SlashGear Japan
Microsoft’s pay-per-use computing patent application, uncovered at the end of December, has been rejected by the US Patent & Trademark Office. The application – which described a system whereby users would receive a high-power PC and be able to select multiple levels of performance, with costs varying according to use – was criticised as being unclear and “fuzzy” in places, with the USPTO feeling that much of what Microsoft was claiming had already been patented.
The system, according to Microsoft, would have benefited both users and retailers. The former would be able to take advantage of a more powerful computer system than they could afford to buy outright, ensuring longevity and sufficient capabilities when the need arose. For instance, regular web surfing would be billed at a lower rate than processor-intensive gaming. Retailers, meanwhile, would have a guaranteed income stream, and Microsoft admitted that in the long run users might in fact pay more than if they had bought a more capable computer outright.
Microsoft can now contest the decision or rework the application and resubmit it. However while it may be relatively straightforward to tweak the language into something less fuzzy – “polls” being one criticized word – it’s hard to imagine how they can get around the USPTO’s belief that the main concepts have already been claimed by others.
2 Responses to “Microsoft Pay-Per-Use patent rejected”
Kop January 2, 2009
Let’s see, you could pay $1,500 for a $1,000 computer and have it locked to one software vendor, watching your every move, or you could build your own $1,000 computer for $700 and use Linux and get all the functionality without the software prison. (And yes, Linux can run *most* Windows games with a compatibility layer, and yes, the software is very functional, and no, it’s not difficult to install. It’s actually easier and quicker to install than Windows XP or Vista.)
NeutralA.P. January 4, 2009
The patent process is for protecting “new” and “unique” inventions.
There is nothing unique or new about pay-per-use systems, not even on computers, and I’m amazed that Microsoft wasted thousands of dollars on lawyers’ fees submitting a patent for something they know is not unique.
In the early days of Internet surfing, ISPs used to charge by the hour or by the use. It’s mostly unlimited access now, but Microsoft can’t make claims to being the “inventors” of the pay-per-use-on-computers model.
Many other computer services have been historically offered on a pay-per-use basis. Computer access at office services companies (i.e., places like Kinko’s) have for years offered specific services (e.g., applications like PageMaker or Indesign) on an hourly or pay-per-use basis.
Many coffee houses now offer free wireless (e.g., Starbucks), but initially many cafés and coffee houses offered these on a pay-per-use basis (and some still do). Many gaming sites use the pay-per-use model, as well.
Granting a patent for a technology that is ubiquitous and has been in use for at least a decade and a half would subvert the patent process and devalue existing patents, and the trust of inventors.
Rewording the patent and trying again doesn’t change the basic model, nor the fact that it is not a unique technology.
Microsoft would be better off actually inventing something, rather than wasting the time of patent adjudicators who are overwhelmed with legitimate claims.
+2