News MS sued over Windows Update tech

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2009/03/25/ms-sued-over-windows-update-tech/1

Microsoft has been sued for patent infringement by Israel-based software house BackWeb Technologies over functionality in Windows Update

 

GO GO Patent Trolls.
Isnt this the 3rd or 4th one this month??

 

So why did it take them 6 years to bring this to court?

 

This is not a patent troll - that patent is VERY specific, and the company actually has a product that uses the patented technology. Patent trolls, almost by definition, grab deliberately vague patents and never market the IP, simply waiting for someone else to make something that could possibly in-some-way-if-you-tilt-your-head-slightly-to-the-side be considered to fall under the patent description.

The issue here is whether Microsoft was aware of the patents or not, and as BlackMage23 says, why it took them so long to bring it to court...

 

Another day, another patent troll.
I'm not getting any popcorn to watch this. hell, I'm not even getting a glass of water.
I'm sure it's been said around these parts before, but I think patent trolls should be forced to actually put some effort into creating the things they patent or risk having said patent thrown out and fed to their dog.

Edit: the above comment is probably right, but buggered if I'm going to research (however small) probable patent trolls at 3:30am.

 

Man I wish everyone would actually read the article before spouting complete B$ in the comments section, it's not big and it's not clever.

I'd say good luck to them, they do clearly have a product that utilizes the technology and it's effectively being trodden on, in effect MS should be paying a license fee for each copy of windows it sells.

What do you think will happen? MS buy up the company so they acquire the patent themselves?

 

I thnk patents on technological ideas shouldn't even exist. I can understand the need for patenting designs & products, but patenting a process or an idea just seems to stifle creativity & means people have to find 200 ways to do something, because the other 199 are patented.

 

Regardless of what you think of software patents in general (and for the record I am very firmly against) these guys really appear to have a strong case.

 

Things like this should have never ever got patented. I'm 100% sure MS didn't steal their work but developed their own technology. Why should MS pay a single $ for such an easy idea? That's ridiculous...

 

While it seems like a legit case, I find it hard to believe this company didn't notice this when Microsoft first shipped XP.

Seems like they were sitting on the potential law suit so they could get a bigger payout once Microsoft had shipped millions of copies.

I don't agree that software shouldn't be patentable though, as a developer myself, I'd hate to see someone else rip off my idea and make a killing on it. It is suprisingly hard (at least in the UK) to patent software as it is. (you have to prove your software has at least one 'non-obvious' step, of course non-obvious is open to interpretation.)

I'm currently in the process of trying to patent my TripCost online app, but whether the non-obvious steps involved in the algorithm are considered non-obvious enough remains to be seen.

 

A nice little web app, but I don't see how it is patentable - you have a database of cars by make and model, with fuel efficiency (miles per litre would do the trick) data for each, then you use Google Maps to calculate mileage, divide one by the other, and multiply by fuel price. Where is the novel step that would not be obvious to an informed third party?

Don't get me wrong, I like the app, I just don't see a justification for its patent protection.

 

Microsoft should only pay license fees if they used the same algorithms, which is probably unlikely. The only thing the patent covers according to the article is an idea, which is backed by a product. But there are many, many ways to achieve the same goals without using the same algorithms.

 

yeah, I agree with everyone - why did it just take them til now to realize that then?

 

i hate how patents work and how long they last....

 

While you're mostly right in your analysis, there's quite a bit (a couple of hundred lines of code) that goes on between sending the trip information to google maps and getting the price, which serves to give more accurate, real world results (manufacturers MPG ratings tend to be a bit optimistic) Thats what I'm trying to patent. Thanks for the kind works though

 

You would not say that if you'd just invented something undeniably new in the world, like Velcro or a new form of transistor. Especially if you or your company had ploughed lots of time and money into the idea. Only ignorant peasants can afford to be communists.

ie, "ripping you off".

 

Well, Microsoft built Windows on "borrowed" ideas and technologies so it was just a matter of time before somebody sues them about something important, this case is especially clean because the company clearly has software actually using the technology in question. Not actually a big deal for Microsoft, they can afford to buy themselves the whole court and get off the hook easily. That's how they roll, unfortunately.

 

Oh get real, just another small business trying to get rich.

 

Today Backweb is used by many software companies because they are too lazy to write their own update routines, seems safe enough. However, Backweb used to peddle their software with spyware functionality in it. I hope that Microsoft tears them a new one with a counter suit.

 

Strikes me a programmer, part of a team working on a large project, could be tempted to pinch a neat routine he's come across. Brownie points for him at the time, doesn't mean anyone else knows, especially not the boss.

And there's a limit to how deep a patent search can go, particularly in a field like software routines.

'Reverse engineering' is allowed or AMD and very many other companies would not exist.