Posts Tagged ‘microsoft’

Patent Grabs Continue – Why?

Thursday, 12 April, 2012 06:00 Written by Dan Pierron 0 Comments
Share via email

The latest major acquisition of patents by a big computer software corporation has been agreed to between AOL and Microsoft.  The sticker price this time: $1.06 billion.  The purchase includes more than 800 patents, putting the per-patent price north of $1 million.  On the heels of purchases by Google, buying Motorola Mobility and its attending intellectual property, and the Nortel portfolio sale, major corporations continue building their IP war chests.  More than this, they are doing so largely by raiding the portfolios of other large companies that are either distressed or worse.  If it has its way, Kodak will be the next big seller.  The question becomes: to what end?

In the battle between tech giants, the power afforded by a patent potentially allows the owner to prevent the manufacture, import, or sale of products that infringe the invention described in the patent.  Scale this power by the thousands of patents owned by companies like Google and Apple, and the opportunity to hobble a competitor is manifest.  Hence, tech companies are tripping over themselves to amass greater and greater numbers of patents in the areas of electronics, software, and, as in the case between AOL and Microsoft, advertising.  Given the numbers of patents owned by the major players, and the complexity of a given product, it’s a safe working assumption to say that every major product released by the likes of Apple, Goole, Microsoft and others of that ilk infringe on at least one patent owned by a competitor.

So what is keeping patent owners at bay, permitting infringing products to enter the market?  Essentially, mutually-assured destruction.  Given an increasing number of patents owned by a given competitor, the probability of that competitor owning a product that one or more of your products infringes approaches 1.  If one tries to assert patent rights, that will in turn spur a counter-assertion.  This gives rise to a stand-off; although there is potentially much to be gained by excluding a competitor’s product from the marketplace, the consequences of that action could substantially outweigh the benefits.

 

Continuing the Cold War allusion, patent acquisitions like those mentioned above are tantamount to an arms race between nations.  Nobody wants to be left behind, so everyone commits more and more resources to protection.  Consortiums are even arising, akin to treaty organizations, to the chagrin of those that are excluded.  In sum, barring major changes in the philosophy in the business practices driving the tech industry, the one with the biggest patent portfolio looks to be king of the hill.

Microsoft Patents Computer That Knows You’re Annoying

Monday, 21 November, 2011 06:07 Written by Aaron B. Thalwitzer 1 Comment
Share via email

Excepting the offices of Zies Widerman & Malek, Attorneys at Law, every workplace has those people. They bug, annoy, and generally sap the life out of everyone. The problem is that no one likes snitching, and you know what they say about snitches and ditches. Third-party snitches exist. Call them what you will – auditors, midlevel managers, the boss’ drinking buddy / planted snitch  – they can’t be truly objective since they’re on some level being paid to snitch. Lt. Cmdr. Data would be a good snitch, if he weren’t so courteous – he’s got ethical subroutines and all the rules and regulations lodged in that positronic whatnot of his, and he can take all the cues of annoyance, inefficiency, and unpleasantness and credibly tell you that that guy is, as you may have suspected, rude, and he should be sanctioned.

Microsoft has invented just such a robo-snitch. A new patent application describes a computer that hears and sees all, and uses that data (natch) to rate a worker’s behavior. Audible sigh —  minus 3! Eye roll – minus 3.5! Superfluous smileyface-saturated reply email – plus 10!

Microsoft knows that standardized testing is big business, and now it wants to hold the keys to the SAT of workplace behavior – that you don’t even know you’re taking!

A good chunk of the patent application:

[In addition] to an email or voice conversation, other forms of interaction such as gestures, mannerisms, etc. in a video conference may also be analyzed and reported (e.g. nodding one’s head in agreement, shaking one’s head indicating disagreement, hand gestures, and similar ones). Additionally, patterns of communication may also be detected (in addition to distinct phrases or mannerisms).

For example, cutting off others during conversation, prolonged monologues, and comparable ones may be included in the category of behaviors to be discouraged. Similarly, a time of day, or day of week of initiating a conversation and likewise patterns may be of interest to the analysis (e.g. a supervisor calling his supervisees frequently during after hours or at lunch time, or when they are busy may not recognize that habit until shown by the application). The patterns may also be pivoted on the relationship. If an individual calls a direct report during lunch, it can have a stronger negative impact on the score than if they call a peer (though they both may be construed as negative and have a negative score impact). …

As discussed above, scores may be computed based on phrases, as well as gestures, mannerisms, and patterns. Mannerisms may include visual cues such as wearing dark glasses in a video conference, wearing unacceptable clothing to a business meeting, and similar ones.

