Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Patents Microsoft Linux

How Linus Torvalds Helped Bust a Microsoft Patent 103

New submitter inhuman_4 passes along this quote from an article at Wired: "Last December, Microsoft scored a victory when the ITC Administrative Law Judge Theodore R. Essex found that Motorola had violated four Microsoft patents. But the ruling could also eliminate an important Microsoft software patent that has been invoked in lawsuits against Barnes & Noble and car navigation device-maker Tom Tom. According to Linus Torvalds, he was deposed in the case this past fall, and apparently his testimony about a 20-year-old technical discussion — along with a discussion group posting made by an Amiga fan, known only as Natuerlich! — helped convince the Administrative Law Judge that the patent was invalid."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Linus Torvalds Helped Bust a Microsoft Patent

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 29, 2012 @05:51AM (#39506739)

    Well if patents are really to reward innovation, and if the patent office was right that this is an innovation, presumably Microsoft will be stripped of the profit it made by stealing his invention and the money given to him?

    No?

    Ahh, I thought so, patents are just a game. The USPTO believed it could create IP assets by simply issuing more patents and did a huge load of damage in the process to everyone except lawyers.

  • PHOSITA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by l2718 ( 514756 ) on Thursday March 29, 2012 @06:01AM (#39506803)

    A major problem with the way courts have analyzed software patents is their low-balling the skill level of a "Person having ordinary skill in the art". This is significant since anything such a person can do given the prior art is considered "obvious" and non-patentable. Basically, judges don't understand software well enough to distinguish true invention from routine solutions to problems.

    In the case of software patents, many of them (the long-filename patent, the BCD patent [invalidated by the Supreme Court on other grounds] and so on) are for solutions that a typical developer will propose given the problem. But, because PHOSITA is basically taken to be an idiot the "obviousness" limitation on patentability has no effect unless by some chance an actual person bothered to write down this solution in the past.

  • Re:typo in summary (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 29, 2012 @06:11AM (#39506847)

    Also, "known only as Natuerlich!"?

    The post has a complete e-mail adress from somebody at the computer science department of the university in Darmstadt attached to it.

  • by clickclickdrone ( 964164 ) on Thursday March 29, 2012 @07:08AM (#39507179)
    >Thank you internet news groups for documenting these old discussions.
    And another good reason we should stop relying on web boards and get back to Usenet. You can bet if a discussion like this happened 5 years ago on a forum, it's gone now. We're such a throw away society, we even throw away stuff like this.
  • by Arrepiadd ( 688829 ) on Thursday March 29, 2012 @07:14AM (#39507215)

    No, stealing isn't the only way. But then again, when you apply for a patent it should (in principle) be for something novel and non-obvious. If random Joe (whomever he is) can think of it, then maybe a patent shouldn't be granted to such a thing.

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Working...