Linux - NewsThis forum is for original Linux News. If you'd like to write content for LQ, feel free to contact us.
All threads in the forum need to be approved before they will appear.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I don't think that's quite right. "let's rethink this due to M$".
True from a strickly business POV, but the bigger picture is what I'm talking about. This first opening salvo is just a trial balloon.
Sure, current projects will likelynot be affected, BUT future projects will be decided upon factoring in this current situation. (by CEOs who don't care about the philosophy). I think the average Joe will also be affected because he doesn't know any better.
"Gee, I don't know about swithing to Ubuntu. Isn't MS suing all you guys?" i.e. he doesn't have to be RIGHT, he only has to be indoctrinated. (and M$ is considered by the masses to be diety)
Sure, Linux will survive, but M$ has shown time after time they could care not what their customers *think*, only that they *buy*.
This current strategy is only one of many that insures a growing cash flow. after all, they are required by law to protect the stock price of the *owners* of the company.
Distribution: Slackware (mainly) and then a lot of others...
Posts: 855
Rep:
I think it's really hard for MS to beieve that someone would give an operating system for free. Afterall they are more intrested in making money, rather than making sure that the software reaches the people who really need it.
Actually I emailed them (now way am I paying for international postage) quite a while ago demanding a rethink of how they work.
The main problem was though that I did this late one night after finding a thing on the web that I couldn't understand properly in the state of mind I was in (no drugs or alcohol just late nights and early mornings) which got me really annoyed because it said that some one has a patent on progress bars.
Quote:
Thank you for your e-mails of July 20 and 23, 2007, to the USPTO Info e-mail box. Your e-mail communications have been referred to the Office of the Commissioner for Patents at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for response.
You indicate your frustrations with "Technology giants holding patents on the essentially unpatentable", that the purpose of the "patent system in America is to prevent smaller business and inventors from being extorted by well established companies" and why are these "established companies, e.g. Microsoft allowed to have a near monopoly on operating system software and software development." You further indicate that they have an "unfair market advantage on smaller groups and these companies don't need intellectual property rights on advanced maths and obvious ways to make user interfaces." Lastly, you wanted to know the e-mail address for our complaints department.
The USPTO is a Federal agency responsible for granting U.S. patents and registering trademarks. In doing this, the USPTO fulfills the mandate of Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, of the Constitution that the Executive branch "promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." The involvement of the USPTO in the patent process is limited to examining patent applications and granting a patent if the applicant meets the conditions to be entitled to a patent. The USPTO cannot act for or advise inventors concerning the business transactions or arrangements that are involved in the development and marketing of an invention.
Every patent is presumed to be valid as noted in the first sentence of 35 U.S.C. 282. Public policy demands that every employee of the USPTO refuse to express to any person any opinion as to the validity or invalidity of, or the patentability or unpatentability of any claim in any U.S. patent, except to the extent necessary to carry out
(A) an examination of a reissue application of the patent,
(B) a reexamination proceeding to reexamine the patent, or
(C) an interference involving the patent.
The question of validity or invalidity is otherwise exclusively a matter to be determined by a court. Likewise, the question of enforceability or unenforceability is exclusively a matter to be determined by a court.
35 U.S.C. 301 provides that individuals may, at any time, submit to the Office prior art consisting of patents or printed publications which they believe have bearings on the patentability of any claim of a particular patent provided the person explains in writing the pertinency and manner of applying such prior art to at least one claim of the patent.
35 U.S.C. 301 Citation of prior art.
Any person at any time may cite to the Office in writing prior art consisting of patents or printed publications which that person believes to have a bearing on the patentability of any claim of a particular patent. If the person explains in writing the pertinency and manner of applying such prior art to at least one claim of the patent, the citation of such prior art and the explanation thereof will become a part of the official file of the patent. At the written request of the person citing the prior art, his or her identity will be excluded from the patent file and kept confidential.
(Added Dec. 12, 1980, Public Law 96-517, sec. 1, 94 Stat. 3015.)
If you have patents or publications that have a bearing on the patentability of any claim in specific patents, I encourage you to submit them in this manner.
Inquiries and/or comments regarding the patent process may be sent to our e-mail address at usptoinfo@uspto.gov <mailto:usptoinfo@uspto.gov> or sent to our address listed at this link: <http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/patboxs.htm>.
Questions regarding this communication may also be sent to the following e-mail addresses:
These people have no soles...
In fact I think that Gregory Morse is an MS built program...
Well, frankly, they aren't supposed to have souls. The people who run our government are supposed to make decisions based on fairness and the letter of the law, not because they have strong feelings one way or another. I tremble to think what would happen if people like "Gregory Morse" started performing their jobs with "soul". "Soul" implies feeling, and feelings are ALWAYS subjective. Then, all bets are off!
I would say their response on how they grant patents basically falls within the established functioning of the United States Government. The basic SOP for the federal government is "Innocent until proven guilty." To extend to the patent-granting part, "you can have and retain a patent as long as someone doesn't come along and disprove it's validity."
That's the kind of response I would expect. However I do think that how patents are granted could stand some scrutiny. It's also convenient that in order to disprove a patent, you have to go to court. Going to court is very expensive, which is not a problem for big corporations like Microsoft. There's no doubt that the US Government is broken. But as long as we keep electing the idiots we do, that send us into wars we shouldn't be in, that's what we get. And, frankly, the only way things will change with regard to patent grants is through legislation; the people at the USPTO are simply doing their jobs.
... I spell fonetically (that was emphasis people).
Any way what I was trying to get across is that the patent system is supposed to protect people from becoming victims of market warfare when dealing with more established groups.
The patent office needs to learn how to say "No, you don't need it anymore".
... I spell fonetically (that was emphasis people).
Any way what I was trying to get across is that the patent system is supposed to protect people from becoming victims of market warfare when dealing with more established groups.
The patent office needs to learn how to say "No, you don't need it anymore".
I agree. Far too many patents are 'untested' by the courts. In recent years, several have been overturned. But as long as the patents exist, the larger corporations that hold them (like m$) can continue to make such claims and threats until someone can afford to contest the patents.
... I spell fonetically (that was emphasis people).
Any way what I was trying to get across is that the patent system is supposed to protect people from becoming victims of market warfare when dealing with more established groups.
The patent office needs to learn how to say "No, you don't need it anymore".
Really? Can you point to any specific section of the U.S. code or some court decision suggesting that the purpose of the patent system is to " protect people from becoming victims of market warfare when dealing with more established groups?"
Patent law is made by Congress and implemented by the USPTO with disputes being resolved by the court system. It is not the place for individual patent examiners or even the head of the USPTO to effect new patent law. That's the job of Congress. Likewise, the USPTO is expected to apply the law in a neutral way towards all parties be they large corporations (like Microsoft) or individuals.
The only way that the patent office can revoke a patent is if Congress gives them the authority to do so. If you don't like the US patent laws I suggest that you write your representatives in Congress and lobby for them to be changed.
FWIW, I think that software should not be patentable (but protected by copyright) so I agree that something has to be done. However I don't think that blaming the USPTO or its employees is a particularly productive way of effecting change.
I decided to have a look at the UK Intellectual Property Office policy document to see what the official UK government stance was, but got a "this page cannot be displayed" message. Maybe I have to be using Internet Explorer
I decided to have a look at the UK Intellectual Property Office policy document to see what the official UK government stance was, but got a "this page cannot be displayed" message. Maybe I have to be using Internet Explorer
Or their server is down due to using a Microsoft product
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
