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

Android Leftovers

Linux Graphics

  • LibRetro's Vulkan PlayStation PSX Renderer Released
    A few days back I wrote about a Vulkan renderer for a PlayStation emulator being worked on and now the code to that Vulkan renderer is publicly available. For those wanting to relive some PlayStation One games this week or just looking for a new test case for Vulkan drivers, the Vulkan renderer for the LibRetro Beetle/Mednafen PSX emulator is now available, months after the LibRetro folks made a Vulkan renderer for the Nintendo 64 emulator.
  • Etnaviv DRM Updates Submitted For Linux 4.10
    The Etnaviv DRM-Next pull request is not nearly as exciting as MSM getting Adreno 500 series support, a lot of Intel changes, or the numerous AMDGPU changes, but it's not bad either for a community-driven, reverse-engineered DRM driver for the Vivante graphics cores.
  • Mesa 12.0.4 Being Prepped For Ubuntu 16.10/16.04
    Ubuntu is preparing Mesa 12.0.4 for Ubuntu Xenial and Yakkety users. It's not as great as Mesa 13, but at least there are some important fixes back-ported. Mesa 12.0.4 is exciting for dozens of bug fixes, including the work to offer better RadeonSI performance. But with Mesa 12.0.4 you don't have the RADV Vulkan driver, OpenGL 4.5, or the other exciting Mesa 13 work.

Games for GNU/Linux

Mageia 5.1 Released, Tumbleweed's Latest, Most Secure

The Mageia project today announced the release of stopgap version 5.1, an updated "respin" of 5.0 and all updates. The Daily Dot posted their picks for the most sure operating systems and the Hectic Geek is "quite pleased" with Fedora 25. Matthew Garrett chimed in on Ubuntu unofficial images and Dedoimedo reviewed Fedora-based Chapeau 24. Read more