Attention: We are retiring the ASP.NET Community Blogs. Learn more >

Microsoft vs. Slashdot

Is anyone else getting sick of the anti-Microsoft bent Slashdot has?  For years I avoided the site because of it's slated, often fact free view towards Microsoft, Windows, etc.  A year ago however, I subscribed to their daily news summary and have found most of the stories interesting.

Nevertheless, it is undeniable that many of the featured stories about Microsoft and/or Windows will take a negative tone that isn't applied to Linux.  That's understandable given the majority of the readership. 

However, of late has been this trend of bashing patents related to software.  There have been dozens of stories in recent months about frivolous software patents.  The granddaddy of such is the legal fight that SCO is fighting against IBM and others concerning the alleged use of trade secrets in IBM's AIX product and Linux offerings.  The open source community has vehemently opposed these claims, without really knowing much of the facts.  Slashdotters have decried SCO’s lack of evidence, but fail to grasp that in many legal fights, the plaintiff will naturally play it close to the vest and not reveal any more than necessary before trial.

Now, I’m not a lawyer and have no idea which way this case will go.  If you read Slashdot however, you’d think that SCO has no case and is the devil incarnate.

Back to patents; for all the whining about patents, Slashdotters rarely complain about IBM – which probably has the largest war chest of patents of any technology company.  Take today’s example under the headline of Microsoft WMV In Patent Trouble.  See, if Microsoft is potentially infringing on a patent, then the patent system is working.  If it’s Linux or any open source project, that’s bad and software patents should be abolished:

European Parliament Rejects Software Patents
Linux Kernel Maintainer Joins Patent Celebrations

Full disclosure:  I’m the lead inventor on two patents (6,334,157 and 6,334,157) owned by Microsoft related to work I did on Active Accessibility.  I’m proud of those patents because for me, they reflect acknowledgement of unique professional effort.  Of course, given the nature of the patents (helping people with disabilities), My co-inventors and I would be incensed if they were used as weapons in corporate warfare, but that is very unlikely.  I understand companies use patents as a way of protecting their investments in people and technology.  The idea behind the patent system is preventing someone from stealing your ideas and implementations.  Like any legal construct, they can – and have been – abused terribly.  I’m equally confident that the legal system generally corrects any abuse of the system – although it can be lengthy and expensive for the wronged party.

I’m of the opinion that Microsoft has not abused the patent system and that it’s probably been wrongly sued for patent infringement more so than it’s sued another corporation for infringing on its patents.  In the current discussion about the WMV patents, many Slashdotters lament that Microsoft will simply pay off Sony or do a patent swap.  Duh – that’s how corporate warfare works.  If the infringement is likely to be proved, Microsoft will have two options – settle out of court for an agreed sum of money or take its chances in court, where Sony will have the right to demonstrate potential losses and win a greater sum.  I have no idea if the legal merits exist in this case or not.  When it comes to compression algorithms and such, I assume that it’s easy to step on someone else’s idea and since having the best algorithms in this market space makes for more competitive products, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that corporations will protect their patent portfolios.

Slashdot in general needs to grow up (so many of the postings are juvenile and uninformed) and work to achieve some balance in its reporting.

5 Comments

  • Very well said. I thought that I had noticed the more-than-usual shift to the extreme Microsoft bashing on Slashdot, but then again, what is considered "run of the mill" bashing there does vary widely on a day to day basis.



    Your analysis of the readership's tendencies, or at least the vocal majority of the readership is also quite on the ball. I am certain that there are others on Slashdot who feel the way you do, heck, I'm one of them, but feel oppressed into silence about their opinion regarding all the Microsoft and corporate bashing.



    I have actually noticed that anything slightly on topic (or even off topic) and bashing - be it factual, fictitious or jusut humorous - will tend to get modded through the roof, whereas any retort that has less than five facts and three links to credible resources will get modded down so low that Dante wonders if he needs to do a recount.



    I too have pondered avoiding Slashdot, however, every once in a while, just in time it would seem, the moderators let through an article that actually interests me, which I probably would not have come across on my own. Shockingly, they even managed to let some pro-Microsoft articles through, including one on next-gen Windows development with XAML against Longhorn. Almost like throwing us the metaphorical "freakin' bone".



    I would have said something like this on a Slashdot article, however, I fear for my Karma's death. Then again, is beating at a dead horse still assault?

  • The idea behind the patent system is preventing someone from stealing your ideas and implementations.







    I have to disagree somewhat with that statement. The patents are often used as bookmarks just to flag an idea someone comes up with. If somebody else happen to come up with the same idea completely independant, they are totaly out of luck whenever or not the patent owner actually wants to implement the idea.









    I’m equally confident that the legal system generally corrects any abuse of the system – although it can be lengthy and expensive for the wronged party.







    That's the furthest thing from reality IMO. The legal system has always protected those with money first. If two entities have bottomless pockets, then and only then the legal system will try to figure something out. If one entity doesnt have funds to defend itself or defent its patents, then it's completely out of luck.





    :)



    alex

  • I agree James that some companies just buy patent portfoilios and just use them to get licensing fees, etc. In my opinion, that is what the current incarnation of SCO appears to be doing. I dispise the practice, but it is legal - afterall, patents and other forms of intellectual property are valuable. To me, it's similar to how a investor buys a struggling company and sells off it's individual assets for a profit. It's just part of business.



    If I haven't made it clearer before, let me do so now: It's very easy to get a patent for anything and takes a legal challenge to reverse it. That unfortunetely puts the burden not on the person claiming uniqueness. I think that's wrong and should be changed to make it a little harder. However, what system could be created to vett patent applications without a insane amount of government overhead?



    Overall, I'd rather fix and tweak the system rather than toss it. Just take the case of Robert Kearns, who recently died. He invented interval wiper blades for cars in the mid-60's. Got several patents for it as well. Shopped the idea around to various automobile manufacturers but couldn't get any licensing deals done.



    Instead, the Big Three went off and did it themselves. In 1978 he sued Ford and in 1982, sued Chrysler. Eventually got $10.2M from Ford and $18M from Chrysler. Most of the money awarded went to legal expenses.



    Certainly if Ford or Chrysler licensed the technology, they wouldn't have had to pay. I think it's clear too that his idea was blatently stolen.



    What about cases such as that?

  • /. certainly is mainly anti-MS. But there are lots of reasons to hate MS. If one makes oneself an easy target, then oftentimes one get targetted.

    Is all of the anti-MS sentiment deserved, certainly not.



    I have to strongly disagree with you about software patents and patents as a whole. Patents are designed to protect the inventor for a limited time. That doesn't happen unless you have deep pockets, as you noted in a follow up. It also doesn't do enough to protect against friovolous patents, like an "isnot" operator. For the most part, I don't think software patents are a good idea. If a piece of software is some new and novel idea that doesn't exist in the hardware world, then I'd be inclined to agree that it should be patentable, simply because it could be extended into something with substance.

    The patent system is seriously broken, and need major changes, but so does the legal system in order to protect the small-time outfits and individuals.

  • M$ is quite evil.

Comments have been disabled for this content.