And enlighten us since you obviously read all the legal documents on how the suit is frivolous? To my knowledge, Apple has only lost one patent suit in the last ten years. That was to Creative. It cost Apple 100 Million. Of course, it has settled a few. Microsoft has lost a few such suits.
I for one think the Patent system stinks. Based on Microsoft's history, I, however, think Microsoft really violated the patent. Then again, I haven't read the documents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster
This is just a frivolous lawsuit. Apple gets hit with patent suits all the time.
BTW, Greed DOES pay actually, and handsomely. I too would like to believe it doesn't, and that we live in a fair world, but that's not the case.
And enlighten us since you obviously read all the legal documents on how the suit is frivolous? To my knowledge, Apple has only lost one patent suit in the last ten years. That was to Creative. It cost Apple 100 Million. Of course, it has settled a few. Microsoft has lost a few such suits.
I for one think the Patent system stinks. Based on Microsoft's history, I, however, think Microsoft really violated the patent. Then again, I haven't read the documents.
It's frivolous because I said it is, duh. Just kidding just kidding!
The lawsuit is attacking Microsoft for how they read XML in files. XML is text, plain and simple. I could write a program in about 3 minutes to read the values of each element and group them in a listview based on the tags. It's simple parsing of text.
For all we know, the code could be exactly the same as i4i's, but if I'm understanding this correctly, it sounds to me like i4i should be bringing a lawsuit against more companies than just Microsoft.
According patents to companies which actually don't produce a product based on the patent should make the patent decay after, let's say, 5 or 10 years. Just an idea... But this would avoid many crazy disputes which, in the end, are a cost for the comminity.
Well, yes, but the problem with this approach is that companies would just stop licensing patents (and not just in software), wait for them to run out, then use the technology for free. It's entirely possible to have a really good idea of a great way to do something, but not have the resources to implement it. So, instead of actually implementing it yourself, you license the patent to people who do have the resources. But, who's going to license technology if the patent will just run out in a few years if left "dormant".
On the other hand, and without reference to this patent and case, there do seem to be a lot of vague, obvious, and otherwise poorly justified patents issued. The whole thing about patenting genes for example. Fine, let a company patent a process for conducting a genetic test or isolating a gene, but patenting a gene, which occurs in nature, is, in my opinion, an egregious abuse of the system. Something is clearly wrong at the PTO when things like this are granted patents.
So, yes, there obviously needs to be reform, but it's not at all a simple thing to do, and there's no easy fix for the system.
Since I last posted on this matter, I have learned that MS actually knew about the patent and abused it anyway. Therefore, I take back what I said. MS deserves everything they get. Screw em'.
Comments
I for one think the Patent system stinks. Based on Microsoft's history, I, however, think Microsoft really violated the patent. Then again, I haven't read the documents.
This is just a frivolous lawsuit. Apple gets hit with patent suits all the time.
BTW, Greed DOES pay actually, and handsomely. I too would like to believe it doesn't, and that we live in a fair world, but that's not the case.
And enlighten us since you obviously read all the legal documents on how the suit is frivolous? To my knowledge, Apple has only lost one patent suit in the last ten years. That was to Creative. It cost Apple 100 Million. Of course, it has settled a few. Microsoft has lost a few such suits.
I for one think the Patent system stinks. Based on Microsoft's history, I, however, think Microsoft really violated the patent. Then again, I haven't read the documents.
It's frivolous because I said it is, duh. Just kidding just kidding!
The lawsuit is attacking Microsoft for how they read XML in files. XML is text, plain and simple. I could write a program in about 3 minutes to read the values of each element and group them in a listview based on the tags. It's simple parsing of text.
For all we know, the code could be exactly the same as i4i's, but if I'm understanding this correctly, it sounds to me like i4i should be bringing a lawsuit against more companies than just Microsoft.
According patents to companies which actually don't produce a product based on the patent should make the patent decay after, let's say, 5 or 10 years. Just an idea... But this would avoid many crazy disputes which, in the end, are a cost for the comminity.
Well, yes, but the problem with this approach is that companies would just stop licensing patents (and not just in software), wait for them to run out, then use the technology for free. It's entirely possible to have a really good idea of a great way to do something, but not have the resources to implement it. So, instead of actually implementing it yourself, you license the patent to people who do have the resources. But, who's going to license technology if the patent will just run out in a few years if left "dormant".
On the other hand, and without reference to this patent and case, there do seem to be a lot of vague, obvious, and otherwise poorly justified patents issued. The whole thing about patenting genes for example. Fine, let a company patent a process for conducting a genetic test or isolating a gene, but patenting a gene, which occurs in nature, is, in my opinion, an egregious abuse of the system. Something is clearly wrong at the PTO when things like this are granted patents.
So, yes, there obviously needs to be reform, but it's not at all a simple thing to do, and there's no easy fix for the system.