

Microsoft sues Barnes & Noble over Android in Nook - rbanffy
http://www.geekwire.com/2011/breaking-microsoft-sues-barnes-noble-android

======
tzs
I'm going to make this a stand-alone comment instead of inserting it to an
existing comment thread, because there are too many places it could be
reasonably inserted.

If you do not read the description of a patent, and then read the claims,
interpreting them in light of the description, you have NO CLUE what the
patent covers. If you do read the description and claims, then you MIGHT have
a good idea of what the patent covers. To fully understand it, you have to get
a copy of the file wrapper, which contains the correspondence between the
Patent Office and the applicant.

The file wrapper is important because if the applicant argues for a narrow
interpretation of something in the patent in order to get the examiner to
approve, that narrow interpretation is what will apply when the patentee tries
to enforce the patent.

For those who want to read the patents, I recommend using pat2pdf.org to get
them. You can give that site a patent number and it will give you a nice PDF
of the patent. The links most people are citing (including the submitted
article) are to the USPTO, which is not as nice. In particular the images are
not available on some OS/browser combinations. A PDF from pat2pdf.org works
everywhere.

I don't know if there is a way to get the file wrapper for free, but you can
get the history for free from the patent office. To illustrate how important
the file wrapper can be, of the patents in question:

5,778,372: it was initially rejected (a non-final rejection, which I believe
means the examiner is open to hear more arguments).

6,339,780: it was rejected five times (3 non-final, 2 final which I believe
means Microsoft had to convince someone to override the examiner but hopefully
a patent attorney or agent will jump in and clarify).

5,889,522: rejected three times (2 non-final, 1 final).

6,891,551: two rejections (1 non-final, 1 final).

6,957,233: two rejections (1 non-final, 1 final).

PS: it looks like you can perhaps get the documents in the file wrapper free
online here: <http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair>

------
b0sk
[http://www.geekwire.com/2011/microsoft-cites-new-patents-
vs-...](http://www.geekwire.com/2011/microsoft-cites-new-patents-vs-android)
\-- Here are the details about the patents. It's pretty childish stuff. Anyone
with half a brain can innovate and come up with inventions. This is just
bullying.

~~~
kenjackson
Lets look at these patents.

Remote retrieval and display management of electronic document with
incorporated images -- this patent actually falls in the ballpark that it
might be reasonable. It was granted in 1998 and filed in 1996. I don't know if
there was prior art on this.

Loading status in a hypermedia browser having a limited available display area
-- This is called a splash screen. Sure its a mobile device and getting data
from the network rather than disk, but same concept. This shouldn't have
passed the obviousness test.

System provided child window controls -- This one was filed in 1994, prior to
the launch of Win95. This seems borderline, but in 1994 this might have been
innovative.

Selection handles in editing electronic documents -- This one seems like maybe
the only realy legit patent if limited to just text. But I think it has been
well-established for graphsics. The odd thing is they didn't use this for
Windows Mobile through 6.5.

Method and apparatus for capturing and rendering annotations for non-
modifiable electronic content -- This one doesn't pass the non-obviousness
test to me. I can't think of another way to do what they described. A little
disappointing since Thacker is on the patent.

One problem with patents is that it's hard to really get back to the mental
state of 17 years ago, when at least one of these patents was filed. At the
very least I do think that the current bar of "clear and convincing" may be
too high, since I think that makes it very difficult for BN to put together a
strong case unless they can just outright find prior art.

~~~
llimllib
> Remote retrieval and display management of electronic document with
> incorporated images -- this patent actually falls in the ballpark that it
> might be reasonable. It was granted in 1998 and filed in 1996. I don't know
> if there was prior art on this.

How about this:

> Portable Document Format (PDF) is an open standard for document exchange.
> The file format created by Adobe Systems in 1993 is used for representing
> documents in a manner independent of the application software, hardware, and
> operating system.[2] Each PDF file encapsulates a complete description of a
> fixed-layout 2D document that includes the text, fonts, images, and 2D
> vector graphics which compose the documents.

~~~
kenjackson
The part of the patent that is interesting is that they optimize downloading
of the electronic document by first ignoring the background image (if there is
one). And if there are embedded images in the document they first download
those that would be visible on the screen. And it also creates additional
connections to the server to download other resources in the document in the
background on these additional connections.

AFAIK, PDF doesn't specify these things. And to be clear the patent isn't
about a file format. It's about the method one uses to retrieve and display
the document.

~~~
muhfuhkuh
I'm quite sure that somehow, there was a web server or email system that has
transferred, stored, and otherwise "managed" a PDF with graphics in it in 1995
or before. How on earth is that not prior art?

~~~
kenjackson
What does managing a PDF with graphics have to do with it? Is there something
inherent in PDF files that capture this behavior?

------
delineal
Though this is clearly political wrangling, I think Microsoft should be
careful about claiming publicly that anything patented by them is "natural"...
Natural is very close to "obvious"... which is bad for patents:

"natural ways of interacting with devices by tabbing through various screens
to find the information they need"

~~~
marshray
Good point. That that their lawyers are freely using the word "natural" just
shows how egregious they are.

They don't really care if the claims have merit, all they care about is the
legal expense and risk it imposes on the defendant.

~~~
rbanffy
I doubt B&N can afford adequate defense, and that's why MS is after them with
such obviously invalid claims.

I would love if B&N went all in, proved the claims are without merit and
countersued with a vengeance.

~~~
marshray
MS is suing several Android device makers simultaneously. Along with Google,
there's an obvious incentive for them to pool their resources.

Not to mention that Google has a few patents of its own of course.

~~~
rbanffy
Google having few patents is not relevant in the case Microsoft's patents are
invalid. And every manufacturer who is yet to be extorted should pool the
resources they set aside for licensing Microsoft's IP to invalidate
Microsoft's patents for less money than would otherwise be needed (and to reap
profits from the inevitable countersuit).

~~~
sorbus
Entirely relevant: It's way easier to threaten an opponent with an extremely
long legal war that would be quite damaging to them (and then come up with a
cross-licensing deal) than it is to engage in a long legal war to invalidate
patents.

Sure, it's not the best thing to do, but it's better for all concerned.

~~~
rbanffy
I'd cut Microsoft's access to Google. Let them try to function with only Bing
results ;-)

------
IVirOrfeo
This is Novell all over again. They settle for a couple million, and microsoft
"buys" Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of "stuff" It is bribery to set a
precedent; plain and simple. Despicable stuff.

------
ww
Is the EFF the most effective organization that accepts donations to fight
this type of thing?

------
st3fan
Their message is clear: embed android in your product and we will sue you.
Without indemnification from Google, people will be very hesitant to touch
Android I think. Not good at all.

~~~
rbanffy
That's why Google should help B&N in invalidating the said patents (something
that doesn't look that difficult, provided you have the resources)

------
baggachipz
I think I'm going to patent the wheel and then randomly sue Mattel because of
Hot Wheels.

~~~
ijuhytgfhyjuik
You can't it's already patented

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1418165.stm>

------
1010011010
Microsoft: competing in the courts.

------
emehrkay
Are they still not producing which patents these people infringe on? How
anyone, especially techkies, could pat MS on the back at any point in history
is beyond me. MS is _still_ at war with open source

------
barista
Here's what MSFT had to say about this:

[http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2...](http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2011/03/21/android-
patent-infringement-licensing-is-the-solution.aspx)

~~~
alecco
Thanks, my BS meter just exploded.

[from another comment [http://www.geekwire.com/2011/microsoft-cites-new-
patents-vs-...](http://www.geekwire.com/2011/microsoft-cites-new-patents-vs-
android) ]

