Why Is It News That Microsoft Won't Enforce A Patent?

from the why-did-they-bother-in-the-first-place? dept

Wed, Sep 13th 2006 8:00pm — Mike Masnick

Microsoft is getting some attention today for the announcement that they won't enforce patents on certain web services specs that they hold. It's a bit telling that this is seen as a big, positive deal. However, it should be seen as yet another indictment of the patent system. First of all, it makes perfect sense not to enforce them. Part of the value of web services are in the network effects of having them more widely used. However, what benefit was the patent system in this case? Did it incent Microsoft to create the specifications? Nope. Did it help Microsoft earn any money? Nope. Did it keep some developers afraid for a while about whether or not they'd have to pay a toll to Microsoft? Sure. The only thing this really did was cost Microsoft money in terms of lawyers and patent filing fees -- as well as slow down the ecosystem they are now trying to promote. The reason certainly wasn't to stop others from patenting the technology. If that were the case, they could have just published the info early on and had all the prior art they needed.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

19 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

bryannn, 13 Sep 2006 @ 8:25pm

I disagree. From what Ive seen in the patent system and the US court system lately, having the patent seems like a definite advantage. Noone will even try to sue over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ShimmyShimmy, 13 Sep 2006 @ 10:33pm
  
  Re: patent system
  Are you retarded? "having the patent seems like a definite advantage" NO SH*T. Obviously it's better to have a patent than to not have a patent. You're missing the point. What value is the patent *system*? None. Those kinds of trivial, obvious and non-innovative "inventions" should NEVER be patentable. The USPTO should look the patent applications over and throw them out the window. They produce no social value. Ideally, such patents are in place to give Microsoft the incentive to innovate such features. Here's the problem: THOSE FEATURES ARE NOT INNOVATIVE. They're mere standards. You shouldn't even BE ABLE to patent such standards. That would be like saying you "invented" the concept of using 1/8" screws in your computer, vs. my 3/16" screws. It doesn't matter what the size is, you don't need to spend money to "innovate" a size screw to use. The development process has no rational cost to the "inventor" and should certainly not be licenseable for meaningless revenue streams.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rabid Wolverine, 14 Sep 2006 @ 4:36am
    
    Re: Re: patent system
    In the beginning, there was copyright. And the judge saw that code was written on paper in some sort of language and said 'it was good' to copyright.
    
    In reality, code is merely the description of a process, not unlike the equations that describe a chemical process or reaction that is used to create say 'a cleaner, motor oil or cosmetic'. These processes are patentable. And so are software processes.
    
    Now, for the differentiation. Some chemical processes such as the one to make 'sugar' are so common place and widely used that the patent office would never grant a patent to an individual or company for them.
    
    The same should go for software, the use of a mouse to access a GUI should not be patentable because:
    A. Xerox dropped the ball and slept for 10 years.
    B. It is very common place among disparate systems.
    C. It would not be in the public interest.
    
    However, if you come up with a new compression algorithm that decreases the size of video files by 98% that should be patentable. It was, after all, you who invented the process so you should reap the benefits for the term of the patent.
    
    Any questions?
    
    Now, for the diferentiation. Some chemical processes such as the one to make 'sugar' are so common place and widely used that the patent office would never grant a patent to an individual or company for them.
    
    The same should go for software, the use of a mouse to access a GUI should not be patentable because:
    A. Xerox dropped the ball and slept for 10 years.
    B. It is very common place among disparate systems.
    C. It would not be in the public interest.
    
    However, if you come up with a new compression algorythm that decreases the size of video files by 98% that should be patentable. It was, after all, you who invented the process so you should reap the benefits for the term of the patent.
    
    Any questions?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rocket Scientist, 14 Sep 2006 @ 2:18pm
    
    Re: Re: patent system
    Now I'm no rocket scientist, wait, i AM a rocket scientis, and standards are not at all like using 1/4 inch screws.
    
    If a standard says only that, say, 128 bit DES encryption shall be used, and you come up with the best dang encrupytion method that satisfies the standard and produces FAST 128 bit encryption that everyone wants to use, guess what? You've sucessfully locked up the standard.
    
    Rarely do standards specify exactly how a thing should be done. In fact that is the very area where there is a huge incentive to invent.
    
