Microsoft & patents: what goes around comes around...

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 27, 2006.

  1. With all Ballmer's recent sabre-rattling over Linux supposedly infringing
    Microsoft's patents, it makes a change to see _them_ get slapped with a
    patent-infringement suit:
    <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/27/ms_korea_court/>.

    Still think software patents are a good idea?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 27, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Zipper Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > With all Ballmer's recent sabre-rattling over Linux supposedly infringing
    > Microsoft's patents, it makes a change to see _them_ get slapped with a
    > patent-infringement suit:
    > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/27/ms_korea_court/>.
    >
    > Still think software patents are a good idea?


    No, the whole system is a joke and is getting worse and worse. Soon it
    will be impossible to do anything without violating a patent. The
    people that accept these patents seriously have to be on crack or
    something, I can understand greedy companies/governments wanting to slap
    patents on anything to try and make easy money with sueing/settling but
    the patents should never have been accepted in the first place in so
    many cases. That is just my opinion of course.

    It destroys innovation and wastes so much time and resources.
     
    Zipper, Nov 27, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Who Am I Guest

    In article <456b6ecb$>, Zipper <>
    wrote:

    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > > With all Ballmer's recent sabre-rattling over Linux supposedly infringing
    > > Microsoft's patents, it makes a change to see _them_ get slapped with a
    > > patent-infringement suit:
    > > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/27/ms_korea_court/>.
    > >
    > > Still think software patents are a good idea?

    >
    > No, the whole system is a joke and is getting worse and worse. Soon it
    > will be impossible to do anything without violating a patent. The
    > people that accept these patents seriously have to be on crack or
    > something, I can understand greedy companies/governments wanting to slap
    > patents on anything to try and make easy money with sueing/settling but
    > the patents should never have been accepted in the first place in so
    > many cases. That is just my opinion of course.
    >
    > It destroys innovation and wastes so much time and resources.


    why should innovation be limited to physical items. You can copyright
    arts works, so why no protection for software ?
     
    Who Am I, Nov 27, 2006
    #3
  4. In message <>, Who Am I
    wrote:

    > In article <456b6ecb$>, Zipper <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >> > With all Ballmer's recent sabre-rattling over Linux supposedly
    >> > infringing Microsoft's patents, it makes a change to see _them_ get
    >> > slapped with a patent-infringement suit:
    >> > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/27/ms_korea_court/>.
    >> >
    >> > Still think software patents are a good idea?

    >>
    >> No, the whole system is a joke and is getting worse and worse. Soon it
    >> will be impossible to do anything without violating a patent. The
    >> people that accept these patents seriously have to be on crack or
    >> something, I can understand greedy companies/governments wanting to slap
    >> patents on anything to try and make easy money with sueing/settling but
    >> the patents should never have been accepted in the first place in so
    >> many cases. That is just my opinion of course.
    >>
    >> It destroys innovation and wastes so much time and resources.

    >
    > why should innovation be limited to physical items. You can copyright
    > arts works, so why no protection for software ?


    Software already has copyright protection internationally by being
    classified as "artistic work". Yet in jurisdictions like the US, it is the
    only kind of "artistic work" that also enjoys patent protection as well.
    Why do you need two kinds of protection? Isn't one enough?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 28, 2006
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Sawney Bean Guest

    In article <>,
    Who Am I <> wrote:

    > In article <456b6ecb$>, Zipper <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > > > With all Ballmer's recent sabre-rattling over Linux supposedly infringing
    > > > Microsoft's patents, it makes a change to see _them_ get slapped with a
    > > > patent-infringement suit:
    > > > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/27/ms_korea_court/>.
    > > >
    > > > Still think software patents are a good idea?

    > >
    > > No, the whole system is a joke and is getting worse and worse. Soon it
    > > will be impossible to do anything without violating a patent. The
    > > people that accept these patents seriously have to be on crack or
    > > something, I can understand greedy companies/governments wanting to slap
    > > patents on anything to try and make easy money with sueing/settling but
    > > the patents should never have been accepted in the first place in so
    > > many cases. That is just my opinion of course.
    > >
    > > It destroys innovation and wastes so much time and resources.

