I have played with so many SFFPCs, our office now buys nothing but SFFPC.
My experience is, when it comes to SFFPC, get the Shuttles. Don't even think of getting anything else.
It just appears to be that you can easily add an NIC card via its USB port, but not modem.
Looks like this is an ingenius, well-thought-of design.
I want one if it runs a strip down version of Fedora.
It appears to come with (at least) two USB ports. You can use a USB/ethernet card whose price has come down to the 20's, and will be even lower when becomes popular.
I think the key is, will someone be able to run a special version of Linux on it?
Of course the examiners don't have an explicit motivation to bring in more money for the USPTO, but if you are familiar with how USPTO operates, you will know that ALL examiners are under a pressure to approve (i.e., "approve") a certain number of patent application to satisfy their "quoto". A few years ago, it was over 100 allowed applications a year. I am sure this number has increased.
The USPTO bigshots (supervising examiners and various levels of managements) know their "job security" depends on how much money is being brought to USPTO (through mainly issue fees--$1,630 and maintenance fees--$6,220, for a total of $7,850 per patent issued).
I am sure all the USPTO bigshots have such a high integrity, that they will not even hint those poor examiners under their administrative supervision to issue more patents.
Then, again, how can anyone explain about the "quoto"?
Re:You have no "constitutional right" to avoid MSI
on
More Microsoft Patents
·
· Score: 1
Hi Moron-
There is no constitutional right to using a web browser of your choosing. But getting a patent is.
If, however, in order to get a patent you must use MSIE, then I believe my constitutional right is violated.
Sure your "constitutional" rights are not violated if you don't mind spending hours, instead of a few minutes if you use IE, to download those patent images.
Also, I don't think you have ever encountered the situation when USPTO cut off your connection because you wanted to download more than a handful of patent images. Are your rights violated here?
USPTO's IE-only policy is only the tip of the iceberg. Beginning August this year, if you want to take advantage of the electronic filing procedure, you have to use another Microsoft product--Microsoft Office, to convert your specification including the claims into an XML file.
Of course, you don't have to file your patent application electronically. But electronic filing grants an inventor certain advantages not available with the conventional paper filing, including publishing your application as amended.
So, what's the big deal about publishing your application as amended (the right you will not have if you don't want to use Microsoft Office)? This has a lot to do with the so-called "pre-grant" damages, which can be awarded based on how your claims are published. If you cannot amend your claims before your application is published, you may lose a lot of your rights as an inventor.
For high-tech inventions which have a short life span, pre-grant damages may be the only compensation you can get.
Are our constitutional rights violated? IMNSHO, not as a clear cut as the IE-only policy.
But, again, the key issue is, whether the USPTO has projected an image that it is competent to judge the patentability of software/internet inventions, and whether "revenue-generating" plays an important role in issuing patents. This is what concerns me the most.
There is actually another more important message that I am trying to scream about. (Again, love live Slashdot!!!)
If USPTO is stupid enough to think that using Microsoft IE is the only way to establish a secured communication with USPTO's private database, it really sends a certain message that USPTO may not have the right technical competence to judge the patentability of software/internet patents.
While USPTO charges $770 for filing a "regular" patent application, USPTO stands to receive $6,220 as maintenance fees during the life of a patent. Since USPTO is now a fee-supported agency, even an idiot like myself will tend to think that USPTO will be more interested in issuing patents than doing even a pro forma examination.
Maybe USPTO's incompetence is simply a smoke screen to hide their true interest in generating more incomes by issuing more patents.
BTW, for individual inventors, the statutory fees will be halved. Good bargain? Not really. USPTO has more incentives to grant patents to big corporations like Microsoft than individuals, because they pay double the statutory fees. Thus, doubling USPTO's income.
We know that U.S Patent Office is notorious of issuing patents (particularly software patents) that are clearly unpatentable. But very few are aware that U.S. Patent Office is violating our constitutional right by promulgating and enforcing a Microsoft-IE-only policy.
This little-noticed law really makes me mad and feel like crying--why a government agency can be so stupid.
Basically, when you file a patent application, if the Patent Office thinks that your invention is not patentable because it is not novel or nonobvious, it will send you copies of prior art patents so you can rebut their rejection.
