Another clear reason we need to get rid of software patents. This is just silly.

"If you can't innovate – sue!"
–Steve Ballmer

Software patents like this have got to go. I don't blame MSFT for firing some shots given how many get shot at them but the number of software patents approved by the USPTO is a joke. The PTO is supposed to encourage innovation but the current system favors large companies not start-ups

Those are REALLY general. I think they're gearing-up for a big patent fight with some other big players and Sales Force is a first swing.

Those pantents seem to be generic enough to be used against pretty much any website or software

So Microsoft pretty much patented web apps…

This one has to be the most ridiculous:
System and method for providing and displaying a web page having an embedded menu

Is Microsoft slowly turning into the next IBM? I guess when you can't innovate you just start suing.

Only the fourth time MS has sued over patent infringements. . . wouldn't have thought that.

Are those patents really as broad as they sound?

"Method and system for mapping between logical data and physical data."

Can't we just keep the peace?

Those would have too be the most stupidest patents I have ever seen, ever. The patent system needs to be seriously reformed.

Pretty sure there are literally hundreds if not thousands of web applications out there that implement one or more methods that these patents contain.

"System and method for providing and displaying a web page having an embedded menu"
Sounds rather broad doesn't it? Isn't that like every website?

Surprised Microsoft has only filed three lawsuits before in the past 20+ years

this is just the first move in the acquisition of Salesfoce by Microsoft

Wow, what giant assholes.

the title of a patent is not the patent. go read the claims. stop thinking the title is the end all be all detailed explanation of the claims.

http://veritastoday.wordpress.com/

If MS nails Salesforce on just about any of those patents, we developers are borked!
There must be a lot of prior art that would upturn most of these patents.
So what marble has dropped out of Ballmers head this week?

Or is this just MS trying to bully Salesforce into selling to them, a share split, an ad deal, licencing like with Novell?

I get the feeling this is a sign of MS wanting to own this market, flex its muscles to show it is ready to enter it properly, and is a sign that with their online Office stuff sorta on-track… they are internally ready to get aggressive online.

Salesforce always seemed a good candidate for a Google acquisition a couple of years ago, but now they seem too big, and perhaps this move by MS is an endorsement of that – or trying to prevent it if they can't buy it, before they roll out their Office integrated Salesforce clone/API/plugin?

I'm curious if they were granted patents on merit from existing applications or whether they patented the concepts?

There's a lot of similarity between online and offline GUIs and even infrastructure – they've been converging for a while, and diverging too as online has carved its own niche. But these are very generic patents that seem to cover both, and were likely awarded to MS for offline apps.

Whereas Apple can point to real touchscreen tech and patents (excuse pun), can MS point to any online apps they have made/bought (Hotmail?) that share patented features with Saleforce?

Or is this simply a case of company who missed the train trying to derail the leader by pointing to their invention of the wheel, like British Telecom trying to claim the hyperlink as their invention?

Reminds me of the Sco case, and we know how that ended up!

Uhm, to all above, those are the "patent names". From what I understand a patent can have same / similar names but different meanings / descriptions / wares. The names are obviously pretty general, it's the descriptions / wares that are probably what defines the patent being infringed.

You wouldn't be writing your post without them. What for? invent a solution through hours of time and life sacrifice and some bozo comes along, copies your hard work (china, India) and puts out into market!

You would stand for this for how long? nanosecond. At least MS does not suit every tech that breathes around them.

I thought sliding a bar or using fingers to unlock a touch screen device (some thing along those lines. patented by Apple) was the craziest one.

These top every thing for now!

System and method for providing and displaying a web page having an embedded menu
Method and System for staking toolbars in a computer display.

Method and system for mapping between logical data and physical data
?? – We are ALL IN VIOLATION of this one if you do any software development – a complete joke that some clown in the patent office ok'ed this.

if I can join either Saleforce.com or MS, which one should I join for a brighter future?

Sure, that's how many times they sued over it…. but how many times did they threaten to sue over it?

When Microsoft comes knocking at the door, I bet a lot of companies just fold and give Microsoft whatever they want.

Why weren't the actual patent numbers given?

Amen brother, clearly MSFT trumped Al Gore and are the true creators.

You'll notice that those are only the NAMES of the patents. Patent definitions themselves are much more in-depth than the names (in the same way a story is much more in-depth than the title, duh). If M$ actually has a case, it would mean that Salesforce.com is using the exact same methods and systems defined in the patent, right down to the logic trees. Chances that they just invented said exact duplicate methods and systems and happened to arrive at them entirely independently, especially since they use IIS/ASPX and other M$ techs, are practically nil. The software patent system works just fine, and all of these patents are publicly available to read.

Maybe you didn't read. This is the fourth patent lawsuit by M$ in 20+ years. How many has the competition filed? Seriously, knee-jerk M$-bashing is so 2001.

Folks, the title of a patent has little or no relation to the patent's scope. The title and abstract is generally intended to convey the general technology area of the invention, rather than the claimed invention.

The patents might still be too broad, but you need to look that the patent claims, which are invariably much much more narrow than the title.

