Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Another Microsoft XML patent
 On 6/5/05, M. David Peterson <m.david.x2x2x@g...> wrote: > > I doubt any official or non official comment could (or should) be made > by an MS blue badge Ignoring Mr. Peterson's sound advice ..... :-) I'm not going to touch the legal issues or the specific patent discussion here other than to say that people really need to do some searching on the general subject of patents and the software industry before getting all worked up about individual patents of the sort that pretty much all the big companies get on a regular basis. I think you'll find a lot more "dog bites gorilla" stories than "gorilla stomps on poor widdul puppy" scenarios that some of the posts in this thread speculate about. From what I recall, and from what I came up with in some quick Googling, there are far, far more lawsuits by little companies (often those whose only asset is some IP they have purchased) against the big companies than actual examples of big companies using dodgy patents to crush the competition. The reality today is that the major companies are generally *targets* of IP lawsuits. [I claim no expertise here ... counter examples are welcome] For example, see http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1661094,00.asp "We think part of that is the phenomenon that many companies that did not survive the burst of the dot-com bubble were left with nothing but a portfolio of patents from which to make money." One example about which I know a little: The company that developed the terminal applet that ships with Windows and whose tidy niche in selling terminal emulation software for the BBS systems of the 80's and '90s was destroyed by the internet, got more than $60 million from Symantec after years of litigation over a very broad patent on virus filtering during file transfer http://www.techworld.com/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=displaynews&NewsID=376. Note that they never accused Symantec of stealing their (primitive and no-longer-effective) technique; their patent covered essentially the very concept of virus filtering during file transfer. The real villian is the USPTO for ever issuing such a broad patent on a fairly obvious idea that many people came up with more or less simultaneously. (The others never dreamed that the idea was patentable, I guess). It's quite true that IBM gets a very big chunk of money from licensing its IP portfolio (1-2 billion $ per year?) and the other big companies wish they could as well. All major software companies AFAIK encourage their employees to submit patent applications when they come up with what appears to be a novel, non-obvious, and useful technique. Whether these are actually patentable is the USPTO's business to determine. If the patent in question is indeed bogus, look to the USPTO's incompetence, not some evil plotting, for the source of the problem. Even patents that aren't plausible money-makers on the IP licensing market can be very valuable to companies as *defenses* against nuisance lawsuits. Look at IBM's counterclaims against "The SCO Group" -- lots of patent infringement claims that IBM could not plausibly initiate against a competitor, but are fair game to use against lawsuit scammers. The best defense in these cases is a good offense. "You are suing us for infringing your patent on hashtables, eh? Well, you're infringing our patents on half of Computer Science 101 and here's a 1000-page countersuit." Deep sigh. 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
