Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word • Hacker News Board

Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

#41

Post by cloudkj » Tue, Dec 22, 2009, 10:26 PM UTC

steveklabnik wrote: post #26

cloudkj wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that, rather than banning software patents outright, the process by which these patents are approved should be put under high scrutiny and changed. For a lot of large companies, the approach really is similar to throwing everything against the wall and seeing what sticks. Having gone through the process recently, I'm amazed at how easy it is for an engineer to conceive an idea, pitch it to a few paralegals…

> Getting rid of software patents altogether is quite extreme. Really? I'd think that most people in software have the opinion that there should be no software patents at all. It's kind of silly, frankly.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for openness and transparency. But I do believe there needs to be some level of legal rights protection, and that it's a pretty fundamental pillar of our capitalist system.

Out of curiosity, what do you (and others) think of a patent for something like Google's PageRank?

Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

#42

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Dec 22, 2009, 10:31 PM UTC

cloudkj wrote: post #41

steveklabnik wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Getting rid of software patents altogether is quite extreme. Really? I'd think that most people in software have the opinion that there should be no software patents at all. It's kind of silly, frankly.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for openness and transparency. But I do believe there needs to be some level of legal rights protection, and that it's a pretty fundamental pillar of our capitalist system. Out of curiosity, what do you (and others) think of a patent for something like Google's PageRank?

[deleted]

Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

#43

Post by NathanKP » Tue, Dec 22, 2009, 10:32 PM UTC

josefresco wrote: post #15

NathanKP wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the same time legitimate software patents can help to protect small software studios and startups. It is a double edged sword.

I'd say it's still a one-sided sword. The side that crushes real innovation (and brings on crap suits like this) is sharp as hell, the one the 'protects' small startups is pretty blunt.

I have to agree. I'm just saying that there is the potential for it to help as well as harm.

Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

#44

Post by cookiecaper » Tue, Dec 22, 2009, 10:32 PM UTC

cloudkj wrote: post #41

steveklabnik wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Getting rid of software patents altogether is quite extreme. Really? I'd think that most people in software have the opinion that there should be no software patents at all. It's kind of silly, frankly.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for openness and transparency. But I do believe there needs to be some level of legal rights protection, and that it's a pretty fundamental pillar of our capitalist system. Out of curiosity, what do you (and others) think of a patent for something like Google's PageRank?

I think it's bad, because the patent wouldn't read "Google's PageRank". It would read "A system that ranks cataloged pages by their relevance to a certain search term", which would mean every other search engine would have to license Google's tech.

Copyright already covers specific implementations. That's as far as it needs to go in software.

Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

#45

Post by philwelch » Tue, Dec 22, 2009, 10:32 PM UTC

cloudkj wrote: post #25

cookiecaper wrote: post #6

This is good. We need more of these things to happen so that we can get some power behind the anti-software-patent lobby. Software patents have to become too dangerous to keep around, and that happens by things like this; right now, Microsoft and others use patents to lord over Linux and make vague threats about litigation. This is an important part of Microsoft's strategy, so software patents are important to them.…

I'd argue that, rather than banning software patents outright, the process by which these patents are approved should be put under high scrutiny and changed. For a lot of large companies, the approach really is similar to throwing everything against the wall and seeing what sticks. Having gone through the process recently, I'm amazed at how easy it is for an engineer to conceive an idea, pitch it to a few paralegals…

Software is (uniquely?) protected two ways--the source code and object code are both protected by copyright, and the algorithms may be protected by patent. One form of protection should be sufficient.

Arguably, software is also protected by trade secret, either because it's difficult to decompile object code into anything meaningful or because it's hosted and run on a server that no one else is allowed to see.

Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

#46

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Dec 22, 2009, 10:35 PM UTC

discojesus wrote: post #36

cookiecaper wrote: post #6

This is good. We need more of these things to happen so that we can get some power behind the anti-software-patent lobby. Software patents have to become too dangerous to keep around, and that happens by things like this; right now, Microsoft and others use patents to lord over Linux and make vague threats about litigation. This is an important part of Microsoft's strategy, so software patents are important to them.…

awesome things like making it illegal to sell Word and therefore Office How about just making your open source alternative to Word and Office that much better and competing with them? * edit: downmodded without justification. Wonderful. Which just forces the quality of discussion on HN WAY down. Ironically, understanding that concept requires understanding incentives, which are the basis of patents in the first place…

[deleted]

Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

#47

Post by philwelch » Tue, Dec 22, 2009, 10:36 PM UTC

discojesus wrote: post #36

cookiecaper wrote: post #6

This is good. We need more of these things to happen so that we can get some power behind the anti-software-patent lobby. Software patents have to become too dangerous to keep around, and that happens by things like this; right now, Microsoft and others use patents to lord over Linux and make vague threats about litigation. This is an important part of Microsoft's strategy, so software patents are important to them.…

awesome things like making it illegal to sell Word and therefore Office How about just making your open source alternative to Word and Office that much better and competing with them? * edit: downmodded without justification. Wonderful. Which just forces the quality of discussion on HN WAY down. Ironically, understanding that concept requires understanding incentives, which are the basis of patents in the first place…

I downmodded you because you demonstrated a total misunderstanding of cookiecaper's point, quoted him out of context, and made a totally irrelevant response. He wasn't making any kind of attack or criticism against Microsoft Word or Office, he was arguing that this kind of disruptive litigation will provide an impetus to lobby against software patents.

Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

#48

Post by ericb » Tue, Dec 22, 2009, 10:39 PM UTC

discojesus wrote: post #36

cookiecaper wrote: post #6

This is good. We need more of these things to happen so that we can get some power behind the anti-software-patent lobby. Software patents have to become too dangerous to keep around, and that happens by things like this; right now, Microsoft and others use patents to lord over Linux and make vague threats about litigation. This is an important part of Microsoft's strategy, so software patents are important to them.…

awesome things like making it illegal to sell Word and therefore Office How about just making your open source alternative to Word and Office that much better and competing with them? * edit: downmodded without justification. Wonderful. Which just forces the quality of discussion on HN WAY down. Ironically, understanding that concept requires understanding incentives, which are the basis of patents in the first place…

The problem with your just simply build your own open source competitor theory, aside from being a glib response, is that you are quite likely to be violating a patent Microsoft or someone else holds when you build said system.

Complaining about downvoting is itself noise, which will generally only get you downvoted further.

Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

#49

Post by dantheman » Tue, Dec 22, 2009, 10:48 PM UTC

cloudkj wrote: post #41

steveklabnik wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Getting rid of software patents altogether is quite extreme. Really? I'd think that most people in software have the opinion that there should be no software patents at all. It's kind of silly, frankly.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for openness and transparency. But I do believe there needs to be some level of legal rights protection, and that it's a pretty fundamental pillar of our capitalist system. Out of curiosity, what do you (and others) think of a patent for something like Google's PageRank?

What right? Copyrights & Patents are not natural in a free market; they're government creations. Remember patents and copyright only exist to encourage people to produce, not because you're entitled to profit from it. As of right now there is very little in the way of evidence that patents in anyway contribute to encouraging people to produce. Most small companies don't even bother patenting ideas because they don't have the time or the money to.

Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

#50

Post by bioweek » Tue, Dec 22, 2009, 10:50 PM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #39

bioweek wrote: post #27

Why is MSFT stock up for the day and for the week? Shouldn't this majorly affect their revenue?

The stock is supposed to reflect the discounted value of all future cash flows. In the grand scheme of Microsoft's Infinite Revenue Machine, having Word off the market for a month or so while they figure out a workaround really doesn't make much of a dent.

So no one is worried it will be off the market permanently? I thought investors were prone to panic?