Comments on: Microsoft, Apple in iPod patent tussle
Music player may be winning in the market, but Microsoft beats its rival in the patent office.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Firefox development dilemma: Tweak or overhaul?
January 4, 2010 2:34 PM PST
- WSJ: Apple tablet shipping in March
January 4, 2010 1:48 PM PST
- CNET News Daily Podcast: Prepping for Nexus One and CES
January 4, 2010 1:09 PM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
What year was the "Spongy Parts"? The Mac didn't even get pre-
emptive multitasking and protected memory until they borrowed
from BSD to make Mac OS X. Five years after Microsoft did the
job themselves. I used a Mac in 1997 and it was not fluid.
------------------------------------------------------
How does that effect printing? The mac did cooperative
multitasking. So what. Did this keep windows from crashing
less? Was the interface more fluid & less obtrusive than the Mac
OS. Nope. 11 years after the mac OS Windows 95 comes out. So
what. Did MS invent these things (protected memory, etc.).
Nope. NT's foundation was bought from DEC & Windows was a
clown suit wrapped around DOS (which MS also purchased). You
used a Mac for what? Most of your interface elements are lifted
from Apple not from Xerox. http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/
revolution/chapter/index.html
Was your Mac experience in a production environment. I've used
both also. How does this address the postscript issue? As usual
MS the me to company. Someone else does the groundwork &
they jump in & take credit.
Win95 was far more fluid than the MacOS of the time (System 7?) providing you used Win95 software. If you used mostly Win3.1 software then it was little better at multitasking than Win3.1. You might see this as a fault, but it is a feature. Microsoft could have just released WinNT and said "Buy new software" like Apple does, but they listened to the market and provided a middle ground that became Win95.
NT was not bought from DEC. It is an easy mistake to make. Microsoft did hire a few DEC programmer who used their experience to make an OS that had similar design to their past work, but that is not the same thing. That would be like saying Google is based on Microsoft technology.
I used a Mac at University (College for US types) as it was all they had there. I have not used Maxs much since as still cringe at the experience. However if Apple allow dual booting on the finished x86 Macs I might give them a go again.
What year was the "Spongy Parts"? The Mac didn't even get pre-
emptive multitasking and protected memory until they borrowed
from BSD to make Mac OS X. Five years after Microsoft did the
job themselves. I used a Mac in 1997 and it was not fluid.
------------------------------------------------------
How does that effect printing? The mac did cooperative
multitasking. So what. Did this keep windows from crashing
less? Was the interface more fluid & less obtrusive than the Mac
OS. Nope. 11 years after the mac OS Windows 95 comes out. So
what. Did MS invent these things (protected memory, etc.).
Nope. NT's foundation was bought from DEC & Windows was a
clown suit wrapped around DOS (which MS also purchased). You
used a Mac for what? Most of your interface elements are lifted
from Apple not from Xerox. http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/
revolution/chapter/index.html
Was your Mac experience in a production environment. I've used
both also. How does this address the postscript issue? As usual
MS the me to company. Someone else does the groundwork &
they jump in & take credit.
Win95 was far more fluid than the MacOS of the time (System 7?) providing you used Win95 software. If you used mostly Win3.1 software then it was little better at multitasking than Win3.1. You might see this as a fault, but it is a feature. Microsoft could have just released WinNT and said "Buy new software" like Apple does, but they listened to the market and provided a middle ground that became Win95.
NT was not bought from DEC. It is an easy mistake to make. Microsoft did hire a few DEC programmer who used their experience to make an OS that had similar design to their past work, but that is not the same thing. That would be like saying Google is based on Microsoft technology.
I used a Mac at University (College for US types) as it was all they had there. I have not used Maxs much since as still cringe at the experience. However if Apple allow dual booting on the finished x86 Macs I might give them a go again.
Insync.
Insync.
My fervent hope is that one day his corporation will be broken up and sold off in a thousand littel pieces and that laws will passed to prevent someone ever again to wielding that much power.
The only thing Microsoft is doing is stiffling competion. Evidently hi has once again not listened to his legal team. If Apple goes bust as a result of his tatics. Even Bush's government will have no recourse but, break him up like At&T/Baby Bell system of the past.
In the past Patent laws were beficial. But, in today's climit, the way Gates uses it. I think that Pantents should be outlawed. So that any one would have the right to creat something without looking over their shoulder to who's developing the same thing and let the market shake out which is the better implimentation.
