Bill Gates Blackmailing Denmark

"> excessive and cause more problems than good.
>
>

only because YOU don't have a patent on anything..........................if
you did, and you sunk 2 million in R&D on your product, you would not
think for a second, that 6 months is long enough to 'make a profit'.

"JAD" <> wrote in message
news:d8oSd.11841$...
>
> "> excessive and cause more problems than good.
>>
>>
>
> only because YOU don't have a patent on
> anything..........................if
> you did, and you sunk 2 million in R&D on your product, you would not
> think for a second, that 6 months is long enough to 'make a profit'.

For software, that's about half to a quarter of the amount of time you can
sell it in before it gets obsolete and into the budget piles, 6 months is a
long time in the computer industry, different industries should have patents
that last different lengths of time.

"JAD" <> wrote in message
news:d8oSd.11841$...
>
> "> excessive and cause more problems than good.
>>
>>
>
> only because YOU don't have a patent on
> anything..........................if
> you did, and you sunk 2 million in R&D on your product, you would not
> think for a second, that 6 months is long enough to 'make a profit'.

Also, the point of patents is not to let the inventor become rich.
Excessively long patents do not motivate invention any better than shorter
ones, 6 months is enough time to cover your research costs at the speed at
what the computer industry goes through products, long patents just help
people to become rich which they should do without government help.

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 01:51:04 +1100, "Nicholas Buenk" <>
wrote:

>
>"David Maynard" <> wrote in message
>news:...
>> Nicholas Buenk wrote:
>>
>>> "relic" <> wrote in message
>>> news:XztQd.2889$...
>>>
>>>>Ted Campanelli wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>What I find interesting is that monopolies are not legal in this
>>>>>country (US ). Where is the competition to Microsoft ?
>>>>
>>>>There is no guarantee of Competition. Only that anyone _can_ start a
>>>>company or sell a product that competes. Why don't you?
>>>
>>>
>>> It's very hard to develope a competing OS when so much depends on
>>> software compatablity. Sure, you can make a great technologically
>>> advanced OS, which won't likely do very well in the market because there
>>> will be no software to run on it.
>>
>>
>>> Patents are government inforced monopolies.
>>
>> That *is* the point of them: That he who invents it should reap the
>> benefit, for a period of time, of having done so.
>>
>> Why in the world should I spend the time, effort, and money to invent
>> something if you're going to just copy it for free? YOU go waste a few
>> million inventing it and *I'll* do the copying.
>
>He who invents it first has the advantage, patents should be greatly
>reduced, maybe 6months in the software industry from release date, that is
>ample time to profit from the research. Patents as they are now, are way too
>excessive and cause more problems than good.
>

And it's even worse when machines are allowed to try to enforce those
things.

The world wants compatablity, they want their programs to run on any
computer. You don't require a single OS to achieve this, you just require
the removal of patent laws so that other OS's can reverse engineer
microsoft's API's, that way we'd have good competition.

"JAD" <> wrote in message
news:bGpQd.10337$...
> bill is doing what the world powers want him to..1 world -1computer -1OS-
> run by the 1 government. its in your face....yet few see it.
>
>
> "Ted Campanelli" <> wrote in message
> news:NnpQd.8012$ m...
>> Ted shuffled out of his cave and grunted these great (and sometimes not
>> so great) words of knowledge:
>>
>> What I find interesting is that monopolies are not legal in this country
>> (US ). Where is the competition to Microsoft ? Please don't say Linux.
>> I am referring to an OS that will run the majority of windows programs.
>>
>> Bill has the software manufacturers and hardware manufacturers doing
>> what he wants. If they want to sell their product IT MUST BE ABLE TO
>> RUN UNDER WINDOWS.
>>
>> Back in "the old days" you had a choice of an os. There was PC Dos, MS
>> Dos, C-Dos plus a few others I don't remember. Bill managed to get rid
>> of all the "threats".
>>
>> Where were our "illustrious" government watchdogs while this was going
>> on ? Where are they now ? Are they doing anything ? Nope, Bill owns
> them.
>
>

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 01:51:04 +1100, "Nicholas Buenk" <>
wrote:

