Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Patents Businesses Apple Your Rights Online

Apple Sued For Using Tabs In OS X Tiger 435

Posted by kdawson
from the trolls-on-the-march dept.
rizzo320 writes "AppleInsider is reporting that an Illinois-based company and its Nevada partner have filed a lawsuit against Apple Inc., alleging that Mac OS X 10.4 'Tiger' infringes an interface patent relating to the OS's nearly universal use of tabs. The suit was filed in the patent troll's and forum shopper's favorite venue: Marshall, TX. The patent in question is 5072412, which was originally issued to Xerox in 1987, but is now owned or licensed to IP Innovation LLC and its parent Technology Licensing Corporation. 'Category dividers triggered by Spotlight searches, as well as page tabs in the Safari web browser, bear the closest similarity to the now 20-year-old description' of the patent, according to the article. IP Innovation is requesting damages in excess of $20 million and an injunction against future sales and distribution of Mac OS X 10.4. Software patent reform can't come soon enough!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Sued For Using Tabs In OS X Tiger

Comments Filter:
  • Mozilla? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ironix (165274) <`ac.nergron' `ta' `neffets'> on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @05:08AM (#18851959) Homepage
    So... Why did they suddenly decide to go after Apple now when Mozilla has been in, urm, flagrant violation of this supposed patent for much longer than Apple?
    • Re:Mozilla? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by EmbeddedJanitor (597831) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @05:09AM (#18851967)
      Apple's got money.
      • Re:Mozilla? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by tibike77 (611880) <tibikegamez@nOspAm.yahoo.com> on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @05:23AM (#18852023) Journal
        Why not against IE7/Microsoft ?
        They certainly got more cash :)
        • Re:Mozilla? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by tezbobobo (879983) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @05:30AM (#18852073) Homepage Journal
          They've got too much money (for lawyers).
          • Re:Mozilla? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Macthorpe (960048) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @05:41AM (#18852141) Journal
            I think this response has merit.

            Apple have lost several high-profile patent cases in the last year or two. They'll probably hit Apple first and see if it works, then use the decision against anyone else they feel is infringing. It'll be harder for MS to throw money at it if one judge has already decided that tabbing infringes.
            • Re:Mozilla? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by CrudPuppy (33870) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @09:25AM (#18853911) Homepage
              how about for prior art they drag in a filing cabinet from the 60's and show the tabs on top of each folder that separates things by category *grin*
          • Cashcows (Score:5, Insightful)

            by tibike77 (611880) <tibikegamez@nOspAm.yahoo.com> on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @05:53AM (#18852225) Journal
            IANAL, so let me rephrase that in layman's terms.

            The patent basically looks like it covers anthing resembling a modern user interface.
            The patent more specifically stresses mechanics like the Opera/IE/Mozilla browser tabs, spreadsheet "workbooks", the Windows taskbar, you name it.
            So, in other words, just about any software on the market today.
            Well, that's what I seemed to gather from the passing glance I gate the patent text. So I might be wrong. Please correct me if that's the case.

            Assuming I'm right, this is a "blanket patent" that can be sicced on anybody they chose to.
            One would expect them to go after several small companies at once, with several lesser damage claims, companies that might not afford to pay a lawyer.

            Instead, they go after a rather large company (again, correct me if I'm wrong, but Apple is a pretty big company), and claim a relatively unimpressive sum (20+ mil).
            I could only suppose again that damage claims must be related to number of users that the product was sold to (or somesuch).
            Still, going after Microsoft and claiming damage for... heh... EVERYTHING Windows and Windows-based Microsoft ever made and sold, now that would be a huge sum we're talking about.
            Claiming Apple wouldn't have the money to go into court for this is pretty ridiculous... well, unless, maybe they're counting on Apple settling out of court for such a paltry sum ?

            I can only hope they get smashed in court, and smashed good.
            • Re:Cashcows (Score:5, Insightful)

              by arivanov (12034) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @06:04AM (#18852289) Homepage
              No.

