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.
Thread beginning with comment 479659
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Patents are patents
by ourcomputerbloke on Tue 5th Jul 2011 23:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Patents are patents"
ourcomputerbloke
Member since:
2011-05-12

I happen to be against software patents. They are pure evil. Software is properly protected by copyright. Patenting math is criminal.


Thom can I ask a question? Have you ever written any commercial software? It's just to me it seems you don't quite understand why software requires patent protection even more so than copyright. However, in your defense, it really is a concept that will probably only be understood by someone who's ever coded anything significant.

Reply Parent Score: -5

RE[3]: Patents are patents
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 5th Jul 2011 23:50 in reply to "RE[2]: Patents are patents"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

"I happen to be against software patents. They are pure evil. Software is properly protected by copyright. Patenting math is criminal.


Thom can I ask a question? Have you ever written any commercial software? It's just to me it seems you don't quite understand why software requires patent protection even more so than copyright. However, in your defense, it really is a concept that will probably only be understood by someone who's ever coded anything significant.
"

Nice underhanded insult.

Sofware doesn't need patent protection just like the news industry doesn't need it. Can you imagine if The New York times patented a news story, so that others wouldn't be allowed to report on it from their own angles? Because THAT is what the software world currently looks like.

Software is protected by copyright, and that's enough protection. Software patents are harming the industry, and holding back innovation. They are a huge burden on the US justice system, and cost consumers loads ofmp money every year.

Reply Parent Score: 10

v RE[4]: Patents are patents
by pantheraleo on Wed 6th Jul 2011 00:08 in reply to "RE[3]: Patents are patents"
RE[3]: Patents are patents
by kpugovkin on Wed 6th Jul 2011 00:02 in reply to "RE[2]: Patents are patents"
kpugovkin Member since:
2011-07-05

I’ve written a lot of commercial software and still do not understand the idea of software patents. Do I have to search USPTO patent library any time I’m going to implement an algorithm or UI element and then pay for it?
If so, then it’s probably time to quit programming, because we are inventing bicycles every day.

Reply Parent Score: 17

ourcomputerbloke Member since:
2011-05-12

I’ve written a lot of commercial software and still do not understand the idea of software patents. Do I have to search USPTO patent library any time I’m going to implement an algorithm or UI element and then pay for it?


If I'm designing a new gadget to do anything specific do I have to search USPTO patent library to make sure I'm not infringing on someone's patent? Of course, so why should it be any different for software?

And by the same token should a company who is buying components from another company who already has a patent license to produce that hardware have to pay another license for the use of that same patent? Why is that not double-dipping?

Reply Parent Score: 1

Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

You should, but then your company would be wilfully infringing on a patent. In this case, ignorance is a valid defense.

Reply Parent Score: 1