On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 18:38:43 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> many such patents, which Microsoft have been accumulating are ludicrous.
Perhaps. But even Red Hat has been acquiring patents. You *HAVE* to in
this day and age in order to protect yourself against being sued by someone
else. The typical approach is that if you can patent enough stuff, it's
extremely likely that anyone that wants to sue you for patent infringement
probably vioates one of yours, so you simply cross license your patents and
you're immune to any further patent lawsuits from that company.
> http://news.com.com/Microsofts+file+system+patent+upheld/2100-1012_3-6025447.html?tag=nefd.top
How is this ludicrous?
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4552214.stm
What does that have to do with Patents Microsof owns?
> Needless to mention, the FAT file system is an adaptation of something that
> existed beforehand. I couldn't find a key article which said that Microsoft
> now file almost 10 times as many patents as many before, relying on them as
> a weapon for future and lining applications up like cannonballs.
Perhaps you should actually read the patent before running off half cocked.
I know that's a little too much for someone of your mental facilities to
do, so i'll make it clear. Microsoft does not have a patent on FAT. They
have a patent on an algorithm used in VFAT, the long file name enhancement
to FAT. VFAT most definately did not exist "before" (what I don't know,
you weren't clear).
No, Microsoft's patent portfolio is strictly defensive, not offensive. As
I said already. Microsoft has *NEVER* initiated a patent lawsuit against
anyone. Ever. Nor do I expect them to start.
|
|
