Microsoft Hit With $388 Million Piracy Patent Charge

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
That patent should never have been allowed in the first place cause it is too broad with no specific details.

What it does describe can be achieved in more than one way.

I am in agreement that the Patent system is broken as it is being misused in ways that were never intended.

What's next? Is someone gonna patent something as stupid such as the act of getting out of bed, or worse going to the bathroom? This is plain nuts!
 
Ah, yes, Microsoft gets a taste of their own blood. I really do not feel sorry that them at all. They deserve it after cases like the one against TomTom.

Of course, it is pocket change, but Microsoft can't continue on handing out this level of pocket change.
 
Jeez, you can't do ANYTHING without violating someone's patent it seems.
Seriously makes me not want to invent something.
 
Every time I see a case like this makes me wonder how much do the people accepting the patent actually knows about current technologies, whether they actually understand what is happening, etc.
 
Well, everyone agrees - patent system is completely broken. But it will take too much time to change it 🙁

Overall, any "patent" including a "maybe", "possibly", "may or may not" - should be rejected immediately. It's like telling "I am pattenting a vehicle that may or may not be run on solar power, and may or may not include wings. Also, it will maybe have wheels, and possibly it will be made out of glass". But if you have patent rights on this thing, you have just patented anything that can be called "vehicle".

Plain stupid. Patents should be made for EXACT things. If I patent an engine that runs on diesel, and someone makes it run on water - I shouldn't have rights to it.

Same thing goes for patenting or registering english words.. Like "recycle bin" or "trash can". Who cares how it's called, you can maybe patent "an icon which is part of computer systems GUI, which, upon draging files on it, deletes them from storage device" (plus a lengthy description how it exactly works in the background etc). Now that seems specific. But patenting "an icon that represents a virtual trash can. Full stop." -> thats plain stupid.
 
Isn't this how all anti-piracy basically works? an algorithm generates a code which activates software. Nice, let's all just pick on Microsoft.
 
Technology is growing far faster than the bureaucracy's ability to comprehend it. Patents are a necessity whether you agree with them or not. With out them you remove the carrot to creating.

My question is how does MS do it? Did they use uniloc's system or did they come to the same outcome through a different process?

Who'd a thought a computer could randomly generate an ID...
 
The problem with patents is that, if literature was subject to patents iso copyright, then a person can patent the murder-mystery genre which means that anybody who writes a story with a dead body, an unknown perpetrator and somebody who tries to find out who and why, owes the patentholder royalties, even if the patentholder couldn't even write a one paragraph essay.

The point of a patent is it should be unique and shouldn't be just a logical extension of existing knowledge. The description of this patent is so generic that any competent programmer would have found a similar solution to the problem....which puts this into "the logical extension of existing knowledge"

If MS didn't use the same algorithm as Uniloc, the judgment is flawed and should be overturned.
 
This patent application should have been rejected at the very first place.

You can patent "how" you can't patent "what" You can't patent the chemical structure of a medicine, but you can patent how to produce that medicine. (In fact, that's how medicine patents are. If someone can modify the production process which doesn't use any of the steps included in patent and come up with the same chemical material, they can sell it without any problems.)

You can patent "How" to sort an array, (like bubble sort, quicksort etc.) but you can't patent "sort"

This patent defines "what" and defines a way of producing that "what" (software registration); unless MS is using exactly the same method to achieve the same goal, this case should be dropped. (I don't think MS is using exactly the same way)

This is my 2 cents.
 
http://www.google.com/patents?id=K7MoAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA2&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1_1#PPA3,M1

look at only sheet 1 to 6. (sheet 7+ is a special cdrom unit with a device in it for security.)

I looked at the patent and it is invalid. It does not apply to microsoft. And I tell you why.


The patent states making a fingerprint on the user environment.

Microsoft windows uses the hardware to make a fingerprint. Also an installation ID is generated when windows is installed based on that.
Windows can detect when hardware change occures so its very advanced.


