Microsoft Patents Interactive Entertainment
An anonymous reader writes "Embedded-Watch is carrying a story regarding the award of patent number 6,571,390 to Microsoft. The patent would seem to cover pretty much any implementation of a video-on-demand system that you (or at least I) can think of. Read for yourself to decide whether this patent either is not original work or is blatantly obvious to the most casual observer. The patent could certainly be invalidated by the courts on either point, but that'd take a fight in court that won't be cheap."
or
(b) sex with a mare(a) interactive entertainment
How can that be off-topic? How ???
I propose they be dropped, and replaced with a sex section, and a business section.
Read for yourself to decide whether this patent either is not original work or is blatantly obvious to the most casual observer.
I don't normally pick on grammar issues (such a habit could quickly drive someone to insanity on Slashdot), but this one is particularly common, particularly annoying, and totally incorrect.
Something cannot be "blatantly obvious." "Blatant," by definition, is "Offensively obvious." Thus, saying something is "blatantly obvious" is the equivalent of saying it is "offensively obvious obvious." It's like saying "PIN number," or "UPC code."
*sigh* Sorry, had to get that off my chest.
Look everyone, it's Junis!! He's posting from Afghanistan!!
Welcome Junis!
Pardon me: sence is not a word; you mean sense.
I never correct a spelling or grammar error until one person makes the same mistake a third time.