Study: Microsoft patents could threaten Linux
Posted by malebolgia on 02 August 2004 - 14:17 · 60 comments & 2818 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgia
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgiaContact: 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
-
-
(5 replies)
#1 Posted by diamonds on 02 Aug 2004 - 14:19
- lol
-
#1.1 Posted by chacho on 02 Aug 2004 - 14:51
- thanks a lot for that insightful comment, you really opened up a whole new perspective on this issue for me.
-
#1.2 Posted by diamonds on 02 Aug 2004 - 15:43
- and you like all the other morons on here chose to comment instead of keeping your mouth shut.
-
#1.4 Posted by GamblerFEXonlin on 02 Aug 2004 - 20:48
QUOTE (#1.2) and you like all the other morons on here chose to comment instead of keeping your mouth shut.
same to you
lol
-
#2 Posted by b0b on 02 Aug 2004 - 14:21
- This is also true:
Study: b0b knowning Microsoft has patents makes Gates feel threatened.
-
(11 replies)
#3 Posted by Grappa on 02 Aug 2004 - 14:35
- Like we didn't see this coming, what with M$ patenting B$ like the double-click...
-
#3.1 Posted by GaMMa on 02 Aug 2004 - 14:49
- I'm suprised the Patent Office gave out a double click patent. Every operating system that I know of uses double click. I'm sure Apple "invented" double click before Microsoft Windows was around (I wasn't around then so I don't know).
BTW I'm also filing a patent for "inhaling and exhaling air" AKA breathing and if I catch any of you doing that expect a lawsuit!
-
#3.2 Posted by MegaManXcalibur on 02 Aug 2004 - 14:53
- And I'm filing a patent on filing stupid patents. In other words if I deem a patent stupid you will owe me money. So pay up
-
#3.3 Posted by b0b on 02 Aug 2004 - 15:13
- Im gonna patent keyboards, mice and motherboards, so I can sue the M$ *******s, I will let neowin do as they please, without any lawsuits.
-
#3.4 Posted by STV on 02 Aug 2004 - 15:14
- the papent was for mobile devices running CE. it is a different type of double click.
STV -
#3.5 Posted by Nathan on 02 Aug 2004 - 15:14
- Congrats on being a total idiot. If you don't enforce copyright infringements or patent infringements you can lose the patent. How do you plan to sue Microsoft in teh first place? Because their employees use keyboards?
You also have to invent something to patent it... god. -
#3.6 Posted by brhinescot on 02 Aug 2004 - 15:18
- The patent was for mobile devices and it was for launching different apps or performing different actions based on how you pressed and/or how long you held down a hardware button. i.e. clicking the button once, twice, or holding it down. The patent specifically states it's for mobile devices. It's not a mouse double-click.
-
#3.7 Posted by GaMMa on 02 Aug 2004 - 15:23
- Technically wouldn't a built in mouse on a laptop with the hardware buttons be infringing Microsoft's patent?
-
#3.8 Posted by wildk on 02 Aug 2004 - 15:45
QUOTE Technically wouldn't a built in mouse on a laptop with the hardware buttons be infringing Microsoft's patent?
Absolutely NOT, NO WAY, as the patent was specifically for Windows CE and pocket PC devices ONLY, this patent did not refer to standard PC Mice in any way and went as far as stating that it did not apply to them in the article that appeared here on this site-
#3.9 Posted by g33kb0y on 02 Aug 2004 - 15:51
QUOTE You also have to invent something to patent it... god.
Not necessarily.
-
#3.10 Posted by Mando on 03 Aug 2004 - 12:44
- <!--NeoquoteBegin--><center><table width=90% border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=1><tr><td><font class=darkfont>QUOTE (#3.9)</font></td></tr><tr><td><table width=100% bgcolor=white border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=3 style="border: 1px solid #90A0B0"><tr><td>You also have to invent something to patent it... god.</td></tr></table></td></tr></table></center><!--NeoquoteEnd-->
Are you saying some invented and patented god?
-
#3.11 Posted by Shining Arcanine on 03 Aug 2004 - 19:18
QUOTE (#3.2) And I'm filing a patent on filing stupid patents. In other words if I deem a patent stupid you will owe me money. So pay up
Regardless of whether or not the patents are "stupid," if they are patentable, Microsoft must patent them. Otherwise someone else will and then sue Microsoft.
-
(3 replies)
#4 Posted by dduardo on 02 Aug 2004 - 14:41
- I'm sure Open Source Risk Management LLC, a company that provides insurance against lawsuits related to the use of open source products isn't biased in their report.
I don't think Microsoft would threaten Linux with patents. If they did, IBM would start threatening Microsoft with their own patents. This is how it is with nuclear weapons. If one country even dares to launch a missle, the other country will launch twice as many missles. -
#4.2 Posted by Colonel_Angus on 02 Aug 2004 - 15:02
QUOTE In 2003, IBM received 3,415 U.S. patents from the USPTO. This is the eleventh consecutive year that IBM has received more U.S. patents than any other company in the world.
I'm sure IBM could find 1 or 2 to threaten MS with...
