Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Slashdot.org News

Slashdot infringing on Microsoft patent #US5819032 183

Posted by Hemos from the we-always-knew-it dept.
Anonymous Coward writes "After reading about Microsoft's successful attempt to patent style sheets, I tried typing the word "Microsoft" into the IBM patent server. It is amazing how many of these bloody things they are generating in the patent office. I selected a patent at random to see how "novel" it was and just by chance I fell on this one. It was filed May 15, 1996. "
They have 25 claims with this one patent (mostly related to dragging and dropping comment files in response to articles in online magazines), with each claim being successively more inclusive. The last claim is the killer (the comments in square brackets [] are mine):

25. A subscriber system for use with an electronic magazine that is distributed from a publisher to a subscriber, the subscriber system comprising:

  • a computer having a communications port coupled to a back channel to the publisher, a processor, and a display; [like a browser connecting to a web server]
  • a graphical user interface executing on the processor to present a magazine screen on the display, the magazine screen containing at least one article box indicative of a magazine article; and [a browser displaying a web page]
  • the graphical user interface being configured to relate time within a publishing period for the magazine to the article boxes so that when a user manipulates the graphical user interface to selectively identify different times within the publishing period, ones of the article boxes are added and removed from the screen to demonstrate which articles were published at which times within the publishing period. [clicking back and forth between back issues of Slashdot]
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Slashdot infringing on Microsoft patent #US5819032 More

Slashdot infringing on Microsoft patent #US5819032

Comments Filter:

  • Re: STFU (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Umm, I think people would be upset no matter what, when something is patented by an entity which does nto deserve credit for it.

  • How long has Slashdot been around? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Assuming that Slashdot was the first such 'magazine' to be 'published' electronically, wouldn't they have the patent voided if Slashdot predated the application?

  • It dosen't even apply!!!! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    please read it ppl, it dosn't apply to slashdot. it dosen't even come close. please read it carefully then read up a little on pattent law. then when you are done hopefully you will realize how far off from slashdot this pattent is.
  • No, no. Six... Think of all the lerkers... I'm going to write an article for TechWeb now using "VideoGates" so that ZdNet can rip it off, pick it up, and ExPloit it in catchy little image-captions!

    (see all the EmbeddedCaps :)

  • If that snippet above makes it look like the patent applies here, this one doesn't:

    locating a file containing the comment, the file having an associated file icon;

    No icons here.

  • It's not whether Microsoft or someone else, this
    is getting seriously on my gingiva. Guess one
    should seriously kick the patent-offices into
    their scrotum. Abolish them.

  • Nah, watch discovery channel. Whenever they do some space travel/colonization piece, they have this guy that sells land on the moon, mars, etc.

    People will sell (and buy) anything.
  • Why would it be a cone? Assuming your yard is a rectangle, then it would just extend straight up, not conularly. And if it was coned, your neighbor would also have a cone, and the two would intersect... Too many compliations there.
  • I've known many a great engineer, and the pride that goes into securing a patent for your work. Much time, money, and effort goes into what used to be considered a system of giving credit to great minds and ideas.

    Enter Microsoft. The only work they put into their patents was the idea of patenting something that no one else has. Again, we can see that the Microsoft corporation is based soley on marketing, not on furthering technology, helping others, or even producing helpful software. How dare Microsoft make a mockery of the patent process. How dare the individual(s) responcible for allowing them to patent such rubbish make these actions, eventhough I'm sure they were under much -persuasion-.
  • Ok, this is ridiculous. I should patent "autonomous atmospheric ingestion follwed by O2 removal and CO2 expulsion by bipedal mamals" (breathing) and collect a royalty of $0.0001 per breath! Or get injunctions to stop people from utilizing my patented method!
  • At the local level, voters sometimes have access to issues (such as voting for a tax increase to fund a public stadium for the (almost) exclusive use of the Denver Broncos) that aren't rerouted through representatives.

    You're right, though, we aren't true to the Athenian way of doing things. I stand corrected.
  • No better time than the present to try Microsoft's patents. If they don't defend them then they are for naught.

