Microsoft sued over VPN patents

Software company VirnetX said Thursday that it is suing Microsoft over two virtual private network (VPN) technology patents. VirnetX, which is based in Scotts Valley, Calif., filed its suit in the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, seeking damages and an injunction against Microsoft.

In its suit, VirnetX said that Microsoft is infringing on its two patents, but does not list which specific Microsoft products it says are infringing. A Microsoft representative said the company has yet to be served with court papers in the case, so it has not seen or reviewed the complaint.

[asdf]

software patents are very bad law

since they don't promote innovation, which is their raison 'd etre, as per the U.S. Constitution. Reasons for this are numerous but include :

The CAFC views patents as entitlements. In software, this translates every idiot who applies a skip tree to a new domain gets monopoly on the use of that data structure in a new domain. That's a joke, but don't tell that to the CAFC.

Another example is Adobe's "patent" on using a tabbed palette :
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.dmxzone.com/ShowDetail.asp?NewsId=3321" target="_newWindow">http://www.dmxzone.com/ShowDetail.asp?NewsId=3321</a>

or adding and removing white space from a document:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/business/yourmoney/31digi.html?ex=1280462400&#38;en=b674d209b5106a1b&#38;ei=5090&#38;partner=rssuserland&#38;emc=rss" target="_newWindow">http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/business/yourmoney/31digi.html?ex=1280462400&#38;en=b674d209b5106a1b&#38;ei=5090&#38;partner=rssuserland&#38;emc=rss</a>

as Gates said
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2002/08/15/lessig.html?page=2" target="_newWindow">http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2002/08/15/lessig.html?page=2</a>

"The solution is patenting as much as we can. A future startup with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price might be high. Established companies have an interest in excluding future competitors."


Nice.

The ONLY reason for the existence of patents is to promote the advancement of the useful arts and sciences- NOT to assign natural property rights - there is natural right to patent. These things are not god-given (or Ayn Rand-given) natural rights, like the right to pursue happiness.


The idea is that we induce, through the grant of a temporary monopoly, the geniuses amongst us tot reveal the magic of their methods so everyone can benefit from it eventually- in 20 years.
Tabbed palettes aren't something that fit that description. Neither is removing whitespace, however you do it.

The internet was built and the ensuing economic frenzy took place in a non-patent atmosphere. If patents had been enforced, the internet would be the domain of a few Fortune 500s who would wax on and on about how sophisticated it was and what a competitive advantage it was and why they need tax breaks so that , one day, the technology might trickle down to the "people" (who paid for all that basic research).

To say that we need patents for innovation in software is to deny a publicly observable reality. That's not such a great place to try to argue from.