Microsoft patents BlueJ

Posted on by

Bj-Ms

Okay, okay. You know what it’s like with writing headlines: Short and catchy. Accuracy counts as a distant third.

This is my attempt at catchy headline writing. But the truth isn’t far off. It really should have said: Microsoft applies for patent for core BlueJ functionality.
And that’s really true. After blatantly copying BlueJ (without reference or attribution), Microsoft have now filed for patent for the functionality they knowingly copied from us.

Why? To sue us out of the market? To make us pay? Who knows. Sad fact is that this could destroy BlueJ.


The Background

BlueJ is an educational IDE for teaching object-oriented programming and Java to beginners. It is being developed at the University of Kent and Deakin University with support from Sun Microsystems. BlueJ is an academic project, started in 1998, and the software is, and always has been, free.

BlueJ competes with Microsoft’s Visual Studio in the education market. Not ‘compete’ in a commercial sense from our point of view, since we do not run a business, and do not make money from the distribution of BlueJ, but ‘compete’ in a business sense for Microsoft, since BlueJ adoption can theoretically mean lost sales for Redmond.

What’s worse (from the point of view of the Seattle giant): BlueJ is cross platform, and uses Sun’s Java Programming Language. This means that tomorrows developers might grow up working in an ecosystem where they are not locked into the Windows platform, and consequently have the choice to consider alternatives.

Java as a teaching language at schools and universities has been immensly successful, and BlueJ plays a part in this, with many hundreds of institutions adopting it as their teaching platform. Microsoft have struggled to counter this (with C# having entered the market considerably later than Java, and offering no compelling features that enticed departments to switch to it from Java). Their strongest push comes in form of the “MSDN Academic Alliance“, an initiative to get their Visual Studio environment adopted in schools by offering it free (or very cheaply) and offering free training to teachers.

Visual Studio then locks students into developing for the Windows platform, mostly in Visual Basic or C# (though other languages are possible).

So far, this is all the usual competing-for-marketshare game, and there is nothing really exciting about this. For us, the interesting story started in May 2005, when we came across the BlueJ feature copies in Visual Studio.

Feature copying

In May 2005, somebody pointed me towards a blog of Dan Fernandez, at the time “Visual C# Product Manager” at Microsoft (now “Lead Product Manager – Visual Studio Express”).

In his blog post, Mr Fernandez talked about a new Visual Studio feature, the Object Test Bench. This smelled as much like a straight BlueJ copy to us as old cheese smells like – well, old cheese. At the time, I wrote a short article on the BlueJ web site about this. (I won’t repeat the points of the article here – if you want to see whether you agree with us, read the article.)

In short: I didn’t really mind that Microsoft (or anyone else for that matter) copied our ideas, but I was a bit peeved that they claimed it as a new innovation of theirs and proudly presented this “newly developed” feature without attribution.

At the time, I wrote:

“Do I care? I don’t care that they copied BlueJ – good on them, and good luck to them. But I care about attribution.

I work at a university, and I strongly believe in honest attribution of sources. Microsoft does not have a good track record on this. So I decided to post these screenshots here so that people can at least see and make up there own minds.”

 

My purpose at the time was just to get this statement out into the public domain, and that was that.


Fear of Microsoft

In the days following that article, several people commented on the case (documented at the bottom of the original article). Many remarked about a possible patent attempt by Microsoft:

“If they have or haven’t is no longer an issue. What should concern you is what if Microsoft patents this “innovation”, where would that leave you and the wonderful BlueJ project? Food for thought.” (DH Allingham)

and

“I echo the fears expressed by others that, lacking patent or copyright protection, you may find yourself overwhelmed by lawsuits from Microsoft, who seem completely willing to patent other people’s inventions and steal them away.” (T N Fields)

At the time, my response was (naïvely?) dismissive:

“Just a short comment on the patent issue: I don’t think we need to be worried about Microsoft possibly taking out a patent on this interaction style. Patent law defines a concept called “prior art”, which invalidates any patent application. Prior art means that if an idea or technique was published before the patent application, then a patent cannot be granted. This is clearly the case here.” (M. Kölling)

Now I may have reason to review my stated opinion.


Microsoft’s Patent Claim

Today, someone (thanks!) pointed me to a patent application by Microsoft for an “Object test bench”. The patent application, filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office, is here.

The patent claims the invention of “a facility” (the object test bench) that “receives an instantiated object, displays the instantiated object visually, receives a command from a developer relating to the instantiated object, and provides a result corresponding to the received command. As an example, the facility invokes a method provided by the instantiated object or retrieves a value of a property of the instantiated object.”

Now, you may or may not be familiar with BlueJ. In case you aren’t let me say this: this is an exact description of the core BlueJ functionality (interactive object instantiation and invocation) that we have implemented, distributed, and described in published work since the mid-90s. (In case you are familiar with BlueJ, read on a bit in the patent. The description gets more and more detailed, and the more you read, the more it resembles BlueJ in every small detail. It’s almost creepy.)

We have developed this functionality originally in 1994 for the original Blue system (the predecessor of BlueJ). Blue (and this functionality) was described in my PhD dissertation and various published papers. We have never explicitly claimed invention of this technique, although it was new to us at the time. But I have never undertaken an exhaustive search for prior art, so it is entirely possible that there are earlier implementations. Key concepts are influenced by a variety of other systems anyway, such as Smalltalk and Self.

So my earlier belief that I “don’t think we need to [be] be worried about Microsoft possibly taking out a patent” was clearly misguided.

Ethics

When I published my original article about the copying, I wrote: “Is it unethical? – I don’t know. It’s business, and business sometimes is.” I wasn’t too worried.

Dan Fernandez (of Microsoft, see above), whose blog started all this off, wrote a response to my article in his blog (14 June 2005). I was quite impressed: He was replying quite openly, seemed honestly trying to be fair, and even went to the effort to investigate the situation within Microsoft. He quotes an (unnamed) internal Microsoft team member, including these statements:

“Object Test Bench, which evolved as a visualization of this functionality, was influenced by feedback from teachers who were used to working with BlueJ. “

“[feature tweaking] …borrows from several teaching concepts these teachers already enjoy with BlueJ.”

(You can read the full quote on Fernandez’ blog.)

He goes on to state:

“*My* interpretation of the above statement is basically that our academic customers wanted this because of the success of this BlueJ feature.” (D Fernandez)

It was already pretty clear that the actual implementors had taken BlueJ as a design template (since the interaction was copied so precisely step-by-step that those who would argue coincidence would also believe that Dali’s painting “The Persistence of Memory” was created by a coincidental splattering of paint on an empty canvas).