>
>"David Maynard" <> wrote in message
>news:...
>> Nicholas Buenk wrote:
>>
>>> "relic" <> wrote in message
>>> news:XztQd.2889$...
>>>
>>>>Ted Campanelli wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>What I find interesting is that monopolies are not legal in this
>>>>>country (US ). Where is the competition to Microsoft ?
>>>>
>>>>There is no guarantee of Competition. Only that anyone _can_ start a
>>>>company or sell a product that competes. Why don't you?
>>>
>>>
>>> It's very hard to develope a competing OS when so much depends on
>>> software compatablity. Sure, you can make a great technologically
>>> advanced OS, which won't likely do very well in the market because there
>>> will be no software to run on it.
>>
>>
>>> Patents are government inforced monopolies.
>>
>> That *is* the point of them: That he who invents it should reap the
>> benefit, for a period of time, of having done so.
>>
>> Why in the world should I spend the time, effort, and money to invent
>> something if you're going to just copy it for free? YOU go waste a few
>> million inventing it and *I'll* do the copying.
>
>He who invents it first has the advantage, patents should be greatly
>reduced, maybe 6months in the software industry from release date, that is
>ample time to profit from the research. Patents as they are now, are way too
>excessive and cause more problems than good.
>

And I would that if a patent is abandoned (patent holder fails to make
the product or service publicly available after a reasonable amount of
time), the patent is removed and anyone allowed to provide the product
of service.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 08:03:03 -0600, David Maynard <> wrote:


>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What I find interesting is that monopolies are not legal in this
>>>>>>>>country (US ). Where is the competition to Microsoft ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There is no guarantee of Competition. Only that anyone _can_ start a
>>>>>>>company or sell a product that competes. Why don't you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's very hard to develope a competing OS when so much depends on
>>>>>>software compatablity. Sure, you can make a great technologically
>>>>>>advanced OS, which won't likely do very well in the market because
>>>>>>there will be no software to run on it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Patents are government inforced monopolies.
>>>>>
>>>>>That *is* the point of them: That he who invents it should reap the
>>>>>benefit, for a period of time, of having done so.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why in the world should I spend the time, effort, and money to invent
>>>>>something if you're going to just copy it for free? YOU go waste a few
>>>>>million inventing it and *I'll* do the copying.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Okay, but don't forget to patent it too
>>>
>>>Well, it *would* be rather difficult to talk about "Patents are government
>>>inforced monopolies" if it wasn't patented, now wouldn't it?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>---like Microsoft. Here is their
>>>>patent (#6,727,830) on the mouse double click:
>>>>
>>>>http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...&RS=PN/6727830
>>>
>>>I'm not going to debate the virtues of individual patents since selectively
>>>picking one to argue against the patent concept itself is like arguing
>>>there should be no traffic laws because you dispute the merit of a 30 MPH
>>>speed limit on Elm.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I believe I will patent the concept of clicking with the left mouse button
>> as opposed to the right mouse button. Then if you click with that finger
>> you'll have to send me a nickel each time.
>
>Good luck. But I think you'll find that getting a patent isn't quite as
>easy as you seem to believe.
>
>For one, you just told me, and on a public forum no less, which makes it
>public domain. No patent.
>
>Btw, I can't find any reference at all to a 'mouse' in the afore mentioned
>patent. It's about "Time based hardware button for application launch" and,
>in particular, "on a limited resource computing device" that is described
>as "Small, mobile computing devices, such as personal desktop assistants
>including hand-held and palm-type computers and the like." And the
>"hardware button" is not a mouse key but the buttons on PDAs for launching
>specific applications, as in "Therefore, as an alternative to launching
>applications by using the stylus, the Palm-size PC contains a plurality of
>buttons (called application buttons) that are used to launch the more
>common applications installed on a Palm-size PC."
>
Yeah, noticed that. It appears more like a time dependant method of making
the buttons do double/triple duty on a hand held device with the Palm as an
example.

No doubt the EU will let me copyright the standard oval shape of a mouse tho
without regard to how long it's been around.
Witness the weird **** they've recently done regarding cookies.


~~~~~~
Bait for spammers:
root@localhost
postmaster@localhost
admin@localhost
abuse@localhost
postmaster@[127.0.0.1]

~~~~~~
Remove "spamless" to email me.

"E" commerce my friend Ecommerce.

You do in fact need One OS- to secure, control, and profit from, and above
all....NOT to share those profits.
Is Bill to be looked down on for this? Hell no....its what everybody
does.The difference? Bill and the 'powers' put it out there for public
scrutiny, to see how we (the lambs to the slaughter) will react.

