Comments on: Microsoft and patents http://www.saunderslog.com/2007/05/14/microsoft-and-patents/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=microsoft-and-patents An outcome-driven leader, proven technology product developer, and marketer with over 20 years of hands-on experience including start-up, small and large business environments, and the board room. This is my blog. Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:15:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Alec http://www.saunderslog.com/2007/05/14/microsoft-and-patents/#comment-4916 Alec Tue, 15 May 2007 20:34:18 +0000 http://saunderslog.com/2007/05/14/microsoft-and-patents/#comment-4916 Yawn... c'mon Mike. Publish the patents? Sure... go to USPTO.GOV and look them up. All of Microsoft's patents are in the public record, just like every other patent. And you know what? You're dead wrong on IE. The IE source code was LICENSED from Spyglass, who owned the Mosaic licensing rights, and PREDATED Netscape. I should know, I was in charge of product management for IE 1 and 2. Get your facts straight, cure your rabid Microsoft fever, and you'll be able to make a much better argument in the future. Yawn… c'mon Mike. Publish the patents? Sure… go to USPTO.GOV and look them up. All of Microsoft's patents are in the public record, just like every other patent.

And you know what? You're dead wrong on IE. The IE source code was LICENSED from Spyglass, who owned the Mosaic licensing rights, and PREDATED Netscape. I should know, I was in charge of product management for IE 1 and 2.

Get your facts straight, cure your rabid Microsoft fever, and you'll be able to make a much better argument in the future.

]]> By: Mike Clark http://www.saunderslog.com/2007/05/14/microsoft-and-patents/#comment-4915 Mike Clark Tue, 15 May 2007 20:04:55 +0000 http://saunderslog.com/2007/05/14/microsoft-and-patents/#comment-4915 The patent system is supposed to protect innovation and the creation of something new, not the copying of something else, no matter how difficult. Microsoft has never innovated, they have simply copied and, sometimes, refined. MS-DOS ripped off Unix and CP/M, Word ripped off Wordperfect, Excel ripped off Lotus 123 and Visicalc. Windows ripped off Macintosh (which had ripped off Xerox PARC development). IE ripped off Netscape and Mosaic. The list goes on. Why doesn't Microsoft just publish all the supposed patent violations? If they are valid, say like, certain memory management algorithms, etc, then the open source world can quickly correct the issue so there is no violation. The patent system is supposed to protect innovation and the creation of something new, not the copying of something else, no matter how difficult. Microsoft has never innovated, they have simply copied and, sometimes, refined. MS-DOS ripped off Unix and CP/M, Word ripped off Wordperfect, Excel ripped off Lotus 123 and Visicalc. Windows ripped off Macintosh (which had ripped off Xerox PARC development). IE ripped off Netscape and Mosaic. The list goes on.

Why doesn't Microsoft just publish all the supposed patent violations? If they are valid, say like, certain memory management algorithms, etc, then the open source world can quickly correct the issue so there is no violation.

]]> By: Alec http://www.saunderslog.com/2007/05/14/microsoft-and-patents/#comment-4914 Alec Tue, 15 May 2007 09:40:48 +0000 http://saunderslog.com/2007/05/14/microsoft-and-patents/#comment-4914 It may be, Peter. I know at the time I was at Microsoft, many of the company's patents on core technology, like the OS, were far from "obvious". I think this will be a very interesting gambit to watch play out. It may be, Peter. I know at the time I was at Microsoft, many of the company’s patents on core technology, like the OS, were far from “obvious”. I think this will be a very interesting gambit to watch play out.

]]> By: Peter Childs http://www.saunderslog.com/2007/05/14/microsoft-and-patents/#comment-4913 Peter Childs Mon, 14 May 2007 11:43:23 +0000 http://saunderslog.com/2007/05/14/microsoft-and-patents/#comment-4913 This will be interesting in light of the recent US Supreme Court decision in KSR vs. Teleflex. Essentially the concept of “obviousness” has been refined so that it may be more difficult to assert patent protection where a new approach is a creative concept that uses multiple patented concepts to produce something new. (I hope I’ve captured the crux of the decision) In the short term it looks like a heyday for patent lawyers as the tests require interpretation – in the longer term it could bring balance back into the patent system – by encouraging creative innovation - which was one of the goals of the patent system. Protection is the other equally important part – where copying not innovation is involved. This will be interesting in light of the recent US Supreme Court decision in KSR vs. Teleflex.

Essentially the concept of “obviousness” has been refined so that it may be more difficult to assert patent protection where a new approach is a creative concept that uses multiple patented concepts to produce something new. (I hope I’ve captured the crux of the decision)

In the short term it looks like a heyday for patent lawyers as the tests require interpretation – in the longer term it could bring balance back into the patent system – by encouraging creative innovation – which was one of the goals of the patent system.

Protection is the other equally important part – where copying not innovation is involved.

]]>