Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

M$/TomTom Lawsuit

Just as it appears
9% (37 votes)
Testing the waters
33% (135 votes)
Try to set precedence
28% (115 votes)
Start of War
29% (117 votes)
Total votes: 404

Who's copying who isn't a clear cut case

The rise of MS is also an adventure of copyright violations and exploitation of weak patents. The computing industry has existed for a long time now and has for several years been an integrated part of people's daily life. Code that in the past was viewed as Mr. Merlin's magic is today is today a knowledge shared by many, even outside corporate buildings. Therefore I think this is more a testimony of how deprecated the whole idea of how patents work in this industry is. There's always a breaking point when something becomes common knowledge and therefore can't be viewed as intellectual property.

But of course if carton box still needs 6 (or is it 9?) patents printed on it in the US then probably FAT must be viewed as rocket science worthy of Nobel price to its initial author. Since exploitation of patents in itself is a lucrative business in the US you've got printed black on white that the system has to be overhauled. As it is now everything imaginable and thinkable beyond a coke and burger is valid to be patented. MS isn't alone in this silly brainstorm game; a look at many company's patent portfolios reveal the same.

No, I don't think this MS/TomTom thing is anything else but an attempt to strengthen a business model of living well on weak but never challenged patents. In view of how the market is changing faster than MS is able to adopt, it might be a "smart" move to make sure your economical future is a bit more secure even if your software fails, or sales of it.

The premesis and qualifications for a patent...

is an important question. A patent system isn't a universal unchangeable set of rules. Hence patent systems differ and what might be a valid patent in one country isn't even qualified to become one in another.

Emotions aren't of any interest and you're actually allowed to comment with a portion of playfulness with words, aren't you? If a patent system doesn't fulfil its intentional purpose it has become unproductive and in need of an overhaul.

I assume you don't like Bilski's arguments for a change of the US patent system? I fear that the lobby against such changes is too strong in both influence and money, but I believe the suggested changes would stimulate innovation and remove some of the obstacles to innovations. As of today it's difficult for innovators with limited money resources to defend their innovations.

Therefore my answer to your question [or questioning of my understanding] is: it's not good enough to only know current patent laws, it's even more vital to defend the initial purpose of them and strengthening them accordingly. We might have different opinions on the matter without the need to ridicule one another.

Schestowitz

Do you need glasses? Perhaps you should try one of those screen magnifier app's so you don't have to inflict the rest of us with your over sized type.

Obama, fix you f*ing system

"Since the birth of the Republic, the U.S. government has been in the business of handing out "exclusive rights" (a.k.a., monopolies) in order to "promote progress" or enable new markets of communication. Patents and copyrights accomplish the first goal; giving away slices of the airwaves serves the second. No one doubts that these monopolies are sometimes necessary to stimulate innovation. Hollywood could not survive without a copyright system; privately funded drug development won't happen without patents. But if history has taught us anything, it is that special interests—the Disneys and Pfizers of the world—have become very good at clambering for more and more monopoly rights. Copyrights last almost a century now, and patents regulate "anything under the sun that is made by man," as the Supreme Court has put it. This is the story of endless bloat, with each round of new monopolies met with a gluttonous demand for more."

--Lawrence Lessig

If they can uphold the

If they can uphold the patent, then they can make all the other companies using FAT pay up. Easy money.

More in Tux Machines

Open source near ubiquitous in IoT, report finds

Open source is increasingly standard operating procedure in software, but nowhere is this more true than Internet of Things development. According to a new VisionMobile survey of 3,700 IoT developers, 91% of respondents use open source software in at least one area of their software stack. This is good news for IoT because only open source promises to reduce or eliminate the potential for lock-in imposed by proprietary “standards.” What’s perhaps most interesting in this affection for open source, however, is that even as enterprise developers have eschewed the politics of open source licensing, IoT developers seem to favor open source because “it’s free as in freedom.” Read more

Ubuntu 16.04 – My Experience so Far and Customization

While I earnestly anticipated the release of Unity 8 with Xenial Xerus (after watching a couple of videos that showcased its function), I was utterly disappointed that Canonical was going to further push its release — even though it was originally meant to debut with Ubuntu 14.04. Back to the point at hand, I immediately went ahead and installed Unity Tweak Tool, moved my dash to the bottom (very important) and then proceeded to replace Nautilus with the extensive Nemo file manager which is native to Linux Mint and by far superior to the former (my opinion). Read more

Raspberry Pi gets a hybrid tube audio amp HAT

Pi 2 Design’s 503HTA Hybrid Tube Amp is a HAT add-on for 40-pin Raspberry Pi’s that taps a 24-bit, 192Khz DAC for that old-time tube amplifier sound. The Raspberry Pi has inspired a variety of retro technology hacks, from resurrecting ancient televisions to breathing new life into vintage gaming platforms. So it’s not surprising to see the SBC matched with the guts of an old-school tube amplifier system, as it is in Pi 2 Design’s 503HTA Hybrid Tube Amp. Read more

Snapdragon SoCs to get Neural Processing Engine SDK

Qualcomm announced a deep learning toolkit for implementing neural processing and other AI functions directly on devices that integrate Snapdragon 820 SoCs. The “Snapdragon Neural Processing Engine” is Qualcomm’s first deep learning software development kit for devices based on its Snapdragon 820 SoCs. The SDK, which is due for release in the second half of 2016, brings the company’s “Zeroth Machine Intelligence Platform” to Snapdragon 820 based devices. Read more