On Sep 10, 5:40 am, Rex Ballard <rex.ball...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 12:58 pm, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > Patent: Application-Specific Windows Colourisation
> > ,----[ Quote ]
> > | The US patent might be a bit daft, especially when it comes to software, but
> > | it does offer some interesting insights into what crazy things the big
> > | companies might be working on for future products. One such patent emerged
> > | today: Microsoft applied in 2005 (and was granted in 2008) a patent which
> > | describes how different windows may be coloured differently, or that they may
> > | have different transparency settings.
> > `----
>
> What's amusing is that X11 had transparency back in 1990, when Windows
> 3.0 was still trying to figure out how to do 16 colors. Furthermore,
> X11 could determine the color map available and adjust the color
> settings based on the mode of the display. For example, if it was a
> Monochrome display, X11 could use shades of grey. There was support
> for 16 colors, 256 colors, 16 bit colors, and 32 bit colors. 8 of the
> "color" bits were for transperancy or "layers".
>
> FrameMaker also had support for Layers and transparency.
>
> Of course, it's possible that Microsoft's implementation is so
> radically different from that of X11, that it merits a patent, but it
> would be hard to tell without seeing the source code to both
> implementations.
>
> >http://www.osnews.com/story/20266/Patent_Application-Specific_Windows...
> > Related:
> > Microsoft Deems Emotiflags Patent-Worthy
> > ,----[ Quote ]
> > | Microsoft said you could count on them to improve patent quality.
> > | For an example of how they're raising the bar on innovation, check
> > | out this just-published patent application for Emotiflags, which
> > | Microsoft explains solves the problem of indicating an emotion
> > | associated with an email message. At the risk of infringing on the
> > | patent, this one Makes Me Mad!"
> > `----
>
> Patent Quality referrs to the depth and breadth of research into prior
> art.
> The patent office requires that any prior patents be listed in the
> patent
> application, but you are supposed to list ALL prior applicable art,
> and
> especially any prior art known to the inventor prior to his filing of
> the
> application.
>
> For example, a minimal poor quality patent for a spell checker would
> require that any patents for similar spell checkers be listed, along
> with
> why your spell checker is different. A high quality patent
> application
> would list all spell checkers, including those not known to the
> inventor
> at the time of his invention, along with explanations as to why the
> device
> being patented is different from the others.
>
> With a poor quality patent, there is a risk that your patent could be
> nullified, that an inventor who can prove prior publication of the
> same invention is entitled to the patent, or that the patent was
> fraudulently obtained. At minimum, it could nullify the patent since
> it could be intuitively derived based on existing publicly available
> knowledge.
>
> >http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/16/038207&from=rss
> > Microsoft patent hints at pay-as-you-go OS
> > ,----[ Quote ]
> > | A Microsoft patent application from June 2005, published only today,
> > | titled "System and method for delivery of a modular operating system"
> > | may signal a fundamental change for what an operating systems stands
> > | for and how it is sold.
> > `----
>
> Sounds like a Linux distribution to me
> This type of packaging was also used by AT&T as early as 1985.
>
> >http://www.istartedsomething.com.nyud.net:8080/20061215/pay-as-you-go...
> > Big businesses boast of patent benefits, for small businesses
> > ,----[ Quote ]
> > | A report published by an EU task force on intellectual property claims
> > | that small businesses benefit from a patent system, despite lacking
> > | almost any participation by the small business community.
>
> Supposedly, the patent office has made it easier for individuals and
> small businesses to file for patents. The problem is that a good
> patent search can cost several thousand dollars, and a thorough search
> for ALL prior art can cost as much as a quarter million.
>
> At minimum, the inventor should search Google for similar technology
> after filing the initial application, as part of the search process.
> And if Google comes up with 1 million listings, you'd probably better
> take a look at every one of them, because missing just one would be
> enough to nullify your patent.
>
> > | Instead, the report, titled IPR (intellectual property rights) for
> > | competitiveness and innovation, was written up almost entirely by
> > | large corporations and the patent industry.
>
> Not surprising. Remember, big corporations seek to protect themselves
> from lawsuits by smaller companies or slightly unethical lawyers. The
> two best protections are Open Source, and Patents. Open Source pretty
> much assures the company that if there were anyone who had prior art,
> they would have spoken up, and if they haven't applied for a patent,
> they won't be able to.
>
> Patents are a bit dicier. You have to publish your code when you file
> for the patent, and the patent application now comes under the
> scrutiny of anyone looking for infringements.
>
> Large companies try to create a big "umbrella" of patents by cross-
> licensing patents with lots of other companies on a "barter" basis.
> Essentially, "I let you use any of my patent if you let me use any of
> yours. Since no one knows when a new patent might just be the "next
> big thing", most large companies prefer the umbrella approach.
>
> > | [...]
> > | Jean-Pierre Laisne, of ObjectWeb, an open source software community,
> > | said that he found the report useless: participants were told that
> > | all their contributions would be recorded but at the end only
> > | those of Business Software Alliance and Microsoft were used.
>
> Aren't BSA and Microsoft pretty much the same thing? Has anyone done
> an audit of BSA to see how the money they collect is actually
> distributed. The Software Publisher's Association (SPA) used to raid
> companies, even seize their PCs, and
> claim that the company was using pirated software. After an extensive
> audit, they
> would demand huge sums of money, based on an alternative of $10,000
> and/or 5 years in prison for each title pirated times the number of
> machines getting copies.
>
> But it turned out that about 99% of the money went to Microsoft even
> though 90% of the actual piracy was unregistered shareware. The
> shareware companies were lucky if they got anything at all.
That is because Microsoft is entitled to the money! A clause in one
of their EULAs forbids using their product for copyright violations.
I wondered about that for a while, even asked Erik why MS would bother
to include a prohibition against an already illegal activity. The
clause seems so innocent, violating copyrights should not be done.
But, violate _any_ copyright and you violate the EULA, which
terminates your "right" to use Windows, turning you into a copyright
ciminal. Hence MS does the legal work and collects for themselves.
Who says piracy does not pay?
Its a perfect setup. MS gets to collect fines for offences against
unrelated entities. And besides, who does not violate copyrights to
some degree? When MS-SPA goon does an audit, he might come to your
desk and say "Thats a nice picture of Mt Everest you are using for
wallpaper. Can I see the letter from the copyright owner allowing
this?" Busted!
Sharing is buried rather deeply into human makeup. Anyone that does
not violate copyrights at least "just a little" is a freak. MS has
found a very nice way to game the system.
> >http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/99155/big-businesses-boast-of-patent-bene...
>
> Rex
|
|