    Overturn bogus patents.
  • Posted by pennacook:

    with this supposed GUI infringement - what would deja news be then? don't they have a fashion of posting present and past articles from practically every newsgroup known on the hierarchy? even microshaft??? ugh - i think m$ needs a good boot to the head!!

    mho :)

    pennacook

  • The /. community has expressed it's concern about stupid patents very voiciferously regardless of the patent filer. As evidence of this I would say that you ought to RTFM.

    That ought to hold you for a while. And these are just recent discussions.

  • Get rid of the archaic electorial college system and then an individual's vote might count, but until then it doesn't. If N people vote for candidate X in a state, and N+1 people vote for candidate Y in that state, then the results are the same as if everybody had voted for candidate Y, and zero people voted for X.

    This is dammed unfair. Third party candidates not only can't win (which is to be expected, a bit), but they also can't even get any notice at all because those who vote for them get their votes erased by this messed up system. So if a candidate has like 10% of the popular vote, it looks like he has 0% instead. This prevents anyone not in the big 2 from getting any noteriety at all. A slow buildup of support for a new party, year after year, is literally impossible when everything small rounds down to zero.

    The electorial college made sense back when getting a real count of the votes was technologically infeasable. But today it makes no sense at all. At the very least they could stop rounding entire states to 0% or 100%, such that if a candidate gets 20% of the vote, then he gets 20% of the electors from that state. That would be sensible, but this is America. Land of the status quo.

  • ...to succeed because their products are sub-standard from a technology standpoint. There's no way they can compete on a level playing field and win. So now we have one branch of the US government trying to break their monopoly power, while at the same time another branch issues them broad, sweeping patents that help sustain that monopoly.

    That ain't right.

    TedC

  • I would imagine that most of the stupid patents are filed by big companies to keep some jerk from gaining a broad patent and suing everybody under the sun to get a quick buck.

    Huh? Wouldn't prior art be quicker, easier, and cheaper to create than a frivolous patent and provide just as much protection? I really doubt that these companies have any good intentions.

  • Hey, this game is becoming dangerous.
    We must dump patents NOW - or they'll dump all creativity and intelligence on Earth.
  • I can easily show prior art for this one in our own magazine ...

    US patents are scary ...

    I think I'll patent taking a shit ... then everybody who will take a shit from now on will have to pay me a $1 for the privilage ... I don't want much ... and I just want what is rightfully mine for the idea of patenting it ...

  • Not really. I would think it was just a stupid, inane, and moronic if it was done by any other company. The fact that it happens to be Microsoft just reinforces the idiocy and monopoly of Microsoft.
  • If it came to trial, I think the patent would just be found illegitimate, due to Prior Art. Big deal.
  • "It uses that Athenian form of government called Democracy"


    Actually, We are a Democratic-Republic, which is rather different than a true Democracy. We vote for representatives, who have free reign to do whatever they want (which is what they SHOULD do, not pander to the popular vote).

    I have to say that I sure am glad that the government doesn't decide who sleeps in a box and who gets to buy an island, though. Pinko COMMIE!@#^%^!@!~~!Q1``

  • "-Have no culture"

    Man, we have TOO MUCH culture. "Culture" is way overrated. Preserving culture is just annoying. Why not just do what we like, and let that be our "Culture" instead of trying to act like our ancestors, or whatever silly things people try to do? WHO CARES what language you speak? WHO CARES what you wear? WHO CARES what you eat, as long as you enjoy it all? I like diversity to the point of eliminating "culture." Asians that talk with southern accents... White people who talk with asian accents... YES! Bring it on!
  • Slashdot should patent something similar but pointing out the use of Anonymous postings. Slashdot is the first such web-based-news service to offer anonymous replies that I'm aware of.

    Just an idea. Probably a bad one... ;-)

    Matt.
    --
  • > Also the gcc acts real funny on my machine with
    > a whole bunch fatal signal 11 errors. I noticed
    > when I try to recompile somtething multiple
    > times, the compiler seems to stop at different
    > places with the signal 11 error and something
    > about program cc. If any of you know what is
    > going on, please tell me.