With Fernandez’ statement it was clear that Microsoft management (at least from then on) were also aware of this.

Now let’s look at the patent application. It is shown as “Filed: October 20, 2005”. That’s several months after Fernandez’ blog entry.

Let’s get that clear: four months after management were clearly aware of our prior work (and with developers being aware from the start), Microsoft knowingly filed a patent application claiming original invention of this mechanism.

To my nose, it doesn’t get much smellier than that. That stinks.

In the discussion in 2005, there was some quibbling about “invention” versus “innovation”, and whether Microsoft had really claimed that they invented (or innovated?) this feature. (Fernandez stated that MS had made no such claim.)

Now, with the patent filing, the situation is clear. Filing for patent is claiming original invention. Microsoft managers know it’s not true. They are lying. It stinks.

What Does It Mean?

So why are they doing this, and what does it mean for us?

What it means if this application goes through is quite clear: The big Goliath in Redmond can stop us from distributing BlueJ, or demand license payments, and sue us for infringement damages. (A sentence at the end of the patent application reads almost like an ad for applying for a license: They state explicitly that “the facility can integrate into any IDE other than VS”. Now there’s a great new idea. And they immediately make clear that their patent covers all those cases as well.)

We clearly have a claim to “prior art”, but once MS has the patent, it is down to us to challenge it before a court and demonstrate our case.

Carrying through a court case in a foreign country against a company with pockets as deep as Microsoft’s (and enough lawyers to win a tug-of-war against a small country) is not everyone’s idea of a good afternoon. Certainly not where I work – a university.

Why have they done this, when they clearly know that their case is without merit?

Well, I can only guess. Possibly reason might be:

  • They hope that people just don’t notice. They file unjust applications on the (quite realistic) chance that in many cases valid objections won’t be filed, because people are not aware of their claim.
  • They hope that people who have opposing claims do not have the expertise, time, money, or means to object.
  • A Microsoft employee submitted this to his/her (unknowing) supervisor, because of the immense pressure on employees in large software companies to file patents. They might have hoped that the supervisor does not notice, they fulfill their patent quota, and keep their job.

In reality, I don’t know. Your guess is as good as mine.

But the fact of the matter is that the application has been filed, Microsoft are trying to get control of this interaction style, and they do so while being blatantly aware that they have copied the functionality from elsewhere.

As a result, a product like BlueJ, developed for the education community, that has helped thousands of students to learn programming, may be muscled out of existence by corporate greed.

I’m not too happy.

151 thoughts on “Microsoft patents BlueJ”

  1. So what are you doing about it? Surely you are making moves to block the patent application?

  2. Pingback: Microsoft patents BlueJ « singen sang gesungen

  3. Hi !

    I’m using BlueJ for so many years …
    I’m schocked and saddened.

    I think that all BlueJ users should make big publicity to this “legal robbery”.

    Maybe if thousands of websites and blogs incriminate MS on this matter, MS won’t try to kill BlueJ.

    May the force be with you.

  4. You referred to the possibility that Microsoft might “file unjust applications on the (quite realistic) chance that in many cases valid objections won’t be filed…”

    I’d say that is very likely, and all-too-likely that the normal patent approval process would fail to notice that “prior art” exists. If there is any reasonable process for submission of valid objections, then PLEASE use whatever BlueJ team resources you can muster to fight this patent application!

  5. Regarding the “What are we going to do about it”:

    I have only found out about it today. And I am no lawyer.

    We will certainly try everything we can to stop this application, but I need to find out what the options are. First, I need to find the right people here in the university to talk to, who can give me advice. That’ll happen Monday, hopefully.

    I hope that objections to this application can still be filed. But the application has been made over a year ago – I don’t know whether there are time limits for these things. I also don’t know how complicated that is, an what the mechanisms are.

    But we will sure be trying!

    In the best case, we can still stop this application before it gets final approval. But as I said: I don’t know law, and I have to find out about it.

    Michael

  6. Microsoft have done some pretty disgraceful things in the past but stealing Blue J technology for their own is just disgusting. I would urge every computer science student who has ever used Blue J to fight against this and ensure Blue J does not fall foul to Microsoft because it is amazing software. Microsoft have enough patents already, we should support Blue J on this. Microsoft is known for its ugly dealings and the law is on the side of Blue J afterall.

  8. Pingback: JonIsDumb.com » Blog Archive » Plagiarist Corporations

  9. Michael,
    I suggest you (or your institution’s lawyers) contact Jane Prey (jprey@microsoft.com). Jane is a former academic and now works for Microsoft Research. One of her roles is academic liason. Jane used to be a very involved member of the CSE community; she may possibly have also been a former SIGCSE Board member.

    There may be some usefullness in contacting Jane first. There is a high liklihood that she will be sympathetic to your position. Who knows she may even have been a former adopter of BlueJ herself back in her teaching days.

  10. BlueJ is a great work that deserves to be deffended.

    I made my master thesis with it, and of course I remarked the benefits and recognize the value of BlueJ.

    I’ve been working wit MS Visual Studio for about 3 years, and there’s no signifficant advance to developers, unless you pay a big check for their team suite.

    So how the pattent office will check the authoring? If it is a burocratic entity, then let’s fear, because they don’t care anything outside the registered pattents. Just remember when the phone was pattented.

    I hope you can claim authoring, and stop the Kraken.

    They can’t copyright intelligence.

    Jack HV (Mexico)

  11. Another note, just to add that there is a plugin for the eclipse IDE called E-BOB that is supposedly a port of the object bench from Blue J (according to http://ebob.sourceforge.net/links.html) surely they will be very interested in protecting the object bench functionality from being patented by microsoft and can confirm just like the many many Blue J users that Blue J implemented it first.

    Ed

  13. I would contact EFF for any potential help with this — http://www.eff.org. Just an idea.

    You should absolutely be able to file objections during the process of patenting.

  14. Seeing your headline reminded me of a similar headline
    I came across a number of years ago published by
    The Onion (spoof news):
    >>Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeroes
    >>March 25, 1998 | Issue 33•11
    >> http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29130
    Okay, so this is a little less ridiculous (but sadly not much)

    I hope that you’ll keep the SIGCSE list updated with how things progress (I got the news there), and if there’s anything BlueJ supporters can do to help!

    Best of luck!
    -Kris Powers

  16. Don’t know if its of any use but additionally there’s a section on patents at groklaw.net which seems quite extensive. Also does greenfoot (greenfoot.org) also use object bench technology? If so depending on when it was written it is another example in favour of prior art.

