I guess you didn't know that Microsofts Pen for Windows was created as a response to the product by Go Inc. Read about in in the book "Startup". It tells how Go hired Microsoft to write apps for the Go product and all the Microsoft guys did was try to get Go to use Windows instead of their own pen optimized OS. Go finally told Microsoft to get out and Bill Gates publicly claims he invented pen computing and has Pen for Windows in the R&D lab. Then at Comdex, Microsoft holds up big signs listing all of Go Incs developers and a bunch of Windows developers are companies writing apps for Pen for Windows and that kills Go's market. DOS/Windows wasn't even capable of doing much more than handling pen taps but it was enough to kill off the company that created the market. The Newton was a spinoff from the original Go Inc project.
Kinda reminds us of how Microsoft did Java doesn't it?
I don't think there is any new company Microsoft is trying to kill this time but I do think that this is an attempt to see if there's a market between PDA's and the Desktop. WinCE is still a business flop for Microsoft and they surely can't go smaller/lighter than the PocketPC platforms. They can only go larger and that's where the Tablet comes in.
It's another MS-Bob IMHO. Though there is SOME use for it since there's always been a use for the tablet computer. Just not worth spending 10's of millions of dollars marketing it. And not large enough for so many hardware companies who fell for this latest Microsoft dance number.
No kidding. I've seen tablet computers as far back as the very early 1990's. They are not new or invented by Microsoft. There is a market for them though and it's been doing OK since it's really a niche market. No matter what Bill Gates says. Remember, "64 MB is enough for anybody" or something like that.
IMHO, Bill G and gang are promoting the tablet because they've been having such a difficult time with WinCE. WinCE doesn't scale DOWN very well so they are attempting to create a market between the PDA and desktop. You can't park a Yugo in a shoebox... So the TablePC is reborn.
BTW, IBM had a laptop in the early/mid 1990's with a touchscreen which converted into a tablet and ran Pen for OS/2. I wonder how many years Microsoft is going to fund THIS current mass market flop? WinCE is a flop IMHO. It's been something like 7 years and still is not making a profit for Microsoft. I wonder why they didn't push MS-BOB like they are pushing this stuff? Remeber all those people walking around with MS-Bob ball caps one?;)
All the support going into the FuelCell projects is so that the current Energy Companies can: 1) maintain current profit margins now and in the future 2) make sure they are still the ones controlling the distribution
IMHO, this is the only reason why all the US auto manufacturers went from raising the Hybrid flag in late 2001 to following the Bush Administrations policy of raising the dream/flag of FuelCell technology and turning the Hybrid flag into a plaque they polish every now and then as the press requires.
The current Energy policies related to auto fuel are designed purely as a delay tactic to keep the pumps running AND NOT TO SLOW THE PUMPS. Hybrid technology was proven and shown to the US auto industry in 1994/95 by Rosen Motors and now Toyota is showing it in full production. That technology would REDUCE fuel consumption and is a threat to the Bush administration and it's partners.
Don't worry about the oil economy going away any time soon( 2 decades or more ). The political momentum is incredible. That is unless Toyota/Hybrids become a much larger market force. Maybe it too will see pressure from outside the US . Just as GNU/Linux is spreading all over the world at a good clip while in the US, it's a much slower movement?
yes, very much like that. It took them over a year to get that out too. I remember when I heard that Microsoft was going to release a JDBC driver for their dbase and though there must be some real pressure for them to do this. Then I read where they said it would be out the following year and the same quarter as the announcement...
Figures they'd drag their feet that long and still produce a half arsed product.
It still amazes me the people think we are freaks when we bring this stuff up. Microsoft has don't nothing in the last 20 years to show they are NOT anti-competition and anti-nonWindows.
Thanks for the reminder of the JDBC thing. I never knew it was poorly done also.
You've obviously not read this thread completely. I've already stated why I get the impression Microsoft is stalling with regards to Bluetooth support. Here it is again for you lazy people.... 1) low power option which enables things smaller than MS Windows can fit on( PalmOS devices, phones, DMMs, etc ) 2) the spec supports features which remove the PC from the picture. PAN for instance.
Everything Microsoft does is to protect it's monopoly, legal or illegal. Bluetooth does not help protect the Windows monopoly and enables devices smaller than Microsoft can shrink Windows to fit on. And those devices can end up cutting Windows out of the data/connectivity picture. IMHO, Microsoft hates the fact that people are keeping their data on their Palm Pilots and use the PC for backup. They want the PC to control the data to keep Windows in control. It's the way they work. Everything to save/protect Windows.
If stating that it appears Microsoft is dragging it's feet constitues bashing Microsoft then I am bashing Microsoft. BFD. It's not like this company hasn't done this dozens of times before, if not hundreds. Their monopoly hold on the desktop can slow adoption of products and standards. PERIOD. If you don't get this then please follow that piper to your left of that cliff.
Bluetooth is NOT a short range wireless spec. There is support in the spec for 100m range. That would be a Class 1 Bluetooth device. Class 2 has a 10m range and Class 3 has 2m range.
This is one falacy that seems to persist....
I'm not really sure why Bluetooth is a good kbd/mouse protocol. The keyboard and mouse don't leave the area( don't need discovery ) and no need for PAN either. The fact that it's "the best you can buy" probably has more to do with Logitech than the Bluetooth wireless protocols.
And why does a cell phone need long-range Bluetooth support? My handheld and headset have no problem connecting to my cell phone. I don't expect my phone to stay home while I use these on the road but I like that the phone can be on the seat, in pocket/purse, etc and I can still use it.
A convicted monopolist has alot to say about acceptance because they've already shown they will do anything to protect the monopoly. Firewire might have more to do with Intel bringing USB up against it. It was at a time when Intel killed the chipset market with a proprietary socket/bus and could tie USB into the Mobo while Firewire wasn't. That's another thread though and because both USB and Firewire were tied to the PC, I don't think Microsoft cared much either way. Except that Apple gets royalties( $.25 ) for FireWire....
Thank you. This is not a conspiracy theory and is more about Microsofts actions over 3+ years of foot dragging. Bluetooth devices require the infrasture support of the Bluetooth stack to work as it was intended.
How many were forced to purchase a MS Windows 98 machine because they wanted/needed USB support? Same for NT. Microsoft restricts infrastructure support to market particular products or to stall/kill particular products.
It seems Microsofts shipping of a Bluetooth kbd/mouse has worked to some extent. It has many thinking that Microsoft support Bluetooth and is not stalling it. They are a fantastic marketing company. The best ever. Too bad the public hasn't become any brighter in the past 15 years of the Microsoft illusionists.
Let me guess, you used a 3rd party Bluetooth stack( Belkin? ) and have it working? Had Microsoft been split into the OS company and the application company, we might see INFRASTRUCTURE features added to their OS quicker. It's been 2 years since MS said they'd put the Bluetooth Stack on Windows XP. Now if Microsoft really is a technology company, why does it take that long?
The survival of Bluetooth in the market will be not because of Microsoft but in spite of Microsoft. IMHO.
My guess at why Nokia phones don't work well with other Bluetooth devices is probably because of Ericssons position in the Bluetooth market and because the spec allowed Nokia to create their own PROFILE for use in the stack. Ericsson started the Bluetooth spec IIRC.
I think that OpenGL in the first versions of NT and Windows95 was a response to IBM building support for OpenGL into OS/2 in those days. I doubt if it was the other way around. Like you said, they couldn't get their proprietary system working so they felt OpenGL was the way to go in case 3D desktops/apps were going to take off.
Its not unlike when IBM showed Doom running in a window on OS/2( Comdex 1993 or 94 ) and then Microsoft started development to make sure there was a way for Windows to do the same. IBM DIVE brought about MS DirectX.
Remember, at that time, there were over 15 million OS/2 systems out there and IBM was selling a million copies of OS/2 per month in 1994/1995 transistion. Once the OS/2 threat was killed off, there wasn't any pressure to keep OpenGL in Windows and they could push their buggy proprietary replacement instead. IMHO.
you might want to read the first reply to my post. Support for the kbd/mouse is meaningless. It's how they support the Bluetooth stack. In Dec of 2001 they said they'd support Bluetooth in Windows XP in 2002. They then announced in Sept of 2002 that they'd be releasing a Bluetooth stack for Windows XP in the next 3-6 months. It was later said that users couldn't download the stack and could only get it with a Bluetooth product. THEN it was stated that PAN would not be supported.
