Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: uspto.gov

Stories and comments across the archive that link to uspto.gov.

Comments · 5,413

  1. Patents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Microsoft Backs Out Of Wi-Fi Equipment Market

    Results of Search in PGPUB Production Database for:
    microsoft AND WLAN: 121 applications.

    http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv. html&r=0&f=S&l=50&d=PG01&OS=microsoft+AND+wireless &RS=microsoft+AND+wireless&TD=8601&Srch1=microsoft &Srch2=wireless&Conj1=AND&StartNum=&Refine=Refine+ Search&Query=microsoft+AND+WLAN

    Also:
    Results of Search in PGPUB Production Database for:
    microsoft AND wireless: 8601 applications.

    http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=microsoft&FIELD1=&co1 =AND&TERM2=wireless&FIELD2=&d=PG01

  2. Patents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Microsoft Backs Out Of Wi-Fi Equipment Market

    Results of Search in PGPUB Production Database for:
    microsoft AND WLAN: 121 applications.

    http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv. html&r=0&f=S&l=50&d=PG01&OS=microsoft+AND+wireless &RS=microsoft+AND+wireless&TD=8601&Srch1=microsoft &Srch2=wireless&Conj1=AND&StartNum=&Refine=Refine+ Search&Query=microsoft+AND+WLAN

    Also:
    Results of Search in PGPUB Production Database for:
    microsoft AND wireless: 8601 applications.

    http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=microsoft&FIELD1=&co1 =AND&TERM2=wireless&FIELD2=&d=PG01

  3. Re:Oak existed before 1993 by servoled · · Score: 1 · on Kodak vs. Sun Java Trial Date Set
    They have that covered by 35 USC 120 which states
    An application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by the first paragraph of section 112 of this title in an application previously filed in the United States
    This basically means that the application filed must conform the to rules of 35 USC 112 first paragarph. Let's see what 112 first says:
    The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
    Basically this means that a patent application can not claim anything that the specification does not give a clear description of. So far so good, but theres still nothing stopping them from adding new stuff later. Thats where 35 USC 132 comes in. 35 USC 132 states:
    No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
    Since they can't amend the specification to include new matter, and they can't claim and invention which they didn't describe in the specification they really can't add new inventions down the road and get the advantage of the earlier priority date. More information about new matter and how examiners handle in can be found in the MPEP Section 2163_06.
    Would that make your application take precedence to any other one since the original filing date is earlier?
    Yes, the applications with the earlier effective filing (i.e. the filing dates taking into account any priority applications) are given precedence over any other applications.
  4. Re:Oak existed before 1993 by servoled · · Score: 1 · on Kodak vs. Sun Java Trial Date Set
    They have that covered by 35 USC 120 which states
    An application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by the first paragraph of section 112 of this title in an application previously filed in the United States
    This basically means that the application filed must conform the to rules of 35 USC 112 first paragarph. Let's see what 112 first says:
    The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
    Basically this means that a patent application can not claim anything that the specification does not give a clear description of. So far so good, but theres still nothing stopping them from adding new stuff later. Thats where 35 USC 132 comes in. 35 USC 132 states:
    No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
    Since they can't amend the specification to include new matter, and they can't claim and invention which they didn't describe in the specification they really can't add new inventions down the road and get the advantage of the earlier priority date. More information about new matter and how examiners handle in can be found in the MPEP Section 2163_06.
    Would that make your application take precedence to any other one since the original filing date is earlier?
    Yes, the applications with the earlier effective filing (i.e. the filing dates taking into account any priority applications) are given precedence over any other applications.
  5. Re:False patent by John3 · · Score: 3, Interesting · on Professor and Student Thwart P2P File Sharing

    Found the patent online and they filed it in August 2000. That's after we got plenty of press including a Slashdot article that brought our server to it's knees and attracted a fair number of DDOS attacks. :-)

  6. 5,226,161 sounds like Perl's tie by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1 · on Kodak vs. Sun Java Trial Date Set

    The claims are a case study why software patents should never be allowed.

