This page permanently redirects to gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2007/05/18/reverse-situation/.
Posted in Free/Libre Software, Law, Microsoft, Patents at 8:51 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
As Shane pointed out, suddenly, Microsoft claims that it wants a weaker patents system. It’s natrual to just assume that lawsuits such as this were the cause.
=> ↺ claims that it wants a weaker patents system | ↺ lawsuits such as this were the cause
Alcatel-Lucent said in a court filing that $1.5 billion is not enough to properly compensate it for Microsoft Corp.’s infringement of two digital audio patents.
A look at the following article reveals another insight and perspective:
=> ↺ another insight and perspective
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.
Could Microsoft prepare for a public relations stunt? Perhaps assertion exclusions, just like Blackboard’s, for the sake of some bogus ‘good will’? In a sense, they already did this with ODF just a couple of days ago.
=> ↺ just a couple of days ago
Ed Burnette takes things a little further and describes a hypothetical scenario.
But what if I told you that Windows, Vista, Office, and other software from Microsoft violate 532 patents? Would that make you any less likely to use Microsoft software? What if I claimed the following alleged violations:Windows core operating system: 132.NET framework: 91Windows/Vista GUI: 83Microsoft Office: 159Other: 67
Things would become interesting if the patent troll finally got trolled. It has deep pockets, but it does not have developers’ mercy. Moreover, its big portfolio might turn out to be a total waste of paper.
Thanks to a patent system that went overboard issuing patents, which the Supreme Court in its recent KSR ruling brings to a screeching halt, many previously issued patents aren’t worth the paper they are printed on. Nearly half of all patents that were brought to trial under the old patent system’s definition of obviousness were thrown out. If you apply KSR’s standard of nonobviousness, as the highest court says you must, how many patents would survive? What, you think Microsoft’s patent on IS NOT is not obvious? So the threat isn’t as big as it might appear.
Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Permalink Send this to a friend
=> Permalink | ↺ Send this to a friend
=> Techrights
➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.
text/gemini;lang=en-GBThis content has been proxied by September (ba2dc).