Now the Patent Office has changed its policy and will not send you those hard copies. Instead, it requires you to download those prior art reference on-line.
Under ordinary circumstances, this would not pose any problem, except that we are dealing with one of the most stupid government agencies in the history of mankind. The United States Patent Office, without much notice, now requires that, in order to download those references, you must register with the Patent Office, then the Patent Office will install a program ON YOUR MACHINE WHICH MUST BE RUNNING MICROSOFT INTERNET EXPLORER UNDER MICROSOFT WINDOWS to allow you to communicate with the Patent Office before you can download those prior art patents that our government must furnish you as a matter of our constitution right and as part of the filing fees paid to the Patent Office.
Thus, basically it has boiled down to this stupid law: if you want to receive a patent, you are now REQUIRED BY LAW to have a machine with Microsoft Windows running Internet Explorer in your office.
In other words, in order to exercise your constitutional rights, you must have a machine that runs Microsoft Windows and you must set Microsoft Internet Explorer as your default browser.
What kind of stupid government agency is this? I know many banks used to have the same requirement (i.e., using Microsoft IE running in Microsoft Windows), but they have got rid of this stupid policy because they have to compete in order to survive.
The United States Patent and Trademark can implement and insist such a stupid policy because it doesn't have to compete. But what about those 4000+ patent attorneys? How come all of them are so quiet? Are all of them idiots?
Even our HomeLand Security Department has changed its Microsoft-only policy. It appears that our Patent and Trademark Office is the only government agency in the whole world that requires its users to use Microsoft Windows. Unlike Homeland Security Department, the U.S. Patent Office has to account to no one!
Microsoft survives and propers exactly because our government agencies are unafraid to abuse their power and unashamed of being idiots.
and
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=120633&thres ho ld=0&commentsort=0&tid=154&tid=1&mode=thread&pid=1 0160890#10163299
Article I, section 8, of the Constitutuion specifically provides that: "Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
Congress has the power to determine what can or cannot be patented (e.g., mathematical formulas cannot be patented, but mathematical formulas reduced to software code can, etc.)
Congress also vests in administrative agencies, e.g., the Patent Office, certain rule-making powers. Those rules, once promulgated, are equivalent to "laws", though they are much easier to be challenged in court. In order to exercise those rule-making powers, the agencies must follow certain well-defined procedure (e.g., publishing Official Gazette as Federal Register), AND
Article I, section 8, of the Constitutuion specifically provides that: "Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
Congress has the power to determine what can or cannot be patented (e.g., mathematical formulas cannot be patented, but mathematical formulas reduced to software code can, etc.)
Congress also vests in administrative agencies, e.g., the Patent Office, certain rule-making powers. Those rules, once promulgated, are equivalent to "laws", though they are much easier to be challenged in court. In order to exercise those rule-making powers, the agencies must follow certain well-defined procedure (e.g., publishing Official Gazette as Federal Register), AND those rules must not be violating the existing laws and our constitution.
In this moronic new "rule", in which the Patent Office requires that any inventor must have a computer running Microsoft Internet Explorer under Microsoft Windows in order to receive prior art patents to rebut Patent Office's rejection before a patent can be granted, the Patent Office does not go through the necessary steps (i.e., no publication in Federal Register). This process was done in a very stealthy way.
But most importantly, I don't think our constitution allows an administrative agency to mandate that we must use a certain commercial product in order to exercise our constitution rights. (Congress can allow the Patent Office to set up a schedule of fees before one can receive a patent, but never a specific directive to use a certain commercial product.)
I don't think our Patent Office is a Microsoft crony. It simply appears that our Patent Office is so technically incompetent and backward that it thinks Windows is the only operating system, and IE is the only web browser, and makes its decisions based on this fault preamble.
The following is the letter that most patent applicants have received or will receive from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office:
"USPTO TO PROVIDE ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO CITED U.S. PATENT REFERENCES WITH OFFICE ACTION AND CEASE SUPPLYING PAPER COPIES
"In support of its 21th Century Strategic Plan goal of increased patent e-Government, beginning in June 2004, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office of USPTO) will begin the phase-in of its E-Patent Reference program and hence will: (1) provide downloading capability of the U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications cited in Office actions via the E-Patent Reference feature of the Office's Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system; and (2) cease mailing paper copies of U.S. Patents and U.S. patent applications with Office actions (in applications and during reexamination proceedings) except for citations made during the international stage of an international application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). In order to use the new E-Patent Reference feature applicants must: (1) obtain a digital certificate and software from the Office; (2) obtain a customer number from the Office; and (3) properly associate patent applications with the customer number."
