This page permanently redirects to gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2016/11/22/microsoft-loves-linux-patent-tax/.
Posted in America, Microsoft, Patents at 12:19 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Wanting to eat Linux (and Linux revenue) for breakfast…
Summary: Some of the latest reports pertaining to Microsoft’s (and its patent trolls’) pursuit/lobbying for software patents at a time when such patents lose their appeal/lustre in the United States
SOFTWARE PATENTS are still possible to attain at the USPTO, but this does not mean — and is certainly no guarantee — that courts or even boards (like PTAB) will tolerate these. In fact, both often reject these and this reduces the incentive to pursue software patents in the first place.
=> ↺ USPTO
“They want software patents restored so that they can carry on blackmailing software companies (usually with Linux/Android) at greater ease.”Watchtroll offers tips for overcoming the barriers to software patenting, having come to grips with the fact that at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) almost no software patents survive (one can count this year’s exceptions on the fingers of one hand).
=> ↺ offers tips | ↺ Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
As noted here the other day, based on two reports, Microsoft and its trolls continue trying to undermine the new rules. They want software patents restored so that they can carry on blackmailing software companies (usually with Linux/Android) at greater ease. According to this new report about Microsoft’s biggest troll:
=> noted here the other day | ↺ this new report | ↺ Microsoft’s biggest troll
Earlier this week, Intellectual Ventures (IV) petitioned the full Federal Circuit to review the panel opinion in Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, which invalidated two of its patents under section 101. Both patents—the ’050 and the ’610—are directed to filtering email or file content. (IV does not challenge the invalidation of a third patent, which was directed to receiving, screening, and distributing email.) The petition echoes concerns raised by clients, courts, and the patent bar about the growing uncertainty about what is—and what is not—patent eligible, especially in the area of software patents. Identifying two emerging fault lines in the court’s evolving section 101 jurisprudence, IV urges the full court to bring much needed doctrinal clarity and methodological consistency to the patent eligibility analysis.
It’s important to keep track of this case.
Microsoft’s and Bill Gates’ (personal connections) patent troll now pressures CAFC to kowtow to software patents while the media keeps telling us that Microsoft loves Linux so much. We don’t suppose the Linux Foundation cares to comment on Microsoft’s own lobbying for software patents (directly, not just by proxy). It’s an Inconvenient truth when the Linux Foundation gets paid not to understand, having received Microsoft money for a while now [1, 2, 3]. Here is what Simon Phipps (head of OSI for a long time) wrote about the Linux Foundation’s decision to join Microsoft the other day:
Microsoft may have joined the Linux Foundation but "Joining A Community Means Accepting Its Norms" still applies https://t.co/TLU22LvALm— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 16, 2016
Or to put it another way, has MIcrosoft joined OIN yet? They need to forswear patent aggression against open source before we accept them. https://t.co/UlRivyQxGT— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 16, 2016
Microsoft loves open source? Only when it's convenient https://t.co/lyily4pHoL (nothing has changed since the Eclipse & SQL Server news)— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 16, 2016
How many Linux Foundation members extract patent royalties from Linux users? Do you know, @jzemlin ?— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 17, 2016
How many trade associations do you know where a company making patent threats against the other members would be admitted?— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 17, 2016
@jonobacon I have been making this comment for a long time. They have had their grace period. Sample: https://t.co/h9Pek3GfxV— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 17, 2016
@vivainio They only keep it because we give them credit for gestures too easily. /cc @jonobacon— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 17, 2016
@kgerloff @jonobacon They just need to join OIN.— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 17, 2016
The $500k Microsoft paid to join Linux Foundation is about ¼% of their revenue from patent threats against Linux, as far as I can tell.— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 17, 2016
@hugoroyd I believe— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 18, 2016
@hugoroyd Both annual, of course.— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 18, 2016
@itoctopus The $500k is from the LF Bylaws. The $2Bn is from coverage in multiplre publications in 2013.— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 18, 2016
Linux Foundation member Microsoft's income from patent threats against Linux is about the same as Red Hat's entire turnover.— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 17, 2016
@itoctopus Sample: https://t.co/0sOCyA8huN – I suggest you try Google for more.— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 18, 2016
@itoctopus You are clearly not following the subject.— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 18, 2016
