| Page: 1 | Rating: Unrated [0] |
Microsoft Stoops To New Lows
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Tue Aug 16, 2005 @ 10:59am |
 Coolness: 340345 | Basically apple dropped the ball and filed patents on the iPod months after they started selling them (stupid), microsoft saw that, and patented the technology used in the iPod.. now microsoft is requiring apple to pay $10USD per iPod sold since apple used "Microsoft innovations" with the iPod..
unfucking believable the shit microsoft pulls. like really. [ www.sky.com ] APPLE'S IPOD PATENT GAFFE Computer firm Apple may have to pay Microsoft £6 for each iPod it sells after a huge licensing lapse. Lawyers at Bill Gates' firm filed a patent for technology behind the hugely successful digital music player two months before Apple. The US Patent Office has ruled that Microsoft has the right to charge competitors a licence fee for each iPod sold. Furious, Apple has said it will appeal the decision but at the moment it looks as though the firm will be paying a high price for the success of its product. The iPod was launched in November 2001 but Apple waited until July 2002 to file for a patent; Microsoft snuck in to license some of the technology the previous May. David Kaefer, Microsoft's director of intellectual property licensing, said it was open to letting other firms patent its innovations. He said: "In general, our policy is to allow others to license our patents so they can use our innovative methods in their products. "Microsoft and Apple have previously licensed their respective patent portfolios to one another and we maintain a good working relationship with Apple." The dispute comes days after Microsoft declared war on the iPod and pledged to come up with a series of rivals. So far, 21 million iPods have been sold worldwide, 18 million in the last year alone. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Lone_Star replied on Wed Aug 17, 2005 @ 2:59pm |
 Coolness: 153735 | Stupid that Apple didn't license.
Stupider that Microsoft took advantage. That's what you get for hiring a fleet of lawyers that all wear Moore suits. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» GAK replied on Wed Aug 17, 2005 @ 5:20pm |
 Coolness: 51745 | Stupider'er'er: patent acengy (whateva' they're called) that let that trough... how can you patent technology used by a competitor? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» nothingnopenope replied on Thu Aug 18, 2005 @ 3:18am |
 Coolness: 201905 | Apple is the only company who was stupid here, although the american patent system makes it easy to pull shady tricks.. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer replied on Thu Aug 18, 2005 @ 6:00am |
 Coolness: 92945 | They asked for it, especially since they should know what Microsoft is like. How can a proffesional company be that careless? If I knew about it I would have patented the technology too... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc replied on Thu Aug 18, 2005 @ 7:46am |
 Coolness: 149495 | This sin't over... Apple will get he patent refused and/or voided. Microsoft patented the technology after Apple was already seling the iPod. And in their patent application, the invention date is after iPods went on sale. In such a case, how can Apple begin selling a product prior to its invention? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer replied on Thu Aug 18, 2005 @ 8:45am |
| Coolness: 92945 | maybe the law states that if you have a patent it's yours, instead of if you invented it it's yours. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Thu Aug 18, 2005 @ 8:57am |
| Coolness: 340345 | then there is a MASSIVE flaw with the law then now isn't there?
it's pretty rediculous that you have to patent an idea for it to belong to you, especially if you really did invent it. :| |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer replied on Thu Aug 18, 2005 @ 9:21am |
| Coolness: 92945 | if you think that's fucked up, read the thread on prostition in Germany. Seriously though, I have no clue, but I would think it's like that except with other conditions for patenting it, so that it links together. It would be fucked up if you didn't have to invent it to patent it but then again, I'd think any fool would have realised they didn't invent it before they gave them the patent. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc replied on Thu Aug 18, 2005 @ 9:41am |
| Coolness: 149495 | Originally posted by DJNEOFORM...
then there is a MASSIVE flaw with the law then now isn't there? it's pretty rediculous that you have to patent an idea for it to belong to you, especially if you really did invent it. :| happened with the telephone too... Antonio Meucci invented it, got sick, couldn't pay the patent office, so he sold it to Graham Bell to pay for his medication.. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Thu Aug 18, 2005 @ 9:43am |
| Coolness: 340345 | hahaha, you only bring it up cause he was italian..! |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc replied on Thu Aug 18, 2005 @ 9:57am |
| Coolness: 149495 | no.. because he invented the phone
you big romo |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Thu Aug 18, 2005 @ 9:58am |
| Coolness: 340345 | oh my bad, i guess him being italian had nothing to do with it at all. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc replied on Thu Aug 18, 2005 @ 10:07am |
| Coolness: 149495 | nothing... romo |
Microsoft Stoops To New Lows
| Page: 1 |
[ Top Of Page ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Top Of Page ] |
