[clue-talk] Microsoft Claims 235 Patents Violated

[Angelo Bertolli]

dperkins at frii.com wrote:
> According to the constitution, a patent must be useful and non-obvious. 
> IF you have seen some of the patents over the last 200 years, I doubt that
> useful has ever been used to determine a patent.  Non-obvious is a bit
> harder, or should be.  What is non-obvious to a layman might be very
> obvious to an expert.
>   
Prior instances of the "invention" should help, right?


> Companies have sued users before for patent violations.  Ford wanted to
> sell cars to the masses.  Cadillac et al. wanted to sell to the rich, and
> they owned patents Ford needed.  They refused to cooperate with Ford, so
> he just used the patents.  They sued Ford and the case went on for years. 
> Then they decided to sue the users.  That infuriated the public, and
> incidentally, the judge.  The court ruled in favor of Ford.  I don't know
> the reasoning used by the judge, or if an appeal went to the Supreme
> Court.
I think MS plays their cards way too close to their chest to ever sue an 
average person.  If they sue an "end-user" it will only be companies.


-- 
Angelo Bertolli
[Tech http://bitfreedom.com | Gaming http://heroesonly.com]