What is Digg?Sponsored by FUNimation Enertainment
Watch the First 8 Minutes of Evangelion 1.01 Movie -- Anime view!
funimation.com - Available now on DVD. The rebuild of the ground breaking anime Neon Genesis Evangelion.
61 Comments
- techguru2006, on 09/30/2009, -10/+58I'm glad MSFT won. I cannot stand patent trolls.
- SpazAttack5000, on 09/30/2009, -10/+37Whether or not you like Microsoft, you have to admit that justice has been had!
- krisrm, on 09/30/2009, -5/+28What a stupid lawsuit... patent trolls make me nauseous.
- bated321, on 09/30/2009, -5/+27I can tell that you are impartial and fair in your reasoning. The way you replaced the S with a dollar sign, so clever, unique and witty. Give yourself a pat on the back, some day you may yet work for fox news
- jiggawatt, on 09/30/2009, -0/+15Did anyone read the patent abstract? Because most of these comments lead me to think many haven't and are blindly judging Microsoft or patent trolls.
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=K7MoAAAAEBA ...
The patent filed in 1993 patents the use of restricting licensed software to a platform based on an algorithm that detects parameters of the platform. The system detects changes to these platform parameters to validate the license when run.
That certainly sounds like XP. - TnTBass, on 09/30/2009, -2/+14Software patents in general are horrible - they do nothing to foster innovation.
As for patent trolls, Microsoft is one of the worst. Google "Mircosoft sues over patent" and you'll get plenty of cases where both Microsoft is being sued, and where Microsoft is the one suing.
Don't be so quick to defend Microsoft, nor should anyone be quick to condemn their actions. The fact is that Microsoft has stolen a lot of ideas and code itself from their competition, just like the competition has stolen many of Microsoft's ideas. Don't fool yourself into believing these are just patent trolls out for money - often these are legitimate claims. - cheddaro, on 09/30/2009, -1/+12Really? Who says "M$" any more?
- FearlessFreep, on 09/30/2009, -1/+11Mostly concerned that a judge can over-ride a jury's decisions if the judge thinks the jury didn't understand the law well enough
- digitalArtform, on 09/30/2009, -6/+16How are any of you posting?
I patented the Save Comment button! - deslock, on 09/30/2009, -3/+13You guys are defending a patent on "entering a key to unlock software"? That is the biggest bunch of BS ever.
Look, if a competitor actual stole code from you, I get the law suit. But patenting something that is an obvious idea because you were the first on the scene with it isn't legit.
Amazon "1-click" lol. Good thing I patented "10 click" so you better have either 9 or 11 steps on yours. what the hell is going on with patents these days? - rkthoadan, on 09/30/2009, -0/+9No. You may selectively enforce patents and copyrights as much as you want. You are thinking of trademarks, which you do need to aggressively protect.
- rkthoadan, on 09/30/2009, -0/+8There is a pretty good discussion at Slashdot regarding the issue and it seems to be leaning in the direction that the patent isn't too bad. It's not simply an issue of providing a registration key for the software to work, but providing a single disk/download that contains the full software and a demo version and cryptographically switching the code between the two. It also provides for tying some of the key to the computer it is installed on and disabling it if the system changed. All of this was reasonably new at the time.
Furthermore the company actively licenses this software and related products. A Slashdot comment indicated that Steam uses this in some cases. It's definitely a legitimate company.
For patent details: http://news.google.com/patents/about?id=K7MoAAAAEB ...
It's also a bit concerning when a judge over-rules a jury. Juries are generally supposed to be the final authority on whether someone is guilty or not. - staticneuron, on 09/30/2009, -2/+9Thank you!
This should be the first course of action for knowledgeable tech heads instead of knee jerk responses.
And this patent from 1993 certainly isn't generic. - InactiveUser, on 09/30/2009, -5/+11Had? As in taken for a ride?
- Phocion55, on 09/30/2009, -1/+6@solidsnake1298 - What about the mysterious list of 23 patents that Microsoft claims Linux violates, but refuses to release to the public when asked?
That's the most ridiculous form of patent trolling when you use fake/non-existent patents to scare business away from competitors. - poonaka, on 09/30/2009, -1/+6I patented the "Save Reply" button!
- Myztry, on 09/30/2009, -1/+6The Jury just don't understand. Microsoft and all the other lobbyist heavy companies didn't pay all that money just to have the laws used against them. To allow the small guy to win would be like letting someone win the lottery without first buying a congressional ticket...
- angryguy2009, on 09/30/2009, -0/+4I believe you're thinking of trademarks.
- darkened, on 09/30/2009, -1/+5You can't patent something that is obvious. A trial registration scheme is an obvious patent. The patent is invalid. Proof in point is it's even called a key because it analogous to a key used with a lock on a door.
