Microsoft loses Supreme patent fight over Word America's top court has rejected Microsoft's appeal against a ruling that Microsoft Word infringed on patents owned by a tiny Canadian software maker.. The US Supreme Court unanimously upheld an earlier court's ruling that said Microsoft willfully infringed on i4i's XML patents in Word 2003 and 2007. Microsoft was ordered to …
Ok, so maybe I'm reading this wrong...but we've got a case here of a small company making something and then a big company coming along and just stomping all over the small one, taking their work and making a shed load of money out of it. The small company complains, wins it's case and gets redress...
Isn't that what the whole point of patent protection is?
If you're arguing that all software patents are wrong, then don't complain when you invent something and someone richer comes along, nicks the idea/design then markets it using resources you don't have - you're the small guy remember - and gets all the money. You, the mere inventer would get nothing.
In the majority of cases this is what happens anyway, regardless of whether you have a patent. Defending it through the courts is beyond the means of anyone without a huge pot of money or a VC backer, and even in those cases it can be a Pyrrhic victory where the costs outweigh the benefits. This is particularly true in the US, where costs are seldom granted.
Since abolishing software patents will scarcely impact the little guy, I can't see the AC's argument has any merit.
....if someone as powerful as MS turn round and say the US patent system is f**ked, then someone may actually take notice.
Big goverment doesn't listen to the little man, but to the big corps.
A lot of patents the like of Apple / MS file are preventative fillings. They often of no intention of using them, but it's to prevent others from doing it.
The whole systems screwed and maybe it will like it or not, need someone like MS to get someone to take notice.
"We will continue to advocate for changes to the law that will prevent abuse of the patent system and protect inventors who hold patents representing true innovation."
Mentally add in the ", as long as we're not suing them" at the end there. The /entire/ US software patent system stifles true innovation.
ah yes... Microsoft want patent reform, but patent reform such that software patents remain legitimate... typical... They'd have stood far more chance of fighting the patent if they'd gone for the jugular and had all software patents revoked as a non-patentable field... but they wanted to keep their own patents in place...
A lot of computer companies were backing Microsoft on this case, because it involved a much needed change to patent law. it's too bad that in the gleeful bashing of Microsoft, that is being overlooked. This has been an important case in IP law, a lot more important than the arguments of Linux vs. Windows fanboys. This would have made it easier for everyone to invalidate bad patents, and the system if choked with patents of obvious ideas and already-published ideas. This ruling against Microsoft was not good news.
I came to the comments section to see people debate if i4i had a real case or not, but it's same-old Microsoft bashing without context. Additionally I object to Microsoft being seen as an irreducible entity - some of the world's smartest people work there, so I think they might have enough in-house innovation to go around. That said, maybe they did steal this genius i4i invention, as is certainly apparent from the tone of this discussion, but it's argued as "obvious", and to me it isn't.
> I came to the comments section to see people debate if i4i had a real case or not
Well, there's your mistake, then.
i4i had a real case. They prosecuted it, and won. Microsoft had several stabs at appealing that win, and lost every time.
The debate is not about whether or not they had a case - they very clearly did - but about whether or not they *should have* had a case. IMO, they should not - but US law as it currently stands gives them one.
Until the US patent system is sorted out, using the XML markup language[1] to create markup will be patentable. And that is idiotic. But that is the law.
Vic.
Yes, I know. I repeated the ML bit for emphasis.
The US are not going to substantively change their law regarding the patenting of software concepts until such time as it's perceived to threaten their financial interests. Among other things, the legal profession are hardly likely to support the killing of a system that regularly provided them with a lucrative income. Given the number of lawyers in US politics, then they aren't likely to kill this particular golden goose.
Some might argue that this doesn't matter too much if the rest of the World doesn't allow patenting of software (with a few exceptions). However, given the domination of the software world by major US corporations, and the requirement to operate in the World's largest market, I rather suspect the rest of us are going to have to live with the stifling effects of this system on competition, innovation and innovation. It also has the effect of raising entry barriers to smaller companies introducing new products as they are very likely to fall foul of one of these widely-drawn patents owned by the big players. The only small companies that do well out of this are the patent trolls of course whose business models depend on monetizing their IPRs and not actually developing products.
All this will only change when one of the really big countries, like China or India decides that they don't need to play along with this and can service their own internal and selected export markets not covered by this patent system.
I don't really see MS or any other big company as inherently evil for using the patent law, even if they are trying to change it. Of course, there is a thin line between use and abuse, but if the abuse is legal and done by everyone, it would be daft to unilaterally stop doing so. And blatant abuse might even be the best way to get things changed. This is certainly true in other areas: The fastest way to get taxation laws changed is to abuse them.
The real culprit is, of course, the patent system. It is much too easy and cheap to get a patent compared to the difficulty and expense of challenging one. One symptom of this is that a company that is sued for infringing a patent is more likely to succeed by counter-suing the patent holder for abusing another patent (and then settle a patent swap out of court) than by challenging the patent.
This can be solved in several ways: Make it more difficult to get a patent, make it easier to challenge one, abolish patents in areas where abuse is prevalent or a combination of the three.
Patents are being abused overall. A patent is granted by divulging trade secrets with the government in return for protection from someone stealing the idea. The fact of the matter is, most of the crap that the government grants patents for, they'll never use. I think the test for granting a patent should be "Can the government use this in a time of war? No? No patent. Yes? Ok, normal patent procedure."
Fixes most of the problems with the patent system. I hardly see how the government would be unable to format XML without a patent, divulging the secrets of how they did it, if they really needed a solution. Hell, implementing their solution as per their patent would probably take longer than creating their own.
I think the preponderance of evidence standard is the correct one for patent litigation. Even so, SCOTUS still rendered the correct verdict, because it is for the legislature to decide what standards apply in a given statue, not the courts.
Frankly, the US patent system is a mess, and needs a complete overhaul. Only problem is, given the current set of engineers and mechanics working on the project, I'm afraid the new and improved system will be even worse than the current one.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
