Microsoft settles $60 million video patent dispute
Posted by Daniel Fleshbourne on 31 December 2003 - 09:49 · 14 comments & 1793 views
About the Author
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(2 replies)
#1 Posted by idbuythatforadollar on 31 Dec 2003 - 12:17
- Lets hope no-one suddenly 'remembers' they have a patent on breathing
-
#1.1 Posted by Arcticflare on 31 Dec 2003 - 14:14
- Don't worry. If somebody did patent breathing, you would only have to hold your breath several years until the patent expires.
-
#1.2 Posted by idbuythatforadollar on 31 Dec 2003 - 16:53
- haha, I hadn't looked at it that way...
-
(6 replies)
#2 Posted by bluebsh on 31 Dec 2003 - 15:47
- one of the problems is, that microsoft creates something, doesn't patent it, someone else runs out gets a patent waits for a while and then sues... a lot of MS's work is never patented... guess that is why they hired this guy, to get stuff pantended so people can't hijack innovations...
-
#2.1 Posted by dp123 on 31 Dec 2003 - 19:16
- baloney. MS didn't have this tech, did business with this company, got a hold of the tech, and dumped the relationship.
They did not invent this tech, hire a company that had created similar tech after they had created it, knowing that the other company had patented, dumped their original, prior tech in favor of patented technology, then wonder why they hadn't patented or USED their pre-existing technology...
They were going to lose, they stole this technology, they have done it many times before.
MS is the one doing the hijacking. -
#2.3 Posted by dp123 on 31 Dec 2003 - 21:58
- It's called reading the court documents and articles on this story, moron.
Show me one shred of evidence to show me wrong, geekboy; show me one element of my post which is nonsensical consipract theory...
You can't and that's why you deserve to be called a moron. -
#2.5 Posted by dp123 on 02 Jan 2004 - 18:47
- Why chill? You are a delusional little fanboy who always spouts off retarded, uninformed, @ss-kissing crap.
I'm just trying to keep you and other misinformed folks like bluebsh slightly aware of the facts and reality.
-
(1 reply)
#3 Posted by DigitalFreedom on 31 Dec 2003 - 17:14
- soo true, but when was microsoft ever in defict?, don't they have 60 billion in the bank, or was it 40 billion, either way ms is never gonna go bankrupt
-
#4 Posted by markjensen on 31 Dec 2003 - 20:49
- Lately, it seems like everyone with a patent is playing MS like the lottery...
Kill the lawyers!
(P.S. I am a Linux user, and I might not care for Microsoft very much, but I hate lawyers much more!)
-
#5 Posted by redFX on 31 Dec 2003 - 21:18
- CHACHING!! Happy new year to them!!
Earlier this year Microsoft was ordered to pay $561 million to a one-man company which was granted a patent on embedded content on a network. The USPTO is re-examining the validity of the patent after a public outcry. 46 per cent of patents that reach the courtroom are adjudged to be invalid.
But Redmond is unlikely to be in deficit for very long. In the summer Microsoft hired the senior IBM executive who created Big Blue's patent licensing program. Last month, for the first time, Redmond began a commercial IP licensing program beginning with the FAT and FAT32 file systems still widely used by consumer device manufacturers. That's one to watch.
When additional changes were passed by Congress last Thanksgiving, only a few scattered outlets - like Wired News and oddly - Adult Video News - paying attention. While the original Patriot act allows the FBI to request data from your ISP with no court order or judicial oversight, these new changes, tucked away in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, broaden those powers further. The provisions expand the definition of "financial institution" and "financial transaction", allowing the FBI to monitor everything from Pawn Shops to your ISP with more authority.
Opponents claim that the already weakened system of checks and balances is being eroded futher, and the Fourth Amendment (protection against unreasonable searches and seizures) faces a serious threat. Supporters claim the changes are necessary to track the money funding terrorist operations and prevent further attacks. In between these two groups are usually those who don't care either way, since they're "not doing anything wrong".
The debate between these groups was overshadowed (intentionally or otherwise) by three days of Saddam capture video and elaborate (and fully 3D) explorations of the hole Iraq's one-time leader crawled out of. As usual with American media, all other news is often buried during major events - something all politicians have learned to use to their advantage to minimize controversy.
A few weeks later finds the changes being noticed by a few. This San Antonio Current article takes a look at the recent changes, and discussion is ripe over at Dave Farber's Interesting People mailing list (explore the thread index to see multiple and opposing opinions).