Comments on: 'No alternative' to Microsoft fine
Wielding a $357 million charge, EU antitrust chief Neelie Kroes expects full compliance. And she has an eye on Vista.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Another holiday blowout for Apple?
December 28, 2009 8:00 AM PST
- Smart-grid spending to hit $200 billion by 2015
December 28, 2009 7:15 AM PST
- China introduces law to boost renewable energy
December 28, 2009 6:41 AM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
Roberto
Roberto
Roberto
Roberto
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-0012.html
"For many years, anyone seeking to patent the use of a computer for functions that were previously performed manually had double trouble if the invention related to a ?way of doing business.? First, the Patent and Trademark Office decided that mathematical algorithms were not a statutory category of subject matter that could be protected by patent. Second, ?business methods? were held to be unpatentable. These two objections have been eroded over the years.
Recently, software inventions involving algorithms have been eligible for United States patents as long as tangible results are produced. Also, in the mid-1980s, Merrill Lynch won a court ruling that it was entitled to have a patent on its Cash Management System, which involved various types of processing of financial data by computer.
In 1998, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the State Street case destroyed the last remnant of the ?method of doing business? objection to obtaining a patent. It ruled that no legal basis exists for such an exception to patentability and that if an invention otherwise meets the standards for patentability, there is no legitimate basis for denying the issuance of a patent. This ruling was made for a software invention that used computerized processing to establish a system for pooling of assets of mutual funds.
The State Street decision, combined with the rapid growth of e-commerce, has led to a large number of patent filings on software inventions related to a method of doing business. Amazon.com, for example, patented its ?1-click? system, which enhances the speed and efficiency with which a customer can place an order.
As a result of the patenting changes, people creating new, computerized business systems must consider patent protection. The fact that a computer is performing accounting or financial processing which previously had been performed manually does not preclude patentability if the standards of patentability (i.e., usefulness, novelty, and unobviousness) are met. Simply computerizing an operation may not result in a patentable invention, however. One must look at the differences between the com-puterized system and the prior manual approach, as well as the value added through the use of the computerized system. One also should consider the types of patent protection available, e.g., methods, apparatus, and products.
Another dimension of the State Street ruling is that the patent system has moved farther away from the requirement that there be an application of a mathematical algorithm to produce a ?useful, concrete and tangible result.? This prior standard was generally interpreted as requiring a relationship with a physical world. For example, such a result might involve the use of the mathematical algorithm in a computation, which, through a servomechanism, was fed back to a rolling mill controller to adjust the gap between a pair of rolls. When the State Street ruling accepted the processing of quantities of money to provide numerical information not involving direct, physical interaction with the world, a further change in the law occurred. The determination of the share price based upon dollar input was held to be fixed for recording and reporting purposes and was deemed to satisfy the useful, concrete, and tangible result standard. Because way-of-doing-business patenting is no longer a separate category, patents may be available on inventions that involve software for processing data of various types, not necessarily limited to financial data, so long as a useful, concrete, and tangible result has been produced.
Considering the State Street ruling, it is easy to understand why the number of filings on e-commerce-type inventions has increased dramatically. These inventions may involve the sale of goods or services over the Internet, making travel arrangements, or almost any business conducted on the Internet with software that enhances the ease and speed with which information may be delivered and the transaction consummated.
With the elimination of the major hurdles to patenting a mathematical algorithm and a way of doing business, there is no logical basis for making distinctions between financial software and any other software that processes data to produce a useful, concrete, and tangible result. This series of changes will not alter the right to patent certain types of software inventions, which previously have been clearly patentable as a result of their performing a useful function, being part of a physical system, or being part of a unique product. For software developments where either of the two objections to patentability has been applied, however, opportunity exists for obtaining meaningful, valid patent protection. Therefore, those involved with such new technology should thoroughly evaluate the possibility of patent protection.
In view of the clarification of the law and the large number of people who are seeking patents in this area, it is important that anyone considering protecting financial software inventions make an evaluation and, if an application is to be filed, that it be filed promptly."