Microsoft may be the arbiter of unacceptable clothing. We can assume that the Apple guy’s look will not rate highly (nor should it). But what about wearing white leather dress shoes? A chronic overbite? Being blind while skyping?

Will Microsoft become synonymous with workplace annoyance? [Rimshot]. Enjoy your Monday.

Google Patent Lawyer Talks Shop

Monday, 14 November, 2011 05:36 Written by Aaron B. Thalwitzer 0 Comments
Share via email

The Wall Street Journal interviewed Google’s patent counsel, Tim Porter. Below are some highlights, and my awesome commentary (this is a blog after all).

In the context of Android’s rise to power, and a plurality of the smartphone market, WSJ asks Porter about the ongoing litigation surrounding Android and Google, and his thoughts on our patent system, generally (SPOILER ALERT – he thinks it sucks).

Google has sued by Oracle, Apple and Microsoft. Porter has to deal with that.

On Microsoft’s pressuring for licensing agreement: “When their products stop succeeding in the marketplace, when they get marginalized, as is happening now with Android, they use the large patent portfolio they’ve built up to get revenue from the success of other companies’ products.”

I agree. Porter’s statement is probably conventional wisdom. Microsoft’s response is probably along the lines of: ‘we have legitimate patents, and we have every right to use them.’ Also fine. Don’t hate the player, hate the game.

On patent litigation discouraging innovation: “You didn’t see Microsoft’s first software patent until 1988. By that time it had come out with Word, not to mention DOS . . . you can look back and see that innovation happens without patents. It’s also true that since there weren’t patents, there wasn’t software patent litigation.”

Software patents bother a lot of people. There’s a meme on Slashdot.org where if you add “on a smartphone” you can get a patent granted. This of course follows the “on the internet” meme of several years ago, and probably the “on a BBS” preceding that.

On whether software should be patentable? “[U]ntil 2007, when the Supreme Court finally said that the patent examiners could use common sense. Patents were written in a way that was vague and overly broad. (Companies are) trying to claim something that’s really an idea (which isn’t patentable). There are only so many ways to describe a piston, but software patents are written by lawyers in a language that software engineers don’t even understand.”

Presumably, Porter’s referring to KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). (Google it). What Porter’s doing is blaming lawyers for the system which provides his (and most lawyers) primary basis for employment. You’re not alone, Tim Porter! I happen to think that most of the justice system is broken too! And yet I come to work each day and love every minute of it. How do we manage?

Q: What’s an innovation worth protection and what’s just fodder for patent trolling? “The legal system should say you shouldn’t patent something that’s obvious. . . Patents are supposed to be a form of property. The property system doesn’t work if you don’t have clear boundaries.”

We already do have an obviousness rule. Clear boundaries would make things easier, but might not be as just. I’d like to see a proposal for something that creates a bright-line rule and retains due process.

Q: On Microsoft’s lawyer saying that the current patent lawsuits are unfortunate, but a normal historic event that follows disruptive technologies. Paraphased: it didn’t happen to Microsoft when they were young and hungry, and the last time it happened (during the age of steam) it resulted in stagnation until the patents expired. He ends with, “So what I think we’re hoping to avoid is this intense focus on litigation to the degree that we all stop innovating.”

Porter seems to be calling Microsoft’s lawyer’s BS. I don’t know about the history of steam engine patents, but I do agree that Microsoft didn’t have this kind of litigation to deal with 25 years ago. There’s no way in hell we’re all going to stop innovating. Ain’t gonna happen. There’s still plenty of money to be made, regardless of patent litigation and regardless of infringement. Stifling innovation seems probable though.

Q: Why’s Google buying so many patents all of the sudden? “Google is a relatively young company, and we have a smaller patent portfolio than many others. So it’s certainly true that part of our intent in buying these portfolios is to increase our ability to protect ourselves when people assert patents against us or our partners.”

Obvious questions get obvious answers. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).

HOW TO LOSE A TRADEMARK PART II

Saturday, 24 September, 2011 09:00 Written by Rene Dial 0 Comments
Share via email

By Rene Dial

Last week I explained the possibility of losing your trademark for becoming generic by misusing the mark and that the trademark registered should be the trademark used.  This week we will look at putting the public on notice by using the ® symbol and discuss Microsoft’s guideline’s when using trademarks associated with their products.

