Microsoft Decides It Can't Compete With Salesforce.com; Sues For Patent Infringement Instead
from the must-we-remind-you dept
Remember back when Bill Gates said:"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today... A future start-up with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose."Those days are long gone, apparently. In its latest patent litigation action, Microsoft has decided to sue Salesforce.com for infringing on a bunch of patents. Basically, it looks like Microsoft went through its collection of patents to find whatever they could that Salesforce might possibly infringe on. Take a look at the list:
- 7,251,653: Method and system for mapping between logical data and physical data
- 5,742,768: System and method for providing and displaying a web page having an embedded menu
- 5,644,737: Method and system for stacking toolbars in a computer display
- 6,263,352: Automated web site creation using template driven generation of active server page applications
- 6,542,164: Timing and velocity control for displaying graphical information
- 6,281,879: Timing and velocity control for displaying graphical information (the 164 patent above looks to just be a continuation of this patent)
- 5,845,077: Method and system for identifying and obtaining computer software from a remote computer
- 5,941,947: System and method for controlling access to data entities in a computer network
Hopefully (though, unlikely), the Supreme Court gets around to issuing its Bilski ruling and puts software patents like these out of their misery. Here's the full filing for anyone interested:
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
Filed Under: online, patents, software
Companies: microsoft, salesforce.com
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Some startup projects I was following in the design stages had a bunch of simple ideas that were rejected upon review because they were patented by such overly broad patents.
Overly broad patents can surely do damage without any lawsuit required.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, sure, but that presumes that the patents are overly broad. How are the MS patents overly broad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's not helpful. You're quoting the title, which has no legal force. The breadth of a patent's property right is determined by its broadest claim, which is usually Claim 1. So read the claim below and tell me how it is overly broad. And please keep in mind that it has a priority date of June 30, 2004.
Here's Claim 1:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I realize it would be hard for someone to understand that doesn't do this for a living. The basic waterfall lifecycle expects logical design to occur before physical design. The logical design includes the specification of data elements in a manner that is understandable from a business perspective. The physical design takes the specific technology into account, by de-normalizing where appropriate and creating other physical elements. The physical design must be mapped back to the logical design, especially in instances where a COTS product pre-specifies the target data store.
As I said, ERP systems expose logical data elements with which business users interact that is independent of how the data is stored, and a mapping is created and maintained.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It was certainly used in the first billing system computers IBM sold in the 1950s.
Long before GUIs and Gates started to, ahhhh, borrow BASIC and call it his own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you mean look at how broad the titles are?
You can't judge the breadth of a patent by its title. Why not post the allegedly ridiculously broad claims instead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do you mean look at how broad the titles are?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yea. another reason i don't use their products: they can't actually innovate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not quite. Suing over patents is an attempt to use a gov't granted monopoly to stop competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The state of patents is truly sad...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the title makes me sad...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the title makes me sad...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cause we know no one would ever think a this stuff
AND vagueness and all the suits going on are going to destroy whats left of the IT industry in the USA.
SO DOOOOOO IT
go crazy sue sue sue waste all the money in th euniverse on vagueness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apparently, considering Gates hasn't run any day-to-day operations in over 2 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wasn't referring to *him* running operations, obviously. But the general sentiment from Microsoft. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The patents ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ASP
According to this patent, just about everyone using ASP is infringing.
Kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it? Who is going to use ASP to set up an online store, knowing that they will get sued by Microsoft for patent infringement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ASP
Perhaps someone who's willing to pay a license fee?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BIG Problem
I'm just waiting to see the patent for "System and method for showing stuff on the interweb."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BIG Problem
To be fair, that's standard patent language and is somewhat meaningless in the title of the patent. It does, in fact, come down to what is that system and method (or method and system) which is supposed to be in the claims (though, often those are too damn vague as well...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: BIG Problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BIG Problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@11 yes they shuld be suing MMO's
they seemlessly ran on unix and linux and you needed to add code in the early days to make them run on windows in dos mode
now think about RPG's in the sense of vagueness and YOU a DM , and a few people OR even a solo adventure, could some of these patents run afoul of 1970's rpg's themselves?
I mean like ya so vague you can just laugh the good thing of this is hopefully they get whacked away and maybe if they keep suing we can clear out the BAD( SEE A USE FOR CAPS YET) patents that exist or they won't try ones they know are too vague.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just a quick read fo the titles and heres what i see
- could this be a dungeon map and the data that makes it so?
who knows its too vague to know what is the logical and what the data is to be
5,742,768: System and method for providing and displaying a web page having an embedded menu
- this could be the output of web.c if you ever modified your own to output the user name and some data on the players in a MUD, later web page based games do this all time and such
6,263,352: Automated web site creation using template driven generation of active server page applications
WEB.c of the MUDS does just this using a template to put certain data in a logical format and out to a webpage
6,542,164: Timing and velocity control for displaying graphical information
WEIRD one this is isn't time a kernal function and also somehting no one can copyright/patent as it has in fact according to physicists of M-Theory even existed before creation of the universe. NOW back to mud code well a certain amount a time goes buy and hte page is auto updated and the update page is generated and dropped into a web page area for viewing. MOST admins added avatars and such for each person or certain parts of that and the web page it self is a graphical representation as is anything displayed to you.
5,845,077: Method and system for identifying and obtaining computer software from a remote computer
haha sounds a lot like early remote bots and also like INTERMUD an addon for most types a circlemud and other muds like smaug where you can have remote servers talk to each other and thus create less loads and make even more diverse and larger worlds.
* 5,941,947: System and method for controlling access to data entities in a computer network
- is htis a database patent like the mother of database patents OR a login system?
UGH so vague who knows
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Agreggation of system settings into objects"
things like functions in the core languages that allow for time settings and other core implements are just UN PATENTABLE
they already exist and have and will long after MS does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not entirely clear to me that you read the patents in addition to reading their titles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@24 @27 HI TAM HOPE YOU ENJOY THE CAPS
I am human and read English properly. i could just as easily say you did not read a thing i said and in my case at least i can verify it by the facts of what i wrote, versus what you did. IF you take the title and in most of the cases the summary of the patents at face values as YOU should this is the determination i come and get to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @24 @27 HI TAM HOPE YOU ENJOY THE CAPS
Something tells me that you've never actually done a patent search. Otherwise you would not spew such nonsense.
I am human and read English properly. i could just as easily say you did not read a thing i said and in my case at least i can verify it by the facts of what i wrote, versus what you did. IF you take the title and in most of the cases the summary of the patents at face values as YOU should this is the determination i come and get to.
Did you read the claims? Because that's where a patent gets its legal force. If all you read were the titles and abstracts, then you clearly do not know what the patents legally cover.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @24 @27 HI TAM HOPE YOU ENJOY THE CAPS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here well discuss, I am very happy reading your articles post, will come back in future on your website for gathering such useful info.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]