Percent of Patents Discussing “Microsoft”

I looked at all patents that include the word "Microsoft" somewhere within the patent document. These include patents assigned to the company as well as well as patents that simply refer to Microsoft in the specification or list of cited references. That almost 5% of new all patents refer to the software giant is a sign that the company's technology serves as a creative platform for ongoing developments.

Comments

[Joe Miller]

Dennis,
This is fascinating!
How does Google compare?
Would be interesting to compare the frequencies against leading patent recipients, or against leading publicly traded firms by market cap.
Again, fascinating!
Best,
Joe

[GP]

"That almost 5% of new all patents refer to the software giant is a sign that the company's technology serves as a creative platform for ongoing developments."

Can't wait for the Macophiles to attack this statement.

[big hairy rat]

It seems more likely that it is a sign that a lot of patent activity is simply directed to trying to extract money from Microsoft and that Microsoft is defending itself by trying to patent trivialities before anyone else does.

When 5% of all patents are in some way tied to one specific company, a company which is not even cutting edge on any technologies, it is a sign that something is wrong.

[Steve M]

Would be interesting to know what %/number(s) was/were from Micro themselves vs Micro mentions in the apps of others.

[MacIntosh]

"That almost 5% of new all patents refer to the software giant is a sign that the company's technology serves as a creative platform for ongoing developments."

Or an example of archaic, clunky, lock-em-in OS and service model that is in bad need of replacement or at least better alternatives such as MacOS.

Sounds like the author is polishing a few "apples."

[Malcolm Mooney]

At its height, what percent of all patents were filed by Edison, Co.?

"That almost 5% of new all patents refer to the software giant is a sign that the company's technology serves as a creative platform for ongoing developments."

Caveman is bored with his old toolbar. He needs a new one. Maybe one that briefly turns his favorite color and/or plays a snippet of his most recent music download when he selects a new font. Can one of America's ordinary inventors help?

[Just an ordinary inventor(TM)]

Yes; Malcolm, you need help.

[I knew Caveman and you're no Caveman]

Its not about being bored, Caveman is a busy man what with bringing modern man the wheel and fire and the like. If his toolbar could provide more information that is often difficult to provide because of acknowledged real-time constraints of his, or any other, operating systems, he could be more productive, which he desperately wants, since his wheel project is about 6 months behind. He would pay a lot of money for such a toolbar, but alas, despite his long felt need, no one has been able to provide it due to the technical challenges.

Caveman never gets bored, because boredom is for those without imagination (like Mooney). Caveman doesn't even like to use the word "bored."

[Peter Groves]

Or could it be an indication of the chilling effects of over-generous software patents?

[El Rey De Prior Art]

The funny thing is that I've talked to some guys at the MNFs about how they're handling Bilski for CS patents, and it makes me wonder how they stay employed relying on magic words... oh wait...

The only MS patent that I've seen that's worth anything was their "app store" patent, except I have little doubt that it wouldn't withstand re-exam. The language of the claims takes apt/yum/portage (linux package managers that have been around for years) and then just charges on a per-transaction basis.

But don't get me started on Apple's portfolio either. They have numerous "iphone patents" that are all dedicated merely to the combination of old handheld technologies. It's like the examiners never heard of KSR... or anything manufactured by Palm. Sure, the Palm version looked like crap, but nothing in the Patent Act requires prior art to be pretty.

@Malcolm: the OSX docker patent uses 90+ claims for a load of crap. Many of the claims are directly covered by prior art from Stardock. The prior art previously used things like colorization, movement, and drop shadows for the mouseovers. The only new thing the OSX docker patent adds is icon resizing for the mouseover.

[Reminiscing about the old days]

"Yes; Malcolm, you need help."

There was a time when JAOI(TM) thought Moon pie was quirky and harmless.

[Lawrence A. Husick]

Interesting, but poor and unsupported conclusion.

