Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Microsoft's i4i patent appeal denied

Reply
Thread Tools

Microsoft's i4i patent appeal denied

 
 
Sweetpea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2010
On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 22:04:18 +1200, victor wrote:

> Ah you think like Microsoft is a naughty person.


No.

I think that Micro$oft is an immoral corporation that acts in no one's interests other than its own. And, in
this case it deliberately built into its own software functionality that had hitherto been supplied by
software written by another company and which was patented.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2010
On 4/04/2010 10:17 p.m., Sweetpea wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 22:04:18 +1200, victor wrote:
>
>> Ah you think like Microsoft is a naughty person.

>
> No.
>
> I think that Micro$oft is an immoral corporation that acts in no one's interests other than its own. And, in
> this case it deliberately built into its own software functionality that had hitherto been supplied by
> software written by another company and which was patented.
>
>


How is that different to the 235 Microsoft patents that the Linux
software you are using infringes ? The Linux kernel alone infringes 42
Microsoft patents. Your GUI infringes 65. Your email programs infringe 15.

You can apply the same level of moral equivalence to that, but its
completely pointless, each assertion of patents just removes potential
functionality from all of us.

Its a cold war

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu.../28/100033867/

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Sweetpea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2010
On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 23:10:42 +1200, victor wrote:

>> I think that Micro$oft is an immoral corporation that acts in no one's
>> interests other than its own. And, in this case it deliberately built
>> into its own software functionality that had hitherto been supplied by
>> software written by another company and which was patented.

>
> How is that different to the 235 Microsoft patents that the Linux
> software you are using infringes ? The Linux kernel alone infringes 42
> Microsoft patents. Your GUI infringes 65. Your email programs infringe
> 15.


IIRC email was around long before Micro$oft was.

you'll need to prove patent *infringement* for the software developers that you've just slandered.


> You can apply the same level of moral equivalence to that, but its
> completely pointless, each assertion of patents just removes potential
> functionality from all of us.


Micro$oft actually knew the patent existed and knew that it's actions would most likely put that other
company out of business after a while.

The court sided with the developers who had been maligned by Micro$oft.

Try posting something coherent!


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
 
Reply With Quote
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2010
On 05/04/10 08:51, Sweetpea wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 23:10:42 +1200, victor wrote:
>
>>> I think that Micro$oft is an immoral corporation that acts in no one's
>>> interests other than its own. And, in this case it deliberately built
>>> into its own software functionality that had hitherto been supplied by
>>> software written by another company and which was patented.

>>
>> How is that different to the 235 Microsoft patents that the Linux
>> software you are using infringes ? The Linux kernel alone infringes 42
>> Microsoft patents. Your GUI infringes 65. Your email programs infringe
>> 15.

>
> IIRC email was around long before Micro$oft was.
>
> you'll need to prove patent *infringement* for the software developers that you've just slandered.


I expect they can take it up with Microsoft, this is their information
and its most likely correct
They are the ones whose restraint in the pursuit of their patent rights
allows you to use your Linux distribution.


>
>
>> You can apply the same level of moral equivalence to that, but its
>> completely pointless, each assertion of patents just removes potential
>> functionality from all of us.

>
> Micro$oft actually knew the patent existed and knew that it's actions would most likely put that other
> company out of business after a while.
>
> The court sided with the developers who had been maligned by Micro$oft.
>
> Try posting something coherent!
>


Their business depended on a plugin for Microsoft Word.
Still does.
I'd say that this suit is an exit strategy, Microsoft will find a
workaround.
The patents are a windfall for i4i, but they prevent Microsoft from
enabling one little bit of functionality built into Word for all users.
Doesn't bother me, I'm just commenting on the hypocrisy of haters.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Sweetpea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-05-2010
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 11:17:36 +1200, victor wrote:

>> Micro$oft actually knew the patent existed and knew that it's actions
>> would most likely put that other company out of business after a while.
>>
>> The court sided with the developers who had been maligned by Micro$oft.
>>
>> Try posting something coherent!

>
> Their business depended on a plugin for Microsoft Word. Still does. I'd
> say that this suit is an exit strategy, Microsoft will find a
> workaround.
> The patents are a windfall for i4i, but they prevent Microsoft from
> enabling one little bit of functionality built into Word for all users.


Those patents were not a "windfall" - they were based on technology that i4i developed.

That "one little bit of functionality built into [MS] Word" was only built in after i4i had already been
selling that plugin!

i4i's entire business was based on technology that it developed, patented, and sold as that plugin.

So long as software patents are valid the patent that i4i developed and registered is legitimate. Micro
$oft knew about the plugin, knew about the patent, and that it was a valid patent, and then deliberately
acted in contravention of that patent.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
 
Reply With Quote
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-05-2010
On 5/04/2010 6:56 p.m., Sweetpea wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 11:17:36 +1200, victor wrote:
>
>>> Micro$oft actually knew the patent existed and knew that it's actions
>>> would most likely put that other company out of business after a while.
>>>
>>> The court sided with the developers who had been maligned by Micro$oft.
>>>
>>> Try posting something coherent!

>>
>> Their business depended on a plugin for Microsoft Word. Still does. I'd
>> say that this suit is an exit strategy, Microsoft will find a
>> workaround.
>> The patents are a windfall for i4i, but they prevent Microsoft from
>> enabling one little bit of functionality built into Word for all users.

