To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Here is a reasonable summary:
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=201103211720086...
From that opinion: "Hint - "Enable display of a webpage's content before the background image is received, allowing users to interact with the page faster" is something that anyone with a slow modem and Netscape 2.0 had no choice over - that's how it worked, and predates the patent application date.
The rest of the patents are equally silly. For example, the one about tabs and navigation is anticipated by any web page using frames. Also anticipated by lots of game interfaces.
Prediction: The patents will be show to be invalid, but in the meantime the usual suspects make all sorts of foolish noises."
If the patent claims get thrown out, as there seems at first galnce to be a very good chance, then Microsoft is a sitting duck for tortiuous interference and antitrust counterclaims.
These companies will no doubt mount a legal defense, and they'll have an opportunity to have the patents nullified. But I wouldn't bet on it.
Given that you're not a lawyer and what you've just typed is utter bullshit, I can only laugh at you. This is the equivalent of monkeys throwing shit against the wall in hopes that something will stick.
The issue I see with your position is, what exactly did Microsoft invent? Companies have been making device interfaces that do the things mentioned in their patents long before Microsoft got around to patenting their particular spin on the concept. It's called prior art. Hell, the guys who came up with the stage-prop LCARS interface in Star Trek way back in the 80s could claim prior art, just for "inventing" the concepts mentioned in the lawsuit, and they could even throw in things like haptic feedback and visual interfaces that change based on selections made. These are very broad, yet very patentable concepts according to US patent law.
Just because Microsoft was the first one to patent the concept doesn't mean they invented it. THAT is why patent law in the US sucks so bad; it rewards laziness and racketeering, and punishes poor inventors who can't afford to file until they have begun making money off their innovations.





Member since:
2006-01-06
Yes, you're right. Suing over patent infringement is about quashing competition. But that's the point of patents: the government grants you time-limited monopoly status over a particular idea, and excludes others with the force of the law. That said, just because it's about quashing competition does't mean it's bad. Inventors deserve to be compensated for their inventions. You disagree, obviously, but so what. The law is on my side.