|
|
| Microsoft Sues Barnes & Noble for Selling Nooks running Android |
 |
|
Monday, March 21 2011 @ 05:44 PM EDT
|
Microsoft steps out from behind the proxies and files its own patent lawsuit against Android, suing Barnes and Noble because it sells Nooks, which run on Android. GeekWire has the patents listed, if you are free to look at them, and the complaint [PDF]. (I have a
local copy also, so we don't melt anyone's servers.) Why not sue Google? Who knows? Well, this *is* Microsoft. It's jungle ethics. Don't go after the strongest in the field. Besides, they seem to be trying to make a point: what they seem to want is for folks to quit using Android in their products by scaring them with litigation. You could be next, is the message, so pay up. Microsoft says "we have established an industry-wide patent licensing program for Android device manufacturers." Just like SCO. SCOsource II, you might say.
They want to make Linux cost, so they can compete. Just like SCO. So line up and bow down to Microsoft, y'all. Hardy har. Time for prior art, methinks. SCO failed utterly, and I suppose one might see this as Microsoft deciding if you want a job done right, you need to do it yourself. I see Rob Enderle, SCO's buddy, is already making hay for Microsoft, calling it the "hidden cost of Android" and I assume that is the point Microsoft would like you to get from this lawsuit, in case you can't figure it out for yourself. And I suspect the Florian Mueller FUD was getting the world primed for this event, to try to portray Android and Google as somehow disrespectful of "IP rights". Just like SCO. Like I told you, this is SCO II. If you admired the first one, you will admire Microsoft. Why can't Microsoft just make some great products that people actually want to buy instead? All I know is that when I see patent and copyright litigation, I generally figure the plaintiff is on the downward curve and thinks this is all they have left to play. As Mary Jo Foley puts it, There's more than one way to compete with Android. Here's the Microsoft statement:
Microsoft Corp. today filed legal actions in the International Trade Commission and the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Washington against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and its device manufacturers, Foxconn International Holdings Ltd. and Inventec Corporation, for patent infringement by their Android-based e-reader and tablet devices that are marketed under the Barnes & Noble brand.
“The Android platform infringes a number of Microsoft’s patents, and companies manufacturing and shipping Android devices must respect our intellectual property rights. To facilitate that we have established an industry-wide patent licensing program for Android device manufacturers,” said Horacio Gutierrez, Corporate Vice President and Deputy General Counsel for Intellectual Property & Licensing. “HTC, a market leader in Android smartphones, has taken a license under this program. We have tried for over a year to reach licensing agreements with Barnes & Noble, Foxconn and Inventec. Their refusals to take licenses leave us no choice but to bring legal action to defend our innovations and fulfill our responsibility to our customers, partners, and shareholders to safeguard the billions of dollars we invest each year to bring great software products and services to market,” he added.
The patents at issue cover a range of functionality embodied in Android devices that are essential to the user experience, including: natural ways of interacting with devices by tabbing through various screens to find the information they need; surfing the Web more quickly, and interacting with documents and e-books. Instead of developing a competing product, they want to just skim off the top from the work of others. How very SCO.
Update: Google has issued a statement now: Google would not say whether it would offer support to the defendant, but it took issue with the case.
"Sweeping software patent claims like Microsoft's threaten innovation," Google said in a statement. "While we are not a party to this lawsuit, we stand behind the Android platform and the partners who have helped us to develop it." That's a pretty clear hint.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 05:47 PM EDT |
| If you can't innovate, sue. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 05:54 PM EDT |
There are patent defense pools for open source software. What are the chances
that this will trigger counterclaims against Microsoft from them? Has Barnes and
Noble been chosen in order to make this less likely?