>
> Those patents were not a "windfall" - they were based on technology that i4i developed.
>
> That "one little bit of functionality built into [MS] Word" was only built in after i4i had already been
> selling that plugin!
>
> i4i's entire business was based on technology that it developed, patented, and sold as that plugin.
>
> So long as software patents are valid the patent that i4i developed and registered is legitimate. Micro
> $oft knew about the plugin, knew about the patent, and that it was a valid patent, and then deliberately
> acted in contravention of that patent.
>
>


So as LDO says, you will be supporting Microsoft when they assert their
patents.
And now that you know that the linux desktop stack potentially infringes
280 odd Microsoft patents according to OSDN you can stick with your
principles and chuck your PC in the trash and we won't have to put up
with your pathetic hate rants here.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sweetpea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-05-2010
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 20:54:33 +1200, victor wrote:

> So as LDO says, you will be supporting Microsoft when they assert their
> patents.


No.

I don't believe software should be patented.

But so long as the software is patentable in the USA then American corporations must comply with the
law.

I am pleased to see that this is unlikely to be the case here in NZ.


> And now that you know that the linux desktop stack potentially infringes
> 280 odd Microsoft patents according to OSDN you can stick with your
> principles and chuck your PC in the trash and we won't have to put up
> with your pathetic hate rants here.


Please advise which specific patents are alleged to be being infringed.

At this time I have not heard of even 1 patent that actually *IS* infringed.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
 
Reply With Quote
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-05-2010
On 5/04/2010 9:27 p.m., Sweetpea wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 20:54:33 +1200, victor wrote:
>
>> So as LDO says, you will be supporting Microsoft when they assert their
>> patents.

>
> No.
>
> I don't believe software should be patented.
>
> But so long as the software is patentable in the USA then American corporations must comply with the
> law.
>
> I am pleased to see that this is unlikely to be the case here in NZ.
>
>
>> And now that you know that the linux desktop stack potentially infringes
>> 280 odd Microsoft patents according to OSDN you can stick with your
>> principles and chuck your PC in the trash and we won't have to put up
>> with your pathetic hate rants here.

>
> Please advise which specific patents are alleged to be being infringed.
>
> At this time I have not heard of even 1 patent that actually *IS* infringed.
>
>

http://news.cnet.com/Group-Linux-pot...3-5291403.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sweetpea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-05-2010
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 22:08:41 +1200, victor wrote:

> On 5/04/2010 9:27 p.m., Sweetpea wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 20:54:33 +1200, victor wrote:
>>
>>> So as LDO says, you will be supporting Microsoft when they assert
>>> their patents.

>>
>> No.
>>
>> I don't believe software should be patented.
>>
>> But so long as the software is patentable in the USA then American
>> corporations must comply with the law.
>>
>> I am pleased to see that this is unlikely to be the case here in NZ.
>>
>>
>>> And now that you know that the linux desktop stack potentially
>>> infringes 280 odd Microsoft patents according to OSDN you can stick
>>> with your principles and chuck your PC in the trash and we won't have
>>> to put up with your pathetic hate rants here.

>>
>> Please advise which specific patents are alleged to be being infringed.
>>
>> At this time I have not heard of even 1 patent that actually *IS*
>> infringed.
>>
>>

> http://news.cnet.com/Group-Linux-pot...3-5291403.html


Please advise which specific patents (ie NAME THEM) actually have (ie not "potentially") been
infringed.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
 
Reply With Quote
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-05-2010
On 05/04/10 22:39, Sweetpea wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 22:08:41 +1200, victor wrote:
>
>> On 5/04/2010 9:27 p.m., Sweetpea wrote:
>>> On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 20:54:33 +1200, victor wrote:
>>>
>>>> So as LDO says, you will be supporting Microsoft when they assert
>>>> their patents.
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> I don't believe software should be patented.
>>>
>>> But so long as the software is patentable in the USA then American
>>> corporations must comply with the law.
>>>
>>> I am pleased to see that this is unlikely to be the case here in NZ.
>>>
>>>
>>>> And now that you know that the linux desktop stack potentially
>>>> infringes 280 odd Microsoft patents according to OSDN you can stick
>>>> with your principles and chuck your PC in the trash and we won't have
>>>> to put up with your pathetic hate rants here.
>>>
>>> Please advise which specific patents are alleged to be being infringed.
>>>
>>> At this time I have not heard of even 1 patent that actually *IS*
>>> infringed.
>>>
>>>

>> http://news.cnet.com/Group-Linux-pot...3-5291403.html

>
> Please advise which specific patents (ie NAME THEM) actually have (ie not "potentially") been
> infringed.
>
>


So now you are in the "Its OK until you actually get pinged in court" camp.
Just like Microsoft was.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
If A Patent Is A Monopoly, Then A Patent Pool Is A Cartel Lawrence D'Oliveiro NZ Computing 1 10-31-2010 04:23 AM
He Who Lives By The Software Patent, Dies By The Software Patent Lawrence D'Oliveiro NZ Computing 1 08-31-2010 08:35 AM
Writing an Appeal Letter for remarking an assignment (University level) Gameface Computer Support 28 07-11-2004 03:01 PM
Re: Charity appeal Mcploppy Computer Support 2 08-07-2003 08:07 AM
Re: Charity appeal Monsignor Larville Jones MD Computer Support 0 08-05-2003 11:39 PM



Advertisments