Comments on: Patent verdict against Microsoft, Autodesk stands
Companies must pay more than $150 million for unlawful use of product activation technologies, federal judge says.
Companies must pay more than $150 million for unlawful use of product activation technologies, federal judge says.
December 28, 2009 2:39 PM PST
December 28, 2009 1:39 PM PST
December 28, 2009 12:45 PM PST
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
Related quotes
Wondows - stolen
task bar auto hide - stolen
tabbed browsing - stolen
what did they inovate again? Oh thats right security holes and cloud pictures.
think it means.?
If ideas equal inovation, then the NASA must have stolen the idea of rokets from some science fiction authors. In fact, the idea of a rocket originated in China. So every time you watch the launch of space shuttle, do you hnow that the idea came from some forgoten Chinese craftsman in ancient times? Do the glory of the shuttle program or the Apolo space program belong to this craftman in China?
Otherwise you don't have a leg to stand on for complaining about what MS has "stolen". And just for the record MS *BOUGHT AND PAID FOR* DOS, they didn't steal it at all. Just because they paid the source a mere $50k for it and later made hundreds of millions on it doesn't make it theft.
Coincidense?
I don't think so.
- Bad decision
- by qwerty75 August 24, 2006 5:07 AM PDT
- As much as I despise the greedy arrogant ***** from MS, I have to defend them a tad. Even though they are guilty of the same thing. Abuses software patents.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Reforms are needed
- by Seaspray0 August 24, 2006 7:56 AM PDT
- I don't often agree with qwerty, but I find patent squating as ugly as domain squating. What stinks is: it's the first to patent, not the first to implement. How patents work now, I could theoretically go patent the game of baseball and subsequently sue the owners of the professional teams for infringing on my patent. I don't have to invent the game or even play it, just be first to patent the "concept" of the game.
- Like this
-
- Not quite
- by Vurk August 24, 2006 10:39 AM PDT
- Patents, when limited to the Constitutionally-mandated 17 years, are a good thing. If you cannot make money on your invention in 17 years, you deserve to lose the monopoly on that *one* idea.
- Like this
-
(17 Comments)This is yet another reason why patents in software is a bad thing. Copyrights are all software needs to be thoroughly protected. Imagine if all the great algorithms that are still in use today but were developed 30-40 years ago were patented. What if the OS was, or word processor.
Too many companies are coming up with obviouos ideas with prior art, not even implementing them, just patenting them and waiting for their cash cow to arrive.
Software is not anything like a real invention, especially when the patent applicant has only a vague idea not an implementation. But even attached to a real implimentation it is still a bogus patent,
Software is very much like a book, which any sane person would agree can not be patented. Software is just words in a certain order. All this talk about some new software being "new technology" is total crap. It is just words that do something that might be new, but the words and order of them are generally not new.
These software companies that are bottom feeding on others are holding back the software industry. Yes, it is delicious irony when a massive patent abuser like MS gets smashed in the face, but it is still wrong.
Luckily, most of the important tech countries are moving towards a total ban on patents, which will help the US towards the necessary goal of stopping predatory companies that create nothing, but suck out the life of companies that are doing real work.
Patents stifle innovation, period.
Its *software* (and idea) patents which stifle innovation.