I guess they do know about the 235 MS patents they're violating...

[Frank]

This article seems to define a different path to be taken in the case of
patent infringement:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/infringe.htm
"Infringement of a patent consists of the unauthorized making, using,
offering for sale or selling any patented invention within the United
States or United States Territories, or importing into the United States
of any patented invention during the term of the patent. If a patent is
infringed, the patentee may sue for relief in the appropriate Federal
court. The patentee may ask the court for an injunction to prevent the
continuation of the infringement and may also ask the court for an award
of damages because of the infringement. In such an infringement suit,
the defendant may raise the question of the validity of the patent,
which is then decided by the court. The defendant may also aver that
what is being done does not constitute infringement. Infringement is
determined primarily by the language of the claims of the patent and, if
what the defendant is making does not fall within the language of any of
the claims of the patent, there is no literal infringement.
Suits for infringement of patents follow the rules of procedure of the
Federal courts. From the decision of the district court, there is an
appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Supreme
Court may thereafter take a case by writ of certiorari. If the United
States Government infringes a patent, the patentee has a remedy for
damages in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The Government may
use any patented invention without permission of the patentee, but the
patentee is entitled to obtain compensation for the use by or for the
Government.
The Office has no jurisdiction over questions relating to infringement
of patents. In examining applications for patent, no determination is
made as to whether the invention sought to be patented infringes any
prior patent. An improvement invention may be patentable, but it might
infringe a prior unexpired patent for the invention improved upon, if
there is one."

As I read the above, the legitimate path is through the courts. The
following article portrays the actual state of affairs to this point,
and does not seem to come to the same conclusion as you have:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/index3.htm

Also read the first line of this most recent article.

http://www.betanews.com/article/Linspire_Joins_Microsoft_Converter_Efforts/1183402318

Frank

 

[Frank]

This article seems to define a different path to be taken in the case of
patent infringement:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/infringe.htm
"Infringement of a patent consists of the unauthorized making, using,
offering for sale or selling any patented invention within the United
States or United States Territories, or importing into the United States
of any patented invention during the term of the patent. If a patent is
infringed, the patentee may sue for relief in the appropriate Federal
court. The patentee may ask the court for an injunction to prevent the
continuation of the infringement and may also ask the court for an award
of damages because of the infringement. In such an infringement suit,
the defendant may raise the question of the validity of the patent,
which is then decided by the court. The defendant may also aver that
what is being done does not constitute infringement. Infringement is
determined primarily by the language of the claims of the patent and, if
what the defendant is making does not fall within the language of any of
the claims of the patent, there is no literal infringement.
Suits for infringement of patents follow the rules of procedure of the
Federal courts. From the decision of the district court, there is an
appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Supreme
Court may thereafter take a case by writ of certiorari. If the United
States Government infringes a patent, the patentee has a remedy for
damages in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The Government may
use any patented invention without permission of the patentee, but the
patentee is entitled to obtain compensation for the use by or for the
Government.
The Office has no jurisdiction over questions relating to infringement
of patents. In examining applications for patent, no determination is
made as to whether the invention sought to be patented infringes any
prior patent. An improvement invention may be patentable, but it might
infringe a prior unexpired patent for the invention improved upon, if
there is one."

As I read the above, the legitimate path is through the courts. The
following article portrays the actual state of affairs to this point,
and does not seem to come to the same conclusion as you have:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/index3.htm

Also this fairly recent article about the out of court royalty patent
agreements.

http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_Former_Lindows_Vendor_Reach_New_Covenant/1181831952

Frank

 

[JoMomma]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070628/tc_nm/redhat_microsoft_dc_1

Frank

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH ****ING
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH

 

[norm]

Also this fairly recent article about the out of court royalty patent
agreements.

http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_Former_Lindows_Vendor_Reach_New_Covenant/1181831952


Frank

Again, don't misunderstand the point I am making. If any two parties
come to agreement, that is all it is, an agreement between two parties.
Such an agreement is not binding on anyone else and does not mean that
because of those one, two or three agreements that everyone else has to
follow suit or will follow suit or that other parties in fact infringe.
Your statement about violation is not supported by the facts as they now
stand. No admittance of infringement has, as I understand, been admitted
by those signing, and certainly one cannot project such to the rest of
the players in the field. If and when it comes down to a court case,
then courts will make the decision as to whether actual infringement is
the case under the law. It looks like we will only be able to agree to
disagree. It will, however, be interesting as to whatever the final
outcome that lies ahead will be.

 

[Frank]

Again, don't misunderstand the point I am making. If any two parties
come to agreement, that is all it is, an agreement between two parties.

Such an agreement between two is legally binding.

Such an agreement is not binding on anyone else and does not mean that
because of those one, two or three agreements that everyone else has to
follow suit or will follow suit or that other parties in fact infringe.

Never said or implied that.

Your statement about violation is not supported by the facts as they now
stand. No admittance of infringement has, as I understand, been admitted
by those signing, and certainly one cannot project such to the rest of
the players in the field.

Signing an agreement to pay royalties fees is tantamount to a de facto
admission of infringement. It's like a pardon...if one accepts a pardon
included in the pardon it an admission of guilt. Obviously those who
chose to not sign any royalty agreement will end up in court.

It will, however, be interesting as to whatever the final outcome that
lies ahead will be.

Only time will tell.
Frank

 

[Stephan Rose]

That might be true. But in this case, Microsoft has refused to say what
patents it is alleging have been violated. I suspect that this is because,
quite frankly (no pun intended), Microsoft doesn't really want to open this
whole can of worms. It begs the question as to why it has delayed enforcing
its patents for so long. It also opens the door to others to jump in and
seriously start looking at those patents that Microsoft has been
infringing. Remember, that IBM holds the largest number of patents in the
software/hardware world than any other corporation in the world. Once a
wholesale push comes to shove on patents, the patents will probably have
expired before all the litigation came any where close to resolving all the
questions.

