M$ Word bant in US?

[[BTF]Sigma]

Hey I just stumbled across this.

Microsoft Word Sales Banned In U.S.

Did this really just happen?

[ĄƦçɧąɳɠҾԼ]

  After all the patent BS they kept accusing others of without being able to show proof this is just karma.

[Whirlingdervish]

They can't legally sell it, but I can continue to illegally distribute it?

Sweeeeet.

[jägermonsta]

 

[quadz]

Wow... it's funny to see this happen to Microsoft.

But these kinds of patents are just bullshit.






As with so many software patents, these sorts of systems are the kinds of things developers simply invent on their own, when faced with a particular need. 

Blah.  I wish all software patents were just nullified.  It's a completely fucked system.

[reaper]

I remember a story where Apple had to put people in a room to invest something on their own to proove it wasn't learned from other people's products or something.

What is the deal with this, the XML format is GPL, and you can't close source it?  I don't get it.  But I'd put XML up there with one of those fundamental things that you don't own.  Like patenting x86, it's so pervasive, one entitiy shouldn't own it.

[peewee_RotA]

Wow... it's funny to see this happen to Microsoft.

But these kinds of patents are just bullshit.

You mean like this:
A method for enabling a first user to interact with other users in a virtual space, wherein the first user and the other users each have an avatar and a client process associated therewith, and wherein each client process is in communication with a server process, wherein the method comprises...
http://www.google.com/patents?id=wv5-AAAAEBAJ&dq=7,181,690
http://www.google.com/patents?id=wv5-AAAAEBAJ&dq=7,181,690

From which worlds.com sues NCSoft for making MMOs.
http://www.virtualworldtimes.com/files/complaintworldscomvnesoft6-08cv508.pdf

After which they will move onto everyone else that their scum sucking money grubbing hands can get a dime off of:
Worlds.com CEO: We're 'Absolutely' Going To Sue Second Life And World Of Warcraft
http://www.businessinsider.com/worldscom-ceo-were-absolutely-going-to-sue-second-life-and-world-of-warcraft-2009-3


Makes you wish that people could go back in time and stop themselves from ever playing a worlds.com title

[The Happy Friar]

if only Sierra On-Line didn't invent mmo's & then sell it to AT&T for a large profit & AT&T loose millions on it. 

this could be bad for openoffice.org too, it works the same way.

BUT... patents only hold up if there's no proof someone else didn't invent it first.  IE if this type of document system was made up in 1995 & someone has proof, then nobody would owe anybody anything & it would go to public domain status. 

So does anyone have code that basically does this from 20 years ago? 

[peewee_RotA]

The tricky thing about the Worlds.com suit is that WOW was released in 2004, 3 years before the patent was issued. Although the patent was applied for in 2000 or 2001, I can't remember. Now from what I remember Ultima Online existed before this as well as a few other popular early MMO's. However, they were not 3d. (But Ultima Online's 3d version of the client was released before the patent was issued) I wonder if Asheron's Call or Everquest are old enough.

Either way if Worlds.com made absolutely no effort to protect their patent for 9 years, then I doubt that the suit can go anywhere.



As for the microsoft case, I don't think that compiled formatting has a whole lot of older examples. Maybe something like Word Perfect but I don't know how that functions. Best examples I can think of could possibly be Lotus 1-2-3 or one of the early WYSIWYG  editors.

[The Happy Friar]

the date the patent is approved doesn't matter, just the application date.  so if they applied in 2000 & is approved in 2004, then it's retroactive protection to 2000.  But if it's rejected then there's no protection.   Attempting to protect it doesn't matter either, that's up to the individual who owns the patent. 

With the WoW thing, I guess you'd have to define "3D".  Leisure Suit Larry 4 let you move infront/behing objects & other avatars. That's 3d space, right?  (I'm not making it up
I'm not making it up!)

With the MS thing, who knows.  But I agree with Quadz: software patents suck.  What's the difference between compiled formatting & what id did was .wad files for doom 1/2?  Those are data organized in a larger piece of data.

