MS sued over Windows Update tech
BackWeb technologies is claiming that Microsoft was fully aware of the company's patents when it introduced BITS into Windows Update.
According to an article over on InfoWorld, the company is claiming that Microsoft's Background Intelligent Transfer Service – the system by which file transfers are intelligently throttled so as not to choke other, real-time network tasks – infringes four patents granted to BackWeb Technologies by the US Patents and Trademarks Office between 1999 and 2003.
In a filing with the San Fransisco federal court late last week, BackWeb Technologies alleged that their patents – filed to protect a product the company called Transparent Update – cover “unique and novel methods and processes for transmitting digital information in background mode over a communications link between a computer network and a local computer and throttling the transfer speed to create minimal interference with other processes communicating over a communications link.” While a trifle verbose, the wording certainly covers the intentions of Microsoft's BITS – and if upheld by the court, could see the software giant forced into a large payout, as the technology is distributed with every copy of Windows XP, Vista, Server 2003, and Server 2008 sold.
As if that wasn't enough, changes Microsoft made to BITS for its third revision – in particular functionality that allowed for a psuedo peer-to-peer networking system to transfer parts of updates to machines on the same subnet to save WAN bandwidth – allegedly infringe another of BackWeb's patents, this time on a technology for “distributing data packages across a hybrid peer-to-peer network.”
Seeking an injunction against Microsoft, BackWeb is also claiming that the company was well aware of the patents before it started distributing BITS with Windows XP – and asks the court to triple any damages awarded as a punitive measure. So far, Microsoft has not commented on the proceedings.
Do you think that Microsoft might have trod on BackWeb Technology's toes when producing the BITS technology for Windows Update, or is BackWeb simply looking for a hefty payout from the biggest target in tech? Share your thoughts over in the forums.
Previous Article
23 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyIsnt this the 3rd or 4th one this month??
The issue here is whether Microsoft was aware of the patents or not, and as BlackMage23 says, why it took them so long to bring it to court...
I'm not getting any popcorn to watch this. hell, I'm not even getting a glass of water.
I'm sure it's been said around these parts before, but I think patent trolls should be forced to actually put some effort into creating the things they patent or risk having said patent thrown out and fed to their dog.
Edit: the above comment is probably right, but buggered if I'm going to research (however small) probable patent trolls at 3:30am.
I'd say good luck to them, they do clearly have a product that utilizes the technology and it's effectively being trodden on, in effect MS should be paying a license fee for each copy of windows it sells.
What do you think will happen? MS buy up the company so they acquire the patent themselves?
Seems like they were sitting on the potential law suit so they could get a bigger payout once Microsoft had shipped millions of copies.
I don't agree that software shouldn't be patentable though, as a developer myself, I'd hate to see someone else rip off my idea and make a killing on it. It is suprisingly hard (at least in the UK) to patent software as it is. (you have to prove your software has at least one 'non-obvious' step, of course non-obvious is open to interpretation.)
I'm currently in the process of trying to patent my TripCost online app, but whether the non-obvious steps involved in the algorithm are considered non-obvious enough remains to be seen. :(
Don't get me wrong, I like the app, I just don't see a justification for its patent protection.
Microsoft should only pay license fees if they used the same algorithms, which is probably unlikely. The only thing the patent covers according to the article is an idea, which is backed by a product. But there are many, many ways to achieve the same goals without using the same algorithms.
While you're mostly right in your analysis, there's quite a bit (a couple of hundred lines of code) that goes on between sending the trip information to google maps and getting the price, which serves to give more accurate, real world results (manufacturers MPG ratings tend to be a bit optimistic) Thats what I'm trying to patent. Thanks for the kind works though :)
And there's a limit to how deep a patent search can go, particularly in a field like software routines.
More law suits coming? Seriously...
Oh, and AMD have an official license from Intel to use their patents. Without that, they'd be in a world of IP hurt (As Intel are currently threatening them).
As far as my view on patents go, i'm kinda on the fence. On one hand I agree that it should simply be limited to algorithms and very specific designs. On the other however, I would like any ideas I have to be mine until I've had a fair go at implementing them properly - I certainly wouldn't like someone else with better resources than me to take the idea and develop it before I can.
According to wiki, BITS didn't show in 2k until 2003 in SP3, after it was introduced in XP in 2001 - also found at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa363167.aspx (minus the dates). There's a question of how long before the release of XP had Microsoft been working on BITS, and when any patents of theirs relating to BITS were also filed?
However, in this case you have to wonder whether independent research can come about and discover similar properties given that this field is somewhat limited in scope. One thing for sure is that Microsoft isn't being sued because they are a bit player in the grand scheme of things.