Microsoft has succeeded in coming to an arrangement with Novell, that made
both parties come out look foolish. Two other insignificant and losing
companies, recently jumped into deals with Microsoft, probably hoping that
it would somehow turn around their fortunes. The really big players in the
Linux world from a commercial standpoint, RedHat and Mandriva have both
rejected any kind of patent deal with Microsoft. The most popular Linux
desktop distro, Ubuntu has also outright rejected a "deal" with Microsoft
and essentially to put up or shut up.

Well another thing about this whole patent crap is this. It's rather
meaningless in the rest of the world. US Patents count in the US. Not
anywhere else.

So even if there is any truth to its claims, beyond going after a few US
based vendors, what could they possibly gain? The operating system isn't
just developed in the US, it is developed in and by the entire world.
Their claims hold no validity outside the US.

Can something be developed outside the US even be held liable for US
patents inside the US? Because if that is no, then someone would actually
need to go ahead and dissect *every* line of code to determine if it was
created in the US or not, as the patent claims, if true, would be invalid
on any code not developed in the US.

As far as I am concerned, the best MS can accomplish with its threats
in the US is alienate its own customers who run both linux/windows
systems.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Frank]

Well another thing about this whole patent crap is this. It's rather
meaningless in the rest of the world. US Patents count in the US. Not
anywhere else.

So even if there is any truth to its claims, beyond going after a few US
based vendors, what could they possibly gain? The operating system isn't
just developed in the US, it is developed in and by the entire world.
Their claims hold no validity outside the US.

Can something be developed outside the US even be held liable for US
patents inside the US? Because if that is no, then someone would actually
need to go ahead and dissect *every* line of code to determine if it was
created in the US or not, as the patent claims, if true, would be invalid
on any code not developed in the US.

As far as I am concerned, the best MS can accomplish with its threats
in the US is alienate its own customers who run both linux/windows
systems.

Oh contraire Stephen!
Globalization demands global patent protection.
Patents are files worldwide in any and every country that has patent laws.
The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) is an international patent law
treaty that was concluded in 1970.

So the idea that only the US patent was infringed upon would not be true.
Frank

 

[norm]

Oh contraire Stephen!
Globalization demands global patent protection.
Patents are files worldwide in any and every country that has patent laws.
The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) is an international patent law
treaty that was concluded in 1970.

So the idea that only the US patent was infringed upon would not be true.
Frank

But the patent treaty does not create an international patent, all it
does is create a unified procedure for filing. As I read it, the actual
granting of the patent takes place as it would at present by the country
or region the patent is filed in. So what does this treaty really change
in terms of international acceptance of national patents as it is now?

 

[Frank]

But the patent treaty does not create an international patent, all it
does is create a unified procedure for filing. As I read it, the actual
granting of the patent takes place as it would at present by the country
or region the patent is filed in. So what does this treaty really change
in terms of international acceptance of national patents as it is now?

It's supposed to protect the patent holder.
Patents are filed in the individual countries that recognize patents.
What else?
For more info on international patents call up a patent attorney and
query them.
Frank

 

[norm]

It's supposed to protect the patent holder.
Patents are filed in the individual countries that recognize patents.
What else?
For more info on international patents call up a patent attorney and
query them.
Frank

Why would I do that? You seem to be the fount of all info anyone would
ever need. lol

 

[Frank]

Why would I do that? You seem to be the fount of all info anyone would
ever need. lol

Ah shucks...thanks norm...but I get the distinct impression either you
don't believe one word I've posted, even the articles I've referenced or
else you simply don't get it. lol
Frank

 

[norm]

Ah shucks...thanks norm...but I get the distinct impression either you
don't believe one word I've posted, even the articles I've referenced or
else you simply don't get it. lol
Frank

Aw shucks, Frank. You certainly are a discerning man. I do indeed
disagree with what you have posted. I did look at the articles you
referenced and have given them the same consideration that you gave to
those I referenced. And I do indeed "get" it, but what I "get" seems to
be based on something different than what you perceive. Of course, you
have accused several in this group of "not getting it", so I don't
really feel that you have singled me out. I do, however, find it a shame
that I will never attain that higher level of knowledge and
understanding that you constantly exhibit. So please forgive me for my
lack of attainment. I won't rest until you do. lol

 

[Frank]

Aw shucks, Frank. You certainly are a discerning man. I do indeed
disagree with what you have posted. I did look at the articles you
referenced and have given them the same consideration that you gave to
those I referenced. And I do indeed "get" it, but what I "get" seems to
be based on something different than what you perceive. Of course, you
have accused several in this group of "not getting it", so I don't
really feel that you have singled me out. I do, however, find it a shame
that I will never attain that higher level of knowledge and
understanding that you constantly exhibit. So please forgive me for my
lack of attainment. I won't rest until you do. lol

Well golly-gee norm...i only gets my understandings from whats i reads
just likes u do. Only thing is i's comes to a different conclusion...or
so's it seems.
I guess good'ol father time will call the score at one point and then
well know...exactly what it is...we need to know!
Happy 4th!
Frank

 

[norm]

Well golly-gee norm...i only gets my understandings from whats i reads
just likes u do. Only thing is i's comes to a different conclusion...or
so's it seems.
I guess good'ol father time will call the score at one point and then
well know...exactly what it is...we need to know!
Happy 4th!
Frank

Happy 4th to you, too. Enjoy.