Compression - question re Microsoft

Author

question re Microsoft

jules.stocks@gmail.com

2006-01-16, 9:55 pm

I read an interview recently with the head of MS's intellectual
property division -- he was discussing the FAT license; But he made a
casual side comment I'd like to verify, or not.

Is it true that MS has *never* initiated a lawsuit against an
infringer? Is this true?

--jg

Jeff Roberts

2006-01-16, 9:55 pm

As far as I know that's true. In general, all of the MS guys that I talk to
are just as anti-patent as the EFF-est of us all, but they feel like they
have to patent to protect themselves against trolls (I actually disagree
with that part, but whatever).

->Jeff
RAD Game Tools

<jules.stocks@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137420199.338908.59210@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I read an interview recently with the head of MS's intellectual
> property division -- he was discussing the FAT license; But he made a
> casual side comment I'd like to verify, or not.
>
> Is it true that MS has *never* initiated a lawsuit against an
> infringer? Is this true?
>
> --jg
>

Jasen Betts

2006-01-17, 3:55 am

On 2006-01-16, jules.stocks@gmail.com <jules.stocks@gmail.com> wrote:
> I read an interview recently with the head of MS's intellectual
> property division -- he was discussing the FAT license; But he made a
> casual side comment I'd like to verify, or not.
>
> Is it true that MS has *never* initiated a lawsuit against an
> infringer? Is this true?

Infringe agaist what?

Bye.
Jasen

jules.stocks@gmail.com

2006-01-17, 6:55 pm

In the context of my remark, an "infringer" would be someone who used
an MS patent without permission from the great BILL -- who, years ago,
(early 80's) was without peer in the level of his foul behaviour.

If you're too young to remember any of this, just examine his "I don't
remember" statements when he was deposed a few years ago -- by that
time he was too big to put in jail, which if what he was doing had been
done by an ordinary mortal, we'd have been bunking with Bubba and Mongo
and wondering if that fence really is electrified...

The article, an interview with the head of MS's intellectual property
division, claimed that they perferred to LICENSE, and that they had
never initiated a law-suit against a patent infringer; If true, that
is pretty unusual, because

ly, hi-tech patents simply are not
respected; And most medium and hi-tech companies are always in court
defending their patents from infringers.

In the 60's and 70's, IBM pretty much shaped the patent laws we enjoy
in the US today, because they were very vigorous in the defense of
their own intellectual property, and those cases became "settled law",
etc...

Years ago, in the early '90s, just before MS released the first version
of their C++ compiler, they contacted me about getting a copy of my C
to C++ translator (which looked for patterns and objectives and recast
the code as C++,) and golly, why didn't I just process a floppies'
worth of code for them. No non-disclosure of course...

The construction rules (describing what to do with C, and how to derive
such-and-such,) were my own intellectual property, and I never did do
business with them. From other aspects of the contact, I surmised that
the offer was clearly calculated to enable them to begin a process of
reverse-engineering. (I used to write compilers and such, and had seen
similar actions by them in the past.)

Anyway, if they actually don't go around suing people -- that does
surprise me...

--jg

Jasen Betts

2006-01-17, 6:55 pm

On 2006-01-17, jules.stocks@gmail.com <jules.stocks@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the context of my remark, an "infringer" would be someone who used
> an MS patent without permission from the great BILL -- who, years ago,
> (early 80's) was without peer in the level of his foul behaviour.

> If you're too young to remember any of this, just examine his "I don't
> remember" statements when he was deposed a few years ago -- by that
> time he was too big to put in jail, which if what he was doing had been
> done by an ordinary mortal, we'd have been bunking with Bubba and Mongo
> and wondering if that fence really is electrified...

I've heard of it. what parts of FAT were novel enough to be patentable?

> The article, an interview with the head of MS's intellectual property
> division, claimed that they perferred to LICENSE, and that they had
> never initiated a law-suit against a patent infringer; If true, that
> is pretty unusual, because

ly, hi-tech patents simply are not
> respected; And most medium and hi-tech companies are always in court
> defending their patents from infringers.

They probably prefrred to licence becase that's the only way they'd get
any money.

> Anyway, if they actually don't go around suing people -- that does
> surprise me...

I expect they knew it would cost them all those llcence fees if they
tried and failed.

--

Bye.
Jasen

toby

2006-01-18, 3:55 am

jules.stocks@gmail.com wrote:
> In the context of my remark, an "infringer" would be someone who used
> an MS patent without permission from the great BILL -- who, years ago,
> (early 80's) was without peer in the level of his foul behaviour.

A good refresher course on said bad behaviour - historical and current
- is found here:
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/...005010107100653

> Anyway, if they actually don't go around suing people -- that does
> surprise me...
>
> --jg

Sponsored Links