To register windows, you need the installation ID, and product key.
And they give back a code to verify windows is activated. Also if this 'fingerprint' changes in any way in the future, then reactivation is needed. We can call this fingerprint a system hash. Installation id only changes when you force to change the product key.


THe system that the other guys have is: generate a fingerprint on the user environment, give you a serial number based on that. THe serial # also relies on the registeration details. you phone in and give the serial number, and they give you back a registeration key to unlock the software. THey require your registeation info inorder to generate a key. You use key in your software to unlock it. In a way you are kind of forced to reqister. As your registeration info is key for this system to work. (its needed on both ends).

Also when program starts, it checks each time if registeration key details matches user enviroment (fingerprint) using some method in order to run properly in full mode. THis system seems to be pretty much a one time deal thing as their is no product code.

What heppens when you need to reinstall?




Microsoft system is totally different.

Microsoft system does not require you to register your user information or credit card details etc.

An installation key is generated on install. Both this installation key and product key are given to Microsoft.

Reinstallation is possible as microsoft system relies on a product key.

Also a product key is resposable for unlocking different version level (basic, pro, ultimate) with the same software.



So you can see Microsoft system and the other guys system are totally different.

WHen the other guys system came out, you couldn't really detect hardware so the other guys system never was able to do this. THe other guys system ran under dos or old windows 3.11 etc so it was limited on the user environment.

Microsofts system is advanced in how it detect hardware, drivers, hardware chances, uniqued Ids on the processor, hardware serial numbers etc. Most of these techniques used are new generation compared to the good old days as things were no so developed back then.

THe other guys did not try to include room for the future in their patent and advanced techniques.


WHat can I say Windows is an OS, their product is for an application that runs under windows. THeir application doesn't see what windows sees.

Also for microsofts other products such as windows, well, they tie into each other. As soon as hardware chancgs my Microsoft office needs to be reactivated.





 
It's so ridiculous about all this circus about suppose "Justice".

"Justice" just equal MONEY.

People never think. They leave TV think for them.

Like the "suppose" Crysis.

Take just 10 rich in USA which have at least 50 billion each.
So you have there at least 500 billion.

A pure Joke.

You have Money you are God !
 
[citation][nom]knutjb[/nom]Technology is growing far faster than the bureaucracy's ability to comprehend it. Patents are a necessity whether you agree with them or not. With out them you remove the carrot to creating.[/citation]
BS. The patents exist only for the last 300 years. Innovation exist since the beginning of the life on Earth. The patent was invented by European kings to secure monopolies and to pocket monopolistic profits. The US law was setup with different attend, but the law has failed. The patents are only used to stifle competition and every one pays the price. Microsoft sues TomTom and MS executives pocket the money. When somebody else sues MS they just raise the prices. No wonder why big companies like MS support the patent system in general and only wants to remove the patent trolls in order to increase their profit. The only real fix for the patent system is to be removed completely.
- Internet was not created because the patent.
- Windows OS will not exist if the software patents were allowed in 1985.
and the list can go for ever.

 
I'm going to head out and file a bunch of patent requests this afternoon... among them will be, "A device which reads electrical states on an electrical circuit and converts them into a series of 1s and 0s that could be used to represent hexidecimal numbers."

I figure if I file maybe 100 patent requests, I really only need them to approve one or two before I can start suing EVERYONE who uses a computer for any task whatsoever in 2010 and beyond.

Oh wait... that's RETARDED, but maybe if I find a jury who doesn't know any better I can get a large settlement anyway.
 
Why all these MS sympathizers? You guys act like MS wouldnt/hasnt jumped on others for infringing on their patents..

I agree that blurb of a patent seems a bit vague, but all we see is that little paragraph, we didn't hear the mountains of evidence that was surely presented at the trial. The jurors did. To assume they are stupid and know nothing of software when you know nothing of the actual merits of the case on both sides is preposterous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom