Microsoft patent trolls Salesforce

Given the state of the patent system, I think that these are not horrible patents. Sure, I don't like them either. But remember that the patent system is supposed to protect things that are obvious after you've seen them, but which aren't that easy to think up. We've all seen the technologies, so of course they are obvious to us now. But were they obvious at the time?<p>Take, for instance, patent #8, "Method and system for identifying and obtaining computer software from a remote computer" (see <a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&#38;Sect2=HITOFF&#38;d=PALL&#38;p=1&#38;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&#38;r=1&#38;f=G&#38;l=50&#38;s1=5,845,077.PN.&#38;OS=PN/5,845,077&#38;RS=PN/5,845,077" rel="nofollow">http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&#38;Sec...</a> for details). It covers a system for having lots of machines keep themselves up to date with a central repository. Obvious, right? We can all think of a ton of examples. For instance Debian's apt fits virtually all of the claims except the ones involving payment. (For some reason Debian doesn't worry about that much. :-) )<p>But look when it was filed. November 27, 1995. That's well before apt. In fact it was the same year that Debian first released dselect. I don't know if dselect was advanced enough back then match the patent. If so then that is prior art and I'd suggest that Salesforce's lawyers look carefully at it.<p>If it is not, then finding prior art may be a challenge. People today are used to subscription-based software distribution. But pick up <i>Founders at Work</i> and read the interview with Arthur van Hoff about Marimba, which was founded in 1996 (after the patent was filed) and was in the business of subscription-based software with automatic updates. He talks a bit about how new the idea was, and how it was difficult to get people to try it.<p>That tells me that, at the time and with the way people were used to working, this technology really was new and innovative. Now I really, really hope that someone can find prior art and smack Microsoft down. I don't want this kind of patent to threaten software I use.<p>But as far as patents go, this seems relatively good. (The fact that it is still bad is an argument against software patents in general, and not this particular patent.)

From the suit:<p><i>As a result of the Defendant’s unlawful infringement of the Microsoft patents-in-suit, Microsoft has suffered and will continue to suffer damage.</i><p>The patent system's primary goal seems to have become protecting patent holders, which really ought to be only a secondary function. The original purpose of patents was to encourage innovations that would benefit society. It was a simple trade: if you invent something that will help society, society will give you protection against competition for some period of time. Somehow the system has morphed from a tool for encouraging innovation into a panicked land grab. And in the case of software patents like the ones in this suit, society receives very little benefit for the protection it provides.

It's not a patent troll when a competitor goes after you with patents they acquired doing R&#38;D for real products. The patents sound like they shouldn't have been issued, but that's a different problem.<p>A troll has no real business other than acquiring patents and suing companies (or arranging for them to be sued).

I understand the need for people on HN to play devil's advocate and try to defend Microsoft's actions, but I don't think there's much of a case here in their favor, even if one did really dig into the patents. Microsoft should be spending its time and resources making their own software better, not suing other successful companies. To me this whole debacle stinks of desperation. Microsoft can't figure out how to find success in the web applications space and out of frustration are simply choosing to sue the most successful SaaS companies. I knew things were getting bad at MS, but I didn't realize they were this bad.

It's pointless looking at patent titles (or abstracts), You have to examine the <i>claims</i>.<p>Even there, you can't just look at claim 1, because the standard approach is to begin by claiming overbroadly, and then narrowing the claims, so that usually claim 1 wouldn't be expected to hold up, but one of the later ones. Which later ones, you don't know because of the uncertainties of litigation: it's hard to predict what a court will find. As in negotiating, why not ask for as much as possible?<p>It's a little bit like the dubious criminal defence <i>I didn't kill him, and if I did it was an accident.</i><p>btw typo: in "for infringing the following patent", <i>patent</i> should be "patents". That confused me.<p>Gee I sound like a patent advocate/apologist. It's just that I love inventions.<p><i>EDIT</i> I'm not arguing for these particular patents, but against how they're being assessed.

Some of these patents were assigned in the mid-90's. Where has Microsoft been all this time?<p>Patents should have an "enforce it or lose it" clause. Some of these may have been novel at the time of filing. However, after some time of being unenforced, they become standard practice in an industry. Then after 10 years of standard use some company comes out of nowhere and tries to enforce it? Too late.

I say this with some reluctance because I've written quite a lot of Mono/C# code, but to me this absolutely proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the software patent threat from Microsoft is real and not just some abstract academic debate. I think I'll be limiting or scaling down my use of .NET on linux in future as a consequence.

I don't care if I get down voted to oblivion for this, but I can't take the assholery anymore. When Apple et. al. file such suits its strategic, when they arbitrarily try to kill stuff its also strategic and jobs being jesus.Microsoft so much as moves a muscle and Apple trolls that have infested todays 'new' media and companies such as the above swing into action. Fucking 37 signals, what a sad day indeed.

I've some questions about "A method for providing a web page having an embedded menu to a web browser and for displaying the web page to a user of the web browser are provided."<p>The original text: <i>A request for a web page is received from a web browser In response to the request, a web page and an applet associated with the web page are packaged for transmission to the web browser. The web page and the applet are then transmitted to and downloaded by the web browser. When the web page is displayed and the applet is executed by the web browser, the applet creates and manages an embedded menu in the displayed web page under control of the applet . This embedded menu provides a user of the web browser with a plurality of links through one action in the displayed web page</i><p>An applet? Does Salesforce use an applet to draw its menus? (that's so '90s). Is the patent valid if Salesforces does its menus only with HTML?<p>ADDED: May Flash be considered as an applet?

This is unusual behavior for MS. I wonder if this is the opening move in a buyout/takeover gambit.

Is it really hacker news every time some idiot writes yet another inaccurate article about a patent lawsuit?

I think this is a pretty bullshit move by MS but I have a hard time feeling back for Salesforce. Their software <i>really</i> sucks.