A Brief Explanation of Microsoft's Anti-Google Patent FUD

Re: A Brief Explanation of Microsoft's Anti-Google Patent FUD by kenjackson on Saturday August 06, 2011 @10:19AM (#2853879)

You gotta love the downvotes, with no actual argument against it. Heck, I'd even love a post to show that I'm violating some HN ettiquette (maybe there's ettiquette on HN now that its frowned upon trying to use data to back up your claims?). I suspect this has more to do with ideology/fanboyism than actual content, but I'd love to be proven wrong.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re: A Brief Explanation of Microsoft's Anti-Google Patent FUD by spot on Saturday August 06, 2011 @02:24PM (#2854525)

actually if you look at the patents (not the trademark claims), they are not "mobile". Touchscreen != mobile. IM != mobile. Etc.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re: A Brief Explanation of Microsoft's Anti-Google Patent FUD by nitrogen on Saturday August 06, 2011 @07:23PM (#2855160)

From your first post: There's no reason why Android shouldn't have built up similar IP protection in this time. This is why I say whoever ran their IP strategy should be shown the door. This is a firing offense to find yourself in a position where the only way to protect yourself is not to assert your own IP, but to have to resort to buying IP you didn't create.

This is one of the many things that I (and probably many others) find fundamentally broken with the patent system. If I'm creating my own mobile operating system from the ground up, I shouldn't have to patent anything if I don't want to. Actual innovation comes in the form of lines of code, not numbers of patents. "IP" as you put it is orthogonal to the actual productive work of a company.

Patents, in my view, should be used strictly to prevent a competitor from producing a direct ripoff of a highly specific invention.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re: A Brief Explanation of Microsoft's Anti-Google Patent FUD by tedunangst on Saturday August 06, 2011 @10:34AM (#2853921)

You don't seem to understand. Apple is, by definition, a patent troll. Therefore, whatever it is that they are doing is, by definition, patent trolling. Hope that clears things up.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re: A Brief Explanation of Microsoft's Anti-Google Patent FUD by mambodog on Saturday August 06, 2011 @10:53AM (#2853965)

I would have thought "patent troll" typically describes patent owners who produce no actual products, and only hold patents with the intention of extracting money from others. Apple clearly does produce actual products.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re: A Brief Explanation of Microsoft's Anti-Google Patent FUD by tedunangst on Saturday August 06, 2011 @12:22PM (#2854209)

Too subtle, I guess.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re: A Brief Explanation of Microsoft's Anti-Google Patent FUD by burgerbrain on Saturday August 06, 2011 @02:00PM (#2854460)

I Vote down poorly formatted walls of text, regardless of contents. If I can't read it without my eyes bleeding, then it isn't any use to me.

Most important is visually indicating in some fashion what text you are quoting and which text you have written yourself.

http://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc

[ Parent | on HN ]