    I am not trained in reading patentease but Patent 5,226,161 sounds a lot like Perl's tie feature where you can "link" a variable to a "data object" such as a file, database, serial port, shared memory, etc. I am sure prior art will crush this claim.

  7. Re:It is not MS vs. Linux, it is Patents vs. Linux by servoled · · Score: 1 · on EU Moves Toward Software Patents

    Ah yes, the old "patents are too expensive to file" argument, complete hogwash. According to the FY 2004 fee schedule it would cost a small entity (which a non-profit agency would most likely be) exactly $385.00, so I'm curious where you pulled $5000 per patent from. As far as lawyers are concerned there is no reason why you need a lawyer to file a patent. I'm sure there would be someone in the open source community smart enough to write the patent and respond to the actions sent out by the examiners, and who would be willing to do a little volunteer work, so lawyer fees wouldn't be an issue. I'm pretty sure the FSF or someone along those lines can come up with $385.00.

    As far as enforcement, they wouldn't have to actively enforce their patents, they could use them strictly as defensive patents.

    So I ask again, what is stopping the OSS community from filing patents based on their work?

  8. patents by jlechem · · Score: 4, Informative · on Kodak vs. Sun Java Trial Date Set

    Everyone knows patents are bad blah blah blah but let's take a look at these patents in question.

    5,206,951 - Integration of data between typed objects by mutual, direct invocation between object managers corresponding to object types

    5,421,012 - Multitasking computer system for integrating the operation of different application programs which manipulate data objects of different types

    5,226,161 - Integration of data between typed data structures by mutual direct invocation between data managers corresponding to data types .

    This just looks like object oriented programming to me. So how can they sue SUN over Java. I was under the impression you couldn't patent things like this.

  9. patents by jlechem · · Score: 4, Informative · on Kodak vs. Sun Java Trial Date Set

    Everyone knows patents are bad blah blah blah but let's take a look at these patents in question.

    5,206,951 - Integration of data between typed objects by mutual, direct invocation between object managers corresponding to object types

    5,421,012 - Multitasking computer system for integrating the operation of different application programs which manipulate data objects of different types

    5,226,161 - Integration of data between typed data structures by mutual direct invocation between data managers corresponding to data types .

    This just looks like object oriented programming to me. So how can they sue SUN over Java. I was under the impression you couldn't patent things like this.

  10. patents by jlechem · · Score: 4, Informative · on Kodak vs. Sun Java Trial Date Set

    Everyone knows patents are bad blah blah blah but let's take a look at these patents in question.

    5,206,951 - Integration of data between typed objects by mutual, direct invocation between object managers corresponding to object types

    5,421,012 - Multitasking computer system for integrating the operation of different application programs which manipulate data objects of different types

    5,226,161 - Integration of data between typed data structures by mutual direct invocation between data managers corresponding to data types .

    This just looks like object oriented programming to me. So how can they sue SUN over Java. I was under the impression you couldn't patent things like this.

  11. Patent... by NemosomeN · · Score: 1 · on Apple Patented by Microsoft

    I just checked the patent... and it's a patent on a circular saw. CIRCULAR SAW!"

  12. I can believe it - look what isn't mine by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 0, Offtopic · on Apple Patented by Microsoft
    This isn't mine

    So this is a patent filling, right from the USPTO - it isn't mine, e-mailed the law firm, no response. I am assuming sometime before it issues, but who knows. I would rather believe that the government screwed up rather than Microsoft is busy buying up patents on apple trees

  13. but but but..... by TheHonestTruth · · Score: 1 · on Apple Patented by Microsoft
    How can I trash the patent system when you counter with facts?!

    A good link for debunking the ever present "Patents can only be afforded by huge megacorps" is the fee schedule. (link will change next time they update it)

    Slashdot is why I got interested in the law. Interest in the law is why I'll leave slashdot.

    -truth

  14. Telling it like it is... by TheHonestTruth · · Score: 1 · on Apple Patented by Microsoft
    Because the grand-parent post is incorrect. Naturally occuring plants are not patentable. Nor is this a "new" development, since at least one of the Amendments to the statute happened back in 1954.