If that's not dragging it's feet I don't know what is. One guy at Nokia producted a pretty good Bluetooth stack for GNU/Linux in his spare time. It doesn't take 2 years for a company like Microsoft to do this unless they really don't want to do it.
I've been watching Microsoft since the late 1980's. It's not that difficult to see what they are doing here. IMHO.
So Microsoft supports ethernet and therefore they support all protocols????? That doesn't hold water either. Without the court backed power of discovery, it's unlikely my opinions can be proven as fact. Heck, asking Bill Gates, on the stand, would be meaningless too.
You can certainly continue believing what you will but when it comes to Microsoft, what they do and how they do it means far more than what they say publicly. Joining a SIG by no means is a trustworthy statement of their support for the SIG . If you believe it is, I've got some great property in southern Florida that I'd like to sell to you.
I started considering this thread back when Microsoft publicly stated they were not going to be putting Bluetooth into Windows 2000 and later when they said it was going to take over 6 months to come out with a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse but that PAN would not be supported.
The way they dragged their feet, it just looked to much like the technology was something they didn't want to support but the media hype was forcing them too. Kinda like Suns Java only they aren't Window'izing Bluetooth. Just slowing it down.
Nothing has shown this concept to the incorrect. Your comment only shows it's more likely to be true.
Again, BFD. Microsoft also was a member of OMG but they fought CORBA tooth and nail. They will join any group to either stall the progress or at a minimum, keep an eye on where it's going.
With $50 Billion in cash, they could afford to pay someone to watch a heck of alot of the market. They went to court to keep a $1 license fee on SCO UNIX. Why, so they could keep track of sales. IMHO.
Microsoft does not support anything that's not tied to Windows. They even oppose anything that does connect to the PC and is in a market they want. There were some court documents that showed that Bill Gates wanted his developers to make sure MS OutLook wouldn't sync with Palm. It's well known if you've had your eyes open for even just a few years.
so they can claim to support the protocols while only supporting it enough to keep an eye on what's going on. Not to mention the buzz-word effect it has and the competitions products required it.
I doubt very much you get anything but a wireless keyboard and mouse with Microsofts Bluetooth keyboard/mouse kit. Bluetooth is a standard protocol and when the full stack is supported, all kinds of other devices can play in the game. You only get a mouse and keyboard with Microsofts kit. BFD. It doesn't mean they are supporting the protocol and looks more like they don't want to support it because they won't provide a full stack.
As I've stated before, Microsoft does not want Bluetooth to exist. IMO. Look, it enables small devices to communicate without the PC and to Microsoft, that is a NO-NO.
Bluetooth works great for lower powered devices like cell phones, PDA's, barcode scanners, GPS's, etc for a couple of reasons. It's really all about low power/battery powered devices. Use a handheld with WiFi and you'll get 2-3 hours of continuous use while Bluetooth gets you 6-8 hours of continous use. And sure Bluetooth is slower but is 100-500Kbps a deal killer? I've seen people try to use WiFi as a wireless solution only to fail because of the large battery needed to get through one business day. Anyway, 2 features of Bluetooth which make it needed/useful:
1) Bluetooth has a low range/low power spec so it can work at 2m( class 3 ) and draw single digit mA current or 10m( class 2 ) and draw 20-40 mA or even 100m( class 1 ) and draw in the high 70-120 mA like WiFi.
2) It provides a standard for these low powered devices to communicate with each other. Not just connecting but actually communicating such as with PAN.
And, look ma, NO WINDOWS! Microsoft supports Bluetooth like they support GNU/Linux. With one hand out and smiling while the the other hand holds a chain saw. Customers be damned.
You wouldn't believe how many MS Windows users I've run across who think they have to close the application down to start another one... It drives me nuts how little "training" people get about using a PC with a GUI-based OS.
Putting two monitors in front of them MIGHT get them to attempt to open 2 applications at one time. If it was 5 years ago, I'd probably doubt this but I've heard MS Windows can run more than one application acceptably today.;) Making that 2nd monitor more than just a place to show a desktop background.
