Microsoft sues Salesforce(techflash.com)
techflash.com
Microsoft sues Salesforce
http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2010/05/microsoft_sues_salesforcecom_alleging_patent_infringement.html
11 comments
It seems like anyone doing automatic software updates is in violation of "Method and system for identifying and obtaining computer software from a remote computer."
When a user accesses the remote update service, an update service computer conducts an automatic inventory of the computer software on the user computer. The data collected from the inventory of the user computer software is then used to make comparisons to database entries from a database on the update service computer. The database entries contain information about computer software available on the update service computer. The comparison is conducted to identify software available from the remote update service that might be appropriate for installation on the user computer (i.e. new computer software, new versions of existing computer software, patches or fixes for existing computer software, new help files, etc.). After the comparison is completed, the update service computer makes the computer software stored at the remote update service computer available to the user.
When a user accesses the remote update service, an update service computer conducts an automatic inventory of the computer software on the user computer. The data collected from the inventory of the user computer software is then used to make comparisons to database entries from a database on the update service computer. The database entries contain information about computer software available on the update service computer. The comparison is conducted to identify software available from the remote update service that might be appropriate for installation on the user computer (i.e. new computer software, new versions of existing computer software, patches or fixes for existing computer software, new help files, etc.). After the comparison is completed, the update service computer makes the computer software stored at the remote update service computer available to the user.
The claims don't make it look too much better, either. Here's claim 21:
A computer-implemented method of acquiring computer software for a first computer, the method comprising:
establishing communications with a second computer over a network to determine whether computer software not installed on the first computer is available for installation on the first computer;
responsive to determining computer software not installed on the first computer is available for installation on the first computer, presenting a list at the first computer displaying the computer software not installed on the first computer and available for installation on the first computer;
from the list displaying the computer software not installed on the first computer and available for installation on the first computer, accepting a selection selected at the first computer indicating computer software to be downloaded and installed on the first computer; and
to the first computer, downloading the computer software to be downloaded and installed on the first computer.
The later claims clarify that upgrades count as well. I could be missing something, but sounds awfully close to a description of Debian's 'aptitude' and 'dselect'?
A computer-implemented method of acquiring computer software for a first computer, the method comprising:
establishing communications with a second computer over a network to determine whether computer software not installed on the first computer is available for installation on the first computer;
responsive to determining computer software not installed on the first computer is available for installation on the first computer, presenting a list at the first computer displaying the computer software not installed on the first computer and available for installation on the first computer;
from the list displaying the computer software not installed on the first computer and available for installation on the first computer, accepting a selection selected at the first computer indicating computer software to be downloaded and installed on the first computer; and
to the first computer, downloading the computer software to be downloaded and installed on the first computer.
The later claims clarify that upgrades count as well. I could be missing something, but sounds awfully close to a description of Debian's 'aptitude' and 'dselect'?
It seems from these blurbs that the server has more logic than something most distopros have. The typical unix model is to publish an index and have each commuter determine its own updates, rather than having the server determine anything about the client.
I've come to terms with the fact that even here on HN, many people still mistake a summary for a legal definition of the invention covered.
But I had held out hope that this wasn't the sort of place where one could condemn patents by title alone, let alone the sort of place where a false argument like that would find approval.
No point is bolstered by pretending the titles have any bearing on the legal or philosophical validity of those patents.
If you have a philosophical issue with patents in general or software patents in particular, just state that and save time.
But I had held out hope that this wasn't the sort of place where one could condemn patents by title alone, let alone the sort of place where a false argument like that would find approval.
No point is bolstered by pretending the titles have any bearing on the legal or philosophical validity of those patents.
If you have a philosophical issue with patents in general or software patents in particular, just state that and save time.
Nobody mistakes a title for a summary, or a summary for an exhaustive 40 page patent.
Nobody mistakes an academic article title for an abstract, or the abstract for the text, or the text for the data, either. But that doesn't stop us from mentioning articles by title.
I thought it would be helpful to list the patents since they are not listed in the original article and one has to scan a 10 page pdf to find them. I'm not sure what you would prefer. Don't list the patents? Full text? Links to full text? Please educate me on proper summarization of a patent lawsuit.
Nobody mistakes an academic article title for an abstract, or the abstract for the text, or the text for the data, either. But that doesn't stop us from mentioning articles by title.
I thought it would be helpful to list the patents since they are not listed in the original article and one has to scan a 10 page pdf to find them. I'm not sure what you would prefer. Don't list the patents? Full text? Links to full text? Please educate me on proper summarization of a patent lawsuit.
Actually, people do commonly mistake the title of a patent for the claims of the patent. That's one of the main reasons discussions over specific patents on sites like Slashdot, Reddit and...well, pretty much everywhere that programmers hang out are almost always close to worthless.
Probably best to post the patent numbers along with the titles, which makes it more likely some people will look at the patents themselves and subsequently post more information as to what is or is not actually being alleged.
