[magicalist]

You didn't address the actual point of contention here. How is asserting these patents in court, or using them to get an import ban via the ITC, an example of how the patent system is supposed to work? They cow a company with patents over things barely invented (B&N actually argued that they weren't invented at all, at least not by Microsoft) that should have never had a patent issued for them in the first place, and you argue that once they do agree to a patent license they are getting to license totally awesome things?

"Hate the player not the game" is not an excuse when the charge was "Microsoft shaking down Android vendors". The RIAA (and now the porn industry) was also granted the right to sue and recover up to $150,000 per infringement of their copyrighted works. Now, one might complain that the Copyright Act wasn't written in a world where individual songs could constitute an infringement act, nor did Congress intend the higher damages amount to apply to individuals not engaged in a profit-making venture, but...

In any case, you sound reticent to start reading the patents. Here's a good starting place: Barnes and Noble's response to Microsoft's ITC complaint: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/MSvB&Nanswer.pdf

Yes, the patents really are terrible.

[throwawaykf02]

> How is asserting these patents in court, or using them to get an import ban via the ITC, an example of how the patent system is supposed to work

I thought I did so in point 3.

(Edit: removed bit about copyright because it could quickly derail this thread into a copyright/piracy thread.)

>... (B&N actually argued that they weren't invented at all, at least not by Microsoft) that should have never had a patent issued for them in the first place,...

> Here's a good starting place: Barnes and Noble's response to Microsoft's ITC complaint: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/MSvB&Nanswer.pdf

> Yes, the patents really are terrible.

Really? You're going to take the defendant's word to show that the "patents really are terrible"? I'd like you to find a single defendant in a patent lawsuit who didn't think the asserted patents were terrible.

> ... you argue that once they do agree to a patent license they are getting to license totally awesome things?

No, they'll just get a license to do things covered by the patents that they were allegedly doing anyway. Said things may or may not be totally awesome. And if they're not very useful, why do them in the first place?

>In any case, you sound reticent to start reading the patents.

No, I actually did go and read the pertinent parts of the patents linked above. They're actually better than the really terrible ones I've seen from that era. But I cannot make an off-hand judgement on their overall quality because that would require reading the patents, and the file-wrapper, and the prior art, and...

But, wait. Did you read the patents? And the file-wrapper? And the prior art? Or are you just accepting an opinion given by hilariously biased sources?

[throwawaykf02]

OK, out of curiosity, I actually went ahead and read http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/MSvB&Nanswer.pdf, specifically the parts where they address the patents being asserted.

Now, I'm usually used to reading office actions or reexamination-related documents, whereas this is a response to a lawsuit, so things may be different...

But I gotta say, wow, this looks really weak to me. Let me explain why.

Here's what I usually see when I see prior art presented against a patent: The argument first quotes the claim in question, and for each element in the claim, it cites one or more pieces of prior art, and then they quote (or at least identify via line numbers etc.) the relevant sections of the prior art reference and argue why it invalidates the claim or claim element.

The B&N document mostly just says, "Pfft, this patent covers nothing more than X, and X was already being done in 2000" without any reference to back it up. In only a few places do they cite actual prior art references, but again, they just throw the reference out there without any explanation as to why or how it is pertinent.

Again, like I said, this is not an office action but an answer to a complaint, and detailed arguments may not be part of these. It'd be great if a patent lawyer could weigh in.