Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Microsoft's 'Naughty or Nice' Patent Application
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | "Those of you worried about Microsoft's stance on network neutrality
> | won't find much comfort in the software giant's just-published patent
> | application..."
> `----
>
> http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/25/0555222&from=rss
Man, talk about your all time squatters.
Sounds like several dissertations on censorship on my web site
(discussed by the publisher's group). It was around the time of the
introduction of the pressler act.
There was a whole debate about whether 3rd parties should be allowed to
censor sites they personally considered pornographic.
I hope Groklaw is looking at that one.
Looks like a classic example of a "we didn't see the prior art in the
patent office archives, so we filed our own application".
My documents go back to 1994. We could probably find docs that go back
to the 1980s, and the use of "plonk".
E-bay has been using similar technology for almost a decade.
But now Microsoft thinks it deserves a patent, just because the prior
art wasn't in the Patent Office Archives?
Take a look through the available public archives (google,
newsgroups...)
Even the "claims" aren't original.
|
|
