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."
typo in summary (Score:2, Funny)
That'll be the 'Amiga' fan posting in comp.sys.atari.st about the ST's OS options will it?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Could be both?? (Score:1)
Nothing saying that he couldn't have been an Atari ST owner who is an 'Amiga fan' - Not mutually exclusive ;)
Ahh good old days....
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that the Amiga vs Atari flamewars were of a magnitude even Emacs vs Vi will only ever dream of reaching, I find it hard to believe that claim :p
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's it. And the Amiga owners are now Android Users, the Atari ST users are now drooling in a corner somewhere, and SNES owners now use iOS.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, us Amiga users are a diverse bunch, using a bit of this, a bit of that. Many of us tend to be on the high-end side of things, not having settled for mere routine work
Re: (Score:2)
known only as Natuerlich!
It's 2012 and we still can't use umlauts in email addresses?
Amiga? (Score:1)
Since when do Amiga fans talk about operating systems for Atari hardware?
OK. I admit they did it all the time. Let me rephrase.
Since when do Amiga fans talk about operating systems for Atari hardware without flaming?
Re: (Score:1)
When we make an atari emulator on the Amiga using the Atari ROM.
Re:Does it mean the FAT longnames patent is dead? (Score:4, Informative)
That's what I would like to know! It was unfortunately upheld in Germany, citing that it takes effort to come up with technical software solutions (i.e. having ideas is hard), that's why there should be software patents. Perhaps I remember incorrectly [arstechnica.com].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except that in the light of the discussion submitted by Linus Torvalds, the exact way Microsoft is using for long fat names was done BEFORE Microsoft even thought about it...
In case of a retrial in Germany, this will be brought on the table and the patent will also be invalidated there (well, IANAL but it's common sense).
Looks like that stupid patent is dead...
Re: (Score:3)
the patent will also be invalidated there (well, IANAL but it's common sense).
Yeah, do you honestly believe common sense factors in anywhere when it comes to this kind of blatant patent garbage?
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I would like to know!
From TFA: "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", so yes, that particular extortion racket will be busted.
I sincerely hope all those Android makers who've been bullied into paying are able to sue to get their lunch money back.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that Android vendors like HTC and Samsung were sued over patents other than just the FAT patent.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But, since those publicly available patents were so important to Microsoft's business they required an NDA. So, we will never know.
Re: (Score:2)
No. The ITC is an administrative body that only rules on trade issues. It does not have the authority to invalidate a patent. That is a job for the district court.
Microsoft sued at the ITC because they want to block imports. If the ITC believes the patent to be valid and infringed, then it will block imports of the accused devices. If it believes the patent to be invalid or not infringed, then it will allow importation of the accused devices. In either case, the parties will then go to the district court to
Atari ST & Amiga (Score:1, Informative)
Oh, c'mon don't try to start old flamewar. Atari ST is not Amiga...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I agree. Let it drop. We all know the Atari ST sucks, while the Amiga still kicks $ss!!!!
Re:Atari ST & Amiga (Score:5, Funny)
Be sure to let us know when you've managed to get your Amiga to boot from a hard disk...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
ummm lets see every Amiga after the 1000/500 ie 1500-3000 and even the 500 with a conversion could boot from a hard drive.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, but the Amiga was dead by then...
Re: (Score:1)
You don't know what you are talking about. The A500 was what put the Amiga brand into homes by the million and the second model released. The harddrive plugged into the left of the machine and booted fine with a ramp shaped box to match the Amiga's profile. It was nothing more than a SCSI board, you could replace the drive for a bigger model. Many of us did this. GVP with a quantum drive was the best at the time for performance, 50MB was the main offering, then cheaper options started to appear. We also upg
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Most A500 machines only had Kickstart 1.2. You needed Kickstart 1.3 to boot from hard disk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Seriously? It was a 40MB SCSI drive in my Amiga 2000 in the early 90s. Amiga's booted just fine from hard drives. Even the Amiga 500 had the option. You must be an Atari ST fan! (They aren't very smart.) lol
Re: (Score:2)
My Amiga 500 had a 40MB hard drive and 2Mb memory expansion box on the left side. It cost me $700 and was worth every penny.
