@Joe

Not a bad idea at all, Joe.

Microsoft could make both browsers interoperable along with their OS and it would give Novell a footing to absorb Google's efforts for Microsoft while not spoiling their own marketing material.

And, then, we have Mon... out in limbo since the same IP issues Microsoft had to deal with in .Net and Sharepoint are going to be found in Mono. And what's Novell to do? Negotiate with VCSy on their own footing? Wouldn't that violate their anti-patent stand?

Microsoft could pass the IP to Novell by proxy (of course, having accounted for such work in their settlement with VCSY and any future dealings MSFT has with VCSY).

I hate to bring VCSY up with you folks because I know you get apoplectic, but, walk it off. You'll get used to it. You might as well get used to it. It's a fact of life at this point and nobody's been able to show anything else to contend with the VCSY IP other than AJAX... which is not in the same league.

PS - Sorry to pith off the neighbors, Joe. But, it's a valid point of conversation.

Didnt VCSY's patents just go up in smoke with the recent Bilski ruling? Im sure a Microsoft challenge to this under the new rules is already underway and i wouldnt be surprised to find thay Microsoft have already stopped paying any more royaltys.

Microsoft will never admit that an open source project can accomplish what 1000's of highly paid MS programmers can't. This would be a huge admission of failure. The logical conclusion would be that OpenOffice can be as good as or better than MS Office and that Linux is as good or better than Windows. To do this would fundamentally undermine MS's entire business model.

More likely Ballmer will throw some chairs, fire some people and light a fire under the IE team to beat WebKit in some JavaScript benchmarks rather than be 3 times slower. Can't MS Research with all their resources beat a bunch of students working on an open source project?

Or is the open source development model in fact better than MS's closed source development model?

"Microsoft might as well take IE out back, shoot it in the head and turn over its browser business to Mozilla."

Now THAT would be a good idea. Maybe an actual OPERATING System again. (Yes, it de facto admits that the Clinton Justice Department was working your best interest, but no one will remember that.)

@patent head

When Microsoft settled with VCSY for 6826744, the judge approved the settlement with prejudice meaning neither company can contend with each other about the patent from now on.

You might as well get over it. It's over. Microsoft and VCSY are joined within the murky underbrush of Microsoft's newest software products and projects.

Somebody else might bring action against VCSY's patent, but Microsoft can not or they will be violating terms of the agreement.

And if somebody wants to try to accomplish what Microsoft's own 2500 person legal team could not, have at it. I suspect all the "fighting" is over and the last few months since the settlement have been spent in discussions and negotiations with others who want their own place in the cloud.

Now, as for the Bilski ruling, I suggest you take a deep breath and don't go purple waiting for software patents to disappear.

The Bilski ruling had to do with patents for business processes which are already known to be beyond the patent bounds and the Bilski ruling reinforces that idea.

But, make sure you know where the boundaries are - most do not and they simply assume one ruling will get rid of all software patents. That's not going to happen.

There are all sorts of facets in hardware/software interaction and some of it is not a patentable concept and some of it is.

You should know the USPTO put out their own opinion about the viability of software patents. You might find it odd I agree with the USPTO wholeheartedly. When Microsoft can patent a scrolling function, I think things are screwed up.

The USPTO opinion is very illuminating and I do hope it is the future of software patents. READ HERE: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/07/the-death-of-go.html

"...claim in which “the first simulating step [of the claimed process] is performed on ‘a first physical computing device’ and the second simulating step is performed on ‘a second physical computing device.’”[18] The PTO Board holds that claim to be patentable subject matter. The Board concluded that the collection of the two “physical computing devices” operating together “is ‘a particular apparatus’ to which the process is tied, not simply a generic computing device for performing the steps.”[19] Distribution of the process over two general purpose computing devices quite clearly seems to be the key to patentability in the Board’s view..."

Have you read the VCSY patents? Both patents are fundamentally distributed transformation processes specifically designed to operate on two or more computers.