    From the PTO website

    Minor nitpick, plant patents are for 20 years accoriding to the site -truth

  15. Re:how was this patented? by servoled · · Score: 2, Informative · on Apple Patented by Microsoft

    This patent only covers a specific type of apple, not apples in general. Plus, I think plant patents opperate a little differently the utility patents, although I really don't know that much about plant patents.

    Plant patent information can be found here for anyone that is really interested in the subject.

  16. Re:It isn't even april.... by RotJ · · Score: 4, Informative · on Apple Patented by Microsoft
    I think if you develop a specific breed, you are given the sole rights to use it for commercial purposes.

    Read here.

  17. Re:Lumix.org by UrgleHoth · · Score: 1 · on A Public Library's Linux Success Story

    #$^&* timed out link. Now I feel like a lummox.
    Hopefully this is a more permanent link.

  18. Re:Lumix.org by UrgleHoth · · Score: 1 · on A Public Library's Linux Success Story

    They may want to rename it lummox, because Matsushita Electric Corporation has a trademark on
    Lumix

  19. Trademarks must be respected... by stienman · · Score: -1, Troll · on A Beginner's Look At GPL Enforceability

    I'm sorry (that many of you will disagree with me), but any paper starting out with GNU/Linux instead of just plain Linux isn't going to get more than passing attention from me.

    Would you call Kool-Aid "Water/Kool-Aid" just because without water it's not as useful?

    Pre-pending GNU to Linux is an affront to the Linux trademark. Microsoft would be furious if people started advertising "x86/Windows XP".

    If you must pay homage to the GNU utilities often included in free software, it's sufficient to say "Linux with GNU utilities," or some similar phrase. If people want to get GNU into the mainstream they can build their own distribution or OS and name it whatever they want.

    Name your distribution anything you want. When referring to any distribution or OS primarily using the Linux kernel as its kernel then the term is "Linux". A Linux OS is any OS which uses the Linux kernel. GNU is not an OS. GNU/Linux does not refer to any OS in general, or specifically. If anything, it may refer to the utilities specific to linux systems, but I do not know of any GNU utilities which work only on linux systems and not on other operating systems.

    Go sell your memes elsewhere.

    -Adam

  20. Re:Markland Technologies by WryCoder · · Score: 1 · on Gas Plasma Antennas Help Wi-Fi Security
    Who the hell are these guys?

    They don't appear to have any crypto experts on their management team.

    They seem to be trying (and failing) to register Matt Blaze's long-standing crypto.com url as a trademark. They use crypto.com in their documentation as if they owned the url. I don't see a link between Blaze and Markland, but perhaps there is one, although Markland seems to have picked up the Crypto.Com from their subsidiary ERGO Systems, which has been involved in port security for Homeland Security.

    They

  21. A sampling of patents from 4 May 2004 by Skapare · · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Assembles Patent Arsenal for Longhorn

    Here is a sampling of a few of the thosaunds of patents issued on 4 May 2004:

  22. A sampling of patents from 4 May 2004 by Skapare · · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Assembles Patent Arsenal for Longhorn

    Here is a sampling of a few of the thosaunds of patents issued on 4 May 2004:

  23. A sampling of patents from 4 May 2004 by Skapare · · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Assembles Patent Arsenal for Longhorn

    Here is a sampling of a few of the thosaunds of patents issued on 4 May 2004:

  24. A sampling of patents from 4 May 2004 by Skapare · · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Assembles Patent Arsenal for Longhorn

    Here is a sampling of a few of the thosaunds of patents issued on 4 May 2004:

  25. A sampling of patents from 4 May 2004 by Skapare · · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Assembles Patent Arsenal for Longhorn

    Here is a sampling of a few of the thosaunds of patents issued on 4 May 2004:

  26. A sampling of patents from 4 May 2004 by Skapare · · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Assembles Patent Arsenal for Longhorn

