Chinese Court Rules Microsoft Violated IP Rights

angry tapir writes "A Beijing court has ruled that Microsoft violated a Chinese company's intellectual property rights in a case over fonts used in past Windows operating systems. The Beijing Number One Intermediate People's Court ordered Microsoft to stop selling versions of Windows that use the Chinese fonts, including Windows XP. Microsoft plans to appeal the case. Microsoft originally licensed Zhongyi's intellectual property more than a decade ago for use in the Chinese version of Windows 95, according to Zhongyi. Zhongyi argues that agreement applied only to Windows 95, but that Microsoft continued to use the intellectual property in eight versions of Windows from Windows 98 to Windows XP. Vista and Windows 7 are not involved."

Comments

Re:Do unto others...

[shaitand]

Which is ridiculous. You should be able to shoot the mugger whether he has a weapon or not.

Re:10+ years?

[mister_playboy]

Don't feed the trolls, dude.

Your point still stands... obviously they have chosen to wait this long to act in order to get a bigger settlement out of Microsoft.

Reading is fun, you need to practice it

[ifwm]

The only credibility that matters is their credibility in enforcing judgments. Since you seem not to comprehend this from your numerous obnoxious replies downtopic

Really? I could have SWORN I made that point in this thread already...

Oh, I DID, here

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1447608&cid=30137250

"The hypocrisy of China is irrelevant to the issue at hand."

No sir, the law is based on treaties, and I strongly suspect the reciprocal application of the treaty is in fact, a requirement of the law, as it is in most such treaties.

So, if China is NOT applying the law adequately in everyday practice, then MS may very well be ableto use that as evidence that China isn't upholding their end of the treaty.

So, you see, it IS relevant, despite your pontification that it isn't.

And here

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1447608&cid=30137472

"As I suspected, you didn't actually have a point. You just took a cheap shot at China."

No, I pointed out they engage in selective prosecution.

"Pointing out that one of the parties is a hypocrite does not impact the validity of their claims."

It does when the treaty requires China to police everyone, as this one does. If they only police one side, the treaty isn't being upheld by China. And MS can say so, and get away with it.

Hmm, did the composition level of those posts exceed your reading ability, or does there existence uncomfortably give lie to your previous assertions, that being the reason you pretend they don't exist?

So, "please try to ACTUALLY MAKE A POINT in the future, you totally failed here."

Ok, how about, you're a liar when you say "Since you seem not to comprehend this" as I have irrefutably proven by posting points I made well before you decided to shoot off your d-sucker?

Re:Do unto others...

[mysidia]

Reasonable force would probably involve you not kicking him when he was on the floor and stopped being a threat.

You think someone being on the floor makes them no longer a threat?

What consolation is that, when you deem them no longer a threat, so you decide to just walk home, and as you've turned their back to them, they pull out a concealed pistol and shoot you down?

Naturally, you have no way of knowing for sure whether they're armed or not. Reasonable caution would be to expect treat it as the worse case scenario in that regard: shoot first, ask questions later, it's the only way you can really adequately defend your safety.

Re:It fascinates me...

[nmb3000]

That would be comparable to the US having horrible fiscal responsibility and then caring about other countries fiscal responsibility.

Oh, I see, I must have missed the point in the conversation when the fiscal policies of either nation were being discussed. You don't mind pointing that out, do you?

He brought that up as part of the "argument" just so he could bash the US (whether deserved or not isn't relevant) via the implied conclusion. That's a straw man.

Re:Hahahahah

[palegray.net]

Are you aware that the vast majority of Chinese government computers running Windows are not legally licensed? I'm beginning to seriously suspect you're a paid shill.