On TechRepublic: 10 lame phrases to cut from your resume
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 35 of 146:
Next »
« Previous
Thanks
I am not sure about the initial term of 4 years then if the fees continue to be paid up to 20 years. That part of USC 35 seemed clear, a patent is good for 20 years. The extension I was talking about is an addition 14 years, as long as it is applied for before the original patent expires. This seems to be the same thing that has been in the news regarding many drugs and the drug companies extending the patent, with others saying that 20 years is long enough.

But also I am not a lawyer and I could be way off base.
Posted by: richhayes   Posted on: 06/13/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Oke, now let's tackle the double click and todo list  NemesisNL | 06/11/04
And then there's..  d_jedi | 06/11/04
The Atari ST used FAT in 1985.  Jomo_z | 06/12/04
first use restrictions apply as well /..../  oldskool | 06/14/04
MS Up To Usual Lies & Manipulation  claytonmuhler | 06/14/04
This is Bad  Kamakazii | 06/11/04
No, invalid patents are bad  IT_User | 06/11/04
Agreed - if there is nothing wrong with the patent...  Confused by religion | 06/11/04
Moreover, Microsoft should be pleased  IT_User | 06/11/04
This is Good?  NemesisNL | 06/12/04
I agree, copyrights are software's domain  voska | 06/14/04
FAT isn't a software patent  A.Sinic | 06/14/04
ah, that would be the zero vs. one encoding not the meaning  oldskool | 06/14/04
Let's follow this a bit further  IT_User | 06/11/04
Patents already undermined  CobraA1 | 06/11/04
How bad is this Kama?  Still Lynn | 06/12/04
Patent  richhayes | 06/12/04
PubPat wasn't around before  IT_User | 06/12/04
How many years was it Johnny?  Still Lynn | 06/12/04
Good Question  richhayes | 06/13/04
you must work for MS  prrawlins | 06/14/04
look at the issues  ryusen | 06/14/04
Microsoft simply cannot compete fairly  Xunil_Sierutuf | 06/11/04
False claims by large companies should be charged much higher  PhilippeV | 10/07/05
FAT owned by Microsoft?  sordito | 06/11/04
FAT = File Allocation Table  Fred Fredrickson | 06/12/04
The Atari ST used FAT, the same as MS-DOS  Jomo_z | 06/12/04
Patents last 37 year not 17 anymore  voska | 06/14/04
This article is not about FAT itself  A.Sinic | 06/14/04
So it's not FAT but VFAT extension  PhilippeV | 10/07/05
One other factor  bidemytime | 06/11/04
You're refering to trademarks  IT_User | 06/12/04
Extension  richhayes | 06/12/04
No, you're correct  IT_User | 06/12/04
Thanks  richhayes | 06/13/04
From what I read on the net  voska | 06/14/04
and that is the sad part itsn't it?  ryusen | 06/14/04
Thanks for the information  bidemytime | 06/14/04
This is NOT a make or break issue for Linux  George Mitchell | 06/11/04
You are being very short sighted.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/12/04
I don't think MS will be so short sighted...  Michael Kelly | 06/12/04
Why I disagree...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/12/04
But underlying it all  IT_User | 06/12/04
Doesn't matter, time is the enemy.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/13/04
I suppose they can sue  IT_User | 06/13/04
re: IT User  ryusen | 06/14/04
Inventive step (obviousness) invalidation  Anton Philidor | 06/14/04
Are you trying to bait me?  George Mitchell | 06/12/04
Not a bit, I agree with you.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/13/04
I wouldn't use Samba then  voska | 06/14/04
I don't expect WinFS to be different from NTFS.  doe_z | 06/12/04
I don't think you understand WinFS.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/13/04
Doesn't have to be open source.  doe_z | 06/13/04
You should read a little more on what WinFS is!  B.O.F.H. | 06/13/04
I don't see that as problem  voska | 06/14/04
Yes, but I need it to share files with Windows users via USB flash.  DonnieBoy | 06/12/04
Okay, but  IT_User | 06/12/04
Yes, but people come to my office with a file on a NTFS flash memory stick  DonnieBoy | 06/12/04
has ms ever abused it's fat patent?  V Sanders | 06/13/04
Maybe confused  IT_User | 06/14/04
I don't see the open office problem  voska | 06/14/04
exactly  NemesisNL | 06/12/04
License  richhayes | 06/12/04
Spot on.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/12/04
Two points  IT_User | 06/12/04
Microsoft property  richhayes | 06/13/04
Not so small population  FirstNLastN | 06/13/04
License  richhayes | 06/14/04
everyone is affected by restrictions, although only a few hit them  oldskool | 06/14/04
Important, not necessarily vulnerable  Anton Philidor | 06/14/04
Don't get me wrong ...  George Mitchell | 06/12/04
