Why Won't Microsoft Explain Its Patent Discrepancy?
from the just-wondering dept
A few months back, we highlighted Tim Lee's excellent comparison of Microsoft's views on software patents today, and back in 1991 when Bill Gates talked about how stifling software patents could be. Over the weekend, the NY Times let Tim write an opinion piece digging into the subject, also bringing up how the Verizon/Vonage patent lawsuit is a perfect example of the problems software patents bring about. While Tim concludes his article by noting that Bill Gates "won't admit" that patents are stifling to innovation (as he said in 1991), isn't it about time someone asks Gates why? Gates would likely dance around the answer. The truth, though, is that history shows that patents tend to be used by incumbents to stamp out innovation, rather than to help promote it. The difference now is that Microsoft isn't a young upstart. It's an incumbent that wants to make life difficult for upstarts. That's not about promoting innovation at all.
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
Ice T.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Infringement...
That is my quote. I wrote it a long time ago, and now I own you! Nobody gets to say that but me, or there might be confusion. forty years hard labor for you, buddy!
Da Ice Man
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
turnabout
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: turnabout
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: turnabout
It is probably faster, cheaper and more certain to simply patent everything is sight themselves. They are lobbying for reform and supporting attempts at reform through the courts: http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2005/06/case_on_obvious.html
Finally, I do not remember ever reading about Microsoft suing anyone for patent infringement. (OMG, I never thought I would be defending Microsoft).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: turnabout
guess not, maybe you should have, it would have saved you the shock of discovering you were defending Microsoft ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: turnabout
MS and SCO know each other from deals long before the recent SCO vs. Linux lawsuits. Many folks forget a little endevour called Xenix. That was "embrace and extend" in the 80s based on IP licensed from SCO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Linux could make IP non-infringing in a matter of
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Linux could make IP non-infringing in a matter of
If it doesn't infringe, no lawsuit. No lawsuit, no settlements. Pretty simple...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*SOFTWARE* patent
I suggest that before you talk you ignorant nonsense you should really really try to come up with some workable definition...
(And pleeeze, remember the Turing, my little clueless tech-ignorant friends...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For you, idiots
http://www.ipjur.com/01.php3
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For you, idiots
You point us to a FAQ that explains what everyone knows already? How useful is that? The point is that software patents, whether legal or not (and we know that they're legal) are clearly harming innovation -- and even Microsoft knew that 15 years ago. Your link didn't add to the discussion, it simply repeats what everyone knows and doesn't add anything useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple
And unfortunately, Ballmer has drastically different ideas than Gates has (in fact if Ballmer ever did get the boot or leave Mircosoft I bet he'd be working for Sony inside a week, their philosophies are so similar).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Embrace...Extend...Extinguish
Seriously, though, software should not be protected by both patents and copyright. Either patent law should be applied, sot hat the code used has to be spelled out in the patent, and anyone can use the patented idea for a liscene fee, or copyright law applied to the code, so that the same idea could be implemented in a different way. (Some would also argue that it would be best to completly abolish all forms of IP, but that is not likely to be implemented anytime soon, and can be discounted as a possible solution to the problem of the abuse of the IP system by software companies.)
In my opinion, it would be best to remove patent protection from software, while maintaning copyright protection. Thus I cannot copy your program, either by copying and pasting your code or simply copying your program, just as with a book I may not eitehr plaigiarise your book or simply duplicate it without a liscence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]