|
|
|
| Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 12:45 PM EST |
I wonder when those patents were issued. Back in the '90s, I was using two apps
on OS/2, Faxworks and Post Road Mailer. These apps were designed to work
together, so that faxes could be sent & received via email and received
emails could even cause a fax to be sent. This is coming up on 20 years or so.
Seems to me, that if that company had patents that predated those apps, then the
patent should have expired by now. Someone should beat the patent office over
the head with a clue stick to teach them that doing something over the Internet
does not make a new invention, particularly when it's already being done
elsewhere.
BTW, at my work many years ago, I had some involvement with a fax server,
running on a VAX 6000, that customers could use to send out faxes from email.
This goes back over 20 years too.
---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 03:20 PM EST |
Article link.
It would be interesting to see someone call
it the application store rather then using the abbreviation app store. I don't
agree at all with anyone being able to lay claim to a well known abbreviation
(or even a common phrase) trademark or otherwise. And I think the Law is
seriously wrong for allowing it.
However, if someone did use the full use
of application store and Apple targeted them for trade mark or otherwise
infringement - I'm also of the humble opinion that it would be crystal clear
Apple is deliberately trolling and raising (what the Courts should view as)
frivolous lawsuits.
Too bad Apple couldn't be more creative and "invent"
their own abbreviation for what (I think) was their original intent: a shortened
form of Apple Store. I could easily be wrong, perhaps Apple really did try and
trademark application store. I'm of the opinion that the Law itself should
consider that not possible due to basic language use. It would be like
trademarking the word "restaurant" and expecting the entirety of society to stop
using a common word.
Too bad it didn't dawn on their marketing group that
a version of their Stock symbol - APL - would have been far better to trademark.
They would be facing far less confusion over whether or not someone was just
using a well known acronym rather than trying to "steal Apple's ideas". Of
course if APL was too close too some society's use of an abbreviation for
application, then just use the full word for the brand name: Apple! It's only
two letters and one syllable longer.
Another software store that called
itself "Apple Store" = trademark infringement.
A fruit vendor calling
itself apple store = not trademark infringement.
Easy - and saves tons of
Apple's money on such Legal enforcement (whether an actual Lawsuit is instigated
or not).
I can just imagine Apple's Legal team in the meeting that
decided what to call the store thinking:
Boo Ya! Billable hours
climb!
All the while they say out loud:
I can't see a problem with
trademarking App Store!
Of course - another alternative is as outlined
above: simply no one at Apple realized the can of worms inherent in choosing
that name.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 05:08 PM EST |
Ubuntu operating system
comes to Android
Nice to see the "virus-free"
message:
...In many cases these are older machines which benefit from
the fact it is less demanding on computer power than Windows
- and is
virus-free.---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 08:02 PM EST |
|
Preliminary EU Parliament Report Published by M-CAM
Here's a hint
for anyone who reads the article and clicks on the link for the full report: The
link downloads a file with extension ".obj", at least in my browser. Save it as
or rename it to ".pdf" to be able to read it properly.
For the report M-CAM
looked up about half million patents issued by the US PTO that are in categories
such as business methods and software that in theory cannot be patented in the
EU, and for each one searched for equivalent EU patents. Finding too many could
be an indication that the EPO is being too loose enforcing their criteria. Here
are the "preliminary conclusions" from the report:
The import of the
table above is that close onto half a million US patents have been issued in
subject matter areas that are under tighter constraints in Europe.
Notwithstanding those constraints, European equivalents approaching a quarter of
a million documents ‐ 47 percent of the issuances identified in selected
US classification codes ‐ have been issued or published by EPO since the
beginning of 2009.
Many of those European equivalents have been pursued
under exemptions to patentability restrictions
developed by EPO and member state
courts. Most striking is the scale of the lack of transparency in
EPO’s outputs.
Despite the patentability restrictions stated in the European Patent Convention,
EPO has
been very aggressive in its actions, whether or not it reflects the
intent of the European Parliament.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 08:36 PM EST |
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/
0
1/03/microsoft_claims_goog
l
e_undermining_winphone/, based on
http://blogs.technet.
com/b/microsoft_on_the_iss
ues/archive/20
13/01/02/still-seeking-resolution-to-s
earch-competition-
issues.aspx.
Are Microsoft going for
anti-trust FUD because a company who
they are actively trying to harm won't
give them privileged
access that they are not obliged to provide?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Oh my: That's hilarious! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 09:03 PM EST
- Microsoft says Google trying to use tricks from the MS book - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 09:46 PM EST
- Irony = Microsoft complaining about so called anti trust issues. n/t - Authored by: Kilz on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 11:31 PM EST
- How pitiful! Microsoft must be desperate - Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 12:39 AM EST
- Microsoft says Google trying to undermine Windows Phone - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 01:04 AM EST
- I've got some lovely Boot Black that the Pot can use - Authored by: SirHumphrey on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 07:23 AM EST
- A perspective on MS not developing IE for Linux and BSD - Authored by: mcinsand on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 07:48 AM EST
- Microsoft finds something they can do better than Google - Authored by: bugstomper on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 07:54 AM EST
- Microsoft says Google trying to undermine Windows Phone - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 07:58 AM EST
- "Google continues to prevent..." - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 12:33 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 01:09 AM EST |
While this is not a News Pick (yet), it is right
on topic
with the current discussion...
Earlier today, Microsoft’s
Vice President
Dave Heiner made a post criticizing the FTC’s lax response
to
the issues and lambasting Google for intentionally
harming its competition. In
the piece, Heiner claimed that
Microsoft had recently received word that Google
instructed
YouTube not to “enable a first-class YouTube experience on
Windows
Phones.”
Clearly Google is "intentionally harming its
competition" when it won't make apps for them! Shame on you,
Google! You
should be helping Microsoft - giving them a
hand up, after they have been so
nice to you. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: argee on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 04:21 AM EST |
I always thought Mr. Rochkind was a good man with a bad
portfolio/employer. This review is pretty good.
---
--
argee[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
