"Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
news:eac7zobpyj1a$.vr182c7ugh32$.dlg@40tude.net...[color=blue]
> On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 23:18:31 -0400, Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "norm" <noone@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>> news:u8mu7cYuJHA.4488@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
>>>> "The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina
>>>> DiBoy'"
>>>> <me211@privacy.net> wrote in message news:grm84p$tgk$1@aioe.org...
>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>> [url]http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9131339[/url]
>>>>>> Now ain't that nice, MS gets fined for stealing WPA. The irony! MS
>>>>>> gets
>>>>>> conviction of stealing the program they use to make sure no one
>>>>>> steals
>>>>>> from them!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, that is priceless! Thanks for sharing. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> "Software is like sex, it's better when it's free."
>>>>> - Linus Torvalds
>>>>>
>>>>> DRM and unintended consequences:
>>>>> [url]http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=435&tag=nl.e101[/url]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Its states an infringement of a patent, not theft directly. Either way,
>>>> it has cost MS dear..
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Maybe I misunderstand, but if infringing on a patent is not theft, then
>>> how is not adhering to a eula theft? How many times have people in this
>>> ng
>>> been called thieves because they are outside of the parameters of a
>>> eula?
>>>
>>> --
>>> norm[/color]
>>
>>
>> We are not party to how the patent was infringed, that is to say that
>> there
>> was no reference to MS knowingly using Uniloc's code. There are, however,
>> two things which we do know.
>>
>> 1. The jurors do not like Microsoft
>> 2. The directors of Uniloc will be able to pay themselves a nice bonus
>> should they feel the need.. :-)[/color]
>
> My first thought on looking at the article was that Microsoft might have
> independently hit on the same theft-prevention technique. I have done a
> similar thing, when what I "invented" was (a) pretty obvious, and (b)
> covered by a patent. In my case, my boss knew about the patent and stopped
> me...
>
> Which pretty much agrees with what you said, Mike.
>
> Still - they could have done it knowingly, n'est-ce pas?
>
> I also wonder if it will be appealed further by MS...
>
> Maybe we could also start a long OT subthread about the iniquities and
> inequities of out patent system and other IP systems. (I hope not, and I
> promise not to post further if it happens!)
>
> --
> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom[/color]


Gene

That is what I was thinking exactly. There can't be too many ways to make a
system that prevents piracy..


--

Mike Hall - MVP Windows Experience
[url]http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/[/url]