I would like note that:
(1) The "software" mentioned in the letter can be used only in conjunction with Microsoft Internet Explorer and by setting it as your default web browser. (2) It is still possible to download U.S. patents without a digital certificate, but you can only access the text portion. Images can be retrieved only one page at a time. (For "high tech" inventions, it is not uncommon to receive more than 10 or 20 prior art references, each more than 20 or 30 pages long.) (3) This new regulation, which has a life-turning impact on those of us who despise Microsoft Windows and/or Microsoft Internet Explorer, was never published in the Federal Register, or even the Official Gazette.
It is apparant that you don't have any idea what I am talking about and have not recently filed for a patent application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (It's amazing how people can comment on something that they no nothing about.)
But I am glad there are at least some responses to this issue (and thus attention). (Long Live Slashdot!!!)
The most disconcerting part of this tragedy is that the U.S. Patent Office changed to this Microsoft- IE-only policy (in June of this year) without even the minimum curtesy of publishing it. (I.e., no one knows what's going until you are affected.)
The only way you may (just "may") start to have an idea of what's going on is to go to this site:
There will a toll-free number (1-866-217-9197). If you are interested in knowing what's going on, call that number, tell them that you have recently received an "office action" (legalese for "rejection"), and you are directed to this number to find out how to receive the prior art references.
Then ask them whether you can download the references without using Microsoft Internet Explorer.
The issue here is not merely being sodomized to use Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Internet Explorer, but also the arbitrariness and capriciousness a government agency can do its business (and kowtowing to Microsoft).
We know that U.S Patent Office is notorious of issuing patents (particularly software patents) that are clearly unpatentable. But very few are aware that U.S. Patent Office is violating our constitutional right by promulgating and enforcing a Microsoft-IE-only policy.
This little-noticed law really makes me mad and feel like crying--why a government agency can be so stupid.
Basically, when you file a patent application, if the Patent Office thinks that your invention is not patentable because it is not novel or nonobvious, it will send you copies of prior art patents so you can rebut their rejection.
Now the Patent Office has changed its policy and will not send you those hard copies. Instead, it requires you to download those prior art reference on-line.
Under ordinary circumstances, this would not pose any problem, except that we are dealing with one of the most stupid government agencies in the history of mankind. The United States Patent Office, without much notice, now requires that, in order to download those references, you must register with the Patent Office, then the Patent Office will install a program ON YOUR MACHINE WHICH MUST BE RUNNING MICROSOFT INTERNET EXPLORER UNDER MICROSOFT WINDOWS to allow you to communicate with the Patent Office before you can download those prior art patents that our government must furnish you as a matter of our constitution right and as part of the filing fees paid to the Patent Office.
Thus, basically it has boiled down to this stupid law: if you want to receive a patent, you are now REQUIRED BY LAW to have a machine with Microsoft Windows running Internet Explorer in your office.
In other words, in order to exercise your constitutional rights, you must have a machine that runs Microsoft Windows and you must set Microsoft Internet Explorer as your default browser.
What kind of stupid government agency is this? I know many banks used to have the same requirement (i.e., using Microsoft IE running in Microsoft Windows), but they have got rid of this stupid policy because they have to compete in order to survive.
The United States Patent and Trademark can implement and insist such a stupid policy because it doesn't have to compete. But what about those 4000+ patent attorneys? How come all of them are so quiet? Are all of them idiots?
Even our HomeLand Security Department has changed its Microsoft-only policy. It appears that our Patent and Trademark Office is the only government agency in the whole world that requires its users to use Microsoft Windows. Unlike Homeland Security Department, the U.S. Patent Office has to account to no one!
Microsoft survives and propers exactly because our government agencies are unafraid to abuse their power and unashamed of being idiots.
WordPerfect 8 (both Windows and Linux versions) has been localized into several European languages. It is WordPerfect 10, after Corel had gone into a full retreat, that does not have German language version.
