I understand the need for people on HN to play devil's advocate and try to defend Microsoft's actions, but I don't think there's much of a case here in their favor, even if one did really dig into the patents. Microsoft should be spending its time and resources making their own software better, not suing other successful companies. To me this whole debacle stinks of desperation. Microsoft can't figure out how to find success in the web applications space and out of frustration are simply choosing to sue the most successful SaaS companies. I knew things were getting bad at MS, but I didn't realize they were this bad.
I'm sorry but that's a pretty weak argument. So does that mean that any company with patents should just suck it up if someone infringes instead of defending their IP? Regardless of what you think of the validity of patent, it was granted and MS has a right to defend it.
If you put in time doing research and then spend time and money patenting that research because you believe it to be innovative (subjective), would you just suck it up and "try to make your own software better" if someone copied your work?
Among all the companies out there that are arguably violating these patents, they choose to go after a high profile, successful, primarily online company who has been in business using these technologies for years. This is highly selective and to me indicates that the GP's point probably has some validity. Can anyone really argue that Salesforce of all companies has somehow infringed on Microsoft's IP? If they had been enforcing these patents earlier on and enforcing them uniformly, it would have seemed much less of a patent-troll style maneuver.
> So does that mean that any company with patents should just suck it up if someone infringes instead of defending their IP? Regardless of what you think of the validity of patent, it was granted and MS has a right to defend it.
People should do what is moral, not act as selfishly as they can without overstepping the bounds of the law. Enforcing patents against software is immoral. As Bill Gates famously pointed out, if software had been considered patentable when Microsoft started, the industry would have been at a standstill decades ago.
The fact that it's possibly legal does not make it moral. You can list any number of actions that are legal but immoral if you think about it for two minutes.
> If you put in time doing research and then spend time and money patenting that research because you believe it to be innovative (subjective), would you just suck it up and "try to make your own software better" if someone copied your work?
No copying is being alleged here. Presumably people who can see that enforcing patents against software is immoral would do exactly what you're saying, and furthermore would rarely spend time and money patenting in the first place.
Well, Salesforce should have done their homework, the first thing you have to do (when you start to get pretty big) is check if you infringe any patents.
I don't believe there exists a technology company in the world that doesn't infringe on patents (mostly unintentionally). I think if most of them really looked they'd find thousands patents they are infringing.
I know. My current project goes near 4 claims on 5 patents, till now (I don't make infringement, but still have found myself near some mines). However my point is that you can't blame MS for this, but the patent law. Either change it, use it, or remove it. You have 3 options.
Most users here are saying that "ethically" MS is doing wrong. This is not an ethical issue, it's a legal one (MS isn't the only one, recently Apple, Nokia, etc). The problem of patents it's been around for decades, or at least years, why haven't anyone fixed it. America is a democracy, right? Now go and change the law, if you can.
Or, wait for a replacement of the current patent system, I think it's only a matter of years, now.
EDIT: Of the 5 patents I was talking about, none of them use the invention on an actual product.
Now you're starting to make some sense. I guess you can't trust a large company to behave ethically, only to stay within the law.
The problem is, the system is set up in such a way that it's impossible for a small company to stay legal. Even if you grew into a medium sized company, and you managed to spend the time required to research all the patents you're infringing on, the licensing costs for all those patents would be greater than all the money your company will make over its entire lifetime. Because you now know about all the patents, even the silly ones, and you can't actually afford to challenge all of them, so you just have to license them.
That is what would happen if a small / medium company did its best to stay legal when it comes to patents. It's absurd.
The last thing you should do is look at patents. If you knowingly infringe a patent, your "willful" infringement opens you up to triple damages. It's actually better to not know.
The problem is you can't recognize when someone is infringing a patent knowingly or not, based on what they're saying (unless they've got a request for licensing).
But here we're going in a total different direction. You're telling me that you shouldn't look at patents. Weren't the patents invented for being publicly accessible, so you can see if you infringe, and license them?
You can't see it, can you? You look at the patents, copy every feature of them, than incorporate your company somewhere where there aren't international copyright/patent agreements. Sure you can't have the same resources as everyone else, but you're free to create them too.
And then? What do you propose is the next logical step once you have the list of patents you infringe on? Go to Microsoft and say "please sue us now"? Because if you were going to suggest that they re-develop in order to avoid infringing any patents, you're either from another planet or a troll.
Then nothing. You should expect this. If the court sets a fine, you should pay it.
EDIT: I'm not trolling, nor I would ever want to do so. It's just that people here are forgetting how the system works (you're a hacker, find your way out). See last paragraph http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1363080
I expected the downmod. That's why I said I shouldn't tell this[1]. People here appear to be so worried about ethics, that forgot everything else. Will you please explain to me, the invalidity of the case? I mean they made patent infringement, and if the infringement is judged as valid, than what are we discussing?
