__/ [ BearItAll ] on Friday 18 May 2007 14:04 \__
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> Microsoft asserts patents, wants weaker system
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Other patent experts have suggested Microsoft's patent complaints
>> | don't make a lot of sense from a legal standpoint. The complaints,
>> | while possibly driving some customers away from open-source software,
>> | may make Microsoft the target of lawsuits from open-source developers
>> | seeking to prove they have not infringed, some patent experts have said.
>> |
>> | Open-source advocates, including
>> | Linux creator
>> | Linus Torvalds and long-time open-source advocate Eric S. Raymond,
>> | have said there's a simpler explanation for Microsoft's action:
>> | It's trying to create fear, uncertainty and doubt about open-source
>> | software.
>> `----
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/infoworld/20070517/tc_infoworld/88636
>>
>
> I suppose it might turn out that MS doesn't own them but someone we know
> and love does, since no one seems to know what those patents actually are.
Based on what they recently told Mary Jo Foley (and the way SJVN intepreted
this), neither do they (Microsoft). Maybe they are not bluffing, but they
havn't even any proof that they counted /anything/. It's vile FUD and they
refuse to comment. Microsoft has joined ranks with SCO. Scum.
> Then because the Windows system did not start with MS at all, they may find
> that they owe NeXt or early workstation vendors, or Apple, a great deal of
> money. We would be alright, because we are all happy to acknowledge NeXt's
> involvement, MS wouldn't dare because not much of what is left after that
> patent is handed back is worth holding the patent for.
>
> I bet your left sock what ever they come up with we can show examples that
> are pre-Windows. Every time you use your Linux you touch things that have
> always been on computers right from the ansi/ascii graphics days on UNIX,
> Geniscos, SunSystems, almost all of the visible parts, Text boxes, list
> boxes, buttons, links etc. Much that is underneath, file structures,
> various comms. Computing has improved of cause, the code is now in classes
> so better able to treat each of these parts as an object, so instead if
> '#include "myButton.lib"', you pull in a class, but classes in the end are
> a style they are not the thing that they model, so a button is a button in
> asm exactly as a button is a button in a c++ class, so how can MS own a
> button.
>
> I can not think of anything that MS might own that they created all by
> themselves. I'd bet your right sock that if they suggest anything at all,
> we can find previous examples proving that it isn't actually thiers. So we
> should carry on ignoring all of these patents and if Ballard can try as he
> might, but he must always stop at making those patents public, there is too
> much risk for him.
Just a quick look at some of their patents helps you realise that USPTO has
gone titups. It's like they accept anything that's being filed, even
duplicates. It's chaotic. It's a waste of paper.
--
~~ Best regards
Roy S. Schestowitz | LINUX - (L)ove (I)s (N)ever (U)tterly eXPensive
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 115 total, 1 running, 110 sleeping, 0 stopped, 4 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
|
|