That said; and, since they all want to "COME TO AMERICA" then why not follow the American Way! The number of Microsoft competitors, from Oracle to Sun Microsystems to RealNetworks who filed a complaint with the EU Commission should now move their operations to the EU if they wish to operate under the EU's "Zidane Head Butt" competitive game style.!
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-0012.html
"For many years, anyone seeking to patent the use of a computer for functions that were previously performed manually had double trouble if the invention related to a ?way of doing business.? First, the Patent and Trademark Office decided that mathematical algorithms were not a statutory category of subject matter that could be protected by patent. Second, ?business methods? were held to be unpatentable. These two objections have been eroded over the years.
Recently, software inventions involving algorithms have been eligible for United States patents as long as tangible results are produced. Also, in the mid-1980s, Merrill Lynch won a court ruling that it was entitled to have a patent on its Cash Management System, which involved various types of processing of financial data by computer.
In 1998, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the State Street case destroyed the last remnant of the ?method of doing business? objection to obtaining a patent. It ruled that no legal basis exists for such an exception to patentability and that if an invention otherwise meets the standards for patentability, there is no legitimate basis for denying the issuance of a patent. This ruling was made for a software invention that used computerized processing to establish a system for pooling of assets of mutual funds.
The State Street decision, combined with the rapid growth of e-commerce, has led to a large number of patent filings on software inventions related to a method of doing business. Amazon.com, for example, patented its ?1-click? system, which enhances the speed and efficiency with which a customer can place an order.
As a result of the patenting changes, people creating new, computerized business systems must consider patent protection. The fact that a computer is performing accounting or financial processing which previously had been performed manually does not preclude patentability if the standards of patentability (i.e., usefulness, novelty, and unobviousness) are met. Simply computerizing an operation may not result in a patentable invention, however. One must look at the differences between the com-puterized system and the prior manual approach, as well as the value added through the use of the computerized system. One also should consider the types of patent protection available, e.g., methods, apparatus, and products.
Another dimension of the State Street ruling is that the patent system has moved farther away from the requirement that there be an application of a mathematical algorithm to produce a ?useful, concrete and tangible result.? This prior standard was generally interpreted as requiring a relationship with a physical world. For example, such a result might involve the use of the mathematical algorithm in a computation, which, through a servomechanism, was fed back to a rolling mill controller to adjust the gap between a pair of rolls. When the State Street ruling accepted the processing of quantities of money to provide numerical information not involving direct, physical interaction with the world, a further change in the law occurred. The determination of the share price based upon dollar input was held to be fixed for recording and reporting purposes and was deemed to satisfy the useful, concrete, and tangible result standard. Because way-of-doing-business patenting is no longer a separate category, patents may be available on inventions that involve software for processing data of various types, not necessarily limited to financial data, so long as a useful, concrete, and tangible result has been produced.
Considering the State Street ruling, it is easy to understand why the number of filings on e-commerce-type inventions has increased dramatically. These inventions may involve the sale of goods or services over the Internet, making travel arrangements, or almost any business conducted on the Internet with software that enhances the ease and speed with which information may be delivered and the transaction consummated.
With the elimination of the major hurdles to patenting a mathematical algorithm and a way of doing business, there is no logical basis for making distinctions between financial software and any other software that processes data to produce a useful, concrete, and tangible result. This series of changes will not alter the right to patent certain types of software inventions, which previously have been clearly patentable as a result of their performing a useful function, being part of a physical system, or being part of a unique product. For software developments where either of the two objections to patentability has been applied, however, opportunity exists for obtaining meaningful, valid patent protection. Therefore, those involved with such new technology should thoroughly evaluate the possibility of patent protection.
In view of the clarification of the law and the large number of people who are seeking patents in this area, it is important that anyone considering protecting financial software inventions make an evaluation and, if an application is to be filed, that it be filed promptly."
