Microsoft celebrates 10,000 US patents Microsoft announced it's been awarded its 10,000 patent in the US. The big "ten-oh-oh-oh." Quintuple digits. That works out to an average of 294 patents per year since Microsoft was founded. This milestone from IT's number four patent grubber is apparently something for us – who presumably aren't members of Redmond's legal …
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today…A future start-up with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose." - Bill Gates, 1991.
"Since then Microsoft has signed more than 500 licensing agreements, with companies of all sizes and types, from fledgling startup ventures to longtime industry partners and competitors."
Concidering the source, why does that sound like:
I'm gonna make you an offer you can't refuse. You can't, you hear me!?
"Patents as knowledge-sharing tools may seem counterintuitive at first. After all, patents do give their owners the right to exclude others from using a technology. But even in this case, denying use is very different from denying to others knowledge of the new technology, which patents by law are required to disclose."
And then again, if you find out how a wheel looks and find a way to actually build one from an obfuscated patent filing entilted "Supportive rotary devices which are ALL MINE!" -- but you are ultimately forbidden to do so, what's the use?
As I recall, it is recommended practice at MS to avoid reading patents or looking for patents covering the same areas as one is working on because a) they are impossible to understand b) if the judge finds out that you checked them out before going to work on your new project you are just making your case worse.
Precise gutshots for anyone extolling "Intellectual Property", please.
"Patents are the currency of innovation," said Eppenauer. "They enable Microsoft to share our innovations with others through licensing, and that in turn enables others to share their innovations back with us."
I postulate that there are two totally different definitions of 'share' in that sentence. I'll leave it as an exercise for the class to determine the flow of money between 'Microsoft' and 'others'. All submissions on my desk by Friday afternoon, please.
Paris, 'cos she'll stay behind after class while I help her with her "homework".
How many patents does it take for Microsoft to release a good OS that will make everyone stop and think 'Wow this is such a really fantastic Operating System, I'm glad I upgraded to it.'
So far 10,000 patents and I'm still waiting....
*cue the crickets chirping in the background*
In general. It is clear that there would be far less innovation without patent protection.
The thing is this: why would you spend billions of dollars developing something new and useful if other companies could just copy your invention and necessarily produce it cheaper?
However it is clearly obvious that the current patent system (particularly in the US) is deeply flawed in favour of those with most money. But this a problem with the current implementation of the patent system rather than with patents themselves.
"Patents as knowledge-sharing tools may seem counterintuitive at first. After all, patents do give their owners the right to exclude others from using a technology. But even in this case, denying use is very different from denying to others knowledge of the new technology, which patents by law are required to disclose."
So... What good is that knowledge if you're not allowed put it to use?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