WordPerfect 8 also provides very nice CJK (double-byte) supports. Those supports were broken in version 10.
Before anyone commenting on WordPerfect vis-a-vis OO/SO, s/he should spend a few hours working with experts with both suites.
WordPerfect is so far superior, it is funny to even talk about OO in the same sentence.
BTW, the version of WordPerfect being bundled, version 10, is actually the weakest of the three 32-bit versions (but still far better than Microsoft Word in producing "conventional" documents).
Wait until Corel puts its acts together and bring the quality of its next version to the level of WordPerfect 8. But even WordPerfect 10 is good enough for enterprise use. If you don't believe me, go to any store that sells SONY PCs and play with the program that has been pre-installed in the VAIOs.
We should never expect Microsoft to produce an office suite for Linux, but Corel may (Corel's CEO recently and repeatedly stated that Corel will consider a native Linux port if there is a market). Recent moves by HP, SONY, and DELL from MS Office to WordPerfect actually send a much bigger message: they may pave the way for their eventual migration to Linux desktops.
In other words, because the profit margins are so thin, by selling Windows machines, hardware companies are only helping Microsoft. Moving to Linux not only cuts down the price (which is indeed a very minor consideration), it also allows the hardware vendors to become software distributors, i.e., allowing them to retain some control over their customers.
However, there is one critical piece missing in the Linux puzzle game, and that is an enterprise level wordprocessor. WordPerfect will fit this need perfectly.
I understand OpenOffice 6.0.1, and more particularly KOffice (1.2 rc1), have made significant improvements. However, nothing can replace the user experience that must be accumulated over time. WordPerfect 8 was built based on years and years of usage and tens of millions of user experience. Corel management screwed up on WordPerfect 10, but the person in charge was recently fired. And with the recent service pack, WordPerfect 10 indeed is almost as powerful and reliable as version 8.
Slashdot Mirror
I have played with so many SFFPCs, our office now buys nothing but SFFPC. My experience is, when it comes to SFFPC, get the Shuttles. Don't even think of getting anything else.
No, P4 notebooks will burn your 8th. Avoid them. Either Pentium M or Athlon XP-M. Athlon64 would be the best.
It just appears to be that you can easily add an NIC card via its USB port, but not modem. Looks like this is an ingenius, well-thought-of design. I want one if it runs a strip down version of Fedora.
It appears to come with (at least) two USB ports. You can use a USB/ethernet card whose price has come down to the 20's, and will be even lower when becomes popular. I think the key is, will someone be able to run a special version of Linux on it?
Of course the examiners don't have an explicit motivation to bring in more money for the USPTO, but if you are familiar with how USPTO operates, you will know that ALL examiners are under a pressure to approve (i.e., "approve") a certain number of patent application to satisfy their "quoto". A few years ago, it was over 100 allowed applications a year. I am sure this number has increased.
The USPTO bigshots (supervising examiners and various levels of managements) know their "job security" depends on how much money is being brought to USPTO (through mainly issue fees--$1,630 and maintenance fees--$6,220, for a total of $7,850 per patent issued).
I am sure all the USPTO bigshots have such a high integrity, that they will not even hint those poor examiners under their administrative supervision to issue more patents.
Then, again, how can anyone explain about the "quoto"?
Hi Moron-
There is no constitutional right to using a web browser of your choosing. But getting a patent is.
If, however, in order to get a patent you must use MSIE, then I believe my constitutional right is violated.
Got it???
Sure your "constitutional" rights are not violated if you don't mind spending hours, instead of a few minutes if you use IE, to download those patent images.
Also, I don't think you have ever encountered the situation when USPTO cut off your connection because you wanted to download more than a handful of patent images. Are your rights violated here?
USPTO's IE-only policy is only the tip of the iceberg. Beginning August this year, if you want to take advantage of the electronic filing procedure, you have to use another Microsoft product--Microsoft Office, to convert your specification including the claims into an XML file.
Of course, you don't have to file your patent application electronically. But electronic filing grants an inventor certain advantages not available with the conventional paper filing, including publishing your application as amended.
So, what's the big deal about publishing your application as amended (the right you will not have if you don't want to use Microsoft Office)? This has a lot to do with the so-called "pre-grant" damages, which can be awarded based on how your claims are published. If you cannot amend your claims before your application is published, you may lose a lot of your rights as an inventor.