    Ed

  17. I found this in the M.P.E.P. Section 2106, Patentable Subject Matter – Computer-Related

    So, yes. Patent office must search even in non patent resources. How can lawyers can use this to deffend BlueJ? I’m not a lawyer, but it seems that there are some rights and resources to use.

    http://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/2106.html

    ———–
    II. CONDUCT A THOROUGH SEARCH OF THE PRIOR ART

    Prior to classifying the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 101, Office personnel are expected to conduct a thorough search of the prior art. Generally, a thorough search involves reviewing both U.S. and foreign patents and nonpatent literature. In many cases, the result of such a search will contribute to Office personnel’s understanding of the invention. Both claimed and unclaimed aspects of the invention described in the specification should be searched if there is a reasonable expectation that the unclaimed aspects may be later claimed.
    ———–

    check 37 CFR 1.501 Citation of prior art in patent files.

  18. This functionality is also pretty similar to the whole Naked Objects stuff, although their focus is UI rather than “Let’s walk you through using this method.”

    It’s not as though Microsoft could realistically stop people from using and distributing a free product anyway; if it was open source it would be even more difficult for them.

    It’s a rare day I don’t curse Microsoft for one thing or another for making my life just that much more miserable, but holy crap, this is… incredible 🙁

  19. Welcome to the club. MS patents everything – whether they develop it or not.

    OTOH, let them. I find it really funny they bet the farm on C++ and it has turned out to be such a liability. I find it even more funny that they’ve cloned Java – a language with major design flaws and gratuitous complexity that is now beginning its death spiral.

    I appreciate that you are wanting to help with bringing up the next generation of developers. I invite you to come over and check out Squeak http://squeak.org.

    This is what I think software should be like. It is what I teach new students. It is where most of the real innovation continues to occur. Bring your innovations over and you will find a warm welcome as Squeak has been focused on education since its inception.

  20. Pingback: IndianBytes.com

  22. This is more likely an internal SNAFU compounded by the incompetance of the patent office than the beginning of an insidious plot. While I’ve never been involved in one myself, I strongly suspect that the people who gathered user requests, the people who implemented the feature, and the people who submitted the patent application were all different. In theory, there should have been discussion and information transfer, but many of these people have better things to do and no one has the job of arguing against applying for a patent. Even so, the patent might be dangerous once issued, but this does mean there is a decent chance that once you reach the right person within Microsoft (no, I don’t know who that would be) the application will be withdrawn.

    If it does come down to legal action, you might want to look for grounds to bring suit yourself. This gives two advantages: you can select the jurisdiction and you can ask for more than the invalidation of the patent. For example, you could reasonably claim that a patent application includes an implicite, public claim of originality, which is a claim that your work never happened, which is a severe accusation in academic circles, and therefore is libelous. It’s a bit of a stretch, but it allows you to ask for monetary damages, offer to settle for a withdrawal of the aplication and an apology, and negotiate down to a withdrawal. It puts you in a much better bargaining position than as defendant, where Microsoft has nothing to lose by pressing on except legal fees (which are salaried).

    Also, while we hide it well, Microsoft is very publicity-aware. You’ve made the front page of reddit. That definately counts for something.

  24. That just goes to show how absolutely ridiculous the concept of “idea patents”, or software patents, really are. Our society doesn’t improve at all from giving me monopoly over a genereal idea, such as putting video on a web page. The details are what’s important, so it we should have a monopoly on anything it would be on the actual working implementation (and we already have, it’s called copyright).

  25. If I have read the patent claim correctly, there is a tremendous amount of prior art out there, mostly in software development tools. The JavaBean specification was born from the same concept. In languages which support reflection, it is common practice to create object inspectors that manipulate object properties through the GUI. Even in C++, I have seen hand-crafted systems that emulate reflection for the same purpose, primarily in the game industry.

    Should this patent be approved, I would think that Sun at least would be willing to challenge it, since it would affect some of their tools (NetBeans, for example). Once it is challenged, it will most certainly be invalidated.

  26. Hi there, I guess the best thing would be to team up with everyone at university and all of blueJ’s supporters and try to contact some patent lawer guy immediately – there are some ways objections made have to be considered by the office if stated formally and correctly. that said, there is a common practice amongst patent offices to grant a patent right away and let those who challenge it do the research (so what they theoretically should do themselves is never done because of lack of resources – it just costs an awful lot of money if you have no clue and must start searching – completely impractical if you have to do this for every of the some millions of applications received a year..).
    So, the sooner you act now, you my be able to prevent it even beeing acknowledged – really some minor thing compared to a lawsuit once the patent is filed!!
    good luck
    clemens

  27. Ah, yes, the wonderful (spit) world of the patent system. Prior art should indeed prevent junk patents like this from being granted, but in practice the US patent examiners are utterly incompetent, and will happily grant any application they’re given. For example, Microsoft have also patented pointer comparisons — something there has been clear prior art for as long as computers have existed:

    http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959

    Your best bet right now is to make some noise about this, and as soon as possible. Get in touch with the Public Patent Foundation (http://www.pubpat.org/) and the Software Freedom Law Center (http://www.softwarefreedom.org/), who have some experience in getting this sort of thing overturned; also contact the Electronic Frontier Federation (http://www.eff.org/) who have their own patent-busting project. I’d also suggest having a look at Groklaw (http://www.groklaw.net/), a well-informed news site that covers this sort of thing; they’ve had a number of stories about getting dodgy patents overturned. Your aim should be to get the patent killed before it’s granted, which means filing (or getting someone to file) a formal request with the USPTO for further review along with evidence that the “invention” is not novel.

    Closer to home, please talk to Duncan Langford and make sure this gets used as an example on the ethics course of why software patents are a stupid idea…

  28. After seeing this I did a search, and sure enough they have also filed for a patent on their “visualizer” system , which was copied from jGRASP’s “viewer” system. The document number is 20050246690.

  29. It isn’t a very large leap from typing in statement in the watch window while debugging in VS 2005 to doing this… Just a visualized way of doing something you can do in any debugger. Doesn’t seem impossible to me for two people to come up with the same general idea.

  30. Maybe it’s worth e-mailing Dan Fernandez. He seemed like a reasonable guy when he responded to your original post on this issue. As lead product manager on Visual Studio Express, at the very least he might be able to suggest someone else for you to talk to.
    There’s a contact form on his blog.

  31. They didn’t though, they copied it and admitted that it was copied from BlueJ, read the article above. Also this was not just a general idea, it is almost identical and they are basicly stealing someone’s acedemic work and patenting it as their own. It is outrageous.

    Ed

  32. It’s already been mentioned that Smalltalk has had this for a LONG time, but a more recent Squeak-based effort called Scratch (http://weblogs.media.mit.edu/llk/scratch/) does much the same thing in an educational capacity. Scratch has only recently been released, but has been an active project for a few years now.