- Ascus, on 09/30/2009, -1/+5It was pretty obvious in 1993 when patent was filed as well.
- yuriismaster, on 09/30/2009, -1/+4After reading the ruling, it looks pretty legitimate, albeit vacated on pretty technical issues.
Since Uniloc was pressing for 'direct' infringement, they had to prove that Microsoft violated all claims of the patents. The two (of four total) claims under which the infringement judgement was vacated:
1. MD5/SHA-1 are not 'summation algorithms'. The patent discusses creating unique signatures through a summation algorithm, while unchallenged (and technically correct) testimony described MD5/SHA-1 as much-more-complicated algorithms. There was a bit of bickering about MD5/SHA-1 being summation algorithms since they used summation in them, but the Court ruled that such an overly broad interpretation would effectively cover every algorithm, something not permitted by multiple previous cases.
I tend to agree that a patent shouldn't be able to note 'any algorithm' as part of the patent, although in this particular instance, one might have not been completely incorrect in interpreting summation algorithms to mean some sort of general cryptographic combination. Cést la patents.
2. The patent discusses a user becoming 'licensed' after successful completion of the activation sequence. Basically in Uniloc's patent, the software in question is locked on arrival, only allowing the software to be 'switched on' and licensed for use after the activation process. The Microsoft products in question grant the 'limited license' when you accept the EULA, but require activation after N days/launches.
A technical niggling point, to be sure, but that's what Uniloc was going against when they pushed for direct infringement. - robertgetsdigg1, on 09/30/2009, -0/+3For more background to this story, take a look at a documentary transcript (Australian Story) at http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2007/s266614 ... that profiles the Australian inventor and describes the history of the technology, the patent and the court case.
- fxu1989, on 09/30/2009, -2/+5It's not like it works anyway...
- twiztidsinz, on 09/30/2009, -3/+5Buried for Freep'er.....
- strictnein, on 09/30/2009, -2/+4"A registration system allows digital data or software to run in a use mode on a platform if and only if an appropriate licensing procedure has been followed."
- Feb 16, 1996
So, a super obvious registration/licensing system that has been around forever. What's your point? Look at the diagrams provided. Nothing unique, nothing new, nothing that should be patentable. - Super6, on 09/30/2009, -1/+3My bad, IP law is confusing as ***** to me
- MrRtd, on 10/01/2009, -0/+2Software patents are all garbage. I've never seen so much wasted money than on all these lawsuits, trials, appeals, and more appeals. The only industry benefiting from all this patent madness is the legal profession (and they'll do everything within their power to convince corporations that software patents are a good thing.)
Big companies such as Microsoft, IBM, and smaller IT companies too, have so many patents, it hard to believe that there is anything any programmer writes today that isn't somehow infringing on their patents.
I think it only makes sense that software should only be allowed to be copyrighted. - FearlessFreep, on 09/30/2009, -1/+3Arguably, it's only obvious to you now because you're so used to the concept.
- inactive, on 10/01/2009, -0/+2You're not supposed to tell them that. You're just supposed to sue.
- MatthewDuke, on 09/30/2009, -0/+2Unless the patent claims: "a trial registration scheme" and that's it, you're going to have to actually look at the claims of the patent to see what they cover. Boiling a very specific invention down to a very general concept as an example of how it is "obvious" is not how patent law works.
- Ajajadude, on 09/30/2009, -0/+2They give me gas.
- twiztidsinz, on 09/30/2009, -2/+4Unburied... but you might wanna consider change your name, unless you care to be mistakenly associated with these kind of people (Freep'ers) in the future: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Republic
- MatthewDuke, on 09/30/2009, -2/+4I think I've found the only other people on digg who understand how patents work! Greetings fellow non-morons! We are few.
- robotmansa, on 09/30/2009, -0/+2Uniloc is also known as SoftAnchor,
http://www.uniloc.com/softanchor/
SoftAnchor was the DRM they used on Football Manager 2009, which screwed up and made news because the font they used on the Disc couldn't tell if it was an 1, I, or l, and if it was a 0 or O.
Also, their activation servers were DDOS'd, so it couldn't activate.
http://digg.com/d3dznc
Doesn't a patent troll have to not continue to sell it's software? - strictnein, on 09/30/2009, -0/+2The last bit: There's a difference between criminal and civil law.
- Myztry, on 09/30/2009, -1/+3The problem is the adhesion contracts which serve no purpose then to remove statutory rights. The key only exist to facilitate the remove all rights of your purchase which are already set out under sales laws, and then duress you into entering a new contract AFTER the deemed sales contract has been entered.
Can you imagine the uproar if people sold things like cars which also involve huge amounts of intellectual property, research & development and investment - only to declare you need to enter a separate contract in order to use the key which gives access? To claim you have the right of ownership but not inherently the right of use as granted/limited by law.