For high-tech inventions which have a short life span, pre-grant damages may be the only compensation you can get.
Are our constitutional rights violated? IMNSHO, not as a clear cut as the IE-only policy.
But, again, the key issue is, whether the USPTO has projected an image that it is competent to judge the patentability of software/internet inventions, and whether "revenue-generating" plays an important role in issuing patents. This is what concerns me the most.
There is actually another more important message that I am trying to scream about. (Again, love live Slashdot!!!)
If USPTO is stupid enough to think that using Microsoft IE is the only way to establish a secured communication with USPTO's private database, it really sends a certain message that USPTO may not have the right technical competence to judge the patentability of software/internet patents.
While USPTO charges $770 for filing a "regular" patent application, USPTO stands to receive $6,220 as maintenance fees during the life of a patent. Since USPTO is now a fee-supported agency, even an idiot like myself will tend to think that USPTO will be more interested in issuing patents than doing even a pro forma examination.
Maybe USPTO's incompetence is simply a smoke screen to hide their true interest in generating more incomes by issuing more patents.
BTW, for individual inventors, the statutory fees will be halved. Good bargain? Not really. USPTO has more incentives to grant patents to big corporations like Microsoft than individuals, because they pay double the statutory fees. Thus, doubling USPTO's income.
Well, somebody doesn't mind their rights being violated. Not me. I am going to cream bloody murder.
Long Live Slashdot!!!
Please visit a previous thread to see what kind of a moron our Patent Office has become:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/04/1825 22 7&tid=154&tid=1
We know that U.S Patent Office is notorious of issuing patents (particularly software patents) that are clearly unpatentable. But very few are aware that U.S. Patent Office is violating our constitutional right by promulgating and enforcing a Microsoft-IE-only policy.
This little-noticed law really makes me mad and feel like crying--why a government agency can be so stupid.
Basically, when you file a patent application, if the Patent Office thinks that your invention is not patentable because it is not novel or nonobvious, it will send you copies of prior art patents so you can rebut their rejection.
Now the Patent Office has changed its policy and will not send you those hard copies. Instead, it requires you to download those prior art reference on-line.
Under ordinary circumstances, this would not pose any problem, except that we are dealing with one of the most stupid government agencies in the history of mankind. The United States Patent Office, without much notice, now requires that, in order to download those references, you must register with the Patent Office, then the Patent Office will install a program ON YOUR MACHINE WHICH MUST BE RUNNING MICROSOFT INTERNET EXPLORER UNDER MICROSOFT WINDOWS to allow you to communicate with the Patent Office before you can download those prior art patents that our government must furnish you as a matter of our constitution right and as part of the filing fees paid to the Patent Office.
Thus, basically it has boiled down to this stupid law: if you want to receive a patent, you are now REQUIRED BY LAW to have a machine with Microsoft Windows running Internet Explorer in your office.
In other words, in order to exercise your constitutional rights, you must have a machine that runs Microsoft Windows and you must set Microsoft Internet Explorer as your default browser.
What kind of stupid government agency is this? I know many banks used to have the same requirement (i.e., using Microsoft IE running in Microsoft Windows), but they have got rid of this stupid policy because they have to compete in order to survive.
The United States Patent and Trademark can implement and insist such a stupid policy because it doesn't have to compete. But what about those 4000+ patent attorneys? How come all of them are so quiet? Are all of them idiots?
Even our HomeLand Security Department has changed its Microsoft-only policy. It appears that our Patent and Trademark Office is the only government agency in the whole world that requires its users to use Microsoft Windows. Unlike Homeland Security Department, the U.S. Patent Office has to account to no one!
Microsoft survives and propers exactly because our government agencies are unafraid to abuse their power and unashamed of being idiots.
and
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=120633&thres ho ld=0&commentsort=0&tid=154&tid=1&mode=thread&pid=1 0160890#10163299
Article I, section 8, of the Constitutuion specifically provides that: "Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
Congress has the power to determine what can or cannot be patented (e.g., mathematical formulas cannot be patented, but mathematical formulas reduced to software code can, etc.)
