Mark Shuttleworth, founder of the Ubuntu Linux distribution, said that although Microsoft is seen as being very pro-patent at the moment, if every other software maker enforced its patents in the same way then Microsoft would find it very difficult and expensive to do business. “I think in ten years you will see Microsoft become a major opponent of patents and we will see very large software vendors turn around their position on patents,” Shuttleworth said.
What about the other companies who hold more patents than Microsoft? IBM comes to mind here. Are they going to be major opponents of patents too? How about Adobe?
“I think in ten years you will see Microsoft become a major opponent of patents”
Get in line, Bill!!!
Shuttleworth is wrong on this in more then one way , he is assuming that Microsoft is playing by the rules and a good citizen and follow Patents.
Microsft will break the law ( does so everyday in almost all country ) when it give them an advantage.They are criminals who always have an excuse to justify there bad behaviors ( come to think of it all thief and liar always justify there bad actions by saying its the general population who is wrong. )
The problem is that the patent system is in the US , if you know your history you know who the biggest IP/Patent thief are ( Its the US ). But thats nothing compared to the problem of the Patent system , it patent everything and any IDEA. But then again Patent are only good when protected and you need a lot of money to go against Microsoft ( ask the US DOJ or Microsoft themself , they figured it easier to settle then to wait and see by paying lawyers for years.).
If anyone where to look at the 3 000 Patent Microsoft as , almost 98% of them would be trown out as somebody else idea and invention. I am not saying there alone the Patent system work if your rich , but it serve no real purpose then give jobs to lawyer. The simple fact that you have to pay to register a patent is a problem on its own , another factor if I did not mention it before is that you can patent unproven theory or idea.
Finaly Patent are anti-evolution they should be small time constrained ( say 3 years at max ) and small fee per use. Now there used as a corporate weapon against the general popualtion and for the rich to use against the poor. ( Electric car and motor come to mind ).
Also the Government are known to not protect general interest when it come to lobbying and making money in the short term. Its utopique to think that the government will protect the population against many Billion dollar makers industry and company.
I think that’s what Shuttleworth is saying. The more we enforce software patents the more legal action will be started against Microsoft.
what he is saing is this.
Microsoft will be forced to pay patent holders for every claim that the holder has to all the software Microsoft releases… example.
Microsoft releases Office.
Who owns the patent for “File…Open” is it us or do we pay ?
Who owns the patent for “File…Save” is it us or do we pay ?
Who owns the patent for “Autospellchecking” is it us or do we pay ?
Who owns the patent for “Maximise/Minimise” is it us or do we pay ?
Who owns the patent for “CTRL – c/ CTRL -v” is it us or do we pay ?
Who owns the patent for “Slide fades ” is it us or do we pay ?
Who owns the patent for “hypertext embedding” is it us or do we pay ?
Do you get my point yet. They will be forced to check everything over and over, which will force delays on th e release dates of everything.
“Microsoft will be forced to pay patent holders for every claim that the holder has to all the software Microsoft releases…”
Thats where he is wrong Microsoft is a bunch of criminals who repeat there law breaking all the time. Microsoft only use the legislatives rules of a country and laws when it advantage them. There not afraid to send there lawyer in order to not pay or delay paying even if they know they lost the same exact case in the same country.
“is it us or do we pay ?”
Microsoft have to be sued for them to pay or respect there own contract. Look at who is currently suing Microsoft and why , most of them are small players that Microsoft taught they could take there technology and not have to pay them by joining in partnership to take there technology from them.
Microsoft always does that they send people to keep them informed and protect only there interest , and they push for solution that will seem logical at first but will turn out to be an immense advantage for them.
Microsoft will whant the patent system to change , but for a worst solution that advantage them.
I believe that _PRIMARILY_ small business and individuals are the most interested in obtaining and excercising patents.
It is the dream of most small companies to be able to sue a larger company and one of the easiest ways that is possible is via patents.
