4 ms·

It would be interesting if Google tweaked their Chromium licensing so that Edge couldn't use it. Then Microsoft wouldn't have a browser at all.

scarface74 4y ago
Or “we like open source software and ‘freedom’ as long as it is used by the right people in a way that I agree with”
CamperBob2 4y ago
[flagged]
- wkat4242 4y ago
  Wow all low-hanging fruit patent-troll type of stuff :( The patent system is so broken.
- kyle-rb 4y ago
  Most of these patent numbers seem to be incorrect; all the numbers except for the first one seem to point to unrelated patents. I was curious about the email one, but "7,536,726" points to a different Microsoft patent (also expired), and I couldn't find a patent with the name "System and method for providing remote access to electronic mail".
  - CamperBob2 4y ago
    I did wonder about the ethics of pasting a list derived from ChatGPT without checking them personally. Thanks for doing the legwork on that. What I'm finding (over the last few minutes of experimentation) is that patent references in ChatGPT are valid, but tend to have the wrong numbers associated with them. If you ask it to summarize the claims in a given patent, it will sometimes pull up the wrong patent. Interestingly, you can correct it with a suitable prompt -- see one example at https://i.imgur.com/EQrhFt8.png https://i.imgur.com/EQrhFt8.png -- at which point it will do the right thing or at least come close to it. Anyway, the point stands: there is only so much Google can do to stand up to Microsoft. Royalties in 2013 reached $2 billion ( https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-earns-2-billion-per-year-from-android-patent-royalties-2013-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-earns-2-billion-pe... ) and it's safe to say they didn't stop filing bullshit patents in 2013.
    - breakingcups 4y ago
      Don't you think it's unethical to spread misinformation like this without doing your due diligence in checking?
      - CamperBob2 4y ago
        Yep. But do you care to address the actual point, which is still correct even if a few patent numbers are wrong? Would it have been better not to mention specific patents at all?
lights0123 4y ago
Microsoft could just keep an independent fork—just match features at a slower pace. Google can't change the license of Blink, their renderer, since it's a fork of KDE's LGPL renderer.
- shp0ngle 4y ago
  gnu license is working as intended - helping… microsoft? I guess edit: but honestly, Google could go Apple open source way, making code changes in huge dumps that are impossible to integrate back. But I an not sure it’s worth the trouble.
wkat4242 4y ago
That's the weird thing about Microsoft expanding marketshare. If they'd actually succeed in capturing the majority of the market, there's a big chance Google would throw in the towel and then what??
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- AshamedCaptain 4y ago
  Then they stop all development. It already happened with IE6. Took a decade to decrown it even though for all intents and purposes it was a dead browser.
josephcsible 4y ago
And they wouldn't even need to stoop so low as to make it non-FOSS. Just making it GPLv3+ would probably do it.

scarface74 4y ago

Or “we like open source software and ‘freedom’ as long as it is used by the right people in a way that I agree with”

CamperBob2 4y ago

[flagged]

wkat4242 4y ago
Wow all low-hanging fruit patent-troll type of stuff :( The patent system is so broken.
kyle-rb 4y ago
Most of these patent numbers seem to be incorrect; all the numbers except for the first one seem to point to unrelated patents. I was curious about the email one, but "7,536,726" points to a different Microsoft patent (also expired), and I couldn't find a patent with the name "System and method for providing remote access to electronic mail".
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  I did wonder about the ethics of pasting a list derived from ChatGPT without checking them personally. Thanks for doing the legwork on that. What I'm finding (over the last few minutes of experimentation) is that patent references in ChatGPT are valid, but tend to have the wrong numbers associated with them. If you ask it to summarize the claims in a given patent, it will sometimes pull up the wrong patent. Interestingly, you can correct it with a suitable prompt -- see one example at https://i.imgur.com/EQrhFt8.png https://i.imgur.com/EQrhFt8.png -- at which point it will do the right thing or at least come close to it. Anyway, the point stands: there is only so much Google can do to stand up to Microsoft. Royalties in 2013 reached $2 billion ( https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-earns-2-billion-per-year-from-android-patent-royalties-2013-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-earns-2-billion-pe... ) and it's safe to say they didn't stop filing bullshit patents in 2013.
  - breakingcups 4y ago
    Don't you think it's unethical to spread misinformation like this without doing your due diligence in checking?
    - CamperBob2 4y ago
      Yep. But do you care to address the actual point, which is still correct even if a few patent numbers are wrong? Would it have been better not to mention specific patents at all?

lights0123 4y ago

Microsoft could just keep an independent fork—just match features at a slower pace. Google can't change the license of Blink, their renderer, since it's a fork of KDE's LGPL renderer.

shp0ngle 4y ago
gnu license is working as intended - helping… microsoft? I guess edit: but honestly, Google could go Apple open source way, making code changes in huge dumps that are impossible to integrate back. But I an not sure it’s worth the trouble.

wkat4242 4y ago

That's the weird thing about Microsoft expanding marketshare. If they'd actually succeed in capturing the majority of the market, there's a big chance Google would throw in the towel and then what??

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
AshamedCaptain 4y ago
Then they stop all development. It already happened with IE6. Took a decade to decrown it even though for all intents and purposes it was a dead browser.

josephcsible 4y ago

And they wouldn't even need to stoop so low as to make it non-FOSS. Just making it GPLv3+ would probably do it.