    >
    > why should innovation be limited to physical items. You can copyright
    > arts works, so why no protection for software ?


    Any you can copyright software. Which being the case, there is no need,
    and no justification, for software patents.
     
    Sawney Bean, Nov 28, 2006
    #5
  6. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Who Am I Guest

    In article <>,
    Sawney Bean <> wrote:


    > > why should innovation be limited to physical items. You can copyright
    > > arts works, so why no protection for software ?

    >
    > Any you can copyright software. Which being the case, there is no need,
    > and no justification, for software patents.


    HOW do you copyright software... source code ?
    Computers were invented to be flexible so as a crude example your code
    said a+b=c is this the same then as b+a=c, or b*1+a=c and so on. There
    are thousands of variations in writing the code to achieve the exact
    same results.

    The innovative part is NOT the code, its the method, technique or what
    ever.

    So, copyright has few benefits for software compared to Patent. Apart
    from that patents have a lower life time than copyright, so if the same
    protections are available with each method surely innovation would be
    stifled even more through copyright.
     
    Who Am I, Nov 28, 2006
    #6
  7. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Who Am I Guest

    In article <ekfu9c$88f$>,
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:


    >
    > Software already has copyright protection internationally by being
    > classified as "artistic work". Yet in jurisdictions like the US, it is the
    > only kind of "artistic work" that also enjoys patent protection as well.
    > Why do you need two kinds of protection? Isn't one enough?


    No. Because software is both artistic and innovative. HOW something
    LOOKS is very different to HOW it WORKS.
     
    Who Am I, Nov 28, 2006
    #7
  8. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Earl Grey Guest

    Who Am I wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Sawney Bean <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>> why should innovation be limited to physical items. You can copyright
    >>> arts works, so why no protection for software ?

    >> Any you can copyright software. Which being the case, there is no need,
    >> and no justification, for software patents.

    >
    > HOW do you copyright software... source code ?
    > Computers were invented to be flexible so as a crude example your code
    > said a+b=c is this the same then as b+a=c, or b*1+a=c and so on. There
    > are thousands of variations in writing the code to achieve the exact
    > same results.
    >
    > The innovative part is NOT the code, its the method, technique or what
    > ever.
    >
    > So, copyright has few benefits for software compared to Patent. Apart
    > from that patents have a lower life time than copyright, so if the same
    > protections are available with each method surely innovation would be
    > stifled even more through copyright.


    So once the first software method to accomplish a task is patented, any
    improved software methods to accomplish that task become patent
    infringements
    That doesn't encourage innovation
     
    Earl Grey, Nov 28, 2006
    #8
  9. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    peterwn Guest

    Who Am I wrote:
    > In article <>,


    > The innovative part is NOT the code, its the method, technique or what
    > ever.
    >
    > So, copyright has few benefits for software compared to Patent.


    No. In general software is copyright by default, and is effectively
    released at the discretion of the copyright holder. It is copyright
    law, not atent law that forbids running pirated copies of software.

    Those writing propietary software find 'open source' software covered
    by the GPL a real pain - it is out there just waiting to be snitched
    and incorporated in propietary products, but that is not allowed.

    > Apart
    > from that patents have a lower life time than copyright, so if the same
    > protections are available with each method surely innovation would be
    > stifled even more through copyright.


    The problem with a significant number of patents is you merely just
    have to think of an idea, even of a trivial one, and you may be able to
    dash off to the patent office and patent it. The upshot is, the patent
    holder has a potentially lucrative 'troll under bridge' type income if
    he can make the patent stick. He has hence obtained a disproportionate
    benefit from society for very little work. In USA, it does not matter
    too much if the patent is potentially invalid, the logistics of any
    legal action strongly favours patent holders. Moreover if a 'front'
    company is the one taking legal action it would receive a sufficient
    cash injection to continue legal action, but if the action fails, it
    would be in no position to meet court awarded costs.

