Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Sat 15th May 2004 08:23 UTC
It is when I read articles like this that I have "my blood all going up to my head" (that's a Greek saying for people that get angry). So apparently, Apple is trying to patent "transparent windows that do a certain action after fading away". While I don't personally find this "innovation/invention" patentable, it's fine with me: Apple is doing the best it can to secure its business (maybe I would do the same if I had shareholders on my back).
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
JPEG is an unfortunate situation, but all those who used it in their software really should've gotten a license. Just because the patent switches hands doesn't mean the the licenses are void.
Can you tell me where you can get a licence? According to the ISO site, the baseline implementation is be royalty free and licence free. It would be hard for these companies to get one. Some companies did added proprietary/patented extentions to the standard but they are not a part of the baseline implementation. To what I understand, the current situation is that some company found out that the baseline implementation is using an algorithm that seems to be covered by one of their patents... and they found it out/decided to enforce it nine (9) years after the acquisition of the patent. The company that applied for that patent never really enforced it in six (6) years...