I can only speak for myself and I'm bound by the laws of the USA. It might be a good idea then to move sourceforge offshore to protect against this possible threat. That still wouldn't allow those applications to be packaged into system sold/built here.
yes, and you have to got to court to show that. How many OSS projects will be doing THAT?
IMO, these patents Microsoft are filing for are all about going after GNU/Linux and it's OSS model. What I see happening is that as a OSS project grows and becomes popular, Microsoft will kill it in the courts. Effectively killing the competition. THAT is how they work.
In short, the PTO would rather the courts and affected parties handle the issue, and keep their own hands clean.
This appears to be how the USPTO works. Hand out patents like penny candy( only they get a few $100 for every one ) and let someone else figure out if the patent if really valid or not.
I think Microsoft knows this too and with its BILLIONS in cash, they can litigate almost everyone out of business. Especially the OSS projects.
The problem here seems to be that Microsoft is planning on using patents, simple ones, to attack OSS and the USPTO is helping. Just like SCO is banging its drum about IP when there's no proof of validity and is devised only as a stock price enhancer, Microsoft will use its patents to thwart OSS projects. Who can afford the court costs to fight these obvious patents? The USPTO is a major threat to OSS IMHO.
Anyways, to get around THIS patent, any IM application can device a single button which stays green when it receives the characters from a users input and turns red when a CR or LF character is recieved. Sure each character is still sent over the network but if it's buffered on every users machine, it can just be moved to the TALK window when the termination character is sent and thereby eliminating the whole message being sent out again when the sender has finished with the message.
This uses existing techniques and provides the notification mechanisms without seeing the senders thoughts as they are generated.
The OSS community needs a forum for debunking these patent applications. One where the USPTO trusts it for prior art inspections. Otherwise, Microsoft will litigate the OSS community into stagnation by killing OSS projects and improvements in the courts with bogus patents such as this one.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess you didn't know that Microsofts Pen for Windows was created as a response to the product by Go Inc. Read about in in the book "Startup". It tells how Go hired Microsoft to write apps for the Go product and all the Microsoft guys did was try to get Go to use Windows instead of their own pen optimized OS. Go finally told Microsoft to get out and Bill Gates publicly claims he invented pen computing and has Pen for Windows in the R&D lab. Then at Comdex, Microsoft holds up big signs listing all of Go Incs developers and a bunch of Windows developers are companies writing apps for Pen for Windows and that kills Go's market. DOS/Windows wasn't even capable of doing much more than handling pen taps but it was enough to kill off the company that created the market. The Newton was a spinoff from the original Go Inc project.
Kinda reminds us of how Microsoft did Java doesn't it?
I don't think there is any new company Microsoft is trying to kill this time but I do think that this is an attempt to see if there's a market between PDA's and the Desktop. WinCE is still a business flop for Microsoft and they surely can't go smaller/lighter than the PocketPC platforms. They can only go larger and that's where the Tablet comes in.
It's another MS-Bob IMHO. Though there is SOME use for it since there's always been a use for the tablet computer. Just not worth spending 10's of millions of dollars marketing it. And not large enough for so many hardware companies who fell for this latest Microsoft dance number.
LoB
No kidding. I've seen tablet computers as far back as the very early 1990's. They are not new or invented by Microsoft. There is a market for them though and it's been doing OK since it's really a niche market. No matter what Bill Gates says. Remember, "64 MB is enough for anybody" or something like that.
;)
IMHO, Bill G and gang are promoting the tablet because they've been having such a difficult time with WinCE. WinCE doesn't scale DOWN very well so they are attempting to create a market between the PDA and desktop. You can't park a Yugo in a shoebox... So the TablePC is reborn.
BTW, IBM had a laptop in the early/mid 1990's with a touchscreen which converted into a tablet and ran Pen for OS/2. I wonder how many years Microsoft is going to fund THIS current mass market flop? WinCE is a flop IMHO. It's been something like 7 years and still is not making a profit for Microsoft. I wonder why they didn't push MS-BOB like they are pushing this stuff? Remeber all those people walking around with MS-Bob ball caps one?
LoB
All the support going into the FuelCell projects is so that the current Energy Companies can:
1) maintain current profit margins now and in the future
2) make sure they are still the ones controlling the distribution
IMHO, this is the only reason why all the US auto manufacturers went from raising the Hybrid flag in late 2001 to following the Bush Administrations policy of raising the dream/flag of FuelCell technology and turning the Hybrid flag into a plaque they polish every now and then as the press requires.