The best way to think of patent titles and abstracts is not as things telling you what the patent covers, but rather as telling you what it DOESN'T cover. When you are trying to figure out what patents might cover some particular thing of interest, you use the titles and abstract to eliminate patents. For those not eliminated, you then need to read the specification and claims.
For instance, looking at the 9 titles you posted, I can quite confidently conclude that 7 of them cannot possibly cover anything I'm currently working on.
Probably best to post the patent numbers along with the titles, which makes it more likely some people will look at the patents themselves and subsequently post more information as to what is or is not actually being alleged.
The best way to think of patent titles and abstracts is not as things telling you what the patent covers, but rather as telling you what it DOESN'T cover. When you are trying to figure out what patents might cover some particular thing of interest, you use the titles and abstract to eliminate patents. For those not eliminated, you then need to read the specification and claims.
For instance, looking at the 9 titles you posted, I can quite confidently conclude that 7 of them cannot possibly cover anything I'm currently working on.
"Sounds like they're being sued for deploying an AJAX application."
You listed just the patent titles and then made a smart remark about them. Roc stated that you cannot tell what a patent covers simply by looking at its name. It sounds more like you mistake a title for an exhaustive 40 page patent. Otherwise, you were just wise-cracking for the sake of it.
You listed just the patent titles and then made a smart remark about them. Roc stated that you cannot tell what a patent covers simply by looking at its name. It sounds more like you mistake a title for an exhaustive 40 page patent. Otherwise, you were just wise-cracking for the sake of it.
I think links to fulltext are best.
I don't think summarizing patents makes sense in this case with such vague content-free titles.
I don't think summarizing patents makes sense in this case with such vague content-free titles.
[deleted]
Nice troll.
Ouch. Sounds like they're being sued for making money.
I looked at the complaint but not the underlying patents. Seems a little generic, huh?
I looked at the complaint but not the underlying patents. Seems a little generic, huh?
Sued for making money .... using common practices we've probably all violated most of, repeatedly!
Shameful act on MS's part.
Shameful act on MS's part.
Patent trolling has been a key part of MS's strategy for years now. When someone without an exhaustive counter-portfolio of patents make a lot of money, Microsoft shows up with an offer to license the patents, and if the company refuses and there still seems little possibility of retaliation, they bring suit on the patents.
MS shouldn't really be singled out for it, I guess, because a lot of bigger tech companies do this.
MS shouldn't really be singled out for it, I guess, because a lot of bigger tech companies do this.
And only the 4th time Microsoft has made a patent claim against another company, which is amazing considering the large number of patents they have.
I wouldn't be surprised if they are starting to investigate there patents applications and possible breaches more.
I wouldn't be surprised if they are starting to investigate there patents applications and possible breaches more.
I think the claim was the 4th time Microsoft had made a patent claim against a competing company. I don't know how significant that distinction is.
[deleted]
1. Somehow I feel this is because MS is trying to push dynamics CRM more
2. MS rarely sues over patent matters, usually they do cross licensing deals, so maybe they tried that here (as clear from Salesforce jan filing) and that didn't work out. I am sure Salesforce being quite a old player will have patents MS might be interested in using/licensing.
3. People criticizing the patents they are suing for, remember two latest case that MS lost, one of them for basically saving a word file in xml format. They lost millions and The judge actually ordered them to stop shipping Office till they fix it. Based on that as a shareholder I would want them to go out and make some money from their patent arsenal even if it involves suing.
2. MS rarely sues over patent matters, usually they do cross licensing deals, so maybe they tried that here (as clear from Salesforce jan filing) and that didn't work out. I am sure Salesforce being quite a old player will have patents MS might be interested in using/licensing.
3. People criticizing the patents they are suing for, remember two latest case that MS lost, one of them for basically saving a word file in xml format. They lost millions and The judge actually ordered them to stop shipping Office till they fix it. Based on that as a shareholder I would want them to go out and make some money from their patent arsenal even if it involves suing.
The future of the Microsoft tax.
Yeah, I could understand that if Microsoft was a dying company but last time I check they are still making billions record profits. So why? Because salesforce is doing integration with google apps?
They are a dying company. They just have too much inertia.
It will take a while. Desktop software will be irrelevant shortly, as will the personal computer as we knew it. Companies will redeploy internal desktop apps as web apps, first to their own servers, then for cloud platforms like GAE.
Microsoft is doomed. This is its future.
It will take a while. Desktop software will be irrelevant shortly, as will the personal computer as we knew it. Companies will redeploy internal desktop apps as web apps, first to their own servers, then for cloud platforms like GAE.
Microsoft is doomed. This is its future.
Desktop software will be irrelevant shortly
Desktop software will never become irrelevant.
I will continue to choose MS Word for the foreseeable future because the documents are on my machine, and not on the web where it is vulnerable to MITM attacks or the whim of Google employees and government agencies.
Desktop software will never become irrelevant.
I will continue to choose MS Word for the foreseeable future because the documents are on my machine, and not on the web where it is vulnerable to MITM attacks or the whim of Google employees and government agencies.
