Slashdot Mirror
MS vs AT&T Case Stirs Software Patent Debate
Stormwave0 writes "A Microsoft appeal against a decision for AT&T and their speech recognition patent has reached the Supreme Court. AT&T has argued that they did not license software using the patent for sales overseas. Microsoft, in the original case, argued "that it wasn't really liable for infringing on AT&T's licensing rights because it only supplied the golden disk to the replicator one time, and that disk did not really contain software in a usable form anyway." With that argument rejected, the case has moved in an unexpected direction. The court is now debating whether or not software is actually patentable."
Well, i know whom i'm supporting in this case. C,UNIX,C++ vs. Clippy and Vista seems like a no-brainer to me. Yes, like the next slashdotter, i know software patents are evil, etc . But that doesn't mean i can't root for the good guy, right?
"The person(s) within Microsoft that decided to make this appeal might very well not be too popular with Ballmer right now (that is if he wasn't involved in taking the decision himself). According to the article it actually was the Microsoft lawyer that brought the entire topic of software patents in general up, I somehow have the feeling he was acting on his own here and might have to look for another client soon."
Just like much of your summary. You can't really depend on 2nd version of the story to give you suggestive details to draw on. I don't understand what makes you feel you have the right to make such judgements. You have a right too free speech, but I just think what you are doing is dumb and misinformed. Maybe you should apply more "what-if" to your own life where you at least can't affect others with dumb reasoning. If you are right it'll make your life better... right? Go ahead.
We Americans focus on the profit issue because we live in a market economy. Here's the reasoning: 1. Innovation can lead to a product that people find useful 2. People will pay for useful products 3. Other people see this, and try to innovate in that same area 4. Competition forces more innovation, or at least lower prices 5. Society gets better stuff at a lower price, and innovators make money The "European stance" (not applicable in more market-oriented states like Ireland, I suspect) ignores this reality, thus chopping incentives for innovation off at the knees. Your stance will restrict innovation to large, established, conservative companies, and create a disincentive for the entry of small businesses (which often are founded around a single, innovative idea or product and are the primary drivers of employment and economic dynamism). What causes you to look down your nose at us is the fact that some established market participants have found ways to game the system thanks to the general uselessness of our federal government. But this happens everywhere. Consider that our market economy continues to innovate despite this, compare the results to your own, and marvel.
market. Therefore, FOR ALL PRACTICAL rules are This in jocks or chaps BSd machines 'su9perior' machine.
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
Will you PLEASE learn how to fucking spell!
Lose, not loose, you ignorant tool.