    It is for these sorts of reasons that there is a big groundswell
    against software patents in the likes of EU, etc.

    In New Zealand's case, granting patents too readily to offshore outfits
    results in a stifling of opportunities for Kiwis to develop things, and
    effectively transfers significant wealth from NZ to overseas companies.

    I do not know why it is that people like Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer can
    walk into many countries and be able to speak with politicians and top
    ranking officials, something that is effectively denied to most
    citizens.
     
    peterwn, Nov 28, 2006
    #9
  10. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Who Am I Guest

    In article <>,
    "peterwn" <> wrote:

    > Who Am I wrote:
    > > In article <>,

    >
    > > The innovative part is NOT the code, its the method, technique or what
    > > ever.
    > >
    > > So, copyright has few benefits for software compared to Patent.

    >
    > No. In general software is copyright by default, and is effectively
    > released at the discretion of the copyright holder. It is copyright
    > law, not atent law that forbids running pirated copies of software.


    So what.
    For example what if someone today invented a new software idea, as an
    example the spreadsheet. Copyright prevents you from running pirated
    copies, however it does not prevent anyone copying the IDEA. That is
    where Patents fit in.

    >
    > Those writing propietary software find 'open source' software covered
    > by the GPL a real pain - it is out there just waiting to be snitched
    > and incorporated in propietary products, but that is not allowed.


    So, they rewrite the code.


    > The problem with a significant number of patents is you merely just
    > have to think of an idea, even of a trivial one, and you may be able to
    > dash off to the patent office and patent it. The upshot is, the patent
    > holder has a potentially lucrative 'troll under bridge' type income if
    > he can make the patent stick. He has hence obtained a disproportionate
    > benefit from society for very little work. In USA, it does not matter
    > too much if the patent is potentially invalid, the logistics of any
    > legal action strongly favours patent holders. Moreover if a 'front'
    > company is the one taking legal action it would receive a sufficient
    > cash injection to continue legal action, but if the action fails, it
    > would be in no position to meet court awarded costs.


    Same is true of physical items.

    >
    > It is for these sorts of reasons that there is a big groundswell
    > against software patents in the likes of EU, etc.


    And they will see a reduction in innovation. Innovation costs money.

    >
    > In New Zealand's case, granting patents too readily to offshore outfits
    > results in a stifling of opportunities for Kiwis to develop things, and
    > effectively transfers significant wealth from NZ to overseas companies.
    >


    Equally well we have a lot of patents held here in NZ and bring in a lot
    of money from overseas.

    > I do not know why it is that people like Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer can
    > walk into many countries and be able to speak with politicians and top
    > ranking officials, something that is effectively denied to most
    > citizens.


    LOL... because your impact on the world and the economy is irrelevant
    compared to them. And I have spoken to 3 PMs at various functions and so
    on.
     
    Who Am I, Nov 28, 2006
    #10
  11. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Who Am I Guest

    In article <456b8ac8$>, Earl Grey <> wrote:

    stifled even more through copyright.
    >
    > So once the first software method to accomplish a task is patented, any
    > improved software methods to accomplish that task become patent
    > infringements
    > That doesn't encourage innovation


    yes it does. TRUE innovation costs money, and it is by being able to on
    sell/licence that innovation that companies/people are able to recover
    the costs..... ie the wages of the people they employ.

    Linux is not innovative, it is very good at copying other peoples ideas,
    but innovative... no.
     
    Who Am I, Nov 28, 2006
    #11
  12. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    GraB Guest

    On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:40:54 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <_zealand> wrote:

    >With all Ballmer's recent sabre-rattling over Linux supposedly infringing
    >Microsoft's patents, it makes a change to see _them_ get slapped with a
    >patent-infringement suit:
    ><http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/27/ms_korea_court/>.
    >
    >Still think software patents are a good idea?


