|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:02 am Post subject: Microsoft on wrong side of Korean patent ruling |
 |
|
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061127-8297.html
Leeches on the belly of the whale. Patenting an idea is just nuts. MS even used a different code for the "automatic switching" between Korean and English, but the Korean courts ruled that it is the idea that is patented, not the code.
Man... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
munji
Joined: 08 Sep 2006
Location: Daejeon
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:55 am Post subject: Re: Microsoft on wrong side of Korean patent ruling |
|
|
| Demophobe wrote: |
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061127-8297.html
Patenting an idea is just nuts. MS even used a different code for the "automatic switching" between Korean and English, but the Korean courts ruled that it is the idea that is patented, not the code.
Man... |
Patents could include an idea, and usually there has to be a proof of concept as well. Nothing wrong, if they did it before MS.
Software code may or may not be patented. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 4:44 am Post subject: Re: Microsoft on wrong side of Korean patent ruling |
|
|
| munji wrote: |
| Demophobe wrote: |
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061127-8297.html
Patenting an idea is just nuts. MS even used a different code for the "automatic switching" between Korean and English, but the Korean courts ruled that it is the idea that is patented, not the code.
Man... |
Patents could include an idea, and usually there has to be a proof of concept as well. Nothing wrong, if they did it before MS.
Software code may or may not be patented. |
So you would support a patent on a function? It's absurd. Totally and completely absurd.
I can see patenting a concrete thing or specific application, but look at what this is about! A function in a separate program, being called by a completely different algorithm. The only thing that is similar in these cases is the "automation" of the function. If MS were to have gone with what they have in the past, a keyed function call, they would have avoided all of this stuff. As it stands, the automation of the function is what is apparently patented, and that is complete rubbish.
This is pretty much a text book case of anti-competitive measures. A FUNCTION! Sheesh...you want to support that kind of thing? Just absurd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Remember British Telecom tried to claim they had a patent on web links. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
skconqueror
Joined: 31 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I honestly hope that MS just says the hell with Korea and forgets they exist. Korean windows is crap anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cubanlord
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Location: In Japan!
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with Demo on this one. Patents should be placed on tangible items. It would be easy for me to take out a patent on the idea that...oh...i don't know....We should eat 3 times a day? OH WAIT!!! NOW EVERYONE OWES ME MONEY!!!!
I know, it's a bit extreme, but still. Patents should be on tangible items. It is my opinion that Korea is in the wrong here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| skconqueror wrote: |
| I honestly hope that MS just says the hell with Korea and forgets they exist. Korean windows is crap anyway. |
Actually, this is about Office, not Windows, and to MS, forking over the $75 million would be less costly than not selling thier product here. For the love of Hangul software in Korea, the international world uses MS, so must Korea.
What kills me is that in Hangul, one can open Word files and even save new files in .doc format; MS should go after them on this one. I mean, if one can create, read, edit and manipulate .doc files within another application, surely that must cross some legal line. I am no lawyer, and I'm sure there must be more than just "ahh, let them do it" on MS's mind with this.
However, if MS created a part of Word that one could create, edit and read .hwp files (don't you wish they would? .hwp files are a pain), you can bet that the Koreans would be on them instantly.
Perhaps all the US companies having their copyrights walked on (Disney, as an easy example) in Korea should begin some class action stuff. It would cost more than it's worth, but it would set some precident for litigious greed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Demophobe wrote: |
Perhaps all the US companies having their copyrights walked on (Disney, as an easy example) in Korea should begin some class action stuff. It would cost more than it's worth, but it would set some precident for litigious greed. |
I don't think you can frame this as Korea vs the USA. These kinds of patent battles go on everywhere. BT claims a patent on hyper links. Amazon.com claims a patent on one click buying. MS is financially backing the battle against Linux. Back in the '90s MS ripped off Stacker's disk compression technology. Then there was the whole Canadian Blackberry vs the American holding company suit over wireless email. Oi.
The patent systems of many nations are, in the view of many, broken when it comes to the software world.
I used to work for a Canadian tax software company and one year Intuit came into Canada and started their own home tax software package. They kept suing us. Our president met the president of Intuit Canada one day on the golf course and asked him about all these lawsuits they kept slapping on us. The guy explained "Oh, nothing personal. It's just the way we do business. It's a tool to gain any advantage." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
corroonb
Joined: 04 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| What kills me is that in Hangul, one can open Word files and even save new files in .doc format; MS should go after them on this one. I mean, if one can create, read, edit and manipulate .doc files within another application, surely that must cross some legal line. I am no lawyer, and I'm sure there must be more than just "ahh, let them do it" on MS's mind with this. |
OpenOffice, a freeware open-source program can do this too. So I don't think the .doc format is patented, I could very well be wrong though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@ corroonb: I believe you are correct and in a way, it serves to point out how ridiculous patenting can be if it is taken to an extreme. MS could have patented .doc, as Adobe have done with .pdf, but they didn't. Why, I don't know, but a part of me wants to believe that they thought it would be in their best interests to allow other companies to utilize their format, as opposed to being so protectionist about it. Like RAMBUS got nailed publicly by being such crybabies and litigious, perhaps MS didn't want to face the same wrath.
