

Microsoft and Google jointly sue a patent troll who has sued 397 companies - FlorianMueller
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/03/microsoft-and-google-jointly-sue-geotag.html

======
singular
This is great news. It's nice to see two rivals joining forces on something
which is not only morally wrong, but actually generally damaging to the
industry as a whole. Hopefully (if successful!) this sets a precedence and
sends out a message to other patent trolls.

~~~
dogas
While I absolutely agree with you, I believe you were looking to use the word
_precedent_.

~~~
singular
You're right, ack, embarrassing. Unfortunately I seem unable to edit the post
now.

EDIT: As an aside I think it reminded me too much of the concept of precedence
in maths, so the brain-burp was probably sourced from there.

~~~
palish
It doesn't matter at all. Don't be embarassed. Anyone who reads your original
comment will know exactly what you meant.

Some of the smartest people I know frequently mis-grammar a sentence every now
and then. Sometimes even frequently.

A language is a tool for conveying ideas. If a given paragraph conveys the
same mental result for each reader, then it doesn't matter if any given word
is wrong; the tool has done its task. I wish more people would realize this
and stop condemning frivolous mistakes...

~~~
Lost_BiomedE
Yes, it is about time to allow some wiggle room. I am glad that grammar and
spelling correction became a meme. At one point, it looked like the web was
going to deteriorate into all lol speak. It was also leaking into offline
writing, as well. Ebb and flow has a great end result, but the process is
often painful and/or annoying.

------
tuhin
Ideas especially in the field of software design should never be patented
IMHO. Algorithms, hardware definitely but not the idea. For example, what is
the point behind Apple patenting multi touch gesture technology? I mean why?
(FWIW I am an Apple fan). I remember somebody suing twitter for they have the
patent for an ecosystem that allows celebrity to come together and do some
stuff in an "online" environment. I mean wow! To all such people, step back
and think what if the guy who made chair had patented it. What about wheel,
fire? I know this sounds crazy but seriously why should ideas be patented. I
could genuinely have the same idea without having seen yours (idea) first!

~~~
singular
Absolutely.

I think John Carmack put it best:-

"The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve
it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be
legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years
ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying." [1]

[1]:<http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_D._Carmack>

~~~
albertzeyer
Whereby this again now is not about the idea but the implementation.

But in many cases, this is also right.

See Amazons 1-Click as an example. I haven't really looked up the
implementation details they describe in their patent but I guess it mostly
follows the straight-forward implementation of this.

~~~
fakelvis
The implementation details of the 1-Click patent are still fairly
broad/generic: <http://www.google.com/patents?id=O2YXAAAAEBAJ>

It's worth noting that while the USPTO granted the patent (and even after
multiple reexaminations still granted parts of the patent), the patent was
never granted at all in Europe: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click#Patent>

------
nopinsight
I wonder, why don't large corporations join forces and lobby the government
and congress for changes in patent rules and laws?

Of course they themselves may have benefited from the current rules quite a
bit too, but they still can benefit more with _some_ changes to the rules that
remove the chance for these leeches from sucking blood from them and the whole
economy. (For large enough players, growth in the economy as a whole will also
affect their growths and profits.)

Large corporations generally have both positive and negative impacts on
everyone's wellbeing, but these patent trolls, who don't produce anything of
value, only consume resources, are clear negatives.

~~~
kenjackson
_I wonder, why don't large corporations join forces and lobby the government
and congress for changes in patent rules and laws?_

Some do. In fact Microsoft is doing just this right now and many companies are
supporting MS, including Google. Unfortunately, more companies came out
AGAINST MS and in support of the current patent system. See:
[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/microsoftpri0/20137856...](http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/microsoftpri0/2013785625_morethan100companiessupportofi4iinmicrosoftsupremecourtcase.html)

It is interesting to note that the companies in support of MS are largely in
the tech sector, while those against are largely in pharma/agriculture.

Note, this case is about changing the standard of proof in patent cases to a
"preponderance of evidence" rather than the higher standard of proof, "clear
and convincing evidence". While it doesn't get rid of the patent system, it
_should_ make it easier to beat weak patents in court.

~~~
nopinsight
A good way to do it might be to have different rules for different industries
then.

------
DjDarkman
Funny fact about US software patents:

\- software can be patented

\- math cannot be patented

\- all software is basically math

(very simple interpretation, but it scales)

~~~
raganwald
To grind it right down to its essence, facts cannot be patented, but the
application of facts to solve a problem can be patented.

