.

Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you (5, Insightful)

the_womble (580291) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310076)

No, its best if MS, and other big tech companies lose a few of these. Then they will start lobbying for better patent laws, and perhaps even an end to software patents.

Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you (2, Interesting)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310098)

I’d have thought that just the process of being sued over absurd patents like this one would be enough to show the faultiness of the patent laws. It’s obvious to everyone else...

Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you (3, Insightful)

nschubach (922175) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310306)

It may be obvious, but in today's world: lobbyists make the laws and if you want to change patent laws... Microsoft losing is probably the best way.

You are not going to scare away patent trolls by simply making them lose because some of them will win and provide enough incentive to continue.

Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310456)

Yes, well, that’s why judges need to make large enough settlements against obvious patent trolls to put them in bankruptcy or close to it. If I’m not mistaken, the judge could require the loser to pay the winner’s legal costs... it’s just not automatically done in the US legal system.

Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you (1)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310686)

MS, or any large company, will rightly ignore any form of minor nuisance - including being sued for patent infringement - as long as it remains a minor nuisance. "Hey, we can either swat these flies one by one, or we can lobby for changes to the law and in the process lose the leverage we get with patents under today's system?" Guess which one they'll choose. Of course, they don't even necessarily have to win to keep the nuisance minor. They may well be able to pay the patent-holder off and be done with it.

OTOH, I have different views than many posters here about what reform should look like. I don't think software patents are bad, though I do think new guidance is needed regarding how to apply the criteria for patent validity - for all patents, but especially for those relating to software. More importantly, I think every aspect of the law that discourages patent searches should be thrown out. The law seems meant to punish those who see a patent but figure "the patent-holder is weaker than me, so I'll take my chances"; but insteaad it keeps anyone from even trying to make a good-faith effort to license the patents they need. If not for that, how would a "submarine patent" hide?

Anyway, since I don't draw distinctions that a patent is automatically "bad" because it covers software, I'll also point out that having looked over it I'm unconvinced either way as to whether it's a bad patent. To know for sure, I'd have to spend more time than I have reading more of the patent detail, probably consulting along the way with a legal expert and an expert on networking software circa the filing date. I point this out for two reasons:

1) In theory it's why we have patent examiners. It'd be interesting to know how much depth they put into their examination of patents like this one. (Before offering a snarky answer to that quesiton, see point 2.)

2) I would love to make a deal where each person who posted in this (or any) /. thread making matter-of-fact claims about a patent they hadn't studied in that depth pays me $1, and I pay each person who did the proper research before spouting off $5. I'd be able to retire.

Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30310422)

I wholeheartedly, completely agree with you.

Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30310440)

You realized that these troll companies will never let a better patent system come into effect because they most likely already have a patent for a better one.

Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30310392)

send a clear message that sitting on a patent then suing people who independently discover the claimed invention is wrong

What makes something wrong?

Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30310522)

Microsoft themselves have done this and worse (i.e. actually forcing companies out of business this way). It's about time they got a taste of their own foul tactics.

Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310052)

While a Patent Troll is a Patent Troll is a Patent Troll, I think you are right.

It would be poetic justice for Microsoft to have to pay large damages for infringing on a trivial patent.

Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30310132)

"I hope microsoft wins this." I hope they lose. They trolled Tom-Tom for using the DOS filename patent

... right after TomTom tried to sue them for using navigation software to give directions. In the end, they both settled, and TomTom, the aggressor, didn't get its payday.

And yet, Microsoft is somehow the bad guy in this. Yep. This is definitely Slashdot.

Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you (0)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310334)

So how about all the other companies that Microsoft sued for patents? Oh wait... this is beyond the scope of /. and actually a valid point...

Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you (2, Interesting)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310492)

So how about all the other companies that Microsoft sued for patents? Oh wait... this is beyond the scope of /. and actually a valid point...

Feel free to name them. Oh, and along with naming them, [citation needed].

Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you (1)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310858)

... right after TomTom tried to sue them for using navigation software to give directions. In the end, they both settled, and TomTom, the aggressor, didn't get its payday.

Do you have a source to back that up?

Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you (1)

dunkers (845588) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310138)

Not forgetting that TomTom were forced to pay damages for ignoring the GPL. They were certainly not the good guys in this kind of scenario.

Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you (2, Insightful)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310164)

The tomtom thing has nothing to do with this. Saying that Microsoft should lose for 'revenge' is just silly.

Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30310644)

Tom Tom went after Microsoft first which is why Tom Tom asked for enhanced damages in their countersuit against Microsoft. Tom Tom had approached Microsoft in an attempt to get Microsoft to pay Tom Tom to go away by licensing Tom Tom's patents. it didn't work.

Microsoft, is the lessor of two evils (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30310856)

Here's proof.

MS tell you that when you purchase thier software, you are merely licencing it, not buying it.
Therefore it is a lease not a purchase.
If it is a lease, then you are the lessee and MS is the Lessor.

Much of MS software is evil in my humble opinion, but I think that all will agree that thier office suite, and operating system (eg Vista) are.

Therefore Microsoft, is the lessor of (at least) two evils.

Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you (2, Funny)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310272)

There are too many educated people on earth for all of them to be contributive to the society. Some of them just become patent lawyers.

You make your bed, now you get to sleep in it (0, Flamebait)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310282)

Microsoft has been quite the nasty little patent troll itself in the past -- I do hope they win this one, but it is always amusing to see them get a taste of their own medicine.

Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310448)

Microsoft need to get hurt by enough of these patent trolls that they put their weight behind doing something about the broken patent system that makes things like this possible...

Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310638)

Seriously though, I dislike patent squatting.

These folks delay technology advancement and don't actually produce anything themselves.

But where do you draw the line? You assume that anyone with a patent falls into one of a small number of groups:

1. Doesn't make any effort to do anything useful with the patent.
2. Works hard on products and, licensing or not, does a fair job.
3. Licenses the patent to all and sundry so everyone can work on products based on the patent.

What about 4. Refuses to license the patent, attempts to build a product based on it, sues anyone who infringes yet at the same time does an absolutely appalling job of commercialising it into a useful product. ? There are plenty of examples of this around - hell, see the Wright Brothers and their patents on the earliest aircraft.

Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30310874)

That's easy to fake. The best approach, for society, is to revoke patents that aren't being properly capitalised upon - whether because the owners are trolls or incompetent. Intention doesn't really matter. Maybe, to be a little more fair, limit protection from companies that appear to be incompetent to Patent Pending status - so if they DO end up developing something, they can stop other people from using it.

Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you (1)

dnahelicase (1594971) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310658)

The goal for Implicit isn't to win this case. Patent trolls don't want a long drawn out case, they just want to be a thorn in the M$ side. The goal is to have someone at M$ say "x dollars to fight this is > x dollars to settle". Then Implicit gets money, they don't have to defend their patent in court (and possibly lose), the patent looks more legitimate, and they can then use those funds to go after Apple, Sun, Dell, IBM, Amazon, GE, Kraft, the NFL, the Girl Scouts, and anyone else that does business in Texas...

trolls trolling trolls (2, Interesting)

brenddie (897982) | more than 4 years ago | (#30309930)

hard to choose which is the less evil side

Re:trolls trolling trolls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30310278)

The evil side is the one that can still manipulate the market... so Microsoft is still most hated.

Re:trolls trolling trolls (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310300)

If this patent troll is able to bully Microsoft, doesn’t that mean they have more control over the market, albeit indirectly, than Microsoft does?

What goes around comes around... (0, Flamebait)

Yaa 101 (664725) | more than 4 years ago | (#30309946)

I am not going to side with MS as they are the ones that caused this landscape of nasty litigation.

