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 479817
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[15]: Patents are patents
by pantheraleo on Wed 6th Jul 2011 15:51 UTC in reply to "RE[14]: Patents are patents"
pantheraleo
Member since:
2007-03-07

The 1998 is NOT wrong.


Yes, Thom it is wrong. Plain and simple. Again, The Supreme Court specifically stated in 1972 that it was ruling on one specific patent. NOT on the validity of software patents in general And Stak Electronics won a patent lawsuit against Microsoft in 1994.

You are quoting from a Wikipedia article that is flagged as factually disputed specifically because it is trying to state software patents didn't appear until much later than they actually did.

You are assigning far more importance to this lawsuit than it deserves, and it's a FUD tactic. State Bank argued that it was not patentable because it was math. It was a desperate argument that had almost no chance of working because the courts had already upheld software algorithm patents in the past.

It was not the first time a software patent was upheld in court. End of story. Therefore, the 1998 date is WRONG. You are arguing this Ad nauseam now just because you don't want to admit that your 1998 date is clearly wrong. The Wikipedia article you are so tightly clinging to in order to support that date is even flagged as factually disputed because there are earlier examples of software patents that were successfully upheld in court.

Edited 2011-07-06 15:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1