"Nicholas Buenk" <> wrote in message
news:421a117e$0$27615$...
> The world wants compatablity, they want their programs to run on any
> computer. You don't require a single OS to achieve this, you just require
> the removal of patent laws so that other OS's can reverse engineer
> microsoft's API's, that way we'd have good competition.
>
> "JAD" <> wrote in message
> news:bGpQd.10337$...
> > bill is doing what the world powers want him to..1
world -1computer -1OS-
> > run by the 1 government. its in your face....yet few see it.
> >
> >
> > "Ted Campanelli" <> wrote in message
> > news:NnpQd.8012$ m...
> >> Ted shuffled out of his cave and grunted these great (and sometimes not
> >> so great) words of knowledge:
> >>
> >> What I find interesting is that monopolies are not legal in this
country
> >> (US ). Where is the competition to Microsoft ? Please don't say
Linux.
> >> I am referring to an OS that will run the majority of windows
programs.
> >>
> >> Bill has the software manufacturers and hardware manufacturers doing
> >> what he wants. If they want to sell their product IT MUST BE ABLE TO
> >> RUN UNDER WINDOWS.
> >>
> >> Back in "the old days" you had a choice of an os. There was PC Dos, MS
> >> Dos, C-Dos plus a few others I don't remember. Bill managed to get rid
> >> of all the "threats".
> >>
> >> Where were our "illustrious" government watchdogs while this was going
> >> on ? Where are they now ? Are they doing anything ? Nope, Bill owns
> > them.
> >
> >
>
>

In article <421a1027$0$27625$>, Nicholas Buenk wrote:
>
> Also, the point of patents is not to let the inventor become rich.
> Excessively long patents do not motivate invention any better than shorter
> ones, 6 months is enough time to cover your research costs at the speed at
> what the computer industry goes through products, long patents just help
> people to become rich which they should do without government help.

Don't confuse the speed of product _releases_ with the speed of product
_development_. With the likes of M$ even a new version of Windows or
Office or whatever seems to be typically 18 months late. A fundamental new
technology may take _years_ to see its release as a commercially viable
product and I for one would like to see a new innovative idea implemented
properly in the first place rather than a half baked implementation going on
the market and causing all kinds of headaches in the long run.

Having said this I'm no great defender of software patents in general. The
old rule was you couldn't patent software, although any underlying algorithms
were fair game. That sounds fair enough to me. But now the line in this and
a lot of other patent areas seems to be being re-drawn (it seems to be the US
in particular that's pushing this through). IMHO its this 'patent-creep'
that's causing much of the controversy at the moment.

--
Andrew Smallshaw

David Maynard wrote:

>>>> ---like Microsoft. Here is their patent (#6,727,830) on the mouse
>>>> double click:
>>>>
>>>> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...&RS=PN/6727830
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not going to debate the virtues of individual patents since
>>> selectively picking one to argue against the patent concept itself is
>>> like arguing there should be no traffic laws because you dispute the
>>> merit of a 30 MPH speed limit on Elm.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I believe I will patent the concept of clicking with the left mouse
>> button
>> as opposed to the right mouse button. Then if you click with that finger
>> you'll have to send me a nickel each time.
>
>
> Good luck. But I think you'll find that getting a patent isn't quite as
> easy as you seem to believe.
>
> For one, you just told me, and on a public forum no less, which makes it
> public domain. No patent.
>
> Btw, I can't find any reference at all to a 'mouse' in the afore
> mentioned patent. It's about "Time based hardware button for application
> launch" and, in particular, "on a limited resource computing device"
> that is described as "Small, mobile computing devices, such as personal
> desktop assistants including hand-held and palm-type computers and the
> like." And the "hardware button" is not a mouse key but the buttons on
> PDAs for launching specific applications, as in "Therefore, as an
> alternative to launching applications by using the stylus, the Palm-size
> PC contains a plurality of buttons (called application buttons) that are
> used to launch the more common applications installed on a Palm-size PC."

Okay sorry, it doesn't mention mice. Telegraph, mouse, PDA,
whatever---same concept: dots and dashes.

The fact that that patent was issued and still stands indicates that the
patent system is seriously broken.

The patent system is one of the main reasons for American economic,
technological, and military success, which is why there are so many
forces trying to ruin it, and having considerable success. There is no
way I would want to abolish the patent system, but patent policy has
been going seriously wrong for some years now.