| 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 faces $200 million charge in patent suit | |
|
||
| Time: 06:22 EST/11:22 GMT | News Source: VNUNet | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Microsoft has found itself facing a $200 million penalty after losing a patent suit. A US district court in Texas has ruled that the company violated software patents held by Canadian software firm i4i. The case centred on patents for the handling of XML code in Microsoft Word. Among the evidence presented by i4i was Microsoft emails which the plaintiffs said not only demonstrated infringement on the patents, but knowledge by Microsoft of the infringement. Due to the wilful infringement, the judge ruled that Microsoft could face an even stiffer penalty. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 152 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:40:45 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 12071 (203.158.49.161) at 5/22/2009 6:29:57 AM |
| Can we once and for all make all software patents extinct? Honestly, what is it going to take? Nothing in software should be patentable. Especially since everyone is using them in mafia style tactics, whether it be through suing others or "cross-licensing" (or whatever the hell Microsoft's PR team is calling their mafia tactics this week). |
| #2 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/22/2009 8:26:04 AM |
| Agreed, software patents are completely killing innovation. It's to the point where any startup can be demolished by bogus patent claims, thus creating a huge barrier to entry in software markets. I even heard about this one company that has insisted for years that its primary competitor violates all kinds of its patents without showing proof of anything. Yes, it's completely unethical of them of course, but just goes to show that software patents can even cause indirect damage. |
| #3 By 89249 (64.207.240.90) at 5/22/2009 9:55:23 AM |
| Protecting innovation is making sure nobody can have ownership of the fruits of their labor. Winning strategy. |
| #4 By 8556 (173.27.241.22) at 5/22/2009 9:56:39 AM |
| I disagree with you gentlemen for a reason that does not refute your arguments. Why would a company like Phillips medical, for example only, spend money on software that is critical to operation of a CT scanner and for the results provided. If the hardware is patentable, the software controlling it should be also. |
| #5 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/22/2009 10:20:08 AM |
| #4: There has to be a better way of striking a balance between protecting an invention and letting others build on the concepts behind the invention. To my thinking, one should not be able to patent an idea, only an implementation of the idea. That would still allow you to reverse-engineer, and it would allow multiple implementations that are collectively non-infringing. Then there's the issue of overly-broad patents and obvious patents. The decision re Bilski has made it easier to get crap patents thrown out but the onus is still on the defendant to prove that an awarded patent is invalid. |
| #6 By 12071 (203.158.49.161) at 5/23/2009 9:18:46 AM |
|
#4 Your argument for software patents is that companies wouldn't spend money on software if there were no patents? Or that developers wouldn't create software if there was no protection provided to them from patents? I'm just not quite sure what your argument for software patents is.
I disagree with software patents full stop - everything you do in code is copyrightable as it should be but there shouldn't be patents on algorithms and mathematical formula. There should not be a patent on "iterating through a collection of objects" no more than "encapsulating the logic of a component" no more than "1 click" and the million other completely pointless, obvious and plain idiotic patents that the USPTO and other offices around the world have rubber stamped. This sort of protectionism is an absolute joke. |
| #7 By 16797 (65.95.25.168) at 5/24/2009 7:52:07 PM |
|
#5 "To my thinking, one should not be able to patent an idea, only an implementation of the idea."
I think that is how it works right now. You can't patent an idea. |
| #8 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at 5/27/2009 12:29:22 PM |
| #7: it depends by how good and "creative" is your lawyer..... |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 152 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:40:45 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
