41–50 of 57 posts
This is an abomination. This patent clearly fails the obviousness test (that is, if somebody is capable of reading the patent all the way through without being disgusted and embarrassed for the "inventors"). Unfortunately, most of the software patents are like this: the Patent Office is clearly failing us. Math formulas are not patentable, and software is just that: math. Seems like our only hope is if somebody power…
@romp please see my post above about 'the obviousness test' IMHO this relationship between patents and what is obvious is the source of a huge amount of misunderstanding about and opposition to patents. I have no problem with serious discussions about patent reform, but surely such a serious discussion should be based on a substantive understanding of reality not popular misconceptions? Let's all get clear on what is…
Now, the differences. The idea of storing markup and data in separate containers, at least one of which is XML-based is not something anyone with knowledge of XML can not think of. Let me re-read the patent in question. Yep, I got it right. While I can't turn off my hindsight, I can't also think that CSS doesn't fit into this, as well as many other technologies. BTW, i4i, in case you're reading, I didn't give you this idea and you can't use it, at least because CSS is at least 2 years older than issuing date of patent 5787449. Which reminds me of the prior art arguments, but I digress.
All that is neither here-nor there. You say it's not obvious -- I say it is. What really matters is the goal of the exercise. Patents were created when inventions were _hard_. Coming up with the idea of pumping air out of the glass tube with wolfram wire in it required lots of costly tests, trials and errors. Do you know how many stores stocked wolfram back then? Patents were created to _encourage_ innovation on the assumption that not too many people can afford innovating in the same field at the same time. Fast forward to today. Coming up with software patents today requires a whiteboard, a Word document and a phone to call a lawyer. I know, I have a few of those (equally embarrassingly obvious, I must add). Does it protect me and my invention _today_? Nope, since I can't afford to sue somebody even if I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the patent has been infringed on. Big companies plow over individual investors with their army of lawyers. The opposite, however, is not true (the in-app purchasing patent story is the point in case).
Another aspect of patent situation today is the shier vastness of the field. Who can afford doing patent searches for literally every line of code before it is written? So we all are forced to live on the minefield. This serves as an argument against innovation by individuals. And that brings results which are directly opposite to the original goals of the patent system. Which is not a good thing.
Reading the Court opinion, it seems like they aren't examining the whole case, but only one particular question of law raised by the case. There's nothing written in the opinion examining whether the patent itself is statutory, novel, and nonobvious; only Microsoft's objection to its validity is mentioned.
Can any law gurus explain how this certiorari thing works?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is however the argument of prior art, so it still takes a little brain-racking to do. Patents are more about digging some holes in the forest and covering them up, after which you go home and cross your fingers that someone steps into one of them in the future.
I honestly don't understand the point you are making. Would you mind elaborating? Thanks.
From the point of view of other companies these are hidden traps that could be anywhere. You're just doing business as usual, solving problems, and bam, you're told that you weren't allowed to think of obvious idea X because someone has a patent, pay up $10 million dollars. (Actual dollar amount varies widely.)
The really evil ones patent stuff, get their patented ideas into standards, wait until everyone is following the standard, then start filing lawsuits. Past bad experiences with this are why standards organizations usually require that participants license any relevant patents that are needed to implement the standards.
The article talks about "taking the case all the way to the Supreme Court", but is that accurate? Reading the Court opinion, it seems like they aren't examining the whole case, but only one particular question of law raised by the case. There's nothing written in the opinion examining whether the patent itself is statutory, novel, and nonobvious; only Microsoft's objection to its validity is mentioned. Can any law gu…
I'm not an issues and appeals lawyer, but here's what I know about appeals. Appeals are only for questions of law, never for questions of facts. And the question of law must be unsettled (otherwise, why would SCOTUS take the case?) SCOTUS probably took this case to clarify the defendant's burden of proof regarding invalidity defenses.
Now, this particular case was about the standard of proof for invalidity defenses (and jury instructions). The trial court told the jury that MS had to defend against invalidity claim by clear and convincing evidence. Microsoft thought that was the wrong standard. SCOTUS said that the lower court was right.
So, since the lower courts applied the right standard, this is the end of the line. The verdict against MS will stand.
tl;dr: appeals (cetorari_ to SCOTUS) focuses on unsolved or ambiguous questions of law, not factual issues. (Mixed questions of fact and law is a whole 'nother story...you don't want to know).
To me, the scariest part was: U.S. solicitor general, which represents the federal government, filed a brief in support of i4i, saying that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office should not be second-guessed by a jury. The Patent and Trademark Office absolutely should be second-guessed by a jury. Judges and juries are the only sanity-check the whole system has at this point!
Agree completely, had just copied the quote and was about to paste it to say the same thing. When we consider all the BS patents that have been rubber-stamped by the PTO, this is a very scary proposal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I honestly don't understand the point you are making. Would you mind elaborating? Thanks.
There is a well-known patent strategy where you patent a technology, wait for other people to start using it, and then proceed to sue them for large amounts of money. From the point of view of other companies these are hidden traps that could be anywhere. You're just doing business as usual, solving problems, and bam, you're told that you weren't allowed to think of obvious idea X because someone has a patent, pay up…
Supposedly harder to pull off these days, but still happens.
Any examples of the evil strategy, as in patented stuff getting into standards?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is exactly why if you're in favor of software patents you should at least be in favor of a shortening of the duration. 20 years is an eternity for software.
I am in favor of software patents and I am in favor of shortening the duration. (In this context we somehow have to reform USPTO so that they can get a patent out in less than 3-5 years! remember this time comes off the term of the patent) :)
Not at the moment, no. As I understand it, patents in the US are judged from the time of approval, not the time of filing, so the length of the approval process doesn't affect the amount of time a patent is in effect.
This makes sense. Otherwise, a competitor could tie any disagreeable patent up in litigation, ensuring that the patent would be in effect for only a very short period of time.
I think i'd feel a little more sorry for Microsoft if it weren't using software patents to fight Android. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870346610457552... (search for "patent fee")
I sooo agree with this. Microsoft seems bipolar in its attitude towards patents. I understand why they are happy to sue into markets they aren't dominate, and then be upset at being sued in markets where they are. But they are so enthusiastic at both ends.. I am extremely satisfied with the ruling in this respect. Companies that use silly patents deserve to have silly patents used against them. I agree it could have…