Hacker News Reader

Comment by mmalone | Hacker News Reader

I feel like I'm starting to sound like a shill in this thread... I don't work for MS, don't use Azure, and am generally considered an "Apple fan boy." So, with those bona fides out of the way... I disagree.

The reality is that this is not FUD. People actually _are_ sued on a regular basis for bullshit like this. Microsoft is indemnifying Azure customers and giving them free access to their patent portfolio for defensive purposes. This should _reduce_ patent suits, which is a _good_ thing.

Google and Amazon should follow suit.

View on HN

No, Google, Amazon and Microsoft should push for patent reform. Not use their arsenal of patents as a protection racket. And because of IV Microsoft is - indirectly, at just about one plausibly deniable arms length - one of the bigger abusers of patents in this way.

One way in which they could have done this that would be clean would be a blanket statement that would cover parties no matter where they are hosted. To make this a competitive advantage for Azure is fairly disgusting.

Another thing they could do is assure the world without any weasel words that Microsofts patents will never again be used to seek rent on innovation, or better yet, to place them all in the public domain.

They can push for reform _and_ provide legal protection like this. They're not mutually exclusive.

I'm assuming by IV you mean Intellectual Ventures..? Are they tied to Microsoft? I thought they had _sued_ Microsoft..?

> Are they tied to Microsoft?

http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Intellectual_Ventures

http://techrights.org/2014/12/16/trolling-not-working-out/

Ok, it was started by a former MS exec and funded by Gates... that's shitty, but Microsoft has lots of former employees and I'm sure Gates invests in lots of things. For all we know it was a family office investment that he wasn't even aware of... or the dude was a friend or something.

Microsoft doesn't have a stake in the company nor do they provide the company with any assistance..? Unless there's more to the story I think it's kind of a stretch to say that this is a Microsoft operation. According to Wikipedia they've actually _sued_ Microsoft.

> According to Wikipedia they've actually _sued_ Microsoft.

That is not what I read there. What it says is they raised money from Microsoft, that's something else than suing Microsoft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures

Can you point out the exact paragraph that you feel describes IV suing Microsoft?

Upon closer inspection it appears that you are correct. I interpreted "raised" as "extorted." That still may be the case (the cited source is a dead link) but I think you are right... particularly since some of the names listed are venture firms.

Whatever the case, IV is quite an enigma... founded by the creator of MS Research (which is a great group), funded by Reasonable People, but apparently sketchy as hell. I'm intrigued and will definitely be digging deeper into their story. Thanks for bringing them to my attention.

People who like Bill Gates believe it is a bad idea to volunteer your time. If you can earn $60 an hour, you should earn that $60 doing whatever you have to do so thus way you can later pay for four hours at $15.

I don't know. I mean it looks better than earning that $60 and not putting towards a charity?

Linking to TechRights on tech is like linking to Infowars on politics when there are obviously better sources...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures

Which I already did 11 hours prior.

> They can push for reform _and_ provide legal protection like this. They're not mutually exclusive.

Who is this protection designed to protect from? Would it, coincidentally be Microsoft?

    > No

    > Google, Amazon and Microsoft should
    > push for patent reform

As a paying customer, I'd much rather they took advantage of the fact that these aren't mutually exclusive.

Found a quick description of IV in Google for readers that didn't know the acronym or history:

https://www.cnet.com/news/inside-intellectual-ventures-the-m...

Are you sure they haven't?

> People actually _are_ sued on a regular basis

Are they? I'm quite happy to be enlightened, but I've never heard of a patent-based attack against users of widely used open-source tools (the example here is Hadoop). Except for the SCO debacle.

For the younger among us, SCO (with Microsoft funding) did try suing all sorts of people over what they considered their ownership of Unix. They got their badly flayed ass handed to them in every case, because IBM spent multi-millions on a legal dream team that totally discredited their arguments (thanks IBM!).

I know Microsoft have had a welcome change of leadership and are starting to engage in open-source, but this program suggests they haven't given up on their old tricks. Instead of indemnifying only their own customers, they should join with IBM, Google, and Facebook and use their patents and legal clout to defeat ALL patent attacks on open-source software. Then I'd start believing the leopard had changed it's spots.

