Micro$oft patents the use of email addresses as objects

Trancendental

Trancendental

CAGiversary!
Feedback
4 (100%)
On Tuesday, Microsoft was granted U.S. patent no. 6,895,426 for treating electronic mail addresses as objects, which Microsoft notes allows email addresses to be easily added to a contact list, copied to the computer's clipboard, or double-clicked to open the related contact information for that email address sender
Click to expand...

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/18/1222247

and this is just hilarious:

http://blogs.msdn.com/dancre/archive/2004/12/10/279842.aspx

Just remember to tip Bill Gates a nickel every time you copy-and-paste an email address.
 
That's the problem with the patent office. a Patent can only be applied to an invention, not an idea. Ideas are not supposed to be patentable. But the patent office regularly patents ideas instead of actual inventions. Especially ideas in software.
 
Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Logitech, etc. have all secured idea based patents that hinder the competition every step of the way.

Very counterproductive if you ask me.
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']hurr hurr M$ I see what you did there

it's because they have lots of money, right?[/QUOTE]

Ooops, just noticed that I misspelled it. Here ya go:

Monopolysoft patents the use of email adresses as objects
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']you sure zinged them, I'm sure they'll change their ways now[/QUOTE]

:lol:

Maybe I should start Super-Mega-Global-Tron and become rich! Rich as astronauts, I tell ya!
 
my understanding of patents is this:
1. you pay for the right to be the only one to sell it for 5 years, after 5 years, you are granted an extention of 2 years with extra cash paid, then 2 more years (total of 9 available years with paying extra)
2. it's designed to get you into the market and prevent other people from profiting off your idea-it gives the inventor a fair chance to make his money then gives others the right to take over and make it better or someone with more money than you come in a basicly take over.
if you're ever goign to sell a new thing/idea, start a business that is new and unique in some way you'll want to patent the idea...even though it costs at least over $1,000....it's actually designed to protect the little guy.
 
Well, that's the way it used to be. Nowadays, you patent your idea, make money off of it....and if your wealth exceeds a certain threshold as the patent expiration date comes around, your lobbyists work their magic and the patent gets extended for another period of time. That's one form of evergreening. Another method is to copyright multiple aspects of a drug's effect--by claiming that any change in a patient after taking the drug can be attributed to the drug--or multiple aspects of the drug's production process...and setting up a daisy-chain of patents for a single drug.

I'm not against patents. Obviously, a clever inventor deserves to reap the benefits of his ingenuity, and a large corporation which invests in research & development needs to be profitable, lest others abandon its business model. However, patents should work both ways. They should also ensure that the general public is not altogether at the mercy of a single source for a valuable commodity, for too long. Sadly, like everything else, patent law has been moulded and reshaped over time by the law of the dollar...and everyday Joe's are too busy earning their daily bread to put up a fight against organizations with gobs of dough to hire representatives in the legislative system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top