EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

02.04.09

Patents Roundup: Linux, Microsoft, Apple, Patent Trolls and Reform

Posted in America, Apple, Europe, GNU/Linux, IBM, Law, Microsoft, Patents at 9:48 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Rusty barbwire
An apparatus for stifling competition

Linux

THE LINUX Defenders initiative makes a small comeback [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] with this IDG article that puts it among the headlines. It doesn’t really present any new information, though.

Are you tired of hearing of patents granted for obvious innovations? Are you weary of hearing about old patents that are purchased by firms like Niro, Scavone, Haller & Niro which “concentrates its practice in intellectual property law” and became notorious as a hugely successful “patent troll”? Do you think that the people suing Google, Apple and Microsoft for infringement of a patent ludicrously granted for “a system and method for iconic software environment management” that they claim covers thumbnail images should be granted their day in court?

Linux Defenders faces challenges not only from Linux foes like Microsoft but also from its trolls, which we’ll come to in a moment.

Microsoft

Microsoft has meanwhile patented the utterly trivial.

Microsoft has asked for a patent to protect its idea for a smartphone docking cradle that would turn your handheld into a mini-laptop.

This was also covered in:

The more one reads, the more laughable it seems. This is also covered here and it’s preposterous.

A few days ago we wrote about patent hawks and Microsoft. Well, here is a decent analysis from Mike Masnick, who is always hostile towards software patents.

Microsoft Claims Patent Holder Got A Job At Microsoft To Get Info Used In Patent Lawsuits

We see all sorts of strange patent-related lawsuits around here, but this one probably qualifies for the most extreme attempt by a patent holder to come up with info for the sake of a patent lawsuit. Apparently (and this is according to Microsoft), Miki Mullor, CEO of a company called Ancora Technologies, applied for a job at Microsoft while still working for Ancora.

There are still some more articles where Microsoft’s charges are being publicly denied.

Here is another silly Microsoft patent.

Last week, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office made public a new Microsoft patent application titled “Content Management System and External Data Storage System Data Synchronization.” (Interestingly, it specifically mentions SharePoint by name.)

Microsoft is basically trying to patent the idea of letting data synchronization be triggered by administrator actions in a content management system. According to the Abstract of the application: “In one example, an administrator creates or modifies an event at the content management system, and if the event is coordinated with the external data storage system, the content management system is synchronized with the external data storage system.”

Microsoft Trolls

The bigger among patent trolls, Acacia, is still on a mission to collect more software patents and then use them for extortion or litigation. It is a form of racketeering and it remains very relevant to us because Acacia may be close to Microsoft [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11] and it is not reluctant to attack Free software. Since if offers no products, it just hasn’t a reputation to harbour. Here is the company’s latest extortion:

Acacia Research Corp. (ACTG: News ) said its Hospital Systems Corp. subsidiary has entered into a license agreement with Intelerad Medical Systems covering a portfolio of patents that apply to medical picture archiving and communication system technology.

Nathan Myhrvold

An even bigger troll (probably the world’s biggest troll) is Nathan Myhrvold and his company which is backed by Microsoft. We wrote about this Übertroll some days ago and now comes this report.

Transmeta IP sold to not-patent troll

[...]

IV said it grabbed 140 US patents and “a substantial number” of pending patent applications issued in the US and abroad. The firm intends to license the technology to other vendors on non-exclusive terms. IV is run by former Microsoft chief technology officer-turned-IP collector, Nathan Myhrvold. It claims to have more than 2,000 patents in the semiconductor field.

It’s funny how the press is scared of labeling IV a “troll”, despite all the extortions it quietly engaged in (e.g. with Cisco).

Apple

There is great deal of hypocrisy in Microsoft which used to dislike patents and began hailing them when it needed fences to defend a monopoly. The same goes for Apple, as the following good analysis shows rather vividly using actual quotes.

For all the talk among patent system defenders about how patents are most necessary for young startup companies that need to grow, most tech startups couldn’t care much less about patents (other than as a bogus currency to increase their valuation in talking to VCs). Startups are focused on actually building a product and getting it out to the market. Instead, what we see time and time again is that it’s the big, more established companies that use patents to stifle startups, rather than the other way around. Startups innovate, while big companies litigate.

[...]

The company was incredibly open in sharing ideas and concepts, and wasn’t going around threatening others for ripping off its IP (that did come later… especially with the graphical user interface, which Jobs himself admitted “ripping off” from Xerox… which had “ripped it off” already from SRI). It’s really only when you’re afraid of competing in the marketplace that you rely on patents. When you’re young and innovative you focus on the possibilities and opportunities in front of you, rather than on ways to block others from innovating.