Claim 1 of the first listed "Title" is:

1. A method in a computer system for providing a view of data, the method comprising:

providing physical data having standard and custom data, the standard data having entries with data for standard fields, the custom data having data for custom fields, the custom fields being represented by pivot data;

providing a map between standard and custom fields and logical fields of logical data; providing a result set containing physical data from a standard field and a custom field;

organizing the physical data of the result set into logical data using the provided map; and storing the organized logical data as the view.

That claim and the others might still be too broad or invalid. Just wanted to clarify that its the patent claims that define the property right provided by a patent. The independent claims (those that do not refer to any other claim) are the broadest.

Crazy how far Microsoft's lawyers and people will dig into other companies to find things such as these.

We use Salesforce at work and it's been quite a great addition so far, would suck to see something happen to it. Just back down Microsoft, these kinds of filings don't help the web and software industry. Let it go, ya know?

Folks, the title of a patent has little or no relation to the patent's scope. The title and abstract is generally intended to convey the general technology area of the invention, rather than the claimed invention.

most others likely cowered in fear and settled in some manner

this is microsoft going at google. establish some momentum here and then go after google apps.

Whoa what? This has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. It's almost like they're just using it as a way to start negotiations towards something they really want.

Very poor move and another example why software patents are ridiculous.

are there other past examples of MSFT suing a company before buying it? I don't know of any

Check out the insider trading at Salesforce…not good.
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/94/6405.html

Every single business day since Dec. 2009, Marc Benioff is selling 10,000 shares through his automatic sale.

I liked this Paul Graham's esse about software patents http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html

I totally support Microsoft's move, they should definitely sue the companies for infringement. Google is already taking Microsoft's market share, atleast they will earn some revenue from compensations and negotiations

Tye you are too young to understand. Software vs Hardware patents. Moron!

Microsoft after years of trying to undermine the Internet wants to claim patent ownership
over techniques as old as a cheese sandwich by simply applying new catchy phrases to those
techniques.

I suppose they will be retroactively seek to sue companies that ran cloud computing systems in the 60's and 70's

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/05/14/bad-news-for-microsoft-i4i-patent-emerges-reexamination/id=10537/

After getting hit with a 200+ mil one, you can't really blame them.

As the companies try to provide everything under the sun this is bound to happen. A company suing Facebook, HTC suing Apple and now Microsoft suing Salesforce.com — this is going to be a trend.

Many software patents are not of things created through hours of time and life sacrifice. US companies can't innovate because other US companies are suing them over obvious software ideas. So you are hurting yourselves more than any damage caused by China and India copycats. It's not so much the idea that's important as the execution. But many companies think they can get rich through owning the idea and not doing anything with it.

Pathetic.

If you can't implement something, make a patent of it, and if someone does implement it, ride his boat and his money.

Mr. I support Microsoft. If they win this one. You wouldn't be able to make a descent web app without paying them royalities for patents. :)

They have also been hit with fine of over $1.35 billion from the European Union. http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9880256-7.html

I doubt the European Union would have dealt with them so harshly if it was not for all the little companies (Sun, Real, etc.) complaining about MSFT not playing fair.

Kind of strange to hear MS suing another company.. Okay fine, just don't dare to sue google for its android.

I assume you meant "essay" rather than a mexican ganster?

@Tye. You would prefer: invent a solution through hours of time and life sacrifice and some bozo comes along and sues you for patent infringement

Nevertheless, these patents don't seem that much important, and not directly related to the core of the CRM product.

"Timing and velocity control for displaying graphical information" is the kind of thing you could see anywhere. Patents should be more meaningful, or not be granted. Giving zillions of patents for every small thing in the software world will help no one.

If this is the best 'innovation' the largest software maker can come up with (and have resort to the law to compete) then the US software industry is doomed. Really sad, shame on you once again, Microsoft…

Nope, still plainly bleedin' obvious to a person skilled in the art…

Microsoft has sued other companies just four times in its history? this is quite interesting.

Indeed you're right. Patents are for a particular way to implement a concept, not the concept itself. From the write up not much is revealed as to the generality of the patents or who if anyone is "borked".

It's not using a finger to unlock a touch screen device that is patented, its a particular method of sensing how many fingers are touching the screen and in what direction they're being dragged. You can't patent a concept you can only patent the actual method to implement the concept. As the expression says, there are many ways to skin a cat… but you can't get a patent for skinning a cat you can only get a patent on a particular method for skinning a cat. If others invent a different cat skinning technique, no patent violation.

You misunderstand the patent system. It's the particular method that is patented, not the concept.

Yes, finally someone who understands what they're talking about!

the stuff you can patent these days, its just amazing!

probably not really a concern since MB has over 12million shares!

you are right, I think so.

When they sued Sybase, it was to crush it, not buy it.

If you read the descriptions, well they are pretty board as well…
i.e.
The method of claim 1, wherein the graphic objects include buttons that are activated when the user clicks a select button on a pointing device while a cursor controlled by the pointing device is positioned over the button.

the broadness of that claim really depends on what claim 1 is, since that claim seems to be dependent on claim 1.

Those are REALLY general. I think they're gearing-up for a big patent fight with some other big players and Sales Force is a first swing.

aigo
hi, it's aigo, thanks for your sharing

Thank you for your post. This is only the fourth time that Microsoft has sued another company for patent violations …