  33. We went through this kind of problem back in the 80’s. I had invented an computer-controlled aerial photography system and published a paper on it. I didn’t apply for a patent. Some time later, I was advised by my client that a company in the US had filed for a patent on the same idea. The client was worried that they might have to start paying royalties to the patent-holder.

    I filed a notice of prior art with the USPTO and that was the end of the matter, the USPTO declined the patent application. So that’s certainly worth doing, whether or not it will prevail is another matter.

    Peter

  34. First off, IANAL. All I can say is lawyer up and respond quickly. Often times, these sorts of issues allot you a fixed window of time to respond before greater fees and process will be required (I had to deal with something like this, but it was for a trademark, not a patent, so I don’t know how much my experience generallizes).

    There are a number of lawyers who might be willing to help you at a steep discount or for free (e.g. I recall one firm in the NY area who are VERY helpful to the little guys in the software realm–I think one of the lawyers is a Columbia professor). At the very least, you might be able to get better information about what your options.

    Best of luck.

  35. Supply ffii.org with the relevant documentation on paper. Microsoft is one of the biggest patent lobbyists in Europe and a story like this comes very handy as an illustration of what everybody already knows but the European Commission doesn’t seem to want to grasp.

  36. Shocked? We Trademarked FileEngine in 2001. Cisco started using it in 2005. After thousands of dollars wasted, my attorney said we could litigate this until I didn’t have any money yet or stop and get over it.

    I stopped and got over it.

    The Patent & Trademark system is not a poor man’s game. It doesn’t protect small businesses from the ambitions of large enterprises.

    Kim Brand
    http://www.FileEngine.com

  37. Every other comment is wrong. What you SHOULD do is shut down your website, stop distributing BlueJ, and advise all your users that they may be violating a Microsoft patent, and they should apply for a license from Microsoft.

  38. Pingback: Senshi’s Weblog » M$ patentiert BlueJ

  39. I think Microsoft should be given enough rope to hang themselves with. The “attempt” to patent could be written off as a mistake. The actual granting of the patent could be written off as a mistake by the patent office. But the ABUSE of the patent is inexcusable and could be used against Microsoft and their tactics.

  40. I think you should let them implement it, wait a couple years, then reap the benefits by just showing prior art!!! They kind of deserve (more than once 🙂

    But if you’re not that ill-minded as many seem to be, then all you need to do is show how their patent definition is the definition of any Visual OOP system or IDE out there today 😉 It really is very blatantly vague!

  41. To Kim Brand:

    Your lawyer is an idiot for not initially filing for an injuction against Cisco.

    Yes, they could probably out-spend you in court, but at some point, no amount of lawyer games can overcome justice. But first you needed to get the leverage to make it happen and an injuction would have been the tool to make them stop.

  42. But Microsoft often gets away with things it should not, when is it finally time to say NO

  44. Michael,

    There are open-source and other organizations who have attempted to reign in Microsoft and other companies (such as “patent trolls”) which make questionable patent claims. I would suggest contacting some of them and asking for help.

    1. I think many of these groups would look forward to taking MS down on any subject material.

    2. I think your subject material is more noble than many and important to cross-platform development.

    Also, I do not know a lot about Object Test Bench or Object Bench from BlueJ, it sounds like there is some “testing” as in code-debugging going on, but I am not sure.

    Some of the images I saw, briefly, also looked similar to some other IDEs such as Apple’s developer tools and some linux ones I have seen.

    The only reason I mention this is that there seems to be an even greater deal of prior art than just BlueJ.

    Sincerely,
    John

  45. Well I’ve also sent off an email to the us trade and patents office, just as a general random protest, with links to pertinent information… couldn’t hurt?
    Hope this all goes well for you!
    CortalUX.

  46. Hi all – I’m sorry about this situation. My view is the same as yours.

    I’ve mailed my friends in Microsoft’s legal group to call attention to this…I’m pretty sure they aren’t the type to read Digg on Saturday mornings.

    BlueJ’s story will be read and re-evaluated. I’m sure that on Monday, there will be some discussions on Monday whether we were overzealous with our patent application, or whether it represents some different concept that we do have a case to patent (which looks rather doubtful to me).

    Remember that Microsoft’s legal group is the same one that sued 16-year old Canadian Mike Rowe for his mikerowesoft.com domain name…please don’t mistake our incompetence for maliciousness.

    Although we are often considered a mechanical monstrosity rolling over everyone, my view working there from my last seven years is the opposite. We’re someimes chaotic and uncoordinated.

    However, we are not the type of people who tolerate hypocrisy. If our product was a port of someone else’s idea (which it looks like we’ve already said publicly), we’re not going to pursue this.

    We all trying to be respected as honorable people that are viewed favorably by our peers outside the company.

    I’ll check back later today…please look for an “official” response during the work week. If you’d like to contact me directly, my email address is chriswo@microsoft.com.

    Once again, please accept my apologies about this,

    Chris
    Program Manager
    Redmond

  47. It’s a criminal offense (perjury) to knowingly submit a patent application that covers prior art. Need to contact the USPTO and ask to file charges.

  48. CALM DOWN!

    First, the application was filed in 2005, but the earliest application goes back to 2004 (Serial No. 60/621,517). So, the lawyers and patent department probably had possession of the invention disclosure in 2004, well before Mr. Fernandez discussed anything about it. In fact, it’s likely that this got sent for a patent filing without anyone really understanding how or why it came about (including the fact it was primarily derived from another). It’s more likely that the inventors submitted an invention disclosure without understanding if or why this would be patentable (but possibly just to “look good”).

    Second, this application has GONE NOWHERE in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. They last exchange was in December 2005 when they filed the inventor’s oath (I’ll get to that in a second). However, the office HAS NOT reviewed this patent application on the merits, so saying they almost have a patent is “patently” false.

    Third, the inventors, Gautam Goenka, Partho P. Das (of Hyderabad, India), and Umesh Unnikrishnan (of Redmond, Washington) (all Indian citizens, filed an oath with the USPTO that requires them to disclose all material prior art (including information related to BlueJ if known). Since Mr. Fernandez even knew about it and may be “substantively” involved in the patent process or with the inventors, he is probably obligated to disclose what he knows under 37 CFR 1.56(c).

    Finally, you (or any other) party may submit relevant prior art under 35 U.S.C. sec. 301 and may remain anonymous in so doing. As a warning, ANYONE READING THIS SHOULD NOT IMMEDIATELY FILE THE INFORMATION! The patent examiners are overworked, and submitting hundreds of requests with the same art would not be helpful. Rather, a small number of requests may be appropriate with the relevant prior art (the disserations) and explanations of why the art is relevant. The original poster may contact me if they have any questions.