    This is most likely a problem with your hardware. Check out the GCC Signal 11 FAQ [bitwizard.nl] for more info.


  • Shee's it says the filing date is 1996.. as far as I can remeber BBSes, AOL, Prodigy, Compuserve and many many others have been around way before 1996.
    AOL , Comopuserve and Prodigy were gui driven and carried articles and magazines from various print companies. So what's new here?

    -Ex-Nt-User
  • As I commented on the current poll, everyone needs
    a good laugh once in a while.
  • I'm not the person that originally asked, but if anyone knows, I would also appreciate a good reference/tutorial on assembly language.

    Specifically, assembly for the Intel x86 microprocessor. I'm sure there's a glut of stuff out there, but does anyone have any reccomendations?

    I'm fine with high-level languages, and have some experience with the Motorola Z80, so am not looking for a "beginner's" book, but something that assumes familiarity with high-level languages (C/C++ is fine), and some understanding of assembly would be ideal.

    Any ideas? TIA

    - Sean


    - SeanNi
  • I believe you only own the air above your land up to a certain height (can't remember what that height is, something like a mile or 2, I think). Above that, nada.

    &nbsp&nbsp - Sean


    - SeanNi
  • Videogate, patentgate, evasivegate, lyingassgate...
  • The Assembly-HOWTO is a rich source of leads for the particular processor implimentation you wish. Remember, that with each GNU assembler package, you will find a wealth of documentation in the tarball and the author's web page. Plus there is the ever handy google web page and dejanews powersearch (the regular search seems to be too dumbed down lately.)

    BTW: I have a wealth of Z80 proggies and many with a GUI system (with mouse!) built in. I can post them on my web page if there is interest. I don't know if anyone still designs with the old reliable, but cumbersome Z80. All that and the largest program was 2000 lines! :)
  • >Well america never stop astonishing me. Patent everything. Even human life! This is America. And America is also:

    Welcome to America. World Domination. In this great country of America, we were all taught in our history books at a young age that our ascestors came over here on ships from England. It was easy to get a pass if you were a criminal or undesired. So a lot arrived on this contenent and had problems getting along with the Native Americans (indians.) Furthermore, some enterprising imigrants passed by Africa and kidnaped people of identifiable color for lifetime slavery. Let me tell you, talking about all this stuff is pretty much taboo here. But you get the idea. Some things never change. But they should.

    Bill Gates is one of the last fucking assholes alive.
  • And this has happened with Linux. Some nut unwisely decided to just register the trademark of Linux and harass distros. The blind distribution by the patent office costs everyone. Its good business if you are a lawyer. Its not good business if you have to cave in to the extortion from all sides and have to pay "protection" for something you thought was common sense.
  • In the information age these two legal constructs are anachronisms. We should begin phase out of the Patent and the Copyright and replace them both a GNU-GPL flavored legal construct.

    As for M$, they would make an ideal place to begin the phase out. As part of the remedy in the federal anti-trust trial, M$ patents should all become public property. Each new M$ copyright would only have a duration of 3 years.

    Sound resonable?
  • What do you think he is investing in anyway?

    Soon patenting DNA sequences will also belong to Bill. He will own your desktop and your DNA too.

  • In order for a patent to be considered valid, its owner must litigate patent infringements. Microsoft has made no move to litigate under this patent, despite the apparent existance of multiple violators. This invalidates their patent. At this point, they are legally incapable of enforcing it. Chill out, everyone. This one's not to worry about.

    Oh yeah, and to that troll who said no-one would care if it wasn't Microsoft: go **** off. Everyone agrees that broad patents suck, regardless of what company files them.
    David E. Weekly (dew)

  • Just change the graphic so that the "R" is a little higher and looks like a middle finger
  • I submitted this one, and I think it's VERY relevant.

