Google: Microsoft uses patents when products "stop succeeding"(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Google: Microsoft uses patents when products "stop succeeding"
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/google-microsoft-uses-patents-when-products-stop-succeeding.ars
4 comments
Some of their links are broken. The original memo by Bill Gates is a more interesting read than the article: http://web.archive.org/web/20070105162133/http://www.bralyn....
There is no doubt the landscape has changed, sure when Microsoft was in it's infancy software patents weren't an issue. However the market at the time was also incredibly small, and it didn't stop Apple from suing Microsoft in the ill-fated look and feel lawsuits.
While the system definitely requires reform, it is the one in place and ignoring software patents is not a worthwhile strategy. Google have been on the sour end of numerous patent lawsuits from companies that seemingly have no other agenda than software patent litigation. Meanwhile Google may be critical of microsoft/apple/oracle, but their own intellectual property is also protected from these companies. Which is probably why google has always presented an ambiguous viewpoint towards software patents, and is indeed stock piling them as well.
Google are guilty of much lip-service against software patents, seemingly using the issue to dissent against their competitors and to feign an underdog status.
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Google provides further details on Google's ambiguity towards software patents.
While the system definitely requires reform, it is the one in place and ignoring software patents is not a worthwhile strategy. Google have been on the sour end of numerous patent lawsuits from companies that seemingly have no other agenda than software patent litigation. Meanwhile Google may be critical of microsoft/apple/oracle, but their own intellectual property is also protected from these companies. Which is probably why google has always presented an ambiguous viewpoint towards software patents, and is indeed stock piling them as well.
Google are guilty of much lip-service against software patents, seemingly using the issue to dissent against their competitors and to feign an underdog status.
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Google provides further details on Google's ambiguity towards software patents.
How is Ms attacking Linux evidence that they stopped succeeding? I'd say they succeeded quite well in the desktop OS world.
How about the server arena?
I wouldn't say they're not succeeding there. They're not #1, but servers have never been one of their main focuses. I'm sure they would love to be #1, but Windows on the desktop and Microsoft Office makes them oodles of money already.
Really?
Have you ever looked at their quarterly earnings reports? They have a itty-bitty segment called "Server and Tools" that posted $4.25 billion in first quarter revenue.
Microsoft's total revenue in the quarter that just ended was $17.4B.
I don't have the server and tools breakout, but $4.5B is less than 26%.
$4.5B is a large number, it's even large enough to be significant to microsoft (however, it wouldn't be significant for walmart), but it's not essential.
I don't have the server and tools breakout, but $4.5B is less than 26%.
$4.5B is a large number, it's even large enough to be significant to microsoft (however, it wouldn't be significant for walmart), but it's not essential.
4.5B out of 17.4B is 25.8% of total revenue. What business are you in that 25% of revenue is not essential?
For others who haven't seen the numbers, here is their latest 8K http://idc.api.edgar-online.com/efx_dll/edgarpro.dll?FetchFi...
For others who haven't seen the numbers, here is their latest 8K http://idc.api.edgar-online.com/efx_dll/edgarpro.dll?FetchFi...
Three Months Ended September 30, Revenue
Windows & Windows Live Division $ 4,868
Server and Tools 4,250
Online Services Division 625
Microsoft Business Division 5,622
Entertainment and Devices Division 1,963
Unallocated and other 44
Consolidated $ 17,372> 4.5B out of 17.4B is 25.8% of total revenue
And 25.8% is "less than 26%", as I said.
> What business are you in that 25% of revenue is not essential?
Lots of biz have 30% variations in revenue. In fact, it wasn't so long ago that MS' revenue was 30% less that it is today. It was even less long ago that Google's revenue was 50% less than it is today.
If that revenue was essential, neither company would be alive today.
Yes, both are happier with that revenue, but it wouldn't kill them to lose it.
And 25.8% is "less than 26%", as I said.
> What business are you in that 25% of revenue is not essential?
Lots of biz have 30% variations in revenue. In fact, it wasn't so long ago that MS' revenue was 30% less that it is today. It was even less long ago that Google's revenue was 50% less than it is today.
If that revenue was essential, neither company would be alive today.