  49. I am interested in the screenshots, I have not used blueJ yet, but I won’t use windows, and it sounds like a program I will (hopefully) end up utilizing. DO you have a registry of users, or institutions that use the software. I don’t know of a how much a “petition list” would help, but maybe help make a statement by numbers of dare I say disgust. From I can guess are many users. It might be nice to have. I’d like to help with whatever resources I can muster, mostly my own time, and network. If interested in surveys, petition gathering, or whatever.. Let me know, I wish I had went to Law School like my mother always wanted (not really cliche) I’m looking for good causes to work with…

    Best.

  50. Pingback: Blogging Ottinger (tim) :: Yet another M$ Patent Abuse :: January :: 2007

  51. Last time I looked anyony that thinks a patent is wrong can let the US patant office know, this should open their eyes to prior art and fail the patent.

  52. As a teacher how is working with BlueJ now for several years, this is but one more step of Microsoft to try to get into the education market and make its name known (and extinguish others). I hope that they will fail as they did several times in the past, but this means that enough people make this robbery known and hinder the patent. It is not much money for Microsoft, if the loose, but once people are not watchfull they can make on more step in direction of missusing their market position.

  53. Thank your lucky stars that you’re in the UK and not the US.

    I’d suggest you contact your MP. The US patent system is broken. Your government needs to understand what’s going on over here, and react appropriately.

  54. Pingback: Austoon Daily » Microsoft patents BlueJ

  55. It’s feature protection. If the patent is rejected due to prior art, or later overturned, then Microsoft are assured nobody else can sue and force removal of the feature. If not, they are under no obligation to go after anybody and most likely wouldn’t based on previous evidence.

    Sadly this is inevitable given the ridiculous state of the US patent system (which Microsoft have been one of the biggest critics of) and ridiculous patent judgements such as the Eolas one.

    There is nothing to worry about here.

  56. Don’t blame Microsoft for trying to patent it, their legal machine is probably the reason it is even attempting it since their goal is to secure IP for the corportation. The engineers credited as the patent applicants are to be blamed for not informing the patent attorneys that prior art exists.

    You have several duties in this case:
    1. Dispute the patent and file with USPTO the publications you made showing prior art exists. You should also show the published admissions by MS that the concepts were copied from BlueJ.
    2. Dispute any specific claims in the patent showing that your implementation performs those functions and is prior art.
    3. Demand summary denial of the patent.

    This process is the whole purpose of the patent process. Publication of the claims of the invention and the public rebuttal of the claims in order to make the PTO aware of the prior art. Failure of MS patent attorneys to disclose prior art in the application is grounds for denial of the entire patent.

  57. Pingback: Abduh.net » أرشيف المدونة » BlueJ و Microsoft !

  58. Submit the prior art

    The whole purpose of publishing patent applications was so that people could submit prior art to the examiner.

    So, if you care, and if you think you have prior art, submit it to the examiner.

    (That’s what some clever guy at slashdot said)

  59. OK,

    1. Lose the nice guy attitude and get ready to cash out.

    2. Apply to have the patent denied.

    3. Apply for your own patent.

    4. Force MS to Pay Up and seek civil avenues if necessary to recoup costs.

    5. See on the beaches of Hawaii.

    Stick it to them, they asked for it.

  60. **HOLD THE PHONE**

    You have the guy saying that they took the idea from BlueJ. Why not let Microsoft go through with the patent(read: waste their money) that they know is basically stolen, have them attempt to licence it to you, and have you refuse. Then counter sue for them OBVIOUSLY knowing that they stole it from you and that there was most definately known prior art before they filed the patent application. It would be a unjust and frivolous lawsuit on their part, i’m sure you can get a few bucks out of it to support the BlueJ team!!

  61. Yes, that is a very good way to make lawyers rich, and everyone else poor, distracted, and disheartned. You litigate, you lose. Simple.

  62. In Reference to “There is nothing to worry about here”. ???

    Just a couple of suggestions, and perhaps some interesting reading for several of you. While browsing a friend’s site today, I was looking at his “slashdot” feed which is prominent on the page. He is one of those Linux guys who finds great interest in all things not “Microsoft”.

    “Microsoft Copies Idea, Admits It, Then Patents It”

    A terrifying headline if I have ever seen one, for one who remembers a superb product called “Stacker” from the MS-Dos days. Sadly enough, I am not a programmer nor do I understand much of code generation nor object identification or teaching methods for young programmers. I have never seen “BlueJ” or “M’softs OTB” – but I have seen the screenshots and read all the dialogue and links that I followed today. However, I am also one of many out here with a somewhat long (although sporadic) memory.
    If Microsoft is allowed to patent the incorporated processes of BlueJ, it will not be good thing. Microsoft takes a very long view in their business. What I mean by that is that they don’t care if something has benefit to them for months or many years in the future. They think and plan on a multi-generational basis much like Japan was forced to do after the second world war. For BlueJ that could mean a long and/or costly challenge while they shut down any FUTURE development of your products some time in the future (ie; think early Citrix licensing agreements). Your supporters will find that versions and the ability to freely develop them will cease, and all work will ultimately cost users and institution via add-on licensing fees (or incorporating these processes into a new and improved product offering or upgrade – versus product functionality update status which does not cost more).
    Suggestions:
    1.) Since I wandered all over the web following information on this, I think you should invite all users of your products (or any other products developed using this methodology) to immediately sign a “petition” type document stating they have used “BlueJ” or similar products in their teaching or professional environment(s) and for how long.
    (2) This should promoted through all websites and blogs to a single location, thereby allowing Microsoft to gauge how much interest and potential embarrasment is really out there (which is a very important factor in all things nowadays). Those who have contacts within the media (College/University papers, Television, University websites as a story of interest, Major Newspapers or Time Magazine, U.S. World Reports etc…)
    (3) For the many youngsters (under 40 or so), I invite them to see some of the following for an early roadmap of Microsofts approach to a product they also deemed worthwhile. Please do not be so short-sighted as to think these people did recover adequate compensation for their products, so that all was well in the end. Think of what you and thousands of potential users of your program might endure while endeavoring to force a for profit enterprise to adhere to ” What’s Right Is Right”.
    Thanks for letting me rant!
    Tye

    STAC ELECTRONICS vs MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    http://www.vaxxine.com/lawyers/articles/stac.html

    $39 MILLION “INVESTMENT” IN STAC ELECTRONICS BY MICROSOFT
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics

    STAC Electronics shares rise 29% on IBM Deal – Archived 1994 – NY Times
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D06E0D9173EF93BA35757C0A962958260

  63. Wow – its really scary how much ignorance there is about patents.

    BTW – just how are they going to demand you take a license? What is your revenue stream? Nada. So don’t worry. Ignoring the huge fact that they would never come after an open software system intended for teaching, the fact that you make no money off of it means they would have no interest in you.

