Google: Microsoft uses patents when products "stop succeeding"

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/google-microsoft-uses-patents-when-products-stop-succeeding.ars

by evo_9 • 15 years ago

57 23 15 years ago

sixtofour2• 15 years ago

"Indeed, the idea of patents on software alarmed Bill Gates, who wrote in 1991 (when Microsoft was already older than Google is now) that "the industry would be at a complete standstill" if software had been eligible for patent protection in the early days of the industry."

So now we have software patents. Is the industry now at a complete standstill? Or from the other direction, what would the industry look like now, if there software patents hadn't been allowed.

Or to ask in yet another slightly different way: what are we missing now, what's been taken away from us, because of software patents?

orangecat• 15 years ago

Is the industry now at a complete standstill?

No, but only because software patents have largely been unenforced. That's changing.

Or to ask in yet another slightly different way: what are we missing now, what's been taken away from us, because of software patents?

If Apple has their way, the only significant mobile OS that doesn't mandate a walled garden. (Microsoft is actually better off keeping Android alive; parasites don't benefit by killing their host).

Samuel_Michon4• 15 years ago

"software patents have largely been unenforced."

I don't think that's the case. However, it doesn't often come to ugly lawsuits because most of those software patents can be licensed. For instance, Apple licensed Amazon's 1-Click Purchasing patent. If it hadn't, Amazon would've likely sued over it. [1]

This method is working out great for Microsoft, which makes more money off Android than on its own mobile endeavors.

The big problem Android makers encounter with Apple is that it has no interest in licensing its software patents to them. Apple simply does not want them using any of its ideas.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click

Samuel_Michon4• 15 years ago

"the industry would be at a complete standstill if software had been eligible for patent protection in the early days of the industry."

Not surprising, coming from Bill Gates. When he said this, Microsoft was in the middle of a lawsuit with Apple.

If software had been eligible for patent protection in the early days of the industry, Microsoft would not have been able to bring Windows to market. Apple sued them over it anyways, but their case wasn't as strong as it would've been.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_v._Microsoft

sixtofour2• 15 years ago

A patent is a kind of monopoly.

ATT had a monopoly, and they were partitioned to break that monopoly.

If ATT had kept their monopoly they would not have had much pressure to compete through price or innovation. What might we not have today in the consumer telecom space if ATT had kept their monopoly. For example, would our phones still be wired to the wall and owned by ATT? Would new colors on princess phones be the extent of innovation?

Samuel_Michon4• 15 years ago

"would our phones still be wired to the wall and owned by ATT?"

I doubt it because Motorola and others were already making cell phones when AT&T was broken up in 1984 [1][2].

Also, of the 7 Baby Bells that the original AT&T was broken up into, most have merged again. There's only Verizon and AT&T left. On top of that, now AT&T wants to merge with T-Mobile USA. But has mobile innovation halted in the last decade?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System_divestiture

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_DynaTAC

law• 15 years ago

Software still isn't eligible for patent protection, as I've said several times before (look at my comment history). Copyright protection and trade secret protection are available for software, while patent protection is available for "business methods."

The whole issue is that one wouldn't reasonably believe that checking someone's driver's license to verify that it matches the name on the credit card they used to purchase goods at an auction qualifies as patentable subject matter. Yet, in 1999, eBay received a patent for a "Method and apparatus for verifying the identity of a participant within an on-line auction environment." [Pat. No. 6,466,917]

As we move more and more brick and mortar business functions to the virtual world, people are able to get around the prior art by inextricably linking their business method with a device--a computer or, as patent attorneys eloquently say:

"a client computer to present user interface information specifying an identity verification interface for obtaining personal information of a user and to communicate personal information over a communications network; a transaction computer, coupled to the client computer via a communications network, to implement a transaction system that facilitates transactions between the user and a further user, to receive the personal information from the client computer via the communications network, and to communicate the personal information over the communications network; and an identity verification computer, coupled to the transaction computer via the communications network, to receive the personal information from the transaction computer via the communications network, to perform an identity verification process to generate a verification result, and to communicate the verification result to the transaction computer over the communications network, wherein transaction computer makes the verification result available to the further user via the communications network and responsive to a request from the further user for information concerning the user." [Pat. No. 6,466,917]

I find it intractable for one to reasonably believe that the virtual environment is so extraordinarily different from real life so as to justify awarding patents for routine business methods. The problem with business method patents, quite bluntly, is that the Supreme Court absolutely blew it in Bilski by not articulating, precisely, how much of a transformation is necessary to consider it "inventive."

This is for Congress to decide.

wycats• 15 years ago

A canonical, standard video codec supported by all web browsers.

nitrogen• 15 years ago

Or to ask in yet another slightly different way: what are we missing now, what's been taken away from us, because of software patents?

Just a few random examples; no doubt there are more:

1. Encumbrance-free implementations of popular audio and video codecs.

2. Long filename support on FAT32 on embedded Linux devices (or the associated royalty to Microsoft).

3. Multitouch gestures on Android, at least initially.

4. A gallery app on Samsung devices in the Netherlands that shows neighboring pictures in an image sequence when sliding between images.

5. Early clones of the game The Incredible Machine.

6. Probably countless other ideas that people never bothered to try because they knew that some big company had already patented the life out of a particular sector.

Tsagadai• 15 years ago

Some of their links are broken. The original memo by Bill Gates is a more interesting read than the article: http://web.archive.org/web/20070105162133/http://www.bralyn....

idspispopd• 15 years ago

There is no doubt the landscape has changed, sure when Microsoft was in it's infancy software patents weren't an issue. However the market at the time was also incredibly small, and it didn't stop Apple from suing Microsoft in the ill-fated look and feel lawsuits.

While the system definitely requires reform, it is the one in place and ignoring software patents is not a worthwhile strategy. Google have been on the sour end of numerous patent lawsuits from companies that seemingly have no other agenda than software patent litigation. Meanwhile Google may be critical of microsoft/apple/oracle, but their own intellectual property is also protected from these companies. Which is probably why google has always presented an ambiguous viewpoint towards software patents, and is indeed stock piling them as well.

Google are guilty of much lip-service against software patents, seemingly using the issue to dissent against their competitors and to feign an underdog status.

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Google provides further details on Google's ambiguity towards software patents.

josefresco• 15 years ago

How is Ms attacking Linux evidence that they stopped succeeding? I'd say they succeeded quite well in the desktop OS world.

hello_moto• 15 years ago

How about the server arena?

thefreehunter• 15 years ago

I wouldn't say they're not succeeding there. They're not #1, but servers have never been one of their main focuses. I'm sure they would love to be #1, but Windows on the desktop and Microsoft Office makes them oodles of money already.

Google: Microsoft uses patents when products "stop succeeding"

Related Stories