@ mindmetoo: I am not looking for a Korea bash at all, but this ruling came down from the Korean court's interpretaion of the patent law, making it a clear case of the Korean courts vs. Microsoft. Not Korea vs. USA in the larger sense. Again, not to bash, but would one, knowing how Koreans tend to be over issues like this, really expect them to rule in favor of MS? Of course they are going to stand behind their man, despite how obviously ludicrous the case is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munji
Joined: 08 Sep 2006
Location: Daejeon
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:15 pm Post subject: Re: Microsoft on wrong side of Korean patent ruling |
|
|
| Demophobe wrote: |
So you would support a patent on a function? ...
|
A lot of patents are based on ideas alone. If you've got money and patience (and a good patent attorney), you can go ahead and patent your idea. Catch is the idea should be novel, innovative and not common knowledge. Now, if you can make the idea work as in produce a working prototype, the patent application is even more powerful.
The IP in this case is the idea of automatic switching of hangul to english in a DTP application (and possibly an algorithm to do it - I'm not sure about the details) . Not the way to implement the method. The patent will hold if they got it patented before MS used this feature in their software suite. It will hold in any court of law as well.
from http://www.slashdot.org:
| Quote: |
With this patent, if you type Korean in English input mode, it automatically converts those string into Korean and changes the input mode also to Korean.
For example, if you type 'eogksalsrnr' by mistake in English input mode, it automatically converts it into Korean.
|
In most cases, you can not patent a software code. Correction: some countries do allow that... Eg. you can not patent games or your run-of-the-mill computer applications.
Most companies at times prefer to not patent very closed information. Once patented, its open to scrutiny and hence liable to be copied. It becomes a patent holder's responsibility to find the ones who infringe on his/her IP right and sue/negotiate with them.
OTOH: it could be a simple case of f*-up patent system applied here in S. Korea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:52 pm Post subject: Re: Microsoft on wrong side of Korean patent ruling |
|
|
| munji wrote: |
A lot of patents are based on ideas alone. If you've got money and patience (and a good patent attorney), you can go ahead and patent your idea. Catch is the idea should be novel, innovative and not common knowledge. Now, if you can make the idea work as in produce a working prototype, the patent application is even more powerful.
The IP in this case is the idea of automatic switching of hangul to english in a DTP application (and possibly an algorithm to do it - I'm not sure about the details) . Not the way to implement the method. The patent will hold if they got it patented before MS used this feature in their software suite. It will hold in any court of law as well.
from http://www.slashdot.org:
| Quote: |
With this patent, if you type Korean in English input mode, it automatically converts those string into Korean and changes the input mode also to Korean.
For example, if you type 'eogksalsrnr' by mistake in English input mode, it automatically converts it into Korean.
|
In most cases, you can not patent a software code. Correction: some countries do allow that... Eg. you can not patent games or your run-of-the-mill computer applications.
Most companies at times prefer to not patent very closed information. Once patented, its open to scrutiny and hence liable to be copied. It becomes a patent holder's responsibility to find the ones who infringe on his/her IP right and sue/negotiate with them.
OTOH: it could be a simple case of f*-up patent system applied here in S. Korea. |
Right. Nothing new here. I said earlier, that it was the automation of the function that was in question and while it may be legal, it's going to take (as you said) a good lawyer to see it through. That says to me it's a crock.
Say what you like, I think it's pathetic. Not just the Korean case (though that's what is being discussed), but many patent issues just look stupid to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Juregen
Joined: 30 May 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Personally
Patents are a joke the way they are abused these days.
I think a patent should only be allowed if and only if the creator is capable of putting a WORKING example of his idea INTO PRACTICE.
All other stuff is MOOT, imho, if youy have a good idea, but not the funds to make it work, you can always sell it to someone who can. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rocklee
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I agree with the last post. Companies like Apple seem to patent on whatever they can get their hands on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, with this patent, the author of the particular function has it working in an application, so I have no issue with his code or algorithm. The problem for me is that the patent is on a function; not code or anything "real", but a patent on something a program can do.
Imagine someone patenting the auto capitalization function (which uses algorithm "A") for the first word in a sentence. If the program needs a shift+letter, there is no problem. If the program does the capitalization automatically, using algorithm "B" (no relation to "A" in anything but it's function), then you have to pay $75,000 in damages and license the function or 'event' from the patent owner.
Ugh. I have already said too much. It's just silly. I am all for certain patents, not anti-Korean nor pro-MS. I just think that this case has stink written all over it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