    If the patent is really obviously invalid it will either be narrowed to be valid with bluej not prior art or ruled invalid. I repeat – when there is obvious prior art, and from multiple sources, as is contended here, the patent gets shot down quickly. Furthermore, in such a case, there is a good argument of fraud by MS. So, either the system will work or the invalidating prior art isn’t quite so obvious. Don’t sweat it.

  64. I can only do this :)) =))
    If this get patented I think I’ll try to patent something by myself (like walking).

  65. Pingback: Privacy Digest: Privacy News (Civil Rights, Encryption, Free Speech, Cryptography)

  66. Pingback: Microsoft copies features, attempts to patent « Universe_JDJ’s News Blog

  67. Michael, it pains me to say this, but Microsoft has displayed this pattern of behavior again, and again. It’s time the Department of Justice reviewed their anti-trust case against Microsoft, and dealt with the problem head on.

    I see only one remedy: break Microsoft into three constituent companies: OS, Office, and Development Tools. This is the same type of remedy we’ve applied in the past to convicted monopolists like Standard Oil, IBM, and AT&T.

    This needs to be brought to the attention of the DoJ. Simply invalidating the patent application isn’t going to stop Microsoft from exhibiting this boorish behavior again.

  68. Pingback: Advocrazy » Blog Archive » Microsoft rips off academic community?

  70. Talk to a patent lawyer, contact the patent office in regards to this application and inform them of the prior existing art, contact microsofts patent lawyers and inform them of the prior existing art and your intent to attempt civil litigation as well as attempt to initiate an anti-trust investigation if they continue a blatantly illegal attempt to patent an existing work. In all likelihood it is a lack of communication between departments and not a blatantly obvious illegal attempt. The patent lawyers are pretty far removed from the software devs and they make alot of assumptions, or at least that would be my story if I got caught doing this.

    That is what I would do.

  71. Pingback: Michael’s Random Thoughts » More on the Microsoft / BlueJ patent case

  72. US Patent Office = FAECES OFT INPUT

    Given M$’s prior knowledge of the prior art, isn’t the claim actually fraudulent, not just invalid?

  73. Places you should contact for legal help include the Electronic Frontiers Foundation and the Software Freedom Law Center. You should be able to get [i]pro-bono[/i] help on this…

  74. Pingback: On Walkabout with Greenfoot » Microsoft, Patents

  75. Pingback: Karl Smolka.com - Why does the world hate Microsoft? - Microsoft Rips Blue J

  76. Pingback: The Flow of Consciousness » MS VS vs BlueJ

  77. I’m not a lawyer, and you should find one to talk to about this. It’s likely that there is someone in the U.S. who will give you some initial advice at no cost or low cost. Perhaps Groklaw or the Electronic Frontier Foundation could suggest someone.

    If my understanding is correct, the inventors listed on the patent application are obligated to report to the patent examiners any prior art they uncover or that is provided to them. You could bundle up your papers, thesis, screenshots, program documentation and some evidence of BlueJ releases over the years and send them to the listed inventors. If they report them to the patent office, the patent may be rejected by the examiners, or many of its claims removed. If they fail to report them to the patent office, the patent would likely be thrown out if granted and challenged in court, without any discussion of merits.

    You should get *real* legal advice on this, particularly about whether to provide the evidence of prior art before or after the patent is granted. Don’t rely on my incomplete knowledge.

  78. I don’t mean to be nitpicking, butdid you try to cantact anyone at ms on this matter? Maybe even Gates, hemust have an email address somewhere.

    Good luck

  80. I am a patent agent which is the same as a lawyer, and there is a procedure by which a third party can file information on a patent application that indicates the existence of prior art. It’s relatively simple as those things go and a patent lawyer working for your University can probably help you there.

    DB

  81. Nothing will do more damage to MS than a media crusade. Notify your local news, cnn, ap, reuters, etc… Big corporations stealing from honest people is big news, especially when there is proof that they knowingly did it. If it makes Headline news it will get attention from the patent office and government officials.

  82. There are so many comments that I have not read them all — I apologize for the possible redundancy of this addition.

    When filing a patent application the inventor is obligated to disclose all prior art that could possibly be relevant. If the patent is granted and the inventor is found to have willfully not done so then that’s very bad news (in the context of a suit, which I imagine you want to avoid). At this point, during the prosecution of the patent, you should find a way to communicate to the patent examiner the relevance of your prior art.

  84. Pingback: vrypan|net|weblog » η Microsfot ζητάει πατέντα για πράγματα που έκανε το BlueJ εδώ και 10 χρόνια!

  85. Pingback: Dlaczego nie lubię Giganta? (no. 1) « lapsus alumni

  86. Why don’t you try to ask the big players in IT and Open Source for help. I mean IBM, Sun, Red Hat and so on are not really friends of M$. Maybe they will help?

  87. Very sad news. I’ve only just started using BlueJ as a student of the Open University in the UK.

    Microsoft seem to be able to do what they want. The patent’s been filed on technology that they’ve copied – that’s where the problem lies. It looks like it’s a foregone conclusion.

  88. The first thing that I would do is make sure that I had screen dumps of any pages from Microsoft’s web site that support your position.

    Incriminating evidence often gets removed.

  89. Pingback: Duncan Mac-Vicar P. » Blog Archive » Bastards

  90. Its only an application. Many do not make it through. The application becomes easily accessible prior art.

    Since you have so much prior art, and you can present your references the USPTO, maybe this is less of a problem than it appears.

    Try filing your own applications on your ideas. Look into the ‘provisional’ application, to start, they’re cheap. If your application does not make it through, the content is prior art for microsoft and every one else.

    See http://www.nolo.com and this article http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/catId/FD8C060B-5DD4-4809-A53ECCF6BBD87E32/objectId/75EE515D-3C27-4165-AA54D4EEDA1C1DD0/310/ART/

    If you do get a patent anyway, you can dedicate it to public or the FSF.

    Submit your references the USPTO for all the software ideas mentioned here (BlueJ docs with provable dates maybe?), read this here http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20060414004039219 and read the details at the USPTO site. You may be able to simply file a PDF form on the USPTO website.