[QwazyWabbit]

I agree with Quadz. Software patents are bullshit and should never be granted. Under US patent law, algorithms are not patentable. For example, you can't patent 2 + 2 = 4 or E=mc^2 or a^2+b^2 = c^2. You would not be permitted to patent the instructions to a computer to perform those computations.

Computer programs are algorithms:
http://www.answers.com/topic/algorithm

Software patents should never have been allowed in the first place.

http://www.answers.com/topic/software-patent

The idea of software patentability stems from the idea that a program is a "process" or can be justified as needing patent protection. But the original definition of a "process" was the manipulation of materials (chemical, mechanical) in such a manner that the end product was distinct.

The idea that you could patent a set of instructions to a computer to solve a problem stifles innovation and is literally impossible to enforce since one would have to reverse engineer the binary code of a computer algorithm in order to identify and prove infringement and that is illegal in the US under DMCA and a violation of another absurd concept called copyright. If you don't reverse it, the only other way is to sue and subpoena everyone using your data format to see if their source code infringes, which is what some of these plantiffs end up doing.

[reaper]

If I make software to control a robotic arm that builds a car door, I should be able to patent it, or copyright it?

Either way what's the difference?

I think it's what gets copyrighted, and what gets patented that causes problems.  You shouldn't be able to patent or copyright protocols, markup languages and such.  But software that controls a specific process for robotically assembling something, I can see that as a patent.  Or copyrighting software, but not the methods, languages, protocols the software uses.

When you work with computers you will come up with similar processes and standards on your own, and you could change a bit in the protocol and the protocol is different.  It is just a big hinderence to have software patented.

yeah so this is really fucking stupid and I feel for Microsoft

edit:
well they tried to patent something similar.  It is all bs, seperation of content and structure.  Maybe we should not use css and html, something like that wouldn't just be everywhere soon. 

In other news, eventually it will be impossible to do anything.

 

[QwazyWabbit]

If I make software to control a robotic arm that builds a car door, I should be able to patent it, or copyright it?

Either way what's the difference?

A robot is a general tool. It can be re-taught a different process. The software operating system allows user programs to drive the machine. The system code can be copyrighted, it doesn't need to be patented. There is also the fact that the software drives a specific hardware set that makes it a commodity rather than an invention.

I think it's what gets copyrighted, and what gets patented that causes problems.  You shouldn't be able to patent or copyright protocols, markup languages and such.  But software that controls a specific process for robotically assembling something, I can see that as a patent.  Or copyrighting software, but not the methods, languages, protocols the software uses.

A protocol is a process specification, a software solution is an implementation of a process specification. Both are instructions for doing a task. (i.e., an algorithm)

In other news, eventually it will be impossible to do anything.

 

Patents expire. (20 years in U.S.) Copyright lasts much longer (life of the author plus 50 years) maybe life plus 70 now. If a corporation owns the copyright when does it expire?

[reaper]

I look at it like music.  If you take a song and copy it exact that creates a problem for the musician.   Just like if you could copy Microsoft software and sell it, it creates a problem for Microsoft.  Microsoft should get credit for its work.  They own that code, but they don't own Operating Systems.   If I make software to control robots to build cars, no one should be able to steal my work(if you want you can say the firmware or operating system software that provides an interface could be copyrighted).   But it doesn't mean I get a patent that says Robotic Arm control software method, use a seperate firmware system image, and separate program control through an API to operator programs.  So now I own the way in which one "needs" to get things done through software when they need to do a similar task?  That doesn't seem very helpfull.

Patenting software stuff doesn't work to well, thankfully no one panted the if statement, while loops, variables.  It appears this is something similar.  Like patenting html and css, web browsing, protocols.   But you still need to protect people's inventions wether you can hold them in your hand or not.  Copyright seem reasaonble for software.  It is easy to see when something is being duplicated, and a line can be drawn.  So I can see a huge codebase being owned by someone, but not a ubiquitous idea on how to format data.  To me it is like saying, we are patenting encryption.  But software does need protection, we just can't take fundamental methods away from public ownership.