    "According to the Korean Times, the country’s supreme court on Friday
    upheld patents held by two Korean academics over technology for
    automatically switching between English and Korean. The academics
    reckon the Microsoft lifted their language switching technology in
    Office."

    Another example of 'Microsoft IP'? Yeh right.
     
    GraB, Nov 28, 2006
    #12
  13. In message <>, Who Am I
    wrote:

    > For example what if someone today invented a new software idea, as an
    > example the spreadsheet. Copyright prevents you from running pirated
    > copies, however it does not prevent anyone copying the IDEA. That is
    > where Patents fit in.


    So you think Bob Frankston and Dan Bricklin should have been able to get a
    patent for Visicalc, and prevent the creation of competitors like Lotus
    1-2-3 and Microsoft Excel?

    >> It is for these sorts of reasons that there is a big groundswell
    >> against software patents in the likes of EU, etc.

    >
    > And they will see a reduction in innovation. Innovation costs money.


    Historically, there has never been any evidence for this.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 28, 2006
    #13
  14. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Earl Grey Guest

    Who Am I wrote:
    > In article <456b8ac8$>, Earl Grey <> wrote:
    >
    > stifled even more through copyright.
    >> So once the first software method to accomplish a task is patented, any
    >> improved software methods to accomplish that task become patent
    >> infringements
    >> That doesn't encourage innovation

    >
    > yes it does. TRUE innovation costs money, and it is by being able to on
    > sell/licence that innovation that companies/people are able to recover
    > the costs..... ie the wages of the people they employ.
    >
    > Linux is not innovative, it is very good at copying other peoples ideas,
    > but innovative... no.


    The smart guys don't agree with you

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Quotes_against_patentability
     
    Earl Grey, Nov 28, 2006
    #14
  15. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Who Am I Guest

    In article <ekg643$mpo$>,
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:

    > In message <>, Who Am I
    > wrote:
    >
    > > For example what if someone today invented a new software idea, as an
    > > example the spreadsheet. Copyright prevents you from running pirated
    > > copies, however it does not prevent anyone copying the IDEA. That is
    > > where Patents fit in.

    >
    > So you think Bob Frankston and Dan Bricklin should have been able to get a
    > patent for Visicalc, and prevent the creation of competitors like Lotus
    > 1-2-3 and Microsoft Excel?


    Exactly how does it prevent the creation ?
    They have the option of paying royalties to the patent holder. It is
    interesting to note though that visicalc was killed off by the likes of
    lotus and the inventors of the spreadsheet got nothing for it because it
    was not patented...... where as if they had invented a physical item
    like the CD player (and dozens of firms have licenced the technology to
    the point where Phillips and Sony are not the major players anymore)
    they would have been properly financially rewarded for their innovation.
     
    Who Am I, Nov 28, 2006
    #15
  16. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Who Am I Guest

    In article <>, Earl Grey <> wrote:

    > Who Am I wrote:
    > > In article <456b8ac8$>, Earl Grey <> wrote:
    > >
    > > stifled even more through copyright.
    > >> So once the first software method to accomplish a task is patented, any
    > >> improved software methods to accomplish that task become patent
    > >> infringements
    > >> That doesn't encourage innovation

    > >
    > > yes it does. TRUE innovation costs money, and it is by being able to on
    > > sell/licence that innovation that companies/people are able to recover
    > > the costs..... ie the wages of the people they employ.
    > >
    > > Linux is not innovative, it is very good at copying other peoples ideas,
    > > but innovative... no.

    >
    > The smart guys don't agree with you


    Smart: I agree with their opinions
    Stupid: I don't agree with their opinions.

    better than 90% of the real work done on linux is by people who are
    employed by companies producing commercial software. THIS is how the
    programmers make a living. Without this then those really bright people
    would be off doing something else like law, medicine, engineering and
    linux would wither.
     