    Try getting involved in the Community Patent Review effort just getting underway, its for real and the USPTO is part of it. I think they may be looking for Ruby on Rails developers too. I read it “on the Internet”
    http://cairns.typepad.com/peertopatent/

  91. Pingback: Prime News Blog » Blog Archive » xmen cyclopse sunglasses Microsoft copies features, attempts to patent

  92. They do not seem to have filed any corresponding applications outside of the USA, which maybe suggests that the application is not of particular interest. Who knows?

    Do remember, patent applications can be, and generally are, filed with claims that are much broader than the applicant ever expects to get granted. You can file a patent application for *anything* and virtually all applications are now published, even in the USA. This is unlike the previous situation in the USA where only granted patents were published.

    I Europe, we are used to this, because it has been that way for many years. In the US, you have to get used to seeing all applications, even the bad ones, not just the patents.

  94. How about involving ACM & SIGCSE. As Computer Science educators, we should not tolerate this. Since Microsoft seems to be violating many ethics priniciples, ACM should take a stance. Ban Microsoft from SIGCSE. Public condemnation. etc. Publicity and exposure of their bad behavior is needed. Get their attention.

  95. I have forwarded this page to a friend, who is a patent examiner for the USPTO. He writes legal / technical opinions either permitting or rejecting software patents.

    If he reviews this application, he is certainly now aware of the prior art.

  96. Pingback: Cay Horstmann's Blog

  97. Pingback: angrykiwi.org » Blog Archive » Another Microsoft invention

  99. Just a few points. First, I’m a little skeptical of “ownership” claims related to the ideas contained in both BlueJ and Microsoft’s patent. You’re representing one thing. Microsoft is representing another. You claim they knew. I haven’t read an official statement from Microsoft asserting knowledge, one way or another. So, it’s a he said, he said situation, and the only way to resolve it is let the patent application go through the normal process. The USPTO has a process for taking public comments. Use it! And remember: A patent application is only an assertion of ownership. It isn’t absolute nor is it irrevocable. I should know. I’ve had numerous patents fought by the likes of Sun Microsystems and SGI. None of the challenges prevailed because my patents were heavily researched and documented. If there is prior art, then Microsoft will have to face that prior art.

    Another thing to keep in mind is that a patent application may be an _IMPROVEMENT_ to an existing technology, as well. It doesn’t have to be based upon a completely novel invention. For example, maybe you didn’t invent the cotton gin, but you found a way to make it run 5 times faster. You need to go back and reread the patent application very carefully to assess whether this is merely an improvement upon generally known principles. It could be, and perhaps you misinterpreted its scope. Just something to keep in mind.

    –Tom

  100. One more thing. Those of you who don’t like patents, keep in mind that licensing and royalty revenue from patents has made individual inventors (like me) quite wealthy so, in a lot of ways, you’re supporting the American (or European) Dream when you support patents. Not every patent holder is a Fortune 500 company.

    Use your brains. Many of you think that fighting a system is the only way to improve it. Not so. There’s no reason why an Open Source Patent Consortium couldn’t have the largest patent portfolio on the planet. The only thing blocking that from becoming a reality is ideology, lack of vision, and intransigence.

  101. my friend sent this to me and it confused me…I don’t get what the major fuss is about…what the heck is blue j? Yeh i’m stupid =]

  103. !!!! From Microsoft guy: “If our product was a port of someone else’s idea (which it looks like we’ve already said publicly), we’re not going to pursue this.”

    You’ve got to be fucking KIDDING me.

  104. Pingback: All in a days work…

  105. I suggest you confer with a patent attorney. You may be able to file the prior art with the PTO.

  106. Hi,
    I fired off an email to the register. (www.theregister.com for those who don’t know) They are are good at getting the word out of M$ improprieties. I don’t know if they will get it soon enough so anybody reading this should send them something to help them get on this.
    Good luck.

  110. Pingback: a crank’s progress :: links for 2007-01-29

  112. Pingback: blog

  113. Pingback: Michael’s Random Thoughts » Movement - The Latest on The Microsoft Patent Application

  114. Tom,
    If a large business infringes your patented invention they can and will totally ignore your patent unless you are prepared to take them to court. It costs at least EUR 3 million to fight a patent in court. That is NOT affordable except for extremely wealthy large businesses and individuals.

    The patent system is a biased and hugely too expensive money-go-round that unfairly serves the interests of very large multi-national companies and rich lawyers. Patents are absolutely dangerous and harmful to the legitimate economic interests of small businesses and individuals. They are a huge waste of our time and resources.

    Even worse, if you try suing a large multi-national company because it is infringing your patented invention, they will almost certainly counter-sue you for infringing one or more of the thousands of patents which a large multi-national typically owns and which you are sure to be infringing in your own business.

    The idea that patents are generally useful to small businesses and inventors is a FALSEHOOD. And we certainly do not want the patent system made even worse by brutally extending it to force the concept of software patents down the throats of European small businesses.

  115. Denis BUREAU Says:
    “I think that all BlueJ users should make big publicity to this “legal robbery”.”

    This is EXACTLY what IP really stands for:
    Intellectual Piracy (leading to)
    Indulgency Payment!

    Always beware of those true meanings of the terms you’re using.

  116. I’m a student at Brighton University using BlueJ.

    It’s this reason why I’m switching from Windows and other proprietary software/languages to Linux and open source.

    I wish you every bit of luck in “fighting the good fight”.

  117. Pingback: ][ stefano maffulli » Panico per BlueJ

  118. Pingback: Arun’s Blog » True face of Microsoft

  120. Pingback: jeremy.lonien.de » Blog Archive » BlueJ

  121. Pingback: Dare Obasanjo aka Carnage4Life

  123. Pingback: Basically Tech

  124. Pingback: Lorenzo Barbieri @ UGIblogs!

  126. Pingback: Things n’ Stuff » Blog Archive » Another patent related article

  127. Plagiarist No.1 : Goenka Gautam; (Hyderabad, IN)

    Plagiarist No.2 : Das Partho P; (Hyderabad, IN)

    Plagiarist No.3 : Unnikrishnan Umesh; (Redmond, WA)

    All who know these guys names should never ever offer them a job. They knew very very well what they were doing. All three are desis. Desis thrive on such things.

    Their education never punishes them for committing plagiarism. So, they don’t care. These Morons MUST be taught a lesson which they were’nt taught in high school.

    I am ashamed I am a desi myself. It was not a long time ago since some buffoons in India(the asian variety) tried to patent bubble sort. Yeah this was in the early 21st century.

    These IDIOTS must be taught a lesson. What can we do?

    Embrace and extend my Dk Microsoft!

  128. Pingback: Merill Fernando's Web Log

  129. There are a raft of people out there who truely believe that software patents are inherently evil and that the concept of a software patent should not exist. Many of us campaign hard to keep software patents out of Europe.