IMHO larger companies like IBM and Microsoft obtain patents to protect themselves. They make more money selling products than suing and/or selling patent rights..
i thought the same thing wearing my rose colored glassesn before i’d had a job. then i worked in some large corperations. idealism is great but its just not how things work
Why would MS have to support OpenDocument? I can’t believe how many people are overlooking the recent MS announcement that the next Office would support PDF. Therefore, at least under the Massachusetts rule, Office would be compatible.
Tom
Definately right. I don’t know of any companies whom MS or IBM just up and sued one day for patent infringement. They, and other big companies, obtain them for defensive use and for cross-licensing. There are some exceptions though, such as Sprint, whom just sued Vonage for patent infringement. This is, generally speaking, rare though.
Hell, look at SCO. SCO sued IBM with no evidence and threatened to terminate IBM’s AIX license. SCO badmouthed Linux. IBM did nothing. It wasn’t until SCO started threatening to tax Linux users and told all AIX users to destroy their copies of AIX that IBM whipped out their patent portfolio (among numerous other counterclaims.)
I believe that _PRIMARILY_ small business and individuals are the most interested in obtaining and excercising patents.
While that is often the case…
It is the dream of most small companies to be able to sue a larger company and one of the easiest ways that is possible is via patents.
…the dream dies when the smaller company attempts to enforce the patent. The costs of effective enforcement even on a clearly valid patent with no prior art can cause some companies — even medium sized ones — to go out of business or give up without getting any positive return.
The only groups that can effectively use patents these days are large corporations, and they use them as protective measures 1/2 the time and a way to scare the competition the other 1/2.
Software patents are stupid. Copyright says as much as >>you can’t build a House that looks exactly like that of your competitors<< while software patents say >>you can’t use nails to build houses<<. Copyright makes sense, software patents don’t.
on drafting a new patent law for the US, specifically for software, and lobbying for its provisions.
The EFF and FSF are basically saying, “We’re against software patents, period.” That’s nice, but that isn’t going to pass Congress.
Companies like Microsoft are pushing “reform” proposals that include self-interested provisions such as first-to-file.
How about something realistic that gets rid of the business methods patents (like one click) and new patents on de facto industry standards (like FAT and JPEG), submits pending patents to public review and reduces the term of software patents from 20 years to something like 12.
Paul G
You seem to think that these suggested reforms are good only for MicroSoft…
If you had any clue at all you would realize that these reforms are good for everyone else as well, except for companies and invididuals that love to stay silent about their patents until they can sue for a lot of money.
Public review would be possible with the reforms, so I wonder if you have really looked at all of the proposed reforms.
“If you had any clue at all you would realize that these reforms are good for everyone else as well…”
Nice rhetorical device.
First-to-file benefits large companies such as Microsoft and IBM who have money and systems in place to conduct regular patent sweeps for their development projects. They’ll double-check to make sure that any idea that sounds faintly original gets sent to the lawyers for submission.
Startups are typically more innovative on a per-employee basis, yet they usually have no in-house counsel and are intensely focused on more immediate needs such as securing funding to make payroll, and reaching the next big development milestone so the existing investors won’t pull the plug. Patent submissions tend to be spotty. Many engineers have an aversion to software patents anyway (as you can see from reading posts on sites like this one) and so might not get around to filing all that they should.
First to file would give the Microsofts and IBMs a big advantage over smaller firms. Of course, there are exceptions such as the Myrhvold outfit which is essentially a patent boutique, but that’s not the kind of firm that needs relief from patent reform.
First of all, get your head out of wherever you have put it in.
You call Microsoft a criminal…whom did they sue over patents? Microsoft has never sued anyone and their patents are mostly to protect themselves against legal crap.
Look at IBM which holds way more patent than Microsoft. IBM is EVIL, it wanted to capture people to use their expensive hardware, but its Microsoft because of which you are today seeing cheap PC.
People like you are bunch of chimps with no understanding of industry and come here to bark as much as you can.
Yes Microsoft did some things which were considered anti-competitive by court and they don’t do it now. At least they are willing to change, not like some s**ithead like stallman who says…hey this software is the best for my need but i won’t use it because its not free…wow mr intelligent dumbass…
All donkeys like you need is a topic to bash microsoft and you feel happy….i bet you sure don’t have even 1 percent caliber to develop even half as good as developed by Microsoft.
You’ve got lots of good points – I agree on many things. But insulting people will probably undermine appreciation by your thinking audience, whilst pushing the zealots you dislike to be even less reasonable.
/just sayin’
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29130
Satire? Reality?
You be the judge.
Actually, my personal opinion is that the patent threat from Microsoft is minimal, along the lines of the local bully staring you down from across the school yard. Dirty looks, but little action. I’m only posting this because I think the article is a timely comment on the general state of patent law in the US. More so since it’s 7 some-odd years later.
That’s a good one! Thanks.
In what CEO Bill Gates called “an unfortunate but necessary step to protect our intellectual property (…)” the Microsoft Corporation patented the numbers one and zero Monday.
I don’t think the conclusion (Microsoft will oppose Patents) derives from the reasoning. Secondly, I don’t think the resoning is very open and could easily lead to a number of possibilities.
I would think more likely they would manipulate (lobby for the change of) the current system to best suit THEIR needs, regardless of the needs of society and what is best for the economy.
Being a programmer doing work for small and medium companies, I certainly oppose software patents. It really hinders innovation and competition.
For instance, when I am programming alone or in a small group of common interest, then I would rather compete and bid for the project. Then I would rather approach the problem and and try to solve it innovatively as is the natural way, – I would search out the best solution that I can implement.
With patents being so strong, I just don’t have the time to go searching patent lists to see if someone has my idea before, and anyway, patents are not exactly searcheable in that manner.
In addition to that, I’m trying to make a living. I don’t want to spend time trying to defend my ideas in court (even if somewhere else had thought of a vaguely similar idea elsewhere). I have neither the time or resources to defend or prepare for a defence in court.
Similarly, I need to compete, I don’t have the time or resources to prepare and file for patents all the instead of working competitively.
Software patents are nasty. They are uncompetitive, slow innovation (due to reduced competition), and give large patent holders a large power over small competitors.
Software copyright is wonderful, it stops people copying my code that I put all the hard work into. It levels the playing field between big companies and small companies maintaining competition. And people are free to innovate with the worry of being sued.
Microsoft was anti-patent. They only hold patents as retaliatory legal weapons. The current patent system in the USA is full of holes, Microsoft knows this and they want it changed.
Sure, but only if it increases their choke hold on the market place.
I’m far away to be an expert in the patent/copyright/intellectual property field. However, when a technical company has more lawyers than engeneers, I think something is going wrong.
Do you know all the lawyer jokes? Did you know Shakespeare said kill all lawyers? I tell you, at least in the English speaking world it appears to be a longstanding problem. But I don’t fault the lawyers (as much fun as it is) they will help people do very nonsensical things if the law allows it. And that’s the problem, lawyers don’t make the laws, they don’t come up with them either. They practice the nonsense their clients give them if it’s legal. If that client is a big company and the nonsense is software patents so be it. Don’t be fooled by lawyers as a scapegoat, they didn’t lobby for software patents, that’s big corporate money behind that, nothing else.
I thought once you have a patent you must enforce it or risk losing it.
Does this mean Microsoft thinks patents are a bad thing?
Sounds somewhat hypocritical to me.
Either they are a good thing or they are a bad thing. Make up your freakin mind and stop WASTING MY TIME!!!
Capitalists don’t have a clue, I tell ya. They honestly don’t really think these things through. And when things fall apart, they’re quick to blame everyone else. (Can’t make money? Is your software OSS? Yes? That’s why.)
I hate this stupidity. Can’t we all just grow a f*cking brain already? Sheesh.