Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 13th Dec 2010 19:27 UTC, submitted by lemur2
Permalink for comment 453415
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 11:39 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 11:32 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 19:39 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-12-26
"
"The point is not that Android is or is not in violation of Oracle's patents," .. actually it IS that was my point.
"That alone is going to cost Google" .. actually it wont because google says the handset manufacturers will have to defend themselves in court. Lets see if android is seen to infringe java.. imagine the damages... all that software.. all those phones.. all that money lost. I thought we were trying to avoid patent litigation and here you are saying its a non issue. What are you trying to say here.. google can infringe but everyone else cant?
What are you talking aobut .. these patents were before windows. The patent was in the days of DOS remember 3dfx cards? I never said nobody ever sued.. i just said theres many many patents that companies are NOT enforcing. Are u disagreeing with that? No your not because your hopefully not a complete idiot.. instead your trying to avoid the point.. which i made.. which is a fact.
The law regarding reverse engineering in the computer software and hardware context is less clear, but has been described by many courts as an important part of software development. The reverse engineering of software faces considerable legal challenges due to the enforcement of anti reverse engineering licensing provisions and the prohibition on the circumvention of technologies embedded within protection measures. By enforcing these legal mechanisms, courts are not required to examine the reverse engineering restrictions under federal intellectual property law. In circumstances involving anti reverse engineering licensing provisions, courts must first determine whether the enforcement of these provisions within contracts are preempted by federal intellectual property law considerations. Under DMCA claims involving the circumvention of technological protection systems, courts analyze whether or not the reverse engineering in question qualifies under any of the exemptions contained within the law...
someone elses words not mine... reverse engineering is not simply protected and allowed in the usa.. its under legal debate.. so obviously you wouldnt want to reverse engineer anything ever if you were worried about legal issues. Since we are "worrying" about legal issues my point is perfectly valid.
Refer to point ahead in the USA reverse engineering.. espcially when something is designed to prevent you doing it is sometimes illegal.
If your worried about legality DONT reverse engineer.
You just said above MS HAS enforced file system patents above... ??? Remember im not saying MS will sue.. or wont.. im mearly saying theres are many patents help by many companies who have no intention of enforcing.
This had little to do with the look and feel court case.. it was a functional patent not a style one. They patentent clicking on the top line of pixels and the great US of A gave them a patent for it.. ditto for amazon and the 1 click patent.
Go team america!
Ok so um exactly where wasnt i right?
Apple lost its "look and feel" lawsuit against Microsoft.