Last edited by 52758 on 02 Aug 2004 - 15:09
-
#5 Posted by theh0g on 02 Aug 2004 - 14:45
- Software patents are an idiotic idea, but unfortunately those who decide about this, are some clueless politicians, who's greatest knowledge is sending an email from Hotmail or writing an SMS. Nice mess they got us in to, nice going!
-
(1 reply)
#6 Posted by ghostwind on 02 Aug 2004 - 14:46
- Half the problem is the US Patent office. They will patent absolutly anything that comes their way. I am surprised the US hasn't tried to patent Walking
-
#6.1 Posted by Shining Arcanine on 03 Aug 2004 - 19:20
QUOTE Half the problem is the US Patent office. They will patent absolutly anything that comes their way. I am surprised the US hasn't tried to patent Walking
They don't allow people to patent anything. The things they refuse to patent, you don't hear about.
-
(6 replies)
#7 Posted by dl0711 on 02 Aug 2004 - 14:49
- MicroS-H-I-T is money hungry. I sware if they patenting B$ like the double-click I'm going to put all my money and will ask others so we all can sue MicroS-H-I-T for stealing s-h-i-t from IBM and Apple
-
#7.1 Posted by CdCViRus on 02 Aug 2004 - 14:58
- yeah, and i bet you can come up with a sufficient amount to bankrupt MS in court
go ahead - sue MS. hell, be your own attorney, but keep in mind that MS has the top attorneys working for them, who will crash you like a bug in court -
#7.2 Posted by CubanPete on 02 Aug 2004 - 15:06
- If apple and IBM did invent it why arn't they showing the patent office the proof dated before microsofts????? That would make the patent void!!!!
Btw microsoft arn't going to make ALOT of money out of patents unless someone doesnt pay for the right to use the patented idea. To use a patented idea costs a little money but if you'r talking about a piece of software that will make millions of dollors the right to use the patent would be less than 1% of the amount you gain back. I dont think many people who have commented quite understand what patents are and the legal issues behind them. -
#7.3 Posted by Colonel_Angus on 02 Aug 2004 - 15:12
- IBM was developing operating systems when Bill Gates was just a sperm and an egg.
useless fact: General Motors invented the first operating system in the early fifties. It was for an IBM computer.
Last edited by 52758 on 02 Aug 2004 - 16:00 -
#7.4 Posted by bryonhowley on 02 Aug 2004 - 15:47
- Thats why IBM got Microsoft to make dos for them. Good one.
-
#7.5 Posted by bryonhowley on 02 Aug 2004 - 15:49
- Who or What is MicroS-H-I-T and what do they have to do with a post about Microsoft?
-
#7.6 Posted by wildk on 02 Aug 2004 - 15:50
QUOTE MicroS-H-I-T is money hungry. I sware if they patenting B$ like the double-click
How many damn times to people have to point out that the patent for the double click applied to mobile devices only that run funnily enough pocket PC. There article was on this site serveral months ago i suggest you do your research first before coming up with lame assed comments and crappy names that don't make you look big or clever
-
(4 replies)
#8 Posted by Mister Lamar on 02 Aug 2004 - 14:53
- let them patent things, if the have claim to it, they should be able to do it..........damn linux.
-
#8.1 Posted by b0b on 02 Aug 2004 - 15:16
- You my friend are a retard. But you probally found that out already.
Its not about us and our hate for M$, its about M$ making the most stupid patents. IBM should stepin, or mabe Sun. -
#8.2 Posted by Mister Lamar on 02 Aug 2004 - 15:24
- im sure u will be ok
-
#8.4 Posted by Mister Lamar on 02 Aug 2004 - 19:53
- 4sho
-
(4 replies)
#9 Posted by CubanPete on 02 Aug 2004 - 14:57
- Microsoft can patent anything they like as long as they can prove they though of it first.
If we take the double click thing as an example all it would take is for Apple, or whoever to show the patent office proof such as an e-mail dated before microsofts proof then the patent office would make the patent void!
So as you can see from that example if ms really didnt invent it or it was thought of by someone else first and they can prove it they patent would no longer be valid so everyones a winner!
I dunno bout anyone else but if ms thought of it, i think they have the right to patent it, afterall its cost them to think/develop whatever the patents about!
MS pay to invest and improve their software, i pay for that software and i dont want people who didnt pay to have all the fetures i have. Just like you wouldnt want to go on holiday and find out someone with the exact holiday as you paid less becasue they booked later!!! -
#9.1 Posted by b0b on 02 Aug 2004 - 15:20
- So, Nike, Adidas and all the other designer cloths companies could patent their cloths and sue Walmart, which would put Walmart out of the picture for good. Hmm.
/me applies for job at Nike and will try to get company to patent cloths. -
#9.2 Posted by STV on 02 Aug 2004 - 15:21
- again, the double click is for mobile devices.
all of you guys are also forgetting the 256 patents not held by microsoft. all of you are just jumping at microsoft because the news topic has microsoft in the title. i doubt that microsoft is the biggest threat here. its those other 256 that you guys should be worried about.
i guess people just love to hate.
