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

 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-06-2010
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Sweetpea wrote:

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


Well, for example, Free Software for encoding/decoding MPEG files and DVD-
Video discs—those would seem to be in contravention of the patent pool held
by MPEG-LA. Do you think developers of Free Software such as FFmpeg, VLC and
so on should be prosecuted for infringing those patents?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Sweetpea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-06-2010
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 08:41:04 +1200, victor wrote:

> 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.


No.

You've not presented any evidence other than unconfirmed allusion, hearsay and rumor.

Microsoft was asked repeatedly to state the specifics of its allegations specifically so that any
infringement could be addressed. To date Micro$oft has not produced ANY specific details relating to
any patent infringement by any aspect of any Free Open Source software.

All it's done is spread unconfirmed allusion, hearsay, and rumor.

All you're doing is assisting Micro$oft to continue spreading unconfirmed allusion, hearsay and rumor.

So, if you have any actual specifics relating to actual specific patents presently owned by Micro$oft,
now would be a good time to let the Open Source community know what they are so that they can be
addressed.

I bet you can't - because to date there are NO confirmed infringements of any Micro$oft patents by any
Free Open Source bits of software.

And, if any confirmed infringements have been brought to the attention of the relevant parties I'm sure
that they will have already been addressed.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Sweetpea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-06-2010
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 12:22:30 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Sweetpea wrote:
>
>> Please advise which specific patents (ie NAME THEM) actually have (ie
>> not "potentially") been infringed.

>
> Well, for example, Free Software for encoding/decoding MPEG files and
> DVD- Video discs—those would seem to be in contravention of the patent
> pool held by MPEG-LA. Do you think developers of Free Software such as
> FFmpeg, VLC and so on should be prosecuted for infringing those patents?


No.

I think that by definition software patents are a nonsense because I do not believe that mathematics
should be (or can be) legitimately patentable.

And I think that those who live by the nonsense that is software patents should also die by the
nonsense that is software patents.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
 
Reply With Quote
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-06-2010
Sweetpea <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 08:41:04 +1200, victor wrote:
>
> > 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.

>
> No.
>
> You've not presented any evidence other than unconfirmed allusion,
> hearsay and rumor.
>
> Microsoft was asked repeatedly to state the specifics of its
> allegations specifically so that any
> infringement could be addressed. To date Micro$oft has not produced
> ANY specific details relating to
> any patent infringement by any aspect of any Free Open Source
> software.
>
> All it's done is spread unconfirmed allusion, hearsay, and rumor.
>
> All you're doing is assisting Micro$oft to continue spreading
> unconfirmed allusion, hearsay and rumor.
>
> So, if you have any actual specifics relating to actual specific
> patents presently owned by Micro$oft,
> now would be a good time to let the Open Source community know what
> they are so that they can be
> addressed.
>
> I bet you can't - because to date there are NO confirmed infringements
> of any Micro$oft patents by any
> Free Open Source bits of software.
>
> And, if any confirmed infringements have been brought to the attention
> of the relevant parties I'm sure
> that they will have already been addressed.
>
>

The list of potentially infringe mention comes from open source ip
lawyers not Microsoft. If you read the link you would have been able to
figure that out. Patents can only be tested in court.
Until then it's only potentially infringing like Microsofts custom xml
was.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sweetpea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-06-2010
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 18:11:46 +0000, victor wrote:

>> I bet you can't - because to date there are NO confirmed infringements
>> of any Micro$oft patents by any
>> Free Open Source bits of software.
>>
>> And, if any confirmed infringements have been brought to the attention
>> of the relevant parties I'm sure
>> that they will have already been addressed.

>
> The list of potentially infringe mention comes from open source ip
> lawyers not Microsoft. If you read the link you would have been able to
> figure that out. Patents can only be tested in court. Until then it's
> only potentially infringing like Microsofts custom xml was.


So, take it to court if you're that worried about it.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
 
Reply With Quote
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-06-2010
Sweetpea <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 18:11:46 +0000, victor wrote:
>
> >> I bet you can't - because to date there are NO confirmed
> > > infringements
> >> of any Micro$oft patents by any
> >> Free Open Source bits of software.
> >>
> >> And, if any confirmed infringements have been brought to the
> > > attention
> >> of the relevant parties I'm sure
> >> that they will have already been addressed.

> >
> > The list of potentially infringe mention comes from open source ip
> > lawyers not Microsoft. If you read the link you would have been able
> > to
> > figure that out. Patents can only be tested in court. Until then
> > it's
> > only potentially infringing like Microsofts custom xml was.