Charcoal burns and produces heat. Water boils when heated. It produces steam.
Steam has a larger volume. The increase in volume can move a piston. A piston
attacked eccentrically to a wheel causes it to rotate about its axis.

All these things are natural facts that cannot be patented. But put them
together to solve the problem of turning fossil fuels into mechanical energy,
and you've got a steam engine.

The difficulty with complaining that patenting software is patenting math is
the difficulty of complaining that patenting steam engines is patenting facts
of nature. The patent is for the application of facts to solve problems, and
that applies equally to facts of math as it does to facts of nature.

Now patents may be a bad idea, or perhaps a good idea badly executed, but that
is a different argument. I assert that if you can patent the application of
nature to create a steam engine, you ought to be able to patent the
application of math to create a program.

~~~
brlewis
You don't patent a combination of natural facts. You patent the apparatus that
combines them. If the "apparatus" was itself a natural fact, it would not be
statutory.

But this is all theory. What's patentable isn't what you read in statute or
SCOTUS opinions. What's patentable is whatever can cause you legal troubles.

------
yaix
They wanted software patents on trivial ideas.

Now they have them and don't like them?

Well, I hope the "troll" wins, maybe the big ones then start lobbying against
"patents on ideas".

~~~
statictype
In the defense of Microsoft and Google, they typically filed patents as
defensive measures to mitigate against what they saw as a broken system.

~~~
beagle3
Except Microsoft _has_ used patent threats in the past (e.g. against the
VirtualDub project, and there are a few more). When the threat comes from
Microsoft, and it goes to what is essentially a one-man-show open source
project, you don't actually need to get to court.

It's called "a chilling effect".

Furthermore, Ballmer was, and still is, FUDding all the time about Microsoft
going to enforce patents that Linux infringes (though not name anything). Even
though no action was taken, it also has a chilling effect.

Your defense is acceptable for google. Microsoft deserves to be patent
trolled.

~~~
kenjackson
The VirtualDub case is an interesting one. I wish the author would have pushed
it a bit more. I suspect that there was no threat of a lawsuit, but rather an
engineer who saw VirtualDub and was POed. Legal at companies like Intel, IBM,
and MS generally won't let someone from the actual product team call another
company on a legal matter.

My suspicion is that it was just a rogue employee who frankly probably
wouldn't have had support from legal, since legal at these organizations tend
to be more strategic than tactical (they don't care about one-off infringers,
but are usually pushing a bigger strategic story, where patents infringement
is just part of it).

------
gst
Why is someone abiding to the patent law a "troll"? What's wrong with suing
397 companies if (i) you have a valid patent (ii) the law says that those
companies violate your patent?

If you don't like how the patent system works lobby your government to change
the patent laws, but don't blame the companies who utilize those laws to make
money.

~~~
DarkShikari
A patent troll is a company who sues over at least one patent, but does not
produce any products. As a result, the company cannot be threatened, because
you cannot impact their "sales" in any way (e.g. by threatening with other
patents) -- they have none. This is in contrast to the typical situation where
two companies threaten each other with patents and then (usually) hammer out a
cross-licensing deal.

This is an industry term, not an insult.

~~~
joebadmo
I hate the patent system as much as the next guy, but given what the patent
system is meant to do, is there a way to distinguish between patent trolls and
legitimate R&D firms that invest in technology and license the resulting
patents, but don't actually productize themselves?

~~~
lmkg
Easy.

1) Do they perform original research themselves, or do they purchase patent
rights? If they're not actually generating knowledge, then they're rent-
seeking.

2) Do they generate income from licenses, or from lawsuits? Licensing IP is a
voluntary transaction for both parties, so the people using the IP believe
they're paying a fair cost for it. Lawsuits seek to extract maximum payoff
through coercive means, usually because the free-market value of their IP
would be vanishingly small.

~~~
joebadmo
Hm. Thanks!

I'll give you 1, but I'm not sure about 2. I guess if there's a pattern of
lawsuits over licensing, but isn't a lawsuit what you resort to if someone
uses your patented process without licensing?