@itoctopus The information is extremely easy to find. Another sample: https://t.co/uElICgoHxz— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 18, 2016
@itoctopus And seriously, you want to gaslight me? Over well known issues? Who are you exactly?— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 18, 2016
@itoctopus Gaslighting again. Anonymous still. End of conversation.— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 18, 2016
@itoctopus So this doesn't exist? https://t.co/GL5okHiQWB— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 19, 2016
@itoctopus Or this https://t.co/o7WfB2F3Ir— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 19, 2016
@itoctopus Or this https://t.co/pCBReTe1j4— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 19, 2016
@itoctopus Or this https://t.co/0J15NepA9Y— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 19, 2016
@itoctopus Every bilateral patent license agreement is preceded by a patent threat. You would know if you had ever been involved in one.— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 19, 2016
@itoctopus I just did. You should research the subject before proceeding. Start by searching Google for "patent troll". Good night.— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 19, 2016
@itoctopus Microsoft's patent licensing attacks on Linux are a superset of which Android is only a part, per earlier links.— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 19, 2016
@itoctopus Gaslighting again?— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 19, 2016
@itoctopus I am not interested in your strawman about Samsung, which I did not mention here.— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 19, 2016
@itoctopus No, that was $1bn, just in one year and was mentioned by @jwildeboer— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 19, 2016
@itoctopus As @jwildeboer indicates the ballpark of $2bn annually is routinely estimated. Annual numbers vary, as links I have offered show.— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 19, 2016
@itoctopus Since you are an expert I would welcome your better estimate.— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 19, 2016
@itoctopus I have no idea what point you trying to make but that statement makes no sense.— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 19, 2016
@itoctopus Patent licenses for technology a company has not asked to license are preceded by threats. Equating with royalties is an error.— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 19, 2016
@itoctopus Where did I say that?— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 19, 2016
@itoctopus No, my comment was in connection with Microsoft joining Linux Foundation; they are taxing earlier members— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 19, 2016
@itoctopus https://t.co/QSIQvUQmax starts by setting the context to Linux Foundation membership. Hard to read it your way without an agenda.— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 19, 2016
@itoctopus Microsoft makes patent threats against Linux, its rich users pay up rather than fight & the income is 400x LF fees. Simple.— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 19, 2016
@itoctopus Neither do I. Nothing here is false information though.— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 19, 2016
@itoctopus Where did I say it took money from Linux? That is your words.— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 19, 2016
@itoctopus How do you know what the huge sum Microsoft has harvested from Linux deployers might have been spent on? Sources, please.— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 19, 2016
@itoctopus Given you have spent so long gaslighting me and questioning my integrity it's the least you can do — Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 19, 2016
@itoctopus You've repeatedly questioned my integrity & gaslighted me 3 times, in addition to your question about sources.— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 19, 2016
@weiserjo @RobertHarm All from easily located public sources. Fee: LF bylaws; RH income: them; MS patents: Ask Google.— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 20, 2016
@weiserjo I've not found one yet; seems most commentators are giving MS a free pass. Maybe I will… /cc @RobertHarm— Simon Phipps (@webmink) November 21, 2016
“Microsoft’s and Bill Gates’ (personal connections) patent troll now pressures CAFC to kowtow to software patents while the media keeps telling us that Microsoft loves Linux so much.”Another odd ‘friend’ of Linux, a company that is attacking small companies using software patents while lobbying for software patents and spreading proprietary software, is mentioned in the news today. IBM’s Manny Schecter is trying to find some balance between secrecy and software patents and we sure hope that he’ll quit his stance on software patents as it often makes IBM look almost as hostile as Microsoft. █
=> attacking small companies using software patents | ↺ is mentioned in the news today
‘“Other than Bill Gates, I don’t know of any high tech CEO that sits down to review the company’s IP portfolio” —Marshall Phelps (of IBM and Microsoft)
Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Permalink Send this to a friend
=> Permalink | ↺ Send this to a friend
=> Techrights
➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.
text/gemini;lang=en-GBThis content has been proxied by September (ba2dc).