EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

11.07.11

Patents Roundup: Microsoft’s New Patent Deal, Apple Lawsuits, Lodsys, US Backlash Against Software Patents, and More

Posted in Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, Patents at 2:36 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Flipping pages

Summary: A collection of news of interest about patents, especially software patents

ON WE go with our coverage of software patenting matters, starting with the observation that this one patent — just like many of its kind which paint software patents as “medical” — simply puts lives at risk, for reasons that we explained before. As one Twitter user put it:

A US patent on using a computer with SMP in a dialysis machine?

Trying to attach computer restrictions with a patent monopoly is not helping; it’s making things worse by limiting the work of many who are eager to help. It is only good for the party claiming the monopoly, for obvious reasons. See what happened to Kodak with its patents; it became parasitical:

A sale represents a sharp tactical shift. Kodak picked up just $27 million in patent-licensing fees in the first half of 2011 after amassing nearly $2 billion in the previous three years.

We wrote about Kodak many timers before. It is a valuable example of companies that become unable to make products and therefore turn to a “patent strategy” as they call it (litigation and taxation).

There is clearly a need for a fix in this system. The public demands it, but Obama disregards the petition and there are renewed attempts to get a reform passed. To quote one article on this subject:

d to pull the direct democracy lever at the White House but struck out earlier this week. Now they are reassembling for another push.

Software patents rankle many in the development community who believe they enrich lawyers at the expense of innovation. In September, the critics decided to test-drive the Obama administration’s new “We the People” initiative which provides an official response to petitions that garner enough signatures.

[...]

The petitioners may have their work cut out for them the second around. Due to the popularity of the petition program, the White House in October raised the number of signatures required for a response from 5,000 to 25,000. So far the software opponents have about 700 signatures with 27 days left to obtain the rest.

The petition is just one arena where the ever-contentious patent debate is taking place. Another one to watch is the Supreme Court which in December will again consider the scope of patentable subject matter in a medical case called Prometheus Laboratories. The Court ruled on the same issue in 2010 in a case called Bilski but its decision has been widely panned for failing to clarify what can and can’t be patented.

Among those in support of this broken status quo are patent lawyers who are looking to gain at the expense of the producing industry, including sites like this one and longtime software patent boosters who get quoted as saying:

Lawyer: Software Can Be Patented Even Without Code

There is an interesting post on software patents by Gene Quinn, a patent attorney and editor of the IPWatchdog blog. Quinn’s advice is that there’s always something that can be patented in software.

Does any software developer exist who can defend this? This merely represent the passage of work from programmers to lawyers who put down vague verbal descriptions in some pages rather than write any technical details. Some companies happily call their patents “software patents” because the United States harbours this type of thing. To quote:

Virtual Tour Software Patent Granted for VR2020.com

Some Virtual Tour companies pride themselves on their ability to provide virtual tours created from third party software but, we’ve taken our originality and technology in empowering our clients and have had a patent granted for our own unique software.

This is not a new ‘invention’. A lot of it is usually mere geometry, so they are stacking up monopolies on mathematics, making it an explanation of nature which is now someone’s monopoly.

Microsoft and Openwave

In other news, Openwave surges following not the release of some products (Openwave does not quite do that) but rather the signing of a patent deal with Microsoft. To quote Forbes:

Openwave Systems shares are trading sharply higher in late trading Thursday after disclosing that Microsoft has agreed to license the company’s patent portfolio. Openwave says that Microsoft “becomes the first company to license Openwave’s portfolio of approximately 200 patents, including several foundational patents covering smart device and cloud technologies, among others.”

This quite often sends the trolls well armed for a lawsuit against Microsoft foes, too (Android for example). As Dana Blankenhorn puts it:

Fact is, Apple and Microsoft (as well as others) don’t believe you can build an open source codec or an open source smart phone. The basics of these technologies can’t be innovated around, they say, and they are all ring-fenced with patent claims. Open source stay out.

This attitude is winning in courts, and it represents the chief challenge to open source going forward. Because in supporting open source in these growth areas, developers will increasingly find themselves accused of taking the side of China against Europe and America. China builds nearly all our hardware, and thus it’s assumed that unless western companies can control software, distribution, and markets that our economies will become supine before our economic enemies.

