Posted on 02/20/2007 2:06:16 PM PST by JohnSheppard
OK
Guess the SCO effort is about to run out...
Ball-less: I'm going to huff and puff and blow your Linux house down!
I just don't know what to say........
Molon Labe, Micro$soft.
>>Guess the SCO effort is about to run out...<<
"Tattaglia's a pimp. He never coulda outfought Santino. But I didn't know until this day, that it was Barzini all along."
Begone Ballmer, haunting visage from the past.
Gates' lake house, the Charles Hotel, your office.
Nevermore.
He has every right to protect his companies intellectual properties.
DEVELOPERS!!
DEVELOPERS!!
DEVELOPERS!!
I think it's the fidgety temper...
I would love to hear a competent and articulate argument from the other side.
This sounds like Microsoft is attempting to patent the wheel --- again.
Not that their predatory monopolistic track record would influence my attitude towards them, or anything...
Until they do, it is just FUD.
As a general rule, that is true for all companies that own intellectual property.
But Microsoft has a long history of making phony claims, so there is ample reason to believe that Ballmer is trying to divert attention away from their pathetic lack of true innovation.
The U.S. Patent Office has rejected some of Microsoft's specious patent claims in the past, such as the FAT file format claim.
Ballmer should be specific about his claims by citing the patent numbers and the packages that he is alleging infringe on Microsoft's rights. So far, he is only spewing a cloud of SCO-like FUD.
Also, Microsoft is obligated to license their intellectual property as a condition of settling their conviction for violating the antitrust laws.
Your link appears old. Newer info from the same source, couldn't these be some of the patents he's referring to?
http://news.com.com/Microsofts+file+system+patent+upheld/2100-1012_3-6025447.html
Microsoft's file system patent upheld
Two patents covering one of Microsoft's main Windows file-storage systems are valid after all, federal patent examiners have decided.
Thanks for the update. I should have found a better example.
You're welcome. Those appear to be patents that many Linux distros would be infringing on, as a matter of fact a senior attorney from the Free Software Foundation (Linux advocate) conducted a patent review that showed the Linux kernel alone potentially violated close to 300 patents. The amount belonging to Microsoft was estimated at around 30, again in just the kernel. Here's one of the reports:
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=26800214&tid=5979
FAT has been around since the 80's. Isn't patenting it now just a little too late?
Apparently not. Patents on software didn't really exist back in the 80's either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents
in 1982 the U.S. Congress created a new court (the Federal Circuit) to hear patent cases. The new circuit rejected rulings from some parts of the country, and nationalized others. For example, the court made patents generally easier to uphold by presuming patents were valid unless proven invalid and weakening the defense of non-obviousness. This court allowed issues, such as patentability of software, to be treated uniformly throughout the US. Due to a few landmark cases in this court, by the early 1990s the patentability of software was well established, and in 1996 the USPTO issued Final Computer Related Examination Guidelines
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.