    To idiots like you who say the patent system provides no social value, I say, go back to your cave and start chiseling out a wheel and wheel yourself off a cliff.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
discojohnson, 13 Sep 2006 @ 9:09pm

costs money to make money
..or in this case save money. if it costs as much as $200k to get the patent through (which i have a hard time believing it'd cost that much), then they just saved $18.8M...from the $20M lawsuit that someone else "inventing" them and suing MS. i can't answer the root question of "why doesn't MS sue" however..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Avatar28, 14 Sep 2006 @ 3:50am
  
  Re: costs money to make money
  Exactly! If they didn't patent some other company would come along and see it and WOULD patent it and then turn around and sue a bunch of people a few years later when it's well established and they can get a lot of money for it. Sure, they could probably get the patents invalidated, but that didn't help RIM did it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
tracelan, 13 Sep 2006 @ 9:29pm

The patent system is a joke
If Microsoft published the specification then even if someone else managed to patent it Microsoft would have prior art thus voiding the patent. Or at least that is how it is supposed to work. But with Judge shopping by patent hoarding trolls, Microsoft could still lose. The patent system is a joke. Which is probably why Microsoft just went ahead and filled for the patent with no intention of enforcing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rick, 13 Sep 2006 @ 9:54pm

Hmmm
It seems like Microsoft is attempting to do what the patent system is not doing anymore. Promote innovation by essentially making this a public domain patent ala no-enforcement of such.

It could also have broader implications in that in holding onto it quietly over time they were able to develop services or infrasctructure complementing the patent - wherein lies their profit.

It also chalks up a point in their Do No Evil score, which was woefully lacking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2006 @ 10:38pm

If there were no patent system, we would be living Star Wars status.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rabid Wolverine, 14 Sep 2006 @ 4:26am
  
  Re:
  And if there were no police everyone would be carring iron like me...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
rijit (profile), 13 Sep 2006 @ 10:56pm

I can see why they do it
Heh, MS is being sued of Xbox Live now, article here: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34362
So I can see why MS takes the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tracker1, 13 Sep 2006 @ 11:38pm

re: I can see why they do it.
riit: That's great.. of course, Game Spy has been around for more than 10 years now iirc, which may well predate the holding company filing suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris, 14 Sep 2006 @ 4:13am

Can we patent not using our patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
foobar, 14 Sep 2006 @ 5:56am

How Ironic that MSFT is making free what should ha
Microsoft did patent the "standard" to protect their ability to play in the web service arena. If they hadn't imagine the dough they'd have to fork over to someone elses patent on the "standard". If you doubt it just ask RIM.

Ironic though that MSFT writes the patent and then doesn't enforce (charge us for the use). Is this a new practice for them or something they've been doing for years?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just a thought, 14 Sep 2006 @ 6:10am

patents are for cya
just as a thought but maybe Microsoft doesn't care about the patent at all, maybe they are trying to create the environment they claim and are just covering their assests.
in the realm of the web you have to start somewhere and it is easier to go up if you are standing on the shoulders of the last guy,right? but how likely is it if the guys three up do something groundbreaking and you use it that they sue you for patent infringement?
you turn to the judge and say "ya but they couldn't have got there without my stuff" case dismissed!
in the end it's all about the money and a little now can save alot later as any car/house owner can atest to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2006 @ 7:29am

defense
i think they do get alot of patents just to stop someone else from using them against them.. you know as well as anyone that prior art doesnt mean shit, the patent office will give it to someone else anyway, you will get sued, and 4 years and 650million dollars later you MIIIIGHT get their patent thrown out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SomeDude, 14 Sep 2006 @ 8:04am

Software Rapists
Having consulted with Microsoft in the past my first impression is one of distrust. This is based on my knowledge of how some of their executives think... I believe it is a trap!!! Microsoft will not enforce the patent because if they do... No one will use their inferior technology. In fact the whole reason for the patent was to give them a head start on the technology they want everyone to use. Because if they hadn't pursued it someone would have come up with a better mousetrap... sooner. Now that Microsoft has their version of the truth. They want everyone to run and jump on it. Enforcing their patent would do exactly the opposite of what Microsoft is truly about. They want the whole world DEPENDANT and I repeat the word DEPENDANT on their software. THEY WANT MICROSOFT SOFTWARE JUNKIES. Microsoft hasn't had an original idea... EVER!!! Everything they have or will have is pirated. Makes you understand why they dislike software piracy doesn't it. In fact ‘Pirate’ is too nice of a word to describe what they do. They are software RAPISTS! Don't use it just because it is there for the grabbing... it is a trap!!! You should have figured this one out by yourself ... in fact if the technology starts dying only then would they try to cash in on any company that was utilizing a patented process of theirs. Microsoft is a corporation and they don't do anything without a way to make money off of it... remember that :-)

P.S.

Microsoft is polishing the brass on the titanic... :-) There are too many open source initiatives and companies competing with better ideas. A while back MSFT stock dipped 11% and shortly after CEO Bill Gates 'decided' (yeah right) that he thought charity was a better way to spend his time... you can't compete with free forever...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flippy, 14 Sep 2006 @ 2:11pm

Give me a break
Micorsoft "agreeing" not to sue is another indictment of the patent system. What utter hogwash. But its no suprise here at Techdirt, where shrill meaningless rhetoric from the likes of comrade "Mike I-never-met-a-property-right-I-could-like" previal.

What mediocre idiocy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2006 @ 1:47am

they arent sueing now, but only Bill knows what is coming next.

I bet this is a long term plan, so wait and see ppl
[ link to this | view in chronology ]