Thus, the USPTO will tell you patents 6826744 and 7076521 are "patentable subject matter" because they perform functions fundamental to fashioning two or more computers into an extension of the single machine.

That is what a software patents should be about.

that page is really fortelling much more litigation before anything is sorted out. that is true as there has to be a broad clearing of the decks of inapplicable subject matter and im sure most companies wont just let them go. If they are receiving royalties for their patents then they will go to court when the payments stop. then the fun begins. lol.

anyway that page serves no useful purpose regarding a solution or proposed position because the test needs testing. lol. (in court).

Once the limitations have been set by court ordered mandate then all the cards will fall and then those left standing after the music stops will be the winners.

@patent head,

I realize the nature of the paper. It's an opinion. But, it's an opinion straight from the USPTO about precisely the subject you're fretting over.

I realize what your statements are. They are opinions... and marinated in eager desire for commercial anarchy.

The law on software patents isn't going to change rapidly or there would be a great ripping apart of US industry and there would be no LOL going on except for those who want to appropriate for their own lucre intellectual property they were never clever enough to build for themselves.

Not going to happen.

Your scenario of all the cards falling will be many years in the future, if at all. And, as such, the future has scenarios already in place to over-ride the patent law as an antiquated paper and pencil method of keeping score.

If you will, I recommend you read a discussion I had with philosopher about the part 744 can play in building systems to effectively take the place of software patents by life-cycle monitoring and audit for valuation and payment.

It has to do with the concept of "living software" built in communities of development, use, maintenance, management and governance.

With 744, an ecology can be crafted (quite easily according to the architectural needs) such that the smallest enhancement made to any software may be tracked throughout the life-cycle of that enhancement.

In other words, if you build something the community finds useful, the system is capable of monitoring the use of that component in all subsequent applications whether original use or repurposed use or as a component in new original uses. The metered use of that enhancement determines the unit value and the originator is compensated or the community no longer has the enhancement. AND the ability to pull the plug can rest in the hands of the developer if need be.

I wouldn't be so eager, if I were you, to see the current archaic system pass. Right now many small operators can get away with infringment simply because not even the biggest "patent troll" can cover every base. Not today, anyway.

But, one day, a tracking system able to watch every component in all the systems of all communities would obsolete the patent office and would facilitate a global commercial audit trail for intellectual properties of all types.

Your obvious anticipation and joy at what you hope to be the inevitable downfall of software patents will most likely be tempered by replacement of something you simply won't be able to work around or hide.

All in all, I wouldn't stay up nights dreaming (or dreading) the day. The new distributed community computing has within it all the mechanisms needed to identify, codify, and protect (and punish) the work built and used in those communities.

@patent head,

I understand the nature of the paper. It's an opinion. But, it's an opinion straight from the USPTO about precisely the subject you're fretting over.

The Bilski ruling is a reinforcement of something the patent community already knew. Nothing new is fashioned there.

I realize what your statements are. They are opinions... marinated in eager desire for commercial anarchy. You should put the voodoo dolls down before you get tetanus. That or wear thick gloves.

The law on software patents isn't going to change rapidly or there would be a great ripping apart of US industry and there would be no LOL going on except for those who want to appropriate for their own lucre intellectual property they were never clever enough to build for themselves.

Not going to happen.

Your scenario of all the cards falling will be many years in the future, if at all. And, as such, the future has scenarios already in place to over-ride the patent law as an antiquated paper and pencil method of keeping score.

If you will, I recommend you read a discussion I had with philosopher about the part 744 can play in building systems to effectively take the place of software patents by life-cycle monitoring and audit for valuation and payment.

It has to do with the concept of "living software" built in communities of development, use, maintenance, management and governance.

With 744, an ecology can be crafted (quite easily according to the architectural needs) such that the smallest enhancement made to any software may be tracked throughout the life-cycle of that enhancement.