    However, the global patent game is dominated by the US. It loves software patents and companies such as Microsoft will patent anything and everything they can, because if they don’t play “in the game”, they lose out against their competitors.

    The situation we therefore find ourselves in today, is one where big technology companies patent like mad, to make sure nobody else does it first, putting pressure on an overworked patent office who are suposed to check each patent request, but blantantly cannot.

    It is therefore left up to chance, or a noble member of the public, to notice such contraventions of patent applications, and flag it up for the community to take note.

    Michael states that he personally does not believe in software patents because he wholely dislikes the concept of them. Consider then for example, that if Michael had worked for Oracle or Sun, Microsoft would at this point now find themselves in the middle of a a very expensive lawsuit.

    However much the big technology companies protest, the base fact is that software patents block innovation and waste our combined global time and expended effort in improving this world we live in.

    The block-stock-bullshit answer the patent lawyers roll out is that companies “won’t spent so much on research and development”. In reality the bottom line is that their spending won’t change, but their profit margins will. They would still have to compete whether they like it or not. Consumers would benefit from lower prices and companies would innovate faster.

    Oh yes, and patent lawyers would be almost out of a job. Surely that is something good for the world.

    http://swpat.ffii.org/intro/index.en.html

  130. Pingback: People Over Process » Blog Archive » links for 2007-01-30

  131. Pingback: Microsoft kembali akan mematenkan hasil karya orang lain tanpa persetujuan : M I C R O S I A

  133. Pingback: Innovationpartners » Microsoft trækker patent tilbage efter klager

  134. Pingback: Mais do execrável comportamento da velha monopolista « ASF@Web

  135. I don’t think this is a problem with Microsoft, they will do what they can do to run their business. If the patent office lets this through, this shows a clear problem with the U.S. Patent Office. Someone should sue the U.S. Patent office for negligence (and probably ignorance) instead of trying to fight all the companies that try to file patents that are clearly illegal.

  136. To hell with MS. If they have deep pockets and it is money that is needed to stop this bs, then I think that if we all contribute a *tiny* amount from our pocket money we can beat them. They should be stopped at any cost from entering academic instituets, so that they are not able to make future generations dumb.

  137. Micro$oft is at it again.

    Started with dumpster-diving for the source code for BASIC,

    NOW BlueJ, and even into Modular Component Operating Systems (read: Linux).

    Been noted in the past how big business has pushed a new patent with a date predating an already approved patent by a little-guy and then invalidating his patent just to steal IP.

    Micro$oft, the company cliaming how it wants to protect everybody’s IP.

  139. $oftware Patents… what an ugly thing..
    I hope Micro$oft won’t be able to steal your BlueJ technology.. And I hope it will stop stealing whatever technology it finds..
    Does BlueJ work well? I’ve never used it, but if the answer is YES then we have a proof that Micro$oft didn’t make that system :/

  140. MS has withdrawn the patent without a fuss as soon as they were notified, that’s not bad. The reality is today that because we allow software patents, and the US Patent Office allows very general patents, then a company like MS almost HAS to patent everything that seems reasonable to do so, otherwise competitors and patent trolls will do so.

    As long as they respond promptly to a notification of prior art (as they have done so) and don’t misuse the patent once they get it (not sure what MS do here) then that’s a reasonable compromise.

    I do think we need to scrap software patents though, they don’t contribute to innovation and they do contribute to shutting down innovation.

    Patents exist to better society as a whole (Not make people rich) by encouraging invention by ensuring the owner gets a fair reward. In the case of e.g. Pharmaceuticals where the cost to bring a new drug to market is hundreds of millions of dollars, then a reasonable patent is useful. For software where the development costs are minimal and easily open to individuals, patents are not necessary or reasonable.

    The same applies to copyright, where we now have copyright lasting decades in order to protect Disney’s revenue stream, not to enhance society.

  141. This is awful 🙁 I use BlueJ all the time since I’m learning Java, and its a great piece of software. I really hope you stop them from doing this.

  143. Pingback: stefan.waidele.info » Blog Archive » Patentiert Microsoft fremde Ideen?

  144. Pingback: Nick Randolph's .NET Travels

  145. “We clearly have a claim to “prior art”, but once MS has the patent, it is down to us to challenge it before a court and demonstrate our case.”

    I realize that this is a non-issue now since Microsoft has decided to withdraw the Patent Application, but I wanted to take a second to clarify some common misconceptions about the Patent Process.

    First and foremost, there was something a little easier (easier than going to court at least) you could have done once you found out about the Patent Application.

    The Patent Office actually has a provision allowing anyone, at any time, to submit prior art. Statute 35 USC 301 (www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_301.htm#usc35s301)

    Also Rule 1.501 (www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxr_1_501.htm#cfr37s1.501)

    Now I realize the laws and rules are semi-vague on how to initiate this process, but section 2202 of the MPEP should give you the exact procedures (www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2200_2202.htm#sect2202).

    Basically, you write into the Patent Office referencing the publication and stating the reasons you think the Patent should not be granted. Any person can do it. This has pretty much always been around and nobody uses it.

    I realize you would have to send in a physical letter and stuff, but it is certainly better than trying to fight the patent in court. Plus, it looks like you could have just printed out this post and sent it in.

    Second, just because a patent application has been published doesn’t mean that they are going to get the patent. Pretty much everything submitted to the Patent Office gets published eventually whether it is a good application or a bad one. In the end though, the actual patents are usually quite different than the publications that proceeded them.

    Lastly, “the name of the game is in the claims” -Federal Circuit Judge Giles Rich

    Just because the specification of a Patent Application talks about the world, it doesn’t mean the world is getting patented. Lots of times, the title, abstract, and even large parts of the specification, have little to do with the eventual, actual, patent. The issued claims are the binding part of the patent in most cases.

    Sorry for the long post.

  146. Pingback: My life, the universe and everything

  147. Pingback: digital end » This is why I hate Microsoft

  150. Pingback: JavaSPEKTRUM Blogosphäre » Blog Archiv » Blogosphäre (aus JavaSPEKTRUM 02/07)

  151. A lot of people seem to be responding to this as though they missed the fact that the patent application has been withdrawn.

    I understand why MS did this (protection from frivolous lawsuits), but victims in similar situations won’t be so lucky. BlueJ has fared well in this situation because of its popularity and publicity.

    I’m happy the situation has settled favorably. I wanted to stay in academia and continue working on Green, but Dr. Alphonce wasn’t able to take me on as a Ph. D student. I wish you all the best. I’m in industry now; maybe I’ll see you again at OOPSLA.

Comments are closed.