Do you have any idea how many patents companies like IBM, 3M, GE, Amgen and others develop on a near daily basis but never put to use? MS didn't create the patent system -- they, like Apple and others, simply play the legal game to use it to their benefit. In case anyone loses sight of this fact: both companies are businesses looking to make money for their shareholders. Neither is trying to save the world at their own expense.
Let's not be petty and pretend that something noble is being sacrificed here. I the end, one company will do a better job of supporting their claim that they were the first to invent the IP in question (remember, the US uses a "first to invent" system, not "first to file") and that party will win out. You said: "I think patents should be outlawed." Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
And lastly, when you go around making claims that Bill Gates has never invented anything (prove it) or that MS is keeping Apple from succeeding, you come off as having no common sense and no ability to look at facts. In reality, MS' real competitive threat doesn't come from Apple, it's Linux, Linux, Linux. And don't forget that Apple decided (on their own -- Bill didn't put a gun to their heads) to first license their OS to Power Computing and others, then stop allowing other companies to make clones when the overall Mac market share was rising quickly at Apple's expense. If Apple cared about market share, they could license their os and get out of the low to mid signle digits they've been in for over a decade, but they don't. Apple cares more about trying to create what they consider to be the perfect machine, so they control the platform with an iron fist. Unfortunately for them, few people agree with their vision, so Windows continues to dominate.
Mister Winky
My fervent hope is that one day his corporation will be broken up and sold off in a thousand littel pieces and that laws will passed to prevent someone ever again to wielding that much power.
The only thing Microsoft is doing is stiffling competion. Evidently hi has once again not listened to his legal team. If Apple goes bust as a result of his tatics. Even Bush's government will have no recourse but, break him up like At&T/Baby Bell system of the past.
In the past Patent laws were beficial. But, in today's climit, the way Gates uses it. I think that Pantents should be outlawed. So that any one would have the right to creat something without looking over their shoulder to who's developing the same thing and let the market shake out which is the better implimentation.
Do you have any idea how many patents companies like IBM, 3M, GE, Amgen and others develop on a near daily basis but never put to use? MS didn't create the patent system -- they, like Apple and others, simply play the legal game to use it to their benefit. In case anyone loses sight of this fact: both companies are businesses looking to make money for their shareholders. Neither is trying to save the world at their own expense.
Let's not be petty and pretend that something noble is being sacrificed here. I the end, one company will do a better job of supporting their claim that they were the first to invent the IP in question (remember, the US uses a "first to invent" system, not "first to file") and that party will win out. You said: "I think patents should be outlawed." Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
And lastly, when you go around making claims that Bill Gates has never invented anything (prove it) or that MS is keeping Apple from succeeding, you come off as having no common sense and no ability to look at facts. In reality, MS' real competitive threat doesn't come from Apple, it's Linux, Linux, Linux. And don't forget that Apple decided (on their own -- Bill didn't put a gun to their heads) to first license their OS to Power Computing and others, then stop allowing other companies to make clones when the overall Mac market share was rising quickly at Apple's expense. If Apple cared about market share, they could license their os and get out of the low to mid signle digits they've been in for over a decade, but they don't. Apple cares more about trying to create what they consider to be the perfect machine, so they control the platform with an iron fist. Unfortunately for them, few people agree with their vision, so Windows continues to dominate.
Mister Winky
There is no point in arguing who is the best among Apple and Microsoft, both have their own achievements, which should be appreciated.
Regards,
Anil Alias.
There is no point in arguing who is the best among Apple and Microsoft, both have their own achievements, which should be appreciated.
Regards,
Anil Alias.
There's no ingenuity here. Nothing that deserves protection by government granted monopoly. They are both following a straightforward path of development and along the way they encounter the same problem and solve them in the same straightforward way. Is there a reason to grant monopoly on the straightforward solution to any of them?
Two (or more) are competing very closely, meet the same problems and solve them in a similar way. Is that not sufficient proof that there's nothing special in their solution that society would benefit from giving one of them exclusive rights to? If they hadn't "invented" these "things", someone else would have. The very fact that both arrived at the same solution along the same fact shows that this is highly probable.
Is there any reason for government intervention in this competition between private companies? Any reason to intervene and grant monopoly to one of the competitors? What's the benefit to the taxpayer? The only reason is that a very old and outdated concept that was quite good at protecting inventors in the 19th century has gone out of control.
Perhaps patents can still have their own little place where they might benefit the public. But the way they are handled nowadays, applying 19th century criteria to 21st century product development is certainly not to the public's benefit, and there's absolutely no reason why the public should, through government, keep granting these patents the way they do.
This system should be completely changed, in a way that grants monopoly in only rare cases where it is obvious that not granting a monopoly would result in clear loss to the public.
The problem these days is that companies are patenting everything they do, not in the hope that any of those patents will stand up if challenged by someone capable of arguing their obviousness but in the hope that by having a large portfolio of patents they can negotiate "sharing" arrangements with other companies in the case they are found to infringe on one of that other companies patents.
What should be more telling is the list of the companies being (or threatened with suits) by MS for patent infringement that didn't start with a threat or suit by the other party. So far as I've heard that list is currently empty and my suspicions about MS's patent portfolio is that it's a defensive manuever.
There's no ingenuity here. Nothing that deserves protection by government granted monopoly. They are both following a straightforward path of development and along the way they encounter the same problem and solve them in the same straightforward way. Is there a reason to grant monopoly on the straightforward solution to any of them?
Two (or more) are competing very closely, meet the same problems and solve them in a similar way. Is that not sufficient proof that there's nothing special in their solution that society would benefit from giving one of them exclusive rights to? If they hadn't "invented" these "things", someone else would have. The very fact that both arrived at the same solution along the same fact shows that this is highly probable.
Is there any reason for government intervention in this competition between private companies? Any reason to intervene and grant monopoly to one of the competitors? What's the benefit to the taxpayer? The only reason is that a very old and outdated concept that was quite good at protecting inventors in the 19th century has gone out of control.
Perhaps patents can still have their own little place where they might benefit the public. But the way they are handled nowadays, applying 19th century criteria to 21st century product development is certainly not to the public's benefit, and there's absolutely no reason why the public should, through government, keep granting these patents the way they do.
This system should be completely changed, in a way that grants monopoly in only rare cases where it is obvious that not granting a monopoly would result in clear loss to the public.
The problem these days is that companies are patenting everything they do, not in the hope that any of those patents will stand up if challenged by someone capable of arguing their obviousness but in the hope that by having a large portfolio of patents they can negotiate "sharing" arrangements with other companies in the case they are found to infringe on one of that other companies patents.
What should be more telling is the list of the companies being (or threatened with suits) by MS for patent infringement that didn't start with a threat or suit by the other party. So far as I've heard that list is currently empty and my suspicions about MS's patent portfolio is that it's a defensive manuever.
The goverment better throw this one out.
The goverment better throw this one out.
before MS patent was even submitted.
I don't know how much leverage MS has in this case.
Once again, I think MS is trying to do its best to be Big Brother.
before MS patent was even submitted.
I don't know how much leverage MS has in this case.
Once again, I think MS is trying to do its best to be Big Brother.
Chances are that after MS' filing is rejected (and it will be, due to prior art), Apple will re-file.
Chances are that after MS' filing is rejected (and it will be, due to prior art), Apple will re-file.
should instead come down against the approval of what I call
common sense patents.
A lot of parents are common sense. Take a look at a patent filed
for reading a database from a portable device. To me, there are
two solutions to finding out what music is stored on an mp3
player. Scanning the entire HD/flash to find songs, or storing
that information in a database.
I think all of us can come down on the side of fewer patents for
no real innovation. Technologies such as the click wheel and the
tilt screen on some pvp I saw on here are innovations. The idea
of nest menus, a feature found commonly in any OS, is not.
- Stupid patents
- by ethernet76 August 15, 2005 6:41 PM PDT
- I think instead of bickering over who owns what technology, we
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 2 of 3 pages (156 Comments)should instead come down against the approval of what I call
common sense patents.
A lot of parents are common sense. Take a look at a patent filed
for reading a database from a portable device. To me, there are
two solutions to finding out what music is stored on an mp3
player. Scanning the entire HD/flash to find songs, or storing
that information in a database.
I think all of us can come down on the side of fewer patents for
no real innovation. Technologies such as the click wheel and the
tilt screen on some pvp I saw on here are innovations. The idea
of nest menus, a feature found commonly in any OS, is not.