If those patent pools ever come into action things could get very interesting
very fast. Patentwise the entire industry has built up to a state of mutually
assured destruction. This could trigger the patent version of World War III and
bring the entire industry to its knees. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 05:54 PM EDT |
if any.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 05:55 PM EDT |
Please many any links clickable.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 05:57 PM EDT |
Please note which article you are referencing,
and include the link to the news pick for future
readers.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 05:58 PM EDT |
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Comes v Microsoft Plaintiff's Exhibit 5063 - Authored by: Superbowl H5N1 on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 05:34 AM EDT
- Comes v Microsoft Plaintiff's Exhibit 4321 - Authored by: Superbowl H5N1 on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 05:49 AM EDT
- Comes v Microsoft Plaintiff's Exhibit 7536 - Authored by: Superbowl H5N1 on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 06:06 AM EDT
- PXE 8827 is not really legible - Authored by: Superbowl H5N1 on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 06:50 AM EDT
- Comes v Microsoft Plaintiff's Exhibit 8863 - Authored by: Superbowl H5N1 on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 07:01 AM EDT
- Comes v Microsoft Plaintiff's Exhibit 8861 - Authored by: Superbowl H5N1 on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 07:18 AM EDT
- Comes v Microsoft Plaintiff's Exhibit 9110 - Authored by: Superbowl H5N1 on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 07:30 AM EDT
- Comes v Microsoft Plaintiff's Exhibit 9191 - Authored by: Superbowl H5N1 on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 07:45 AM EDT
- Comes v Microsoft Plaintiff's Exhibit 8858 - Authored by: Superbowl H5N1 on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 08:14 AM EDT
- Comes v Microsoft Plaintiff's Exhibit 4354 - Authored by: Superbowl H5N1 on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 08:31 AM EDT
- Comes v Microsoft Plaintiff's Exhibit 5301 - Authored by: Superbowl H5N1 on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 08:43 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: bjnord on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 06:13 PM EDT |
I believe Microsoft has sued other device makers using Android (again, as a
proxy for Google) -- wasn't HTC one of them? What's the status of those suits?
(I
don't see anything on the Groklaw left margin that looks like this.) TIA[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jpvlsmv on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 06:14 PM EDT |
At the beginning of the SCO saga, there was a lot of noise made in the press
about how nobody would defend you against charges of copyright infringement if
you use Linux, in contrast to what proprietary software claims.
Then there were Linux companies who stepped in, and offered that
indemnification.
Now, Microsoft sues, not the creator of the "offending" software, but
just a user. In my opinion, this is just trying to bring an aura of fear (and
uncertainty and doubt) about basing anything on open-source software.
And the intimidation factor created by suing the smaller distributor (rather
than the big Google), carries over to every other small player in the market.
--Joe[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 06:16 PM EDT |
The patents listed in the complaint are all about displaying documents like PDFs
and ebooks (there should be ample prior art). No patent listed covers anything
in the kernel. I don't know what's included in Android, but I wouldn't be
surprised if browsers and ebook readers aren't on the list.
In response to Enderle, nothing in the complaint refers to anything specific
about Linux. Microsoft could jsut as easily have sued Apple, Adobe, or any
number of other companies that display documents on devices.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dcs on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 06:21 PM EDT |
| They did develop a competing product, which is better in a number of
ways. In fact, its most detracting aspect is being a Microsoft product.
But
one thing that strikes me odd is how they mention patents about "a natural way
of interaction". If it is natural, it should be obvious!
---
Daniel C.
Sobral
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 06:25 PM EDT |
| Yahoo Finance has an
article which highlights the major topics covered by the patents without going
into any depth. The issues seem to be specific to the Nook reader, not Android
in particular.
I would think that B&N could get around the ITC suit by
installing a stub application, and downloading the actual application once the
Nook is registered, or even between importation and sale. This would make it
strictly a software patent litigation, and get the ITC out of the middle. It
also removes Microsoft's biggest hammer. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Patents seem to be specific to Nook reader, not to Android - Authored by: PJ on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 06:28 PM EDT
- Patents seem to be specific to Nook reader, not to Android - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 06:39 PM EDT
- liar - Authored by: BJ on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 06:45 PM EDT
- liar - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 07:00 PM EDT
- Patents seem to be specific to Nook reader, not to Android - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 06:44 PM EDT
- Patents seem to be specific to Nook reader, not to Android - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 07:31 PM EDT
- Patents seem to be specific to Nook reader, not to Android - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 11:19 PM EDT
- The patent titles are irrelevant. - Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 05:59 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: calris74 on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 07:00 PM EDT |
| [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 07:04 PM EDT |
So, several of the first comments wave their hands and say this is about Nook,
not Android.
But.....
1. Microsoft says it's about Android.
2. At least one of the patents applies to the Android copy/paste interface.
This is not about one unfortunate Android manufacturer that we should dismiss.
It is an all-out assault on Android.