Congress also vests in administrative agencies, e.g., the Patent Office, certain rule-making powers. Those rules, once promulgated, are equivalent to "laws", though they are much easier to be challenged in court. In order to exercise those rule-making powers, the agencies must follow certain well-defined procedure (e.g., publishing Official Gazette as Federal Register), AND
Article I, section 8, of the Constitutuion specifically provides that: "Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
Congress has the power to determine what can or cannot be patented (e.g., mathematical formulas cannot be patented, but mathematical formulas reduced to software code can, etc.)
Congress also vests in administrative agencies, e.g., the Patent Office, certain rule-making powers. Those rules, once promulgated, are equivalent to "laws", though they are much easier to be challenged in court. In order to exercise those rule-making powers, the agencies must follow certain well-defined procedure (e.g., publishing Official Gazette as Federal Register), AND those rules must not be violating the existing laws and our constitution.
In this moronic new "rule", in which the Patent Office requires that any inventor must have a computer running Microsoft Internet Explorer under Microsoft Windows in order to receive prior art patents to rebut Patent Office's rejection before a patent can be granted, the Patent Office does not go through the necessary steps (i.e., no publication in Federal Register). This process was done in a very stealthy way.
But most importantly, I don't think our constitution allows an administrative agency to mandate that we must use a certain commercial product in order to exercise our constitution rights. (Congress can allow the Patent Office to set up a schedule of fees before one can receive a patent, but never a specific directive to use a certain commercial product.)
I don't think our Patent Office is a Microsoft crony. It simply appears that our Patent Office is so technically incompetent and backward that it thinks Windows is the only operating system, and IE is the only web browser, and makes its decisions based on this fault preamble.
The following is the letter that most patent applicants have received or will receive from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office:
"USPTO TO PROVIDE ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO CITED U.S. PATENT REFERENCES WITH OFFICE ACTION AND CEASE SUPPLYING PAPER COPIES
"In support of its 21th Century Strategic Plan goal of increased patent e-Government, beginning in June 2004, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office of USPTO) will begin the phase-in of its E-Patent Reference program and hence will: (1) provide downloading capability of the U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications cited in Office actions via the E-Patent Reference feature of the Office's Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system; and (2) cease mailing paper copies of U.S. Patents and U.S. patent applications with Office actions (in applications and during reexamination proceedings) except for citations made during the international stage of an international application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). In order to use the new E-Patent Reference feature applicants must: (1) obtain a digital certificate and software from the Office; (2) obtain a customer number from the Office; and (3) properly associate patent applications with the customer number."
I would like note that:
(1) The "software" mentioned in the letter can be used only in conjunction with Microsoft Internet Explorer and by setting it as your default web browser.
(2) It is still possible to download U.S. patents without a digital certificate, but you can only access the text portion. Images can be retrieved only one page at a time. (For "high tech" inventions, it is not uncommon to receive more than 10 or 20 prior art references, each more than 20 or 30 pages long.)
(3) This new regulation, which has a life-turning impact on those of us who despise Microsoft Windows and/or Microsoft Internet Explorer, was never published in the Federal Register, or even the Official Gazette.
It is apparant that you don't have any idea what I am talking about and have not recently filed for a patent application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (It's amazing how people can comment on something that they no nothing about.)
s .7 _0_A/7_0_CH/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.getBib/.c/6_0_69/.ce/7_ 0_V9/.p/5_0_P1/.d/1#7_0_V9
But I am glad there are at least some responses to this issue (and thus attention). (Long Live Slashdot!!!)
The most disconcerting part of this tragedy is that the U.S. Patent Office changed to this Microsoft-
IE-only policy (in June of this year) without even the minimum curtesy of publishing it. (I.e., no one knows what's going until you are affected.)
The only way you may (just "may") start to have an idea of what's going on is to go to this site:
http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/!ut/p/_
or (with re-direction):
http://pair-direct.uspto.gov
There will a toll-free number (1-866-217-9197). If you are interested in knowing what's going on, call that number, tell them that you have recently received an "office action" (legalese for "rejection"), and you are directed to this number to find out how to receive the prior art references.
Then ask them whether you can download the references without using Microsoft Internet Explorer.
The issue here is not merely being sodomized to use Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Internet Explorer, but also the arbitrariness and capriciousness a government agency can do its business (and kowtowing to Microsoft).
