Slipery character that he is
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tracyanne Oct 31, 2011 5:27 PM EDT |
he never actually states what the patents are. |
| Fettoosh Oct 31, 2011 6:06 PM EDT |
Actually he did mention this one, Which is totally ridiculousQuoting:In the Barnes & Noble case, one of the patents in question covers a graphical feature that indicates when a Web page is loading and disappears when it's gone. How novel of an invention is that really? And this paragraph by Horacio Gutiérrez should invalidate any patent when done in a different way even though it produces the same outcome. For MS to prove its patents validity, it needs to show that the infringing method is exactly the same as MS methods. Could this be the reason why MS is not naming the patents? Or keeping them hidden so they are not invalidated pretty quickly? Quoting:It's not the idea or the final outcome that is patentable; it's the particular way in which the outcome is brought about. So two different means of getting to the same end would be independently patentable. Next statement is totally the opposite of what is actually happening. Software patents are enforced in the US and few other countries and consequently, the lousy patent system is stifling software innovations in the US while flourishing in other countries where software is not patent-able. He talks about studies after studies, what studies is he talking about? MS or MS sponsored studies? Quoting:If you look at the development of the technology industry in the U.S., intellectual property protection has been essential in bringing about the success of this industry throughout the 20th century and even before that. Study after study has demonstrated that the patent system has actually played a role in securing the leadership that the United States has in this field. |
| BernardSwiss Oct 31, 2011 8:51 PM EDT |
Mostly pseudo-academic hogwash produced by various faux-independent "think-tanks", perhaps with a sprinkling of additional similar junk produced by actually-somewhat-independent but ideologically-driven "think-tanks". In truth, most such studies would be better characterized as "PR". |
| Koriel Nov 01, 2011 2:22 AM EDT |
Complete hogwash but what do you expect from a corporate lawyer in the pocket of a convicted monopolist, Film at 11. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!