THERE is truth and then there's myth. Sometimes the myth, if pushed stubbornly enough into the public consciousness, becomes more popular than the truth. Case of point: Microsoft.
"Don't ever buy Microsoft's propaganda about "respecting patents" (they say "intellectual property" [sic] to further obfuscate/mislead)."HoloTouch got mentioned by Watchtroll the other day. Microsoft is alleged to have bought a company that was a ripoff artist (Microsoft sacked the HoloLens staff after taking over the company). Watchtroll wrote: "HoloTouch’s allegations of patent infringement center around Microsoft’s HoloLens HMI which incorporates a holographic computer into a wearable headset. The holographic experience in a HoloLens is implemented both through high-definition semitransparent holographic lenses as well as spatial sound technology including an inertial measurement unit, an ambient light sensor, one camera for measuring depth and four “environment understanding cameras;” the spatial sound technology works in concert to process information about a user’s environment and how the user interacts with that environment. As HoloTouch notes, a user may interact with the HoloLens unit in multiple ways by providing gaze or gesture inputs, one form of gesture input being known as an “air-tap.” Such air-tap gestures allow users to interact with a holographic keyboard application displayed in the user’s viewing environment. Microsoft provides source code for incorporating the holographic keyboard into apps which are being developed for the HoloLens platform."
"Microsoft's patent policy is not consistent; the only consistent thing about it is that patents asserted against Microsoft are "wrong" and patents that are used to blackmail Linux devices are "just"."This isn't about software patents, but it's noteworthy in light of Microsoft's pattern of ripping everyone off and then painting oneself as a victim of "pirates" or "patent thieves".
A few days ago Microsoft advocacy sites and a few other sites [1, 2, 3] attempted to portray Microsoft as some sort of a phones champion. "Microsoft explains why a foldable phone makes sense," said the headline from one Microsoft site, alluding to a new patent. But Microsoft does not even have a phones business anymore. It's dead. Trolling Android OEMs is the 'best' Microsoft can do with such a patent.
Microsoft's patent policy is not consistent; the only consistent thing about it is that patents asserted against Microsoft are "wrong" and patents that are used to blackmail Linux devices are "just".
"Biscotti is less than a decade old and it is not a troll."Judge Pauline Newman was mentioned the other day in relation to a Microsoft case. It was about patents that Microsoft alleged should not have been granted; Newman's court once again supports PTAB's decision (as it does about 80% of the time) and this was noted by various people, one of whom said: "Microsoft 12/28/2017 IPR Fed. Cir. panel (per O'Malley) affirms PTAB finding that claims not anticipated by prior art. Interesting dissent by Judge Newman, arguing that claims were unpatentable "under the most rigorous application of the law of anticipation.""
"Dissent by Judge Newman," wrote another person as ""The claims at issue are “anticipated,” under the most rigorous application of the law of anticipation."
"Never fall for the illusion of a kinder, gentler, 'new' Microsoft. The company is already debunking its very own myths; it's always eager to use patents to crush its competitors and when patents are used against Microsoft the company will use its deep pockets to drive the plaintiff out of money (or out of patents, using IPRs)."Here's more from the same person: "Microsoft v Biscotti FedCir 12/28 affirms PTAB, which upheld patentability of B's videoconferencing system patent in 3 separate IPRs. 41 pages on anticipation ("close case"; no "immediately envisage"; disparate disclosures in ref). Reaffirms anticipation is fact q; SOR=subst evid
This decision is, according to another person, "PRECEDENTIAL" and it can be found here. The date on it is Thursday, i.e. two days ago. Alice is not mentioned at all (nowhere in this decision, not even Section 101). Here is the part about the dissent:
NEWMAN , Circuit Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The Kenoyer reference describes the same invention that is claimed in claims 6 and 69, the only claims of Biscotti’s ’182 patent that are reviewed by the court. These claims recite no new components or functions or technology; they directly read on, and are anticipated by, the prior art system described in the Kenoyer reference.
As I shall illustrate, every claim clause is shown in Kenoyer. Every claim component was previously known, and performs the same function in the same way in the same combination. The claims at issue are “anticipated,” under the most rigorous application of the law of anticipation.