My view is that this is a naïve attitude, and it’s one I’ve been taking on for almost a decade. I first wrote about it in The Secret of Slater’s Mill in 2003 and it’s a lesson that bears repeating.

Jobs/Ellison vs. Android

Over at Rupert Murdoch’s journal it is being reported that Samsung — not Apple — is being approached by the EU Commission:

The European Commission has requested information on patents from tech giants Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. which could lead to the opening of legal proceedings in a highly contentious area of patent law.

“The Commission has sent requests for information to Apple and Samsung concerning the enforcement of standards-essential patents in the mobile telephony sector,” the European Union’s antitrust body said Friday.

“Such requests for information are standard procedure in antitrust investigations to allow the Commission to establish the relevant facts in a case.”

The EU Commission will hopefully make use of Steve Jobs’ promises to kill Android, which show Apple’s side to be more idealogical than rational. It is about destroying a viable competitor.

Here is a recent article about Steve Jobs’ “plan to kill Android”. this is partly aided by Larry Ellison’s litigation warpath, which has been unfruitful since 2010 and will carry on next year.

Microsoft Florian, a lobbyist funded by Microsoft, seeks to portray Android/Motorola as an aggressor because Microsoft sued Motorola and Motorola may also be Google/Android. The problem we have here is that Florian carries Microsoft’s talking points and as some articles show, journalists are foolishly quoting this Microsoft lobbyist who tries to daemonise the competition in all sorts of ways. Some journalists already know that these people are paid by Microsoft to do this. If they don’t know, they should be told. It is IDG that quotes him in an article about trolls (which neglects to mention the impact of Microsoft/Apple abuse and instead portrays these as victims), so the spin lives on. It is a good investment for Microsoft.

Groklaw keeps abreast of the Ellison aggression against Android, this time addressing the Lindhold decision:

If Google’s attempt to shield the Lindholm email had any remaining life in it before the trial court, you could almost hear the last breath going out of it this week. Consequently, Google gave notice (590 [PDF; Text]) that it intends to appeal Judge Alsup’s ruling that the email does not constitute a privileged document and asked that, while the appeal is pending, the email remain designated as an ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY document. But Judge Alsup has once again said no on the issue of confidentiality. (596 [PDF; Text]) The point that will undoubtedly remain in contention on appeal derives from this passage in Judge Alsup’s order:

It is just another SCO-like case. Ellison is Jobs’ friend (he calls him “best friend” and “idol”), so we expect this lawsuit to be some sort of favour. If it’s destructive to Java, Ellison might not care. It is claimed by Pamela Jones that the SCO lawsuit is not quite buried, either. SCO unearths something old and rusty under another name: There are some glaring questions worth raising:

Didn’t UnXis also get the SCO Group name? In the SCO bankruptcy filings since the sale, the entity formerly known as The SCO Group calls itself TSG. But UnXis *didn’t* get the litigation against IBM. It’s listed on the Excluded Assets. So who exactly is this asking to reopen the IBM litigation now? The filings say it’s “The SCO GROUP, INC., by and through the Chapter 11 Trustee in Bankruptcy, Edward N. Cahn.” Maybe the lawyers forgot themselves that they need to change the name. They can do that later, I suppose, but it’s odd to anyone like me, who actually keeps track of the details.

Update: As mentioned above, I’ve pulled the PDF of the memorandum, because “SCO Group” failed to properly redact the filing. I wonder how many times SCO can do this before someone notices it’s not the first time? It also quotes from the section of the March 5, 2007 oral argument on the two IBM summary judgment motions, where the public had been asked to leave due to confidential documents being discussed, without redacting that part. Note my curled lip.

Lodsys Pains

Another case Groklaw keeps abreast of is the cluster of Lodsys lawsuits, which use patents from Microsoft’s former CTO and also target Android developers. One firm stands tall:

Lodsys, the controversial “patent troll” that has sued everyone from the New York Times (NYSE: NYT) to Angry Birds, recently set its sights on a small web-software firm in France. Unable to afford a legal battle, the two-man company has come up with another tactic to push back against Lodsys’ legal threats.

GroupCamp is a Paris-based firm that provides web-based software to small business clients. In September, the company received a notorious “Lodsys letter” informing the owners they were infringing four patents. Such letters have been sent to dozens or hundreds of companies. The letters typically boast about “inventor” Dan Abelow‘s Ivy League education (he took business classes) and ask the recipient to purchase a license for the patents. You can see a sample Lodsys letter embedded below (apologies for the blurry text).

