Funny, but with a scary lining
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Sander_Marechal Oct 10, 2007 1:24 PM EDT |
While it's funny to see that the longer this drags on and the more code we create, the fewer patrents we violate, there is a dark lining to this. What if the number has been reducing because Microsoft is actively investigating which of the patents they have are actually strong enough to hold up in court? Sure they will find that a lot of patents aren't good enough, so the list dwindles. But what if they end up with a dozen or so patents that they think are valid, and take FOSS to court? |
| softwarejanitor Oct 10, 2007 1:39 PM EDT |
It would be better to know what patents they are talking about like we did with the LZW patents that Unisys was suing people over a few years ago than having this hanging over FOSS developers/distributors forever. Even if they have patents they can sue over, they have to win, and they have to be able to find a way to collect royalties. In the mean time once the patents are disclosed the software will be coded around them. That is why Microsoft is dragging this out as long as they can. They don't want to sue, they want to create Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 10, 2007 1:51 PM EDT |
Or they want to keep the FUD just until the last possible moment, then lash out their patents in full. It makes sense. The last thing they need is another SCO-like scenario where they throw out some evidence (i.e. 285 patents) only to have 200 of those invalidated the very next day by FOSS researches carrying heaps of prior art and pointing out at least a dozen ways in which each of them is invalid. They'd better keep the FUD blowing and then attack with, say, 30 patents that are hard to invalidate. It shows the same symptoms as your scenario (keeping up the FUD and not disclosing anything at the moment) but the end result is more dangerous. And it explains why the number of patents that the FUD is about keeps lowering. |
| softwarejanitor Oct 10, 2007 2:06 PM EDT |
Why would they tip us off by lowering the number if that was their strategy though? Not to say you are wrong... I'm just trying to look at all the angles... |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 10, 2007 2:11 PM EDT |
Libel or stockholder lawsuits perhaps? It's one think to say to a judge "When we made those claims, we believed these 150 were infringed by them and we were investigating them deeper. Here's the research evidence that backs this up". It's probably not as smart to say "Yes we said they were infringing 285 patents. Please disregard the discovery evidence that says our research had already shown 100 of them not to be infringing after all." |
| NoDough Oct 10, 2007 6:48 PM EDT |
Quoting:...SCO-like scenario where they throw out some evidence (i.e. 285 patents) only to have 200 of those invalidated the very next day by FOSS researches carrying heaps of prior art and pointing out at least a dozen ways in which each of them is invalid. "given enough eyeballs, all patents are shallow" |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 10, 2007 9:30 PM EDT |
Indeed they are :-) IIRC, the peer-to-peer patent project isn't doing badly at all. http://www.peertopatent.org/ |
| dinotrac Oct 11, 2007 5:24 AM EDT |
>"given enough eyeballs, all patents are shallow" No, just the ones that shouldn't have been granted. Legitimate patents can be avoided, which, I suppose, is a form of shallowness. I struggle with the idea of what kind of software could possess the novelty required to legitimate a patent, but, if such a thing truly exists, it could provide a true advantage to the inventor by forcing others to find different, possibly inferior, means to their ends. |
| NoDough Oct 11, 2007 8:47 AM EDT |
Quoting:>"given enough eyeballs, all patents are shallow"I didn't say they were invalid, just shallow. |
| dinotrac Oct 11, 2007 10:14 AM EDT |
>I didn't say they were invalid, just shallow. If you're just talking about discovery, then you are correct. If you're talking discovery and correction, then you are most likely correct. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!