We know that U.S Patent Office is notorious of issuing patents (particularly software patents) that are clearly unpatentable. But very few are aware that U.S. Patent Office is violating our constitutional right by promulgating and enforcing a Microsoft-IE-only policy.
This little-noticed law really makes me mad and feel like crying--why a government agency can be so stupid.
Basically, when you file a patent application, if the Patent Office thinks that your invention is not patentable because it is not novel or nonobvious, it will send you copies of prior art patents so you can rebut their rejection.
Now the Patent Office has changed its policy and will not send you those hard copies. Instead, it requires you to download those prior art reference on-line.
Under ordinary circumstances, this would not pose any problem, except that we are dealing with one of the most stupid government agencies in the history of mankind. The United States Patent Office, without much notice, now requires that, in order to download those references, you must register with the Patent Office, then the Patent Office will install a program ON YOUR MACHINE WHICH MUST BE RUNNING MICROSOFT INTERNET EXPLORER UNDER MICROSOFT WINDOWS to allow you to communicate with the Patent Office before you can download those prior art patents that our government must furnish you as a matter of our constitution right and as part of the filing fees paid to the Patent Office.
Thus, basically it has boiled down to this stupid law: if you want to receive a patent, you are now REQUIRED BY LAW to have a machine with Microsoft Windows running Internet Explorer in your office.
In other words, in order to exercise your constitutional rights, you must have a machine that runs Microsoft Windows and you must set Microsoft Internet Explorer as your default browser.
What kind of stupid government agency is this? I know many banks used to have the same requirement (i.e., using Microsoft IE running in Microsoft Windows), but they have got rid of this stupid policy because they have to compete in order to survive.
The United States Patent and Trademark can implement and insist such a stupid policy because it doesn't have to compete. But what about those 4000+ patent attorneys? How come all of them are so quiet? Are all of them idiots?
Even our HomeLand Security Department has changed its Microsoft-only policy. It appears that our Patent and Trademark Office is the only government agency in the whole world that requires its users to use Microsoft Windows. Unlike Homeland Security Department, the U.S. Patent Office has to account to no one!
Microsoft survives and propers exactly because our government agencies are unafraid to abuse their power and unashamed of being idiots.
WordPerfect 8 (both Windows and Linux versions) has been localized into several European languages. It is WordPerfect 10, after Corel had gone into a full retreat, that does not have German language version.
WordPerfect 8 also provides very nice CJK (double-byte) supports. Those supports were broken in version 10.
Anyone who is interested in learning more about WordPerfect, please go to: http://www.wpuniverse.com/
Before anyone commenting on WordPerfect vis-a-vis OO/SO, s/he should spend a few hours working with experts with both suites. WordPerfect is so far superior, it is funny to even talk about OO in the same sentence. BTW, the version of WordPerfect being bundled, version 10, is actually the weakest of the three 32-bit versions (but still far better than Microsoft Word in producing "conventional" documents). Wait until Corel puts its acts together and bring the quality of its next version to the level of WordPerfect 8. But even WordPerfect 10 is good enough for enterprise use. If you don't believe me, go to any store that sells SONY PCs and play with the program that has been pre-installed in the VAIOs. We should never expect Microsoft to produce an office suite for Linux, but Corel may (Corel's CEO recently and repeatedly stated that Corel will consider a native Linux port if there is a market). Recent moves by HP, SONY, and DELL from MS Office to WordPerfect actually send a much bigger message: they may pave the way for their eventual migration to Linux desktops. In other words, because the profit margins are so thin, by selling Windows machines, hardware companies are only helping Microsoft. Moving to Linux not only cuts down the price (which is indeed a very minor consideration), it also allows the hardware vendors to become software distributors, i.e., allowing them to retain some control over their customers. However, there is one critical piece missing in the Linux puzzle game, and that is an enterprise level wordprocessor. WordPerfect will fit this need perfectly. I understand OpenOffice 6.0.1, and more particularly KOffice (1.2 rc1), have made significant improvements. However, nothing can replace the user experience that must be accumulated over time. WordPerfect 8 was built based on years and years of usage and tens of millions of user experience. Corel management screwed up on WordPerfect 10, but the person in charge was recently fired. And with the recent service pack, WordPerfect 10 indeed is almost as powerful and reliable as version 8.