Never confuse "never" with "foreseeable future". I, too, won't give up my hard drive for cloud storage for the foreseeable future. But I already did that for e-mail and do a lot of collaboration through Google Documents. All the source code I write is versioned on private servers that could, conceivably, be called a "private cloud", albeit a very small one.
And, BTW, by being on your machine, they may not be vulnerable to government agencies (unless you cross a border) and Google employees, but, as was shown a couple weeks back, it's vulnerable to borked anti-virus updates.
Not to say the viruses themselves.
And, BTW, by being on your machine, they may not be vulnerable to government agencies (unless you cross a border) and Google employees, but, as was shown a couple weeks back, it's vulnerable to borked anti-virus updates.
Not to say the viruses themselves.
It's a crazy world where a company like microsoft with almost 100000 employees and $58 billion on yearly revenue is dying. Whereas something like Twitter which may have just become profitable with about 150 employees is the future.
I guess it depends how you define dying, dying as in no longer being the most influential player in all of computing, probably. Dying as in a failing business with in eventually go bankrupt or sell, not a chance from where I'm sitting.
I guess it depends how you define dying, dying as in no longer being the most influential player in all of computing, probably. Dying as in a failing business with in eventually go bankrupt or sell, not a chance from where I'm sitting.
Same crazy world where Lotus and Novell died despite massive revenues and lots of employees (if you consider number of employees as a measure of success).
Same crazy world where GM had to receive government support in order not to fail.
There is no mercy for those who make things the market doesn't want.
There is no mercy for those who make things the market doesn't want.
As jimfl posted, I think they are feeling threatened by "enterprise" apps built on the Salesforce platform.
Really. Why is most of this even patentable?
B.S.
Microsoft says it only uses lawsuits as a last resort when a licensing agreement can't be reached. It sounds like they're trying not to be bad guys, but I read this as Microsoft using lawsuits to force companies to license their patents. I'm not under the illusion that any other company does differently, just commenting on their attempted PR spin.
Seems like using a monopoly in one market to force another market into submission.
Yeah, the bully only hits you if you force him to by not handing over your lunch money. He's not really a bad guy.
After thinking about this a little more, it seems like the complaint has to be leveled against SF's Development Platform, since many of these techniques are used in very many online services and applications. The language of the complaint also suggests this:
The Defendant has been and/or is directly infringing the ... patent by, among other things, making, using, offering to license or licensing in the United States, offering to sell or selling in the United States, products and/or services, including various web applications and services and the hardware and software running these applications and services, that embody or incorporate, or the operation of which otherwise practices, one or more claims of the ... patent.
The Defendant has been and/or is directly infringing the ... patent by, among other things, making, using, offering to license or licensing in the United States, offering to sell or selling in the United States, products and/or services, including various web applications and services and the hardware and software running these applications and services, that embody or incorporate, or the operation of which otherwise practices, one or more claims of the ... patent.
[deleted]
I call bullshit. This is a marketing and PR move to make their own CRM product sound legit.
Microsoft typically only uses their patent portfolio to counter the attacks of others. It makes me wonder if Salesforce has some patents that Microsoft wants so it is trying to force Salesforce to do a cross-licensing deal.
<sarcasm>Looks like the Microsoft PR machine is working in full force again today</sarcasm>
Win a couple hundred million, lose the support of 5% of the voters. Nice trade, guys. Few more like that and you'll be the next AT&T
We continue to confuse kinetic force with winning.
Win a couple hundred million, lose the support of 5% of the voters. Nice trade, guys. Few more like that and you'll be the next AT&T
We continue to confuse kinetic force with winning.
Is it just me or are all these patents pretty trifling? Stacking toolbars, web templates, mouse timing? Really Microsoft?
Did Marc Benioff say something mean to Horacio Gutiérrez?
Maybe they can team up with Intellectual Ventures and do some awesome lawsuits.
When you can't win in the marketplace...
Did Marc Benioff say something mean to Horacio Gutiérrez?
Maybe they can team up with Intellectual Ventures and do some awesome lawsuits.
When you can't win in the marketplace...
"Is it just me or are all these patents pretty trifling?"
I can't tell, as the story was only posted an hour ago, and I can't even really understand one patent in an hour. It would take me days to be able to competently assess 9 patents. I'm quite impressed that you were able to do so in a mere one hour.
I can't tell, as the story was only posted an hour ago, and I can't even really understand one patent in an hour. It would take me days to be able to competently assess 9 patents. I'm quite impressed that you were able to do so in a mere one hour.
1. Method and system for mapping between logical data and physical data
2. System and method for providing and displaying a web page having an embedded menu
3. Method and system for stacking toolbars in a computer display
4. Automated web site creation using template driven generation of active server page applications
5. Aggregation of system settings into objects
6. Timing and velocity control for displaying graphical information
7. Timing and velocity control for displaying graphical information (later patent)
8. Method and system for identifying and obtaining computer software from a remote computer
9. System and method for controlling access to data entities in a computer network
Sounds like they're being sued for deploying an AJAX application.