--- nyarlathotep[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 07:06 PM EDT |
| Cant compete so... call in the lawyers.. sigh :-|
Phone maker publicly says ‘No’ to WP7 China’s ZTE sees no
reason to make a phone running Microsoft ---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 07:06 PM EDT |
I don't know why NPR has been supporting his drivel, but they ran an article
about the Android problems with commentary from Enderle about three weeks ago.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 07:10 PM EDT |
Was SCO just a dress rehearsal?
Certainly looking that way.
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 07:36 PM EDT |
Microsoft had to scrape the bottom of the barrel for this
one I see... I think Netscape Navigator and Adobe Acrobat
provide prior art to invalidate these patents.
Patent #5,778,372: “Remote retrieval and display management
of electronic document with incorporated images.” July 7,
1998.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape
Founded 1994
Netscape was owned by AOL, and MOzilla was spawned by 1998
Patent #6,339,780: “Loading status in a hypermedia browser
having a limited available display area.” Jan. 15, 2002.
Patent #5,889,522: “System provided child window controls.”
March 30, 1999.
Patent #6,891,551: “Selection handles in editing electronic
documents.” May 10, 2005
Patent #6,957,233: “Method and apparatus for capturing and
rendering annotations for non-modifiable electronic
content.” Oct. 18, 2005.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Acrobat
Acrobat 6.0 was released in July 2003. This version
introduced significant changes to the family of Adobe
Acrobat:
Support "Reader enabling", allowing Adobe Reader to save,
sign or annotate PDF files if the PDF file allowed[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 07:38 PM EDT |
If geekwire is correct with the patent text:
"A browser remotely retrieves electronic documents from a remote computer
network for viewing by a user. For enhancing responsiveness, the browser
initially displays an electronic document without a background image so that the
electronic document is initially displayed more quickly. The browser also
prioritizes downloading of embedded images of the document by their
incorporation in the currently visible portion of the electronic
document."
How would not a "person having ordinary skill in the art" of would
not think of this as an optimization?
Apparently only as long as that person doesn't work for M$!!
I would NEVER think of first collecting and displaying what the person is
looking at? Imagine the brains required!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 07:58 PM EDT |
It's unclear to me whether Microsoft's patent infringement claims are against
the components of Android contained in the device or against components added to
the device which happens also to contain Android. In fact, a number of these
patents read like functions that are contained in an application software for
handling and displaying e-books rather than an operating system. The
implication here would be that Microsoft will first offer Barnes & Noble a
low cost (but undisclosed) attractive option for a settlement to avoid legal
expenses on the part of Barnes & Noble, and then use the fear factor of that
news as a weapon to attack companies that use Android for purposes that differ
from e-book readers. Good golly, our patent system is broken.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 07:59 PM EDT |
I hear all the time that Windows Phone 7 is great - MS is
inundating the TV
with ads touting how great it is,
there
are plenty of
positive tech
reviews, yet few people or companies are
biting.
Why is it?
I
venture because people are sick of dealing with
Microsoft.
I
know I am! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jimbob0i0 on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 08:08 PM EDT |
Intentional non-clicky:
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/03/microsoft-sues-
barnes-noble-foxconn-and.html
Paraphrasing he says that Microsoft has to enforce its
patents against B&N since Amazon has paid up and as a
competitor of B&N it is only fair if they both pay or
neither pay.... since Amazon has already paid up then it's
only fair if B&N now pay up...
At this point I'll note that allegedly Microsoft has been
'in negotiations' with the defendants for a year whereupon
they have been told 'ha' .... and now Amazon caved so B&N
should too... for stuff that is most likely invalid?
I think I brained my hurt...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 08:09 PM EDT |
...is a good offense.
When are people going to start suing Microsoft by the bucket loads?
These Android shots are against Google. Google's got money and lawyers.
Let the lawsuit parade begin. (Obviously lawsuits don't have to have any merit.
Look at SCO.) Call it part of advertising, the FUD campaign.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jimbob0i0 on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 08:16 PM EDT |
5,778
,372 - Remote retrieval and
display management of electronic document
with...
6,339
,780 - Loading status in a
hypermedia browser having a limited available
display
area
5,889
,522 - System provided
child window controls
6,891
,551 - Selection handles in
editing electronic documents
6,957
,233 - Method and apparatus
for capturing and rendering annotations for non
... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jimbob0i0 on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 08:39 PM EDT |
I was thinking about putting this in OT but it is sort of
on topic and
relevant...