    Here is a sampling of a few of the thosaunds of patents issued on 4 May 2004:

  27. A sampling of patents from 4 May 2004 by Skapare · · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Assembles Patent Arsenal for Longhorn

    Here is a sampling of a few of the thosaunds of patents issued on 4 May 2004:

  28. A sampling of patents from 4 May 2004 by Skapare · · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Assembles Patent Arsenal for Longhorn

    Here is a sampling of a few of the thosaunds of patents issued on 4 May 2004:

  29. A sampling of patents from 4 May 2004 by Skapare · · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Assembles Patent Arsenal for Longhorn

    Here is a sampling of a few of the thosaunds of patents issued on 4 May 2004:

  30. A sampling of patents from 4 May 2004 by Skapare · · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Assembles Patent Arsenal for Longhorn

    Here is a sampling of a few of the thosaunds of patents issued on 4 May 2004:

  31. A sampling of patents from 4 May 2004 by Skapare · · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Assembles Patent Arsenal for Longhorn

    Here is a sampling of a few of the thosaunds of patents issued on 4 May 2004:

  32. A sampling of patents from 4 May 2004 by Skapare · · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Assembles Patent Arsenal for Longhorn

    Here is a sampling of a few of the thosaunds of patents issued on 4 May 2004:

  33. A sampling of patents from 4 May 2004 by Skapare · · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Assembles Patent Arsenal for Longhorn

    Here is a sampling of a few of the thosaunds of patents issued on 4 May 2004:

  34. A sampling of patents from 4 May 2004 by Skapare · · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Assembles Patent Arsenal for Longhorn

    Here is a sampling of a few of the thosaunds of patents issued on 4 May 2004:

  35. Re:Move along... by zurab · · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Assembles Patent Arsenal for Longhorn
    Heck, IMO, this is a sure sign of the problems with software patents.

    Oh, it's more than just software, believe me. Here is an example of Microsoft patenting apple trees. Apple trees? Got to be kidding right? Insert jokes about:

    - Apple vs. MS
    - MS' backup plan after they lose in software market
    - USPTO granting an apple patent to MS
    - What you do with a Microsoft "apple" in your supermarket
    - etc., etc.
  36. Re:Why not by dslbrian · · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Assembles Patent Arsenal for Longhorn

    Microsoft are allowed to file patents on their technology just like anyone else.

    Sure they can, they can file 10 patents a day - However if the USPTO was doing its job it would be rejecting those same 10 patents a day. I can't think of a *single* novel idea that has come out of Microsoft for as far back as I can remember. Microsoft's business model is copying other people's new and novel ideas.The concept that 10 truly novel and new ideas that nobody has ever thought of before since the beginning of time coming out of Microsoft *per day* is simply ludicrous. They are simply abusing the broken and stupid patent system as it exists today. Frankly I don't know which is the bigger broken retarded waste of tax payers dollars - the USPTO or the INS.

    Just because you have a huge open source cabal doesn't mean you can decide that "patents are a bad thing, we're not going to play that game". The world doesn't work like that: you can't boycott the patents system by Not Filing A Patent.

    Sure you can, its called publishing a paper. If Microsoft was the technological innovator that it always claims it is, then it would be publishing papers instead of patenting. The ONLY reason for patenting ideas is to extract money from someone else at some later point in time (either "selling" IP - a dumb concept in itself - or licensing).

    Patents inspire competition and are one of the primary reasons that America is where it is today.

    Patents don't inspire crap. I work as a EE and of the hundreds of people I know in my field, none of them use the USPTO as a source of ideas (they know that almost all patents are just the same old crap thats been thought up before, rehashed, and then wrapped in lawyerspeak - aka completely useless drivel). To get ideas you look at tech journals and university research.

  37. Re:This is why there needs to be "Defensive Patent by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Informative · on Microsoft Assembles Patent Arsenal for Longhorn

    There should be defensive patents, patents issued saying "we figured out how to do this on our own, we don't want to stop other people form figuring out the same thing we just don't want to be prevented from using our inventions."

