Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 5th Jul 2011 22:12 UTC
Microsoft "One of Microsoft's hottest new profit centers is a smartphone platform you've definitely heard of: Android. Google's Linux-based mobile operating system is a favorite target for Microsoft's patent attorneys, who are suing numerous Android vendors and just today announced that another manufacturer has agreed to write checks to Microsoft every time it ships an Android device. Microsoft's latest target is Wistron Corp., which has signed a patent agreement 'that provides broad coverage under Microsoft's patent portfolio for Wistron's tablets, mobile phones, e-readers and other consumer devices running the Android or Chrome platform', Microsoft announced." That's the reality we live in, folks. This is at least as criminal - if not more so - than Microsoft's monopoly abuse late last century. After the Nortel crap, it's completely left the black helicopter camp for me: Microsoft, Apple, and several others are working together to fight Android the only way they know how: with underhand mafia tactics. Absolutely sickening. Hey Anonymous, are you listening? YES I WENT THERE.
Thread beginning with comment 479779
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[10]: Patents are patents
by pantheraleo on Wed 6th Jul 2011 14:29 UTC in reply to "RE[9]: Patents are patents"
pantheraleo
Member since:
2007-03-07

Your retort to Wikipedia's detailed recollection of the history of software patents is to post a summary of that article which basically states the same thing?


Again, the article you cited doesn't even mention the year 1998 except as a publication date for one of the referenced articles. So what part of your ass did you pull the 1998 date out of?

Because it is a strawman. Just because I may or may not have developed software in no way invalidates my arguments


Yeah it does. If you have never written software, it's could reason to question whether you really have any idea what you are talking about on this subject, and whether your views are informed with anything that resembles the reality of software development.

arguments, I might add, which are getting far more support in here than yours.


Now that is definitely a logical fallacy. Just because a argument is popular and gets support does not mean it is correct. At one time, the argument that the Earth was the center of the solar system had a lot of support as well.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Again, the article you cited doesn't even mention the year 1998 except as a publication date for one of the referenced articles. So what part of your ass did you pull the 1998 date out of?


Right, so you read Wikipedia articles without actually reading the things they reference. Let me enlighten you:

"Finally, in State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group,[12] the CAFC ruled that a numerical calculation that produces a "useful, concrete and tangible result", such as a price, is patent-eligible.[13]"

Now, click on "State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group". Bingo!

Piece of advice: you shouldn't partake in a discussion if you're unwilling to properly read the arguments people put forth. Just a tip!

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[12]: Patents are patents
by pantheraleo on Wed 6th Jul 2011 14:44 in reply to "RE[11]: Patents are patents"
pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

"Finally, in State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group,[12] the CAFC ruled that a numerical calculation that produces a "useful, concrete and tangible result", such as a price, is patent-eligible.[13]"


I still don't understand what you are arguing. There were thousands of software patents granted prior to that lawsuit. And there were lawsuits that upheld the validity of software parents prior to that lawsuit.

See Cottshalk vs. Benson in 1972. The U.S. Supreme Court, although ruling that the specific algorithm in question was not patentable, stated in its decision "it is said that the decision precludes a patent for any program servicing a computer. We do not so hold."

So in 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court specifically stated that its decision to invalidate that particular patent did NOT mean that all software parents were invalid.

Piece of advice: you shouldn't partake in a discussion if you're unwilling to properly read the arguments people put forth. Just a tip!


Maybe you are the one that needs to take your own advice Thom. You still haven't provided any evidence to suggest that software patents startd in 1998. You took some court case in 1998, and tried to state that it was the start of software patents. That's a Non-sequitur argument.

There have clearly been software patents since long before 1998. And the Supreme Court of the United States clearly stated in 1972 that it was not ruling all software patents invalid just because it ruled the particular algorithm in Cottshalk vs. Benson was not patentable because it was based on prior art dating to the 19th century.

Edited 2011-07-06 14:51 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[11]: Patents are patents
by _txf_ on Wed 6th Jul 2011 14:36 in reply to "RE[10]: Patents are patents"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Yeah it does. If you have never written software, it's could reason to question whether you really have any idea what you are talking about on this subject, and whether your views are informed with anything that resembles the reality of software development.


