Probably because everyone stuck with massive PS libraries and not enough money to afford a PS3 are replacing their broken shoddy POS PS2s. Sony seems to be the master at building products that last until about a month out of warranty then suddenly drop dead.
Good luck getting 100% of computer scientists and experts to agree on a single definition of an operating system. It is a fact that some parts of a Windows desktop operating system environment will cease to function properly without the DLLs for Internet Explorer on the system.
Their rules most certainly do not require Microsoft to sit back and not implement new features or enhanced existing ones when their competition is doing the same thing. They have to compete fairly, but that doesn't mean they can't compete at all.
If it made it into Vista, someone at the DoJ probably signed off on it already anyway which is probably why the DoJ is doing this.
So a bunch of thugs pirate Windows and start serving malware via IIS? So how do we know the discs they installed with weren't pre-infected with malware or that they didn't INTENTIONALLY put up servers for the purpose of serving malware? This story is coming from a competitor of Microsoft who has every reason to bash their products. It is probably a total crock anyway.
I'll point to the *since version 5* part and also point out that they wouldn't have been likely to be using Windows 2003 before the Iraq war or using Windows XP for such a purpose... unless you have a link to clarify...
With any luck judges will begin issuing orders to pay 100% of legal fees + punitive damages for wasting their opponents own time and causing financial hardship in the process.
Why in the hell would designers want more rendering engines with their own quirks and varying levels of standards compliance? There's already Opera, Safari, Firefox and *multiple major versions of IE*. You can tell people to use the latest of Opera or Firefox but Apple and MS have managed to force operating system upgrades on people wanting to use the latest versions of their browsers.
They probably registered as "eTrex Vista" just like Microsoft more than likely registered as "Windows Vista" which is why they put a TM after Vista and nothing after Windows in their Windows Vista logos despite ALWAYS having an (R) on Windows in any art Vista isn't tacked on.
There are different categories for a reason. Besides, how often do you see Microsoft referring to it as just "Vista" as opposed to "Windows Vista" in advertising?
If Microsoft's EULAs don't apply, he's on the hook for copyright infringement for shipping a product linked against their libraries and based on their SDKs... so attacking their licensing would probably not be helpful in this case.
However, you cannot copy graphics and icons (unless they're standard icons). This limits the effectiveness of a "copy" of someone else's interface. It will probably be the second largest stumbling block for copying the ribbon interface in Office 2007. The first would, of course, be patents MS most definitely holds on the ribbon.
The HTML as word processing format issues has been flogged like a dead horse for years. The outcome is always the realization that HTML is poorly suited to the task of word processing and a word processor would be poorly suited for writing web pages. HTML is for web pages and they're trying damn hard to move away from it for that too.
SSL 3.0 and TLS 1.0 appear to be on by default in IE7. SSLv2 is disabled due to the insecurity of the protocol. IIRC Mozilla is also working on disabling SSLv2 (in fact, I don't even see an SSLv2 option in Firefox 2.0.0.4 [Win32]).
The US is first to invent and not first to file. If Microsoft can prove they invented it before Eolas, the Eolas patent is history and Microsoft might end up owning it.
That makes little sense... What does Microsoft's paying for a license as a direct result of intervention by the courts (which could be overturned) have to do with them proving they were the real inventor?
No, that lawsuit set absolutely no precedent. Apple had actually licensed Microsoft to use nearly everything they sued them for and most of the remaining elements were found to not be copyrightable since "they were the ONLY way you could do it" (not because UI isn't copyrightable).
The judge made NO ruling on whether you could copyright UI and it had NOTHING to do with patents. In fact, since the judge DID decide that some parts were NOT copyrightable because "they were the ONLY way you could do it", that would seem to indicate the judge at least believed some elements were copyrightable.
You'd have to find a different case to disqualify any copyrights or patents Microsoft has on look and feel. I'm pretty sure Adobe has litigated based on UI elements in their applications in the past long after the Apple look and feel suits were over with. Apple also continues to patent their UI elements as well as claim copyright protection for Mac OS X look and feel.
There's already POSIX Threads and Win32 Threads. You can even use a subset of pthreads on Win32. IIRC the next revision of the C++ standard will have threading constructs built-in.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably because everyone stuck with massive PS libraries and not enough money to afford a PS3 are replacing their broken shoddy POS PS2s. Sony seems to be the master at building products that last until about a month out of warranty then suddenly drop dead.
Good luck getting 100% of computer scientists and experts to agree on a single definition of an operating system. It is a fact that some parts of a Windows desktop operating system environment will cease to function properly without the DLLs for Internet Explorer on the system.