U
S government sides against
Microsoft in Supreme Court patent case
Now
who wants to do the maths for which way for all this
to fall works out
financially best for Microsoft? My gut
feeling is that if they lose the i4i
case then that would
help them in the burden of proof against B&N etc...
Would they be allowed to 'throw' one case in order to use
it as precedent
in another case they are involved in? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 10:54 PM EDT |
Barnes & Noble has no patent portfolio, they don't understand the tech and
don't have deep pockets. They are the weakest link.
Had Microsoft gone after Google or Motorola (Xoom) they would have been taking
on an adversary with lots of money (Google) or lots of patents(Motorola).
Hopefully someone steps forward to fill the gap.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 11:34 PM EDT |
I didn't realize we had anything to worry about? Thanks for
warning us. Please allow us to adjust our portfolios accordingly!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 21 2011 @ 11:50 PM EDT |
There is little chance that B&N can afford to fully fight a patent lawsuit.
If Micro$oft wins, it sets a precedent, something lacking so far.
There are also implications for Amazon. B&N has never really done tech
well. If the FUD flies, it could take them out.
-- Alma[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 03:26 AM EDT |
How are all these ITC cases working out? Pr'aps I should say USITC
because it's all about those derelict firms who've had to outsource
all their manufacturing to Asian sweatshops, and stopping them
from importing their stock in trade. At one stage it seemed as if
everybody who sold mobile phone handsets in the US had a case
running against them at USITC. Or do the lawyers not push these
cases so hard because they make bigger bucks in the Federal Courts?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Fortress America - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 10:49 AM EDT
- Just a thought - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 06:23 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 03:31 AM EDT |
>> During times when the browser is loading content, the browser
displays a temporary, animated graphic element over the content
viewing area. The graphic element is removed after the content is
loaded, allowing unobstructed viewing ... <<
Is that what happens when you try to get the whole internet in your pocket?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 03:35 AM EDT |
>> #6,891,551 ... one or more selection handles appear on the selection
area to allow dynamic resizing of the selection area ... <<
Oh, sorry, someone else got the pinch patent.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 05:49 AM EDT |
Microsoft were found guilty of abuse of monopoly in their attack against IBM's
PS/2 operating system, Netscape's Netscape browser and Novell's Word Perfect
word processor (See: the Comes files in Groklaw). They were found guilty of
abusing their Windows monopoly to damage the market for Word Perfect so the
abuse does not have to be against an equivalent product to the monopoly
product.
The DOJ have completed the period of formal monitoring to check for compliance
with the orders and repeat offences [spit].
What we have here is two new abuses of monopoly.
The first is an abuse of patent monopoly. The patent claims are to restrain the
trade of Barnes and Noble and not to address alleged patent infringement of the
Android OS. It might not be abuse if they sued the authors of Android, but abuse
is all it can be if they sue the users of Android. (It jolly well would be abuse
of monopoly if they sued Google, though!)
The second is the abuse of their Windows operating system monopoly. Microsoft
may not have a monopoly in the particular flavours of Windows Mobile 7 and
Windows CE, but this is irrelevant because they are using the patents developed
and bought in relation to the Windows product to restrain the trade of another
operating system product.
Because of the previous judgements against Microsoft, it should not be necessary
for Google to sue Microsoft. They just have to notify the DOJ that Microsoft
have broken their pledge not to re-offend. Google should also refer to the
proposed patent sale to CPTN which, in the light of the present action, can be
seen as preparation for an attack on UNIX and flavours of UNIX such as AIX. This
would be the second time that Microsoft abused their monopoly to attack an IBM
operating system: the first was PS/2.
The DOJ have demonstrated that they are able to bring into consideration
possible abuse of patent monopoly with the review of the MPEG LA patent
activities. With this clear indication of broken Microsoft pledges to the DOJ,
there is even more reason for the DOJ to take this issue up without being
formally asked.
---
Regards
Ian Al
SCOG: Intentionally left Blank Rome upt[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BitOBear on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 09:22 AM EDT |
Um... tricorder... dick-tracy tv watch... those pad things the Yeoman, medical,
and "extras" constantly had in their hands on Star Trek the original
series. The touch-sensitive pads from Star Trek The Next Generation (such as in
one scene where Riker is going to read his lines for a play and instead starts
reading "Ode To Spot" written by data.)
