On Sep 10, 11:28 pm, unionpe...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Sep 10, 5:40 am, Rex Ballard <rex.ball...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 10, 12:58 pm, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Patent: Application-Specific Windows Colourisation
> > > ,----[ Quote ]
> > > | The US patent might be a bit daft, especially when it comes to software, but
> > > | it does offer some interesting insights into what crazy things the big
> > > | companies might be working on for future products. One such patent emerged
> > > | today: Microsoft applied in 2005 (and was granted in 2008) a patent which
> > > | describes how different windows may be coloured differently, or that they may
> > > | have different transparency settings.
> > > `----
>
> > What's amusing is that X11 had transparency back in 1990, when Windows
> > 3.0 was still trying to figure out how to do 16 colors. Furthermore,
> > X11 could determine the color map available and adjust the color
> > settings based on the mode of the display. For example, if it was a
> > Monochrome display, X11 could use shades of grey. There was support
> > for 16 colors, 256 colors, 16 bit colors, and 32 bit colors. 8 of the
> > "color" bits were for transperancy or "layers".
>
> > FrameMaker also had support for Layers and transparency.
>
> > Of course, it's possible that Microsoft's implementation is so
> > radically different from that of X11, that it merits a patent, but it
> > would be hard to tell without seeing the source code to both
> > implementations.
>
> > >http://www.osnews.com/story/20266/Patent_Application-Specific_Windows...
> > > Related:
> > > Microsoft Deems Emotiflags Patent-Worthy
> > > ,----[ Quote ]
> > > | Microsoft said you could count on them to improve patent quality.
> > > | For an example of how they're raising the bar on innovation, check
> > > | out this just-published patent application for Emotiflags, which
> > > | Microsoft explains solves the problem of indicating an emotion
> > > | associated with an email message. At the risk of infringing on the
> > > | patent, this one Makes Me Mad!"
> > > `----
>
> > Patent Quality referrs to the depth and breadth of research into prior
> > art.
> > The patent office requires that any prior patents be listed in the
> > patent
> > application, but you are supposed to list ALL prior applicable art,
> > and
> > especially any prior art known to the inventor prior to his filing of
> > the
> > application.
>
> > For example, a minimal poor quality patent for a spell checker would
> > require that any patents for similar spell checkers be listed, along
> > with
> > why your spell checker is different. A high quality patent
> > application
> > would list all spell checkers, including those not known to the
> > inventor
> > at the time of his invention, along with explanations as to why the
> > device
> > being patented is different from the others.
>
> > With a poor quality patent, there is a risk that your patent could be
> > nullified, that an inventor who can prove prior publication of the
> > same invention is entitled to the patent, or that the patent was
> > fraudulently obtained. At minimum, it could nullify the patent since
> > it could be intuitively derived based on existing publicly available
> > knowledge.
>
> > >http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/16/038207&from=rss
> > > Microsoft patent hints at pay-as-you-go OS
> > > ,----[ Quote ]
> > > | A Microsoft patent application from June 2005, published only today,
> > > | titled "System and method for delivery of a modular operating system"
> > > | may signal a fundamental change for what an operating systems stands
> > > | for and how it is sold.
> > > `----
>
> > Sounds like a Linux distribution to me
> > This type of packaging was also used by AT&T as early as 1985.
>
> > >http://www.istartedsomething.com.nyud.net:8080/20061215/pay-as-you-go...
> > > Big businesses boast of patent benefits, for small businesses
> > > ,----[ Quote ]
> > > | A report published by an EU task force on intellectual property claims
> > > | that small businesses benefit from a patent system, despite lacking
> > > | almost any participation by the small business community.
>
> > Supposedly, the patent office has made it easier for individuals and
> > small businesses to file for patents. The problem is that a good
> > patent search can cost several thousand dollars, and a thorough search
> > for ALL prior art can cost as much as a quarter million.
>
> > At minimum, the inventor should search Google for similar technology
> > after filing the initial application, as part of the search process.
> > And if Google comes up with 1 million listings, you'd probably better
> > take a look at every one of them, because missing just one would be
> > enough to nullify your patent.
>
> > > | Instead, the report, titled IPR (intellectual property rights) for
> > > | competitiveness and innovation, was written up almost entirely by
> > > | large corporations and the patent industry.
>
> > Not surprising. Remember, big corporations seek to protect themselves
> > from lawsuits by smaller companies or slightly unethical lawyers. The
> > two best protections are Open Source, and Patents. Open Source pretty
> > much assures the company that if there were anyone who had prior art,
> > they would have spoken up, and if they haven't applied for a patent,
> > they won't be able to.
>
> > Patents are a bit dicier. You have to publish your code when you file
> > for the patent, and the patent application now comes under the
> > scrutiny of anyone looking for infringements.
>
> > Large companies try to create a big "umbrella" of patents by cross-
> > licensing patents with lots of other companies on a "barter" basis.
> > Essentially, "I let you use any of my patent if you let me use any of
> > yours. Since no one knows when a new patent might just be the "next
> > big thing", most large companies prefer the umbrella approach.
>
> > > | [...]
> > > | Jean-Pierre Laisne, of ObjectWeb, an open source software community,
> > > | said that he found the report useless: participants were told that
> > > | all their contributions would be recorded but at the end only
> > > | those of Business Software Alliance and Microsoft were used.
>
> > Aren't BSA and Microsoft pretty much the same thing? Has anyone done
> > an audit of BSA to see how the money they collect is actually
> > distributed. The Software Publisher's Association (SPA) used to raid
> > companies, even seize their PCs, and
> > claim that the company was using pirated software. After an extensive
> > audit, they
> > would demand huge sums of money, based on an alternative of $10,000
> > and/or 5 years in prison for each title pirated times the number of
> > machines getting copies.
>
> > But it turned out that about 99% of the money went to Microsoft even
> > though 90% of the actual piracy was unregistered shareware. The
> > shareware companies were lucky if they got anything at all.
>
> That is because Microsoft is entitled to the money! A clause in one
> of their EULAs forbids using their product for copyright violations.
> I wondered about that for a while, even asked Erik why MS would bother
> to include a prohibition against an already illegal activity. The
> clause seems so innocent, violating copyrights should not be done.
> But, violate _any_ copyright and you violate the EULA, which
> terminates your "right" to use Windows, turning you into a copyright
> ciminal. Hence MS does the legal work and collects for themselves.
> Who says piracy does not pay?
You are correct, it does say that. It also forbids you from using it
for any other illegal purposes. At first glance, it seems like they
are just protecting themselves from liability, but now that I see it
from your perspective, (Microsoft's), it does make sense that the pig
is setting itself up for another trip to the trough.
> Its a perfect setup. MS gets to collect fines for offences against
> unrelated entities. And besides, who does not violate copyrights to
> some degree? When MS-SPA goon does an audit, he might come to your
> desk and say "Thats a nice picture of Mt Everest you are using for
> wallpaper. Can I see the letter from the copyright owner allowing
> this?" Busted!
Which means that the BSA or any other computer "copyright authority"
would
also be giving Microsoft about 99% of the money it collects, for
infractions against OTHER entities - such as unregistered shareware.
> Sharing is buried rather deeply into human makeup. Anyone that does
> not violate copyrights at least "just a little" is a freak. MS has
> found a very nice way to game the system.
Very good point. That also means that if even one employee of a
corporation violates any copyright, that would violate not only the
EULA, but also the Corporate Licencing agreement, allowing Microsoft
to hit the same company fo the same Microsoft royalties over and over
and over and over again.
Maybe "Microsoft Free" isn't such a bad idea after all. Since you
never know when some disgruntled employee is going to drop the dime to
the BSA over a co-worker, not realizing that he's hammering the entire
company in the process.
> > >http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/99155/big-businesses-boast-of-patent-bene...
> > Rex
|
|