    Actually, there are. They're called Statutory Invention Registration these days. For a very small fee you can just register that you invented something, without actually obtaining patent protection for it. But, the patent office will have that you invented it on file.

  38. Re:If you can't win in the marketplace... by revscat · · Score: 2, Interesting · on Microsoft Assembles Patent Arsenal for Longhorn

    Umm, but this is winning in the marketplace: you invent the technology first, so you gain temporary market monopoly for disclosing your invention through the patent system.

    Which is exactly what MS is not doing in this case. Christ, they're trying to patent image compression, as if (a) this hasn't been done a gajillion different times before, (b) they'll be able to force it on the marketplace, and (c) they won't abuse this patent and sue people who implement related but non-patented algorithms like SVG.

    In other words, rather than _never_ seeing the internals of what makes Windows tick (until someone releases the source code ...) we're actually seeing the internals now.

    No we're not. The patents describe the technologies, not how to implement them. And what good does it do you, anyway? If you know how something is done but are legally prevented from implementing it, it might as well be closed.

  39. Re:Screw patents by javajoe99 · · Score: 2, Insightful · on MSNBC Looks At Patent Abusers' Victims
    What the real beef is not abolishing of all patents, just the concept of "business methods". This is a rather new concept in patent law in the US.
    Court ruling critical Critics blame a sluggish, understaffed federal patent office for the current litigation. Until the 1990s, the patent office generally didn't grant patents for software. A 1998 federal court ruling cleared the way for "business methods" patents.
    there is the real problem, in not an invention, and doesnt even follow the spirit of patent law in the first place. However the USPTO doesnt seem to even state the patent should be new , inoated or non obvious to others in the field Here is a pdf of current rules. all the fees and formats but no real mention of what can and can't be patented. just my 10 cents
  40. Re:Copyrights, trademarks, and patients by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Making The Justice Dept. A Copyright Busybody

    so high in price

    Nonsense -- at least in the US.

    Copyrights are free, automatically granted when you create a work. If you want to register with the Library of Congress, which is not required, it costs $30.

    Trademark registration costs $335.

    Patents can get to be the most expensive, but start at a cost of $385 for "small entities", twice that otherwise.

    If your idea isn't worth a patent fee, then it isn't worth much. And while these fees may not be vending machine change, they're tiny compared to the cost involved in any but the most trivial effort at business, on the scale of your kids' lemonade stand in the yard. In fact, one oft-suggested rememdy for reforming the system is to raise the price to discourage casual patenting of the everything slightest thing someone does.

    Price is not a valid excuse.

  41. Re:Copyrights, trademarks, and patients by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Making The Justice Dept. A Copyright Busybody

    so high in price

    Nonsense -- at least in the US.

    Copyrights are free, automatically granted when you create a work. If you want to register with the Library of Congress, which is not required, it costs $30.

    Trademark registration costs $335.

    Patents can get to be the most expensive, but start at a cost of $385 for "small entities", twice that otherwise.

    If your idea isn't worth a patent fee, then it isn't worth much. And while these fees may not be vending machine change, they're tiny compared to the cost involved in any but the most trivial effort at business, on the scale of your kids' lemonade stand in the yard. In fact, one oft-suggested rememdy for reforming the system is to raise the price to discourage casual patenting of the everything slightest thing someone does.

    Price is not a valid excuse.

  42. Re:Claims are not as broad as you think by hayek · · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Patents Timed Button Presses
    Please give us some reasons as to why this patent is not as broad as it seems


    The scope of a patent is determined by its claims only. The rest of the patent (abstract, written description and drawings) are to explain how to practice the invention, to show that the applicant actually posessed the invention, and for a few other reasons. In this case, the claims are directed to causing some specific actions to occur when a button is held for a particular period. look at the secction entitled claims .

  43. ALT+TAB by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Patents Timed Button Presses

    From the patent application for "Time based hardware button for application launch ":
    Alternative application functions are launched based on the length of time an application button is pressed.