>
> So, take it to court if you're that worried about it.
>

Not the best way to deal with a risk.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2010
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Sweetpea wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 12:22:30 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Sweetpea wrote:
>>
>>> Please advise which specific patents (ie NAME THEM) actually have (ie
>>> not "potentially") been infringed.

>>
>> Well, for example, Free Software for encoding/decoding MPEG files and
>> DVD- Video discs—those would seem to be in contravention of the patent
>> pool held by MPEG-LA. Do you think developers of Free Software such as
>> FFmpeg, VLC and so on should be prosecuted for infringing those patents?

>
> No.
>
> I think that by definition software patents are a nonsense because I do
> not believe that mathematics should be (or can be) legitimately
> patentable.
>
> And I think that those who live by the nonsense that is software patents
> should also die by the nonsense that is software patents.


So Microsoft should be prosecuted for infringing software patents, but Free
Software developers should not? I find that a hypocritical position.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sweetpea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2010
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 20:14:45 +0000, victor wrote:

>> > The list of potentially infringe mention comes from open source ip
>> > lawyers not Microsoft. If you read the link you would have been able
>> > to
>> > figure that out. Patents can only be tested in court. Until then it's
>> > only potentially infringing like Microsofts custom xml was.

>>
>> So, take it to court if you're that worried about it.

>
> Not the best way to deal with a risk.


I think it is. Best to get the whole software patents bullshit thrown out as being quite utterly invalid.

Mathematics is not patentable and Micro$oft is peeing itself over the possibility that all its cache of
software patents would be ruled invalid.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sweetpea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2010
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 15:02:39 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Sweetpea wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 12:22:30 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Sweetpea wrote:
>>>
>>>> Please advise which specific patents (ie NAME THEM) actually have (ie
>>>> not "potentially") been infringed.
>>>
>>> Well, for example, Free Software for encoding/decoding MPEG files and
>>> DVD- Video discs—those would seem to be in contravention of the patent
>>> pool held by MPEG-LA. Do you think developers of Free Software such as
>>> FFmpeg, VLC and so on should be prosecuted for infringing those
>>> patents?

>>
>> No.
>>
>> I think that by definition software patents are a nonsense because I do
>> not believe that mathematics should be (or can be) legitimately
>> patentable.
>>
>> And I think that those who live by the nonsense that is software
>> patents should also die by the nonsense that is software patents.

>
> So Microsoft should be prosecuted for infringing software patents, but
> Free Software developers should not? I find that a hypocritical
> position.


Then you don't understand what I've said. But that wouldn't be the first time that you've failed to
understand what someone's been saying.

So long as software patents are considered to be valid, then the holders of those patents should
protect them.

But I don't consider software patents to be valid, and am reasonably confident that if someone takes
someone else to court for infringing a software patent then there would be a fairly strong prospect of
software patents being legally declared invalid (which they are due to mathematical algorithms being
not patentable).


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
 
Reply With Quote
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2010
On 8/04/2010 12:54 a.m., Sweetpea wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 15:02:39 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message<(E-Mail Removed)>, Sweetpea wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 12:22:30 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message<(E-Mail Removed)>, Sweetpea wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Please advise which specific patents (ie NAME THEM) actually have (ie
>>>>> not "potentially") been infringed.
>>>>
>>>> Well, for example, Free Software for encoding/decoding MPEG files and
>>>> DVD- Video discs—those would seem to be in contravention of the patent
>>>> pool held by MPEG-LA. Do you think developers of Free Software such as
>>>> FFmpeg, VLC and so on should be prosecuted for infringing those
>>>> patents?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> I think that by definition software patents are a nonsense because I do
>>> not believe that mathematics should be (or can be) legitimately
>>> patentable.
>>>
>>> And I think that those who live by the nonsense that is software
>>> patents should also die by the nonsense that is software patents.

>>
>> So Microsoft should be prosecuted for infringing software patents, but
>> Free Software developers should not? I find that a hypocritical
>> position.

>
> Then you don't understand what I've said. But that wouldn't be the first time that you've failed to
> understand what someone's been saying.
>
> So long as software patents are considered to be valid, then the holders of those patents should
> protect them.
>


So you DO think that rather than consider patents as a reserved right
which patent holders do all the time, the patent holders have a moral
obligation to attack any software which potentially infringes ?

You had better give up on free software because it depends on the
goodwill of many patent holders including Microsoft not to initiate
prosecutions.

 
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