Re:What goes around comes around... (1)

iamapizza (1312801) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310070)

You're right. How dare they steal our method and system for demultiplexing a first sequence of packet components to identify specific components wherein subsequent components are processed without re-identifying components without our permission? Next you'll tell me they stole our method of processing a second sequence of packet components to identify specific components wherein subsequent components are processed without re-identifying components!!!

Nope. (1, Insightful)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 4 years ago | (#30309954)

Can't make me root for Microsoft. I hope they lose, and the jury awards the other guys an infinite amount of money. Maybe then we'll see some reform.

Re:Nope. (1)

tekrat (242117) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310194)

I'm with you.

Someone big has to lose BIG TIME for there ever to be reform.

And I mean, damages in the multi-billions, enough to practically put MS out of business. Because only when MS's loss affects EVERYONE else who uses their software, will the media pick up on the story, and then it will finally reach the ears of the average joe, and the maybe we'll see some action to change the heinous laws that govern this mucked up form of facist-capitalism that rules this country.

Re:Nope. (1)

z4ns4stu (1607909) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310298)

I think what you meant to say is someone who owns a lot of Congressmen and women needs to lose for there to be reform. It doesn't matter what the "average Joe" thinks about patent reform, to really get change, you have to get to the below-average people who make the laws.

Agreed. Microsoft lobbies for software patents. (4, Insightful)

Concern (819622) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310400)

If they like this system so much, I'm sure they will have no problem paying out to all the patent-holders they infringe upon, according to the same idiotic legal principles they believe should protect their own works.

Of course, if any more than a handful of crooks started following these rules, that would make the software industry impossible. Not even Microsoft could ever know what they infringe. Even if the baby jesus came down from heaven today and told them the four hundred thousand patents they infringe, they would be lost again tomorrow, when 10,000 more patents were filed.

The only way this absurd system of legalized corporate mugging is truly going to end is when Microsoft and the other lobbyists behind it themselves lose Real Money (i.e. billions of US monopoly dollars) to other patent holders.

I am wishing Implicit all the best in their bullshit lawsuit.

Redjack, is that you? (2, Funny)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#30309958)

There is nothing I hate worse than being forced to root for Microsoft because someone else is even more evil.

Re:Redjack, is that you? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30310190)

Microsoft still has market share... so I still feel no remorse for them. When Windows drops below 50% I will, until then they can suck it.

Patentable? (5, Informative)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30309970)

This doesn’t look substantially different from what any audio/video encapsulation format does, and plenty of those were around before December of ’99...

Filing date: Dec 29, 1999

What is claimed is:

1. A method in a computer system for processing a message having a sequence of packets, the method comprising:

  providing a plurality of components, each component being a software routine for converting data with an input format into data with an output format;
  for the first packet of the message,
  identifying a sequence of components for processing the packets of the message such that the output format of the components of the sequence match the input format of the next component in the sequence; and
  storing an indication of each of the identified components so that the sequence does not need to be re-identified for subsequent packets of the message; and
  for each of a plurality of packets of the message in sequence,
  for each of a plurality of components in the identified sequence,
  retrieving state information relating to performing the processing of the component with the previous packet of the message;
  performing the processing of the identified component with the packet and the retrieved state information; and
  storing state information relating to the processing of the component with the packet for use when processing the next packet of the message.

(...)

Re:Patentable? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30310112)

LZ78. Dictionary header describing how to process the defined length subsequent sequential packets (nibbles, bytes, or double-bytes) in the decrypt mode, and in the encrypt mode, implementing the other portions of this patent. Itself patented quite some time ago. Nothing is new in computing.

It is a pickle who is worse (1)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 4 years ago | (#30309974)

A company who just goes around getting patents to sue others so they can make money, or Microsoft. Hmm, I guess I will side with Linux this time.

New? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30309994)

Is this something new ?

Now we'll see how lawyers earn $$ (1)

Bob_Who (926234) | more than 4 years ago | (#30309996)

By fighting over the fact that the courts cant decide what to do about retarded laws and the scoundrels that scavenge there. Welcome to corporate ethics.

