Microsoft's i4i patent appeal denied

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Sweetpea, Apr 2, 2010.

  1. Sweetpea

    Sweetpea Guest

    Microsoft's i4i patent appeal denied

    http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/04/01/microsoft-appeal-i4i.html

    "" The Toronto company cheered the news.

    "This has been a long and arduous process, but this decision is a powerful reinforcement of the
    message that smaller enterprises and inventors who own intellectual property can and will be
    protected," i4i chairman Loudon Owen said in a statement.

    Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft said it was disappointed and that it was reviewing its options.

    "We continue to believe there are important matters of patent law that still need to be properly
    addressed, and we are considering our options for going forward," a spokesperson for the company
    told Reuters. ""


    I wonder if this means that the business bully known as Micro$oft would be happy to throw down the
    drain all that money it spent on amassing its treasure trove of software patents.

    I personally would be happy if all software patents were declared invalid in the USA.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Sweetpea, Apr 2, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Sweetpea

    Squeakplea Guest

    On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 05:37:49 +0000, Sweetpea wrote:

    > Microsoft's i4i patent appeal denied
    >
    > http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/04/01/microsoft-appeal-i4i.html
    >
    > "" The Toronto company cheered the news.
    >
    > "This has been a long and arduous process, but this decision is a powerful reinforcement of the
    > message that smaller enterprises and inventors who own intellectual property can and will be
    > protected," i4i chairman Loudon Owen said in a statement.


    “I am cheering because a court has upheld i4i’s software patent.
    So what if the Free Software movement is opposed to all
    software patents, whoever owns them. I do not have to agree
    with the Free Software movement every day.â€


    > Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft said it was disappointed and that it was reviewing its options.
    >
    > "We continue to believe there are important matters of patent law that still need to be properly
    > addressed, and we are considering our options for going forward," a spokesperson for the company
    > told Reuters. ""
    >
    >
    > I wonder if this means that the business bully known as Micro$oft would be happy to throw down the
    > drain all that money it spent on amassing its treasure trove of software patents.


    “The patent in the news is an i4i patent, not a Micro$oft patent.
    I am not totally stupid. I do know this.â€


    > I personally would be happy if all software patents were declared invalid in the USA.


    “But I can still cheer when a court upholds a software patent.
    Just like I am cheering now because a court has upheld i4i’s
    software patent.â€


    --
    "The Great Firewall of China is no more than an irresponsible rumour
    because filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Squeakplea, Apr 3, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 05:42:55 +0000 (UTC), Squeakplea
    <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 05:37:49 +0000, Sweetpea wrote:
    >
    >> Microsoft's i4i patent appeal denied
    >>
    >> http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/04/01/microsoft-appeal-i4i.html
    >>
    >> "" The Toronto company cheered the news.
    >>
    >> "This has been a long and arduous process, but this decision is a powerful reinforcement of the
    >> message that smaller enterprises and inventors who own intellectual property can and will be
    >> protected," i4i chairman Loudon Owen said in a statement.

    >
    > “I am cheering because a court has upheld i4i’s software patent.
    > So what if the Free Software movement is opposed to all
    > software patents, whoever owns them. I do not have to agree
    > with the Free Software movement every day.”
    >
    >
    >> Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft said it was disappointed and that it was reviewing its options.
    >>
    >> "We continue to believe there are important matters of patent law that still need to be properly
    >> addressed, and we are considering our options for going forward," a spokesperson for the company
    >> told Reuters. ""
    >>
    >>
    >> I wonder if this means that the business bully known as Micro$oft would be happy to throw down the
    >> drain all that money it spent on amassing its treasure trove of software patents.

    >
    > “The patent in the news is an i4i patent, not a Micro$oft patent.
    > I am not totally stupid. I do know this.”
    >
    >
    >> I personally would be happy if all software patents were declared invalid in the USA.

    >
    > “But I can still cheer when a court upholds a software patent.
    > Just like I am cheering now because a court has upheld i4i’s
    > software patent.”



    It will lose as MS is taking it to the Supreme Court..
     
    Frank Williams, Apr 3, 2010
    #3
  4. Sweetpea

    Sweetpea Guest

    On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 21:26:12 +1300, Frank Williams wrote:

    > On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 05:42:55 +0000 (UTC), Squeakplea
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 05:37:49 +0000, Sweetpea wrote:
    >>
    >>> Microsoft's i4i patent appeal denied
    >>>
    >>> http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/04/01/microsoft-appeal-i4i.html
    >>>
    >>> "" The Toronto company cheered the news.
    >>>
    >>> "This has been a long and arduous process, but this decision is a
    >>> powerful reinforcement of the message that smaller enterprises and
    >>> inventors who own intellectual property can and will be protected,"
    >>> i4i chairman Loudon Owen said in a statement.

