Microsoft definitely has expertise in the "how to win over customers and make people love you" department ... NOT!!!
(I wish I was in the room with the "brain-less trust" that was reflecting upon the comprehensive economic gain vs. the comprehensive economic loss in taking such an ill-advised course of action ... not everything can be measured in dollars and cents.)
Nick
· 2 years ago
Ya but wasn't Amazon shamed into releasing rights to the one-click shopping patent? Im guessing the backlash from this will move Microsoft to do something similar.
Pete Cashmore
· 2 years ago
Absolutely. It's also worth taking a look at the patents yourself, since everyone is bound to have a different interpretation. Some people have said that they're trying to patent RSS, which isn't my interpretation. Even saying that they're trying to patent RSS readers may be a little strong, but that's my take on the documents.
Lucas
· 1 year ago
I think people are starting to go patent crazy and the latest move by Microsoft is just proof of that. CNet was able to scrounge up some patent information that shows how Microsoft is trying to patent the use of feed readers!?!
Great post! CHeers, Lucas
anna
· 1 year ago
Now I understand that there can be a lot of value in a patent, but feed readers have been around for ages and Microsoft didn’t submit this patent until June 2005. There might be some underlying information that I don’t completely understand but it sure looks like this isn’t headed in a good direction. Dave Winer, a self-described co-inventor of RSS, said “Presumably they’re eventually going to charge us to use it. This should be denounced by everyone who has contributed anything to the success of RSS.“
So you better hold on to your underwear, because you never know who will be coming after that!
With the high-profile patent cases like RIM vs. NTP over Blackberry, and Microsoft's own struggles with patent trolls like Eolas, if I were in Microsoft Legal I'd be encouraging all the groups to file any patent they can get away with. Wouldn't you? The fault is entirely the out-of-control U.S. patent system. Given the way patent laws work, why should Microsoft or any smart business sit back and just hope and pray that some patent troll won't come along to whack 'em with a hefty patent claim? Microsoft's lawyers are just being smart and likely just being defensive. The fact is, with the exception of shell companies that exist solely to reap the benefits of patent portfolios, high tech companies tend to patent in self-defense. It's the system that's broken.
Michael Kenward
· 2 years ago
Indeed, the system is bust. The US has a different model from the rest of the world. I doubt if Microsoft would stand a cat in hell's chance of protecting this one elsewhere.
Under other regimes you can't get into retrospective patent applications, which appears to be the case here.
There are international negotiations under way to align the different approaches. Word has it that the USPTO recognises the need to change.
Jason Drohn
· 2 years ago
This happens all through business. One person invents something and then another company patents it.
In truth, it shouldn't be the case, Dave Winer's lawyers should have been competent enough to tell him he had to patent it. Then he could claim exclusivity.
Patent-Monkey
· 2 years ago
Dave Winer launched RSS into the market, the New York Times picked up and syndicated data as a major player and Apple incorporated RSS into Safari all before Microsoft filed their patents.
There are ways for Dave Winer to prove public invalidating prior art (=if something is launched publicly, it can't be patented by someone else after the fact, though improvements to the technology can be). Microsoft may have been more concerned with RSS as it related to their products and didn't want anyone to patent that improvement on top of them (forcing them to pay for it). There are a few years before this one gets reviewed.
Maria A.
· 2 years ago
i know what you mean, its like trying to get the coca-cola patent. if theose UCLA studs don't like it, then taser them all, 2 by 2! let's face it, the only winner here is osama binladen.
All Comments
(I wish I was in the room with the "brain-less trust" that was reflecting upon the comprehensive economic gain vs. the comprehensive economic loss in taking such an ill-advised course of action ... not everything can be measured in dollars and cents.)
Great post!
CHeers,
Lucas
So you better hold on to your underwear, because you never know who will be coming after that!
-Anna
http://www.houstonfreehomesearch.com
Under other regimes you can't get into retrospective patent applications, which appears to be the case here.
There are international negotiations under way to align the different approaches. Word has it that the USPTO recognises the need to change.
In truth, it shouldn't be the case, Dave Winer's lawyers should have been competent enough to tell him he had to patent it. Then he could claim exclusivity.
There are ways for Dave Winer to prove public invalidating prior art (=if something is launched publicly, it can't be patented by someone else after the fact, though improvements to the technology can be). Microsoft may have been more concerned with RSS as it related to their products and didn't want anyone to patent that improvement on top of them (forcing them to pay for it). There are a few years before this one gets reviewed.