Microsoft is notorious for using others' inventions and incorporating them into their own. However we shouldn't speak too loudly ... remember SoundJam? Bought out by Apple to become iTunes ...
There's nothing wrong with buying another company to get their technology although I suppose that if you consider yourself to be a technology leader, you should develop some of your own technology.
What Microsoft was notorious for, at least some years ago, was claiming they wanted to buy your company, doing due dillgence to get all your information and then declining to buy the company and competing with you instead. Technically, they signed an NDA before starting due dilligence, but if you're a small company, you don't have the resources to sue Microsoft.
paul allen is a goddamn patent troll. He's a scavenger like bill gates. He's the one who negotiated to buy qdos from seattle computer for 50,000. He always seeks to profit from others' inventions when stealing others' code like what microsoft did all these years. Guys like him should go to hell.
Allen's suit specifically references the following four patents:
United States Patent No. 6,263,507 issued for an invention entitled "Browser for Use in Navigating a Body of Information, With Particular Application to Browsing Information Represented By Audiovisual Data."
United States Patent No. 6,034,652 issued for an invention entitled "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device."
United States Patent No. 6,788,314 issued for an invention entitled "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device."
United States Patent No. 6,757,682 issued for an invention entitled "Alerting Users to Items of Current
Sounds like a patent on all web browsers, rss feed readers, etc
I suppose he'll try to claim he made thefacebook too
And also all pop ups, alert sounds, bouncy icons, menu icons etc
Quote:
Originally Posted by macinthe408
You have to be ultra-specific in describing your invention. .
Trouble is that it wasn't always that way. There was a time when just an idea could get you a patent.
Now they are really pushing for only granting on fully formed tech. Not just what you want to do but exactly how you will achieve it
Even with a patent on a mere idea, all hope is not lost. There are rules about prior art and major improvement that can trump a patent. Tricky biz.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR
for being a billionaire.. he shoulda been smart enough to file this in east texas and bought the judge a few gifts
I actually give him points on that one. I really feel like the rules should be that you can only file in the districts where one of the parties is actually located (ie the main Corp office).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericjbolt
Apple won on procedure (dismissed).
Which actually says nothing about how the case would turn out. It is possible that even with a valid and specific filing Allen would lose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smaceslin
remember SoundJam? Bought out by Apple to become iTunes ...
there is zero illegal or immoral with buying another company and using their products. Especially when, as I recall was the case with sound jam, you keep on all or a fair bit of the staff or pay them enough to live for a while
This is high on my list with what's wrong with the world. Definitely behind starvation and oppression... but ahead of music piracy... for sure.
You mean what's wrong in the US. This "sue everyone, nothing to loose" idea is pretty much US only as I understand, and in Europe we are really shaking our heads about this.
You mean what's wrong in the US. This "sue everyone, nothing to loose" idea is pretty much US only as I understand, and in Europe we are really shaking our heads about this.
But you certainly can lose, and doing so can be very costly -- so perhaps you should keep shaking your heads until something comes loose.
It looks very much like a desperate struggle to get back at Apple because Microsoft have failed to beat them by being better at what they do. The petty marketing jabs about Blu-Ray support, being cheaper, being like everyone else, it all shows two things:
- they can't beat Apple with their products so they use meaningless, often nonsensical marketing
- Apple having better products is really hurting them
Let's watch as Allen flushes away millions of dollars to try and hold back the competition just like Microsoft does to no avail.
It looks very much like a desperate struggle to get back at Apple because Microsoft have failed to beat them by being better at what they do. The petty marketing jabs about Blu-Ray support, being cheaper, being like everyone else, it all shows two things:
- they can't beat Apple with their products so they use meaningless, often nonsensical marketing
- Apple having better products is really hurting them
Let's watch as Allen flushes away millions of dollars to try and hold back the competition just like Microsoft does to no avail.
Maybe, I don't know. Paul Allen hasn't had much to do with Microsoft in decades, so I don't see him being very motivated to punish Apple in any generic sense.
Maybe, I don't know. Paul Allen hasn't had much to do with Microsoft in decades, so I don't see him being very motivated to punish Apple in any generic sense.
Not just Apple, all of Microsoft's main competition. He's a billionaire, what motivation is there for doing this other than to try to help Microsoft by pushing litigation onto their rivals?
Not just Apple, all of Microsoft's main competition. He's a billionaire, what motivation is there for doing this other than to try to help Microsoft by pushing litigation onto their rivals?
Beats me. I often wonder what motivates billionaires to do anything but kick back and enjoy the rest of their lives.
Dare you to try it, iGenius! I'm betting on "behind".
I thought about this for a day or so. I wouldn't underestimate the power of ego to obscure the results. He might not tell us, or himself, what he sees first. Speaking from experience, maybe none of us do.
If I had thought he was a Genius, though, I would have made the test harder.
I'm going to patent "A device by which to state the bleeding obvious then sit patiently for 20 years until people are doing what was bleeding obviously going to happen, then realise its financial potential through means of legal procedure".
Assuming no one has already patented patents...
This sums it up. You never know, if maybe worded just right, you could get it through . . . a patent on inventing . . . probably an old joke . . .