There are other actions that are a reaction to Lodsys lawsuits and even this event:

After receiving on the 29th of September 2011 a pre-litigation letter and licensing agreement from Lodsys, a non-praticing entity, we at GroupCamp have launched this dedicated website to foster cooperation between entrepreneurs and developers who have received the same letter from Lodsys. All available experience and knowledge will be made available on the website.

It’s also available in French. In summary, there are several threats to Free software and these mostly emanate as patents. We generally know which players to keep track of, so we will.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

3 Comments

  1. Michael said,

    November 7, 2011 at 4:11 am

    Gravatar

    FUD:

    … more idealogical than rational …

    One: ideologies can be rational.
    Two: if you are against ideology, then you are likely against the whole of the open source movement and surely against the Free Software Foundation.

    Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

    FUD:

    It is about destroying a viable competitor.

    You made that up. It is about being against unfair practices. You might disagree with Jobs or Apple on this – fine. But when you ignore this key point in their argument you show you have no counter to their claims.

    You also talk about “abuse” by those who you have sided against – but never actually show why they are wrong. Why is that, Roy? If you have a point then make it – just repeating your claim that your “enemies” are wrong is silly.

    Mikko Reply:

    Spamming and trolling

    Michael Reply:

    Funny how you neglected to point out a single thing I said that you think is wrong.

    Typical of your cult.

What Else is New


  1. Links 18/6/2019: Linux 5.2 RC5 and OpenMandriva Lx 4

    Links for the day



  2. Weaponising Russophobia Against One's Critics

    Response to smears and various whispering campaigns whose sole purpose is to deplete the support base for particular causes and people; these sorts of things have gotten out of control in recent years



  3. When the EPO is Run by Politicians It's Expected to Be Aggressive and Corrupt Like Purely Political Establishments

    António 'Photo Op' Campinos will have marked his one-year anniversary in July; he has failed to demonstrate morality, respect for the law, understanding of the sciences, leadership by example and even the most basic honesty (he lies a lot)



  4. Links 16/6/2019: Tmax OS and New Features for KDE.org

    Links for the day



  5. Stuffed/Stacked Panels Sent Back Packing After One-Sided Patent Hearings That Will Convince Nobody, Just Preach to the Choir

    Almost a week ago the 'world tour' of patent lobbyists in US Senate finally ended; it was an utterly ridiculous case study in panel stacking and bribery (attempts to buy laws)



  6. 2019 H1: American Software Patents Are as Worthless as They Were Last Year and Still Susceptible to Invalidation

    With a fortnight left before the second half of the year it seems evident that software patents aren't coming back; the courts have not changed their position at all



  7. As European Patent Office Management Covers up Collapse in Patent Quality Don't Expect UPC to Ever Kick Off

    It would be madness to allow EPO-granted patents to become 'unitary' (bypassing sovereignty of nations that actually still value patent quality); it seems clear that rogue EPO management has, in effect, not only doomed UPC ambitions but also European Patents (or their perceived legitimacy, presumption of validity)



  8. António Campinos -- Unlike His Father -- Engages in Imperialism (Using Invalid Patents)

    Despite some similarities to his father (not positive similarities), António Campinos is actively engaged in imperialistic agenda that defies even European law; the EPO not only illegally grants patents but also urges other patent offices to do the same



  9. António Campinos Takes EPO Waste and Corruption to Unprecedented Levels and Scale

    The “B” word (billions) is thrown around at Europe’s second-largest institution because a mischievous former EUIPO chief (not Archambeau) is ‘partying’ with about half of the EPO’s all-time savings, which are supposed to be reserved for pensions and other vital programmes, not presidential palaces and gambling



  10. Links 15/6/2019: Astra Linux in Russia, FreeBSD 11.3 RC

    Links for the day



  11. Code of Conduct Explained: Partial Transcript - August 10th, 2018 - Episode 80, The Truth About Southeast Linuxfest

    "Ask Noah" and the debate on how a 'Code of Conduct' is forcibly imposed on events



