Microsoft sues Salesforce
techflash.com
techflash.com
1. Method and system for mapping between logical data and physical data
2. System and method for providing and displaying a web page having an embedded menu
3. Method and system for stacking toolbars in a computer display
4. Automated web site creation using template driven generation of active server page applications
5. Aggregation of system settings into objects
6. Timing and velocity control for displaying graphical information
7. Timing and velocity control for displaying graphical information (later patent)
8. Method and system for identifying and obtaining computer software from a remote computer
9. System and method for controlling access to data entities in a computer network
Sounds like they're being sued for deploying an AJAX application.
I wouldn't be surprised if they are starting to investigate there patents applications and possible breaches more.
I looked at the complaint but not the underlying patents. Seems a little generic, huh?
Shameful act on MS's part.
MS shouldn't really be singled out for it, I guess, because a lot of bigger tech companies do this.
But I had held out hope that this wasn't the sort of place where one could condemn patents by title alone, let alone the sort of place where a false argument like that would find approval.
No point is bolstered by pretending the titles have any bearing on the legal or philosophical validity of those patents.
If you have a philosophical issue with patents in general or software patents in particular, just state that and save time.
Nobody mistakes an academic article title for an abstract, or the abstract for the text, or the text for the data, either. But that doesn't stop us from mentioning articles by title.
I thought it would be helpful to list the patents since they are not listed in the original article and one has to scan a 10 page pdf to find them. I'm not sure what you would prefer. Don't list the patents? Full text? Links to full text? Please educate me on proper summarization of a patent lawsuit.
Probably best to post the patent numbers along with the titles, which makes it more likely some people will look at the patents themselves and subsequently post more information as to what is or is not actually being alleged.
The best way to think of patent titles and abstracts is not as things telling you what the patent covers, but rather as telling you what it DOESN'T cover. When you are trying to figure out what patents might cover some particular thing of interest, you use the titles and abstract to eliminate patents. For those not eliminated, you then need to read the specification and claims.
For instance, looking at the 9 titles you posted, I can quite confidently conclude that 7 of them cannot possibly cover anything I'm currently working on.
I don't think summarizing patents makes sense in this case with such vague content-free titles.
You listed just the patent titles and then made a smart remark about them. Roc stated that you cannot tell what a patent covers simply by looking at its name. It sounds more like you mistake a title for an exhaustive 40 page patent. Otherwise, you were just wise-cracking for the sake of it.
When a user accesses the remote update service, an update service computer conducts an automatic inventory of the computer software on the user computer. The data collected from the inventory of the user computer software is then used to make comparisons to database entries from a database on the update service computer. The database entries contain information about computer software available on the update service computer. The comparison is conducted to identify software available from the remote update service that might be appropriate for installation on the user computer (i.e. new computer software, new versions of existing computer software, patches or fixes for existing computer software, new help files, etc.). After the comparison is completed, the update service computer makes the computer software stored at the remote update service computer available to the user.
A computer-implemented method of acquiring computer software for a first computer, the method comprising:
establishing communications with a second computer over a network to determine whether computer software not installed on the first computer is available for installation on the first computer;
responsive to determining computer software not installed on the first computer is available for installation on the first computer, presenting a list at the first computer displaying the computer software not installed on the first computer and available for installation on the first computer;
from the list displaying the computer software not installed on the first computer and available for installation on the first computer, accepting a selection selected at the first computer indicating computer software to be downloaded and installed on the first computer; and
to the first computer, downloading the computer software to be downloaded and installed on the first computer.
The later claims clarify that upgrades count as well. I could be missing something, but sounds awfully close to a description of Debian's 'aptitude' and 'dselect'?
2. MS rarely sues over patent matters, usually they do cross licensing deals, so maybe they tried that here (as clear from Salesforce jan filing) and that didn't work out. I am sure Salesforce being quite a old player will have patents MS might be interested in using/licensing.
3. People criticizing the patents they are suing for, remember two latest case that MS lost, one of them for basically saving a word file in xml format. They lost millions and The judge actually ordered them to stop shipping Office till they fix it. Based on that as a shareholder I would want them to go out and make some money from their patent arsenal even if it involves suing.
It will take a while. Desktop software will be irrelevant shortly, as will the personal computer as we knew it. Companies will redeploy internal desktop apps as web apps, first to their own servers, then for cloud platforms like GAE.
Microsoft is doomed. This is its future.
Shortly? To me, it's pretty damned irrelevant now.
Desktop software will never become irrelevant.
I will continue to choose MS Word for the foreseeable future because the documents are on my machine, and not on the web where it is vulnerable to MITM attacks or the whim of Google employees and government agencies.
And, BTW, by being on your machine, they may not be vulnerable to government agencies (unless you cross a border) and Google employees, but, as was shown a couple weeks back, it's vulnerable to borked anti-virus updates.
Not to say the viruses themselves.
I guess it depends how you define dying, dying as in no longer being the most influential player in all of computing, probably. Dying as in a failing business with in eventually go bankrupt or sell, not a chance from where I'm sitting.
There is no mercy for those who make things the market doesn't want.
The Defendant has been and/or is directly infringing the ... patent by, among other things, making, using, offering to license or licensing in the United States, offering to sell or selling in the United States, products and/or services, including various web applications and services and the hardware and software running these applications and services, that embody or incorporate, or the operation of which otherwise practices, one or more claims of the ... patent.
Win a couple hundred million, lose the support of 5% of the voters. Nice trade, guys. Few more like that and you'll be the next AT&T
We continue to confuse kinetic force with winning.
Did Marc Benioff say something mean to Horacio Gutiérrez?
Maybe they can team up with Intellectual Ventures and do some awesome lawsuits.
When you can't win in the marketplace...
I can't tell, as the story was only posted an hour ago, and I can't even really understand one patent in an hour. It would take me days to be able to competently assess 9 patents. I'm quite impressed that you were able to do so in a mere one hour.