[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] (none) [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] (none) [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive]
 
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]
Skåne Sjælland Linux User Group - http://www.sslug.dk Home   Subscribe   Mail Archive   Forum   Calendar   Search
MhonArc Date: [Date Prev] [Date Index] [Date Next]   Thread: [Date Prev] [Thread Index] [Date Next]   MhonArc
 

Re: [ITPOLITIK] kæmpebøde til MS for patentkrænkelse



Erik Josefsson <sslug@sslug> wrote:

> > Softwaregiganten Microsoft har fået en kæmpebøde for krænkelse af et
> > patent. Krænkelsen gjorde Microsoft i stand til at producere en bedre
> > browser.
> 
> Not exactly:
> 
>    http://www.aful.org/wws/arc/patents/2003-08/msg00049.html

Hvordan læser du ovst. msg00049? Der står først et citat af
en, der hedder Greg, og så står der at:

-- Greg says here that the Eolas patent with its horrible claims is unlikely
to be defeated with prior art, because he himself checked its validity
before it was submitted to the PTO.

  Eolas?
  PTO?

  Så fortsætter brevskriveren PILCH Hartmut med at citere
en patentbeskrivelse (som jeg finder uhyrlig) og slutter:

> Since this patent is so basic and, as Greg says, so difficult to
> invalidate with prior art, I wonder why Univ. of California didn't
> file it at the EPO. Were they deterred by Art 52 or by the EPO's
> "technical contribution" junktalk? I can't see in what way this claim
> could have had any difficulties passing at the EPO.

Jeg ville sige so easy to invalidate with prior art?

Vanskeligt at forstå: Article 52 or by EPO's "technical
contribution" junktalk?





sslug@sslug -- Linux works for me.  http://d-axel.dk/


 
Home   Subscribe   Mail Archive   Index   Calendar   Search

 
 
Questions about the web-pages to <www_admin>. Last modified 2005-08-10, 20:21 CEST [an error occurred while processing this directive]
This page is maintained by [an error occurred while processing this directive]MHonArc [an error occurred while processing this directive] # [an error occurred while processing this directive] *