It's so ridiculous theyre essentially patenting generic syntaxes for representing documents that anybody "skilled in the art" would come up with in 5 minutes. It would have been much better for small developers if Microsoft won this. It's funny how this is treated as a win for the little guys, who can't afford massive patent portfolios nor litigation battles like Microsoft.
"It's so ridiculous theyre essentially patenting generic syntaxes for representing documents that anybody "skilled in the art" would come up with in 5 minutes."
now - sure
but then? - apparently not as extensive litigation demonstrated.
And that 'non-obvious' nature back then - that's kinda the point, hindsight effect is a powerful thing
There is however the argument of prior art, so it still takes a little brain-racking to do.
Patents are more about digging some holes in the forest and covering them up, after which you go home and cross your fingers that someone steps into one of them in the future.
There is a well-known patent strategy where you patent a technology, wait for other people to start using it, and then proceed to sue them for large amounts of money.
From the point of view of other companies these are hidden traps that could be anywhere. You're just doing business as usual, solving problems, and bam, you're told that you weren't allowed to think of obvious idea X because someone has a patent, pay up $10 million dollars. (Actual dollar amount varies widely.)
The really evil ones patent stuff, get their patented ideas into standards, wait until everyone is following the standard, then start filing lawsuits. Past bad experiences with this are why standards organizations usually require that participants license any relevant patents that are needed to implement the standards.
> you're told that you weren't allowed to think of obvious idea X because someone has a patent, pay up $10 million dollars. (Actual dollar amount varies widely.)
And that's not counting the torturous legal fees, if you wish to try your luck at court in a case that is likely to drag on for eons.
Which is exactly why if you're in favor of software patents you should at least be in favor of a shortening of the duration. 20 years is an eternity for software.
I am in favor of software patents and I am in favor of shortening the duration. (In this context we somehow have to reform USPTO so that they can get a patent out in less than 3-5 years! remember this time comes off the term of the patent) :)
remember this time comes off the term of the patent) :)
Not at the moment, no. As I understand it, patents in the US are judged from the time of approval, not the time of filing, so the length of the approval process doesn't affect the amount of time a patent is in effect.
This makes sense. Otherwise, a competitor could tie any disagreeable patent up in litigation, ensuring that the patent would be in effect for only a very short period of time.
