10 Comments

Live by the sword die by the sword. Microsoft has stolen so many patents and run much more useful and better companies under (Stack electronics, Borland for example) by stealing their products and grinding them down until they are forced to sell or settle in court after being confronted by an army of lawyers. The really are the Romans of software using force to steal conquer and pillage while contributing nothing to the general pool of knowledge (btw can you name 1 great Roman scientist?)

Why is the average theif in the us go to jail after 3 offence and microsoft keep on going?

The aim of patents is to serve the public by innovation, not enrich the 1% of filers who ever make a dime from their claim. (By contrast, 100% of patent attorneys make many dimes from patents. Patent law is a lawyer bunko operation with worse returns than a Ponzi scheme.) In two developed nations that suspended patents for a decade, the economy showed no effect.

We cannot end patents without amending the Constitution. However, which term will better promote the innovation intent of Article VIII? A patent term of 20 years or of 5 years, with a 12 months statute of limitations for infringment claims?

If people want to make money from a patent, let them innovate more rapidly. That limit would force Microsoft to improve as well. Software is covered by patents and by copyright. Shorten the term of copyright as well, and preclude renewal for unimproved versions.

Enough with Mickey Mouse. Make Disney invent more new cute characters to stay in business.

One of the dumbest decisions ever was to allow software to be patented. If you read through any of these software patents you will see that their sole purpose is to identify every possible technique to implement some concept without actually providing any real instantiation of the concept. By mentioning every possible technique they put themselves in a position to sue anyone who comes up with an actual product that can be construed, however remotely, to make use of the concept alluded to in the patent.

Actually, in the transcript of the Microsoft vs. AT&T case, several of the justices state that the SCOTUS has never held that software was patentable. It’s almost as if they are asking the question to be brought before
them, in my (non-legal) opinion.

JUSTICE BREYER: I take it that we are operating under the assumption that software is patentable? We have never held that in this Court, have we?

MR. JOSEFFER: No, but as I was saying before —

Neither side argued that software itself was patentable, nor did the government’s representative. The argument recap on scotusblog doesn’t give anything better than reading the transcript, so we’ll have to wait to see if anyone mentions patents in the ruling, I suppose.

While I despise Microsoft as a general rule, companies like Alcatel-Lucent are worse. Anyone remember when RAMBUS pulled a similar stunt by helping to insert some of their patented items into the industry standard for SDRAM (neglecting of course to tell anyone that it was patented) then tried to sue their competitors out of existence?

In response to Griffin3, the question of whether software is patentable isn’t an issue here because MP3 (the “patented” technology in question), isn’t “software” per se. It is only an algorithm for compression, and is therefore patentable in the same way any mathematical algorithm is patentable.
Reducing the length of patents or removing them altogether isn’t the answer here. The better solution is to completely revamp the patent office such that they do not grant patents to anyone who applies for one. Hire professionals in each of the categories for which patents are being applied, so that patent applications can be reviewed in depth before getting a stamp of approval.

My understanding if the MP3 (MPEG 1 Layer 3) spec is that it standardises the decoding and playback of the audio, and calls for licencees to develop their own compatable encoding. This allows improvements in performance of the system without obseleting current devices. The Alcatel/Lucent/AT&T patents deal with the encoding of the audio into a reduced bit-rate stream. This may be depicted as “claiming ownership” of something “People use all the time”, but I doubt the claims of infringement are so comprehensive. Lucent has exploited these patents, such as in licensing the competing AAC format to Apple – so they have hardly failed to commercialise them, unless iPods are some market failure that no-one has ever heard of. And it can you really call them “submarine” patents if Micrsoft thought so highly of one of the inventors that they hired him away from Lucent? I’ve no relationship to any of the companies involved, but I have worked with low-bit rate audio for a long time.

Pegoraro is wrong in at least one particular: “submarine” patents are patents where the claims have been sitting in an USPTO application for a long time, and then modified to fit existing technology, and then surfaces with the priority of the old filing date but the term of the new grant date–a notorious practice no longer possible under more recent patent laws that conform US patent practice to that of the rest of the world.

I take no position on the merits of the Microsoft-Alcatel case (other than to note that the damages calculation is highly questionable), but it does not seem to be a case of a submarine patent.

Amstrdamsky is completely right about Microsoft (they have literally stolen stuff from other companies) – that makes this case harder to judg up front, as Microsoft is a repeat offender in this category.

If they actually are innocent (for once), then it’s still pretty hard to shed a tear for them, as they’ve gotten away with worse more than once already.

But patent law IS a complete mess.