Well, I have.

I still think software patents are garbage.

Now, how does the fact that I have written software make me more qualified to speak about this than Thom?

Edited 2011-07-06 14:38 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[12]: Patents are patents
by pantheraleo on Wed 6th Jul 2011 14:48 in reply to "RE[11]: Patents are patents"
pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

Now, how does the fact that I have written software make me more qualified to speak about this than Thom?


Because it means you have hands-on experience with the process that goes into designing software. No one who has never actually designed and written software can claim they understand the issues involved with it. No amount of book knowledge or reading makes up for actual experience.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[11]: Patents are patents
by pantheraleo on Wed 6th Jul 2011 15:13 in reply to "RE[10]: Patents are patents"
pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

Btw, Thom, here's a specific case example (there are earlier ones I am sure, but this is the one that comes to the top of my head because it was well known at the time) that proves your 1998 date is incorrect.

See Stac Electronics vs. Microsoft. In 1994, Stac Electronics successfully sued Microsoft claiming that the DoubleSpace compression technology that Microsoft added to DOS 6.0 violated software patents it held regarding disk compression. Stac also successfully recieved an injunction against Microsoft forcing them stop distributing DoubleSpace while Microsoft was appealing. Thus, DoubleSpace was removed from DOS.

Ultimately the case was settled out of court with Microsoft agreeing to make a $40 million investment in Stac, as well as pay $43 million in royalties for use of the patents.

That case proves beyond any doubt, that your 1998 date is incorrect. Just off the top of my head (and again, I'm sure there are earlier examples), legal precedence validating software patents goes back to at least 1994.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

That case proves beyond any doubt, that your 1998 date is incorrect. Just off the top of my head (and again, I'm sure there are earlier examples), legal precedence validating software patents goes back to at least 1994.


Just read this, will you? It will explain everything.

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

The gist: the USPTO was not conducive to software patents, and resisted them. The CAFC sometimes reversed USPTO decisions, leading to a sort of struggle between the two when it came to software patents. The Supreme Court tended to side with the USPTO, but this changed in the course of the '90s. The USPTO then decided to throw in the towel - as it was said back then.

Coincidentally, the USPTO decided to throw in the towel right around Clinton appointed the former chief lobbyist for the Software Publishing Industry as the Commissioner of the USPTO. Funny, huh?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[11]: Patents are patents
by JAlexoid on Wed 6th Jul 2011 16:49 in reply to "RE[10]: Patents are patents"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Now let me intervene.
Have you ever filed a patent application? EPO or USPTO? Have you been working with patents? Is your education in IP law or did your education include IP law as part of the studies? How many IP lawyers have you actually had the very same discussion with?

My education included 2 years of IP law (mandatory for Informatics education), with 1 year of international IP law included.
I work with patents periodically. Patents that are filed with USPTO and EPO. Starting 2006 I've been on one of the patent application review committees at my workplace. I know what gets into my hands and what ends up filed.
I'm a software developer and currently an IT Consultant.

So unless you are actually a patent lawyer, I will tell you that you know absolutely nothing and your arguments are uninformed.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[12]: Patents are patents
by pantheraleo on Wed 6th Jul 2011 17:35 in reply to "RE[11]: Patents are patents"
pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

Have you ever filed a patent application? EPO or USPTO?


Yes. I have filed a patent application with the USPTO. And I have also worked to get an IBM patent invalidated based on prior art. No, I don't file patent applications on a regular basis.

So unless you are actually a patent lawyer, I will tell you that you know absolutely nothing and your arguments are uninformed.


Actually, that's part of the reason the patent system as it currently exists is broken (and that applies to all patents. Not just software patents). Because we let lawyers who don't understand technology or engineering make the decisions about what is patentable and what is not. The system would work better if we had a technocracy form of government and put technocrats in charge of running the patent office instead of lawyers.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[12]: Patents are patents
by Not2Sure on Wed 6th Jul 2011 18:48 in reply to "RE[11]: Patents are patents"
Not2Sure Member since:
2009-12-07

In other words you're not a lawyer but you play one on TV.

Give me a break.

Reply Parent Score: 1