OSNews

Actually this is one of the few software patent cases that actually made sense. Microsoft, by their own admission in emails, knew that the technology was patented and that they would severely hurt i4i's business. This is why i4i was given so much money. Microsoft could have settled with i4i at any time along the way. Microsoft likes to use patents to try to step on Linux, so it serves them right to get stepped on.

To be fair, they are really only waving patent threats around. To actually step on someone with them, they'd have to detail the accusations and risk having many of them invalidated during the discovery stage of the case.

Actually stepping on someone would also risk being held accountable for there own code and potential infringements.

What's Borked about this in anyway shape or form?

According to the judges in this Microsoft set out to steal something they *KNEW* they didn't have the rights to.

It's pretty much the same thing as what happened with Pystar and their supporters setting out to rip-off Apple's OS.


And Like Psystar,it looks like Microsoft is going to get nailed for it, despite all the whining form assholes like yourself.

Your statement triggers mental imagery that reminds me of the song "Dirt Room" by Blue October.

Steve Balmer of Microsoft apes:
"You think you'll use me
I'm stronger than you
You take my money, but it's useless
When see what I do to you
Look what I do to you!"

Rebuttal by Loudon Owen of i4i:
"...Come on
I really think that this is fun for the money
I'll make it comfy for the time wasted making you rich
I want to cover you in ants, bees and honey
Then take a picture for the cover of our album!"

Well, that's probably difficult to measure for a lot of companies. Patents aren't just for licensing and suing people with, they also can discourage development of similar technology. That reduced competition is valuable to companies, but difficult to quantize.

So after 30 years, I keep reading this nonsense. Seriously, both companies took "inspiration" from Xerox PARC and both companies settled their differences regarding those patents long ago. Can we let it go now?

There are much more current and relevant questionable acts to focus on without the need for drudging up the original sins.

It is remarkable we still have people chattering how innovative we been in SV. Few talk about the theft of code and reverse engineering that goes on.

Sometime back ago in 2004-05 MS got nailed by a security software company in a lawsuit which MS was ordered to pay $800M by the courts. The company was across the street from me back than in Sunnyvale. MS pretty much ensured this small company would last for the next several decades just living off the lawsuit they were awarded.

Where did you hear that?

Microsoft has been complaining that the patent system is broken for years - they're one of the larger players arguing that it needs to be reformed.

of course they are, it would save them so much money from having to acquire companies and not having to spend as much on R&D so they can just implement it their own way.

And how is that bad for everyone else? You can't have a double-standard here - you're either pro-software patents, or anti-software patents, but you can't decide based on whether you like or hate the company holding the patents.

There's still the free market (i.e. competition), antitrust laws (to keep competition around), and copyright law (to prevent outright "theft" of code/artwork) to keep corporations in check.

And how is that bad for everyone else? You can't have a double-standard here - you're either pro-software patents, or anti-software patents, but you can't decide based on whether you like or hate the company holding the patents.

There's still the free market (i.e. competition), antitrust laws (to keep competition around), and copyright law (to prevent outright "theft" of code/artwork) to keep corporations in check. "

Imagine a world where R&D goes away and everyone is simply a lame chinese company that rips off everyone.

Last I checked, we were talking about software patents here...

With every software company I've worked for, the R&D time goes into the development of code, not the "invention phase".

In fact, I've never worked for a company where patents were sought prior to coding...

I seriously doubt software R&D would cease to exist just because software patents went away. Software advances when you make use of existing technology, not when you have to come up with a non-patented way to do the same thing.

But hey, we all have our own opinions, and I believe software patents do far more bad than good.

As opposed lame american companies stealing other's hard work.

at least there is a system in place to prevent their products from being sold as well as many other financial ways to cripple a company that continues to do this (such as what is happening in this case with MS).