  12. Links 14/6/2019: Xfce-Related Releases, PHP 7.4.0 Alpha

    Links for the day



  13. The EPO is a Patent Troll's Wet Dream

    The makers of software and games in Europe will have to spend a lot of money just keeping patent trolls off their backs — a fact that seems to never bother EPO management because it profits from it



  14. EPO Spreading Patent Extremists' Ideology to the Whole World, Now to South Korea

    The EPO’s footprint around the world's patent systems is an exceptionally dangerous one; The EPO amplifies the most zealous voices of the patents and litigation ‘industry’ while totally ignoring the views and interests of the European public, rendering the EPO an ‘agent of corporate occupation’



  15. Guest Post: Notes on Free Speech, and a Line in the Sand

    We received this anonymous letter and have published it as a follow-up to "Reader's Claim That Rules Similar to the Code of Conduct (CoC) Were 'Imposed' on LibrePlanet and the FSF"



  16. Links 13/6/2019: CERN Dumps Microsoft, GIMP 2.10.12 Released

    Links for the day



  17. Links 12/6/2019: Mesa 19.1.0, KDE neon 5.16, Endless OS 3.6.0 and BackBox Linux 6

    Links for the day



  18. Leaked Financial 'Study' Document Shows EPO Management and Mercer Engaging in an Elaborate “Hoax”

    How the European Patent Office (EPO) lies to its own staff to harm that staff; thankfully, the staff isn't easily fooled and this whole affair will merely obliterate any remnants of "benefit of the doubt" the President thus far enjoyed



  19. Measuring Patent Quality and Employer Quality in Europe

    Comparing the once-famous and respected EPO to today's joke of an office, which grants loads of bogus patents on just about anything including fruit and mathematics



  20. Granting More Fundamentally Wrong Patents Will Mean Reduced Certainty, Not Increased Certainty

    Law firms that are accustomed to making money from low-quality and abstract patents try to overcome barriers by bribing politicians; this will backfire because they show sheer disregard for the patent system's integrity and merely lower the legal certainty associated with granted (by greedy offices) patents



  21. Links 11/6/2019: Wine 4.10, Plasma 5.16

    Links for the day



  22. Chapter 10: Moving Forward -- Getting the Best Results From Open Source With Your Monopoly

    “the gradual shift in public consciousness from their branding towards our own, is the next best thing to owning them outright.”



  23. Chapter 9: Ownership Through Branding -- Change the Names, and Change the World

    The goal for those fighting against Open source, against the true openness (let's call it the yet unexploited opportunities) of Open source, has to be first to figuratively own the Linux brand, then literally own or destroy the brand, then to move the public awareness of the Linux brand to something like Azure, or whatever IBM is going to do with Red Hat.



  24. Links 10/6/2019: VLC 3.0.7, KDE Future Plans

    Links for the day



  25. Patent Quality Continues to Slip in Europe and We Know Who Will Profit From That (and Distract From It)

    The corporate media and large companies don't speak about it (like Red Hat did before entering a relationship with IBM), but Europe is being littered and saturated with a lot of bogus software patents -- abstract patents that European courts would almost certainly throw out; this utter failure of the media to do journalism gets exploited by the "big litigation" lobby and EPO management that's granting loads of invalid European Patents (whose invalidation goes underreported or unreported in the media)



  26. Corporate Front Groups Like OIN and the Linux Foundation Need to Combat Software Patents If They Really Care About Linux

    The absurdity of having groups that claim to defend Linux but in practice defend software patents, if not actively then passively (by refusing to comment on this matter)



  27. Links 9/6/2019: Arrest of Microsoft Peter, Linux 5.2 RC4, Ubuntu Touch Update

    Links for the day



  28. Chapter 8: A Foot in the Door -- How to Train Sympathetic Developers and Infiltrate Other Projects

    How to train sympathetic developers and infiltrate other projects



  29. Chapter 7: Patent War -- Use Low-Quality Patents to Prove That All Software Rips Off Your Company

    Patents in the United States last for 20 years from the time of filing. Prior to 1994, the patent term was 17 years from when the patent was issued.



  30. The Linux Foundation in 2019: Over 100 Million Dollars in Income, But Cannot Maintain Linux.com?

    Today’s Linux Foundation gets about 0.1 billion dollars per year (as explained in our previous post), so why can’t it spend about 0.1% of that money on people who write for and maintain a site that actually promotes GNU/Linux?


RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts