31–40 of 133 posts
Darn, with all this talk we hear of a "new Microsoft", it would be nice if they stopped doing this.
I think this headline sums it up best: http://www.infoworld.com/article/3042699/open-source-tools/m...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple vs Samsung et al. Issuing patents on silly things like slide to unlock and mag lock even tho those functions existed before Apple has ever used them? Heck I'm surprised they haven't sue every kitchen appliance in Asia for violating their maglock patent.... Heck the first apple iPhone GUI related suit against Samsung was field before the first iPhone was even on the market.
Can you provide an example of slide to unlock before the iPhone? Also, I (personally) feel that maglock for a power cable is very different from maglock for a refrigerator. (A ticket terminal and a vending machine are very different devices covered by different patents even if they both utilize the same basic mechanisms.)
A mediaeval church door bolt. Or whatever.
Doing the same thing but "on a computer" shouldn't allow a patent.
I can't seem to understand if MSFT patents actually apply to the Android OS / AOSP or just to various firmware, middleware and software that OEM's use on their devices regardless of the OS in question. The AOSP license and 3rd party notifications do not mention Microsoft and the patents listed in Chinese doc are like vague in the usual patent-esque way. But in any case i don't really see the issue here, if MSFT gets…
Continuing that logic, it would be irresponsible not to defend this patent's revenue in court. Irresponsible not to use the most advantageous court for that (i.e. East Texas). Irresponsible to campaign in such a way that might invalidate that patent as it would deprive them of a valuable asset. Irresponsible not to reinvest some of the revenue these parent's generate into lobbyists to protect that revenue stream and asset.
So responsibly to investors again results in a tragedy of the commons. This time in patent litigation and legislation
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A touchscreen phone named Neonode N1 had slide-to-unlock 2 years before iPhone. http://9to5mac.com/2011/10/25/slide-to-unlock-patented/ But the point is, it is a very trivial way of interacting with a touchscreen. It is, in fact, one of the few ways one can interact with a touchscreen.
>But the point is, it is a very trivial way of interacting with a touchscreen. It is, in fact, one of the few ways one can interact with a touchscreen. I don't get how people can argue stuff like this should even be covered by patents. What's the rationale ? Did Apple spend billions in R&D to develop this feature it now needs a mechanism to recoup it's investment ? I suppose they wouldn't "invent" swipe to unlock if…
I can't seem to understand if MSFT patents actually apply to the Android OS / AOSP or just to various firmware, middleware and software that OEM's use on their devices regardless of the OS in question. The AOSP license and 3rd party notifications do not mention Microsoft and the patents listed in Chinese doc are like vague in the usual patent-esque way. But in any case i don't really see the issue here, if MSFT gets…
> ...if MSFT gets royalties from these patents it would be irresponsible (to their shareholders, and employees) for them to ditch them... Continuing that logic, it would be irresponsible not to defend this patent's revenue in court. Irresponsible not to use the most advantageous court for that (i.e. East Texas). Irresponsible to campaign in such a way that might invalidate that patent as it would deprive them of a va…
In other words, don't hate the player; hate the game.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if that was the case, which I don't think it is, Microsoft shouldn't be asking for stuff like FAT32 royalties. Think about it. Microsoft is asking for royalties for making devices that work with Windows . How crazy is that? Imagine if Google charged accessory makers for hooking into Android devices. I don't care if others do this sort of thing, too. It's just wrong. It should be an anti-trust issue, especially w…
Why shouldn't MSFT claim patents for FAT? They've developed it and it was adopted by everyone and their mother for being good and cheap FS. You don't need to support FAT to allow transfer of files between your your Windows PC and the phone standards that abstract the file system like MTP and PTP exist for this very own reason. If you are as a phone maker want to enable users to mount their local phone storage as a fu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you provide an example of slide to unlock before the iPhone? Also, I (personally) feel that maglock for a power cable is very different from maglock for a refrigerator. (A ticket terminal and a vending machine are very different devices covered by different patents even if they both utilize the same basic mechanisms.)
A touchscreen phone named Neonode N1 had slide-to-unlock 2 years before iPhone. http://9to5mac.com/2011/10/25/slide-to-unlock-patented/ But the point is, it is a very trivial way of interacting with a touchscreen. It is, in fact, one of the few ways one can interact with a touchscreen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you provide an example of slide to unlock before the iPhone? Also, I (personally) feel that maglock for a power cable is very different from maglock for a refrigerator. (A ticket terminal and a vending machine are very different devices covered by different patents even if they both utilize the same basic mechanisms.)
> Can you provide an example of slide to unlock before the iPhone? A mediaeval church door bolt. Or whatever. Doing the same thing but "on a computer" shouldn't allow a patent.
I can't seem to understand if MSFT patents actually apply to the Android OS / AOSP or just to various firmware, middleware and software that OEM's use on their devices regardless of the OS in question. The AOSP license and 3rd party notifications do not mention Microsoft and the patents listed in Chinese doc are like vague in the usual patent-esque way. But in any case i don't really see the issue here, if MSFT gets…
Even if that was the case, which I don't think it is, Microsoft shouldn't be asking for stuff like FAT32 royalties. Think about it. Microsoft is asking for royalties for making devices that work with Windows . How crazy is that? Imagine if Google charged accessory makers for hooking into Android devices. I don't care if others do this sort of thing, too. It's just wrong. It should be an anti-trust issue, especially w…
The wiki page says patent terms are 20 years in the U.S. and FAT32 was introduced in August 1996.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_S...
> Samsung alone paid Microsoft a billion bucks to license its Android patents.
So like, why didn't Samsung take them to court?