In the sake of full disclosure, when I file on a system or method that is implemented on a computer, I specify the version of the OS that is used. That means that much of the time, I say "Microsoft Windows Version XP" or something similar.

This does not mean that MS products are a basis for the innovation, any more than trees were the technical basis for catapults.

[moelarry]

sure they reference microsoft...in the dead art section

[Malcolm Mooney]

"It's like the examiners never heard of KSR..."

KSR is just now starting to filter down to the software examiners. Give them some time. As we all know, they are not the sharpest tools in the kit and have been brought up to believe that just about anything on a computer is sexy and exciting, as long as you use some fancy terms like "analysis windows," "inferencing matrix," and "data psuedo-sublayer."

[Sn@ke]

Lawrence has it dead on, why anyone would find this result surprising, or even interesting is beyond me.

[Malcolm Mooney]

Lawrence: "This does not mean that MS products are a basis for the innovation, any more than trees were the technical basis for catapults."

Nobody said anything about "technical basis" until you, Lawrenece. But you and Sn@ke should continue to have fun wrestling that strawman.

Try a new salad dressing.

[SF]

"KSR is just now starting to filter down to the software examiners."

I've never seen a software examiner that had any trouble combining references before or after KSR.

[Mark Nowotarski]

I think the technique of looking at phrases in patents to see where the economy is growing is very telling.

Here are the results for “social network”. "Year" means year published.

Year_____Patent Application_____Issued Patent
2008_____814____________________31
2007_____309____________________14
2006_____170____________________11
2005______90_____________________1
2004______24_____________________3

(sorry for the lines. It's the best I could to to put this in table format)

[Mark Nowotarski]

"KSR is just now starting to filter down to the software examiners."

For those interested in learning a little KSR "jujitsu", there will be a panel discussion at the upcoming Patent Forum Feb 25 in San Francisco https://www.worldrg.com/showConference.cfm?confCode=FW09001&field=summary on how to mine BPAI decisions for KSR based arguments to overcome 103 rejections.

If anyone wants to sign up at the last minute, feel free to contact me for a “friend of the speaker” discount.

[Malcolm Mooney]

"I've never seen a software examiner that had any trouble combining references before or after KSR."

Check out the prosecution history of 5,367,627.

[Observer]

"...Moon pie was quirky and harmless"

harmless yes, but, like a fly at a picnic that keeps landing on your potato salad, or the crazy guy at the subway who keeps yelling at everybody, extremely annoying.

(wait, that guy at the subway IS Mooney)

[A]

That almost 5% of new all patents refer to the software giant is a sign that the company's technology serves as a creative platform for ongoing developments.

These include patents assigned to the company as well as well as patents that simply refer to Microsoft in the specification or list of cited references.

Dennis, let us exclude patents assigned to Microsoft from the raw data and thereafter re-plot the data.

[Prior Art Search]

I have a question, how does one find prior art that is made available (to patent offices) by way of oral description and by way of use before or during patent prosecution. Does one search on these aspects as well? Is this something one may come across but only during litigation?

These kinds of prior art may or may not be relevant in the US, but would like to find out on them from readers coming from other jurisdictions.

[Irrelevancy at its very best]

"Check out the prosecution history of 5,367,627."

Woo hooo ... in response to an argument about Examiners applying KSR to software applications, Moon pie pulls out of his arse a patent that issued 14 years ago and will expire in 2 years.

Is there anybody better on this board in responding to an argument with a complete non-sequitur?

[SF]

I've never seen, as part of my practice before the USPTO, a software examiner that had any trouble combining references before or after KSR.

I expect that my experience is typical, although will concede that some exceptions exist. Going forward, I believe the exceptions will dwindle.

[Malcolm Mooney]

irrelevancy: " in response to an argument about Examiners applying KSR to software applications, Moon pie pulls out of his arse a patent that issued 14 years ago and will expire in 2 years."

I was responding to a commenter's statement that he had never seen a software examiner that had any trouble combining references before KSR. The commenter has since amended his statement.

I don't expect anything remotely as classy from you, however.

[Observer]

"responding to an argument with a complete non-sequitur?..."

At least you got something that could be called a response. That is about the best you should expect and is, I suppose, better than the usual, e.g. nothing.

"I don't expect anything remotely as classy from you, however"

Classy? LOL, not as classy as glory holes or dog poop anyway.

Anyway, this is what Agents Provacateurs do ~ they try to stir things up.

As if an objective discussion about patent law issues is not enough.

[MaxDrei]

Try to "stir things up", do they, "Observer", the Mooneys of this world. What's up? I thought that keen young lawyers are delighted to be provoked. Now, in that vein, what your "provacateurs" do must be something else entirely, namely to "provake", right?

How would you define a "classy" contribution? For me, it is one that doesn't bore me, and delivers in style. For example, you (and the baying crowd) would agree, right, that to pick you up on "provake" isn't actually very "classy"?

[Observer]

In this fast-typing world, time is money. And money can be classy. Unless you're Mooney.

[Observer]

For the record its "provocateur"

Figures a "you're-a-peein'" would notice that one...

Thanks for the keen and classy observation. Even if you are one of the puppets, which I haven't made up my mind on yet.

[real anonymous]

"That almost 5% of new all patents refer to the software giant is a sign that the company's technology serves as a semi-ubiquitous, if not creative, platform for ongoing computer developments."

Numerically, Linux is installed on less than 1% of PCs, yet:

2008:

Results of Search in US Patent Collection db for:
ISD/20080101->20081231: 185246 patents.

Results of Search in US Patent Collection db for:
(ISD/20080101->20081231 AND (unix$ OR linux$)): 3969 patents. (2.14%, +71% from 2004)

Results of Search in US Patent Collection db for:
(ISD/20080101->20081231 AND (microsoft$ AND windows$)): 4196 patents. (2.27%, +57% from 2004)

2004:

Results of Search in US Patent Collection db for:
ISD/20040101->20041231: 181318 patents.

Results of Search in US Patent Collection db for:
(ISD/20040101->20041231 AND (unix$ OR linux$)): 2260 patents. (1.25%)

Results of Search in US Patent Collection db for:
(ISD/20040101->20041231 AND (microsoft$ AND windows$)): 2638 patents. (1.45%)

[The truncation is necessary to retrieve the e.g. Windows.RTM. references.]

2010:

By 2010, I suspect Linux/Unix will be more ubiquitous than Microsoft Windows in terms of patent references (assuming current trends) not withstanding the Open Source community's aversion to patents, and the courts will be well on their way to correcting the thrashing [trashing?] of the patent system, as a business model, by Microsoft.

For some real numbers on Windows' semi-ubiquity and its role in fostering leading-edge technology and research, see:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Market-Share-Smackdown-Linux-85-4-vs-Windows-1-89071.shtml

"In the land of supercomputers Linux is king, and Windows is barely a multicellular organism."

Creative platform indeed.

[SF]

"Check out the prosecution history of 5,367,627"

I believe that case is more typical of the prior "no TSM is good guh-news" climate than the current post-software-patent-gold-rush climate at the USPTO where the "rationale" for combining is that the words in the claim are found in two references, both of which also include the word "software."

The luster of the software-patent-gold rush faded well before KSR, in my opinion.

[Howling at the moon]

"Check out the prosecution history of 5,367,627"

For those that actually checked out the prosecution history, the Examiner did apply a 35 USC 103 rejection -- not quite the example moon beam thought it was.

[Malcolm Mooney]

"For those that actually checked out the prosecution history, the Examiner did apply a 35 USC 103 rejection -- not quite the example moon beam thought it was."

Um, you forgot the punch line.

[ROTFL]

"Um, you forgot the punch line."

and then Moonie said, "really, I thought it was in the best interest of my client not to file for that patent."