              The mechanism which you describe is used in the porn, ad, etc industries where the small guys have positive cash flow and something can be collected out of them. That is not valid for most small guys in the software industry. Further to this, there are not that many small guys that do stuff that do anything new and UI related. Most just reuse what is supplied to them in the latest SDK and do not do anything new.

              As far as the claim size, it is aimed to make Apple seriously consider settling.

              If they settle there is enough war chest to pay for a couple of legal daisycutters to be dropped on some small guys (if you find any to drop it in the first place, no small commercial UI companies left around). There will also enough money to lob one big bunkerbuster at Redmond and fight a properly sized claim.
              • Re:Cashcows (Score:5, Funny)

                by h2g2bob (948006) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @10:16AM (#18854655) Homepage
                Your suggestion is (paraphrasing):

                PatentTroll: Give me $20m
                Apple: Why?
                PatentTroll: We'll sue MS with it
                Apple: OK then.

                Wait, does that sound like SCO?
            • Re:Cashcows (Score:5, Funny)

              by walt-sjc (145127) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @06:07AM (#18852305)
              Oh come now... It can be rephrased much more simply...

              It's like a 3-ring binder, but "on the internet!"®©

              All rights reserved. "on the internet!" is a registered trademark of Patent Trolls Inc.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by asninn (1071320)
              That may indeed be what they're counting on - the equivalent of the RIAA's "a settlement will be cheaper than a drawn-out court case" strategy. And add to that the fact that a precedent (Apple paying for the right to use this "patent") is valuable for them (obviously) *and* Apple (since it will make it more likely that Apple's competitors will be sued and lose money, too), and I wouldn't be surprised at all if this was settled out of court after a while "for an undisclosed sum" (which, given the mutual bene
              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by AndersOSU (873247)
                Settling out of court doesn't set a precedence, so there would be no benefit for apple to cave unless they think they are going to lose and can get away paying less.
            • Re:Cashcows (Score:5, Insightful)

              by kripkenstein (913150) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @07:42AM (#18852815) Homepage
              You've got the right idea. Yes, they can sue any modern desktop or web browser. Their strategy appears to be to get a small settlement (only several million) from Apple, who might prefer that to a lawsuit that might cost just as much (and in which they might lose). Then, given that settlement, they can go after bigger fish, like, say, Microsoft, and demand much larger sums of money, while saying that the industry (i.e. Apple, a prominent member in that industry) has already acknowledged their patent as being valid. Not that they need the industry's seal of approval, but it can be of help.
              • Re:Cashcows (Score:5, Insightful)

                by wellingj (1030460) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @08:18AM (#18853137)
                Wow, so it's like what MS is trying to do to Linux right now.

                1.Set a stupid precedence with some unknowing schmuck(s) of a company who knows nothing of the common good.
                2.Apply precedence ad nauseam, creating more FUD than anything real.
                ....
                3.Profit!

                I find the state of business quite sad. There are too many companies who try to get away with dubious deeds just to make a buck.
            • Re:Cashcows (Score:5, Informative)

              by jj13 (974374) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @08:00AM (#18852969)
              Apparently there is some "prior art" (IANAL) from about 1985, from apple of all places! If anyone has ever used a really old mac, they'll know about the Switcher program that allowed programs to switch in and out of memory, effectively allowing the system to "multitask" (it could switch between already started programs, but only one could use the system at any time). Even better, I'm pretty sure the switcher had a scrolling effect applied to programs as they were switched into and out of memory, giving a "spacial relationship" between the "views" you were navigating. Since they would have internal documentation regarding the development and use of this technology (and maybe even some UI patents of their own), this might be a slap in the face to any kind of settlement.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Savage-Rabbit (308260)

        So... Why did they suddenly decide to go after Apple now when Mozilla has been in, urm, flagrant violation of this supposed patent for much longer than Apple?

        Apple's got money.

        Apple also has a high profile and a loyal customer following that borders on being a fan-base which ensures that this will be publicized by every Apple centric website and patent abolishment preaching nerd site on the net. This in turn will ensure that the main stream media will eventually pick up on it and bring it to the attention of the target audience which is the rest of the Software industry thus ensuring they get their FUD into the widest possible circulation completely free of charge.

        And that concl

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by siriuskase (679431)
        Shouldn't they have gone after Apple back in the 80's when Jobs was "inspired" by the work at Xerox Parc? Why haven't they sued Apple for using a mouse? Shouldn't patent suits happen before an innovation becomes the de facto industry standard interface?

        or maybe Disney is getting ready to sue everyone over the mouse
      • by canuck57 (662392)

        Apple's got money.

        So does Microsoft!

        But why pick on a 1000 lb gorilla when you can go for chimp first.

        My guess s Xerox is going for Apple to set the precedent, then go after the gorilla. Even at say $3 a copy sold, this is a huge amount of cash.

        In the end, these companies will all realize patents are a curse, not a benefit as the only winners are lawyers and judges. A parasitic cost to the product that will break even the biggest of companies.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Ash-Fox (726320)

      Why did they suddenly decide to go after Apple now when Mozilla has been in, urm, flagrant violation of this supposed patent for much longer than Apple?
      Mozilla holds a patent for tabs in a browser.
    • by DrXym (126579)
      So... Why did they suddenly decide to go after Apple now when Mozilla has been in, urm, flagrant violation of this supposed patent for much longer than Apple?

      Mozilla? Think farther back than that. OS/2 had tabs close to 15 years ago and I'm sure it wasn't the first either.

  • Marshall, TX (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sharp-bang (311928) <(sharp.bang.slashdot) (at) (gmail.com)> on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @05:18AM (#18852013) Homepage
    So why is Marshall, Texas such a great venue for patent extortion? The city's web [marshall-chamber.com] pages [marshalltexas.net] don't seem to have an answer, but it does seem to be a nice place.

    One wonders if this boils down to a single judge, who might appreciate a free MacBook.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Because of the judges (especially T John Ward and Leonard Davis) sets quick trial dates and short discovery deadlines. This saves lawyer spendings and results in quicker cases. Also the local jurors in the area seem to rule in favour of plaintiff more often than not in patent cases.

      See Texas IP rocket docket [law.com].
    • Re:Marshall, TX (Score:5, Informative)

      by Lars T. (470328) <Lars.TraegerNO@SPAMgooglemail.com> on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @06:00AM (#18852269) Journal

      So why is Marshall, Texas such a great venue for patent extortion? The city's web [marshall-chamber.com] pages [marshalltexas.net] don't seem to have an answer, but it does seem to be a nice place.

      One wonders if this boils down to a single judge, who might appreciate a free MacBook.
      The judge T. John Ward has a reputation for pushing through a speedy trial (which also means less time to find prior art), and to usually side with the patent holder. http://www.technologyreview.com/InfoTech/wtr_16280 ,300,p1.html [technologyreview.com]

      "Juries in East Texas, unlike those in Houston, Dallas or Austin, are much less likely to have a member with any technical training or education, which exacerbates the problem from the defense perspective, but makes East Texas federal courts an attractive venue for would-be plaintiffs, who know that the jury will, instead, gravitate toward softer or superficial issues that are difficult to predict." http://www.wsgr.com/news/PDFs/09202004_patentpirat es.pdf [wsgr.com]

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Senjutsu (614542)
        In particular, Ward has a reputation as being extremely willing to hand out injunctions on very flimsy grounds. This helps the patent troller put significant pressure on the defending company to settle with them.
      • Re:Marshall, TX (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bbn (172659) <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @07:31AM (#18852739)
        Maybe you should be entitled to a jury of peers. Even in tech cases. Meaning a jury of engineers and not a jury of joe stupid.
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Maybe you should be entitled to a jury of peers. Even in tech cases. Meaning a jury of engineers and not a jury of joe stupid.
          And in murder cases you should have a jury of murderers.
  • Maybe (Score:5, Funny)

