3 ms·

No, sorry. His patent is ridiculous. It's trolling – cast a wide net and set the cruise control. Sue and hope you get lucky. You might make a buck off the broke

by tumult 17y ago

No, sorry. His patent is ridiculous. It's trolling – cast a wide net and set the cruise control. Sue and hope you get lucky. You might make a buck off the broken system! Blatant example of why software patents should be abolished in general.

ErrantX 17y ago
can you explain what happened to me: the only story I read is that he showed MS his patented tech in 1993 and they turned it down and re-implemented it themselves. Im guessing that is in no way the full unbiased story from what your saying; got any good links?
- tumult 17y ago
  He had a patent granted in 1996 that covers: product activation, shareware, and machine ID locking. There's not really much else to say, it's idiotic. The Age has no idea of how much damage this would have done to an already battered set of affairs, had the ruling been let to stand. It's shameful they're propping this moron up onto a pedestal.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    Cool thanks. I totally agree with you. Though I wonder if there is the argument that he is using this patent right... if he did show his specific work to Microsoft and they subsequently implemented it themselves would you not agree he was ripped off by them? Now, if he had this patent and was suing any old company left right and centre I would join you in calling him a moron (he could well take that approach in the future - then he would be a moron). Right now I am seeing a tiny sliver of validity in his claim (if what appears to have happened is true). I'd argue in this case the patent is doing what it is supposed too (though the outcome didn't go quite right).
    - tumult 17y ago
      It doesn't matter who he targets with it, it's completely wrong. It sets the wrong precedent in every way. Why should it be "ok" for him to target Microsoft with it, but not some smaller developer? There's no validity to his claim, this "news report" is totally biased. He patented stuff that had been going on since the 80s and then immediately turned to sue the biggest company he could find, hoping to win a payout. The jury sided with the "little guy" and the judge threw out the verdict based on their bias. (I think that's what happened, anyway.) I'm assuming he can appeal, but I hope it he doesn't fare any better this time.
      - ErrantX 17y ago
        Im confused; dont you think he has a right to feel cross Microsoft screwed him (if that is what happened)? The rest of what your saying is irrelevant (I agree: patents used in a broad way are evil) because it appears he has a specific complaint against a specific company :) not a general attempt to enforce his/a patent? I get the impression you haven't read the background? It does appear MS might well have done an injustice by him in '93. If that is what he is trying to right; then I guess I support him. If he is, as you suggesting, just trying to sue his patent all over the place (which I see no evidence for yet) then I am with you totally. I worry that the patent trolling leaves cases like this, where there seems the makings of a reasonable complaint, out high and dry :(

by tumult 17y ago

ErrantX 17y ago

can you explain what happened to me: the only story I read is that he showed MS his patented tech in 1993 and they turned it down and re-implemented it themselves. Im guessing that is in no way the full unbiased story from what your saying; got any good links?

tumult 17y ago
He had a patent granted in 1996 that covers: product activation, shareware, and machine ID locking. There's not really much else to say, it's idiotic. The Age has no idea of how much damage this would have done to an already battered set of affairs, had the ruling been let to stand. It's shameful they're propping this moron up onto a pedestal.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Cool thanks. I totally agree with you. Though I wonder if there is the argument that he is using this patent right... if he did show his specific work to Microsoft and they subsequently implemented it themselves would you not agree he was ripped off by them? Now, if he had this patent and was suing any old company left right and centre I would join you in calling him a moron (he could well take that approach in the future - then he would be a moron). Right now I am seeing a tiny sliver of validity in his claim (if what appears to have happened is true). I'd argue in this case the patent is doing what it is supposed too (though the outcome didn't go quite right).
  - tumult 17y ago
    It doesn't matter who he targets with it, it's completely wrong. It sets the wrong precedent in every way. Why should it be "ok" for him to target Microsoft with it, but not some smaller developer? There's no validity to his claim, this "news report" is totally biased. He patented stuff that had been going on since the 80s and then immediately turned to sue the biggest company he could find, hoping to win a payout. The jury sided with the "little guy" and the judge threw out the verdict based on their bias. (I think that's what happened, anyway.) I'm assuming he can appeal, but I hope it he doesn't fare any better this time.
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      Im confused; dont you think he has a right to feel cross Microsoft screwed him (if that is what happened)? The rest of what your saying is irrelevant (I agree: patents used in a broad way are evil) because it appears he has a specific complaint against a specific company :) not a general attempt to enforce his/a patent? I get the impression you haven't read the background? It does appear MS might well have done an injustice by him in '93. If that is what he is trying to right; then I guess I support him. If he is, as you suggesting, just trying to sue his patent all over the place (which I see no evidence for yet) then I am with you totally. I worry that the patent trolling leaves cases like this, where there seems the makings of a reasonable complaint, out high and dry :(