That said; and, since they all want to "COME TO AMERICA" then why not follow the American Way! The number of Microsoft competitors, from Oracle to Sun Microsystems to RealNetworks who filed a complaint with the EU Commission should now move their operations to the EU if they wish to operate under the EU's "Zidane Head Butt" competitive game style.!
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-0012.html
"For many years, anyone seeking to patent the use of a computer for functions that were previously performed manually had double trouble if the invention related to a ?way of doing business.? First, the Patent and Trademark Office decided that mathematical algorithms were not a statutory category of subject matter that could be protected by patent. Second, ?business methods? were held to be unpatentable. These two objections have been eroded over the years.
Recently, software inventions involving algorithms have been eligible for United States patents as long as tangible results are produced. Also, in the mid-1980s, Merrill Lynch won a court ruling that it was entitled to have a patent on its Cash Management System, which involved various types of processing of financial data by computer.
In 1998, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the State Street case destroyed the last remnant of the ?method of doing business? objection to obtaining a patent. It ruled that no legal basis exists for such an exception to patentability and that if an invention otherwise meets the standards for patentability, there is no legitimate basis for denying the issuance of a patent. This ruling was made for a software invention that used computerized processing to establish a system for pooling of assets of mutual funds.
The State Street decision, combined with the rapid growth of e-commerce, has led to a large number of patent filings on software inventions related to a method of doing business. Amazon.com, for example, patented its ?1-click? system, which enhances the speed and efficiency with which a customer can place an order.
As a result of the patenting changes, people creating new, computerized business systems must consider patent protection. The fact that a computer is performing accounting or financial processing which previously had been performed manually does not preclude patentability if the standards of patentability (i.e., usefulness, novelty, and unobviousness) are met. Simply computerizing an operation may not result in a patentable invention, however. One must look at the differences between the com-puterized system and the prior manual approach, as well as the value added through the use of the computerized system. One also should consider the types of patent protection available, e.g., methods, apparatus, and products.
Another dimension of the State Street ruling is that the patent system has moved farther away from the requirement that there be an application of a mathematical algorithm to produce a ?useful, concrete and tangible result.? This prior standard was generally interpreted as requiring a relationship with a physical world. For example, such a result might involve the use of the mathematical algorithm in a computation, which, through a servomechanism, was fed back to a rolling mill controller to adjust the gap between a pair of rolls. When the State Street ruling accepted the processing of quantities of money to provide numerical information not involving direct, physical interaction with the world, a further change in the law occurred. The determination of the share price based upon dollar input was held to be fixed for recording and reporting purposes and was deemed to satisfy the useful, concrete, and tangible result standard. Because way-of-doing-business patenting is no longer a separate category, patents may be available on inventions that involve software for processing data of various types, not necessarily limited to financial data, so long as a useful, concrete, and tangible result has been produced.
Considering the State Street ruling, it is easy to understand why the number of filings on e-commerce-type inventions has increased dramatically. These inventions may involve the sale of goods or services over the Internet, making travel arrangements, or almost any business conducted on the Internet with software that enhances the ease and speed with which information may be delivered and the transaction consummated.
With the elimination of the major hurdles to patenting a mathematical algorithm and a way of doing business, there is no logical basis for making distinctions between financial software and any other software that processes data to produce a useful, concrete, and tangible result. This series of changes will not alter the right to patent certain types of software inventions, which previously have been clearly patentable as a result of their performing a useful function, being part of a physical system, or being part of a unique product. For software developments where either of the two objections to patentability has been applied, however, opportunity exists for obtaining meaningful, valid patent protection. Therefore, those involved with such new technology should thoroughly evaluate the possibility of patent protection.
In view of the clarification of the law and the large number of people who are seeking patents in this area, it is important that anyone considering protecting financial software inventions make an evaluation and, if an application is to be filed, that it be filed promptly."
That said; and, since they all want to "COME TO AMERICA" then why not follow the American Way! The number of Microsoft competitors, from Oracle to Sun Microsystems to RealNetworks who filed a complaint with the EU Commission should now move their operations to the EU if they wish to operate under the EU's "Zidane Head Butt" competitive game style.!
