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 479830
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[19]: Patents are patents
by pantheraleo on Wed 6th Jul 2011 16:20 UTC in reply to "RE[18]: Patents are patents"
Member since:

The USPTO indeed did not grant software patents until the mid-'90s, except when forced to do so by the courts, which doesn't count.

That's called back peddling Thom. And it's not even accurate back peddling. The court did not force the USPTO to grant Stac's patent on disk compression technology. And that happened before 1998.

The first known U.S. court case that set legal precedence that software was patentable occurred in 1981 in Satya Pal Asija v. USPTO. That is the first known granted software patent in the United States (although again, Software patents had been granted in Britain as far back as the 1960s).

So again, your claim that "software parents were not granted until 1998" is simply wrong.

Reply Parent Score: 2