The jury finds you ignorant beyond measure.
Mood:
suave
Now Playing: 'Third Time Loser' Small time criminal makes critical mistake on way to reform.
Topic: The Sneaky Runarounds
There's nothing quite so humorous as watching a non-swimmer splash around in the shallow end of the pool. Except when it's an adult who doesn't care how silly people think he is as long as he can keep them out of the pool to begin with.
That's the aim.
By: tepe
14 May 2007, 06:54 PM EDT
Msg. 185210 of 185216
This should shed some light on the patent infringement suit. It's not all "in the bag" like some think.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070425-microsoft-accused-of-patent-infringement-with-net.html
Vertical Computing describes itself as a company that "provides administrative software, Internet core technologies, and derivative software application products through its distribution network." Essentially it is a web services company. Its primary product, SiteFlash, is a commercial content management system that uses XML to publish and maintain web sites. On the SiteFlash information page, Vertical Computing takes special care to mention that it is covered under US patent #6,826,744.
The patent itself, like many software patents, uses vague language to describe "a system and method for generating computer applications in an arbitrary object framework." The patent involves creating "objects" in a web-based application. These objects are managed throughout their life cycle in an object library and put together to create complex, interactive web applications. The whole mechanism separates design, function, and content so that each can be developed separately.
To anyone who has some knowledge of web-based software development, it sounds a lot like what Sun's Java or Apple's WebObjects were doing before .NET was even released. In fact, the patent even admits as such: "Prior art solutions have succeeded in partially separating some of these functions. Notably, content management databases and digital repositories provide a means of separating content from form and function." It then defends the need for this separate patent with the incredibly vague assertion that "content management tools typically fail to address form/function issues."
I've used a few content management tools in my time, and none of them have failed to separate content from function—that's basically the entire point of content management systems. The patent goes on to claim that "changes in design or content do not require the intervention of a programmer." Again, it's difficult to see how this is different from any other existing solutions, many of which predate Vertical Computing's efforts.
Even if the patent did describe functionality that was unique to products like SiteFlash, it will be difficult to argue that Microsoft's .NET frameworks are infringing on these ideas.
A Microsoft spokesperson told Ars Technica that the company "has not yet been served with a copy of the lawsuit and that it would be premature for us to comment."
Like I've said for a long time, software patents are pretty hard to enforce. I hope Vertical wins this, but I'm not holding my breath.
- - - - -
View Replies »
A Hollow Head Makes A Lovely Vase
Imagine. According to the patent expert here (who knows nothing of the software or technology) Microsoft has nothing to fear. And yet Microsoft still won't introduce their products. And our little expert is still all by himself... alone...
And let him answer this I wrote specifically to counter the numbnut developers with bias and self-interests:
Port's Reply to SiteFlash Patent Challenge
...and when you're done there move on to here. He won't follow.
Is XML Enabler Agent Patent Infringement next?
Now. Compare THAT to the 'expert' in the first post... and consider agendae and motive.
And THEN he has the desperate gall to try to comment on the Charles Northrup patents LOL I've covered Northrup's work already here
but you should see what our expert has to say since apparently he refuses to read anything I write...
By: tepe
14 May 2007, 07:10 PM EDT
Msg. 185218 of 185223
Northrup's Latest Patent: Legitimate or Just "A Silly Claim"?
(April 23, 2003) - In an odd twist, even though the WWW was conceived by Tim Berners-Lee in 1989 and the first public release of a WWW client and server was in 1991, such 'prior art' (as it is known in patent circles) seems not to have discouraged New Jersey-based Charlie Northrup from claiming patent number 6,546,413 ['Access Method Independent Exchange Using a Communication Primitive']. The result - for the US Office of Patents and Trademarks granted it after many years of deliberation - according to many commentators including Maureen O'Gara of LinuxGram, is that Northrup now holds the patent on nothing less universal than what we now call 'Web services.'
http://dotnet.sys-con.com/read/40611_f.htm
Read the commentary on this website. My fear is that VCSY's patent is similar to this. There are a lot of "bogus" patents out there, whether you pumpers want to believe it or not.
If the patent is good, VCSY will prevail regardless of what's posted here.
- - - - -
View Replies »
Read Pilgrim. You will learn. Of course, not if you listen to "experts: such as our little friend. Ask him how much he knows about the subjects he's commenting on. Go ahead... ask.
RapidRobert offers information on Microsoft moves with open-source from the past. http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=185232
Just a small example of what is in the post:
Microsoft denies Ballmer Linux 'warning'
Tags: Windows, Linux, Microsoft
Ingrid Marson ZDNet UK
Published: 23 Nov 2004 17:05 GMT
Microsoft has denied reports that it warned Asian governments that they will face patent lawsuits for using the Linux operating system instead of its Windows software.
At the Microsoft's Asian Government Leaders Forum in Singapore, Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer said that Linux violates more than 228 patents and that companies will be at risk of legal action if they use Linux, according to Reuters.
"Someday, for all countries that are entering the WTO [World Trade Organisation], somebody will come and look for money owing to the rights for that intellectual property," said Ballmer, according to the Reuters report.
A Microsoft spokesperson said that in the presentation Ballmer had merely passed on the information from a study carried out by a pro-Linux third party.
"The reporter got it wrong. This was not a Microsoft report nor is this a Microsoft 'warning'," said the spokesperson. "Steve [Ballmer] was referring to a study done by the Linux community group Open Source Risk Management (OSRM), a pro-free and open-source software organisation."
But Dan Ravicher, the author of the OSRM study and the executive director of the Public Patent Foundation, criticised Microsoft for using soundbites from the report.
"Balmer makes a very bold statement by saying 'Linux infringes X patents', which is much different than saying 'Linux potentially infringes X patents', as the requirement to prove infringement is much stiffer and more difficult than the requirement to simply file a case claiming infringement," said Ravicher. "As the SCO saga shows, filing a case based on an allegation is one thing, proving the merits of the allegation in court is something completely different."
Ravicher added that he feels Microsoft's customers are more at risk of being sued for patent infringement than those who use open-source.
"Not a single open-source software program has ever been sued for patent infringement, much less be found to infringe, while proprietary software, like Windows, is sued and found guilty of patent infringement quite frequently," said Ravicher.
Useful background stuff that puts the bear's dance into a stage with music. November 2004... where have I heard that date before?
Oh, my, this is going to be deliciously wicked.
Posted by Portuno Diamo
at 7:40 PM EDT
Updated: Monday, 14 May 2007 11:20 PM EDT
don't ask
hug me
crushed out
spacey
accident prone
loud
not sure