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-0012.html
"For many years, anyone seeking to patent the use of a computer for functions that were previously performed manually had double trouble if the invention related to a ?way of doing business.? First, the Patent and Trademark Office decided that mathematical algorithms were not a statutory category of subject matter that could be protected by patent. Second, ?business methods? were held to be unpatentable. These two objections have been eroded over the years.
Recently, software inventions involving algorithms have been eligible for United States patents as long as tangible results are produced. Also, in the mid-1980s, Merrill Lynch won a court ruling that it was entitled to have a patent on its Cash Management System, which involved various types of processing of financial data by computer.
In 1998, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the State Street case destroyed the last remnant of the ?method of doing business? objection to obtaining a patent. It ruled that no legal basis exists for such an exception to patentability and that if an invention otherwise meets the standards for patentability, there is no legitimate basis for denying the issuance of a patent. This ruling was made for a software invention that used computerized processing to establish a system for pooling of assets of mutual funds.
The State Street decision, combined with the rapid growth of e-commerce, has led to a large number of patent filings on software inventions related to a method of doing business. Amazon.com, for example, patented its ?1-click? system, which enhances the speed and efficiency with which a customer can place an order.
As a result of the patenting changes, people creating new, computerized business systems must consider patent protection. The fact that a computer is performing accounting or financial processing which previously had been performed manually does not preclude patentability if the standards of patentability (i.e., usefulness, novelty, and unobviousness) are met. Simply computerizing an operation may not result in a patentable invention, however. One must look at the differences between the com-puterized system and the prior manual approach, as well as the value added through the use of the computerized system. One also should consider the types of patent protection available, e.g., methods, apparatus, and products.
Another dimension of the State Street ruling is that the patent system has moved farther away from the requirement that there be an application of a mathematical algorithm to produce a ?useful, concrete and tangible result.? This prior standard was generally interpreted as requiring a relationship with a physical world. For example, such a result might involve the use of the mathematical algorithm in a computation, which, through a servomechanism, was fed back to a rolling mill controller to adjust the gap between a pair of rolls. When the State Street ruling accepted the processing of quantities of money to provide numerical information not involving direct, physical interaction with the world, a further change in the law occurred. The determination of the share price based upon dollar input was held to be fixed for recording and reporting purposes and was deemed to satisfy the useful, concrete, and tangible result standard. Because way-of-doing-business patenting is no longer a separate category, patents may be available on inventions that involve software for processing data of various types, not necessarily limited to financial data, so long as a useful, concrete, and tangible result has been produced.
Considering the State Street ruling, it is easy to understand why the number of filings on e-commerce-type inventions has increased dramatically. These inventions may involve the sale of goods or services over the Internet, making travel arrangements, or almost any business conducted on the Internet with software that enhances the ease and speed with which information may be delivered and the transaction consummated.
With the elimination of the major hurdles to patenting a mathematical algorithm and a way of doing business, there is no logical basis for making distinctions between financial software and any other software that processes data to produce a useful, concrete, and tangible result. This series of changes will not alter the right to patent certain types of software inventions, which previously have been clearly patentable as a result of their performing a useful function, being part of a physical system, or being part of a unique product. For software developments where either of the two objections to patentability has been applied, however, opportunity exists for obtaining meaningful, valid patent protection. Therefore, those involved with such new technology should thoroughly evaluate the possibility of patent protection.
In view of the clarification of the law and the large number of people who are seeking patents in this area, it is important that anyone considering protecting financial software inventions make an evaluation and, if an application is to be filed, that it be filed promptly."
That said; and, since they all want to "COME TO AMERICA" then why not follow the American Way! The number of Microsoft competitors, from Oracle to Sun Microsystems to RealNetworks who filed a complaint with the EU Commission should now move their operations to the EU if they wish to operate under the EU's "Zidane Head Butt" competitive game style.!