These days, Apple is too busy supposedly “innovating”.

In a newly published patent filing (#20090022329) known as the “Method and Apparatus for Using a Sound Sensor to Adjust the Audio Output for a Device,” Apple is working on a system that automatically adjusts the volume of the iPhone, iPods, and Macs based on a combination of ambient noise and user feedback.

Does that sound sophisticated? Is it an idea worthy of ownership and assignment to a person or one company? As TechDirt correctly points out, Apple might be doing itself more harm than good by sheltering this antiquated attitude towards software patents.

After Palm showed off its new Pre smartphone, including the device’s multitouch interface, at the Consumer Electronics Show last month, Apple made some threatening noises about how it would go after anybody who “ripped off” its intellectual property. As always, we didn’t see how this would benefit anybody in the marketplace, since competition pays benefits to consumers, and drives participants, even Apple, to continually innovate and improve their products. Now, a wireless industry analyst has called Apple’s threats into question. He makes the point that a long, drawn out IP fight won’t help Apple’s business in the long run: “Building on the company’s legacy as one of the greatest innovators in the technology industry may be a smarter business model than taking on the rest of the industry in a battle that may be impossible to win.”

Why does Apple make itself enemies?

More Patent Trolls

To demonstrate the failure of the patent system, trolls are pretty handy. Here are some new reports of interest:

1. Coughlin Files Major Patent Infringement Suit

Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, the world’s leading plaintiffs’ law firm, representing IntusIQ, announced that it has filed a major patent infringement suit against Oncor, Reliant Energy, Comverge, Datamatic, EKA Systems, Sensus, Tantalus, Tendril Networks, and Trilliant on behalf of its client IPCO LLC d/b/a IntusIQ.

2. Will the ITC Become the New Troll Hangout?

Each year a growing number of IP lawyers heads to the International Trade Commission, asking officials there to enforce Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. That Depression-era law forbids various “unfair trade practices,” including the importation of products that infringe a U.S. patent–the goal is protecting domestic industries and jobs.

3. Troll Tracker update: Frenkel told the truth, says Cisco

There’s a lot of information here, but the takeaway point is this: Cisco says Frenkel’s articles were accurate. And in the United States, of course, you’re allowed to publish true information, even if it hurts someone. What Albritton said was defamatory was either true (the docket was altered), or fell into the categories of opinion and rhetoric (words like “conspiracy”) or just wasn’t about him, says Cisco’s lawyer, Charles Babcock of Jackson Walker.

For those who are interested, we already have a complete copy of the Patent TrollTracker blog, which was pulled because of the trolls. We also wrote about Rick Frenkel in [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].

US Reform

Software patents may actually vanish from the United States rather than expand to other countries. Here is an interesting analysis.

As I noted at the time it was decided, people care about Bilski largely because of what it says about legality of software patents. Software patents are intensely controversial, with many geeks arguing that the software industry would be better off without them. What I found striking about the conversation was that both guests (and perhaps the host, although he didn’t tip his hand as much) took it as self-evident that there needed to be patents on software and business methods

Here is a more formal page about the Bilski petition and some new coverage about Peer-to-Patent, courtesy of Mark Webbink.

Earlier, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) opened the patent examination process for online public participation. With the consent of the inventor, the Peer-to-Patent: Community Patent Review pilot, developed by the New York Law School Institute for Information Law and Policy in cooperation with the USPTO, enables the public to submit prior art and commentary relevant to the claims of pending patent applications in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security (TC2100).

Europe

The Enlarged Board of Appeal will be handling ambiguity or mixed messages with regards to software patents in the European continent. We’ve mentioned all this in [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7], but the main reports are in [1, 2]. Here are the latest two updates: [via Digital Majority]

1. G 3/08: Have your say

This month’s Official Journal of the EPO contains an announcement relating to the EPO President’s referral under Article 112(1)(b) EPC on software patents. As well as reproducing the questions first announced back in October 2008 (commented on by the IPKat here, here and here) and the composition of the board, the announcement says the following:

“It is expected that third parties will wish to use the opportunity to file written statements in accordance with Article 10 of the Rules of Procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (OJ EPO 2007, 303 ff). To ensure that any such statements can be given due consideration they should be filed together with any new cited documents by the end of April 2009 at the Registry of the Enlarged Board of Appeal, quoting case number G 3/08. An additional filing of the statement and documents in electronic form would be appreciated (Dg3registry_eba@epo.org).”

2. EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal to Clarify Software Patentability

The President of the European Patent Office (EPO) has referred several questions of law to the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBoA) in an attempt to clarify the patentability of software-based inventions.

Philosophy

Patents are a partly philosophical issue. At the end of the day, let’s ask ourselves, what’s it all good for? Some people already ask this sort of question.

Are My Ideas Being Stolen? If So, What Then?

[...]

“…Folks, it’s not the ideas; it’s design, implementation, and especially hard work that make the difference.”

Considerable difference in opinion is also expressed in the Web site NewEconomyPatents.org.

After hearing oral arguments on May 8, 2008, in the patent case In re Bilski, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the Federal Circuit) reached a 9-3 decision on Oct. 30, 2008 to uphold the ruling by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The appeal followed the rejection by the USPTO of a patent application for a process for hedge fund risk management, filed by inventors Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw.

In Re Bilski is not over yet. As FFII had correctly predicted, lobbying was bound to ensue.

“IBM is proud of its patent portfolio, and the fact that they produce patents at a rate of 10 a day. With such an extensive arsenal of patents, backed by unlimited legal funds – what chances are left for the VC backed company? This is like the US going to war against Micronesia.” —Daniel Cohen, Gemini Israel Funds

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

7 Comments

  1. Jose_X said,

    February 4, 2009 at 11:49 am

    Gravatar

    >> “Method and Apparatus for Using a Sound Sensor to Adjust the Audio Output for a Device,” … Does that sound sophisticated? Is it an idea worthy of ownership and assignment to a person or one company?

    No, that sounds like a small project (or even a weekly assignment) in an undergraduate feedback/controls engineering course.

    Maybe Apple engineers reminisce for the college days. Or maybe they skipped out.

    >> Earlier, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) opened the patent examination process for online public participation .. enables the public to submit prior art and commentary .. in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

    Finding prior art saves USPTO face and saves money of those attacking. Why would I want to contribute to that and waste my time and money doing so?

    What is prior art after all? That someone published their solution 1 year ahead of you instead of 1 year after? Why would the government grant a 20 year monopoly on this sort of foolishness?

    Software patents are so messed up and this is the best they can come up with for reform?

    All the more reason I worry about this http://boycottnovell.com/2009/02/04/the-api-trap-part-1/ despite Bilski.

    >> “…Folks, it’s not the ideas; it’s design, implementation, and especially hard work that make the difference.”

    Ideas are important but 20 year monopolies? Any length monopoly seems wrong, at least for fields with low costs to invent, develop, etc (as is the case for software, as demonstrated through FOSS).

    Those that have great ideas have a lot of time to work on their solution ahead of everyone else. They can be first to market and enjoy those advantages.

    Even if you could find some cases where you might think some length of monopoly might be acceptable, our current system is so far from that. We’ve been so unable to get it right. Every day we continue down the same path, so far away from the perfect balance, is another day of damage inflicted on everyone besides the monopolists.

    And what about all the contributions given by FOSS to the community? Not only are the implementations more useful than the ideas alone, but much that would qualify for patents aren’t exploited by the FOSS world, yet others can track FOSS development from the sidelines and then jump out a little ahead of them to block them off from the next stage of development in the most natural direction. Talk about a real loss to society and to innovators!

    Maybe we should start giving patents for innovation in arguing and executing court cases and settlements. IP lawyers need a small taste of their medicine.

    Oh, and actions taken by CEO’s and board of directors should also be patented.

    >> With such an extensive arsenal of patents, backed by unlimited legal funds – what chances are left for the VC backed company?

    Wait. Maybe to stifle competition is the point of accumulating patents.

    Eureka! I can’t believe it took us this long to discover the raison d’etre of the patent system.

    Wow! Now all the madness can end.

    Stop the presses! Get the word out. Lawmakers will be shocked. Quick before more damage is done. Perhaps this nightmare will all be over by next week. [I'm so glad I visited boycottnovell for this inspiration.]

  2. zeke123 said,

    February 4, 2009 at 12:17 pm

    Gravatar

    Apple is the same company who released an MP3 player with the name Nano when Creative was already using the name for their MP3 player.

    And if Im not wrong the word iPhone was used by some company for some kind of wireless VOIP handset I believe.

    It seems that the language skills at Apple are sorely lacking.

    Ok, let the fanbois now foam at the mouth now that ive insulted their precious.

    I have an idea for a web service and I like the name MobileMe, I presume Apple wont have any problems if I borrow this name.

  3. Roy Schestowitz said,

    February 4, 2009 at 12:28 pm

    Gravatar

    Just make sure your name does not begin with a small ‘i’. Apple is actively running after companies that do this. I sometimes wonder if they applied to an ‘i’ trademark. It’s like a small stripe simpler than the Nike logo.

  4. Shane Coyle said,

    February 4, 2009 at 12:40 pm

    Gravatar

    Wasn’t there a lady who had come up with the iGasm, a – shall we say – specially crafted speaker that could be hooked to a headphone port and ladies (or men, I suppose) could groove with…

    IIRC, Apple went after her cuz she used black and white ads similar to the dancing sillhouette ads they had for the iPod at the time.

  5. Roy Schestowitz said,

    February 4, 2009 at 12:43 pm

    Gravatar

    Yes, I don’t recall the details exactly. Was that the only case that reached the news?

    BTW, it seems like we’re going to make another Digg front page. I’ll use Coral just in case.

  6. Shane Coyle said,

    February 4, 2009 at 12:51 pm

    Gravatar

    Yeah, still haven’t heard from the ‘abuse’ department over at the host, they’re due to contact me as I understand it, when I do then we’ll have to see what our next step is.

    We may need to at least consider the possibility of an orderly transition to a bigger machine, just don’t know what that will cost yet. If that occurs, we’ll have to really rap about how to migrate safely and maybe at that point try to plan in more resiliency from the start.

  7. Roy Schestowitz said,

    February 4, 2009 at 1:08 pm

    Gravatar

    We can test a new server account while the old one is live before the ‘switchover’. I did this in 2008 with schestowitz.com and it’s nothing to panic about (I had to migrate 22 E-mail accounts and 12 DBs and it’s just a little time consuming). I also did this with 2 domains in 2007. The hosts/admins can help too.

What Else is New


  1. Links 28/3/2017: Linux 4.11-rc4 Kernel Released, Red Hat Surge on Sales

    Links for the day



  2. The Crook Goes to Brussels to Lie About the Unitary Patent (UPC)

    The person who spent years lying about the UPC and severely attacking critics (usually by blatantly lying about them) goes to Brussels for another nose extension



  3. The EPO's HR Roadmap Retrospective

    A look back at the terrible ‘accomplishments’ of the Jesper Kongstad-led Administrative Council, which still issues hogwash and face-saving lies, as one might expect from a protector of Battistelli that lies to national representatives and buries inconvenient topics



  4. Links 26/3/2017: Debian Project Leader Elections, SecureDrop and Alexandre Oliva FSF Winners

    Links for the day



  5. His Master's Voice, Jesper Kongstad, Blocks Discussion of Investigative and Disciplinary Procedures at the EPO

    The Chairman of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation is actively preventing not just the dismissal of Battistelli but also discussion of Battistelli's abuses



  6. Heiko Maas and the State of Germany Viewed as Increasingly Complicit in EPO Scandals and Toxic UPC Agenda

    It is becoming hard if not impossible to interpret silence and inaction from Maas as a form of endorsement for everything the EPO has been doing, with the German delegates displaying more of that apathy which in itself constitutes a form of complicity



  7. With IP Kat Coverage of EPO Scandals Coming to an End (Officially), Techrights and The Register Remain to Cover New Developments

    One final post about the end of Merpel’s EPO coverage, which is unfortunate but understandable given the EPO’s track record attacking the media, including blogs like IP Kat, sites of patent stakeholders, and even so-called media partners



  8. Everyone, Including Patent Law Firms, Will Suffer From the Demise of the EPO

    Concerns about quality of patents granted by the EPO (EPs) are publicly raised by industry/EPO insiders, albeit in an anonymous fashion



  9. Yes, Battistelli's Ban on EPO Strikes (or Severe Limitation Thereof) is a Violation of Human Rights

    Battistelli has curtailed even the right to strike, yet anonymous cowards attempt to blame the staff (as in patent examiners) for not going out of their way to engage in 'unauthorised' strikes (entailing dismissal)



  10. Even the EPO's Administrative Council No Longer Trusts Its Chairman, Battistelli's 'Chinchilla' Jesper Kongstad

    Kongstad's protection of Battistelli, whom he is supposed to oversee, stretches to the point where national representatives (delegates) are being misinformed



  11. Thanks to Merpel, the World Knows EPO Scandals a Lot Better, But It's a Shame That IP Kat Helped UPC

    A look back at Merpel's final post about EPO scandals and the looming threat of the UPC, which UPC opportunists such as Bristows LLP still try hard to make a reality, exploiting bogus (hastily-granted) patents for endless litigation all around Europe



  12. EPO Critics Threatened by Self-Censorship, Comment Censorship, and a Growing Threat to Anonymity

    Putting in perspective the campaign for justice at the EPO, which to a large degree relies on whistleblowers and thus depends a great deal on freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and anonymity



  13. Links 25/3/2017: Maru OS 0.4, C++17 Complete

    Links for the day



  14. Judge and Justice Bashing in the United States, EPC Bashing at the EPO

    Enforcement of the law based on constitutional grounds and based on the European Patent Convention (EPC) in an age of retribution and insults -- sometimes even libel -- against judges



  15. Looking for EPO Nepotism? Forget About Jouve and Look Closely at Europatis Instead.

    Debates about the contract of Jouve with the EPO overlook the elephants in the room, which include companies that are established and run by former EPO chiefs and enjoy a relationship with the EPO



  16. Depressing EPO News: Attacks on Staff, Attacks on Life, Brain Drain, Patents on Life, Patent Trolls Come to Germany, and Spain Being Misled

    A roundup of the latest developments at the EPO combined with feedback from insiders, who are not tolerating their misguided and increasingly abusive management



  17. It Certainly Looks Like Microsoft is Already Siccing Its Patent Trolls, Including Intellectual Ventures, on Companies That Use Linux (Until They Pay 'Protection' Money)

    News about Intellectual Ventures and Finjan Holdings (Microsoft-funded patent trolls) reinforces our allegations -- not mere suspicions anymore -- that Microsoft would 'punish' companies that are not paying subscription fees (hosting) or royalties (patent tax) to Microsoft and are thus in some sense 'indebted' to Microsoft



  18. Links 24/3/2017: Microsoft Aggression, Eudyptula Challenge Status Report

    Links for the day



  19. Bernhard Rapkay, Former MEP and Rapporteur on Unitary Patent, Shoots Down UPC Hopes While UPC Hopefuls Recognise That Spain Isn't Interested Either

    Germany, the UK and Spain remain massive barriers to the UPC -- all this in spite of misleading reports and fake news which attempted to make politicians believe otherwise (for political leverage, by means of dirty lobbying contingent upon misinformation)



  20. Links 23/3/2017: Qt 5.9 Beta, Gluster Storage 3.2

    Links for the day



  21. The Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation Has Just Buried an Innocent Judge That Battistelli Does Not Like

    An innocent judge (never proven guilty of anything, only publicly defamed with help from Team Battistelli and dubious 'intelligence' gathering) is one of the forgotten casualties of the latest meeting of the Administrative Council (AC), which has become growingly complicit rather than a mere bystander at a 'crime' scene



  22. Nepotism at the European Patent Office and Suspicious Absence of Tenders for Big Projects

    Carte blanche is a French term which now perfectly describes the symptoms encountered in the European Patent Office, more so once led by a lot of French people (Battistelli and his friends)



  23. “Terror” Patent Office Bemoans Terror, Spreads Lies

    Response to some of the latest utterances from the European Patent Office, where patently untruthful claims have rapidly become the norm



  24. China Seems to be Using Patents to Push Foreign Companies Out of China, in the Same Way It Infamously Uses Censorship

    Chinese patent policies are harming competition from abroad, e.g. Japan and the US, and US patent policy is being shaped by its higher courts, albeit not yet effectively combating the element that's destroying productive companies (besieged by patent trolls)



  25. 22,000 Blog Posts

    A special number is reached again, marking another milestone for the site



  26. The EPO is Lying to Its Own Staff About ILO and Endless (Over 2 Years) EPO Mistrials

    The creative writing skills of some spinners who work for Battistelli would have staff believe that all is fine and dandy at the EPO and ILO is dealing effectively with staff complaints about the EPO (even if several years too late)



  27. EPO’s Georg Weber Continues Horrifying Trend of EPO Promoting Software Patents in Defiance of Directive, EPC, and Common Sense

    The EPO's promotion of software patents, even out in the open, is an insult to the notion that the EPO is adhering to or is bound by the rules upon which it maintains its conditional monopoly



  28. Protectionism v Sharing: How the US Supreme Court Decides Patent Cases

    As the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) starts delivering some decisions we take stock of what's to come regarding patents



  29. Links 22/3/2017: GNOME 3.24, Wine-Staging 2.4 Released

    Links for the day



  30. The Battistelli Regime, With Its Endless Scandals, Threatens to Crash the Unitary Patent (UPC), Stakeholders Concerned

    The disdain and the growing impatience have become a huge liability not just to Battistelli but to the European Patent Office (EPO) as a whole


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts