|
|
| Microsoft Hit With Preliminary Injunction in Patent Infringement Case |
 |
|
Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 10:03 PM EDT
|
It sounds like the Burst.com case all over again, but this time, it's Alacritech suing Microsoft and winning a preliminary injunction, according to InternetNews.com. They say it could "keep Microsoft's Longhorn from getting out of the gate", because Alacritech claims Longhorn, and the Scalable Networking Pack for Windows Server 2003, includes their patented technology:
According to Alacritech, the company met with Microsoft and described its own Dynamic TCP Offload architecture, known as SLIC Technology, under a non-disclosure agreement in September 1998. Then, in April 1999, at Microsoft's request, it delivered a detailed document describing how SLIC could be integrated with Windows. It then shipped its first product based on SLIC in April 2000.
Microsoft broke off communications with Alacritech in June 1999, according to Alacritech, then presented Chimney in May 2003. . . .
"After Alacritech discovered that Microsoft Chimney is based on intellectual property that we developed, patented and own, we offered Microsoft a license," Larry Boucher, president and CEO of Alacritech, said in a statement. "Microsoft rejected licensing terms that would be acceptable to us. We were forced to sue Microsoft to stop them from continuing to infringe, and inducing others to infringe, on our intellectual property rights." The company refused further comment. So, Microsoft is probably wanting to tweak the patent system right about now, I'm thinking. UPDATE: Marbux found the complaint [PDF], the answer [PDF] and the Order Granting Preliminary Injunction [PDF], which says Alacritech was entitled to the preliminary injunction because, for one thing, they demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to validity and infringement.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 10:23 PM EDT |
How is this case different from RH vs. SCOXe in that one geats a PI and the
other doesn't?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jailbait on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 10:36 PM EDT |
Off Topic here, please make links clickable:
<a href="http://www.example.com">example</a>
and set Post Mode to HTML, and don't forget to preview your remarks.
----------------
Steve Stites[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 10:37 PM EDT |
They have done exactly the same thing to several small companies. The company
shows Microsoft their product, MS evaluates it but declines to buy. A few
months later MS announces a new technology for the products that is strikingly
similar to the invention they declinced to buy. They just hope to make more
from the product than the courts will take in the judgement, and they usually
do.
---
AYNIL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 10:46 PM EDT |
I suspect that for all the the problems with patents and software, it is easy
for parrallel independent developoment to occur. The Jackpot is to nail M$
using something like your patent [If they are not indeed stealing your stuff].
Burst and this case come to mind. Microsoft ought to utilize some open source
[or freely available] code for these features and forever eliminate these people
from being able to claim damages. This would be a bit of stunning mitigation.
[Microsoft would not set themselves up deliberately for this torture. They must
have some prior art of their own or someone else's. They must have an
"Aolas" defense in the works.]
---
webster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 10:59 PM EDT |
It could also be that Microsft thought that the technology was obvious, and so
declined their offer to license. Just because Alacritech asserts intellectual
property rights doesn't make it so. What other tiny company do we know of that
would like to milk a big cash cow? And I can name you another one that tried but
failed - Rambus vs Intel.
There are others in the TCP offload engines business besides Alacritech, like
Broadcom. It looks like it's going to take the courts to sort out the IP rights
on this technology.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: VivianC on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 11:09 PM EDT |
So, Microsoft is probably wanting to tweak the patent system right about
now, I'm thinking.
Not until they lose. Right now, the system works
for them. They can tie this up in court until the small company goes under from
legal fees. Until someone finds a way to level the legal field, patents will
work for the big guys.
And that is under the assumption that Microsoft
is in the wrong. If they are in the right on this case, they still have more to
gain from patents than to lose.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: talexb on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 11:28 PM EDT |
Well, this
page (among others) refers to the Stac Electronics case. Stac had developed
some compression software which Microsoft had duplicated in DOS 6.0. Stac sued
Microsoft, and eventually settled for $83M. I don't think that was the first
time for this kind of thing for Microsoft -- that's the way they play the
game.
There must be other examples, because I've heard this story before:
Microsoft checks out some company's technology under NDA, decides not to use it,
then comes up with the same thing. The company sues, and Microsoft digs into its
piggybank and pays them off. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 11:57 PM EDT |
Microsoft has been long reknowned for this sort of theft, and in fact has lost
many court cases (out of court settlement) for this sort of behaviour. The real
problem that I have with private out of court settlements is that even though
Microsoft pays money, they're "not guilty" by accord of the agreement.