    by gblackwo (1087063) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @05:22AM (#18852021) Homepage
    What a joke. Maybe they should go and get the manilla folder people in on this too, because of their ingenious system of tabbed browsing.
  • Birth of GUI (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fozzmeister (160968) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @05:27AM (#18852049) Homepage
    It's gotta be said that Xerox is responsible for most of the GUI's we see nowadays, and if anyone has a right to tabs or anything else in that area, they do, they did a hell of a lot of innovation. But the terms for patents in IT are far too long, and it is kinda unfair that Apple is singled out as well.
    • by grahamlee (522375)
      Xerox have had 25 years to go after Apple, and almost as long to go after Microsoft, for half-inching the GUI. They never did...probably because they were never really in a position to exploit any of the stuff which PARC came up with.
      • by Senjutsu (614542)
        That fact that Apple paid Xerox to use what they saw at PARC probably factored into it too. You can't really sue a company for using what you willingly sold them...
    • Re:Birth of GUI (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bursch-X (458146) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @06:11AM (#18852331)
      This is complete bullshit, when Apple visited Xerox and got their inspiration, Xerox merely had a bunch of demos, not even a complete system yet (that came later). Things like doubleclicking, click and drag, pull-down menus, the desktop metaphor, copy and paste are all inventions that happened at Apple not at Xerox.

      Xerox came up with an implementation of a new way to interface with computers, that had been talked about since quite a while, Apple made it into a usable system and came up with most of the way we interact with computers nowadays.
      • Re:Birth of GUI (Score:5, Insightful)

        by pomo monster (873962) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @06:16AM (#18852365)
        Let me reprise a comment of mine from several months previous:

        Ford didn't invent the assembly line. The Wright brothers didn't invent the airplane. Wanamaker didn't invent the department store. Edison didn't invent the light bulb.

        All these people derived inspiration from their contemporaries. All they did was "steal" ideas from others and make them better.

        Steve Jobs' saying, that "real artists ship," is right on the money. Production, after all, has a more lasting impact than theory and prototype.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Krater76 (810350)
          The Wright brothers didn't invent the airplane

          I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. Maybe the Wright Brothers didn't come up with the idea of flying or the first airplane but they made the first airplane that actually flew. Therefore they invented flying.
  • by pammon (831694) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @05:27AM (#18852051)
    Tabbed UI, Apple Lisa, circa 1980. Screenshots [folklore.org], story [folklore.org].
    • Gotta love those screenshots!
    • by bmo (77928)
      Apple ProDOS had tabs, too.

      If something has a real-world example, it's obvious if it's implemented in software, indeed the real world example should be considered "prior art".

      --
      BMO
    • by Xyde (415798)
      Also of note in the first image, It looks like Apple did briefly toy with the idea of having the menu bar on the window (like how Windows does it), but then scrapped that for the single menu bar at the top of the screen as we have now.
      • by dwater (72834)
        > ...but then scrapped that for the single menu bar at the top of the screen as we have now.

        unfortunately.
        • by Senjutsu (614542) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @06:14AM (#18852349)
          Fortunately, you mean. Having a useless title bar consume one of the four extremely valuable screen edges and parking the menu under it is one of the most horrendously stupid violations of Fitts' law in the history of user interfaces.
          • by dwater (72834) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @06:22AM (#18852377)
            No, I mean unfortunately.

            Fine, if you have only one window. In any case, if you do just use one window, you don't have to have the window border there.

            Unfortunately, I use many windows, and when I use an Apple computer, I can have only one window visible, and still the menu is for the wrong application - not such a problem if I'm using a mouse and realise, but if I use keyboard accelerators, then I can get into all sorts of trouble before I realise it's not the correct application.

            When it *is* the correct menu for the window I want, and I'm, say, using a window on the second monitor, I have to move the mouse all the way to the other monitor just to use the menu.

            I used to use a computer with, IIRC, 18 monitors. I can't imagine what a pain in the rear end that would have been if it were running OSX.

            It's oft claimed that it's easier to get to a menu when it's at the edge of the screen. That's true, though it is almost always further away (unless you only use one full screen window), and strangely enough, everything else on the screen requires precision mouse movements and because of that, I've become quite good at it - I don't need that kind of help, thanks!