Yes, both are happier with that revenue, but it wouldn't kill them to lose it.
"Indeed, the idea of patents on software alarmed Bill Gates, who wrote in 1991 (when Microsoft was already older than Google is now) that "the industry would be at a complete standstill" if software had been eligible for patent protection in the early days of the industry."
So now we have software patents. Is the industry now at a complete standstill? Or from the other direction, what would the industry look like now, if there software patents hadn't been allowed.
Or to ask in yet another slightly different way: what are we missing now, what's been taken away from us, because of software patents?
So now we have software patents. Is the industry now at a complete standstill? Or from the other direction, what would the industry look like now, if there software patents hadn't been allowed.
Or to ask in yet another slightly different way: what are we missing now, what's been taken away from us, because of software patents?
Software still isn't eligible for patent protection, as I've said several times before (look at my comment history). Copyright protection and trade secret protection are available for software, while patent protection is available for "business methods."
The whole issue is that one wouldn't reasonably believe that checking someone's driver's license to verify that it matches the name on the credit card they used to purchase goods at an auction qualifies as patentable subject matter. Yet, in 1999, eBay received a patent for a "Method and apparatus for verifying the identity of a participant within an on-line auction environment." [Pat. No. 6,466,917]
As we move more and more brick and mortar business functions to the virtual world, people are able to get around the prior art by inextricably linking their business method with a device--a computer or, as patent attorneys eloquently say:
"a client computer to present user interface information specifying an identity verification interface for obtaining personal information of a user and to communicate personal information over a communications network; a transaction computer, coupled to the client computer via a communications network, to implement a transaction system that facilitates transactions between the user and a further user, to receive the personal information from the client computer via the communications network, and to communicate the personal information over the communications network; and an identity verification computer, coupled to the transaction computer via the communications network, to receive the personal information from the transaction computer via the communications network, to perform an identity verification process to generate a verification result, and to communicate the verification result to the transaction computer over the communications network, wherein transaction computer makes the verification result available to the further user via the communications network and responsive to a request from the further user for information concerning the user." [Pat. No. 6,466,917]
I find it intractable for one to reasonably believe that the virtual environment is so extraordinarily different from real life so as to justify awarding patents for routine business methods. The problem with business method patents, quite bluntly, is that the Supreme Court absolutely blew it in Bilski by not articulating, precisely, how much of a transformation is necessary to consider it "inventive."
This is for Congress to decide.
The whole issue is that one wouldn't reasonably believe that checking someone's driver's license to verify that it matches the name on the credit card they used to purchase goods at an auction qualifies as patentable subject matter. Yet, in 1999, eBay received a patent for a "Method and apparatus for verifying the identity of a participant within an on-line auction environment." [Pat. No. 6,466,917]
As we move more and more brick and mortar business functions to the virtual world, people are able to get around the prior art by inextricably linking their business method with a device--a computer or, as patent attorneys eloquently say:
"a client computer to present user interface information specifying an identity verification interface for obtaining personal information of a user and to communicate personal information over a communications network; a transaction computer, coupled to the client computer via a communications network, to implement a transaction system that facilitates transactions between the user and a further user, to receive the personal information from the client computer via the communications network, and to communicate the personal information over the communications network; and an identity verification computer, coupled to the transaction computer via the communications network, to receive the personal information from the transaction computer via the communications network, to perform an identity verification process to generate a verification result, and to communicate the verification result to the transaction computer over the communications network, wherein transaction computer makes the verification result available to the further user via the communications network and responsive to a request from the further user for information concerning the user." [Pat. No. 6,466,917]
I find it intractable for one to reasonably believe that the virtual environment is so extraordinarily different from real life so as to justify awarding patents for routine business methods. The problem with business method patents, quite bluntly, is that the Supreme Court absolutely blew it in Bilski by not articulating, precisely, how much of a transformation is necessary to consider it "inventive."
This is for Congress to decide.
Is the industry now at a complete standstill?
No, but only because software patents have largely been unenforced. That's changing.
Or to ask in yet another slightly different way: what are we missing now, what's been taken away from us, because of software patents?
If Apple has their way, the only significant mobile OS that doesn't mandate a walled garden. (Microsoft is actually better off keeping Android alive; parasites don't benefit by killing their host).