In other words, if you build something the community finds useful, the system is capable of monitoring the use of that component in all subsequent applications whether original use or repurposed use or as a component in new original uses. The metered use of that enhancement determines the unit value and the originator is compensated or the community no longer has the enhancement. AND the ability to pull the plug can rest in the hands of the developer if need be.

I wouldn't be so eager, if I were you, to see the current archaic system pass. Right now many small operators can get away with infringment simply because not even the biggest "patent troll" can cover every base. Not today, anyway.

But, one day, a tracking system able to watch every component in all the systems of all communities would obsolete the patent office and would facilitate a global commercial audit trail for intellectual properties of all types.

Your obvious anticipation and joy at what you hope to be the inevitable downfall of software patents will most likely be tempered by replacement of something you simply won't be able to work around or hide.

All in all, I wouldn't stay up nights dreaming (or dreading) the day. The new distributed community computing has within it all the mechanisms needed to identify, codify, and protect (and punish) the work built and used in those communities.

Whilst my opinions on patent issues are shall we say lacking. I would like to comment on portuno's comment of:
-
"But, one day, a tracking system able to watch every component in all the systems of all communities would obsolete the patent office and would facilitate a global commercial audit trail for intellectual properties of all types."
-
I agree, infact there is something very similar now (albeit not as advanced) Look no further than companies such as Media Sentry who use custom software to scan thousands of BT trackers, identify the infringing material, connect to the swarm and log IPs and their up/down traffic. A piece of coding that can allow mass monitoring with the click of a button. In addition it can monitor fake torrents and even "infect" swarms with fake information.
-
I would see Portuno's idea just an extension of this software and certainly not out of the realms of possibility right now.
-
Just my 10p worth.

@Goblin

I dont want to live in that world. That is the most rotten use of an open PC system that anyone could ever invent. One day the future generations will look back on this era and say "What a bunch of morons, they squandered the best opportunity thet had to move forward, what idiots."

@Patent Head
-
Dont get me wrong, I wasnt condoning any sort of intrusion such as that. But having read many Portuno's posts, I do think he has a point that this will happen.

From the way that Joe talks here, one would infer, that Internet Exploder 8 is going to be a disaster, and in no way competition for alternative browsers. Which should continue the Firefox browser gains in market share.

Therefore he would like to see a webkit IE. But how does this benifit the consumer? More Micro$oft lock-in using open source tools, I think it does not helps users, only Microsoft. As far as MS explaining why they would use webkit, thats why they got shills like Andre out there, to apply the spin.

@Chips
Agreed, although what Microsoft or more importantly Andre have failed to notice is that hes not very good at it, and his "spin" is very obviously just an MS advert which serves as a platfom to prompt other users to ask those difficult questions that they dont like to answer directly.
-
Weve also (IMO) seen a change in tactic with the all caring and sharing Jess (I feel justified printing this as its been a good few days since I put questions to them) Now Jess was coming from a different angle. "The human face of MS" who says "I'm never going to say that everyone in the world would benefit from Office.", but then doesnt mention who its not suitable for, nor what benefits justify its price tag over the free Open Office. Does that mean they are not going to say who wont benefit from it and just let them go ahead and buy it?
-
One could be forgiven for thinking that Jess has come here to replace (or assist Andre) Time will tell, lets see if Jess gets around to answering my questions.
-
As for Andre and his friends, I must admit this place has been pretty dull without them, and probably the reason why the comment count has dropped on the recent articles.

Taking Ballmer seriously is not a very smart thing to do, but taking something that he just pulled out of his ear and making a big thing out of it is just not professional. WebKit? Open source? Microsoft? Get serious, it makes no sense whatsoever.

@Filip:
I must either be thick, drunk, or a combination of the two. What on earth are you saying? Does the comment at the end "it makes no sense whatsoever" refer to your post? and Im sorry I just dont get the "something pulled out of his ear" comment at all.
-
Maybe you'll explain, maybe you will just insult, or maybe you wont even come back. - It would be nice if you did though, I look forward to your response.