Yes I said steal, with the help of bullshit rules of the patent office.
How can a company that had nothing to do with something successfully gain a patent to something that it is clear by their products on the market, the one who should own the patent?
They haven't got final approval yet but Apples patent was rejected because of the Microsoft application.
Where were you when the West was defeated?
[url=http://profile.mygamercard.net/doncarlos83][img]http://card.mygamercard.net/gbar/doncarlos83.gif[/img][/url]
"In general, our policy is to allow others to license our patents so they can use our innovative methods in their products," David Kaefer, Microsoft's director of intellectual property licensing, said in a statement. "Microsoft and Apple have previously licensed their respective patent portfolios to one another and we maintain a good working relationship with Apple."
But in an interview, Kaefer agreed that it may be a bit premature to speculate that Apple will have to send Microsoft a check for each iPod.
Although the decision is considered "final" in patent office terminology, Apple will have the opportunity to try and redefine the scope of its patent so it does not overlap with Microsoft's patent application.
rgoer wrote:patent is only applied for, not granted
prior art exists
this is not news
From what I heard I don't think prior art will help Apple much either though. They released the product/implementation and profited commercially from it for more than a year. Generally, prior art only protects your un-commercialized ideas to give you a chance to get to market. That's why companies always spend the $$$ to protect ideas before we hear see them.
In the end, I don't think either company will get their patent. Since Apple dropped the ball on the legal end, the technologies referenced will be open for anyone's use without license
