Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 5th Jul 2011 22:12 UTC
Microsoft "One of Microsoft's hottest new profit centers is a smartphone platform you've definitely heard of: Android. Google's Linux-based mobile operating system is a favorite target for Microsoft's patent attorneys, who are suing numerous Android vendors and just today announced that another manufacturer has agreed to write checks to Microsoft every time it ships an Android device. Microsoft's latest target is Wistron Corp., which has signed a patent agreement 'that provides broad coverage under Microsoft's patent portfolio for Wistron's tablets, mobile phones, e-readers and other consumer devices running the Android or Chrome platform', Microsoft announced." That's the reality we live in, folks. This is at least as criminal - if not more so - than Microsoft's monopoly abuse late last century. After the Nortel crap, it's completely left the black helicopter camp for me: Microsoft, Apple, and several others are working together to fight Android the only way they know how: with underhand mafia tactics. Absolutely sickening. Hey Anonymous, are you listening? YES I WENT THERE.
Permalink for comment 479791
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[12]: Patents are patents
by pantheraleo on Wed 6th Jul 2011 14:44 UTC in reply to "RE[11]: Patents are patents"
pantheraleo
Member since:
2007-03-07

"Finally, in State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group,[12] the CAFC ruled that a numerical calculation that produces a "useful, concrete and tangible result", such as a price, is patent-eligible.[13]"


I still don't understand what you are arguing. There were thousands of software patents granted prior to that lawsuit. And there were lawsuits that upheld the validity of software parents prior to that lawsuit.

See Cottshalk vs. Benson in 1972. The U.S. Supreme Court, although ruling that the specific algorithm in question was not patentable, stated in its decision "it is said that the decision precludes a patent for any program servicing a computer. We do not so hold."

So in 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court specifically stated that its decision to invalidate that particular patent did NOT mean that all software parents were invalid.

Piece of advice: you shouldn't partake in a discussion if you're unwilling to properly read the arguments people put forth. Just a tip!


Maybe you are the one that needs to take your own advice Thom. You still haven't provided any evidence to suggest that software patents startd in 1998. You took some court case in 1998, and tried to state that it was the start of software patents. That's a Non-sequitur argument.

There have clearly been software patents since long before 1998. And the Supreme Court of the United States clearly stated in 1972 that it was not ruling all software patents invalid just because it ruled the particular algorithm in Cottshalk vs. Benson was not patentable because it was based on prior art dating to the 19th century.

Edited 2011-07-06 14:51 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5