On Thursday 22 February 2007, Res wrote:

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Gene Heskett wrote:

...

On Thursday 22 February 2007, jim tate wrote:

...

How will this affect Linux using MP3

http://us.rd.yahoo.com/finance/external/cbsm/SIG=12qc5oi18/*http://ww w.m arketwatch.com/news/story/microsoft-ordered-pay-alcatel-lucent-15/sto ry. aspx?guid=%7B1DD3996C%2D8037%2D4528%2D9203%2DA612C9AD2564%7D&siteid=y hoo &dist=yhoo

I doubt it will have any long term effect, as IMO the suite was baseless in the first place, and now we've had a died in the wool, red white & blue judge who probably whistles yandee doodle while trimming his roses in the back yard make a ruling that on the face of it, goes against everything we know about MP3, eg Fahnhoffer own the patent and who the hell is this alcatel/lucent if not just another patent troll? What rights do they claim they have to kick a dog in this fight?

Surely this will be summarily tossed at the next appeals court hearing?

For the first time in my life, I stand behind and support M$ (Now im going to have to wash my mouth out with lots of amber fluids shorlty :P )

Yeah, I'm working on that too, within the limits of my diabetes.

I think, if this stands, then M$ will have no choice but to sue Fahnhoffer for breach of contract. I've since read that somehow, Fahnhoffer has come into the clutches of the former AT&T behemoth, so there has to be someone, somewhere within that organization who needs to wear the blame for this one.

Of course to call a spade a bloody shovel, these guys have turned into the same quality of patent troll that nailed RIM for 600+ million. I can recall faintly when such things would have been handled with a shotgun & a shovel. Things were still a bit wild & wooly back in the 30's... Ya know, we still haven't found Jimmy Hoffa...

Whats even more interesting ATM is the days verbal arguments at the Supremes, they both SIDES, are painting themselves into a corner that may yet generate a ruling on the patentability of software even if that wasn't the point of the suit in the first place. Breyer and Ginsberg are both asking questions from what appear to be very well clued in perspectives. There may yet be hope of real justice if we all pray real hard.

And no, I'm not a preacher, nor do I play one on tv, so don't send your money to me. :)

On Monday 05 March 2007, Robin Laing wrote:

Gene Heskett wrote:

...

On Thursday 22 February 2007, Res wrote:

...

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Gene Heskett wrote:

Yeah, I'm working on that too, within the limits of my diabetes.

I think, if this stands, then M$ will have no choice but to sue Fahnhoffer for breach of contract. I've since read that somehow, Fahnhoffer has come into the clutches of the former AT&T behemoth, so there has to be someone, somewhere within that organization who needs to wear the blame for this one.

Of course to call a spade a bloody shovel, these guys have turned into the same quality of patent troll that nailed RIM for 600+ million. I can recall faintly when such things would have been handled with a shotgun & a shovel. Things were still a bit wild & wooly back in the 30's... Ya know, we still haven't found Jimmy Hoffa...

Whats even more interesting ATM is the days verbal arguments at the Supremes, they both SIDES, are painting themselves into a corner that may yet generate a ruling on the patentability of software even if that wasn't the point of the suit in the first place. Breyer and Ginsberg are both asking questions from what appear to be very well clued in perspectives. There may yet be hope of real justice if we all pray real hard.

And no, I'm not a preacher, nor do I play one on tv, so don't send your money to me. :)

The issue isn't the license MS has but with whom they don't have licenses. This was on CNET today.

Patent fights are a legacy of MP3's tangled origins http://news.com.com/Patent+fights+are+a+legacy+of+MP3s+tangled+origins/2 100-1027_3-6164165.html

This article covers this mess. In basic points, the MP3 patent is not a single patent but multiple patents owned by multiple organizations.

And page 2 notes that they were enjoined from any patent considerations when setting the std. That should have been the first consideration, and has resulted here in the US with the invalidation of patents that were both post FCC rulemaking granted, and in one case obviously overheard in a restaurant and they ran to the USTPO and filed. We broadcasters were not about to pay a patent troll $15,000+ a year use royalties to implement a system that was the result of a government mandate.

Maybe the end of mp3 and the move to ogg or something open source. :)

A time to end software patents.

-- Due to the move to M$ Exchange Server, anything that is a priority, please phone. Robin Laing