No, but only because software patents have largely been unenforced. That's changing.
Or to ask in yet another slightly different way: what are we missing now, what's been taken away from us, because of software patents?
If Apple has their way, the only significant mobile OS that doesn't mandate a walled garden. (Microsoft is actually better off keeping Android alive; parasites don't benefit by killing their host).
"software patents have largely been unenforced."
I don't think that's the case. However, it doesn't often come to ugly lawsuits because most of those software patents can be licensed. For instance, Apple licensed Amazon's 1-Click Purchasing patent. If it hadn't, Amazon would've likely sued over it. [1]
This method is working out great for Microsoft, which makes more money off Android than on its own mobile endeavors.
The big problem Android makers encounter with Apple is that it has no interest in licensing its software patents to them. Apple simply does not want them using any of its ideas.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click
I don't think that's the case. However, it doesn't often come to ugly lawsuits because most of those software patents can be licensed. For instance, Apple licensed Amazon's 1-Click Purchasing patent. If it hadn't, Amazon would've likely sued over it. [1]
This method is working out great for Microsoft, which makes more money off Android than on its own mobile endeavors.
The big problem Android makers encounter with Apple is that it has no interest in licensing its software patents to them. Apple simply does not want them using any of its ideas.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click
"This method is working out great for Microsoft, which makes more money off Android than on its own mobile endeavors."
You're making it sound as if it's a good thing Microsoft makes money on stop they didn't actually build themselves.
You're making it sound as if it's a good thing Microsoft makes money on stop they didn't actually build themselves.
A quote I've heard a few times, but which I can't seem to find the origin of: "Genius is 1 percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration. Patents are a tool for doing the 1 percent, waiting for someone else to do the 99 percent, and then suing them."
Stockholders of Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc. etc. can make money from things they did not build themseleves (including individuals such as Brin, Cook, Balmer etc. etc.).
While one might argue, "yes but those stockholders invested capital in those companies," one might reasonably counter that Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc. etc. invested capital in the research to discover those patentable ideas.
Don't misunderstand me, I see some ethical merits in a Marxist economic approach.
However, "Now we see the violence inherent in the system," is hardly a convincing argument.
While one might argue, "yes but those stockholders invested capital in those companies," one might reasonably counter that Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc. etc. invested capital in the research to discover those patentable ideas.
Don't misunderstand me, I see some ethical merits in a Marxist economic approach.
However, "Now we see the violence inherent in the system," is hardly a convincing argument.
"You're making it sound as if it's a good thing Microsoft makes money on stop they didn't actually build themselves."
It was an observation, it shouldn't be interpreted as approval. Just as I'm not so sure whether Apple, Google, and the Android device makers are handling this mess the right way.
It was an observation, it shouldn't be interpreted as approval. Just as I'm not so sure whether Apple, Google, and the Android device makers are handling this mess the right way.
Or to ask in yet another slightly different way: what are we missing now, what's been taken away from us, because of software patents?
Just a few random examples; no doubt there are more:
1. Encumbrance-free implementations of popular audio and video codecs.
2. Long filename support on FAT32 on embedded Linux devices (or the associated royalty to Microsoft).
3. Multitouch gestures on Android, at least initially.
4. A gallery app on Samsung devices in the Netherlands that shows neighboring pictures in an image sequence when sliding between images.
5. Early clones of the game The Incredible Machine.
6. Probably countless other ideas that people never bothered to try because they knew that some big company had already patented the life out of a particular sector.
Just a few random examples; no doubt there are more:
1. Encumbrance-free implementations of popular audio and video codecs.
2. Long filename support on FAT32 on embedded Linux devices (or the associated royalty to Microsoft).
3. Multitouch gestures on Android, at least initially.
4. A gallery app on Samsung devices in the Netherlands that shows neighboring pictures in an image sequence when sliding between images.
5. Early clones of the game The Incredible Machine.
6. Probably countless other ideas that people never bothered to try because they knew that some big company had already patented the life out of a particular sector.
"the industry would be at a complete standstill if software had been eligible for patent protection in the early days of the industry."