Their rules most certainly do not require Microsoft to sit back and not implement new features or enhanced existing ones when their competition is doing the same thing. They have to compete fairly, but that doesn't mean they can't compete at all.
If it made it into Vista, someone at the DoJ probably signed off on it already anyway which is probably why the DoJ is doing this.
So a bunch of thugs pirate Windows and start serving malware via IIS? So how do we know the discs they installed with weren't pre-infected with malware or that they didn't INTENTIONALLY put up servers for the purpose of serving malware? This story is coming from a competitor of Microsoft who has every reason to bash their products. It is probably a total crock anyway.
I'll point to the *since version 5* part and also point out that they wouldn't have been likely to be using Windows 2003 before the Iraq war or using Windows XP for such a purpose... unless you have a link to clarify...
Why would the DOJ be interested in Microsoft licensing its patents?
With any luck judges will begin issuing orders to pay 100% of legal fees + punitive damages for wasting their opponents own time and causing financial hardship in the process.
It was brought up and the police admitted they did ZERO forensics on the computer in question. She was still convicted.
Think of the children!
The media center capabilities are built-in to Home Premium and Ultimate editions. There is no media center edition.
Why in the hell would designers want more rendering engines with their own quirks and varying levels of standards compliance? There's already Opera, Safari, Firefox and *multiple major versions of IE*. You can tell people to use the latest of Opera or Firefox but Apple and MS have managed to force operating system upgrades on people wanting to use the latest versions of their browsers.
Most of it was written by Netscape paid engineers until AOL finally put the last nail in the coffin of Netscape as a software producer.
They probably registered as "eTrex Vista" just like Microsoft more than likely registered as "Windows Vista" which is why they put a TM after Vista and nothing after Windows in their Windows Vista logos despite ALWAYS having an (R) on Windows in any art Vista isn't tacked on.
There are different categories for a reason. Besides, how often do you see Microsoft referring to it as just "Vista" as opposed to "Windows Vista" in advertising?
If Microsoft's EULAs don't apply, he's on the hook for copyright infringement for shipping a product linked against their libraries and based on their SDKs... so attacking their licensing would probably not be helpful in this case.
Microsoft has to be a lot more careful about breaking third party crap with a browser fix so obviously Firefox will get patched first.
However, you cannot copy graphics and icons (unless they're standard icons). This limits the effectiveness of a "copy" of someone else's interface. It will probably be the second largest stumbling block for copying the ribbon interface in Office 2007. The first would, of course, be patents MS most definitely holds on the ribbon.
The HTML as word processing format issues has been flogged like a dead horse for years. The outcome is always the realization that HTML is poorly suited to the task of word processing and a word processor would be poorly suited for writing web pages. HTML is for web pages and they're trying damn hard to move away from it for that too.
Only a fool would accept a patent on a 60 year old invention as valid.
SSL 3.0 and TLS 1.0 appear to be on by default in IE7. SSLv2 is disabled due to the insecurity of the protocol. IIRC Mozilla is also working on disabling SSLv2 (in fact, I don't even see an SSLv2 option in Firefox 2.0.0.4 [Win32]).
The US is first to invent and not first to file. If Microsoft can prove they invented it before Eolas, the Eolas patent is history and Microsoft might end up owning it.
That makes little sense... What does Microsoft's paying for a license as a direct result of intervention by the courts (which could be overturned) have to do with them proving they were the real inventor?
Quake 4 and Quake Wars don't seem to have a problem with being bright :P
No, that lawsuit set absolutely no precedent. Apple had actually licensed Microsoft to use nearly everything they sued them for and most of the remaining elements were found to not be copyrightable since "they were the ONLY way you could do it" (not because UI isn't copyrightable).
The judge made NO ruling on whether you could copyright UI and it had NOTHING to do with patents. In fact, since the judge DID decide that some parts were NOT copyrightable because "they were the ONLY way you could do it", that would seem to indicate the judge at least believed some elements were copyrightable.
You'd have to find a different case to disqualify any copyrights or patents Microsoft has on look and feel. I'm pretty sure Adobe has litigated based on UI elements in their applications in the past long after the Apple look and feel suits were over with. Apple also continues to patent their UI elements as well as claim copyright protection for Mac OS X look and feel.
There's already POSIX Threads and Win32 Threads. You can even use a subset of pthreads on Win32. IIRC the next revision of the C++ standard will have threading constructs built-in.
It's in all likelihood a bad hardware driver in Windows.