"Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:OQNwvMZuJHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
> news:eac7zobpyj1a$.vr182c7ugh32$.dlg@40tude.net...[color=green]
>> On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 23:18:31 -0400, Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> "norm" <noone@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>>> news:u8mu7cYuJHA.4488@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> 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..[/color]

There isn't. But open source such as Linux goes a long way.

Bet Microsoft will not even consider to open it's source, we would find more
open source in Microsoft and no Microsoft source in Linux unless it was
planted. Yes, that happened once too, planted code, Microsoft lost.