STV -
#9.3 Posted by tapo on 02 Aug 2004 - 17:58
- I agree, the double-click was only for mobile devices, and people should stop complaining about that. It's legitimate as far as I can see.
I'm very much against software patents. You don't need to do ANYTHING to get a software patent. As long as you have a general and overly broad example, you can patent it. Such as automatic updates (Remember that company suing MS and Apple?) and instant messaging (AOL filed it for ICQ, even though Zephyr came out 8 years earlier). -
#9.4 Posted by CubanPete on 02 Aug 2004 - 19:12
QUOTE (#9.3) I agree, the double-click was only for mobile devices, and people should stop complaining about that. It's legitimate as far as I can see.
I'm very much against software patents. You don't need to do ANYTHING to get a software patent. As long as you have a general and overly broad example, you can patent it. Such as automatic updates (Remember that company suing MS and Apple?) and instant messaging (AOL filed it for ICQ, even though Zephyr came out 8 years earlier).
I wasn't complaining i was simply using it as an example. Which i now realise is sortof sketchy but i hope i got my point about true owners across
-
(3 replies)
#10 Posted by figgy on 02 Aug 2004 - 15:20
- Some oft the comments here are total BS.
Microsoft has never sued anyone for patent infringement.
Microsoft uses patents as a protective measure.
Microsoft has only counter-sued for patent infringement when someone else sues them. -
#10.1 Posted by b0b on 02 Aug 2004 - 15:22
- Well, if that is true, its fine with me. As long as they don't put anyone out of business or sue anyone.
-
(4 replies)
#11 Posted by STV on 02 Aug 2004 - 15:24
- you want to talk about stupid patents. what about patenting an interface which apple is doing.
STV -
#11.3 Posted by MegaManXcalibur on 02 Aug 2004 - 17:39
- Hey I can't argue with that logic either.
-
#12 Posted by Jugalator on 02 Aug 2004 - 15:51
- *sigh*
Once again, software patenting rears its ugly head.
These stupid patents should have a much more limited lifespan. We're talking about a *very* quickly changing software market. They should IMHO last for maybe 4-5 years, not more. That's enough to give some company a major head start for inventing something, but not enough to pick up some ancient patents and whine about it.
When some companies (not MS) even starts using obscure patents as a business model, you know something must change.
Anyway, this report is probably bogus since it's written by the company that sells said insurances.
Asking them about potential patent problems in Linux is like asking Pepsi what's the best thing to drink.
-
(1 reply)
#13 Posted by Randall_Lind on 02 Aug 2004 - 16:10
- Hey Pepsi rocks.
-
#14 Posted by brianshapiro on 02 Aug 2004 - 16:48
- i think it would be bad for Microsoft to go after Linux with patents, and I think they know that
-
(3 replies)
#15 Posted by neufuse on 02 Aug 2004 - 16:51
- COMMON SENSE: Any patent could threaten development of anything
you dont need a study to figure that out -
#15.2 Posted by STV on 03 Aug 2004 - 02:35
QUOTE (#15.1) Yes, this is why software patents suck ass.
so lets say that microsoft was being threatened, you would come out here and say what a bad company microsoft is and blah,blah,blah. but since it is linux being threatened, software patents are bad.
STV-
#15.3 Posted by Black on 03 Aug 2004 - 08:32
- Isn't it just possible that if somebody comes up with the idea before you, and you want to use it that you should just stump up some cash? In the commercial sector you'd either try and license or buyout the patent, try to have it overturned or innovate and come up with another solution.
Good example; the Microsoft Double click thing, if you can't buy, license, overturn it why not try and find another (better?) method that achieves the same end result? You just can't expect companies to do your R&D for you, rather than threatening development, think of it as a challenge that can often lead to unexpected innovation.
A total of 283 registered software patents, including 27 held by Microsoft Corp. could conceivably be used as the basis of patent lawsuits against the Linux kernel, according to a study of U.S. software patents scheduled to be released Monday. The study was funded by Open Source Risk Management LLC (OSRM), a company that provides insurance against lawsuits related to the use of open source products, and conducted by patent attorney Dan Ravicher, executive director of the Public Patent Foundation and senior counsel to the Free Software Foundation.
"There is a nontrivial risk of patents being asserted against Linux," said Ravicher, who added that his findings should not come as a great surprise given the broad scope of the Linux project. "The conclusion we came to is not that Linux is doomed and that this is horrible," he said. "It's very similar to the result you would get if you investigated any other software program that's as successful as Linux."
The Beta.Microsoft.com Information pages and newsgroups will close on LimitLogin. After this date you will no longer be able to provide feedback or receive support via these avenues.
During the test period, we received few good bug reports and suggestions for the product. While it was not always possible to respond to every message, your feedback has been given to our development organization for consideration. Since many factors affect product design, we may not have been able to act upon all suggestions. Any feedback that we have not acted on is being considered for future versions of LimitLogin.
Thanks again for your support of Microsoft products. We look forward to your participation in future beta tests.
The Microsoft LimitLogin Team