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 479769
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Patents are patents
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 6th Jul 2011 14:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Patents are patents"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

The exact opposite is true. In the absence of patents, firms won't innovate because they cannot protect their investment in innovation.


Bullshit.

Software patents were not granted before 1998. Are you seriously going to argue - with a straight face - that no innovation in softeare took place before 1998? You do realise the bulk of software technologies we use today are far older than 1998, right?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Patents are patents
by pantheraleo on Wed 6th Jul 2011 14:11 in reply to "RE[5]: Patents are patents"
pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

Bullshit.


And your inability to have a conversation without resorting to foul language. You have serious temper problems Thom. Honestly you do. Encouraging illegal activity, foul mouthed, etc.

Software patents were not granted before 1998. Are you seriously going to argue - with a straight face - that no innovation in softeare took place before 1998?


Now it's my turn to call BS Thom. The first known example of a software patent was granted on August 17th, 1966 on a British patent application for "efficient memory management for the simplex algorithm, that could be implemented by purely software means"

The United States has granted software patents since at least 1972.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Patents are patents
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 6th Jul 2011 14:14 in reply to "RE[6]: Patents are patents"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Now it's my turn to call BS Thom. The first known example of a software patent was granted on August 17th, 1966 on a British patent application for "efficient memory management for the simplex algorithm, that could be implemented by purely software means"

The United States has granted software patents since at least 1972.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_States_p...

Have fun reading.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Patents are patents
by JAlexoid on Wed 6th Jul 2011 16:40 in reply to "RE[6]: Patents are patents"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

And your inability to have a conversation without resorting to foul language. You have serious temper problems Thom. Honestly you do. Encouraging illegal activity, foul mouthed, etc.


When you sense bullshit, you say bullshit.

FYI: EPC has explicitly excluded software from being patented as of 1973.

EDIT: Something your side is battling to overturn to this very day. How's life on the side of Lodsys these days?

Edited 2011-07-06 16:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Patents are patents
by bnolsen on Wed 6th Jul 2011 14:15 in reply to "RE[5]: Patents are patents"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

This is an easy argument to kill.

Typically big companies are big companies because they are successful in the current market. It is not in their interest for the market to change because they can continue to make money without investing R&D and marketing.

New ideas threaten the big companies because they change the market dynamic. Big companies have choices. Either try to freeze the market, or themselves innovate to meet the threat. The current US patent system has made it extremely easy to go for option 1 (freeze the market).

I don't know about you, but a lot of very smart people I know hate working for big companies and prefer working for smaller innovative ones. In the case where a large company has decided to freeze the market mostly the employees that could enable the innovation have left for greener pastures. That opens up a pretty huge window where the big freeze company is vulnerable.

Reply Parent Score: 3