Microsoft Just Doesn't Get It

• Report this Comment On December 29, 2008, at 4:13 PM, gfbjohn wrote:

  What is at stake is Microsoft's attempt to take possession of a potentially broad concept. They might start with claiming this for computing but if they secure the patent they could parlay their claim over time to cover just about any rental or functionality agreement. iTunes, Pay-per-view, stock quotes, etc. And also, suppose they start putting some functionality behind their patent that is significantly superior to other web offerings? Over time competitors would come to want the same direct returns that are not beholden to Google ads or other indirect revenue source. People might not notice the ground shift until it's too late. Softy is pretty creative.

• Report this Comment On December 29, 2008, at 6:55 PM, szodjo wrote:

  There are a number of applications where pay as you go models are very successful. Take a look at Amazon's pay as you go computing models such as EC2. These represent a nice way for applications to scale.

  In Microsoft's case, they likely want to do 1 of 2 things:

  1) Try to compete with models like Amazon, offering pay as you go Server 2008 models for deploying applications.

  2) Offering pay as you go application access for business applications.

  #2 is probably more likely as they're likely just looking for another way to get recurring revenue. It'll be interesting if they offer #1. It seems that people are jumping all over spaces like this in the short term. Folks were even using Amazon for mission critical applications when no SLA was offered.

  Since other companies, especially in the hosting / data center space have offered pay as you go computing experiences for many years and with much publicity, it seems like this one may have a good chance of being disputed.

• Report this Comment On December 29, 2008, at 7:06 PM, FongAndrew wrote:

  I'd second szdojo. We've been using Amazon's pay-as-you-go web services at work and it rocks. Hosting is already pay as you go and being able to do it per hour rather than per month actually saves us money when our server usage is so variable.

  Microsoft actually has something heading in this direction with its Azure platform.

• Report this Comment On December 29, 2008, at 9:44 PM, TBeagle wrote:

  Great! Another service by Microsoft that will cost us more money and work as grand as all of Microsoft's other products! Wow! Anybody want to see a mass exodus to any other service provider and OS who can offer a real value for your dollar? I for one would welcome some competition to Microsoft for this very reason! A "pay as you go" ISP does not sound like a bad idea if it will save you money, but knowing Microsoft, they will work it for all it's worth providing fairly lousy service and over inflated prices, just like the wagon trains and freight carriers out west in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Complain all you want, no one cares and your terrible service is not our problem! Actually you should be lucky we even considered giving you the time of day!

  I can't wait!

• Report this Comment On December 29, 2008, at 11:58 PM, xlunarbase wrote:

  HAHA! That reminds me of a story I heard about a group of people who patented the actual process for online orders, such as the one used by dell. by patenting that, they had dell and others pay royalties on using their process---if what I was told is correct, of course.

  If I were Microsoft, I'd use that the same way!

• Report this Comment On December 30, 2008, at 7:58 AM, ComputingFool100 wrote:

  Well the real thing MS doesn't get is that software patents are particularly destructive to the marketplace. Why should MS be issued a patent on the application of ordinary payment schemes to yet another domain? The PURPOSE of patents as set forth by the Founding Fathers was (and still is) to get the super-genius of the world to reveal their black arts rather than keep those arts as trade secrets, so the rest of humanity can benefit from their teachings.

  Software patents are patents not on code but on *ideas*- the very idea of doing X is what is assigned IP, not the particular way X is done. Code, like all writing, is naturally protected through copyright, but the software patents forbid anyone from doing the same thing or anything similar no matter how they code it.

  What if this same IP were given to blog writers or, better yet, lawyers? Only one lawyer can build his or her case in just this way. Only one blogger can express THIS general idea using THAT kind of metaphor?

  Could anyone write anything anymore without fear of being sued?

  Why is this permitted in software then?

  To answer my own rhetorical question- because patents are a way to keep small companies down- they're a tax- and MS is a special interest that is loaded with cash that ends up in your Senator's rel-election campaign to make sure that if push comes to shove MS can deploy its arsenal of patents rather than having to create value for the market.