The current Energy policies related to auto fuel are designed purely as a delay tactic to keep the pumps running AND NOT TO SLOW THE PUMPS. Hybrid technology was proven and shown to the US auto industry in 1994/95 by Rosen Motors and now Toyota is showing it in full production. That technology would REDUCE fuel consumption and is a threat to the Bush administration and it's partners.
Don't worry about the oil economy going away any time soon( 2 decades or more ). The political momentum is incredible. That is unless Toyota/Hybrids become a much larger market force. Maybe it too will see pressure from outside the US . Just as GNU/Linux is spreading all over the world at a good clip while in the US, it's a much slower movement?
LoB
yes, very much like that. It took them over a year to get that out too. I remember when I heard that Microsoft was going to release a JDBC driver for their dbase and though there must be some real pressure for them to do this. Then I read where they said it would be out the following year and the same quarter as the announcement...
Figures they'd drag their feet that long and still produce a half arsed product.
It still amazes me the people think we are freaks when we bring this stuff up. Microsoft has don't nothing in the last 20 years to show they are NOT anti-competition and anti-nonWindows.
Thanks for the reminder of the JDBC thing. I never knew it was poorly done also.
LoB
You've obviously not read this thread completely. I've already stated why I get the impression Microsoft is stalling with regards to Bluetooth support. Here it is again for you lazy people....
1) low power option which enables things smaller than MS Windows can fit on( PalmOS devices, phones, DMMs, etc )
2) the spec supports features which remove the PC from the picture. PAN for instance.
Everything Microsoft does is to protect it's monopoly, legal or illegal. Bluetooth does not help protect the Windows monopoly and enables devices smaller than Microsoft can shrink Windows to fit on. And those devices can end up cutting Windows out of the data/connectivity picture. IMHO, Microsoft hates the fact that people are keeping their data on their Palm Pilots and use the PC for backup. They want the PC to control the data to keep Windows in control. It's the way they work. Everything to save/protect Windows.
If stating that it appears Microsoft is dragging it's feet constitues bashing Microsoft then I am bashing Microsoft. BFD. It's not like this company hasn't done this dozens of times before, if not hundreds. Their monopoly hold on the desktop can slow adoption of products and standards. PERIOD. If you don't get this then please follow that piper to your left of that cliff.
LoB
Bluetooth is NOT a short range wireless spec. There is support in the spec for 100m range. That would be a Class 1 Bluetooth device. Class 2 has a 10m range and Class 3 has 2m range.
This is one falacy that seems to persist....
I'm not really sure why Bluetooth is a good kbd/mouse protocol. The keyboard and mouse don't leave the area( don't need discovery ) and no need for PAN either. The fact that it's "the best you can buy" probably has more to do with Logitech than the Bluetooth wireless protocols.
And why does a cell phone need long-range Bluetooth support? My handheld and headset have no problem connecting to my cell phone. I don't expect my phone to stay home while I use these on the road but I like that the phone can be on the seat, in pocket/purse, etc and I can still use it.
A convicted monopolist has alot to say about acceptance because they've already shown they will do anything to protect the monopoly. Firewire might have more to do with Intel bringing USB up against it. It was at a time when Intel killed the chipset market with a proprietary socket/bus and could tie USB into the Mobo while Firewire wasn't. That's another thread though and because both USB and Firewire were tied to the PC, I don't think Microsoft cared much either way. Except that Apple gets royalties( $.25 ) for FireWire....
LoB
Thank you. This is not a conspiracy theory and is more about Microsofts actions over 3+ years of foot dragging. Bluetooth devices require the infrasture support of the Bluetooth stack to work as it was intended.
How many were forced to purchase a MS Windows 98 machine because they wanted/needed USB support? Same for NT. Microsoft restricts infrastructure support to market particular products or to stall/kill particular products.
It seems Microsofts shipping of a Bluetooth kbd/mouse has worked to some extent. It has many thinking that Microsoft support Bluetooth and is not stalling it. They are a fantastic marketing company. The best ever. Too bad the public hasn't become any brighter in the past 15 years of the Microsoft illusionists.
