News Microsoft hit with $200m patent fine

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2009/05/21/microsoft-hit-with-200m-patent-fine/1

Microsoft has been ordered to pay $200 million in damages for infringing on patents owned by Canadian company i4i.

 

what happens if MS ships an OS without a browser then.

how do we download another browser to use ???????

 

Fancy ftp client ?

 

Windows Explorer?

Next thing, Microsoft bundling Windows Explorer with Windows harms competition in the FTP client market...

 

Ha ha, I presume nobody has thought of that? I dont see a problem with them bundling IE. Nobody forces you to only use it? Mad.

 

FTP client, i guess is an option but for your average joe/jo they need a browser to down load anything and if MS take that away as standard do they need to go get a CD wtih firefox on or chrome lol

 

Actually that wouldn't be a bad idea. Have a "folder" with a list of browsers to download and install.

 

wouldn't that still be forcing you to choose between just the ones THEY want? i am glad it comes with IE, how else am i supposed to go get firefox?

 

-

 

if your unfortunate enough to write code someone else has already patented.. 200m rly.. what a freaking joke!

 

Wow lame patent cases must be the only source of income for that part of Texas. We really need some patent reform.

 

I hope MS pays up if its truly infringement, which would not be the first time.

I would love it if Internet Explorer did not come with the installation. I've always kept a recent Firefox install file on my portable drive.
I think the most reasonable thing would be to have a menu list in the installation process.
But then again how many people actually install their own OS like we do. The masses would have preinstalled Windows and of course IE 8 with it. Over all I think that (FF)argument is a waste of time and would not change much if they did win.

Haha if everybody used Firefox I would be wondering what the better browser was.

 

We live an era where people can actually try and create anything because in some way or form its been patented so we effective reduce our technological progress ugh I hate it...

 

indeed... we have got to a point that it scares developers away....

 

i asked the same thing on a previous related story

 

on the patent front, i wrote a big long piece about why the patent system is wrong and should be gotten rid of, i feel it stifels innovation or improvement. i decided not to post it.

you only have to look at the patent dispute that is graham bell. 2 people working on similar ideas but 1 got to the patent office first. so the other loses out. doesn't matter whose was better just who got there first.

 

I fear the moment windows no longer comes with a browser....
Imagine a regular sunday morning mom calls and asks how the f*** she is supposed to use the internet without a browser

*signs her up to some linux course, wipes her harddisk and hides the windows disk*

 

the patent system as with the justice system should really be redesigned when it comes to Intellectual property like these, its the same complaint over and over again =\

 

You and the others above are completely right, in my opinion. A lot of things that are patented are so general that they encompass so many functions and ideas that, well, as DXR_13KE said: it scares developers away.
No point in working on software when there's a good chance you'll be taken to court, lose your software and hard work, and pay up a lot of money.

Therefore I think that campaigns such as stopsoftwarepatents.org and endsoftpatents.org are not only good, but extremely necessary.

The patent system needs to be reformed or exclude software as a whole. If anyone can patent mathematical functions and pure ideas we're not going to have any development or innovation.

GNU/Linux (Sorry, I know it's annoying)

 

Slightly OT, but @Imperium--

Linux vs GNU/Linux -- what's the diff? Obviously enough to *correct. So just wondering.

---

On Topic:
Patent Trolls = Fail.

I think a patent should have to be for a specific idea. Apple shouldn't copyright a touch-screen phone, just their specific OS that allows it to understand the input for example. Thus if another company makes a touchscreen phone as long as it doesn't use the Apple OS then it'd be fine.

(Just an off the cuff example.)