    >>
    >> “I am cheering because a court has upheld i4i’s software patent.
    >> So what if the Free Software movement is opposed to all software
    >> patents, whoever owns them. I do not have to agree with the Free
    >> Software movement every day.”
    >>
    >>
    >>> Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft said it was disappointed and that it
    >>> was reviewing its options.
    >>>
    >>> "We continue to believe there are important matters of patent law that
    >>> still need to be properly addressed, and we are considering our
    >>> options for going forward," a spokesperson for the company told
    >>> Reuters. ""
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I wonder if this means that the business bully known as Micro$oft
    >>> would be happy to throw down the drain all that money it spent on
    >>> amassing its treasure trove of software patents.

    >>
    >> “The patent in the news is an i4i patent, not a Micro$oft patent.
    >> I am not totally stupid. I do know this.”
    >>
    >>
    >>> I personally would be happy if all software patents were declared
    >>> invalid in the USA.

    >>
    >> “But I can still cheer when a court upholds a software patent.
    >> Just like I am cheering now because a court has upheld i4iÂ’s
    >> software patent.”

    >
    >
    > It will lose as MS is taking it to the Supreme Court..


    Just because Micro$oft is attempting to take something to the Supreme Court of the USA is no
    guarantee that it will succeed. Only a very small percentage of all petitions to the Supreme Court ever
    get considered.

    In this particular case i4i owned a software patent that was valid in the USA and Micro$oft knowingly
    and willfully infringed on that patent knowing that it would also most likely put i4i out of business as a
    result. I will be very surprised if Micro$oft will prevail.

    The District Court, and the Court of Appeal both rejected Micro$oft's case. The COA also rejected Micro
    $oft's attempt to get it to sit with all judges together.

    I think that the only way it could possibly prevail would be if software patents in the USA were to be all
    declared invalid. If Micro$oft were to argue this then it would lose a considerable quantity of its own
    software patents.

    What possible case could Micro$oft have?


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Sweetpea, Apr 3, 2010
    #4
  5. Sweetpea

    victor Guest

    On 4/04/2010 1:50 a.m., Sweetpea wrote:
    > On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 21:26:12 +1300, Frank Williams wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 05:42:55 +0000 (UTC), Squeakplea
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 05:37:49 +0000, Sweetpea wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Microsoft's i4i patent appeal denied
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/04/01/microsoft-appeal-i4i.html
    >>>>
    >>>> "" The Toronto company cheered the news.
    >>>>
    >>>> "This has been a long and arduous process, but this decision is a
    >>>> powerful reinforcement of the message that smaller enterprises and
    >>>> inventors who own intellectual property can and will be protected,"
    >>>> i4i chairman Loudon Owen said in a statement.
    >>>
    >>> “I am cheering because a court has upheld i4i’s software patent.
    >>> So what if the Free Software movement is opposed to all software
    >>> patents, whoever owns them. I do not have to agree with the Free
    >>> Software movement every day.”
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft said it was disappointed and that it
    >>>> was reviewing its options.
    >>>>
    >>>> "We continue to believe there are important matters of patent law that
    >>>> still need to be properly addressed, and we are considering our
    >>>> options for going forward," a spokesperson for the company told
    >>>> Reuters. ""
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I wonder if this means that the business bully known as Micro$oft
    >>>> would be happy to throw down the drain all that money it spent on
    >>>> amassing its treasure trove of software patents.
    >>>
    >>> “The patent in the news is an i4i patent, not a Micro$oft patent.
    >>> I am not totally stupid. I do know this.”
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> I personally would be happy if all software patents were declared
    >>>> invalid in the USA.
    >>>
    >>> “But I can still cheer when a court upholds a software patent.
    >>> Just like I am cheering now because a court has upheld i4iÂ’s
    >>> software patent.”

    >>
    >>
    >> It will lose as MS is taking it to the Supreme Court..

    >
    > Just because Micro$oft is attempting to take something to the Supreme Court of the USA is no
    > guarantee that it will succeed. Only a very small percentage of all petitions to the Supreme Court ever
    > get considered.
    >
    > In this particular case i4i owned a software patent that was valid in the USA and Micro$oft knowingly
    > and willfully infringed on that patent knowing that it would also most likely put i4i out of business as a
    > result. I will be very surprised if Micro$oft will prevail.
    >
    > The District Court, and the Court of Appeal both rejected Micro$oft's case. The COA also rejected Micro
    > $oft's attempt to get it to sit with all judges together.
    >
    > I think that the only way it could possibly prevail would be if software patents in the USA were to be all
    > declared invalid. If Micro$oft were to argue this then it would lose a considerable quantity of its own
    > software patents.
    >
    > What possible case could Micro$oft have?
    >
    >


    Its the usual patent troll procedure, i4i bought Grif to acquire the
    patents, they didn't develop it.
    The decision was made in Marshall, East Texas which has a little
    industry of finding for the plaintiff in such cases. Load of bollocks in
    other words. You are just parroting the decision.
     
    victor, Apr 4, 2010
    #5
  6. Sweetpea

    Sweetpea Guest

    On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 11:38:58 +1200, victor wrote:

    > Its the usual patent troll procedure, i4i bought Grif to acquire the
    > patents, they didn't develop it.


