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 479822
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[17]: Patents are patents
by pantheraleo on Wed 6th Jul 2011 15:59 UTC in reply to "RE[16]: Patents are patents"
pantheraleo
Member since:
2007-03-07

You are ignoring the other article which clearly comes to the same conclusion as I do. Funny.


I'm not ignoring anything. I'm simply stating facts. Software patents have existed, and been upheld, since long before 1998. Here is your exact quote:

Software patents were not granted before 1998


That claim is 100% false. And I have proven that beyond any doubt. Software patents have been granted since the 1960s, and have been upheld in court since long before 1998.

I am starting to think you are abusing your admin powers though to mod my comments down. After all, everyone who is interested in this topic has no doubt already commented on it, and therefore should not be able to mod anymore.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The USPTO indeed did not grant software patents until the mid-'90s, except when forced to do so by the courts, which doesn't count.

Let me quote the relevant bit for you:

"The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office historically has been reluctant to grant patents on inventions relating to computer software. In the 1960s, the P.T.O. avoided granting any patent if the invention utilized a calculation made by a computer. In 1968, the Office created formal guidelines for computer related inventions to formalize this reluctance. These guidelines stated that a computer program, whether claimed as an apparatus or as a process, was unpatentable. Under these guidelines, an invention relating to a programmed computer could be patentable only if the computer were combined with other, nonobvious elements to produce a physical result. The P.T.O. viewed computer programs and inventions containing or relating to computer programs as unpatentable mental steps, and not patentable processes or machines. As such, software related inventions were considered by the P.T.O. at that time to be non-statutory."

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

I am starting to think you are abusing your admin powers though to mod my comments down. After all, everyone who is interested in this topic has no doubt already commented on it, and therefore should not be able to mod anymore.


I have modpoints like everybody else, and yes, I am allowed to dispense points like everybody else. I do not abuse the mod system, however.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[19]: Patents are patents
by pantheraleo on Wed 6th Jul 2011 16:20 in reply to "RE[18]: Patents are patents"
pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

The USPTO indeed did not grant software patents until the mid-'90s, except when forced to do so by the courts, which doesn't count.


That's called back peddling Thom. And it's not even accurate back peddling. The court did not force the USPTO to grant Stac's patent on disk compression technology. And that happened before 1998.

The first known U.S. court case that set legal precedence that software was patentable occurred in 1981 in Satya Pal Asija v. USPTO. That is the first known granted software patent in the United States (although again, Software patents had been granted in Britain as far back as the 1960s).

So again, your claim that "software parents were not granted until 1998" is simply wrong.

Reply Parent Score: 2