LoB
Let me guess, you used a 3rd party Bluetooth stack( Belkin? ) and have it working? Had Microsoft been split into the OS company and the application company, we might see INFRASTRUCTURE features added to their OS quicker. It's been 2 years since MS said they'd put the Bluetooth Stack on Windows XP. Now if Microsoft really is a technology company, why does it take that long?
The survival of Bluetooth in the market will be not because of Microsoft but in spite of Microsoft. IMHO.
My guess at why Nokia phones don't work well with other Bluetooth devices is probably because of Ericssons position in the Bluetooth market and because the spec allowed Nokia to create their own PROFILE for use in the stack. Ericsson started the Bluetooth spec IIRC.
LoB
I think that OpenGL in the first versions of NT and Windows95 was a response to IBM building support for OpenGL into OS/2 in those days. I doubt if it was the other way around. Like you said, they couldn't get their proprietary system working so they felt OpenGL was the way to go in case 3D desktops/apps were going to take off.
Its not unlike when IBM showed Doom running in a window on OS/2( Comdex 1993 or 94 ) and then Microsoft started development to make sure there was a way for Windows to do the same. IBM DIVE brought about MS DirectX.
Remember, at that time, there were over 15 million OS/2 systems out there and IBM was selling a million copies of OS/2 per month in 1994/1995 transistion. Once the OS/2 threat was killed off, there wasn't any pressure to keep OpenGL in Windows and they could push their buggy proprietary replacement instead. IMHO.
LoB
you might want to read the first reply to my post. Support for the kbd/mouse is meaningless. It's how they support the Bluetooth stack. In Dec of 2001 they said they'd support Bluetooth in Windows XP in 2002. They then announced in Sept of 2002 that they'd be releasing a Bluetooth stack for Windows XP in the next 3-6 months. It was later said that users couldn't download the stack and could only get it with a Bluetooth product. THEN it was stated that PAN would not be supported.
If that's not dragging it's feet I don't know what is. One guy at Nokia producted a pretty good Bluetooth stack for GNU/Linux in his spare time. It doesn't take 2 years for a company like Microsoft to do this unless they really don't want to do it.
I've been watching Microsoft since the late 1980's. It's not that difficult to see what they are doing here. IMHO.
LoB
So Microsoft supports ethernet and therefore they support all protocols????? That doesn't hold water either. Without the court backed power of discovery, it's unlikely my opinions can be proven as fact. Heck, asking Bill Gates, on the stand, would be meaningless too.
You can certainly continue believing what you will but when it comes to Microsoft, what they do and how they do it means far more than what they say publicly. Joining a SIG by no means is a trustworthy statement of their support for the SIG . If you believe it is, I've got some great property in southern Florida that I'd like to sell to you.
LoB
I started considering this thread back when Microsoft publicly stated they were not going to be putting Bluetooth into Windows 2000 and later when they said it was going to take over 6 months to come out with a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse but that PAN would not be supported.
The way they dragged their feet, it just looked to much like the technology was something they didn't want to support but the media hype was forcing them too. Kinda like Suns Java only they aren't Window'izing Bluetooth. Just slowing it down.
Nothing has shown this concept to the incorrect. Your comment only shows it's more likely to be true.
LoB
Again, BFD. Microsoft also was a member of OMG but they fought CORBA tooth and nail. They will join any group to either stall the progress or at a minimum, keep an eye on where it's going.
With $50 Billion in cash, they could afford to pay someone to watch a heck of alot of the market. They went to court to keep a $1 license fee on SCO UNIX. Why, so they could keep track of sales. IMHO.
LoB
Microsoft does not support anything that's not tied to Windows. They even oppose anything that does connect to the PC and is in a market they want. There were some court documents that showed that Bill Gates wanted his developers to make sure MS OutLook wouldn't sync with Palm. It's well known if you've had your eyes open for even just a few years.
Where have you been the last 14 years?
LoB
so they can claim to support the protocols while only supporting it enough to keep an eye on what's going on. Not to mention the buzz-word effect it has and the competitions products required it.
I doubt very much you get anything but a wireless keyboard and mouse with Microsofts Bluetooth keyboard/mouse kit. Bluetooth is a standard protocol and when the full stack is supported, all kinds of other devices can play in the game. You only get a mouse and keyboard with Microsofts kit. BFD. It doesn't mean they are supporting the protocol and looks more like they don't want to support it because they won't provide a full stack.