What provoked the latest charges is that Microsoft's competitors were finding the APIs that Microsoft documented too difficult to understand. Now the EU needs Microsoft's help so that it is easier to steal Microsoft's APIs.
We have now 2 courts finding microsoft guilty. One court was bought and another court stood it'ground. Although boring and bureaucratic, predictable justice is a corner stone for stable society.
All this out of court settlement procedures in the US are just an invention of the rich in order to evade justice and corrupt the legal system.
I tend to side with the EU.. simply because in this case it's not like Microsoft wasn't forewarned about what was required of them and what the penalty would be. Between their half-efforts to appease, and claiming things aren't clear enough are both stall tactics and the attempt to get away with something other than full compliance (whether or not they feel the should have to comply or not really isn't the issue.. it's the prerogative of the government to decide how its internal affairs, including how business affairs are run.) In a nutshell it strikes me as someone being told what to do to have a certain privilege, and that person not living up to it.. and trying to argue and weasel about getting it anyway. Well.. you either meet the requirements, and get the reward or you decide they aren't fair and 'walk away'. You can't always have it both ways just because you think you should be able to.
As I perceive it, Microsoft has used a lot of complicated tricks that speed up their own programs (but also increases the risk of instability). These complicated tricks are difficult to understand for competitors.
In the long run, and with the cost of high speed computing power continuously decreasing, there is no need for complicated tricks, that are difficult to understand for competitors.
What the outcome of this whole process will be is uncertain, but I think an open easy to understand ubiquitous operating system with easy to understand and well defined interfaces is inevitable.
Worldwide government and the industry have not foreseen the impact of the Windows operating system.
I think the EU is not stealing anything, but is trying to restore a normal market regulating mechanism for software. May be this ends in open software, where customers pay only for service (and users are not interrupted in their work by install shield that try to update your system when you are working, really very disturbing, do you want to restart now? NO, please upgrade when I am sleeping). The present monopolistic postion of MS prevents the free development of new ideas that would be possible in a more open market.
Here (in Norway which, ironically enough, isn't a EU country) you are allowed _by_law_ to disassemble, decompile and reverse engineere any and all pieces of a computer program if (and only if) the purpous is to make your own products able to interact (via an API or similar) with the program.
Now, since Microsoft is a de-facto monopoly in the OS and Office market the EU has ruled that Microsoft should make it's APIs availible to the compitition. This is not unreasonable and it is not stealing anything from Microsoft.
The ONLY thing this is doing is to allow competitors of Microsoft to produce programs that interact with (ie. as an addon) Microsofts programs. People will still need Microsofts programs (with licences) to be able to use the add-ons that are produced for and that communicate with Microsofts products.
The ONLY reason that I can see for Microsoft to NOT want to do this is because they want to have a monopoly on add-ons for their already existing software. Achieving this by locking out compitition with obscure APIs is NOT FAIR practice. And since Microsoft has got a de-facto monopoly it is NOT LEGAL.
Terje N. Monsen
(Please forgive my poor spelling)
What provoked the latest charges is that Microsoft's competitors were finding the APIs that Microsoft documented too difficult to understand. Now the EU needs Microsoft's help so that it is easier to steal Microsoft's APIs.
We have now 2 courts finding microsoft guilty. One court was bought and another court stood it'ground. Although boring and bureaucratic, predictable justice is a corner stone for stable society.
All this out of court settlement procedures in the US are just an invention of the rich in order to evade justice and corrupt the legal system.
I tend to side with the EU.. simply because in this case it's not like Microsoft wasn't forewarned about what was required of them and what the penalty would be. Between their half-efforts to appease, and claiming things aren't clear enough are both stall tactics and the attempt to get away with something other than full compliance (whether or not they feel the should have to comply or not really isn't the issue.. it's the prerogative of the government to decide how its internal affairs, including how business affairs are run.) In a nutshell it strikes me as someone being told what to do to have a certain privilege, and that person not living up to it.. and trying to argue and weasel about getting it anyway. Well.. you either meet the requirements, and get the reward or you decide they aren't fair and 'walk away'. You can't always have it both ways just because you think you should be able to.
