Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 6th Jul 2011 14:00 UTC
Microsoft Well, paint me red and call me a girl scout, I totally did not see this one coming at all. This is so utterly surprising it made my brain explode. Hold on to your panties, because this will rock your world. After pressuring several smaller Android vendors into submission (and yes, HTC is still relatively small compared to other players), Microsoft is now moving on to the big one: Redmond is demanding $15 for every Samsung Android device sold. Samsung's choices are simple: pay up, or face another epic lawsuit.
Thread beginning with comment 479797
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by pablo_marx
by pablo_marx on Wed 6th Jul 2011 15:12 UTC
pablo_marx
Member since:
2006-02-03

Up until the mid-'90s, the US courts held the belief that software should not be patentable; it wasn't until 1998 that the courts ruled that a calculation which produced a "useful, concrete and tangible result" should be patentable (State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group). Up until then, the USPTO refused to grant patents on software; after, they ceased resisting, and accepted software patents.

I'm pretty sure the USPTO granted patents on software prior to 1998 -- For example the QuickDraw patent (http://tinyurl.com/6gb6osm">US ).

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by pablo_marx
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 6th Jul 2011 15:16 in reply to "Comment by pablo_marx"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm pretty sure the USPTO granted patents on software prior to 1998 -- For example the QuickDraw patent


Of course, it wasn't a 100% clear divide, but in general, the USPTO was not receptive to software patents, although the courts sometimes reversed USPTO decisions. The entire history is detailed here:

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

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by pablo_marx
by pablo_marx on Wed 6th Jul 2011 15:56 in reply to "RE: Comment by pablo_marx"
pablo_marx Member since:
2006-02-03

Your post makes it appear to be a 100% clear divide.

Up until then, the USPTO refused to grant patents on software; after, they ceased resisting, and accepted software patents.

(Where then is the 1998 court ruling).

The post should be updated so people who don't go read comments aren't mislead into believing software patents were only issued from 1998 onwards.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by pablo_marx
by pantheraleo on Wed 6th Jul 2011 18:00 in reply to "Comment by pablo_marx"
pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

I'm pretty sure the USPTO granted patents on software prior to 1998 -- For example the QuickDraw patent (US Patent 4,622,545).


Thom's claims about when software patents were first granted are completely wrong, but he refuses to admit it. Just a few examples that prove he is wrong:

- The first known software patent was granted in Britain on August 17, 1967 entitled "A Computer Arranged for the Automatic Solution of Linear Programming Problems"

- On November 20th, 1972, in Gottschalk v. Benson, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled a software patent application was invalid because of prior art dating to the 19th century. However, in its ruling, it specifically stated it was only ruling against that particular patent, and NOT software patents in general. "it is said that the decision precludes a patent for any program servicing a computer. We do not so hold."

- On May 26th, 1981, the first known U.S. software patent was granted to Satya Pal Asija for a natural language interface program.

- In 1994, Stac Electronics successfully sued Microsoft over software parent violations regarding the DoubleSpace disk compression technology included in MS DOS 6.0.

In short, the claim that software patents were not granted until 1998 is clearly false.

Edited 2011-07-06 18:05 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by pablo_marx
by JAlexoid on Wed 6th Jul 2011 20:36 in reply to "RE: Comment by pablo_marx"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I'm sorry... Did you actually read what Thom wrote there? Not granted is not really the same as resisted...

PS: Subject is USPTO and to my knowledge UK is not in USPTO jurisdiction...

Reply Parent Score: 2