Microsoft Sues Barnes & Noble Over Android
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Mar 2011 22:52 UTC, submitted by ephracis
Legal Since competing on merit is looked down upon in the computer and software world, companies in this business usually go for the blindfolded chick with the scale and sword. Up until recently, Microsoft didn't go for the whole patent litigation thing, but now that they've tasted some, they want more. They just sued Barnes & Noble, Foxconn, and Inventec for patent infringement because they use Android.
E-mail Print r 6   · Read More · 60 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/iy2
Thread beginning with comment 467239
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Patent Infringement
by lemur2 on Tue 22nd Mar 2011 00:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Patent Infringement"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

"You are comparing apples and oranges. This case is all about software patents, but GPL license has nothing to do with such. GPL license is purely a copyright license. Ie. you can definitely be against software patents while still supporting copyright law.
I'm not equating the issue of patents vs license agreements. I'm saying that using the courts to enforce legal rights is what's at stake here. Ergo, you can't support GPL licensors' ability to sue transgressors without supporting Microsoft's right; unless you're a hypocrite, that is. "

You could argue that FOSS authors have a right to keep their own code open as they intended it to be. It is much harder to argue that Microsoft has a right to sue another party to try to collect rent over code which Microsoft did not write.

This is especially the case when you consider the weak nature of the patent claims, their obviousness, and the considerable prior art.

Given all this, it is obviously true that Microsoft is simply trying to quash competition. Google would have a very strong countersuit claim that Microsoft is interfering with its business relations with Barnes & Noble.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

Edited 2011-03-22 00:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Patent Infringement
by tomcat on Tue 22nd Mar 2011 00:56 in reply to "RE[3]: Patent Infringement"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Yes, you're right. Suing over patent infringement is about quashing competition. But that's the point of patents: the government grants you time-limited monopoly status over a particular idea, and excludes others with the force of the law. That said, just because it's about quashing competition does't mean it's bad. Inventors deserve to be compensated for their inventions. You disagree, obviously, but so what. The law is on my side.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Patent Infringement
by lemur2 on Tue 22nd Mar 2011 01:10 in reply to "RE[4]: Patent Infringement"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Yes, you're right. Suing over patent infringement is about quashing competition. But that's the point of patents: the government grants you time-limited monopoly status over a particular idea, and excludes others with the force of the law. That said, just because it's about quashing competition does't mean it's bad. Inventors deserve to be compensated for their inventions. You disagree, obviously, but so what. The law is on my side.


Here is a reasonable summary:

http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=201103211720086...

From that opinion: "Hint - "Enable display of a webpage's content before the background image is received, allowing users to interact with the page faster" is something that anyone with a slow modem and Netscape 2.0 had no choice over - that's how it worked, and predates the patent application date.

The rest of the patents are equally silly. For example, the one about tabs and navigation is anticipated by any web page using frames. Also anticipated by lots of game interfaces.

Prediction: The patents will be show to be invalid, but in the meantime the usual suspects make all sorts of foolish noises."

If the patent claims get thrown out, as there seems at first galnce to be a very good chance, then Microsoft is a sitting duck for tortiuous interference and antitrust counterclaims.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Read more of this thread... >
RE[5]: Patent Infringement
by Morgan on Wed 23rd Mar 2011 16:54 in reply to "RE[4]: Patent Infringement"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

The issue I see with your position is, what exactly did Microsoft invent? Companies have been making device interfaces that do the things mentioned in their patents long before Microsoft got around to patenting their particular spin on the concept. It's called prior art. Hell, the guys who came up with the stage-prop LCARS interface in Star Trek way back in the 80s could claim prior art, just for "inventing" the concepts mentioned in the lawsuit, and they could even throw in things like haptic feedback and visual interfaces that change based on selections made. These are very broad, yet very patentable concepts according to US patent law.

Just because Microsoft was the first one to patent the concept doesn't mean they invented it. THAT is why patent law in the US sucks so bad; it rewards laziness and racketeering, and punishes poor inventors who can't afford to file until they have begun making money off their innovations.

Reply Parent Score: 2