--- Arthur Pemberton <pemboa@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/12/07, Luke -Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
On Friday 12 October 2007, you wrote:
On 10/12/07, Luke -Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
On Friday 12 October 2007, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
On 10/12/07, Jestin Stoffel <jestin.stoffel@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 11:25 -0700, Julie wrote: > Some of you may find the msg threads to this article a bit > "interesting". ;) > > http://blogs.zdnet.com/Berlind/?p=833&tag=nl.e589
The conspiracy theory that Microsoft is behind this suit falls somewhere between alarmist nonsense and obviousness.
It could just be a coincidence that this happened right on the heals of Balmer's latest threats. And it could just be a coincidence that the patent holder if isn't also suing Microsoft.
Microsoft doesn't violate it, unless that's something new in Vista.
Aren't we talking about virtual desktops? Or did I misunderstand the scope of the patent?
Indeed, a concept foreign to Windows.
Microsoft has powertoys, Nvidia has an app for this also... two big companies with virtual desktop support for Windows.
-- Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine ( www.pembo13.com ) _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
Not to mention Microsoft's own virtual desktop application. I use it all thew time in professional settings. Windows definitely does fit the category of this patents. Oh and it's just a coincidence that two of Microsoft's brightest, one an IP lawyer, just happen to have been hired very very recently by this patent troll. Oh, yes it's definitely alarmist to draw annnnnnnnny connection. If I were a prosecutor and this were a crime, I'd consider all the "coincidences" rather strong circumstantial evidence. MS is to smart to actually get caught too deeply involved, however accidents happen and people slip up. Stay tuned for more. I'm sure something will happen. I don't give this suit a prayer. considering that there is a tin of prior art, and there were applications already on the market that did this before the patent was even granted. Anyone remember Norton Desktop and Norton Desktop for Windows? That was released before August 1991, I don't know the exact date, but there is an August NYT article on it. Five full months before the patent was approved. Not to mention a ton of much earlier work in Unix desktops. I wish someone with a boatload of money would go through the IP stack of this patent troll and get the bulk of their patents invalidated. Also, there may be a bit of a conflict of interest here, as it seems their attorney is also a judge in the district in which they filed. Not sure if that's even allowed by Bar Ethics.