            It's brain dead, plain and simple.

            (YMMV)
            • by JonathanBoyd (644397) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @07:01AM (#18852589) Homepage

              I used to use a computer with, IIRC, 18 monitors. I can't imagine what a pain in the rear end that would have been if it were running OSX.

              If they designed OS X around having 18 monitors available, the experience for the majority of users, who have onlye 1 monitor, would be a lot worse. Quite a few people do use 2 or even 3 though, so it's a valid criticism in those cases. IIRC, there are keyboard shortcuts to access the menu, so you could try those.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by shmlco (594907)
            From my perspective Fitts' law worked well when the screen size was 9". In today's world of multiple monitors and 30" screens (and even multiple 30" screens), I'd have to say the premise is outdated, as that menu bar is often a long ways away from the currently active window.

            Further, while hitting the menu may be faster when it's on the edge, once you've done so you now need to travel the same distance back to your work area, which ISN'T on an edge.

            All in all, I'd say today's interfaces need in-place, conte
    • Besides that... weren't the tabs actually invented by the person that invented folders for archiving documents [wikipedia.org]. You know, those paper things that computers started to mimic at a certain point.
      IANAL but isn't that some sort of prior art? Sure it's not a digital tab, but should that matter?
    • by Catil (1063380) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @06:16AM (#18852371)
      Tabbed UI, Agostino Ramelli, circa 1588. Screenshot [kirchersociety.org], story [kirchersociety.org].
    • Mac OS System 8 (IIRC) had tabs too, for spring-loaded folders.
  • what a mess (Score:4, Funny)

    by FudRucker (866063) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @05:44AM (#18852149)
    i think all software patents should be banned, whos next? Opera or mozilla/firefox web browser? fluxbox?

    maybe even closed source software should be outlawed and make ALL software mandatory opensource...

    this is getting ridiculous...
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by QuantumG (50515)
      Hey, nice job. I like the way you got em nodding then slipped that little gem in there.

      Well done.
  • by Jugalator (259273) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @06:03AM (#18852283) Journal
    Oh wait, I guess it took them 2 years to learn how to write a letter.
  • by ricree (969643) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @06:16AM (#18852361)
    It seems to me that venue shopping is the thing that needs to go here. The idea that it is possible to pick and choose who gets to decide on the lawsuit based upon how easy it will be to win simply boggles the mind.
    • Patents provide the low-hanging fruit in this area, but the actual problem goes much deeper.

      As we all know here, software patents are wholly inappropriate in software, as they undermine the very basis of computing. But as long as companies are free to engage lawyers to litigate as a business plan, no amount of patent reform will fix this issue, because lawyers can literally create a case out of nothing. And they do so regularly, as we've seen in hundreds of examples recently.

      The problem lies in part with
  • Reap what you sow.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by delire (809063) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @06:23AM (#18852391)
    Worth mentioning that Adobe has a similar patent [espacenet.com] (ironically presented in a webpage that breaches both the aforementioned patent and this patent):

    Abstract of EP0689133 A method for displaying on a computer screen multiple sets of information needed on a recurring basis, comprising the steps of: (1) Establishing an area on the computer screen in which the multiple sets of information are to be displayed, the established area having a maximum size which is substantially less than the entire area of the screen. (2) Providing within the established area a plurality of selection indicators, one for each of the multiple sets of information. (3) Selecting one of the multiple sets of information for display within the established area by pointing to one of the selection indicators within the established area, whereby the selected set of information will be substituted within the established area for the set of information previously being displayed therein. A selected set of information may also be moved out of the selected area by pointing to its selection indicator and dragging it away.
    Anyway, you reap what you sow. Apple is a member of the Business Software Alliance, one of the heaviest lobbyists [ffii.org] in favour of software patents (and their synchronisation with the cannabilistic US model) here in the EU.
    • There you have it. Apple, the cake, and eating it, etc.

