Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft, Apple Sued Over Software Update Patent
mark_wilkins writes "Microsoft and Apple have been sued by Teleshuttle Technologies, LLC, alleging that their online software updating technology infringes a patent on providing online updates to software with a menuing system to permit the user to pick the updates. Apparently the work on which the patent is based supposedly goes back to 1990."
You make a strange comparison. How about a lawyer who made millions off shakey malpractice lawsuits and now worries about the cost of healthcare. Of course he now wants to be Vice President.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Dude, if you would bother to RTFA then you would see that it clearly sez that they tried to approach both comapnies, and they pretty much said "you're full of shit get lost"
Also, had you bothered to RFTA, you could have read the patent which is clearly weak at best. This is another SCO who is about to die a slow, painful, fiery death.
bash: rtfm: command not found
This means hundreds of thousands of corporate computers will be safe from the windows update virus
Mod points are pointless when you browse at -1.
TROLL! THIS IS A FUCKING TROLL, it's a TROLL people, plain and simple, flat-out bold faced FUCKING troll. JESUS people, it's a TROLL, do you hear me? A TROLL, I tell you! ARE BLIND?
Yes, but by no means obvious in a legal sense. Cars don't need updates. Pants don't need updates. VCRs don't need updates. DVD players don't need updates. My trusty TI-85 doesn't need updates - and my TI-85 meets the definition of "computer". That a "computer" needs updates is definitely NOT legally obvious.
There needs to be a way to display these updates. Obvious.
Needs to be a way to display these updates? Are you kidding me? That's just about as non-obvious as you can get. Just as an example, the updates could be done in the background without "displaying" anything to the user. As geeks, you and I can agree that it's "obvious" to display the updates, but you haven't even dipped your toe in the shark tank of convincing a patent attorney that it's obvious.
Claim 4 means an "Are you sure?" Dialog.
That is absolutely false. Claim 4 means an "Are you sure?" dialog with a method according to Claim 3, with a method according to Claim 2, with a method according to Claim 1. Any old "Are you sure?" dialog is NOT prior art of ANY sort.
You have epitomized the incredible misunderstanding around Slashdot about how the patent process actually works. The USPTO publishes the laws, rules, and their policies for the public to read and yet people still act like they're experts without any understanding whatsoever of what the term "prior art" actually means - and by "actually", I mean "according to 35 USC sections 102 and 103". You can look those laws up, you can get interpretations and explanations of them if you don't understand them. You (and everyone else) can talk out of their asses if you like, but you're only going to impress the circle-jerk brain masturbation of your esteemable peers when you do.