What's behind Microsoft's fall from dominance?

[psxphill]

No, the fast hardware implementation part of the patent seems to an essential part of the patent so it should not apply to pure software solutions.

So if I design a CPU that has a couple of op-codes that are carefully designed to implement that functionality then because it uses software then it works round the patent?
 

I don't see anything in the patent where another design team with the same specs couldn't have come with the same solution.

With all patents it's possible for multiple people to come up with the solution, the patent system rewards the person who files first. It's assumed they are the ones that put the most effort and money into it.
 

Sure, but I don't see how a bad circuit patent would make software patents any better.

Because people talk as if software patents are the only bad ones out there, just because you can find a bad software patent doesn't mean that they are all bad.

[persia]

So Microsoft basically a Pullman or RCA that will some day be liquidated and it's name licensed out to various companies?  They probably should have bought the boot division of Nokia so they would have something to fall back on.

[commodorejohn]

Because people talk as if software patents are the only bad ones out there, just because you can find a bad software patent doesn't mean that they are all bad.

The thing about software patents (or algorithm patents in general) is that it comes down to letting someone lay full legal claim to a way of doing things. Not a specific design for a machine or a circuit, but an abstract, general sequence of steps for solving a problem. That's just all kinds of bizarre and wrong. I mean, should we be able to patent mathematical formulae?

[Duce]

Good article on patent trolls:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-09-17/troll-fighting-anatomy-of-a-patent-lawsuit#r=hp-ls

[psxphill]

The thing about software patents (or algorithm patents in general) is that it comes down to letting someone lay full legal claim to a way of doing things. Not a specific design for a machine or a circuit, but an abstract, general sequence of steps for solving a problem. That's just all kinds of bizarre and wrong. I mean, should we be able to patent mathematical formulae?

Hardware patents are pretty abstract. You can't do force feedback with more than one balanced motor spinning an unbalanced weight without infringing immersion's patent. Nintendo only use one motor, so it's not affected.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersion_v._Sony
 
To me that lays a claim to a way of doing things, rather than a specific design.

[commodorejohn]

I won't argue that hardware patents can't be bafflingly vague. Still, when you allow this kind of thing, what's to stop someone from patenting, say, the twelve-bar blues? (Other than prior art, that is.) It gets plainly absurd real fast.

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

Still more expensive than Windows 7.  The real question is, why would anyone pay to upgrade, when desktop computers are getting used less and less by average consumers?  They need to incentivize this pricing if they expect it to sell in volume.  Of course their real market is still pushing to bottom-feeding consumers buying computers at box stores like Best Buy, Walmart, etc.

(quote) "Windows 8.1 will cost the same as Windows 8 did this time last year, with US pricing starting at $119 and Windows 8.1 Pro costing $199; an extra $10 gets you Windows Media Center." -

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/384244/windows-8-1-lets-pc-makers-start-from-scratch?_mout=1&utm_campaign=pcpro_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter

[guest3110]

Re: What's behind Microsoft's fall from dominance?

Pluto transiting into Capricorn awhile back. Astrologically, Pluto is "power", "the phoenix" (relating to "resurrection"), "the destroyer", among other things. Rules Scorpio (Bill Gates' sign). My prediction of Bill Gates leaving Microsoft came true. I saw Pluto transiting out of Sagittarius (Microsoft's sign) and into the sign of both Apple and Amiga. Pluto gave "power" to Apple--and would have, had Amiga played its cards right--and "destroyed" Amiga.

As the stars turn, there is the possibility of a role-reversal between Apple and Amiga--but it would take some effort. Amiga could still rise to challenge Apple, then we'd have the tech equivalent of the Coca-Cola vs. Pepsi wars.

Pluto also rules: dictators, dictatorship, monopoly, greed, ruthlessness, vindictiveness, sarcasm, brute force, manipulation, the mafia, gangs, the underworld, extreme violence, jealousy... On the lower end. Higher traits include penetrating exactness, research, psychology, transformation, metamorphosis (though that can be a 'turning bad', too).

I'll stop there. Astrology always carries me away.

[psxphill]

I won't argue that hardware patents can't be bafflingly vague. Still, when you allow this kind of thing, what's to stop someone from patenting, say, the twelve-bar blues? (Other than prior art, that is.) It gets plainly absurd real fast.

Whether you think it's absurd or not comes down to whether you were the one that invented it or not.
 
Magic tricks are a bigger area that could do with some form of protection.
Patents don't work particularly well as the whole point of magic is to annoy people by not explaining how they work & you have to explain it to get a patent.
 
http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/07/the-tricky-business-of-innovation-can-you-patent-a-magic-trick/

[Fats]

So if I design a CPU that has a couple of op-codes that are carefully designed to implement that functionality then because it uses software then it works round the patent?

No the hardware in the CPU falls under the patent not the software using the hardware; the people making the CPU have to license the patent. Or would you claim that one can't write software for this CPU without taking a license on the patent ?

With all patents it's possible for multiple people to come up with the solution, the patent system rewards the person who files first. It's assumed they are the ones that put the most effort and money into it.

Effort and money is not related to patentability; see this for one of the requirements. A patent has to be more than some (tough) engineering and being first. And yes, I do think this rule is not applied strict enough. Problem is that there is not enough incentive for an examiner to be very strict, agreeing with a patent proposal is easier than back-and-forth bickering.

Let me tell you I went through this mumbo-jumbo a few times and am listed as inventor on a few patent (the rights are with my employer though). But this only enforced my belief something is terribly wrong in the current patent system.

Because people talk as if software patents are the only bad ones out there, just because you can find a bad software patent doesn't mean that they are all bad.

As said before, for software copyright is enough to drive innovation and lack of patents won't stop people writing software as they can't earn back their investment. In software, patents are hampering innovations and favoring the behemoths. Even very smart programmers don't need or deserve a 20 year monopoly on their ideas in the fast-paced software world.

[commodorejohn]

Problem is that there is not enough incentive for an examiner to be very strict, agreeing with a patent proposal is easier than back-and-forth bickering.

Worse yet, in the US the Patent Office is funded by patents, so there's monetary incentive to just grant it and then let the question of whether that was at all appropriate get sorted out in the courts...

[psxphill]

No the hardware in the CPU falls under the patent not the software using the hardware; the people making the CPU have to license the patent. Or would you claim that one can't write software for this CPU without taking a license on the patent ?

I don't think the CPU could infringe without the specific software that makes it perform the same function as the hardware. So it would only be those two things combined together that would need a license. There is a similar situation with chips that support HDMI only needing a license if you add an HDMI connector to your design.
 

As said before, for software copyright is enough to drive innovation and lack of patents won't stop people writing software as they can't earn back their investment. In software, patents are hampering innovations and favoring the behemoths. Even very smart programmers don't need or deserve a 20 year monopoly on their ideas in the fast-paced software world.

20 years is too long for any technology related patent. Someone knocking up some irrelevant program in their bed room then copyright is enough.
 
IMO copyright isn't enough for an industry wide system like DVD. I don't believe the DVD CCA supplied the code that is used in all of the players, they may have provided a reference implementation as an example but their invention was a process. Implementing the software is easy, without the patent there is no barrier to entry & they would have no way to make any money back.
 
Sure it would be super cool if you could rip off their work without having to pay a license fee, but that would hamper innovation more. A hacker in their bed room isn't going to produce the next disc format. It's going to be some big organisation & they are only going to do it if they have a way of protecting their investment.
 
AFAIK Google have patented their pagerank system, I'm pretty sure they would be upset if Microsoft just copied how it worked.