I might be one to bash MSFT but -- (4, Insightful)

dwiget001 (1073738) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310014)

-- this patent is bogus.

De-multiplexing has been around for a long time (circa late 60s or early 70s).

But, even with that out of the way, the patent is basically describing getting offset data after the de-multiplexing to then get at the data.

Both have gobs of prior art in their own rights. As well as this being obvious to anyone skilled in the areas of communications and programming.

The patent office needs a spanking.

Re:I might be one to bash MSFT but -- (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310252)

So bring some Prior Art into the equation, get the patent invalidated, then license the tech to MS for an insubstantial fee ($500k perpetual license including derivitives, for example).

Re:I might be one to bash MSFT but -- (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30310784)

ok, so once the patent is invalidated (not making a judgement call on the validity of the patent itself), it becomes unencumbered, therefore no licence fee would be required. Correcting your statement, it should be:

"So bring some Prior Art into the equation, get the patent invalidated, then anybody can use the technology"

Author of Patent used to work fo Microsoft (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30310064)

According to http://www.hometoys.com/htinews/apr00/interviews/becomm.htm [hometoys.com] Edward Balassanian founded BeComm Corporation in 1996. A privately held company, based in Redmond, WA, BeComm designs next-generation communications technology that focuses on delivering a broad range of Media Appliance solutions. The company’s vision is to create an operating environment that seamlessly manages the flow of media across disparate networks, processors, media types, applications and devices. Mr. Balassanian is responsible for the company’s long-term product, technology and marketing strategy as well as day-to-day operations. He also sits on the company’s board of directors. Prior to forming BeComm, Mr. Balassanian held engineering positions within Microsoft Corporation. He has over ten years experience developing networking software. Balassanian has a degree in Computer Science from the University of Washington. He has recently spoken to audiences at Princeton University, and was recently a featured speaker at DEMO 2000.

This doesn't happen in Canada - here's why: (2, Interesting)

SlowCanuck (1692198) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310118)

Legal Fee's - little company A tries to sue big company B, unless they are going to win - they don't even try because - In Canada - the loser pays for everyones lawyers, as well as the settlement. From what I understand, that is applies across the boar here in Canada. So unless I know I am going to win, hands down - I don't even bring a dog to fight. In the States you only pay your legal fee's - so if you lose, oh well!! That is why you have a guy who slips and falls at a concert, and sues like 100 businesses and 50 people. Anyone not show up, he gets paid and any cases he loses he is not out of money - because he paid for his lawyer already - usually with the "winnings" from the other default judgements. Tell me I am wrong - I will be happy and relieved, since I have family in the US and fear something stupid like that getting done to them by some loser wanting to make a quick buck!

Re:This doesn't happen in Canada - here's why: (1)

moniker127 (1290002) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310348)

Yeah- that about sums the american legal system up. Here is isn't about who's in the right- its about who has the most money for lawyers.

Re:This doesn't happen in Canada - here's why: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30310716)

In addition, software patents aren't worth the paper they're written on in Canada (Software Patents in Canada [ieee.org] )

On Page 24,

"Subsection 27(8) of the Patent Act6 further discloses, “No patent shall be
granted for any mere scientific principle or abstract theorem”. It is therefore
not possible to obtain a patent protection for a formula per se."

And,

It therefore appears that an algorithm per se is excluded from patentable
subject matter. An algorithm in a software innovation is accordingly
excluded from patentability de jure.
It is further disclosed in the Manual of Patent Office Practice (MPOP)8
that “claims consisting solely of code listings are not patentable.
Software expressed as lines of code or listings may be protected as literary
works under the Copyright Act.”

In fact, the Manual of Patent Office Practice (MPOP) discloses9 that :
“For a method to be considered an art under section 2 of the
Patent Act, the method must be:
A. an act or series of acts performed by some physical agent
upon some physical object and producing in such object
some change either of character or of condition; and
B. it must produce an essentially economic result relating to
trade, industry or commerce”.

There is a reason why i4i (a Canadian company) sued Microsoft in a US court rather than (more sensibly) a Canadian court. It is more than likely the Canadian court would have laughed them out of the door (emphasis mine).

Microsoft supports patents. (1)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310152)

That alone is reason enough to hope this will burn them, very hard. The more punish the big players take because of software patents the bigger chance of brown envelopes changing hands. Brown envelopes is what directs politicians in the right directions. Elections are just a sideshow.

Re:Microsoft supports patents. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30310380)

I'm sorta with you on this one.

I hope that Microsoft get whacked good and proper, fined a zillion $$$ and made to stop selling Windows 7 for ever. (unlikely to happen though)

Then perhaps they might realize that software patents like this are a bad thing and that the ones they have on XML (yes you Microsoft) and other blatantly obvious things are a pile of stinking dogs excrement. Then (possibly) a few brown envelopes bulging with $100 bills might change hands in DC to stop this silliness once and for all.

Re:Microsoft supports patents. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30310618)

Seconded. May they die by the sword indeed!

Did anyone else laugh at the patent title? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30310200)

It was almost like a tongue twister.

Actually... (0, Troll)

Trizicus (1591783) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310214)

Monopolysoft gets what coming to them. Monopolysoft has done this plenty of times to companies now it's bad when it's done to them? No thanks I hope this patent mill of a company takes them for everything they got!

Actually? Actually, (1)

moniker127 (1290002) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310288)

I do not hold grudges. I just want tech to advance. I hope microsoft wins this case. I always support the allegeded infringer in patent suits.

Wait... (1)

gabereiser (1662967) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310312)

This is almost as ambiguous as it gets. When will patent office learn they can't issue patents for broad terms that the company has no EVIDENCE of a working system.... That's like me getting a patent for "Grounding objects to make a different state object" (You can easily turn that into a million different scenarios).

hm... linux next? (1)

Arimus (198136) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310402)

Wonder how this could potentially impact on iptables and its state matching/helpers... a broad reading could infer that ipt is also in breach.

cheers (1, Troll)

Tom (822) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310454)

you actually want to cheer for Microsoft this time

Please don't tell me what I want to do. Thank you.

Some people deserve what they get, even if I wouldn't wish it on anyone else. Patent trolls are abominations, but so is Microsoft, and which of them is the worse one is strictly a judgement call.

under the ACTA using 7 may get you black listed an (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30310488)

under the ACTA using 7 may get you black listed and if you have the family pack with 3 systems = 3 times braking the law and also under the ACTA you just to need to clame infringement.

I'll start cheering for Microsoft... (0, Troll)

pem (1013437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310524)

when they:
  • Stop using patents as offensive weapons
  • Stop using "standards" as offensive weapons
  • Stop throwing chairs at the competition

Oh, and almost forgot: (1)

pem (1013437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310584)

  • Start explaining to the Supreme Court and everybody else why software patents are a bad idea.

pop (4, Funny)

ThaReetLad (538112) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310674)

*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*
*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*
*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*
*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*

The sound of 10000 slashdotters heads exploding as they try to figure out who to cheer for.

what! (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310714)

>you actually want to cheer for Microsoft this time as Implicit is nothing more than a patent licensing company (troll)
Actually no, seeing as M$ does the exact same thing as they do, and have been know to force shut downs of companies that directly infringed on these patents, instead of giving them a possible pay out scheme.

I say, M$ needs to get what they give, and learn a lesson from it, so I actually root for Implicit to win, but not because I think Implicit is right, but more so, because M$ is dead wrong so many times, they need to feel it.

simmer down (4, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#30310824)

A shocking turn of events, you actually want to cheer for Microsoft this time as Implicit is nothing more than a patent licensing company (troll) and has done battle with Sun, AMD, Intel and NVIDIA."

Please don't tell me what I want to do.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...