IMHO.
LoB
As I've stated before, Microsoft does not want Bluetooth to exist. IMO. Look, it enables small devices to communicate without the PC and to Microsoft, that is a NO-NO.
Bluetooth works great for lower powered devices like cell phones, PDA's, barcode scanners, GPS's, etc for a couple of reasons. It's really all about low power/battery powered devices. Use a handheld with WiFi and you'll get 2-3 hours of continuous use while Bluetooth gets you 6-8 hours of continous use. And sure Bluetooth is slower but is 100-500Kbps a deal killer? I've seen people try to use WiFi as a wireless solution only to fail because of the large battery needed to get through one business day. Anyway, 2 features of Bluetooth which make it needed/useful:
1) Bluetooth has a low range/low power spec so it can work at 2m( class 3 ) and draw single digit mA current or 10m( class 2 ) and draw 20-40 mA or even 100m( class 1 ) and draw in the high 70-120 mA like WiFi.
2) It provides a standard for these low powered devices to communicate with each other. Not just connecting but actually communicating such as with PAN.
And, look ma, NO WINDOWS! Microsoft supports Bluetooth like they support GNU/Linux. With one hand out and smiling while the the other hand holds a chain saw. Customers be damned.
LoB
maybe it's time for everyone to send $20 to the Electronic Frontier Foundation and ask that it go to a Patent Protection department.
http://www.eff.org/
LoB
You wouldn't believe how many MS Windows users I've run across who think they have to close the application down to start another one... It drives me nuts how little "training" people get about using a PC with a GUI-based OS.
;) Making that 2nd monitor more than just a place to show a desktop background.
Putting two monitors in front of them MIGHT get them to attempt to open 2 applications at one time. If it was 5 years ago, I'd probably doubt this but I've heard MS Windows can run more than one application acceptably today.
LoB
valid points but are you willing to see if a letter from Microsoft lawyers is going to show up by implementing what they CLAIM is their IP?
LoB
I can only speak for myself and I'm bound by the laws of the USA. It might be a good idea then to move sourceforge offshore to protect against this possible threat. That still wouldn't allow those applications to be packaged into system sold/built here.
;/
Moving is not an option at this time.
LoB
what amazes me is that they filed this in Dec 2002 and in less than 10 months they were awarded the patent. AND there appears to be alot of prior art.
Mabye the USPTO needs to start getting emails, from us, pointing out the prior art.....
LoB
they have a patent number. I don't think it's pending any longer.
yes, and you have to got to court to show that. How many OSS projects will be doing THAT?
IMO, these patents Microsoft are filing for are all about going after GNU/Linux and it's OSS model. What I see happening is that as a OSS project grows and becomes popular, Microsoft will kill it in the courts. Effectively killing the competition. THAT is how they work.
LoB
This appears to be how the USPTO works. Hand out patents like penny candy( only they get a few $100 for every one ) and let someone else figure out if the patent if really valid or not.
I think Microsoft knows this too and with its BILLIONS in cash, they can litigate almost everyone out of business. Especially the OSS projects.
LoB
The problem here seems to be that Microsoft is planning on using patents, simple ones, to attack OSS and the USPTO is helping. Just like SCO is banging its drum about IP when there's no proof of validity and is devised only as a stock price enhancer, Microsoft will use its patents to thwart OSS projects. Who can afford the court costs to fight these obvious patents? The USPTO is a major threat to OSS IMHO.
Anyways, to get around THIS patent, any IM application can device a single button which stays green when it receives the characters from a users input and turns red when a CR or LF character is recieved. Sure each character is still sent over the network but if it's buffered on every users machine, it can just be moved to the TALK window when the termination character is sent and thereby eliminating the whole message being sent out again when the sender has finished with the message.
This uses existing techniques and provides the notification mechanisms without seeing the senders thoughts as they are generated.
The OSS community needs a forum for debunking these patent applications. One where the USPTO trusts it for prior art inspections. Otherwise, Microsoft will litigate the OSS community into stagnation by killing OSS projects and improvements in the courts with bogus patents such as this one.
LoB