| 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 |
 |
Microsoft Browser Suit: Victor Girds for New Battles | |
|
||
| Time: 09:35 EST/14:35 GMT | News Source: eWeek | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
The ramifications of the $521 million verdict against Microsoft Corp. in a Web browser-technology patent-infringement case could extend far beyond the Redmond, Wash., software maker's bottom line and features within its Internet Explorer browser. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 302 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:53:36 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 12071 (203.217.78.17) at 8/25/2003 9:59:32 AM |
| Ahhh the wonders of completely broad and useless patents! What a joke. |
| #2 By 16302 (64.201.211.161) at 8/25/2003 12:35:35 PM |
|
Patents, in their current form, are 'evil'. There needs to be better control of the patent process and some means of relating the time spent on R&D towards the maximum licensing revenue prior to patent expiration. In other words, if someone scribbles something down on a piece of paper, then patents it without any research, this patent should expire at some multiple of input costs and will be expired pretty much immediately. On the otherhand, for drug companies that spend 10 years and hundreds of millions of dollars researching a new drug, the patent will expire a very long ways out.
The patent process creates an artificial monopoly and considerably hinders the progress of the industry. Just think how more secure systems would be if we didn't have the 25 year patent on public/private key encryption! We need much better controls on the patent process and the authorized patent office. Things are getting WAY out of control. It is hard to develop anything today, even completely independently without walking over some patent right along the way. This is killing innovation in the industry and is not consistent with the original intent of the patent mechanism. This post was edited by ShanTheMan on Monday, August 25, 2003 at 12:36. |
| #3 By 8589 (65.71.66.89) at 8/25/2003 2:10:44 PM |
|
Works Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978
A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author's life plus an additional 70 years after the author's death. In the case of "a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire," the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author's identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hlc This is getting rather silly, don't you think? 70 years after the author dies? |
| #4 By 2231 (164.86.99.3) at 8/25/2003 4:06:40 PM |
|
What if Eolas refuses to license to MS and demands the 'cleansing' of all infringing components in use, on the shelves and in development.
Has anything like this occured before, on this kind of scale? Imagine Henry Ford having to recall his Model T because somebody else had the patent on the internal combustion engine. |
| #5 By 16302 (64.201.211.161) at 8/25/2003 8:50:08 PM |
|
#5, there is a SIGNIFICANT difference between patents and copyrights. Basically, copyrights guarantee that nobody can plagiarize (or directly copy) your works, but does not limit others from developing a similar solution on their own. Patents grant the 'original' creator an exclusive and artificial monopoly for about 25 years. Patents restrict others from coming up with their own solution and do not differentiate whether something is developed independently or has been derived from the original works. That is why patents are so scary - they limit what everyone else can do for an extended period of time. Many patents are being awarded for such basic and common-sense procedures that it is difficult to develop anything today without infringing on at least one patent. The only way to dispute the patent is to go to court, which is an EXTREMELY expensive and risky procedure that is complicated even more by international law.
The 70 year limit on copyrights is fairly reasonable - mainly because it does not infringe on the rights of others to be innovative. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 302 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:53:36 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
