2009/2/5 Al Johnson :
> On Thursday 05 February 2009, Helge Hafting wrote:
>> arne anka wrote:
>> >> (http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=WO&NR=2009012
>> >>344A2&KC=A2&FT=D&date=20090122&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_US)
>> >
>> > i didn't read it fully, but how does that differ from a
Al Johnson wrote:
> On Thursday 05 February 2009, Helge Hafting wrote:
>> arne anka wrote:
(http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=WO&NR=2009012
344A2&KC=A2&FT=D&date=20090122&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_US)
>>> i didn't read it fully, but how does that differ from a simple hub
On Thursday 05 February 2009, Helge Hafting wrote:
> arne anka wrote:
> >> (http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=WO&NR=2009012
> >>344A2&KC=A2&FT=D&date=20090122&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_US)
> >
> > i didn't read it fully, but how does that differ from a simple hub or the
> > common
arne anka wrote:
>> (http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=WO&NR=2009012344A2&KC=A2&FT=D&date=20090122&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_US)
>
> i didn't read it fully, but how does that differ from a simple hub or the
> common docking station well known to notebook users? and it what resp
> Do you mean this one?
>
> http://openinventionnetwork.com/
heck, no. if i read that right they too work by taking out patents.
looked again and found it (it's the eff itself)
> http://www.eff.org/patent/wanted/
i am all for invalidating such patents, not patent something yourself
instead --
2009/2/3 Peter Nijs :
> On Tuesday 03 February 2009 20:10:08 arne anka wrote:
>> btw: there's one of these foss organisations doing exactly what we want --
>> looking for prior art and questioning patents. if anybody knows their
>> address, drop 'em a note ...
>
> Do you mean this one?
>
> http://o
On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 09:13:50 -0500 "Jon 'maddog' Hall" said:
> Incredible.
>
> If I was the person that submitted this patent application, I would have
> done it under a false name, simply because I would have been ashamed.
>
> A great example of Patent System abuse.
bah - it will be a real na
On Tuesday 03 February 2009 20:10:08 arne anka wrote:
> > (http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=WO&NR=20090123
> >44A2&KC=A2&FT=D&date=20090122&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_US)
>
> i didn't read it fully, but how does that differ from a simple hub or the
> common docking station well kn
> (http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=WO&NR=2009012344A2&KC=A2&FT=D&date=20090122&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_US)
i didn't read it fully, but how does that differ from a simple hub or the
common docking station well known to notebook users? and it what respect
exactly is it not
2009/2/3 Helge Hafting :
> I guess it is possible to overturn that patent, if anyone has a hobby of
> suing microsoft...
Not exactly, but close: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neelie_Kroes
___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
>Seems the cradle is the only missing component here
Except the patent states that it doesn't have to include a cradle and,
in fact, that a cable may be considered a feature.
Well done Microsoft, you're trying to patent USB host mode on a phone...
Joseph
2009/2/3 Helge Hafting :
> Gothnet wrot
Gothnet wrote:
>
>
> Peter Nijs wrote:
>> I'm almost sure someone suggested
>> hooking up an external screen to it. That's technically not possible
>>
>
> Isn't it?
>
> You can get external USB gfx cards these days.
>
> Whether FR has the power to drive one, or if there are FOSS drivers, I hav
On Tuesday 03 February 2009, Gothnet wrote:
> Peter Nijs wrote:
> > I'm almost sure someone suggested
> > hooking up an external screen to it. That's technically not possible
>
> Isn't it?
>
> You can get external USB gfx cards these days.
>
> Whether FR has the power to drive one, or if there are
Peter Nijs wrote:
>
> I'm almost sure someone suggested
> hooking up an external screen to it. That's technically not possible
>
Isn't it?
You can get external USB gfx cards these days.
Whether FR has the power to drive one, or if there are FOSS drivers, I have
no idea.
--
View this messag
Peter Nijs wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 February 2009 15:11:40 Mathieu Rochette wrote:
>> Peter Nijs wrote:
>>> I've just read a (Dutch) news article
>>> (http://tweakers.net/nieuws/58158/microsoft-wil-brug-tussen-smartphone-en
>>> -pc- patenteren.html) which describes a new patent microsoft filed. In th
On Tuesday 03 February 2009 15:11:40 Mathieu Rochette wrote:
> Peter Nijs wrote:
> > I've just read a (Dutch) news article
> > (http://tweakers.net/nieuws/58158/microsoft-wil-brug-tussen-smartphone-en
> >-pc- patenteren.html) which describes a new patent microsoft filed. In the
> > article is a lin
>"one or more" means that even if prior art exists, it can still be
>patented. This is different from intellectual property where
>anteriority prevent copyright. (at least in france)
I think the issue here is in your word "it".
If "it" is the concept of a "docking station", then there is prior a
Incredible.
If I was the person that submitted this patent application, I would have
done it under a false name, simply because I would have been ashamed.
A great example of Patent System abuse.
md
--
Jon "maddog" Hall
Executive Director Linux International(R)
email: mad...@li.org
Peter Nijs wrote:
> I've just read a (Dutch) news article
> (http://tweakers.net/nieuws/58158/microsoft-wil-brug-tussen-smartphone-en-pc-
> patenteren.html) which describes a new patent microsoft filed. In the article
> is a link to an English description of the patent.
> (http://v3.espacenet.com/p
I've just read a (Dutch) news article
(http://tweakers.net/nieuws/58158/microsoft-wil-brug-tussen-smartphone-en-pc-
patenteren.html) which describes a new patent microsoft filed. In the article
is a link to an English description of the patent.
(http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/descrip
20 matches
Mail list logo