For a sales determined under contract to be legitimate they need to be contracts of supply where you enter the contract and THEN the goods are supplied under the terms of the contract. This is not the case though. If people were able to read the whole contract prior to purchase then they would not make the purchase.
How can adhesion contracts even be enforced when it can clearly be argued a reasonable person would not enter such a sales agreement had the terms requiring them to forfeit statutory rights been available at the time. How can a contract which is reliant on duress after the fact of a transfer of ownership (for the purpose of use) be valid? Contracts entered are duress are inherently invalid regardless of the legality of the terms.
I disregard EULA's for software I purchase and stick with the actual laws as they stand. A contract does not have any power in itself. It's not until a judge issues a court order that they are actually empowered, that's assuming they comply with contract law and aren't entirely invalid to begin with.
For this to be determined the cases need to be heard on an individual basis. Perhaps I will be found to breach and in the absense of a specified remedy, I may be liable as remedy to the cost of the software, have my right of use removed, or similar. But I doubt it - especially in relation to the entire user base.
Overall EULA's are just dubious confidence trickster scams undermining people's rights through the fear of possible consequence. That's why 'technical measures' are required as truth be told there is no real consequence. It's not even illegal to break contracts, and the worth of the remedies is worth far less than the ability to herd people through fear - even if the remedies were actually achievable. - cheddaro, on 09/30/2009, -7/+8What's a real geek to do?
On one hand, you're supposed to hate Microsoft above all else....
On the other hand, you've been told to hate ***** software patents too..
I predict mass confusion in this thread. - staticneuron, on 09/30/2009, -4/+5I am surprised so many digg users are up in arms about this. I hate patent trolls as much as the next man.... but did anyone here stop to take a look at the patent in question?
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=K7MoAAAAEBA ... - Suzilla, on 09/30/2009, -1/+2Apparently I'm being dug down by folks who think Mr. Richardson is a "patent troll". He's not. Get the facts straight. Richardson came up with a way to let people try out software before buying it -- a win-win by any measure. Prior to his invention, people either had to buy a package outright just to SEE if it would do the job for them (and eat the cost if it didn't), or steal it.
This one is about a big money-fat corporation ***** over a little guy. - solidsnake1298, on 09/30/2009, -5/+6The difference between Microsoft and a real patent troll is that Microsoft actually uses its patents. A patent troll patents something vague and common and waits for others to use it, make it big, then sues them.
- Phocion55, on 09/30/2009, -3/+3....And just like that, Microsoft goes free and is allowed to continue its own reign of patent terror on smaller companies.
Such a double-standard.
How about releasing those 23 "magical" patents that you claim Linux violates instead of just using it as a tactic to scare business away from it? - Myztry, on 09/30/2009, -3/+3I always find Microsoft's R&D claims humorous (in regards to being 'inventors').
They claim something like $7 Billion dollars R&D expenditure over 1,000 'researchers'. That's like $7 million for each researcher. For wages, studies, office space, materials, equipments, power, etc - I don't be thinking so.
Acquisition of assets (like patents, companies, etc.) don't get filed under research. It's a lie. Microsoft is primarily an IP trading firm much like the 'true' patent trolls are best known for. - MatthewDuke, on 09/30/2009, -1/+1Just go ahead and hit 'reply', copy and paste it into the box. We are excited to receive your samples.
- staticneuron, on 09/30/2009, -2/+2Read down the comments. I don't even need to rehash what is being talked about repeatedly with a higher level of comprehension about the subject.
It is not about just needing a key. Read to comprehend, don't read to support the flawed misunderstanding. - InactiveUser, on 10/01/2009, -1/+1Trolls trolling and standing up for the troll that trolls..
The ignorance of the average Digging America is obvious. - Super6, on 09/30/2009, -5/+4Isn't their patent void because they haven't protected? Almost all for-pay software uses an installation key, but not protecting their "patent" against all these infringements they lose the right to stake their claim.
- InactiveUser, on 10/01/2009, -2/+1Silly Ignorant Americans making assumptions because it fits a theme. The patent troll thing if fine until its genuine
http://www.abc.net.au/austory/specials/thebigdeal/ ... - dogcat, on 09/30/2009, -4/+3What's the point of innovations and providing new solutions when MickeySoft is allowed to sweep-in and steal it?
No incentive... just join a giant corporation and do the bare minimum!
Besides.. the judge should have recused himself.. massive constitutional violation - not that any of you cockroaches care though! - FearlessFreep, on 09/30/2009, -8/+5Huh???
My username comes from an old Bugs Bunny/Yosemite Sam cartoon about a sky diver named "Fearless Freep" I did a lot of stupid stunts as a kid and picked up the nickname when I was about six
Here's the cartoon http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-684522469 ... -
Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is