    According to the Arcana Mailing List [ml.org] the culture in the U.S. Patent office calls for approving more and more patents, and they're already approving 80% of patent submissions. Here's a cool excerpt from these E-mails [ml.org] from people who've worked for the patent office:

    > This needs to be made clear to more people. The Patent Office is heavily
    >biased towards rewarding examiners who allow a lot, and it is creating a
    >culture to match. Unfortunately, our 'customers' are collectively paying
    >the higher costs of confusion and legal help to sort the whole mess out.
  • At one time a, b, and c was the correct form and somewhere in the 50's and/or 60's it changed to a, b and c. That was in the U.S. of A., your nationality may vary. It's really annoying to study the proper use of the language in school when they change the rules from one grade to the next.
  • But what if someone had already copyrighted the phrases "weenie wiggle" and "weenie wiggler"? The thought of a patent on a "weenie wiggler" is somewhat frightening if you stop to imagine just what sort of device that might be, or how it might misfunction.
  • The use of the phrase
    "from the publisher to the subscriber"
    leaves slashdot out. None of us subscribe, AFAIK.
    About a month ago I had to obtain a trial subscription to Slate in order to read one little article. I can read all the slashdot I've got time for without ever subscribing and I don't even have to give a name or address to post replies.
  • This thread quickly degenerated to insults and invocating icons of the extreme left or right.
    If M$ tries to sue /. the crackers of the world would make www.microsoft.com an unuseable URL.
    However, after reading all of the threads submitted so far I see that no one has yet to ante up to the /. defense fund.
    Rob, I use my real name when I post because I stand behind what I say, and you have my email addres should you need to contact me.
    I pledge $100 to the /. defense fund should M$ or one of its paid lackeys initiate a patent violation suite against /.
    The rest of you: If the need arises put up or shut up.
  • The fact that this patent is owned by Microsoft has little to do with it.

    Imagine one person owning the process of free speech. There are hundreds-of-thousands of magazines in the world, printed on tangible paper with tangible ink.

    The patent office is handing out to someone the web's equivalent of publishing almost anything which is 'periodical'. How can that be legitimately patented?

    If this were in print-media, this would mean every high-school in the country would be infringing such a patent by printing a school paper. Same with churches, stores, major papers and magazines.

    This is the same thing.

  • so this is supposed to encourage the best and
    brightest to work for them? So they can
    pack up and leave the US when MS files a suit?

    No, the bigger they are the more they fill the
    docket in their federal district. If you did that, you would be come less popular with the
    local judge who handles all your frivolous suits.
    Eventually you will bog down, and won't be able
    to sue anyone, no matter how much money you have.
    (There is only so much time, and only so much the
    government will allow you to take advantage of).
    Even if you are Bill Gates.
    Billionaires are not always everybody's best friend. It's not that there are people who can't be bought, it's that there are people to whom
    he is not giving any (or enough) of his money.
    I am one of these people. :-)

    But, Microsoft is hiring. Maybe work there, and
    change policy... The old guard is retiring soon
    anyway.
  • The first author's name is Piter de Vries! House Harkonnen is at our very doors! (-:
  • Bill Gates/Paul Allen/Microsoft where either individually or combined large stakeholders in the Human Genome Project when it made it's big press splash, however many years ago that is now. Yep, the project to map the entire DNA structure for the human race has friends in Redmond. We don't make the keyboard more ergonomic, we make your hands work with it.
  • It was copyrighted, not patented, and I believe Paul McCartney, formerly of Beatles fame, purchased the copyright some time ago.

    Matt
  • No, "Democratic Republics" were countries like Poland and Czechoslavakia in the Cold War days or the current régime in North Korea.

    Honestly, I get so tired of the Right WingNuts bringing up this false distinction between "Republic" and "Democracy". At least the "Tastes Great" vs "Less Filling" debate, while equally mindless, had at least some entertainment value and helped to sell beer. This "debate" has no redeeming value whatsoever, so just don't even start that crap here.

    Who cares what the fsck it's called? We all get to vote directly or indirectly on matters of public importance, and it works, most of the time.

    Let's split hairs over something important, shall we? Thank you.

    Zontar

    (somewhere in tenn.)

  • This new practice of "patent everything possible" is getting to be totally rediculous.

    Next someone will patent wiggling your pecker to get rid of that last drop.

    The lawyers will inherit the earth.
  • You can patent a method, not an idea.

    - d
  • Since Microsoft appears to have no shame about doing this kin of stuff, it is best to publicize this by:

    1) Find out about each patent in IBM site,
    2) Send an e-mail to patent office and register
    your objections
    3) Let us form a web-site where everyone can
    register their complaints, their opinions
    and the actual history of patent under
    question.
    4) Publicize this in the newsgroups.
    5) Let the publishers/magazines/authors
    know about this. More articles the better.

    Since Microsoft seems to have no shame, let us shame them into it.

    Sinan
  • If you claim something, you have to be there, at least according to everything I've ever read. You can claim an area beyond where you are slighty, but I seriously doubt you can claim an extraterrestial body.

    Also, what, exactly, makes people think the moon falls under the earth's laws anyway?

    And if it does, the Heinlein story had a point...if the moon is under the laws of earth, then, logically, the people who own land under it own it. There is no 'you don't own land over your property if it's not connected to your land' exception to the property ownership laws. The law has already decided you own all the way down to the center of the earth, and you own the air over your land (technically, airplanes and stuff have the same kind of right of passage that 'landlocked' people have to get to a road), so, logically, if the moon passes over your land you own it while it does so.

  • If you claim something, you have to be there, at least according to everything I've ever read. You can claim an area beyond where you are slighty, but I seriously doubt you can claim an extraterrestial body.

    Also, what, exactly, makes people think the moon falls under the earth's laws anyway?

    And if it does, the Heinlein story had a point...if the moon is under the laws of earth, then, logically, the people who own land under it own it. There is no 'you don't own land over your property if it's not connected to your land' exception to the property ownership laws. The law has already decided you own all the way down to the center of the earth, and you own the air over your land (technically, airplanes and stuff have the same kind of right of passage that 'landlocked' people have to get to a road, called an easement), so, logically, if the moon passes over your land you own it while it does so.

  • A name that you own is a Trademark. You cannot call your copier a Xerox unless it is actually made by Xerox.

    A patent covers an invention. If you use light to disrupt the electrical charge on a plate and then add toner to the plate so that it sticks only where there was not a lot of light and then transfer the toner to some paper making a copy of the image then Xerox can stop you while thier patent was (is?) in effect. If you change the shape of the plate so that it is on a cylinder for example, and change the metal, toner and other elements enough you can go ahead an make your copying machine, especally if your version works better.

    Before Reagan you could not patent software, now you can not only patent software but tiny, trivial, obvious notions that are vaugely related to your software. A B1 bomber has several thousand components, each of which could involve several patents. The software has 7 million lines of code, it takes perhaps three lines of code on average to violate a software patent. It is highly doubtfull that there is a single piece of functional, usefull software that does not violate at least a few patents.

    Copyrights cover creative works in a fixed medium. Noone can copy anything you create without your permission (though in posts like this there is a great deal of implied and implicit permision).
  • I recalled that sometime ago a document generator is mentioned, which generates some "professional research papers" or something like that, to show off natural language processing.....

    Somebody care to make a patent generator which can spit out hundreds of ideas every hour, then compare them against the patent archive followed by submitting all patents?

    Let's see how patent office can deal with THAT :)
  • http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US05640562__ &language=en

    Seems Sun Microsystems has patented device drivers.

    And could this one be taken as the patent of an OS kernel?

    http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US05584032 __&language=en
  • This pales in comparison to how many biotech companies own portions of dna sequencing and the like. That really disgusted me. My last company worked on HIV (amoung other things) and we'd collaborate on and patent all kinds of stuff. And our pockets weren't that deep.
    What it comes down to is that someone owns the method to cure you of something - or how you can even reproduce. And when they see money in it, they'll squeeze us all. I know. I watched my boss turn down several collaborations with some big universities (our company made the purest form of large proteins/peptides *snythetically* - no one else can do that) because he wanted more money out of them or didn't like some member of their staff.
    Total arrogance and stupidity. Who knows what could have came out of those collab's.... Makes me really wanna live on another planet and start all over.
  • ...if I understand this correctly (easy to see if i don't, since i'm no patent lawyer), M$ is trying to lay claim to basically ANYTHING that one views on the 'Net, including (but not limited to) CNN.COM, ABCNEWS.COM, etc?

    this is getting STUPID. M$ needs to be cut down at the knees.
    _______

  • Here's an article [callaw.com] I came across in the newsgroups.
  • The oldest online magazine (zine) there is.
    Nicely organized with dates and titles.
    Looks like M$ got fucked by the cDc again
    --
    Four years in jail
    No Trial, No Bail

  • STFU (Score:1)

    by Athos ( 11806 )
    That should be "As I have trolled before".

    I wouldn't care who did it; the patent is poorly awarded. That it is Microsoft is largely irrelevant, but they do seem to be doing rather a lot of it the last couple of years.
  • Didn't Einstein once work for the Swiss Patent Office? Apparently he was not afraid to tell inventors that their inventions were unworkable, unoriginal and impossible" (but I forget the occasion). I guess they just can't get patent officers like that any more ;-)
  • Ahem. What I *think* you're all referring to is an old story by Robert Heinlein, entitled "The Man Who Sold the Moon". A good story, and a wonderful insight into the basis of his "Future History" series, but still a story, AFAIK.
  • First off you're wrong. I'd be pissed if Linus had a patent on this. It's just wrong. Web pages aren't technology, and it's really silly that anyone can own a concept this broad.

    Second, If you don't like microsoft bashing go somewhere else. Part of what makes slashdot slashdot is microsoft bashing. Either like it, ignore it, or go somewhere else.
  • I hereby claim the patent rights to scratch my ass in the privacy of my dorm room.

    This is almost as absurd...don't you think?
  • Yes they are a bit rediculous, but this particular patent seems to be talking about M$ active chanel and active desktop.

    Personally I think that the USPTO is slacking an just issueing these things. Again the Patent Examiners are not qualified!
  • I don't think that slashdot infringes on that patent, there may be some places that do. The patent is overly broad and hopefully will get shot down at some point. The system in place here is obviously similar to the system described by Gates 'n Co., but so was Westinghouse's two filament lightbulb to Edison's single filament light bulb. Similarity does not equal patent infringment, and relatively minor differences between products often mean that a patent that may seem to be infringed upon actually isn't.

    Beyond this specific case, i noticed another comment that mentioned the 'patent everything' phenomenon. I agree that this really needs to be stopped, companies know that the majority of the patents that they have been granted are overly broad and unenforceable, but they also know that in all probability there are at least one or two of theirs that aren't and those two will more than make up for the money spent getting the other few thousand, and will likely bring them lots of $$$. Software patents are a tricky thing because it is so easy for people to come up with similar looking things that function totally differently. There is some place for software patents, like encryption methods, encoding methods, compression methods, just as an example. I think it comes down to the fact that 99 to 100% of the people in the patent office don't understand the technology, if they did, alot of patents wouldn't be awarded.
  • Oddly enough, just the other day I attended a talk on patents in the US as they apply to engineering and software. Here are some quick facts:

    1) In the US, proof of original concept is required. That is, the first to think of and implement (and have proof of this), can patent something. So, if you can prove that you implemented something before someone else who has a patent on something, you can fight it.

    2) Software is patentable... but only the interface, which is why, I suppose, MS was able to get the patent described above.

    3) Algorithms are patentable, but only in some sort of interface. So, a pure algorithm cannot be patented, but use of that algorithm in a program with a interface can be patented.

    4) Patents now last 20 years from the time of filing.

    Now, everytime I see one of these crazy patents, it makes me mad. I think, "How the hell could they allow these things to be patented?" Well, I was told that the patent office is understaffed, and that they are looking to hire more examiners. The problem is, the salary is only about $27000 US/year. My guess is these people don't know very much about computers.

    The other thing is, yes, it is irritating to see these patents, but the thing is, they go away. And once they do, they become public domain.
  • SRLA (slashot reader lisence agreement):
    by reading this message you agree to be my slave.
    By not reading this message you agree to sell me your whole family for $2. (AND be my slave).


