[carltech]

Isn't it the nature of Microsoft to take what it wants and sell or use it for BIG money. I mean they got Q Dos(quick and dirty OS), a rip off of CPM, for $50,000 and sold it as DOS for millions.

Microsoft has always been about making money off others hard work and innovation, even if they do improve upon the idea.

I love some of Microsoft's stuff but they do tend to do what they want when they want, like making a customized XML. Why not just use regular XML?

This post has been edited by carltech: 03 September 2009 - 08:43 AM

[Pwn]

Tom9729, on 2 Sep, 2009 - 08:29 AM, said:

Bladescope, on 2 Sep, 2009 - 06:34 AM, said:

Greed is apparantly all that's left in the big businesses these days.

Has anyone else noticed that all it is now is people suing people for the most rediculous reasons?

If they noticed the copyright breach before, why did they wait so long to take action?

I agree with you in general but not in this case, please take the time to get educated before just posting yet another knee-jerk reaction.

You're saying Microsoft is a special case then? Why? Is it because of their history? Should that make any difference? Wouldn't that be discrimination and/or harrassment?

The point being made, whether you think it's a knee-jerk reaction or not, is that i4i knew about Microsoft's use of their software, and apparently refused Microsoft's offers to buy it. I believe it was stated that Microsoft was giving restitution to the company for its use of their technology, and for several years, so why all of a sudden, after Microsoft spent much time and resources ingraining the technology into their product does the owning company decide to press charges? And why such an extreme ruling? Why not just say to microsoft, make the effort to disable the option and remove it from any subsequent releases of their product? It can be nothing but a strategic move no matter how you look at it. Give Microsoft as big a hit as possible and name your price on a settlement.

i4i may be in the legal right, but where's the ethics? To be cliche about it, two wrongs doesn't make a right. Sure, ok, ethics is a gray area for some, the world's not black and white. So why didn't i4i press their case in Canada or even Washington? Why in some location that has nothing in common for either company? That answer is as simple or as complex as you want to make it.

This post has been edited by Pwn: 05 September 2009 - 11:24 PM

[syfran]

Pwn, on 5 Sep, 2009 - 10:05 PM, said:

Tom9729, on 2 Sep, 2009 - 08:29 AM, said:

Bladescope, on 2 Sep, 2009 - 06:34 AM, said:

Greed is apparantly all that's left in the big businesses these days.

Has anyone else noticed that all it is now is people suing people for the most rediculous reasons?

If they noticed the copyright breach before, why did they wait so long to take action?

I agree with you in general but not in this case, please take the time to get educated before just posting yet another knee-jerk reaction.

You're saying Microsoft is a special case then? Why? Is it because of their history? Should that make any difference? Wouldn't that be discrimination and/or harrassment?

The point being made, whether you think it's a knee-jerk reaction or not, is that i4i knew about Microsoft's use of their software, and apparently refused Microsoft's offers to buy it. I believe it was stated that Microsoft was giving restitution to the company for its use of their technology, and for several years, so why all of a sudden, after Microsoft spent much time and resources ingraining the technology into their product does the owning company decide to press charges? It can be nothing but a strategic move no matter how you look at it.

i4i may be in the legal right, but where's the ethics? To be cliche about it, two wrongs doesn't make a right. Sure, ok, ethics is a gray area for some, the world's not black and white. So why didn't i4i press their case in Canada or even Washington? Why in some location that has nothing in common for either company? That answer is as simple as you want to make it.

woot go i4i !!!!

* just noticed... i4i... i 4 i...eye for eye. Maybe microsoft did something to piss them off an this is revenge?

[Tom9729]

Pwn, on 6 Sep, 2009 - 01:05 AM, said:

You're saying Microsoft is a special case then? Why? Is it because of their history? Should that make any difference? Wouldn't that be discrimination and/or harrassment?

No.

I agree that greed is rampant in big businesses. I agree that people sue for ridiculous things. I did not say that Microsoft was a "special case", but they like to play with fire (software patents) and it's about time they got burned.

Please don't make me explain every one of my posts like this.

[Pwn]

If your posts are ambiguous, then you should be ready to explain. IT is not exactly in the field of mystic arts, after all. And, everything you've posted still seems to point out that Microsoft deserved what they got and that that makes it ok and even expected.

This post has been edited by Pwn: 06 September 2009 - 04:58 PM

[ccubed]

If Microsoft has been using this Custom XML for such a long time, I can't imagine that it's still within the statute of limitations for i4i to sue. There's a reason most times you have a certain period to sue someone. Still, I guess if the case was accepted, the statute hadn't been passed.

As an aside, this is the problem with giving any kind of technological patent. Can you patent the computer? Yes. Can you patent C++? I think so, it's specific enough. Can you patent code? No!

Therein lies the problem. The patent office allows things through in the technological realm that are 'universal,' such as the page up/down functionality - Anybody could code this. If I was a patent officer, any technological patent would automatically make me assume 'bullshit' until proven otherwise. I imagine if they took the time to really read through these patents and got someone who REALLY understood what they were trying to patent, they would realize how hard it is to prove that a specific thing is so different and specific as to warrant a patent. I mean hell, if someone could patent XML, Imagine the money involved. Not only do a majority of websites use it, most OSes and programs will use it to store information. Settings? XML. Song Data? XML. So on and so forth.

I really think that we should forget about the cases and really look at the primary problem. That is, the patenting of general technological procedures.

[s3thst4]

Pwn, on 15 Aug, 2009 - 05:37 AM, said:

My recent PC Pro Newsletter had an article about how Microsoft is court ordered to stop selling MS Word due to XML copywright infringement. Has anybody seen this and what do you think about it? Is this just somebody trying to make some money off the giant and why is XML copywrighted? Isn't it a protocol used on nearly every modern computer? Wouldn't XML be like public domain? I've never heard of anybody else being sued over it.

I've never really understood all the copywright bs. I mean, something like XML would likely be created by an standards association and not a company or individual. On top of that, the people who are trying to enforce their copywright never seem to pursue it unless there's money involved. I mean, seriously, if you're going to enforce it, enforce it at all times. To me, this is greed personified and blatant. Where's the consistency? Where's the ethics?

Quick Edit: Further reading on this tells me Microsoft isn't the only company affected, it would include any software that is based on XML, which is pretty much all the Office Suite makers, even Open Office. Microsoft had the biggest pockets which is why they are in court. Canadian company i4i is coming out with an office product of their own, and has owned the patent on XML since 1998. They had no problem with other's use of XML until they decide to profit on it. All of a sudden, they have a product and a lawsuit? I'd be willing to bet their product was thrown together in the past year, when they started feeling the effects of a lagging economy. I can just hear somebody in a boardroom saying, Microsoft will keep us afloat.

Who are the REAL pirates?

Copyrighted*