Felis Catus is your taxonomic nomenclature,
an endothermic quadruped, carnivorous by nature...
wait... I lost my train of thought...
Oh yea, can society make a class and bring an action to kill "on a computer
patents" because they are taking our fiction and general good ideas and
turning them into legal fees?
I know that congress is supposed to do something when... wait I just made a
funny... congress... do something...
No seriously where in this system are regular people who are footing the costs
for these courts empowered to make the stupid just stop?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: amicuscurious on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 09:38 AM EDT |
Suing Google is not the same as suing Barnes & Noble. The MS patents bear
on using a method (that they patented some years ago) to do some useful function
(in the Nook). Tom Tom was more about navigation software patents than about
Linux although there were elements (FAT) of Linux infringement asserted. Barnes
& Noble is about application methods and that does not involve Google
directly.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 10:05 AM EDT |
what exactly is being allegedly infringed?
The complaint just lists a bunch of patents but no details...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eggplant37 on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 10:17 AM EDT |
Just because of this lawsuit I'm shopping for a new phone. I only
got my current phone a year ago, but it was a very cheap model
meant to save money. My budget isn't as tight as it used to be, so
I think I can splurge. I'll get something with Android on it, for
certain. I wish I could write the expletives running through my
head directed toward Microsoft, but I know that's not allowed
here. Let's just say that I wish they would drown in their own
excrement.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 10:26 AM EDT |
Why isn't the Chamber of Commerce up in arms over this nuisance lawsuit? I
thought the US Chamber of Commerce was against lawsuits that hinder
business......
And why isn't Microsoft suing Apple???[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JamesK on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 11:46 AM EDT |
| Google
says Microsoft patent lawsuit threatens innovation ---
IANALAIDPOOTV
(I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 01:37 PM EDT |
It's obvious to me why they're suing B&N--because they're not a software
company.
The Big Boys use patent portfolios as a weapon, and it's almost always
the case that such saber rattling ends in a cross-licensing agreement
where the companies agree not to sue each other. Everyone infringes
everyone's patents to some degree (since there's so many dumb/bad
patents out there) so cross-licensing prevents suits. (it also creates
massive barriers to entry and strikes innovation, but that's another rant).
So why sue B&N? Because unlike google, they likely have no software
patents, so MS isn't threatened with a countersuit of patents THEY
infringe (unlike Google, who surely has some equally dumb patents that
windows infringes). You sue the guy who can't sue back.
Incidentally, I though this was where OIN came in for Linux--accumulate a
patent portfolio to use against anyone who sues Linux companies.
Perhaps Android needs similar defense (Android != Google) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: GriffMG on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 08:29 PM EDT |
I've lived and worked in NY and B&N are pretty well respected in the 'states
(as someone from the UK might say).
This can't really wash, it's like slamming Apple Pie!
For all their financial, and political, muscle M$ just don't get it.
---
Keep B-) ing[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: GriffMG on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 08:39 PM EDT |
Seems the simplest way out
---
Keep B-) ing[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 11:01 PM EDT |
All the patents mentioned in this were all mechanisms that existed previously to
Microsoft. Check out X-Window apis and mechanisms and existing Window
Decorations/Widgets.
X.org/XFree86/MIT should be able to confirm first usage in their APIs.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 11:04 PM EDT |
Did anyone notice one of the prosecuting lawyers' names was McBride. Is that
the same guy who worked for the anti-Linux company SCO?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 31 2011 @ 02:31 AM EDT |
- March 06, 2003 – SCO sues the world
- May 14, 2007 –
Microsoft says GNU/Linux violates
235+
Windows patents
- September 21,
2010 – Elop becomes CEO of
Nokia
- February 11, 2011 –
Anouncement of engagement
with
Microsoft
- February 17, 2011 –
Novel Shareholders approve
Attachmate
buyout
- March 07, 2011 – Qt
is being let go
- March 08, 2011 – News surfaces that Nokia is
to
receive
$1bn from Microsoft
Note: Attachmate is about to
funnel patents Novel has to
a
holding company controlled by Microsoft, Apple,
EMC and
Oracle. Another interesting detail: Nokia deal apparently
gives
Microsoft access to Nokia’s patents as
well.
I have bit more ranting
in my post with
bit more details
and links to the sources.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