Not surprising, coming from Bill Gates. When he said this, Microsoft was in the middle of a lawsuit with Apple.
If software had been eligible for patent protection in the early days of the industry, Microsoft would not have been able to bring Windows to market. Apple sued them over it anyways, but their case wasn't as strong as it would've been.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_v._Microsoft
Not surprising, coming from Bill Gates. When he said this, Microsoft was in the middle of a lawsuit with Apple.
If software had been eligible for patent protection in the early days of the industry, Microsoft would not have been able to bring Windows to market. Apple sued them over it anyways, but their case wasn't as strong as it would've been.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_v._Microsoft
A canonical, standard video codec supported by all web browsers.
A patent is a kind of monopoly.
ATT had a monopoly, and they were partitioned to break that monopoly.
If ATT had kept their monopoly they would not have had much pressure to compete through price or innovation. What might we not have today in the consumer telecom space if ATT had kept their monopoly. For example, would our phones still be wired to the wall and owned by ATT? Would new colors on princess phones be the extent of innovation?
ATT had a monopoly, and they were partitioned to break that monopoly.
If ATT had kept their monopoly they would not have had much pressure to compete through price or innovation. What might we not have today in the consumer telecom space if ATT had kept their monopoly. For example, would our phones still be wired to the wall and owned by ATT? Would new colors on princess phones be the extent of innovation?
"would our phones still be wired to the wall and owned by ATT?"
I doubt it because Motorola and others were already making cell phones when AT&T was broken up in 1984 [1][2].
Also, of the 7 Baby Bells that the original AT&T was broken up into, most have merged again. There's only Verizon and AT&T left. On top of that, now AT&T wants to merge with T-Mobile USA. But has mobile innovation halted in the last decade?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System_divestiture
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_DynaTAC
I doubt it because Motorola and others were already making cell phones when AT&T was broken up in 1984 [1][2].
Also, of the 7 Baby Bells that the original AT&T was broken up into, most have merged again. There's only Verizon and AT&T left. On top of that, now AT&T wants to merge with T-Mobile USA. But has mobile innovation halted in the last decade?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System_divestiture
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_DynaTAC
I would strongly argue that the re-merging of the Bells has slowed innovation dramatically.
To bring it closer to home a bit - I'm originally from Canada, where up until a few short years ago there was a single GSM operator in the entire country. The country as a whole, when it comes to mobile telephony, is still years behind the USA, not to mention Europe/Asia.
I remember college, when smartphones started taking off, and affordable data plans started appearing. In Canada this was completely unseen. Why? The lone carrier was making a killing charging $300+ per month for enterprise BlackBerry data plans against cash-flush companies willing to pay the price. Introduction of consumer-appropriate data pricing would've gutted that. So they didn't, and there was nothing anybody could do about it.
It took years for consumer data plans to hit the market, and by then the damage has already been done. Canada is still laughably behind the times when it comes to mobile internet use, and while the US was running away with innovative ideas like mobile music streaming, tweeting on the go, sharing pic from your phone to Facebook, Canadians were still texting each other like idiots.
So yeah, long story short, the breakup of AT&T was a good thing. The re-merging of them was bad, though apparently not bad enough to hold the industry at a complete stand-still.
To bring it closer to home a bit - I'm originally from Canada, where up until a few short years ago there was a single GSM operator in the entire country. The country as a whole, when it comes to mobile telephony, is still years behind the USA, not to mention Europe/Asia.
I remember college, when smartphones started taking off, and affordable data plans started appearing. In Canada this was completely unseen. Why? The lone carrier was making a killing charging $300+ per month for enterprise BlackBerry data plans against cash-flush companies willing to pay the price. Introduction of consumer-appropriate data pricing would've gutted that. So they didn't, and there was nothing anybody could do about it.
It took years for consumer data plans to hit the market, and by then the damage has already been done. Canada is still laughably behind the times when it comes to mobile internet use, and while the US was running away with innovative ideas like mobile music streaming, tweeting on the go, sharing pic from your phone to Facebook, Canadians were still texting each other like idiots.
So yeah, long story short, the breakup of AT&T was a good thing. The re-merging of them was bad, though apparently not bad enough to hold the industry at a complete stand-still.