    Who Am I, Nov 28, 2006
    #16
  17. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Earl Grey Guest

    Who Am I wrote:
    > In article <>, Earl Grey <> wrote:
    >
    >> Who Am I wrote:
    >>> In article <456b8ac8$>, Earl Grey <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> stifled even more through copyright.
    >>>> So once the first software method to accomplish a task is patented, any
    >>>> improved software methods to accomplish that task become patent
    >>>> infringements
    >>>> That doesn't encourage innovation
    >>> yes it does. TRUE innovation costs money, and it is by being able to on
    >>> sell/licence that innovation that companies/people are able to recover
    >>> the costs..... ie the wages of the people they employ.
    >>>
    >>> Linux is not innovative, it is very good at copying other peoples ideas,
    >>> but innovative... no.

    >> The smart guys don't agree with you

    >
    > Smart: I agree with their opinions
    > Stupid: I don't agree with their opinions.
    >
    > better than 90% of the real work done on linux is by people who are
    > employed by companies producing commercial software. THIS is how the
    > programmers make a living. Without this then those really bright people
    > would be off doing something else like law, medicine, engineering and
    > linux would wither.


    What the **** are you wittering on about linux for ?

    Did you even look at the link ??????
     
    Earl Grey, Nov 28, 2006
    #17
  18. In message <>, Who Am I
    wrote:

    > In article <ekg643$mpo$>,
    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:
    >
    >> In message <>, Who Am I
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> > For example what if someone today invented a new software idea, as an
    >> > example the spreadsheet. Copyright prevents you from running pirated
    >> > copies, however it does not prevent anyone copying the IDEA. That is
    >> > where Patents fit in.

    >>
    >> So you think Bob Frankston and Dan Bricklin should have been able to get
    >> a patent for Visicalc, and prevent the creation of competitors like Lotus
    >> 1-2-3 and Microsoft Excel?

    >
    > Exactly how does it prevent the creation ?


    A patent is a monopoly. It gives you the right to be the sole provider of
    the invention.

    > They have the option of paying royalties to the patent holder.


    No, the patent holder has the option of allowing others to use the patent.
    Or not.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 28, 2006
    #18
  19. In message <>, Who Am I
    wrote:

    > Linux is not innovative, it is very good at copying other peoples ideas,
    > but innovative... no.


    Look at the list of open-source innovations (including Linux) at
    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_versus_closed_source#Innovation>.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 28, 2006
    #19
  20. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    peterwn Guest

    Who Am I wrote:
    > In article <>,


    > > It is for these sorts of reasons that there is a big groundswell
    > > against software patents in the likes of EU, etc.

    >
    > And they will see a reduction in innovation. Innovation costs money.
    >


    I have no problem where there is *real* innovation, where the inventor
    has put a significant effort in developing an idea and putting a useful
    product to market.

    The two objectionable features of patents are:
    1. It is too easy to get a patent for obvious things that require
    little or no innovation.
    2. It is too easy to get a patent which is in breach of patent law
    because there is prior art, etc. In such cases there is virtually no
    sanction available against the person who obtained the unlawful patent.
    Just in the same way as someone who files an abusive tax return is
    sanctioned hard by IRD, so should those who obtain abusive patents be
    subject to similar sorts of sanctions. Moreover at least in USA, the
    holder of a prima-facie unlawful patent is able to fully exercise the
    rights of the patent holder to the detriment to others in society.
     
    peterwn, Nov 28, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?Q2Fyb2xlIFVL?=

    Internet connection comes and goes...

    =?Utf-8?B?Q2Fyb2xlIFVL?=, Jul 17, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    4,795
    Clark
    Jul 20, 2005
  2. Allan
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    339
    Allan
    Feb 14, 2005
  3. Mike G

    'My network Places' comes and goes on my start menu

    Mike G, May 30, 2006, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,329
    Mike G
    May 31, 2006
  4. Ed
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    558
    Toolman Tim
    Mar 2, 2006
  5. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    703
Loading...

Share This Page