    When the ALT+TAB key combination is held down on many operating systems, different running applications are cycled through and launched depending on the length of the keypress - same idea. My desktop keyboard at home has a single button that incorporates the alt+tab combo in a single key. That's why they seem to want to limit it to "Palm-size" and "resource limited" PC.

    Looks like MS is getting into the habit of trivially patenting the patent game with a vengeance now.

    What a waste of time for everyone!

  44. Re:Illustrating a point with extreme examples. by Zordak · · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Patents Timed Button Presses

    If an extreme bad example were going to bring the entire USPTO to its knees, Pat. 6,368,277 would have already done it. By the way, this example not withstanding, I disagree with your stance that patent & trademarks are inherently "Bad Things." Like any good thing, patents can be abusede by unethical individuals or companies, and can be used to a bad end. The same can be said of computers, televisions, the internet and cars.

  45. Re:This is a joke or a troll, right? by DrLZRDMN · · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Patents Timed Button Presses

    I wish but the government confirms it here
    though I agree with you that it is pointless

  46. Re:Other Examples by Misch · · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Patents Timed Button Presses

    Strange... They specifically reference the Palm III and the Palm III handbook in the patent application.

    But, yeah, the Palm III X was noted for having this feature on 25 January 1999. The Palm III which preceded it specifically was noted for this feature back when it was released, which was a hell of a while before 5 January 1999 which was when Microsoft filed the original patent that was covering some aspects of this.

  47. The patent also covers the double click by waynegoode · · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Patents Timed Button Presses

    They also patented the double-click with this. The article does not mentioned it, but look at the details at the patent office site. They stole the whole GUI from Apple--and Apple stole it from Xerox.

    Among other annoyances, this patent dilutes my bragging rights for my own patent.

    Me: Yeah, well, I've got a patent.

    Person I'm trying unsuccessfully to impress: Yeah, well, so does Microsoft--for double-clicking. Can't be that hard.

  48. Excellent Point by Famatra · · Score: 1 · on FOSS Application Under Attack by Makers of KaZaa

    Excellent point you made: We need to look at the big picture of these companies using patents to stifle P2P progress.

    The Public Patent Foundation and the EFF (Patent) are starting campaigns (Story here) to invalidate bogus patents like the one here, #5,978,791 , you mentioned. Time to donate your money to these organizations (or your time with letters, and email to inform the public if you cannot afford it) to curb corporate threats to technological innovation.

  49. Latest threat to P2P comes from within by Sanity · · Score: 5, Informative · on FOSS Application Under Attack by Makers of KaZaa
    This is just one example of the increasing threat that Kazaa, or more precicely the companies around it, pose to innovation in the P2P space.

    Perhaps the best example is their aquisition of patent #5,978,791, filed in 1997, which claims to cover the retrieval of a file across a network using a hash of the file's contents.

    Set aside, for a moment, that this technique is completley obvious and has been around for decades (the earliest reference I can find is the Xanadu project from the early 90s - but I haven't looked very hard), and consider the fact that these guys could use this patent to effectively shut down almost anyone that comes up with a P2P app that doesn't have the funding to fight them in court (since most if not all modern P2P apps use this technique).

    The bottom line is that companies such as Brilliant Digital Entertainment (the same nice people that were behind the adware that Kazaa is now famous for) are almost as much a threat to P2P as the better known people everybody loves to hate.

    If anyone is interested, here is a more detailed article I wrote on the subject.

  50. Works it does, necessarily legal it's not... by NetCow · · Score: 2, Informative · on Turbolinux Licenses Windows Media 9

    Microsoft's patent on the ASF file format
    Windows Media Licensing Terms, and specifically the the licensing costs for Windows Media Audio and Video 9 codecs for non-Windows desktops and hardware devices
    Apple's Quicktime software and hardware licensing terms
    These terms may or may not apply, depending on the local laws. But in the United States at least it's certainly not legal to use Windows DLLs that way. Now I know people will start claiming they don't care, but purposedly breaking laws isn't going to help the Linux community.