bb wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper stated:
>>> nessuno wrote:
>>>
>>>> <Quote> two years ago, Microsoft filed a patent for clustering
>>>> phylogenetics methods, which have existed for years, and are
>>>> currently in use by just about anyone who does evolutionary
>>>> biology. The filing has been compared to attempting to patent
>>>> multiplication tables, and has the phylogenetics community on
>>>> edge. </Quote>
>>>>
>>>> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/08/microsoft-trying-to-patent-techni
>>>>
>>>> que-for-studying-evolution.ars
>>>>
>>>> Pretty soon you'll have to pay for those multiplication
>>>> tables. Intellectual Property, you know.
>>>
>>> Shows that the company is no more than a patent troll, IMHO.
>>
>> No more? You do not know the other things MS does? Huh?
>
> Like "misappropriation of trade secrets, common law misappropriation,
> conversion, unfair competition, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty" ?
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/01/06/microsofts_masterplan_to_screw_phone/
... and eliminating competition through unfair practises:
[quote]
In contrast to the RPFJ, a meaningful remedy must account for the
fact that Microsoft manipulates interface information in a
variety of ways to preclude competition. Although too numerous to
recount, Microsoft's tactics include:
* "Secret Interfaces" - Microsoft does not publish all the
interfaces it uses and does not publish all the interface
information that others need to develop products that
interoperate with Microsoft software.
* "Crippled Interfaces" - For some functions, Microsoft
publishes information about an interface that is inferior to the
interface that Microsoft itself uses to accomplish a function, or
publishes incomplete information about an interface.
* "Kick Me Interfaces" - Sometimes, Microsoft publishes
information about an interface that Microsoft uses to perform a
function, but it "marks" non-Microsoft software in a way that
assures the interface will operate in an inferior way. Microsoft
can "mark" competitors software through tagging, signing,
encrypted passwords, or by noting the absence of such features.
* "Moving Interfaces" - If, by some means, a third party has
been able to obtain adequate interface information that Microsoft
doesn't want it to have, Microsoft will simply move the
interface. For example, Novell successfully figured out how to
enable its directory services software to interoperate with
Windows NT. To counter Novell's success, in Windows 2000
Microsoft broke up and moved the computer files containing the
interface information used by Novell and marked, or signed,
information required for the interfaces so that Novell could
neither use Microsoft's interface information nor replace it.
The typical result of such tactics is that Microsoft makes
competing products appear inferior to Microsoft's products.
Microsoft's actions may make a competing product appear slower,
require more memory, or perform with limited functionality. These
tactics also enable Microsoft to persuade customers to buy
Microsoft's inferior and/or more expensive products simply to
avoid Microsoft's roadblocks.(15)
[/quote]
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/major/mtc-00029523.htm
Microsoft still continues its anti-competitive practises against
Linux.
It is a well detailed summary of the anti-competitive acts of
monopoly maintenance by the Microsoft Corporation, authors of the
Windows brand of OS software. It outlines the anti-competitive
acts against Linux including patent FUD, which is found on Page
23 of the document:
[quote]
In an apparent escalation of its patent FUD strategy, Microsoft
sued the navigational system vendor, TomTom, for patent
infringement at the end of February 2009. Three patent claims
related to Linux are included in the lawsuit.[135] At least two
of them are related to highly questionable patents on long file
name support in Windows, which have been partially invalidated by
an EC patent court on the grounds that Microsoftâs patent claims
were ânot based on inventive activityâ.[136] While Microsoft has
publicly claimed that its action is not directed against Linux or
open source, and the case was settled in March 2009 pursuant to a
mostly confidential agreement, this represents an aggressive
development of Microsoftâs use of spurious or highly questionable
patent claims to intimidate and eliminate competition from Linux
in order to maintain or strengthen its dominant position in the
OS market.
135. See Bruce Perens, Analyzing Microsoftâs TomTom Lawsuit,
DATAMATION.COM, Mar. 1, 2009, available at
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3807801/Bruce-Perens-Analyzing-Microsofts-Linux-Lawsuit.htm
and Richard Hillesley, TomTom â The drums of a patent war with
Microsoft? ITPRO.COM, Mar. 5, 2009, available at
http://www.itpro.co.uk/610093/tomtom-the-drums-of-a-patent-war-with-microsoft.
136. See, e.g., Federal Patent Court declares FAT patent of
Microsoft null and void, HEISE ONLINE, Mar. 2, 2007, available at
http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/86141.
http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf
--
HPT
|
|