• Report this Comment On December 30, 2008, at 8:10 AM, zloj wrote:

  If you can patent a rental model that's been used since times immemorial, it's better to shut down the patent bureau once and for all.

• Report this Comment On December 30, 2008, at 11:04 AM, cjlebel77 wrote:

  Just because a company patents something, doesn't mean that they will use it, or go after others who violate the patent. There are companies like Microsoft (IBM comes to mind), that patents things before someone else can, so that the patents don't get abused by patent trolls.

  Also like mentioned above, the patent is pretty broad, and can be used for a wide range of things.

  Btw, one of the reasons why PeoplePC failed is because their PCs were junk (I believe the Compaqs that they first sold were refurbed), and the amount of crap (ads) that the had installed on the PCs, as well as spyware (trojans) that were installed later on to track their users (and yes, I did work for them 7-8 years ago)

• Report this Comment On December 30, 2008, at 11:07 AM, mhoemann wrote:

  I cannot find value in this article. Microsoft files for patents quite frequently. It's just part of the business. For any one piece of software they typically have several patents, at least. What's the point of putting one that will very likely never see the light of day under a microscope and writing an article about it? There's PLENTY of things Microsoft is doing that matter that can be scrutinized and would be more valuable.

• Report this Comment On December 30, 2008, at 12:32 PM, jmullina wrote:

  @szodjo and @FongAndrew, It's true that Microsoft already has Windows Azure (and the related Azure Services Platform)... it's a bit different than Amazon's services, as it's less "hardware-as-a-service" and more "application platform-as-a-service" (e.g, things like load-balancing are built in), plus it's built to integrate with on-premise apps, security systems, etc.

  Those details aside, I suspect that's not what this patent is all about. After all, customers are already testing out Windows Azure. :)

  I think it's more likely related to desktops. To a big PC company like Dell or HP, this may be just another product to sell. IMO, the most likely customers would be enterprises, at least in the beginning. The IT group could specify a range of capabilities they wanted as options for people, and then outsource much of the management from there -- letting folks use whatever they need and pay for only what they use.

  In a model like this, the physical hardware needs to be capable of running whatever the "high end" option is, so Dell and HP still get to build and sell some high-end computers, but the management processes for enterprises could become much more efficient.

  Disclosure: I work for Microsoft but have no knowledge of this patent.

• Report this Comment On December 30, 2008, at 9:58 PM, ComputingFool100 wrote:

  I have to rebut one point made in these comments. Microsoft (and IBM for that matter) do not obtain patents merely to protect themselves; they use them aggressively against competitors to force start-ups to sell themselves to Microsoft and to destroy competitors who cannot be bought.

  Here is one such competitor whom Steve Ballmer, CEO of MS threatened.

  http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/Ballmer-Threa...

  http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2007/05/microsoft_foss_.html

  Remember, patents are U.S. 40k at least to obtain per patent and well over a million dollars US to fight against (or defend) in court.

  The reason I.B.M. and MS want to legitimize idea patents, aka software patents, is because it closes the field to competitors, which goal is exactly orthogonal to society's best interest and the historical and moral raison d'etre for patents in the first place.

  It's a historical fact that when Sun Microsystems was first starting out, they received a visit from I.B.M.'s lawyers, who trotted out a number of patents I.B.M. claimed Sun was violating. Sun dismissed them as ridiculous, and expressed confidence they could win in court. So I.B.M. then trotted out some more. Then some more. Then yet some more. The message seemed to be , "sure they're worthless, but can you pony up for each and every suit? Besides, we only need one of them to hit."

  Long story short, Sun caved and paid I.B.M. its "royalties".

  Software patents and business method patents are junk law. Lawyers wouldn't dream of permitting someone to patent a means and method to argue a legal case or conduct a law business or construct an argument to a jury or structure a legal document, yet the exact analog of all those things are embodied by software and business method patents.

  In the E.U. none of this is permitted, and to good effect. I don't see that the E.U. is lacking in innovation in the field of software engineering or business methods.

Add your comment.