Amiga.org
Amiga News and Community Announcements => Amiga News and Community Announcements => General Internet News => Topic started by: amigamad on August 12, 2003, 04:14:29 PM
-
A Chicago based firm together with the University of California have won $520 million from Microsoft after a jury ruled that technology used in Internet Explorer infringed their patents.Microsoft immediately said it would appeal against the decision, after Eolas Technologies took it to court. The founder of Eolas and two other people invented a technology which would allow the use of programs in Web pages.
link is here http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10985 (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10985)
-
Hehe...
Make those suckers pay... :-D
Hey look what I found!:
(http://www.veryfunnypics.com/pics/microsoft/images/buglist.jpg)
-
:-D :-) :-D
YESSSSS !!!
That's good news for me :-D
-
While I dislike Microsoft a great deal, I cannot help but cringe when software patent cases are upheld. Copyrights I have no problem with, but patents suck big time.
-
And in this case the point was a bit vague "invented technology to use programs in web pages", could mean anything. I hope the law suit was a bit clearer than the article ;-)
I agree. It'll soon be VERY difficult to write ANY new application because EVERY possible algoritm you can come up with is patented. By someone with a good lawyer.
Patents was supposed to be good for humanity, right? Not just for lawyers?
-
@olegil
What else can we expect from a society so corrupt that it approved the patenting of human genes?
-
patenting of human genes
Your kidding right ??
-
@Kees
Not at all. I may be jumping the gun regarding the legal status of the whole issue (or else my memory is playing tricks on me) but the issue of patenting human genes or snippets of DNA sequencing by those companies/universities whose research departments discover them is deadly serious.
It's like Christopher Columbus patenting America, or Newton patenting gravity...
(not to mention the moralilty of holding people's health to ransom in the process)
-
I agree, software patenets are moronic at best,
now, if we can get 28 more anti-m$ settlements per year of this magniitude........ :-D
-
Olegil offered:
Patents was supposed to be good for humanity, right? Not just for lawyers?
;-) To paraphrase Larry Niven: If you pray to a lawyer, it may grant your wishes, or it may grant your enemies' wishes. But a lawyer will always grant its own wishes....
-
I disagree. Copyright has been extended to last a century beyond the death of the copyright owner. That doesn't serve anyone. The spirit of the copyright law was to inspire creativity without completely depriving the public the use of those works indefinitely. Original copyrights lasted 14 years, but it has been extended over and over by multi-million dollar corporations and private parties who refuse to allow their intellectual property to pass to the public after what was originally determined to be a fair passage of time. Copyrights were meant to initially protect the copyright holder for a reasonable period of time, and then move to provide public access once the copyright as expired. The way it is now, copyright only serves the copyright holder, and will never grant the public the right to use the copyrighted works because that period continues to be extended over and over again.
In addition, where should the line be drawn for, say, a word processor to be considered intellectual property or a common, every day tool? Nowadays, offices use spreadsheets, databases and word processors with the same mindset that a carpenter uses a hammer. At some point, copyrights no longer make sense in my humble little opinion and are a big part of the problem of cross-compatibility between current platforms.
-
@Roj
Yes, copyrights are now frequently abused, or rather the concept is.
What I meant when I said I have no problem with copyright is that I have no problem with proprietary software and the author's right to protect his work.
Your comparison of a word processor to an everyday tool has a lot to do with patenting and little to do with copyrights. A commercial word processor is akin to a specialised everyday tool. Yes, you put it to fairly basic use, but it is in fact a specialised tool. As with every other tool, it is your choice which model to choose, including free ones. No problems with copyrights, but if word processing was to be patented...
-
Examples of Software Patents (http://www.base.com/software-patents/examples.html)
-
@AdMartin
It's ridiculous isn't it? I learn some programming as hobby, and I still see how pretty much anyone could invent those algorithms. :-x
-
Does anyone knows how much do you have to pay to get a patent in the US ? 8-)
-
YYAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
:-D
-
Hmmmmmmmmm....that's just a drop in the ocean for Bill. A very tiny, tiny tiny drop. :-D