I'm not as interested in the part about indemnifying use of open source software. It's not worthless though: Google did something similar for Android developers when Oracle started suing (which is a much more recent example than SCO, so it does still happen). Also, my guess is that mid-to-large organizations do see patent suits on a regular basis and that most of them are never made public. So we wouldn't necessarily know how common this is.

Either way, the "patent pick" part is more interesting to me. It gives you some protection for stuff you write yourself. Quick story: I was working at a BigCo about 10 years ago and was told I couldn't embed some HTML in a javascript string and dynamically inject it into the DOM because "that was patented" and "we've been sued for doing that before." Patent pick could help defend against bullshit like that (assuming the litigant is not an NPE).

> For the younger among us, SCO (with Microsoft funding) did try suing all sorts of people over what they considered their ownership of Unix. They got their badly flayed ass handed to them in every case, because IBM spent multi-millions on a legal dream team that totally discredited their arguments (thanks IBM!).

Right, but they also managed to successfully push back against much wider scale adoption of Linux. Not that it worked out to their advantage in the longer run but at the time they could not have known that, they were clearly trying to bury Linux.

SCO didn't lose all the lawsuits they bullied many small business into settling out of court for quite a bit of money.

If I recall correctly they largely used this in the case against IBM. Before that victory it was unclear to many what would happen and more than a few people thought that it would kill Linux or that everyone using computers would owe SCO money or some other dystopian ending was possible.

It's true. The average and mundane company I work for has been sued more than once using patents from the late 90's/early 2000's. The patents are extremely broad and don't describe anything unique. I've spent months on this kind of crap, rather than engineering and developing things of value.

I can understand how this type of indemnification could appeal to businesses, especially ones that have had to spend money on lawyers and tie up critical resources dealing with law suits.

Just like how the mob indemnifies local businesses from unwanted fires by giving them free access to protection for defensive purposes. This should _reduce_ arson, which is a _good_ thing.

Or... like how insurance companies offer insurance if the mob burns your house down and will prosecute the culprits on your behalf.

You realize the difference here is insurance companies don't go around lighting fire to houses, whereas Microsoft goes around suing companies for patent violations (the thing they are supposedly indemnifying you from) and funding noxious patent trolls.

Obviously, but yours was also an unfair characterization. I maintain that this is a good idea and that other companies (Google and Amazon) should follow suit regardless of Microsoft's behavior around patent litigation.

If it does turn out that Microsoft is only doing this so that they can go and sue people who are using AWS or GCP then I'll change my tune. Until then I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

Furthermore, if Google/Amazon _did_ follow suit it would be mutually assured destruction for Microsoft to sue AWS / GCP users.

>I feel like I'm starting to sound like a shill in this thread... I don't work for MS, don't use Azure, and am generally considered an "Apple fan boy."

Apple is no better on IP issues. Being a fan of theirs does not bolster the credibility of one's opinion on Microsoft, pro or con.

The point wasn't to establish IP credibility, it was to establish myself as "not a shill for Microsoft." Every F100 company has done bad things with patents.

How's this: I've been a student of patent law since the late 90s. I've read "The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law" cover to cover. The patent system is a huge fucking mess and we need reform. I used to have pretty idealistic opinions about how to handle patent trolls until I started dealing with the ugly and expensive process of defending a suit. Until reform happens, businesses need to do what they can to survive. This helps.

You are dead wrong. Yes, people are sued for B.S. reasons all the time. The correct long term response is not to seek refuge under the wing of another, more subtle bully. It is to remove the ability for people to sue for B.S. reasons.

Not easy for an individual to accomplish, granted.

Yes, patent reform is needed. I do what I can to support that effort. In the meantime I have a business to run and I need to work within the existing legal framework to keep it protected. Access to patents for defensive purposes / patent exchanges are one way to do that.

I do not see how this, in itself, is bullying on Microsoft's part at all. The Apache 2.0 license has a similar mutually assured destruction proviso w.r.t. patent suits. It's one of the reasons that the Free Software Foundation recommends using that license. Is that bullying / FUD?

They provide protection BECAUSE they have many patents and demonstrated the will and ability to use it. Just like a mobster offer protection because he has a team of armed men and demonstrated the will and ability to use it.

If it sound like a duck, it's a duck .. or something they say. Your comments further down complete the picture.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com