    It's not the "usual patent troll procedure". That company sells a product based on the technology of that
    patent.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Sweetpea, Apr 4, 2010
    #6
  7. In message <>, Sweetpea wrote:

    > It's not the "usual patent troll procedure". That company sells a product
    > based on the technology of that patent.


    So Microsoft was justified in going after TomTom, then?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 4, 2010
    #7
  8. Sweetpea

    victor Guest

    On 04/04/10 11:54, Sweetpea wrote:
    > On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 11:38:58 +1200, victor wrote:
    >
    >> Its the usual patent troll procedure, i4i bought Grif to acquire the
    >> patents, they didn't develop it.

    >
    > It's not the "usual patent troll procedure". That company sells a product based on the technology of that
    > patent.
    >
    >

    Its just opportunism


    Microsoft has 5000 patents, crosslicenses them to all sorts of other
    companies for quid pro quo covenants not to assert their claims.
    Everybody infringes in some way, but rigorous assertion of everyones
    rights would not be in anyones interest.
    Here is microsofts patent covenant statement.

    http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx

    Redhat has acquired a patent portfolio for similar purposes
    I'd rather have Microsoft win this one thanks
     
    victor, Apr 4, 2010
    #8
  9. Sweetpea

    Sweetpea Guest

    On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 21:02:05 +1200, victor wrote:

    > I'd rather have Microsoft win this one thanks


    I'd rather the bully (in this case Micro$oft) get its comeuppance and have to comply with the law with
    respect to patents.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Sweetpea, Apr 4, 2010
    #9
  10. Sweetpea

    victor Guest

    On 4/04/2010 9:36 p.m., Sweetpea wrote:
    > On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 21:02:05 +1200, victor wrote:
    >
    >> I'd rather have Microsoft win this one thanks

    >
    > I'd rather the bully (in this case Micro$oft) get its comeuppance and have to comply with the law with
    > respect to patents.
    >
    >


    Ah you think like Microsoft is a naughty person.
    They should be put in the naughty chair.


    Much of the software you use infringes many patents, you have it
    available to you because of goodwill and pragmatism of the patent holders.
    You have no idea which of the following 2000+ IBM and Sun patents your
    software has been infringing.

    http://news.techworld.com/operating-systems/2909/ibm-opens-500-patents-to-open-source/
    http://news.techworld.com/operating-systems/3018/sun-launches-opensolaris-and-frees-1670-patents/

    Its not a good situation according to your boss.
    http://news.techworld.com/applications/3059/torvalds-joins-in-anti-patent-attack/



    There are an estimated 150,000 to 300,000 registered software patents in
    the US alone
     
    victor, Apr 4, 2010
    #10
  11. Sweetpea

    Sweetpea Guest

    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"
     
    Sweetpea, Apr 4, 2010
    #11
  12. Sweetpea

    victor Guest

    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/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/
     
    victor, Apr 4, 2010
    #12
  13. Sweetpea

    Sweetpea Guest

    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"
     
    Sweetpea, Apr 4, 2010
    #13
  14. Sweetpea

    victor Guest

    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.
     
    victor, Apr 5, 2010
    #14
  15. Sweetpea

    Sweetpea Guest

    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"
     
    Sweetpea, Apr 5, 2010
    #15
  16. Sweetpea

    victor Guest

    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.
     
    victor, Apr 5, 2010
    #16
  17. Sweetpea

    Sweetpea Guest

    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"
     
    Sweetpea, Apr 5, 2010
    #17
  18. Sweetpea

    victor Guest

    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-potentially-infringes-283-patents/2100-7344_3-5291403.html
     
    victor, Apr 5, 2010
    #18
  19. Sweetpea

    Sweetpea Guest

    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-potentially-infringes-283-patents/2100-7344_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"
     
    Sweetpea, Apr 5, 2010
    #19
  20. Sweetpea

    victor Guest

    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-potentially-infringes-283-patents/2100-7344_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.
     
    victor, Apr 5, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mcploppy ©

    Re: Charity appeal

    Mcploppy ©, Aug 5, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    522
    Monsignor Larville Jones MD
    Aug 7, 2003
  2. Au79
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    529
    Alfred
    Sep 18, 2007
  3. Southern Kiwi
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    2,212
    Southern Kiwi
    Mar 19, 2006
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    370
    victor
    Aug 31, 2010
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    If A Patent Is A Monopoly, Then A Patent Pool Is A Cartel

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 29, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    512
    Gordon
    Oct 31, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page