Comments
Microsoft is notorious for using others' inventions and incorporating them into their own. However we shouldn't speak too loudly ... remember SoundJam? Bought out by Apple to become iTunes ...
There's nothing wrong with buying another company to get their technology although I suppose that if you consider yourself to be a technology leader, you should develop some of your own technology.
What Microsoft was notorious for, at least some years ago, was claiming they wanted to buy your company, doing due dillgence to get all your information and then declining to buy the company and competing with you instead. Technically, they signed an NDA before starting due dilligence, but if you're a small company, you don't have the resources to sue Microsoft.
paul allen is a goddamn patent troll. He's a scavenger like bill gates. He's the one who negotiated to buy qdos from seattle computer for 50,000. He always seeks to profit from others' inventions when stealing others' code like what microsoft did all these years. Guys like him should go to hell.
Allen's suit specifically references the following four patents:
United States Patent No. 6,263,507 issued for an invention entitled "Browser for Use in Navigating a Body of Information, With Particular Application to Browsing Information Represented By Audiovisual Data."
United States Patent No. 6,034,652 issued for an invention entitled "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device."
United States Patent No. 6,788,314 issued for an invention entitled "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device."
United States Patent No. 6,757,682 issued for an invention entitled "Alerting Users to Items of Current
Sounds like a patent on all web browsers, rss feed readers, etc
I suppose he'll try to claim he made thefacebook too
And also all pop ups, alert sounds, bouncy icons, menu icons etc
You have to be ultra-specific in describing your invention. .
Trouble is that it wasn't always that way. There was a time when just an idea could get you a patent.
Now they are really pushing for only granting on fully formed tech. Not just what you want to do but exactly how you will achieve it
Even with a patent on a mere idea, all hope is not lost. There are rules about prior art and major improvement that can trump a patent. Tricky biz.
for being a billionaire.. he shoulda been smart enough to file this in east texas and bought the judge a few gifts
I actually give him points on that one. I really feel like the rules should be that you can only file in the districts where one of the parties is actually located (ie the main Corp office).
Apple won on procedure (dismissed).
Which actually says nothing about how the case would turn out. It is possible that even with a valid and specific filing Allen would lose.
remember SoundJam? Bought out by Apple to become iTunes ...
there is zero illegal or immoral with buying another company and using their products. Especially when, as I recall was the case with sound jam, you keep on all or a fair bit of the staff or pay them enough to live for a while
This is high on my list with what's wrong with the world. Definitely behind starvation and oppression... but ahead of music piracy... for sure.
You mean what's wrong in the US. This "sue everyone, nothing to loose" idea is pretty much US only as I understand, and in Europe we are really shaking our heads about this.
You mean what's wrong in the US. This "sue everyone, nothing to loose" idea is pretty much US only as I understand, and in Europe we are really shaking our heads about this.
But you certainly can lose, and doing so can be very costly -- so perhaps you should keep shaking your heads until something comes loose.
If at first you don't succeed, sue, sue again.
It looks very much like a desperate struggle to get back at Apple because Microsoft have failed to beat them by being better at what they do. The petty marketing jabs about Blu-Ray support, being cheaper, being like everyone else, it all shows two things:
- they can't beat Apple with their products so they use meaningless, often nonsensical marketing
- Apple having better products is really hurting them
Let's watch as Allen flushes away millions of dollars to try and hold back the competition just like Microsoft does to no avail.
It looks very much like a desperate struggle to get back at Apple because Microsoft have failed to beat them by being better at what they do. The petty marketing jabs about Blu-Ray support, being cheaper, being like everyone else, it all shows two things:
- they can't beat Apple with their products so they use meaningless, often nonsensical marketing
- Apple having better products is really hurting them
Let's watch as Allen flushes away millions of dollars to try and hold back the competition just like Microsoft does to no avail.
Maybe, I don't know. Paul Allen hasn't had much to do with Microsoft in decades, so I don't see him being very motivated to punish Apple in any generic sense.
Maybe, I don't know. Paul Allen hasn't had much to do with Microsoft in decades, so I don't see him being very motivated to punish Apple in any generic sense.
Not just Apple, all of Microsoft's main competition. He's a billionaire, what motivation is there for doing this other than to try to help Microsoft by pushing litigation onto their rivals?
Not just Apple, all of Microsoft's main competition. He's a billionaire, what motivation is there for doing this other than to try to help Microsoft by pushing litigation onto their rivals?
Beats me. I often wonder what motivates billionaires to do anything but kick back and enjoy the rest of their lives.
Dare you to try it, iGenius! I'm betting on "behind".
I thought about this for a day or so. I wouldn't underestimate the power of ego to obscure the results. He might not tell us, or himself, what he sees first. Speaking from experience, maybe none of us do.
If I had thought he was a Genius, though, I would have made the test harder.
I'm going to patent "A device by which to state the bleeding obvious then sit patiently for 20 years until people are doing what was bleeding obviously going to happen, then realise its financial potential through means of legal procedure".
Assuming no one has already patented patents...
This sums it up. You never know, if maybe worded just right, you could get it through . . . a patent on inventing . . . probably an old joke . . .