Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Mar 2011 22:52 UTC, submitted by ephracis
Since competing on merit is looked down upon in the computer and software world, companies in this business usually go for the blindfolded chick with the scale and sword. Up until recently, Microsoft didn't go for the whole patent litigation thing, but now that they've tasted some, they want more. They just sued Barnes & Noble, Foxconn, and Inventec for patent infringement because they use Android.
Thread beginning with comment 467553
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2005-06-29
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.