| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
InterTrust Substantially Broadens Lawsuit Against Microsoft | |
|
||
| Time: 10:59 EST/15:59 GMT | News Source: PR Newswire | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
InterTrust Technologies Corporation today announced that it is further substantially broadening its patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation. In accordance with a schedule agreed to by the parties, InterTrust served on Microsoft infringement allegations that add four new patents and more than doubles the number of new claims to the litigation, bringing the totals to 11 patents, 144 claims and over 190 separate infringement scenarios. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 318 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:38:13 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2960 (156.80.64.164) at 6/24/2002 12:55:31 PM |
|
Man, this place is simply amazing. A true umbrella of protection for Microsoft.
#1, don't you think we should wait and see if they are _guilty_ first? I'm willing to... If they are guilty, then they should be punished. If they aren't, then they don't. It's that simple. Not everything is a conspiracy against Microsoft. They are not perfect, and are just as capable of making mistakes like this as any other company. TL |
| #2 By 61 (65.32.168.97) at 6/24/2002 1:10:37 PM |
| But you shouldn't be able to copyright something like copyright protection. |
| #3 By 20 (24.243.51.87) at 6/24/2002 1:45:59 PM |
|
#2: There is no shortage of frivolous law suits against Microsoft. It's hard not to believe this is another one of them.
Read Slashdot much? You'll notice that Stupid Patent Tricks are common. "Hey! I invented DRM!" even though people have been doing it for years in various forms. I imagine this if very similar to the Hyperlinking lawsuits where someone is trying to sue for extremely vague patents on techniques similar to hyperlinking. More than likely, this is another horribly vague and stupid patent that should never have been granted and InterTrust sees huge revenue potential in suing MS for it. |
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/24/2002 2:22:45 PM |
|
CPUGuy and daz, you mean like patenting the DRMOS? Come on, you don't think MS doesn't hold some stupid, general patents themselves, do you? This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, June 24, 2002 at 14:43. |
| #5 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 6/24/2002 3:01:19 PM |
|
I think more people should launch more lawsuits against more Microsofts!
|
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/24/2002 3:08:46 PM |
| Aww, poor anonymous loser can't handle the hypocrisy of saying that MS shouldn't be sued for patent infringement of DRM because it's too general and shouldn't be patented while at the same time they hold a DRMOS patent (possibly) dependent on these DRM patents (owned by someone else). Ha, ha, ha! |
| #7 By 20 (24.243.51.87) at 6/24/2002 4:07:51 PM |
|
I bet if you checked, there are many "DRM" patents.
However, making an OS/hardware combination that uses specific technology sounds pretty specific to me. The vague patents I'm talking about usually say something like, "Provides a means for securing content from unauthoritzed users" and then they sue Microsoft for all sorts of BS claims. |
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/24/2002 4:47:48 PM |
|
"a computerized method for a digital rights management operating system comprising: assuming a trusted identity; executing a trusted application; loading rights-managed data into memory for access by the trusted application; and protecting the rights-managed data from access by an untrusted program while the trusted application is executing."
That's about it for the DRMOS patent. You are right, daz, "protecting the rights-managed data from access by an untrusted program while the trusted application is executing" is much more specific than "Provides a means for securing content from unauthoritzed users". Ha, ha, ha--there's nothing specific in the patent about specific technology whatsoever. Ha, ha, ha, and yet again, daz, you prove yourself to be an idiot. Why do you constantly make false claims that you haven't even tried to determine whether or not they are complete crap? |
| #9 By 61 (65.32.168.97) at 6/24/2002 4:52:13 PM |
| I'm sure they do, but I never said that it should have any merit. |
| #10 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/24/2002 5:45:09 PM |
|
CPU, I didn't say you did--I was jsut pointing out the irony of trying to defend MS in this patent case by saying such patent claims shouldn't b enforceable on the same day that word begins slipping about MS's next attempt to control computerdom using an equally general patent.
And why aren't you in the Palladium discussions saying, "Well, I hope MS releases all of their patent rights so that others could develop such systems and they don't try to rape everyone in the industry." |
| #11 By 61 (65.32.168.97) at 6/24/2002 8:16:19 PM |
|
jerk:
Because I didn't feel like reading it, it's just a very vague description of a concept that may be available in the distant future and probably has very little to do with what it will actually be. |
| #12 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/24/2002 8:41:56 PM |
| "it's just a very vague description of a concept that may be available in the distant future and probably has very little to do with what it will actually be." Doesn't that make it an all the more pathetic attempt to wield patents as a weapon--since they don't have the tech yet? Why does that make it more defensible in your mind? That's what you call hypocrisy. |
| #13 By 61 (65.32.168.97) at 6/24/2002 9:24:09 PM |
|
jerk:
Umm, what the hell are you talking about? Do you even know? Are you just trying to start another MS-bashing session? |
| #14 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/25/2002 12:46:39 PM |
|
zooker, that's an assinine theory--"Patents as a weapon can only apply to a company that acquires a patent or is formed to hold a patent with no intention of doing any product deveopment." Ever hear of Rambus? Ever hear of mpegla? Have you ever followed the Via v. Intel battles? Hell, remember the days when Qualcomm was a high flier because everyone thought they had the mobile world by the balls? Anyway, Rambus is all you need to prove your theory wrong. All you need to wield patents as a weapon is to have the registered patent.
"InterTrust is no puritan corporation. They don't care one iota about Linux, Windows, Open Source, GNU, FSF, or sodajerk. They only care about owning a piece of paper issued by the government that provides them a stick to beat up companies trying to develop real products that improve our lives and technoloy. InterTrust is a parasite that will attempt to feed off of the success and capabilities of those willing to do real work." What, you think you can refute my assertion by saying Intertrust isn't Puritanical? That's idiocy! I don't care about their religion or mores or whatever you are trying to do here. InterTrsuts has been in the DRM business for 10 years--they have worked with the government and the music industry longer than any other private company pursuing DRM tech. I have no idea where you are pulling this "bottom-feeder," "leech" theory of yours. The funny thing is that what you are discribing sounds a lot more like Microsoft to me than it does InterTrust. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 318 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:38:13 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