And that makes it very hard to find them as a repeat offender, which they most
very certainly are.
Dave[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Hold on - Authored by: webster on Thursday, April 14 2005 @ 12:12 AM EDT
- Dubious millions? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 14 2005 @ 12:29 AM EDT
- Hold on - Authored by: dbc on Thursday, April 14 2005 @ 12:37 AM EDT
- Hold on - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 14 2005 @ 02:08 AM EDT
- Hold on - Authored by: darkonc on Thursday, April 14 2005 @ 03:21 AM EDT
- Hold on not a predictor - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 14 2005 @ 01:07 PM EDT
- Hold on - Authored by: tbogart on Thursday, April 14 2005 @ 08:06 PM EDT
- Hold on - Authored by: marbux on Friday, April 15 2005 @ 03:08 PM EDT
- Hold on - Authored by: tbogart on Saturday, April 16 2005 @ 08:57 AM EDT
- Microsoft Hit With Preliminary Injunction in Patent Infringement Case - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 14 2005 @ 03:23 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 14 2005 @ 12:43 AM EDT |
The Alacritech press
release has links to info:
ie: motion for preliminary
injunction, preliminary injunction, patents etc and a timeline.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 14 2005 @ 01:34 AM EDT |
"Within ten days of this Order, Alacritech shall file with the Clerk of the
Court an undertaking in the form of a bond, certified check or certificate of
deposit in the amount of $1,000,000 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
65(c)."
So what if this "small startup" doesn't have $1 million in cash? The
injunction doesn't go into effect? How is that fair for the small guy? (Assuming
Alacritech is in the right)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 14 2005 @ 02:45 AM EDT |
Well, it's an obvious thing to do, and companies have been doing it for a long
time now. Visit MS, show them your technology, wait a while, then claim it's
in one of their products. They have deep pockets and don't like bad publicity
so they pay you something.
MS has been dealing with this kind of nonsense all their corporate life, and
often benefiting as well.
J[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Thursday, April 14 2005 @ 02:54 AM EDT |
Hey, everybody!
I know Illiad at User Friendly did something along this vien when SCO was hit
with a DDoS attack--
"M$ might use software patents to stymie Linux."
Software patents must be stopped!
"M$ is lobbying the EU to adopt software patents."
Software patents must be stopped!
"If Alacritech wins this patent suit, it will cripple Server 2003 and make
all those years and money for developing Longwait go right down the soil
pipe."
Uh...go team?
Man, they better hope that XBox 2 launch goes real well!
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eamacnaghten on Thursday, April 14 2005 @ 07:43 AM EDT |
| Is this technology really patentable?
Alacritech's technology seems to
consist of a method of the network card to handle the day-to-day (or
nanosecond-to-nanosecond) boring routine work that is time consuming (in
computer terms) but does not require much processing power, while passing back
the more complex exceptions and unsual stuff back to the processor. The stuff
passed back is far less demanding due to infrequency of these exceptions. All
this enabling the processor to get on with more important stuff while network
transfer is in progress at the same time keeping the cost of the network card
down.
Distributing the resource to various devices along the bus is nothing
new. In the UK - ICL's old DRS-20 system was designed to do exactly that almost
to extremes. Each card you put in had it's own processor that handled the
devices on it. In fact, the main processor itself was simply another card.
Communication happened between them along the bus in a fairly high level way
(this was in the 1980s).
The clever bit, or the inovative bit, here (in
Chimney) seems to be in the network card itself. The fact that it has the
intelligence to process the easy bits while passing back the more complex bits
to the processor may seem obvious once we are told about it, but how many people
can say they would have originally thought of it? Would Alacritech have
developped the technology if they could not have patented it? Would Microsoft
really have thought of it if they had not seen it from Alacritech first?
Would anyone else have?
I, like most here, am as a rule against software
patents. I cannot see how allowing the patenting the timed-double-click, or
even virtual window managers some 20 years after they were invented by someone
else, or embedding one application in another can either be just or benefit
inovation, however, patents in general do work and benefit all. Maybe MS
Chimney is theft of someone elses genuine IP.
Web Sig: Eddy Currents [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Stumbles on Thursday, April 14 2005 @ 08:29 AM EDT |
To me this sounds like normal Microsoft predatory practices. I seem to
recall they have done this sort of thing before. Talk with other
development companies, get as much info as possible, then break
relations with them and incorporate the software into their stuff. Then
wait for the company to sue them and then offer to buy their technology
on more favorable terms. We now know what Microsoft means by
innovation.
I'll not address the issue of patentability as others have more eloquently
pointed out it's down fall, etc.
So as things are now with patents, etal. Microsoft should be raked across
the coals.
---
You can tune a piano but you can't tune a fish.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 14 2005 @ 09:13 AM EDT |
This is standard practice for Microsoft. They "enter into an
agreement" with some company, collect the information they need and then
break the agreement.
Microsoft did the same with SGI back in the mid 90's for graphics.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 14 2005 @ 12:05 PM EDT |
Thugs and thiefs is all that Microsoft is. If that has not become clear to the
masses. Then there eyes are closed![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: justjeff on Thursday, April 14 2005 @ 12:35 PM EDT |
Way back in the MS-DOS days, Microsoft did the same thing. At the time, 30
megabyte disks were huge. Indeed, MS-DOS could not access more that 32 MB of
disk (at least until Compaq fixed it). Anyway, Stac Electronics devised and
sold a disk compression program named "Stacker" which could squeeze
more than 30MB onto your 30MB disk. Suddenly, the next version of MS-DOS was
released with the same program, with a different name, included with every
copy of MS-DOS.
Stac sued Microsoft, won the case, but it was too late. Stac had already been
run out of business. One example among many of Microsoft losing every battle
but winning every war.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Maciarc on Thursday, April 14 2005 @ 01:00 PM EDT |
This may be wishful thinking, but it would be nice if one of these companies had
the stamina, resources and desire to see one of these cases through to a
conclusion which would bar M$ from using their IP.
Like I said... wishful thinking...
---
IANAL and I don't play one on TV, this is just an "anti-SCO Philippic."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RichardR on Thursday, April 14 2005 @ 05:02 PM EDT |
"So, Microsoft is probably wanting to tweak the patent system right about now,
I'm thinking."
Been there & tried it, according to this
Register
article from about a month ago.
Their visions of the reform desired, of
course, are slightly out of sync with the general perception over here (ahem).
Yet it shows that it's beginning to dawn on even them that the current US patent
system has grown badly out of hand.
In my opinion, pursuing software
patentability is like breeding the proverbial storybook dragon: all too soon, a
devious monster is out of control, roaming the land, draining the riches and
livelihood from wherever it goes, and inevitably burning those who are brave
enough to fight it or foolish enough to try and command it.
--
Richard[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 14 2005 @ 05:17 PM EDT |
| You have referred to Gates' comments in this
CBRonline article
before
in this
story
.
Although you rightly cite the drive to harmonization with the
worst common denominator, I believe the suggestion that "a special court should
be created" to be far more dangerous. The wording in the article is quite
ambiguous, and not in any case a direct quote. I think, though, that complete
removal from the public courts system is contemplated.
Certainly, all Patent
Offices need an administrative review function to weed out the trivial
aberations. However, our collective experience with "independent" review boards
of all kinds demands simple recourse to the court system.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 14 2005 @ 07:00 PM EDT |
Notice how Microsoft always seems to be on the wrong side of patent lawsuits?
I'M thinking Microsoft is going at great lengths here just to make sure it's
always the "victim" in these type of cases. That way the pro-swpat
propagandists can use it to say how much the "little guys" can profit
from software patents. Count on Microsoft to lay low for its part right up till
the moment software patents actually do become legal in the European Union![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 15 2005 @ 01:35 AM EDT |
"'we offered Microsoft a license,' Larry Boucher, president and
CEO of
Alacritech"
I think that Larry Boucher was one of the principle founders
of
Adaptec and also of Auspex, and was also a key figure in getting
the SCSI
interface established. I'm presuming that this is the
same Larry Boucher.
(Auspex is a now defunct company that made
file servers for the Unix (Sun)
market.)
Anybody have any info on this?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sbungay on Friday, April 15 2005 @ 08:18 PM EDT |
<SARCASM>
Oh Microsoft RESPECTS others intellectual property, they would NEVER use
someone elses technology without licensing it and they would CETRTAINLY never
reverse engineer anything. We all know what staunch anti-piracy supporters they
proclaim themselves to be. They're a tower of innovation, a beacon of light in a
dark landscape.
</SARCASM>
---
Programmer: A red eyed mumbling mamal that converses with inanimate objects.
IANAL IAAP[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
