Microsoft Caught Trying To Patent Software Concept It Already Admitted It Had Copied
from the lovely dept
e-mask686 writes in to point out the bizarre story of a new Microsoft patent application on a concept the company already admitted it had copied from someone else. Back in early 2005, one of the developers of BlueJ was alerted to the fact that Microsoft's Visual Studio included some features that seemed likely to have been copied directly from BlueJ. The developer noted that he didn't mind in a competitive sense, but would have appreciated some credit. Someone at Microsoft then wrote a blog post in June of 2005 admitted that some of the Microsoft developers admitted they developed the features in response to what customers said they liked about BlueJ. In other words, Microsoft clearly admitted that they were modifying their own product to include features from BlueJ -- which is the nature of competition. There's nothing wrong with that. If your competitor is doing a good job satisfying customers, of course you'll want to offer something similar. However, four months after they admitted that they built the feature based on BlueJ, they filed for a patent on the same feature. It's only an application, not an approved patent -- but it's still quite problematic. The prior art is clear (and glaring!) but there's no guarantee that the folks at the patent office will know any of that or find the prior art (or other prior art). If the patent is granted, to then challenge it is quite a pain, and Microsoft would enjoy the patent being considered as valid for the ridiculous length of time it then took to go through the long review process. This isn't something that's specific to Microsoft (and it's unlikely this is a nefarious move on their part, but rather more likely just a mistake). However, it does highlight some of the major problems with a patent system where everyone is encouraged to patent every possible concept they can find. And people wonder why the Patent Office is overwhelmed with more patent applications than it can handle. The solution isn't to hire more examiners, but to make it so it doesn't make sense to file bogus patent applications any more. Update: Apparently Microsoft has now announced that they'll be retracting the patent application, and that it was "a mistake." That's great, but the fact that it took a ton of publicity for them to recognize this highlights the problems of the patent system as it currently stands.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Better idea..
The solution isn't to hire more examiners, but to make it so it isn't economically feasible to file bogus patent applications any more.
Make a second patent system. One that grants royalty free usage fo the patents. Make that one free to submit requests for. This would solve the "we're patenting it so noone else can" argument.
Take the regular system we have now, and charge a hefty fee for it, and this fee would be used to hire consultants from the applicable fields to actually certify that yes, the patent is something new and inventive. Award that a patent that can be used in arbitration. (or whatever word fits there better.)
Of course, thats just one of a million ways to improve what we have. Noone will take it seriously, and we will continue in our downward spiral until a patent nuclear war kicks off, and the hundreds of big name companies go bankrupt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Better idea..
Second, the "expensive" second patent simply ensures that only companies with bucks can afford the system, shutting out the small inventor.
It's a complex problem to solve, and one of the reasons why there's not "a million ways to improve what we have", as nearly every potential "solution" has a negative impact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Better idea..
The small inventor would not be shut out at all. They would simply have to believe in their invention in order to get the funding to obtain a patent for it. There's nothing wrong with that. Noone ever claimed inventing has to be free as in beer.
And yes, it would take care fo the submaried patent concept, becuase someone that actually is in the business of knowing would have to certify that the patent was truly inventive. That goes for the submarine patent as well.
Its not a complex problem, its very simple. What makes it complex is when people try to pile more crap onto crap. Thats not going to work. If its crap, get rid of it and replace it with something better.
The laws will have to be scrapped to move forward. We cannot continue down the course we are headed now. The "little guy" inventor cannot survive in this system.
Of course theres going to be a negative impact. But whether or not a solution can be found where the negative impact is lower than the negative impact associated with "staying the course" can be found is up to the politicians to decide. ...Oh right, we're doomed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Better idea..
I find it amazing you dedicated an entire paragraph to that! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://listserv.acm.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0701d&L=sigcse-members&F=&S =&P=2285
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just wrote pretty much the same post...
...and though while I don't draw horns and a tail on Microsoft, I do point my finger a little more in their direction: assuming this was a mistake (which I basically believe), it points to a huge disconnect between the parts of Microsoft that are doing R&D and the parts that are responsible for managing IP.
The researchers clearly knew (and were relatively open about) where they were pulling the ideas from, but that just didn't make it through to the folks that handle patent applications. There's some really, really essential communication that should be happening there, but apparently isn't.
MS published 3,308 other applications in 2005 and 2006; it scares me to wonder how many others were "mistakes," and how much it will cost to fix the situation if those "mistakes" are approved.
My post here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing new here.... :-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
prior art rule
Another alternaltive would be to say that only a group of named individuals can have a patent, not a company, so when thoise people retire, they keep the patent. SUre, thier employment contract can say that they have to liscence any patents thaty gain as a result of thier work, but then the company cannot troll, and the small inventors are protected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Article
Yes, but it also shows the strength of the internet as a tool for quick public awareness of these issues. Up until recent years, this kind of thing would have slipped by without anyone knowing about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]