    -- begin message ---

    Every living person should pay me.
    Every existing atom is my property.

    While I'm at it, I copyright the words "Hello", "are" and the first 18 letters of the english alphabet.
    Everybody that wants to use them, must pay me loyalties.

    Have i forgot anything?
    Well, I claim mars to be mine, and also the pacific ocean.
    (this case reminds me about the man who claimed the moon and sold millions of dollars worth of property)

  • Unfortunately, this is not true. The defense is only relevent if litigation occurs. Suppose Microsoft called up me and told me to take down my web site because I infringed on their patent. I know that they have literally millions of dollars to spend on legal action. I could afford maybe a couple of thousand dollars on the basis of moral outrage. Realizing that I had no hope of prevailing in a court of law no matter how good my claim, I would probably talk to Microsoft (or whoever held the overly broad patent) and ask if I could get a liscense for (perhaps) a few hundred dollars per year.

    In fact, if the patent holder had any smarts, they'd prosecute individuals and small, underfunded companies first, because then they could build up a case law upholding their patent, before taking on those who had the money needed to really contest it. I wish that our system worked better than this, but in reality I know that it doesn't. In my opinion, this can only be fixed by LEGISLATION, not LITIGATION -- although unfortunately that seems unlikely as well, at least in the near future.

    -- Frustrated Individual

  • Look up on the top of the page, at the Apple, the Game Controller, and cute little Penguin.
    Look like Icons to me.
  • Patents and copyright are too deep into economy to be taken out, agreed.

    But in this information age, the timings of it all are growing bad. If I publish an idea on the internet, other companies can still patent that same idea within a year, without me being able to stop them, even losing my rights on the idea if I don't patent first! Did I do something wrong? I don't think so...

    Even now, big companies drop patents (software, mostly) after a couple of years, not willing to pay for all 17 years they are entitled to.

    So do not drop patents, but change them to fit the needs of current society. Three years for a software feature would suit me.
  • I don't think computer skills are a subject on this one... Common sense should be (have been) enough. I mean, this kind of text apllies to (if you haven't noticed) such basic activities as mailing lists... So WTF just happenned? Did Microsoft all of a sudden invent the Mail Distibution System? I say fry all patents on intangible or otherwise too wide-reaching definitions/techniques!


  • ... Bill Gates is


    • micro + soft

      (small) + (limp)



    sidster--

  • Patent #6662369666

    The application of ink, graphite, or lead to a piece of paper (or other writing surface) for the purpose of presenting words, images, or other visual representations. :)

    I'll make a fortune on the licensing :-D
  • Boy isnt that beautifully uninformed.....

    Microsoft is not being prosecuted for being sucessful. It is being prosecuted for being devoid of a soul. Yes corporations should have one of those.

    A lot of people say that Microsoft isn't a monopoly in the classic sense. The oil and steel companies controlled the railroads forcing compeditors to take obsene rates.

    Its true that microsoft doesn't rely on classic means of transportation like the railroads. It relies on the new electronic means of transportation the internet. By controlling preexisting standards like network protocols and css and creating propietary standards like activeX they are forcing the computer world to live by their terms.

    Fortunately Microsoft is finally reaping what it has sowed. Not only by being prosecuted by the feds, but by being mired in their own legasy. Recent news of the W2K problem will be only the tip of the iceberg.

    I only hope to see who divorces themselves from Microsoft next.

    XXIII
  • Fortunately for all of us, a patent is only as good as its defense. If they can't defend lots of the alleged infringements in court then the patent loses its value over time and becomes essentially useless.

  • Indeed, probably one of the most horrendous displays of apalling and downright terrifying arrogance I've witnessed.
  • Wired must have been there since long before '96... I remember reading the HotWired newsletter from issue #1, which coincided with the opening of their web site, I believe, and at that point I had e-mail only.

    I guess that puts it before autumn '94 - I remember registering at Wired's website when I began at university autumn of '94. I don't remember what their interface looked like at that point, though.

Slashdot Top Deals

You can't have everything... where would you put it? -- Steven Wright

Close