[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [DotGNU]Re: microsoft patents

From: James Mc Parlane
Subject: RE: [DotGNU]Re: microsoft patents
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:10:20 +1100

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thong (Tum) Nguyen [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 9:41 AM
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: RE: [DotGNU]Re: microsoft patents
> I don't see how the patent could possibly be upheld.  There's too much
> prior art.
> They didn't invent the algorithms.  They didn't really invent 
> the design
> (much of it was copied from Java and other sources).  So what are they
> going to patent?  Class and method names?

I aggree, but I am disheartened by such results as the Adobe and Macromedia
'Tab' Patent war.

I'm sure we have all seen other silly patents that could also be used as
depressing examples.

Its surprising what you can achieve with enough money and lawyers, and Bill
has no shortage of either.

The sad fact is that all judges were at some point lawyers, their associates
are lawyers and you don't often see a judge making a decision that will end
up making less work available for lawyers (a coroallay of this is that the
first computer scientist to produce the a self programming computer that
works, will probably be lynched by a rabid mob, led by Grady Booch)

If patent disputes were settled by a jury, then I think we would see a sea
change, but even then a clever lawyer would appeal to nationalistic
sentiment that "This Patent = More Money For Your Country" in the country of

Of course if all software was free.... :)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]