|
Authored by: tiger99 on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:20 PM EDT |
Well, the Linux API is based on POSIX, which is a published standard, although I
don't know what its terms of use are. It could also be considered to be based on
xBSD, which is unencumbered as far as we can see. However,if someone (SCO?
(only kidding!) Attachmate? Maybe....) managed to claim ownership, it would also
kill off Apple, as iOS is BSD based to an extent. And, some *nix APIs are found
in the Redmond trashware. It would kill the entire industry, but only in the US,
and would necessitate immediate government intervention. But that AT&T vs
BSDI (correct me if I have the name wrong) settlement almost certainly kills off
any hope of action on *nix APIs by anyone. I am not sure which other APIs are
truly vital to the cloud. The network protocols seem to be public domain, or
nearly so, and any application programming languages can always be replaced by
something else.There are bound to be workarounds. Java is not needed, nor is the
trashware .Net. I just don't see any single point at which the cloud is
vulnerable legally, where there are not already umpteem workarounds. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 07:07 PM EDT |
Ginny LaRoe well-written
piece. She is an exclusively law/court reporter, as opposed to the other
technology journalists. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 12:58 PM EDT |
The Federal District basically granted a motion to ask the Eastern District to
reconsider but then explained how they could avoid really severing and
especially transferring the cases to other districts.
"In exercising its discretion, the district court should keep in mind that
even if joinder is not permitted under Rule 20, the district court has
considerable discretion to consolidate cases for discovery and for trial under
Rule 42 where venue is proper and there is only “a common ques-tion of law or
fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a); see 9A Wright et al., supra, § 2382 (“[T]he
existence of a common question by itself is enough to permit consolidation under
Rule 42(a), even if the claims arise out of independent transac-tions.”). Common
pretrial issues of claim construction and patent invalidity may also be
adjudicated together through the multidistrict litigation procedures of 28
U.S.C. § 1407. See, e.g., In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig.,"
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jvillain on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 02:45 PM EDT |
This has got to be one of the most fascinating stories I have ever read about
the current spate of Tech Wars. First you have the head line
quote.
Judge scolds Microsoft and Motorola for ‘hubris’ and
arrogance in patent case Hubris? Isn't this the judge that decided
US law trumps German law in Germany?
Then there is this which when you
combine it with some of the comments from Judge Alsup shows the judiciary must
be getting really frustrated with the non-sense from these companies.
“The court is well aware that it is being played as a pawn in a
global industry-wide business negotiation,” said U.S. District Judge James
Robart at the conclusion of the
hearing.
Then.
Jenner said of Microsoft, “They
preferred litigation, for strategic reasons, over engaging with
Motorola.” Saw that one coming.
Microsoft contends
that Motorola made an unreasonable demand when it sought royalties of 2.25
percent on sales of products including Xbox 360 and Windows PCs in exchange for
rights to Motorola video and wireless patents considered essential to industry
standards. Is it just me or does this sound like the company that
makes more money from Andoid than they do from their own phone OS whining about
being trolled? For real?
Link to the story
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 07:53 PM EDT |
Could anything be more obviously a concept?
"method and apparatus for resolving data references in generated code” and
“symbolic reference”?
Obviously "symbolic" manipulation is not a subject for patents... but
either language or mathematics. And since this is for a mathematical interpreter
then it is mathematical...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|