Re: (Score:2)
Strange, I achieved this feat in 1989. Perhaps you did not get the memo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
But more hardcore hackers and cool people used Amigas, at least where I was. Atari was just a puke ugly, and nothing kewl about it.
The Atari programmer should get the money (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Part of the 20 year old discussion... (Score:5, Funny)
Linus: (b) do the long filenames by fooling around with several consecutive minix-type directory entries. Depending on how you do it, you can make old binaries see only th first characters of a extended filename, while new binaries see them all. Besides, this means you won't waste a full 64-char direntry for short files, but instead use several entries only when necessary. The downside is that it's a bit more work in the kernel.
Reading about saving bytes and caring about storage... um, gave me a semi...
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's an ellipsis.
Re: (Score:1)
internet vs lawyers (Score:5, Funny)
I can imagine the Laywer vs Torvalds.
Lawyer: Are you sure this alledged discussion happend before the MS patent ...
Linus: Yes, I'm sure, in fact the timestamp is right there: Dec 23 1992, 8:34 am
Lawyer: 20 Years is a long time ago, how can you be so sure?
Linus: the timestamp is right there: Dec 23 1992, 8:34 am
Lawyer: So there is no doubt you might remeber the date wrong.
Linus: No.
Lawyer: Really, So when did this discussion happend?
Linus: Dec 23 1992, 8:34 am
Lawyer: I see, are you sure about the date?
Internet 1, Lawyers 0
Thank you internet news groups for documenting these old discussions.
Re:internet vs lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
So if old forums were converted to plain static html files that can be easily copied/indexed, then that means that all this fancy pants highend database stuff is all a big wank and long term useless as its not portable data.
Re: (Score:2)
Off topic, but ...
So if old forums were converted to plain static html files that can be easily copied/indexed, then that means that all this fancy pants highend database stuff is all a big wank and long term useless as its not portable data.
What are you talking about? Gmane was/is(?) presenting Usenet groups as web forums. It's portable data (ASCII/text), and it would be just as easy to take it the other way (forum --> newsfroup format). All it takes is a db programmer with time to do it. It's hardly rocket science. You do know what the "ht" in HTML means, yes?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, what, you're just assuming the lawyer is a moron?
Your point about documentation is valid, but then again a cancelled stamp would have the date on it, too. It's not like news groups are the only thing ever that are datestamped.
PHOSITA (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
My bet is that'll just result in bucketloads of replies claiming that it only seems obvious in hindsight. Non-programmers just don't get it.
The problem is that some things really are only obvious in hindisght, requiring lateral thinking. The thing is that only someone who knows the field will know whether something is only obvious in hindsight or a solution that anyone is likely to reach.
Re: (Score:2)
Some things are obvious as soon as you hear a description of the problem. Any student is capable of whipping up psuedocode on the spot that deals with the basic "invention".
Problems in software can be solved with a wide array of ready made tools that make a lot of impressive sounding problems really pretty trivial once you break them down.
Sometimes, the necessary parts just happen to become commonplace and cheap enough at a particular time to make something viable beyond a proof of concept.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a problem: you have a data structure intended to be kept in an array and would like to extend it (say by adding a field) in a backward-compatible way.
Here's a standard solution going back to the first days of computers: chain successive entries in the array, with the first entry being kept roughly the same as it was before while the succeeding ones are made "invalid" in some way so that the legacy programmes ignore them while the new programmes know how to deal with the extra data. A twist on this i
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Quite.
This reminds me of wide eyed "consumers" that are in total awe of some consumer electronics device. They think that just because "they are impressed" that some company should have a 17 year long innovation stiffling excuse to sue anyone that produces something similar.