      Anyway, I hope that DRM will fall through as horribly as this will. Fucking hypocrites.
    • Apple is a member of the Business Software Alliance, one of the heaviest lobbyists [ffii.org] in favour of software patents (and their synchronisation with the cannabilistic US model) here in the EU.
      Now, the best solution to all would be to trash the US model and adopt the cannabinistic Netherlands model.
  • IP Innovation sues for a 20 years old patent they bought from Xerox... good thing those software patents things. It's a pitty the rest of patents don't go the same way, patenting the "four wheeled vehicle with engine" would have been a smart move.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mr_matticus (928346)
      The thing is that "four wheeled vehicle with engine" at one time would have been truly novel and patentable. As technologies progress, they're supposed to be compressed and the initial patents lapse and society goes on.

      The problem with software patents is that software moves a lot more quickly than most kinds of manufacturing and design; it is also more likely with software that good ideas will be emulated across the board as users begin to expect it--to the point that it becomes standardized. The steerin
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by marcosdumay (620877)

        The patent of a "four weeled vehicle with engine" would be denied, just because it doesn't explain what sort of verhicle it is. The (very insightfull) gear that transmit power from the engine to a pair of weels while permiting them to have different velocities (and made a 4 weeled vehicle possible) was patented, and rightly so.

        See, generic patent that applies to anything at the horizon despite the actual technology used -> denied. Specific patent that applies to well defined piece of technology -> gr

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by mr_matticus (928346)

          The patent of a "four weeled vehicle with engine" would be denied, just because it doesn't explain what sort of verhicle it is.

          Sure it does. It's a motorized carriage. If you're the first one with the foresight to use an engine to generate rotational force to drive wheels, you've got yourself a patent. Something can only be obvious after someone has thought of it.

          Specific patent that applies to well defined piece of technology -> granted. That's the way it was, and that is what doesn't happen with software patents.

          I'd say a "personal computer" is a fairly well-defined and sufficiently narrow innovation space. If you're an aeronautics engineer, you would think that patents that apply to aircraft generally are too broad, but that's not the case. There are lots more software tit

  • by jotaeleemeese (303437) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @06:29AM (#18852419) Homepage Journal
    It will not be until

    a) Big companies are hurt badly by ludicrous patent claims.
    b) They buy, I mean, lobby politicians to kill software patents in the US

    that we will have something resembling sanity.

    Companies can use copyright to protect what is theirs and shoulder the fact that other people will copy their good ideas, that would benefit everybody.
  • by aplusjimages (939458) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @07:51AM (#18852893) Journal
    Like when you buy a house you get title insurance just in case all the lawyers missed some old title to your house somewhere. Is there a patent insurance that protects the company from the person who patented the idea?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ajakk (29927)
      You can get patent insurance, but these days it tends to be very expensive and have lots of loopholes. One the main reasons it can be expensive is because one of the largest costs companies want to offset is the cost of getting around an injunction. However, that can be very expensive, and very hard to determine.
  • by Cyclops (1852) <rms.1407@org> on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @08:20AM (#18853161) Homepage
    We don't need a Software Patent reform, we need it to have a quite sudden early retirement.

    If you have a nice glass broken in two halves, you can consider glueing it together again.

    If it's broken in thousands of miniscule pieces... you simple throw it away.

    Software Patents are like glass broken in thousands of dangerous miniscule shards that if ingested only hurt the industry by the inside.

    Retire it. Now!
  • by lord_mike (567148) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @08:23AM (#18853179)
    Shouldn't have it expired by now?

    Thanks,

    Mike
  • Biased Edit? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ohearn (969704) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @09:27AM (#18853933)
    I know this will probably kill karma, but here goes.

    "IP Innovation is requesting damages in excess of $20 million and an injunction against future sales and distribution of Mac OS X 10.4. Software patent reform can't come soon enough!"

    I really have to wonder if the article summary would have just cheered wildly and forgotten about patent reform for a few minutes if it had been MS they were suing, or if all the fans of Apple and MS bashers would have taken a break to still support the bigger issue on this one.

If Machiavelli were a hacker, he'd have worked for the CSSG. -- Phil Lapsley

Working...