Shutting down Linux  Anton Philidor | 06/14/04
Dream on Anton!  George Mitchell | 06/14/04
Guess who has the patents?  George Mitchell | 06/14/04
The possible and the real  Anton Philidor | 06/14/04
Use Open Source instead of Microsoft  voska | 06/14/04
Microsoft file patent faces exam  Ghost_Rider116@... | 06/12/04
Because open source didn't need it before.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/12/04
It's not about "open source"  IT_User | 06/12/04
But this will unravel the proprietaries, not open source..  Jeff Spicoli | 06/12/04
Naw, can you say cross license?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/13/04
haha  V Sanders | 06/13/04
Or ignore it altogether  IT_User | 06/13/04
if FAT and double-click are MS's strongest IP then OSS is laughing!  oldskool | 06/14/04
FAT and SAMBA...  swoopee | 06/12/04
Don't know about that  IT_User | 06/12/04
So?  Michael Kelly | 06/12/04
Oh yeah, you're right  IT_User | 06/12/04
Hmmm, how does Samba serve a Windows file?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/12/04
What exactly is a "Windows FAT based file"?  Michael Kelly | 06/12/04
True, only if it's html.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/12/04
I presume that you are trying to be funny!  B.O.F.H. | 06/12/04
WebDAV (or WebFolders as MS calls it) makes web based fileserver  oldskool | 06/14/04
Samba inmplements the SMB protocol.  B.O.F.H. | 06/12/04
FAT is a physical device related data structure, not a wire protocol  oldskool | 06/14/04
FAT and SAMBA not the same  voska | 06/14/04
SaMBa and FAT are unrelated.  B.O.F.H. | 06/13/04
SAMBA's SMB/CIFS is public ... MS can't lock out its use  oldskool | 06/14/04
Ironic about the Patent Office  IT_User | 06/12/04
One easy way around this even if the patent is upheld  Michael Kelly | 06/12/04
Exactly, the downside to protectionism is irrelevance  oldskool | 06/14/04
I knew there was a solution  voska | 06/14/04
Just like the Eolas crap, all patents need better review  FilledOut | 06/12/04
And so it begins... the long road ahead.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/12/04
It's a long road for everyone...  tic swayback | 06/12/04
I agree completely.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/12/04
You can't fight this one "tooth and nail"  IT_User | 06/12/04
Delays, delays, delays.  Michael Kelly | 06/13/04
And after the delay, we go to court.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/13/04
Do the people doing the review...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/13/04
This is counter to Microsoft's principles  IT_User | 06/13/04
I just tossed a bone out to see who would grab it.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/13/04
You got me, but  IT_User | 06/13/04
Even MS has limits (not financial) as to the amount of jhustice it can buy!  oldskool | 06/14/04
Sue over a denied patent?  IT_User | 06/14/04
Linux will smash through this like it is not even there!  Jeff Spicoli | 06/12/04
Cute rant, but far from accurate.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/12/04
Plus  richhayes | 06/12/04
You're assuming  IT_User | 06/12/04
.  Jeff Spicoli | 06/12/04
Question  richhayes | 06/13/04
legal and enforcable are different issues, burden on patent holder!  oldskool | 06/14/04
Sound like you're confusing issues  IT_User | 06/14/04
patent rights are lost all the time  oldskool | 06/14/04
Are you saying dual boot FAT is licensed?  oldskool | 06/14/04
This has nothing to do with Linux  voska | 06/14/04
well said  ryusen | 06/14/04
Microsoft suck !  judgesinel@... | 06/12/04
What a well thought out and articulated post.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/12/04
And..  Jeff Spicoli | 06/12/04
Don't worry, the smarter folks got it.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/13/04
That sounds a lot like LinuxLover74.  Linux_Developer | 06/15/04
FAT is pattented?  michael-t | 06/12/04
Yes, sat that the patent office lets things like this through.  DonnieBoy | 06/12/04
Dang, and I wanted to buy that patent  FilledOut | 06/13/04
ms has moved on to  V Sanders | 06/13/04
Microsoft Patents  flbas | 06/14/04
DMCA  flbas | 06/14/04
Not quite right  voska | 06/14/04
"file system innovation "  BitTwiddler | 06/14/04
Why Microsoft Will Win In The End  RobertoSalazar | 06/14/04
I don't know about that  Unicornrider | 06/14/04
Wasn't Mickey covered undr Copyright law, not Patent law  oldskool | 06/14/04
Technically no but  voska | 06/14/04
my understanding is the code is Copyright, the design is PAtent  oldskool | 06/16/04
Scandalous, and outraging  PhilippeV | 10/07/05

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement