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 15/8/2018: Akademy 2018 Wrapups and More Intel Defects

    Links for the day



  2. Antiquated Patenting Trick: Adding Words Like 'Apparatus' to Make Abstract Ideas Look/Sound Like They Pertain to or Contain a 'Device'

    35 U.S.C. § 101 (Section 101) still maintains that abstract ideas are not patent-eligible; so applicants and law firms go out of their way to make their ideas seem as though they're physical



  3. Open Invention Network (OIN) Member Companies Need to Become Unanimous in Opposition to Software Patents

    Opposition to abstract software patents, which even the SCOTUS and the Federal Circuit nowadays reject, would be strategically smart for OIN; but instead it issues a statement in support of a GPL compliance initiative



  4. President Battistelli 'Killed' the EPO; António Campinos Will 'Finish the Job'

    The EPO is shrinking, but this is being shrewdly disguised using terms like "efficiency" and a low-profile President who keeps himself in the dark



  5. Links 14/8/2018: Virtlyst 1.2.0, Blender 2.8 Planning Update, Zorin OS 12.4, FreeBSD 12.0 Alpha

    Links for the day



  6. Berkheimer Changed Nothing and Invalidation Rates of Abstract Software Patents Remain Very High

    Contrary to repetitive misinformation from firms that 'sell' services around patents, there is no turnaround or comeback for software patents; the latest numbers suggest a marginal difference at best — one that may be negligible considering the correlation between expected outcomes and actions (the nature of risk analysis)



  7. Lockton Insurance Brokers Exploiting Patent Trolls to Sell Insurance to the Gullible

    Demonstrating what some people have dubbed (and popularised) "disaster capitalism", Lockton now looks for opportunities to profit from patent trolls, in the form of "insurance" (the same thing Microsoft does)



  8. Patent Lawyers Writing Patent Law for Their Own Enrichment Rather Than for Innovation

    We have become detached from the original goals and come to the point where patent offices aren't necessarily run by people qualified for the job of advancing science and technology; they, unlike judges, only seem to care about how many patents get granted, irrespective of their quality/merit



  9. Links 13/8/2018: Linux 4.18 and GNU Linux-libre 4.18 Arrive

    Links for the day



  10. PTAB is Loathed by Patent Maximalists Because It Can Potentially Invalidate Thousands of Software Patents (More Than Courts Can Handle)

    The US patent system has become more resistant to software patents; courts, however, are still needed to invalidate such patents (a potentially expensive process) because the USPTO continues to grant these provided some fashionable buzzwords/hype waves are utilised (e.g. "facial recognition", "blockchain", "autonomous vehicles")



  11. Gene Quinn and 'Dallas Innovates' as Couriers of Agenda for Patent Trolls Like iPEL

    Failing to hide their real purpose and malicious agenda, sites whose real purpose is to promote a lot of patent litigation produce puff pieces, even for patently unethical trolls such as iPEL



  12. Software Patents, Secured by 'Smart' and 'Intelligent' Tricks, Help Microsoft and Others Bypass Alice/Section 101

    A look at the use of fashionable trends and buzzwords to acquire and pass around dubious software patents, then attempting to guard these from much-needed post-Alice scrutiny



  13. Keep Boston (and Massachusetts in General) From Becoming an Infestation Zone for Patent Litigation

    Boston, renowned for research and innovation, has become somewhat of a litigation hotbed; this jeopardises the state's attractiveness (except perhaps to lawyers)



  14. Links 12/8/2018: Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Mesa 18.1.6 Release Notice, New Linux Imminent

    Links for the day



  15. Thomas Massie's “Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2018” (RALIA) Would Put the US Patent System in the Lions' (or Trolls') Mouth Again

    An anti-§ 101 and anti-PTAB bill from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) strives to remove quality control; but by handing the system back to patent trolls he and his proponents simply strive to create more business of litigation, at the expense of innovation



  16. EPO-Style Problem-Solution: Tackling Backlog by Granting Lots of Low-Quality (Bogus) European Patents, Causing a Surge in Troll/Frivolous Litigation

    The EPO's lack of interest in genuine patent quality (measuring "quality" in terms of speed, not actual quality) may mean nothing but a litigation epidemic; many of these lawsuits would be abusive, baseless; those harmed the most would be small businesses that cannot afford a legal defense and would rather settle with those who exploit questionable patents, notably patent trolls



  17. Links 11/8/2018: PGP Clean Room 1.0, Ring-KDE 3.0.0, Julia 1.0

    Links for the day



  18. Propaganda Sites of Patent Trolls and Litigators Have Quit Trying to Appear Impartial or Having Integrity

    The lobbying groups of patent trolls (which receive money from such trolls) carry on meddling in policy and altering perception that drives policy; we present some new examples



  19. Months After Oil States the Patent Maximalists Still Try to Undermine Inter Partes Reviews (“IPRs”), Refusing to Accept Patent Quality

    The patent maximalists in the United States, seeing that the USPTO is moving away from patent maximalism, is desperate for a turnaround; prominent patent maximalists take it all out on PTAB



  20. The Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement is Paralysed, So Team UPC is Twisting Old News

    Paralysis of the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) means that people are completely forgetting about its very existence; those standing to benefit from it (patent litigation firms) are therefore recycling and distorting old news



  21. Patents as Profiteering Opportunities for Law Firms Rather Than Drivers of Innovation for Productive Companies

    A sample of news from yesterday; the patent microcosm is still arguing about who pays attorneys’ fees (not whether these fees are justified) and is constantly complaining about the decline in patent litigation, which means fewer and lower attorneys’ fees (less work for them)



  22. Links 9/8/2018: Mesa 18.2 RC2, Cockpit 175, WPA-2 Hash Cracking

    Links for the day



  23. Patent Maximalists -- Not Reformers -- Are the Biggest Threat to the Viability of the Patent System and Innovation

    Those who strive to infinitely expand patent scope are rendering the patent system obsolete and completely losing sight of the very purpose of the patent system, whose sanity US courts and lawmakers gradually restore (one ruling and one bill at a time)



  24. WeMove.EU Tackles Low Patent Quality at the European Patent Office (EPO)

    The breadth of European Patents, which now cover even nature itself, worries public interest groups; Team UPC, however, wants patent scope to expand further and António Campinos has expressed his intention to further increase the number of grants



  25. Links 8/8/2018: KDE Neon for Testing, New LibreOffice Release, Dart 2.0

    Links for the day



  26. Links 7/8/2018: TCP Vulnerability in Linux, Speck Crypto Code Candidate for Removal

    Links for the day



  27. PTAB Needs to Expand and Become More Accessible to More Challengers of Wrongly-Granted Patents

    Challenges to US patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) are helping to raise the bar for litigators; those who value the quality of patents should welcome rather than condemn PTAB and PTAB ought to be expanded to facilitate more scrutiny of granted patents



  28. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit Precedents Might Make District Courts (Outside Texas) More Sceptical of Patents

    As patent lawsuits scatter around the United States (not as concentrated around Texas anymore) there's a real chance of turnaround in terms of outcomes; we look at some recent cases



  29. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) is Cleaning Up the United States' Patent System

    The highest patent court (bar the US Supreme Court, SCOTUS) is rejecting a lot of patents, not only software patents; this is long overdue and is bad news to patent lawyers (not to companies that actually create and sell things)



  30. Racing to the Bottom, the António Campinos-Led EPO Continues to Promote Software Patents, Just Like China

    The EPO is being transformed into 'SIPO Europe', a dangerous gamble which would leave European firms more susceptible to frivolous litigation and generally reduce the value of previously-much-coveted European Patents


CoPilotCo

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

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts