There may be some changes on their way. There’s no telling when/if they’ll be coming to the USPTO, but in the mean time there’s chaos, as well illustrated by today’s picks over at Digital Majority. Here is one such example, which is a junk patent (never supposed to have been granted in the first place) being put up for auction, surely for someone to use it offensively.
Investors will have the opportunity to acquire the patent on a revolutionary personalization system that is set to go to auction in September. The patented system will change the face of targeted marketing and research by offering more accuracy than anything else available today.
The EFF with its patent-busting efforts carry on trying to squash some of the more notorious patents, but as Stallman once said about such strategies, “fighting patents one by one will never eliminate the danger of software patents, any more than swatting mosquitoes will eliminate malaria.” Here is the description of another bad patent.
So just what is this wonderful sales method? In a nutshell, the patent claims ownership over the idea of finding out what a customer wants, electronically finding out what you have that matches that customer’s needs, electronically collecting information about the stuff you have to offer the customer, and putting that information into a pitch to the customer.
Recall those dreadful wish list patents [1, 2]. It’s the verge of granting ownership to ideas that can be implemented in elementary school (while ignoring prior art).
Interestingly, Infosys and TCS are in favor of software patents. Those who followed the OOXML fight on this blog would know that both these organizations had voted in favor of Microsoft’s OOXML proposal. If there are articulate FOSS developers in the Mumbai LUG, I would request them to be present at the 7th August 2008 meeting and explain to the group why software patents are against the interest of the developer community.
There’s some more dissection of this here. [via Digital Majority]
Business aptly seems to drive law; finally, the Murthys and Ramadorais of Bengalooru have spoken up. According to an article in the Financial Express, IT majors Infosys and TCS have reacted strongly to a call made by the open source community, particularly Red Hat India and All India Peoples Sciences Network, for dropping a clause in the draft patent examination manual which according to the latter gives a backdoor entry for software patents.
The fight never ends. When critics fall asleep, monopolies will try to grab control.
Europe
A few days ago, the EPO was praised for its stance on software patents, but Digital Majority is more pedantic. It’s claiming that the EPO uses tautologies and it’s showing some examples of nasty patents.
Maybe the European Patent Office has a different dictionary than I have.
[…]
Nevertheless, their high quality propaganda falls down once you start to mention some trivial software patents, such as the progress bar:
As of 1 January 2008, the Belgian government introduced a tax deduction of 80 % with unlimited carry forward under the corporate income tax for income derived from patents licensed by a company based in Belgium.
Now, who said patents are bad? They make you save 80% on taxes. How on earth can it be bad?
Perhaps most significant, however, is the following new development that yet again involves Commissioner McCreevy, the man who loves monopolies. This seems to be another back door to software patents and poor-quality patents in Europe.
The European Commission has proposed creating a single strategy for the protection of industrial property rights in Europe. The Commission wants to integrate its strategy for industrial property rights and encourage smaller businesses to protect rights.
What ever compelled to pass and push for such changes? Is it the endless lobbying in Europe from Microsoft’s ACT, whose recent activity in Europe was carefully documented here?
US Department of Justice prosecutors have alleged that Stevens received more than $250,000 worth of gifts and services from VECO and its executives, including an extensive renovation of his home in Girdwood, Alaska. That work included a new first floor, garage, wraparound deck, and new plumbing and electrical wiring. They also said he was given a new Land Rover in exchange for an old Ford Mustang, as well as a professional gas barbeque grill, assorted furniture and a complete set of mechanics tools.
It’s rather clear that money needn’t necessarily exchanged hands. Sometimes it can be favours and gifts, such as those that Microsoft showers crtitics with. ‘Soft briberies’ were mentioned here before, as well.
Someone should take a closer look at what’s happening in Europe, especially amid very aggressive lobbying and complaints about it from some [1, 2].
More information on McCreevy and other cronies can be found in:
It is important that everyone recognises just how misguided and flawed the patent system has become. To demonstrate the severity of the problem, we present a few jaw-dropping items from the news. The first would have to be this one. [via Digital Majority]
Creating A List From A Database? Prepare For A Patent Infringement Suit
…Channel Intelligence, a company that owns a ridiculously broad and obvious patent on creating a list from a database and is now suing a whole bunch of small websites that offer things like wishlists.
More visual details you will find in Techcrunch. How about this one, which has just been invalidated by the EFF?
The Electronic Frontier Foundation announced another victory for its Patent Busting Project last Friday, this time against NeoMedia. The company received a comprehensive set of patents that covered information lookups via scanned input.
Yes, bar codes too are considered non-trivial, no matter their ubiquity.
Here are some more details about the lawsuit against Silverlight and the patent/holder involved. It’s truly ridiculous. The Wall Street Journal has just published this followup to a recent similar complaint [cref which it published a week ago].
In “Patent Gridlock Suppresses Innovation” (Information Age, July 14), L. Gordon Crovitz asserts “that for most industries today’s patent system does more harm than good.” He paints with too broad a brush. The “most industries” he refers to are those heavily involved with software, e.g., Verizon, Cisco ,Google, RIM and HP, which he cites. Such companies have indeed suffered grief because of patents on software and so-called “methods of doing business,” like double-clicking something to place an order. Such patents basically didn’t exist as little as 15 years ago. The appropriate way to deal with these problems would be for Congress to declare such subject matter to be unpatentable.
Photo from the public domain
Part of the problem may be attitudinal, and it includes the likes of Facebook and its junk patents. Those patents are not just defensive and they were reported as morally offensive just weeks ago. The company now uses them to defend its monopoly through a lawsuit.
ACEBOOK FILED an intellectual property lawsuit against StudiVZ, a German company accused of operating a virtual replica of the social networking site.
Watch the ‘invention’. The writing of public messages from one person to another…
This isn’t too shocking given Facebook’s corporate neighborhood. It’s friends with Microsoft and with Amazon (of ‘one-click shopping’ infamy), both of which are aggressive with patents too. The CEO is even a close (visiting) friend of Microsoft executives. Here are just a few recent articles of relevance:
In a collaboration with Redmond-based Microsoft Inc.’s Popfly, Facebook users can create applications and add them to the profiles with no programming.
It was actually over a year ago that Facebook users were discouraged from participating if they dread becoming Microsoft’s inheritance (like Hormail). █
Some months ago we drew attention to what seemed like the possibility of Microsoft fighting patents-free video playback on the Web. Its former employee was at it along with the long-time partner called Apple [1, 2, 3, 4]. The politics here are complicated because companies that collaborate sometimes compete with one another (take Cisco and Nokia for example).
It is widely known by now — or at least ought to be known — that Microsoft collaborates with the media industry (see reference 5.b-g) a lot more than most other companies in the same sector. It happens to be doing ‘legwork’ for moguls, which sometimes involves amending (read: spoiling) laws. Just take, for instance, this recent incident.
Microsoft Misleads on Copyright Reform
[…]
The Hill Times this week includes an astonishingly misleading and factually incorrect article on Canadian copyright written by Microsoft.
Look back at the Nokia/Ogg kerkuffle [1, 2, 3]. It elucidates the issue and demonstrates how articulate brainwash, which takes the form of a whitepaper/report, can eventually reverse decisions or make new ones. Microsoft almost successfully pulled a fast one when striving to block the acquisition of DoubleClick by Google, as reported by eWeek at the time. Analysts are a similar problem that we shall revisit routinely.
“It’s otherwise too hard to compete with libre and gratis.”For more information about Microsoft’s relationship with the media industry, see [1-8] at the bottom and consider them in sequence (roughly chronological). Microsoft sets precedence in the entertainment world just as it always aspires to ‘tax’ Free software, e.g. with software patent deals. It’s otherwise too hard to compete with libre and gratis.
A couple of weeks ago came this shot from the EFF. It came immediately after Microsoft had shamelessly betrayed innocent customers with its phased-out DRM.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation says that Microsoft has “betrayed” MSN Music customers and wants the company to make things right by issuing an apology, refunds, and eliminate digital rights management technology from the Zune music player.
After further investigation of reports of Vista refusing to record NBC, we have found at least one case where a user receiving digital TV over-the-air has been blocked from recording TV shows. Justin Sanders, who took this screenshot, says he was recording Raleigh’s HDTV channel WNCN-DT1 on his Vista machine when a popup stating that “restrictions set by the broadcaster … prohibit recording of this program” appeared.
This is significant: this is the first case we’ve heard of equipment voluntarily obeying broadcast flag-like restrictions on TV content digitally broadcast over-the-air.
The broadcast flag is a small piece of data broadcast alongside a digital TV program. The ability to flag broadcast content was created by the ATSC standard which governs digital TV broadcasts in the United States. By itself the broadcast flag cannot restrict use of broadcast content. Instead, its force comes from a tech mandate law - an FCC regulation - which required manufacturers of DTV-receiving devices to detect and respond to “switched on” broadcast flags. EFF and others opposed the use of the broadcast flag and fought successfully to have the FCC regulation overturned by the courts. We did that because it handed control over your hardware to a remote authority, limited your right to your fair use of media, and would have made illegal open source products like MythTV. As a result of that victory, manufacturers are not legally required to force their devices to detect and respond to the flag.
It would now appear that Microsoft has voluntarily chosen to obey such content restrictions in Vista, despite the successful work of thousands of users to defend Microsoft’s right to innovate and our right to fair use.
Coming from Microsoft, this shouldn’t be surprising. Also be aware of the tight Microsoft-NBC connection (they are former partners that are still very close) The DRM cat is out of the bag and if a Forbes article which goes by the headline “Microsoft: We Like DRM,” is anything to go by, then it’s worth keeping an eye on this mess.
Steve Jobs wants the music business to drop restrictions for digital tunes. But Microsoft, which began competing head to head with Apple in the digital music business last fall, is happy with the way things are, says media exec Robbie Bach.
Mind you, Robbie Bach is the Vice President accused of inside-trading, which is a crime (mentioned here along with others). Being a Microsoft executive, needless to say he’s above the law though.
In other related news, remember that set-top boxes are typically very ‘user-aware’. They act as spyware that ‘phones home’ to the broadcasters. In that respect, this new alarming article is very relevant too.
1984: The amendments on the Telecom Package are killing fundamental freedoms
Brussels – Guy Bono is indignant about the freedom-killing amendments that have been submitted in the framework of the “Telecom Package”, that is currently being discussed in the European Parliament.
[…]
For the socialist member of the European Parliament: “What Orwell predicted in “1984” is becoming reality: one wants to know everything about you, trace you, spy everything you are doing, and direct your behaviour. The only difference is that the dictator is not a politician, but made up by large multinationals!”
Windows Vista has already stepped further into the status of “malicious spyware”. We covered this before. It gets even worse (back doors and control). █
Bryan Lee, corporate vice present for Microsoft’s entertainment business, told me today that the meeting was set up as part of the deal struck between Microsoft and music business honchos, who are always wary of piracy… The meeting was supposed to take place “some time after the holidays,” he said. It also talks about the future of the zune.
Here’s the situation: Microsoft has agreed to pay a portion of the profits from the sales of the Zune to a record company (Universal) because the Zune will undoubtedly be used to store unpurchased songs.
[…]
Here it is important to remember a few simple things. The money goes to the Universal, not to the artists.
[…]
Microsoft’s move sets a bad precedent and turns all consumers into thieves without evidence.
“It would be a nice idea. We have a negotiation coming up not too far. I don’t see why we wouldn’t do that… but maybe not in the same way,” Morris said. His “same way” comment is a reference to the Zune, which Universal already gets $1 from after signing a deal with Microsoft.
A draft report by the Australian Institute of Criminology says copyright holders are making up piracy figures in order to sway governments to their side.
But that’s different from what the UK’s music industry is demanding. I happily pay Apple every time I download a song from iTunes. EMI and crew get a piece of that $.99 fee to cover their costs of discovering and marketing artists.
What I’m not going to pay is for the right to move that song to my computer, or to my phone, or wherever, just as I never had to pay to move a song from vinyl to cassette tape. The music industry incurs no cost in that transfer, and offers me no help in facilitating it. Why should it get paid for that transfer?
British legal eagles have been trying to unshackle the UK from a law which makes a criminal out of you every time you copy one of your own CDs to your mp3 player for some time now, but the Music Business Group (MBG) says it won’t support the change in legislation unless manufacturers impose the tax.
According to a report in the Asahi Shimbun newspaper, Japan’s Agency for Cultural Affairs wants to force MP3 player manufacturers to pay a royalty charge to copyright holders that may have lost out as a result of illegally recorded content.
One of the many arguments against patenting software is that it’s as stupid as copyrighting language: if you did that, nobody could talk without getting sued. Similarly, thanks to the essential nature of software algorithms, nobody can program without infringing on something.
This relates nicely to what was said about software patents the other day when Amazon patented the customised 404 error pages (our own Web site apparently infringes on this patent, by default).
Sheldon F. Goldberg was awarded the illegitimate patent for the “method and system of playing games on a network,” and claims to own rights in all online gaming systems that use tournament-style play, advertising, and have real-time updates of ladder-rankings in multi-player games. Goldberg has used this bogus patent to coerce licensing fees from numerous small businesses, demanding payments that are excessive yet less than potential litigation.
This is truly a disgraceful patent which is trivial enough to be an insult to society’s intelligence. In our previous item that complained about vanity and aggression of patent trolls we encouraged that this culture should be fought against. PatentTroll, for example, should have no mercy on Niro, who has resorted to intimidation tactics. He can’t do anything to TrollTracker. The more he tries, the deeper in the mud he sinks. He’ll soon realise this.
These attacks on PatentTroll are proof that he (or she) is on the right topic. That’s what people say anyway. Intimidation is not real risk; just perceived one. It’s about gagging. █
This presentation and characterisation from WIPO may seem optimistic, but meanwhile, in the news you find that Freedoms on the Net are gradually taken away. People are assumed to be criminals until proven otherwise. This is akin to lobbying for DMCA and software patents. Very troubling.
The music and film industry continues to pursue its idea of a politically “corrected” Internet - one that they imagine could protect their old business models without requiring any extra costs on their part.
This time, the fix is Internet-wide filtering. In a memo to European policy-makers, the International Federation of Phonographic Industries has called upon ISPs in Europe to filter the content sent across their networks, block protocols used by their customers, and cut off access to persistently infringing sites from the Net (you can read their full memo here). Left unsaid in it was the obvious implication: if ISPs aren’t willing to comply, EU regulators should force the ISP’s hand.
This could easily affect distribution channels (availability) of Free software and GNU/Linux distributions in particular. Additionally, this demonstrates the almost infinite power corporations have, which enables them to toy with lawmakers [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. █
Acacia, which some perceive as a bit of a Microsoft spinoff [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9], has reached some new destinations.
…Acacia — through it’s newly formed subsidiary Autotext Technologies, Inc. — sued 23 defendants last Friday in the Northern District of Ohio. In Cleveland….
I see millions in attorneys’ fees being spent by these companies who are seemingly being sued every other week lately.
I hope the judge does award attorneys’ fees in this case - to defendants for having to put up with this nonsense. It wouldn’t be the first time Acacia has been sanctioned for filing a frivolous case.
That’s the ridiculous State of the Lawyer everyone used to warn us about (except the lawyers and lobbyists). How about this new case which involves 131 companies?
Sometimes, it seems as if licensing and patent holding companies are holding a secret contest between themselves to see who can pack in the most defendants into a patent lawsuit. Technology Patents LLC may be the new champion for suing 131 companies worldwide—the list goes on and on, naming companies like Vodafone, Orange, T-Mobile, Telstra, AT&T, Cincinnati Bell, Motorola, Microsoft, Helio, Taiwan Mobile, O2, Rogers Wireless, China Resources Peoples Telephone Company, Yahoo, Sprint, and everyone in between.
Can you see where it’s going? The EFF is meanwhile doing what it can.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to protect consumers’ traditional right to use, repair, and resell the products they own, even if those products are patented. At stake is the enforceability of “single use” and “not for resale” labels on patented products.
The following may be interest to those who are concerned about the sorry state of the patent system. A bogus patent will soon be reexamined thanks to the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s involvement.
Patent Office to Take Second Look at Meritless Claims Threatening Mobile Information Access
A patent issue has just led a GNU project to removing a component. This illustrates the great problems introduced by software patents, especially where Free software and standards are involved.
GnuTLS, which released version 2.0.2 last week, removed the TLS Authorization capability, due in part to an effort to circumvent the IETF standardization process.
A couple weeks ago I had the opportunity to talk to OIN’s CEO, Jerry Rosenthal, who was with IBM for 37 years before setting up OIN. His comments about patent trolls – companies whose business is based purely around suing others for alleged patent infringement, rather than on making and selling things – and how to deal with them, are particularly interesting in the light of what has happened since the interview took place.
Novell issued a statement saying that the company would work with EFF to lobby governments and national and international organizations to develop patent legislation and policies that promote innovation.
In particular, Novell and EFF plan to appeal to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to encourage the group to take a global approach to patent reform.
Novell will help fund EFF’s “Patent Busting” program, which was launched in 2004. That project tries to identify prior art that can knock down patents that impose heavy burdens on software developers and Internet users.
Highlight: Novell was the first to acknowledge that Microsoft FUD tactics had substance. Novell then used anti-Linux FUD to market itself. Learn more
Highlight: Xandros let Microsoft make patent claims and brag about (paid-for) OOXML support. Learn more
Highlight: Linspire's CEO not only fell into Microsoft arms, but he also assisted the company's attack on GNU/Linux. Learn more
Highlight: Microsoft craves pseudo (proprietary) standards and gets its way using proxies and influence which it buys. Learn more
Highlight: The invasion into the open source world is intended to leave Linux companies neglected, due to financial incentives from Microsoft. Learn more
Analysis: Xen, an open source hypervisor, possibly fell victim to Microsoft's aggressive (and stealthy) acquisition-by-proxy strategy. Learn more
Highlight: Novell was the first to acknowledge that Microsoft FUD tactics had substance. Novell then used anti-Linux FUD to market itself. 
Highlight: Xandros let Microsoft make patent claims and brag about (paid-for) OOXML support. 
Highlight: Linspire's CEO not only fell into Microsoft arms, but he also assisted the company's attack on GNU/Linux. 
Highlight: Microsoft craves pseudo (proprietary) standards and gets its way using proxies and influence which it buys. 
Highlight: The invasion into the open source world is intended to leave Linux companies neglected, due to financial incentives from Microsoft. 
Analysis: Xen, an open source hypervisor, possibly fell victim to Microsoft's aggressive (and stealthy) acquisition-by-proxy strategy.