 Registration of your mark with the USPTO allows use of the ® symbol and using the ® symbol has a few advantages.  One of the main advantages is placing other businesses on notice that you are out there and have a registered mark.  When a business searches the registry for a possible conflict your mark should come up.  Also, if your mark is registered and the owner of a conflicting mark attempts to register their mark the examiner should uncover the possible conflict and refuse registration of the conflicting mark.  Registration could possibly save you thousands of dollars from future litigation.  That alone is reason enough to register. The ® symbol simply places the public on notice that you have indeed registered your mark with the USPTO and that you have legal remedies available to you should they decide to infringe your mark.  This is a very valuable tool that has certain legal advantages and remedies should someone infringe your registered mark especially the presumption of your mark’s validity.

 Below is a list from the USPTO that sets out some of those advantages. 

  • constructive notice to the public of the registrant’s claim of ownership of the mark;
  • a legal presumption of the registrant’s ownership of the mark and the registrant’s exclusive right to use the mark nationwide on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the registration;
  • the ability to bring an action concerning the mark in federal court;
  • the use of the U.S registration as a basis to obtain registration in foreign countries; and
  • the ability to file the U.S. registration with the U.S. Customs Service to prevent importation of infringing foreign goods.

Microsoft is a trademark savvy company.  They police their marks and make sure the public is on notice that the marks belong to Microsoft.  Small business owners should take heed and apply some of these principles and guidance to their marks.

When referring to Microsoft software and products, apply the appropriate trademark symbols in accordance with the list of current Microsoft trademarks.

The common way to set trademarks apart from other words or nouns is to capitalize the product name and use the appropriate trademark symbol and appropriate descriptor. You may also underlining, italic type, or bold type for the name.

Include an attribution of Microsoft ownership of the trademark(s) in the credit notice section of your documentation or advertisement. Follow this format:

  • ·Microsoft, Encarta, MSN, and Windows are either registered trademarks or trademarks          of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries.
  • Microsoft trademarks identify specific products and services. Do not refer to applications, services, or hardware devices that work with Microsoft products incorrectly. For example, do not refer to products or services that work with the Windows operating system as “Windows applications,” “Windows services,” or “Windows hardware.” If necessary, these types of products can be referred to by their relationship to the Windows operating system by inserting the word “based” between the name Windows and the type of product designed to work with Windows.
  • Microsoft trademarks should never be used in the possessive or plural form. They should be introduced as a proper adjective followed by an appropriate descriptor.

 Next week we will continue our walk through the proper use of trademarks and look at Apple’s guidance as to how to use their marks.  Until then have a great weekend!

GOOGLE CONTINUES TO SEARCH FOR PATENT PORTFOLIO GROWTH

Thursday, 11 August, 2011 07:55 Written by Scott Nyman 3 Comments
Share via email

Scott Nyman

 

A couple articles back, I covered Google’s recent purchase of over 1,000 patents from a fellow technology leader, IBM. It appears now that Google has tasted patent portfolio expansion, it wants more. Google is now looking to scoop up InterDigital, a technology company that “develops fundamental wireless technologies that are at the core of mobile devices, networks, and services worldwide.” Of course, it doesn’t hurt that an acquisition of InterDigital will come with almost 9,000 owned and licensed patents, most of which relate to mobile computing.

And, as an added bonus, Google would be purchasing a company that most likely includes some pretty talented engineers with expertise in the mobile space.

However, Google still has some catching up to do before it can boast a portfolio as robust as its competitors Microsoft and Apple. Google lost out on its bit to acquire the Nortel portfolio, which included around 6,000 patents auctioned off to the “other guys.” However, if Google does acquire the InterDigital portfolio, and the company, the Big G may jump Apple sooner than later.

Rising above Microsoft’s portfolio is a different matter altogether. Microsoft is the proud owner of over 18,000 patents. In fact, Microsoft was granted 53 U.S. patents just yesterday! To put that in perspective, that’s about the same number of patents collectively owned between 53 garage inventors.

Assuming Google adds the InterDigital patents to its already growing portfolio, the search giant may find a little more security defending against the recent barrage patent infringement litigation. However, I do not believe Google is anywhere near finished packing its library full of patents. Who will be next? My (arbitrary) guess is Real Networks.

 

Read more:

Forbes

LatestPatents

Bloomberg Businessweek

 

« Older Entries

Subscribe

Login



SATURDAY, MAY 18, 2013

Bad Behavior has blocked 8414 access attempts in the last 7 days.