It's the "rube on the street" standard versus the "person skilled in the art". Although some of these things come off as fodder for university homework assignments.
Of course the "rube in the street" acting as a corporate shill has n
Another example of Microsoft copying ideas: (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft recently got this patent:
http://www.reghardware.com/2011/09/23/microsoft_contemplates_mobiles_with_interchangeable_accessories/ [reghardware.com]
Now, go to http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/26/how-would-you-change-sony-ericssons-xperia-x1/2#comments [engadget.com] and do a find in page for the word "bottom" or "pop out" ... ok read that description .. now if you scroll up to the top of the article you can see a photo of the Xperia X1 which is being talked about .. notice that a combination of the Xperia X1 and the comment exactly fit the patent of microsoft? If you read the actual patent it becomes even clearer they stole the idea from that engadget comment.
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the actual patent it becomes even clearer they stole the idea from that engadget comment.
Because "stealing" is the only logical explanation for two people coming up with similar ideas at different times, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Because "stealing" is the only logical explanation for two people coming up with similar ideas at different times, right?
It depends on who you ask and in which context. I don't think that it is, but plenty of people claim that it is when they are trying to get one over a competitor who has a similar idea.
Re:Another example of Microsoft copying ideas: (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, "stealing" is the only explanation for someone using force (government patent) to deprive the other person of the ability to use the idea.
Some things are independently invented, and all the inventors get to use it, and other people get to copy them.
And some things are stolen, taken away from everyone else. It's not even an accident; the filing for a patent shows intent to take away
Re: (Score:2)
A bad patent allows large corporations to steal from me personally. They allow a corporation to deprive me of the product of my own intellect. Patents allow corporations to sue me for "re-inventing" something trivial. This happens without the benefit of me ever seeing their patent because their patent is total nonsense.
This is a far greater harm then having different companies all re-invent the same thing.
Re: (Score:1)
Because "stealing" is the only logical explanation for two people coming up with similar ideas at different times, right?
According to the patent office, it sure seems to be.
Technology and software patents are different (Score:2)
Microsoft may have gotten the idea from the comment, but in principle a patent should require actually putting the idea to practice -- to actually make it work. Patenting the implementation (how do the connectors work? how do you make parts fit together snugly?) is not so absurd.
If the patent really is for the idea "mobile phone with interchangable parts" then it's wrong, but if it's merely for "this particular design of a mobile phone with these particular interchangable parts, with this particular metho
Re: (Score:2)
There's still the problem of using patents as a way to prevent interoperability. E.g, a cellphone manufacturer wants to prevent competitors from making accessories to their phones, so they patent the connector.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem confused. Patents can be used one of two ways. 1) They can be used as revenue, via licensing. 2) They can be used to prevent competition. These are not mutually-exclusive (witness 3rd-party iPod/iPhone dock accessories), but either alone is a valid and intended use of patents.
And if you were indeed referring to Apple, you are confused on another point. If Motorola or Samsung want to make dock accessories for Apple devices, Apple would be happy to let them. What Apple doesn't want is for Motor
Re: (Score:3)
The purpose of patents is to promote the publication of useful technical solutions. An inventor describes their solution in their patent application, which then becomes public, and in return for making it public gets a time-limited monopoly on it.
When someone constructs a special connector to prevent interoperability, the connector itself isn't valuable. Patenting (and publishing) it doesn't make society richer, since its main purpose is to *prevent* devices from working together. Once the patent has run ou
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Patents are worded to maximize the breadth of interpretation. Design patents are something separate. It's entirely likely this patent will cover what was described in the engadget post.
The sad thing is that even if this guy thought his idea was truly innovative and patentable, he'd have had to invest a fortune to even get it granted, and even then it would have been practically worthless as he has zero manufacturing power and no industry influence. Tech patents are only really effective in bulk
Importance of mail-list/blog/.... archives (Score:5, Interesting)
This shows how important it is that mail list (& similar) archives of very old discussions are kept on-line. They are not just a matter of academic/historic interest, they can have real benefits.
So: if you do host something like this and are thinking of removing it because it is old, out of date, ... please think again. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
So: if you do host something like this and are thinking of removing it because it is old, out of date, ... please think again.
Which reminds me of the guy in the Niven & Pournelle Lucifer's Hammer [wikipedia.org] who was spraying his books with insecticide, double bagging them, then dropping 'em down a well. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Do I have to get my copy of the book out and cite page numbers?
Not everybody on /. is a douche, ya know. :-) I think when I read it, I didn't even know what a septic tank was, so wouldn't have been able to differentiate between the two if I'd tried.
long filenames no longer patentable? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seemingly, though I would've thought that MS could've argued they never touched on the '~1' '~2' name collision coping in those discussions. They didn't really say anything one way or another on any of those. It seems an obvious extension of that thinking if they proceeded and ran into that, but not explicitly documented.
Who said Amiga? (Score:3)
Its clearly an Atari thread that was discussed in court. If the attorneys were incorrect, they jeopardized their case out of ignorance, if it was the guy who wrote the story, he should be taken out back and shot.
I don't care if its been decades since both camps lost the fight with IBM/Microsoft, but they deserve to be represented properly.
Re: (Score:2)
You must have been a commodore guy back then. If you had been an Atari guy you would know it was relevant. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Screw the court case, I'm still harbouring resentment from Amiga owners looking down on my decision to buy an ST. That's a battle as big as Confederates vs. Unionists! Tudors vs. Plantagenets! Roundheads vs. Royalists!
If we ST owners defeated Microsoft in court, then by Jingo we Atarians deserve the credit! Screw you and your fancy graphics chips, Amigans, bow down before my vastly superior raw CPU megahertz! Not that I'm bitter, or anything.
Good Lord, I'm old. But a four-digit Slashdot ID will never be eno
Re: (Score:2)
We had better sound too.. and a better OS.
Oddly enough, in the 8-bit world i was still in the Atari camp, but all my friends were in commodores ( but i found that was a highly regional thing.. ).
Re: (Score:1)
The only one I've ever seen in the flesh was at a local science centre (Scitech in Perth, Australia) when I was a kid - and it was being used to run MS Magic School Bus in Win3.1 in an x86 emulator. I died a little inside.
Still, I got to play around with RiscOS, so I shouldn't complain.
Re: (Score:1)
Amiga mhz was tuned to be in sync with the TV frequency screen updates.
ie, n nanoseconds represented X pixels on screen, 140 was 8 I think.
Re: (Score:1)
Funny, they /are/ being represented properly. Atari never got any respect in the day, either, and whined about it.
(Disclaimer: A1000, Workbench 1.3, 2MB Micron expansion. ;) )
Re: (Score:2)
All these years later, that's funny.. But back then them be 'fightin words'. :)
usenet gone (Score:1)
of course, now that usenet is gone....such a thing can never happen again. email is simply not as persistent as usenet discussions.
SFN and LFN (Score:1)
The odd thing is, I don't really see how these discussion relate to the patent in question. You see, the real beauty of MS's solution was having two separate filenames associated with a file, allowing for a great deal of backwards compatibility. The solutions offered by Linus and others amounted to effectively showing LFN-unaware programs only the first n characters of a long filename; the obvious problem with this is filename collision. It also does nothing to support things like UTF-8 or other encoding
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no. (Score:2)
An ITC finding of invalidity does not "bust a patent," it merely prevents relief through the ITC. An Article III court, e.g., a federal district court, does not have to give any weight to the ITC's validity finding, meaning the patent is still valid for "normal" law suit purposes.
Just that one? (Score:2)
Well done. Now, what about the other 200 patents that cover that exact same algorithm?
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:1)
You forget git! :)