Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 05:47 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 05:54 PM EDT

There are patent defense pools for open source software. What are the chances

that this will trigger counterclaims against Microsoft from them? Has Barnes and

Noble been chosen in order to make this less likely?



If those patent pools ever come into action things could get very interesting

very fast. Patentwise the entire industry has built up to a state of mutually

assured destruction. This could trigger the patent version of World War III and

bring the entire industry to its knees. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 05:54 PM EDT

if any.



---



You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 05:55 PM EDT

Please many any links clickable.



---



You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 05:57 PM EDT

Please note which article you are referencing,

and include the link to the news pick for future

readers.



---



You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 05:58 PM EDT





---



You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: bjnord on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 06:13 PM EDT

I believe Microsoft has sued other device makers using Android (again, as a

proxy for Google) -- wasn't HTC one of them? What's the status of those suits?

(I

don't see anything on the Groklaw left margin that looks like this.) TIA [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: jpvlsmv on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 06:14 PM EDT

At the beginning of the SCO saga, there was a lot of noise made in the press

about how nobody would defend you against charges of copyright infringement if

you use Linux, in contrast to what proprietary software claims.



Then there were Linux companies who stepped in, and offered that

indemnification.



Now, Microsoft sues, not the creator of the "offending" software, but

just a user. In my opinion, this is just trying to bring an aura of fear (and

uncertainty and doubt) about basing anything on open-source software.



And the intimidation factor created by suing the smaller distributor (rather

than the big Google), carries over to every other small player in the market.



--Joe [ Reply to This | # ]



Indemnification, Indemnification, Indemnification - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 27 2011 @ 06:29 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 06:16 PM EDT

The patents listed in the complaint are all about displaying documents like PDFs

and ebooks (there should be ample prior art). No patent listed covers anything

in the kernel. I don't know what's included in Android, but I wouldn't be

surprised if browsers and ebook readers aren't on the list.



In response to Enderle, nothing in the complaint refers to anything specific

about Linux. Microsoft could jsut as easily have sued Apple, Adobe, or any

number of other companies that display documents on devices. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: dcs on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 06:21 PM EDT

They did develop a competing product, which is better in a number of ways. In fact, its most detracting aspect is being a Microsoft product. But one thing that strikes me odd is how they mention patents about "a natural way of interaction". If it is natural, it should be obvious! ---

Daniel C. Sobral

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 06:25 PM EDT

Yahoo Finance has an article which highlights the major topics covered by the patents without going into any depth. The issues seem to be specific to the Nook reader, not Android in particular. I would think that B&N could get around the ITC suit by installing a stub application, and downloading the actual application once the Nook is registered, or even between importation and sale. This would make it strictly a software patent litigation, and get the ITC out of the middle. It also removes Microsoft's biggest hammer. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: calris74 on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 07:00 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 07:04 PM EDT

So, several of the first comments wave their hands and say this is about Nook,

not Android.



But.....

1. Microsoft says it's about Android.

2. At least one of the patents applies to the Android copy/paste interface.



This is not about one unfortunate Android manufacturer that we should dismiss.

It is an all-out assault on Android.



--- nyarlathotep [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 07:06 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 07:06 PM EDT

I don't know why NPR has been supporting his drivel, but they ran an article

about the Android problems with commentary from Enderle about three weeks ago. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 07:10 PM EDT

Was SCO just a dress rehearsal?



Certainly looking that way.



---

RMS: The 4 Freedoms

0 run the program for any purpose

1 study the source code and change it

2 make copies and distribute them

3 publish modified versions



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 07:36 PM EDT

Microsoft had to scrape the bottom of the barrel for this

one I see... I think Netscape Navigator and Adobe Acrobat

provide prior art to invalidate these patents.



Patent #5,778,372: Remote retrieval and display management

of electronic document with incorporated images. July 7,

1998.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape

Founded 1994

Netscape was owned by AOL, and MOzilla was spawned by 1998

Patent #6,339,780: Loading status in a hypermedia browser

having a limited available display area. Jan. 15, 2002.



Patent #5,889,522: System provided child window controls.

March 30, 1999.



Patent #6,891,551: Selection handles in editing electronic

documents. May 10, 2005



Patent #6,957,233: Method and apparatus for capturing and

rendering annotations for non-modifiable electronic

content. Oct. 18, 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Acrobat

Acrobat 6.0 was released in July 2003. This version

introduced significant changes to the family of Adobe

Acrobat:

Support "Reader enabling", allowing Adobe Reader to save,

sign or annotate PDF files if the PDF file allowed [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 07:38 PM EDT

If geekwire is correct with the patent text:



"A browser remotely retrieves electronic documents from a remote computer

network for viewing by a user. For enhancing responsiveness, the browser

initially displays an electronic document without a background image so that the

electronic document is initially displayed more quickly. The browser also

prioritizes downloading of embedded images of the document by their

incorporation in the currently visible portion of the electronic

document."



How would not a "person having ordinary skill in the art" of would

not think of this as an optimization?



Apparently only as long as that person doesn't work for M$!!



I would NEVER think of first collecting and displaying what the person is

looking at? Imagine the brains required!

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 07:58 PM EDT

It's unclear to me whether Microsoft's patent infringement claims are against

the components of Android contained in the device or against components added to

the device which happens also to contain Android. In fact, a number of these

patents read like functions that are contained in an application software for

handling and displaying e-books rather than an operating system. The

implication here would be that Microsoft will first offer Barnes & Noble a

low cost (but undisclosed) attractive option for a settlement to avoid legal

expenses on the part of Barnes & Noble, and then use the fear factor of that

news as a weapon to attack companies that use Android for purposes that differ

from e-book readers. Good golly, our patent system is broken. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 07:59 PM EDT

I hear all the time that Windows Phone 7 is great - MS is inundating the TV with ads touting how great it is,

there are plenty of positive tech reviews, yet few people or companies are biting. Why is it? I venture because people are sick of dealing with Microsoft . I know I am! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Jimbob0i0 on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 08:08 PM EDT

Intentional non-clicky:

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/03/microsoft-sues-

barnes-noble-foxconn-and.html



Paraphrasing he says that Microsoft has to enforce its

patents against B&N since Amazon has paid up and as a

competitor of B&N it is only fair if they both pay or

neither pay.... since Amazon has already paid up then it's

only fair if B&N now pay up...



At this point I'll note that allegedly Microsoft has been

'in negotiations' with the defendants for a year whereupon

they have been told 'ha' .... and now Amazon caved so B&N

should too... for stuff that is most likely invalid?



I think I brained my hurt... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 08:09 PM EDT



...is a good offense.



When are people going to start suing Microsoft by the bucket loads?



These Android shots are against Google. Google's got money and lawyers.



Let the lawsuit parade begin. (Obviously lawsuits don't have to have any merit.

Look at SCO.) Call it part of advertising, the FUD campaign. [ Reply to This | # ]



The best defense... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 12:05 PM EDT

Authored by: Jimbob0i0 on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 08:16 PM EDT

Authored by: Jimbob0i0 on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 08:39 PM EDT

I was thinking about putting this in OT but it is sort of on topic and relevant... U S government sides against Microsoft in Supreme Court patent case Now who wants to do the maths for which way for all this to fall works out financially best for Microsoft? My gut feeling is that if they lose the i4i case then that would help them in the burden of proof against B&N etc... Would they be allowed to 'throw' one case in order to use it as precedent in another case they are involved in? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 10:54 PM EDT

Barnes & Noble has no patent portfolio, they don't understand the tech and

don't have deep pockets. They are the weakest link.



Had Microsoft gone after Google or Motorola (Xoom) they would have been taking

on an adversary with lots of money (Google) or lots of patents(Motorola).



Hopefully someone steps forward to fill the gap.



---

Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.



"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."

Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]



It already happened - Authored by: amicuscurious on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 10:59 AM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 11:34 PM EDT

I didn't realize we had anything to worry about? Thanks for

warning us. Please allow us to adjust our portfolios accordingly!

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 11:50 PM EDT

There is little chance that B&N can afford to fully fight a patent lawsuit.

If Micro$oft wins, it sets a precedent, something lacking so far.



There are also implications for Amazon. B&N has never really done tech

well. If the FUD flies, it could take them out.



-- Alma [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 03:26 AM EDT

How are all these ITC cases working out? Pr'aps I should say USITC

because it's all about those derelict firms who've had to outsource

all their manufacturing to Asian sweatshops, and stopping them

from importing their stock in trade. At one stage it seemed as if

everybody who sold mobile phone handsets in the US had a case

running against them at USITC. Or do the lawyers not push these

cases so hard because they make bigger bucks in the Federal Courts? [ Reply to This | # ]



Fortress America - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 10:49 AM EDT

- Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 10:49 AM EDT Just a thought - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 06:23 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 03:31 AM EDT

>> During times when the browser is loading content, the browser

displays a temporary, animated graphic element over the content

viewing area. The graphic element is removed after the content is

loaded, allowing unobstructed viewing ... <<



Is that what happens when you try to get the whole internet in your pocket? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 03:35 AM EDT

>> #6,891,551 ... one or more selection handles appear on the selection

area to allow dynamic resizing of the selection area ... <<



Oh, sorry, someone else got the pinch patent.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 05:49 AM EDT

Microsoft were found guilty of abuse of monopoly in their attack against IBM's

PS/2 operating system, Netscape's Netscape browser and Novell's Word Perfect

word processor (See: the Comes files in Groklaw). They were found guilty of

abusing their Windows monopoly to damage the market for Word Perfect so the

abuse does not have to be against an equivalent product to the monopoly

product.



The DOJ have completed the period of formal monitoring to check for compliance

with the orders and repeat offences [spit].



What we have here is two new abuses of monopoly.



The first is an abuse of patent monopoly. The patent claims are to restrain the

trade of Barnes and Noble and not to address alleged patent infringement of the

Android OS. It might not be abuse if they sued the authors of Android, but abuse

is all it can be if they sue the users of Android. (It jolly well would be abuse

of monopoly if they sued Google, though!)



The second is the abuse of their Windows operating system monopoly. Microsoft

may not have a monopoly in the particular flavours of Windows Mobile 7 and

Windows CE, but this is irrelevant because they are using the patents developed

and bought in relation to the Windows product to restrain the trade of another

operating system product.



Because of the previous judgements against Microsoft, it should not be necessary

for Google to sue Microsoft. They just have to notify the DOJ that Microsoft

have broken their pledge not to re-offend. Google should also refer to the

proposed patent sale to CPTN which, in the light of the present action, can be

seen as preparation for an attack on UNIX and flavours of UNIX such as AIX. This

would be the second time that Microsoft abused their monopoly to attack an IBM

operating system: the first was PS/2.



The DOJ have demonstrated that they are able to bring into consideration

possible abuse of patent monopoly with the review of the MPEG LA patent

activities. With this clear indication of broken Microsoft pledges to the DOJ,

there is even more reason for the DOJ to take this issue up without being

formally asked.



---

Regards

Ian Al

SCOG: Intentionally left Blank Rome upt [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: BitOBear on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 09:22 AM EDT

Um... tricorder... dick-tracy tv watch... those pad things the Yeoman, medical,

and "extras" constantly had in their hands on Star Trek the original

series. The touch-sensitive pads from Star Trek The Next Generation (such as in

one scene where Riker is going to read his lines for a play and instead starts

reading "Ode To Spot" written by data.)



Felis Catus is your taxonomic nomenclature,

an endothermic quadruped, carnivorous by nature...



wait... I lost my train of thought...



Oh yea, can society make a class and bring an action to kill "on a computer

patents" because they are taking our fiction and general good ideas and

turning them into legal fees?



I know that congress is supposed to do something when... wait I just made a

funny... congress... do something...



No seriously where in this system are regular people who are footing the costs

for these courts empowered to make the stupid just stop? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: amicuscurious on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 09:38 AM EDT

Suing Google is not the same as suing Barnes & Noble. The MS patents bear

on using a method (that they patented some years ago) to do some useful function

(in the Nook). Tom Tom was more about navigation software patents than about

Linux although there were elements (FAT) of Linux infringement asserted. Barnes

& Noble is about application methods and that does not involve Google

directly. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 10:05 AM EDT

what exactly is being allegedly infringed?



The complaint just lists a bunch of patents but no details... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: eggplant37 on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 10:17 AM EDT

Just because of this lawsuit I'm shopping for a new phone. I only

got my current phone a year ago, but it was a very cheap model

meant to save money. My budget isn't as tight as it used to be, so

I think I can splurge. I'll get something with Android on it, for

certain. I wish I could write the expletives running through my

head directed toward Microsoft, but I know that's not allowed

here. Let's just say that I wish they would drown in their own

excrement. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 10:26 AM EDT



Why isn't the Chamber of Commerce up in arms over this nuisance lawsuit? I

thought the US Chamber of Commerce was against lawsuits that hinder

business......



And why isn't Microsoft suing Apple??? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: JamesK on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 11:46 AM EDT

Amicus Brief??? - Authored by: gjleger on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 01:33 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 01:37 PM EDT

It's obvious to me why they're suing B&N--because they're not a software

company.



The Big Boys use patent portfolios as a weapon, and it's almost always

the case that such saber rattling ends in a cross-licensing agreement

where the companies agree not to sue each other. Everyone infringes

everyone's patents to some degree (since there's so many dumb/bad

patents out there) so cross-licensing prevents suits. (it also creates

massive barriers to entry and strikes innovation, but that's another rant).



So why sue B&N? Because unlike google, they likely have no software

patents, so MS isn't threatened with a countersuit of patents THEY

infringe (unlike Google, who surely has some equally dumb patents that

windows infringes). You sue the guy who can't sue back.



Incidentally, I though this was where OIN came in for Linux--accumulate a

patent portfolio to use against anyone who sues Linux companies.

Perhaps Android needs similar defense (Android != Google) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: GriffMG on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 08:29 PM EDT

I've lived and worked in NY and B&N are pretty well respected in the 'states

(as someone from the UK might say).



This can't really wash, it's like slamming Apple Pie!



For all their financial, and political, muscle M$ just don't get it.



---

Keep B-) ing [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: GriffMG on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 08:39 PM EDT

Seems the simplest way out



---

Keep B-) ing [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 11:01 PM EDT

All the patents mentioned in this were all mechanisms that existed previously to

Microsoft. Check out X-Window apis and mechanisms and existing Window

Decorations/Widgets.

X.org/XFree86/MIT should be able to confirm first usage in their APIs.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 11:04 PM EDT

Did anyone notice one of the prosecuting lawyers' names was McBride. Is that

the same guy who worked for the anti-Linux company SCO?

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 31 2011 @ 02:31 AM EDT