PDA

View Full Version : Oops Microsoft you've done it again!



Yamba
04-14-2009, 10:09 PM
Good to see old Microsoft has been caught out on doing the wrong thing yet again.:neener:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2009/04/15/1239474914416.html

calilifestyle
04-14-2009, 10:39 PM
Yet again a another Bullsht patent, granted in 1996. lol Yeah this so stupid. i swear before 1996 this kind of crap was being done. not by this company. I really need to get into into the patent office and patent anything not patented. then sue in 10 years everyone.

IMI
04-14-2009, 10:55 PM
Yeah, looks to me like some jury just sticking it to big bad old Microsoft, just because they wanted to make them pay.

If they didn't outright steal the guy's code, which they apparently did not, I don't see how they could be guilty of a patent violation.

Maybe now everybody who uses a similar software protection scheme now owes that dude money.

calilifestyle
04-14-2009, 11:38 PM
Yeah, looks to me like some jury just sticking it to big bad old Microsoft, just because they wanted to make them pay.

If they didn't outright steal the guy's code, which they apparently did not, I don't see how they could be guilty of a patent violation.

Maybe now everybody who uses a similar software protection scheme now owes that dude money.

Well yeah everyone selling software, right. its a joke.

AbnRanger
04-15-2009, 02:57 AM
Yeah, looks to me like some jury just sticking it to big bad old Microsoft, just because they wanted to make them pay.

If they didn't outright steal the guy's code, which they apparently did not, I don't see how they could be guilty of a patent violation.

Maybe now everybody who uses a similar software protection scheme now owes that dude money.I'm sure his lawyers were able to show that Microsoft used explicit technology concepts gleaned from the software after he showed them. I doubt they could get a ruling just because the software was similar in function...there had to be specific examples demonstrated by the plaintiff.
It's just like showing your portfolio to a large advertising/marketing agency, they turn you down...and a year later, seeing some one of their major campaigns using artwork nearly identical to some content in your portfolio. I'm sure a jury is smart enough to decide who is playing who.

I was reading an article that showed samples of this one large online logo business that ripped off scores of logos that were near exact copies.
No wonder they can do logo's for $99.

Lightwolf
04-15-2009, 03:12 AM
If they didn't outright steal the guy's code, which they apparently did not, I don't see how they could be guilty of a patent violation.
Patents aren't copyright (which would cover the stealing of code). Patents cover concepts, which is what makes them so extremely dangerous for software. Especially trivial concepts like this one.

Maybe now everybody who uses a similar software protection scheme now owes that dude money.
Yeah, just about anybody who sells trialware... which would include us, come to think of it. And NT ;)

Cheers,
Mike

OnlineRender
04-15-2009, 03:22 AM
who cares did you see how much the dude got im sure Bill Gates will have to perspone his holiday for hmmm about 5 seconds ..

fell sick .....

ted
04-15-2009, 09:53 AM
Jurys are a joke now days. Just like some above said or eluded to, it won't hurt Microsoft much so give the dude money!
I see Jurry's award huge amounts over nothing all the time because it "feels good" to stick it to big companies.
Kind of like Taxes, stick it to those who can afford it even though they don't use most of the services they pay for.
I'm going to a Tea Party in Fresno today because of this mentality.

shrox
04-15-2009, 10:16 AM
I don't agree that software and other "intellectual" property should be patented, it should be copyrighted. I think the US Patent Office made a major blunder when they changed the idea of a patent. Something like the Nike "swoop" can now be patented, even though it doesn't do a darn thing! A process can be patented, but that often involves specialized machinery, from a special spoon to a computer chip production facility. But a logo as a "device"? I don't think that's proper.

IMI
04-15-2009, 11:11 AM
Patents aren't copyright (which would cover the stealing of code). Patents cover concepts, which is what makes them so extremely dangerous for software. Especially trivial concepts like this one.



Right. I was actually confusing patent with copyright, but you obviously figured that out.

OK, so I guess whoever first patented the idea of modeling and rendering in 3D on a computer can sue Autodesk, et al, now?
Assuming someone ever actually patented the idea, that is. Who was the first to patent a 3D software package, anyway?

adamredwoods
04-15-2009, 12:14 PM
Don't get me started on patents. They are ridiculous and leveraged by people who want to make the world a less competitive marketplace (read: monopoly). Patents are good for drug makers and people who have truly invented a new manufacturing process. Not for patent "squatters", or Microsoft, who claims to have patented the double-click: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6727830.html

Amazon's "one-click checkout":
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1017-854105.html

Congress knows its out of hand. From 2007:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9902EEDA153AF93BA3575AC0A9619C8B 63

dmack
04-16-2009, 07:40 AM
Yes, patents are essential to encouraging and allowing good R&D and innovative thinking BUT they have got completely out of control. The Amazon one click checkout is a classic example of that. That one should have failed the 'non obvious' requirement a thousand times over.

dmack
04-16-2009, 07:41 AM
Time to get my inhale exhale patent in......

Lightwolf
04-16-2009, 07:47 AM
Yes, patents are essential to encouraging and allowing good R&D and innovative thinking BUT they have got completely out of control.
Surprisingly the initial motivation behind patents was to get ideas out of (trade) secrecy and into the open with some form of protection.
Which is quite different from what they're currently used for in many areas.

Cheers,
Mike

shrox
04-16-2009, 07:52 AM
Can a method of execution be patented? Or just the device?

Lightwolf
04-16-2009, 07:55 AM
Can a method of execution be patented? Or just the device?
That's the problem... it depends from country to country and is many cases quite obscure.
I.e. in the US even business processes can be patented (which would be a method of execution), while in Europe there needs to be a direct physical appliance - in theory.

Cheers,
Mike

shrox
04-16-2009, 08:01 AM
That's the problem... it depends from country to country and is many cases quite obscure.
I.e. in the US even business processes can be patented (which would be a method of execution), while in Europe there needs to be a direct physical appliance - in theory.

Cheers,
Mike

So a guillotine could be, I suppose the method of dropping a blade down on the neck might be, face up or face two could be two separate patents.

Lightwolf
04-16-2009, 08:09 AM
So a guillotine could be, I suppose the method of dropping a blade down on the neck might be, face up or face two could be two separate patents.
Read through some of them for a laugh. They're usually phrased in a more general manner.
I.e. A device used to severe a head or any other limb off a body, (including, but not being restricted to, a human body) by using gravity to drive a blade (see illustration 1a).

Etc... fun reading.

Cheers,
Mike