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 479802
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[13]: Patents are patents
by pantheraleo on Wed 6th Jul 2011 15:27 UTC in reply to "RE[12]: Patents are patents"
pantheraleo
Member since:
2007-03-07

Just read this, will you? It will explain everything.


I did read it. You are reading something into it that isn't there. You also conveniently ignored the giant flag at the top of that article that says "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed."

The following facts are abundantly clear:

1. The U.S. Supreme Court specifically stated in 1972 in Gottschalk v. Benson that it was NOT ruling all software patents to be invalid just because it ruled that particular one to be invalid since it was based on prior art from the 19th century.

2. Stak Electronics vs. Microsoft proves your 1998 date is wrong.

Your 1998 date is wrong Thom. It simply is. And at this point, you are only digging yourself a deeper hole trying to defend your factually incorrect statement because you don't want to simply admit that you were wrong.

Edited 2011-07-06 15:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The 1998 is NOT wrong. The 1998 date is the date when it was established, beyond a doubt, that software was patentable. Before that, it was questionable, with the USPTO actively resisting software patents. It's RIGHT THERE in the article for EVERYONE to read. Plain as day.

After the mid-'90s, software patents became generally accepted. Currently, courts are backpedaling on this.

http://www.bitlaw.com/software-patent/history.html

"1960s-70s: No Protection if Invention Used a Calculation Made by a Computer;
1980s: The Supreme Court Says Some Computerized Inventions are Patentable;
1990s: The Federal Circuit Says Almost All Software is Patentable.
2000s: Courts Start Pulling Back."

As you can see, software patents did not became undisputed until the '90s.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[15]: Patents are patents
by pantheraleo on Wed 6th Jul 2011 15:51 in reply to "RE[14]: Patents are patents"
pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

The 1998 is NOT wrong.


Yes, Thom it is wrong. Plain and simple. Again, The Supreme Court specifically stated in 1972 that it was ruling on one specific patent. NOT on the validity of software patents in general And Stak Electronics won a patent lawsuit against Microsoft in 1994.

You are quoting from a Wikipedia article that is flagged as factually disputed specifically because it is trying to state software patents didn't appear until much later than they actually did.

You are assigning far more importance to this lawsuit than it deserves, and it's a FUD tactic. State Bank argued that it was not patentable because it was math. It was a desperate argument that had almost no chance of working because the courts had already upheld software algorithm patents in the past.

It was not the first time a software patent was upheld in court. End of story. Therefore, the 1998 date is WRONG. You are arguing this Ad nauseam now just because you don't want to admit that your 1998 date is clearly wrong. The Wikipedia article you are so tightly clinging to in order to support that date is even flagged as factually disputed because there are earlier examples of software patents that were successfully upheld in court.

Edited 2011-07-06 15:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1