As I perceive it, Microsoft has used a lot of complicated tricks that speed up their own programs (but also increases the risk of instability). These complicated tricks are difficult to understand for competitors.
In the long run, and with the cost of high speed computing power continuously decreasing, there is no need for complicated tricks, that are difficult to understand for competitors.
What the outcome of this whole process will be is uncertain, but I think an open easy to understand ubiquitous operating system with easy to understand and well defined interfaces is inevitable.
Worldwide government and the industry have not foreseen the impact of the Windows operating system.
I think the EU is not stealing anything, but is trying to restore a normal market regulating mechanism for software. May be this ends in open software, where customers pay only for service (and users are not interrupted in their work by install shield that try to update your system when you are working, really very disturbing, do you want to restart now? NO, please upgrade when I am sleeping). The present monopolistic postion of MS prevents the free development of new ideas that would be possible in a more open market.
Here (in Norway which, ironically enough, isn't a EU country) you are allowed _by_law_ to disassemble, decompile and reverse engineere any and all pieces of a computer program if (and only if) the purpous is to make your own products able to interact (via an API or similar) with the program.
Now, since Microsoft is a de-facto monopoly in the OS and Office market the EU has ruled that Microsoft should make it's APIs availible to the compitition. This is not unreasonable and it is not stealing anything from Microsoft.
The ONLY thing this is doing is to allow competitors of Microsoft to produce programs that interact with (ie. as an addon) Microsofts programs. People will still need Microsofts programs (with licences) to be able to use the add-ons that are produced for and that communicate with Microsofts products.
The ONLY reason that I can see for Microsoft to NOT want to do this is because they want to have a monopoly on add-ons for their already existing software. Achieving this by locking out compitition with obscure APIs is NOT FAIR practice. And since Microsoft has got a de-facto monopoly it is NOT LEGAL.
Terje N. Monsen
(Please forgive my poor spelling)
On a purely profit basis MS make about a third of their profit in Europe, if they withdrew from Europe they would lose about a third of their potential profit which slaps the hell out of that piddly little fine.
Let's face is Bill Gates ALONE is worth 13 or so BILLION dollars, the money he will make from Vista will bump up the money he makes as well, trust me he gives that $400mil and then will take back probably 3 times that much or more ;)
On a purely profit basis MS make about a third of their profit in Europe, if they withdrew from Europe they would lose about a third of their potential profit which slaps the hell out of that piddly little fine.
Let's face is Bill Gates ALONE is worth 13 or so BILLION dollars, the money he will make from Vista will bump up the money he makes as well, trust me he gives that $400mil and then will take back probably 3 times that much or more ;)
Microsoft isn't the great innovator (as we know from the whole DOS issue) - they take other people's ideas and adapt them. Without well documented APIs it wouldn't be worth their while to do so.
Microsoft need to get a grip, pay the fine and accept that there are companies out there who have an equal right to make money, consumers who have an equal right to make a choice and governments who have a right to protect their countries' best interests.
If the roles were reversed I doubt there wouldn't a single US citizen who wasn't screaming for "justice" and "fairness".
Grow up.
Microsoft isn't the great innovator (as we know from the whole DOS issue) - they take other people's ideas and adapt them. Without well documented APIs it wouldn't be worth their while to do so.
Microsoft need to get a grip, pay the fine and accept that there are companies out there who have an equal right to make money, consumers who have an equal right to make a choice and governments who have a right to protect their countries' best interests.
If the roles were reversed I doubt there wouldn't a single US citizen who wasn't screaming for "justice" and "fairness".
Grow up.
- EuroTrash!
- by SSWaltersII November 10, 2006 1:25 AM PST
- Is the EU sp shameless, money-hungry, envious, etc.?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 2 of 3 pages (118 Comments)