Comments on: The Five Patents That Brought BlackBerry Down http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/03/08/mobile_aadagfehig_i/ Spam, Security, Privacy, Spyware, Phishing & Viruses from the Front Lines. Sat, 30 Aug 2008 03:17:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: slashdoter http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/03/08/mobile_aadagfehig_i/#comment-559 Fri, 10 Mar 2006 12:36:26 +0000 http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/03/08/mobile_aadagfehig_i/#comment-559 slashdot: This just in!<br> <br> In a recent press release, SCO has claimed that Linux, Windows, and, yes, even Nature herself are violating its IP. "Our pattern recognition experts, after verifying our Linux ownership, found that Windows is basically Linux sans fork(2), so we clearly own it too," says Darl McBride, SCO's CEO and intellectual property rights advocate. "But the real breakthrough was when we found crabs were finding shells with algorithms that we own."<br> <br> "It turns out that when crabs outgrow their shell, they look in ('iterate through,' in programmer's lingo) a pile ('array') of shells, and when they find one that fits, they move in," explains Yahkee group analyst and industry visionary Laura DiDio. "Although Nature's algorithm is implemented as a neural net, it has been copied line by line from SCO's malloc code. It's time people realized that while a free, massively parallel, evolving population looks good on paper, it needs to face the reality, which is that SCO will enforce it's rights."<br> <br> Open source advocates point out that crabs had perfected their algorithm long before SCO existed, but McBride says he owns the rights, because of an ammendment letter God sent him that nobody can find. He also says that although Caldera released the crab algorithm under the old BSD license, crabs do not include the copyright notice, and besides, SCO has "absolutely no idea what it's doing."<br> <br> http://science.slashdot.org/science/03/08/20/234249.shtml?tid=134&tid=191 slashdot: This just in!

In a recent press release, SCO has claimed that Linux, Windows, and, yes, even Nature herself are violating its IP. “Our pattern recognition experts, after verifying our Linux ownership, found that Windows is basically Linux sans fork(2), so we clearly own it too,” says Darl McBride, SCO’s CEO and intellectual property rights advocate. “But the real breakthrough was when we found crabs were finding shells with algorithms that we own.”

“It turns out that when crabs outgrow their shell, they look in (’iterate through,’ in programmer’s lingo) a pile (’array’) of shells, and when they find one that fits, they move in,” explains Yahkee group analyst and industry visionary Laura DiDio. “Although Nature’s algorithm is implemented as a neural net, it has been copied line by line from SCO’s malloc code. It’s time people realized that while a free, massively parallel, evolving population looks good on paper, it needs to face the reality, which is that SCO will enforce it’s rights.”

Open source advocates point out that crabs had perfected their algorithm long before SCO existed, but McBride says he owns the rights, because of an ammendment letter God sent him that nobody can find. He also says that although Caldera released the crab algorithm under the old BSD license, crabs do not include the copyright notice, and besides, SCO has “absolutely no idea what it’s doing.”

http://science.slashdot.org/science/03/08/20/234249.shtml?tid=134&tid=191

]]> by: Paul http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/03/08/mobile_aadagfehig_i/#comment-558 Wed, 08 Mar 2006 08:09:56 +0000 http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/03/08/mobile_aadagfehig_i/#comment-558 I had always heard that you couldn't patent an idea. It could be argued that software is more idea than product, or more like a book or music. Maybe the Patent Office should get out of this arena and let the copyright police handle it. I had always heard that you couldn’t patent an idea. It could be argued that software is more idea than product, or more like a book or music. Maybe the Patent Office should get out of this arena and let the copyright police handle it.

]]> by: jatm http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/03/08/mobile_aadagfehig_i/#comment-557 Wed, 08 Mar 2006 05:18:27 +0000 http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/03/08/mobile_aadagfehig_i/#comment-557 As far as I can see, if you have a .forward file on your unix box and forward your mail to a machine that is on a W-LAN, you are violating those patents. As far as I can see, if you have a .forward file on your unix box and forward your mail to a machine that is on a W-LAN, you are violating those patents.

]]> by: Moopst http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/03/08/mobile_aadagfehig_i/#comment-556 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 23:03:14 +0000 http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/03/08/mobile_aadagfehig_i/#comment-556 I see nothing innovative here. Maybe a protocol for digitally signing the messages or to verify receipt would be nice but these are all gobeldy-gook.<br> <br> I'm amazed and worried that a judge would even consider an injunction based on these. I see nothing innovative here. Maybe a protocol for digitally signing the messages or to verify receipt would be nice but these are all gobeldy-gook.

I’m amazed and worried that a judge would even consider an injunction based on these.

]]> by: ron http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/03/08/mobile_aadagfehig_i/#comment-555 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 22:01:01 +0000 http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/03/08/mobile_aadagfehig_i/#comment-555 amateur radio operator have been using rf to send messages for years before the patent was applied for amateur radio operator have been using rf to send messages for years before the patent was applied for

]]> by: Robert Weiler http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/03/08/mobile_aadagfehig_i/#comment-554 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 20:36:42 +0000 http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/03/08/mobile_aadagfehig_i/#comment-554 Given that Aloha Net was one of the precurors of the Internet and was developed in the early 1970s, there is no way I would grant any of these patents. NTP basically has patents for sending email over AlohaNet. This is non-obvious and original in 1995? I think not. Given that Aloha Net was one of the precurors of the Internet and was developed in the early 1970s, there is no way I would grant any of these patents. NTP basically has patents for sending email over AlohaNet. This is non-obvious and original in 1995? I think not.

]]> by: michael http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/03/08/mobile_aadagfehig_i/#comment-553 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 20:09:01 +0000 http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/03/08/mobile_aadagfehig_i/#comment-553 I would expect these to be thrown out since 1988. I have seen Messages sent to mobile RF Devices using Routers, Switches and Other devices.. Think back to Australia and the Taxi industry, and the Courier systems.. They have been using exactly that sort of technology the entire time.. It was not EMail. But electronic Messages which we sent to the devices either to all or a single device..<br> <br> THe only reason it did not send email then is because at that time it was not connected to the internet. I would expect these to be thrown out since 1988. I have seen Messages sent to mobile RF Devices using Routers, Switches and Other devices.. Think back to Australia and the Taxi industry, and the Courier systems.. They have been using exactly that sort of technology the entire time.. It was not EMail. But electronic Messages which we sent to the devices either to all or a single device..

THe only reason it did not send email then is because at that time it was not connected to the internet.

]]>