Gene Heskett wrote:
On Thursday 22 February 2007, Res wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Gene Heskett wrote:
Yeah, I'm working on that too, within the limits of my diabetes.
I think, if this stands, then M$ will have no choice but to sue Fahnhoffer
for breach of contract. I've since read that somehow, Fahnhoffer has
come into the clutches of the former AT&T behemoth, so there has to be
someone, somewhere within that organization who needs to wear the blame
for this one.
Of course to call a spade a bloody shovel, these guys have turned into the
same quality of patent troll that nailed RIM for 600+ million. I can
recall faintly when such things would have been handled with a shotgun &
a shovel. Things were still a bit wild & wooly back in the 30's... Ya
know, we still haven't found Jimmy Hoffa...
Whats even more interesting ATM is the days verbal arguments at the
Supremes, they both SIDES, are painting themselves into a corner that may
yet generate a ruling on the patentability of software even if that
wasn't the point of the suit in the first place. Breyer and Ginsberg are
both asking questions from what appear to be very well clued in
perspectives. There may yet be hope of real justice if we all pray real
hard.
And no, I'm not a preacher, nor do I play one on tv, so don't send your
money to me. :)
The issue isn't the license MS has but with whom they don't have
licenses. This was on CNET today.
Patent fights are a legacy of MP3's tangled origins
http://news.com.com/Patent+fights+are+a+legacy+of+MP3s+tangled+origins/2100-1027_3-6164165.html
This article covers this mess. In basic points, the MP3 patent is not a
single patent but multiple patents owned by multiple organizations.
Maybe the end of mp3 and the move to ogg or something open source. :)
A time to end software patents.
--
Due to the move to M$ Exchange Server,
anything that is a priority, please phone.
Robin Laing
