Windows 7: Microsoft sued over Windows Live Tiles - Win 8 + Phone

That's two trademark/patent violations Micro$not has run into with Win8. First, it was the UI formerly known as Metro, now this.

I doubt this will happen but, I vote for SurfCast. Shoot the monstruosity that is Windows 8 (or remove that "Metro" *pong*).

^ So you encourage corporations to torture money from each other over such nonsensical things? And the reason is because a large corporation created a product you didn't like?

I don't like perfume but I'm not boycotting the businesses that sell the stuff.

I just think people and businesses shouldn't sue over stupid trivial things, but serious offenses. The tiles don't even look similar... and who the hell is surfcast anyway?

"I just think people and businesses shouldn't sue over stupid trivial things, but serious offenses." OK. Who is to be the judge of "stupid trivial" and "serious"? You, who have no interest in the matter, or the ones involved with the conflict?

To make it more personal, what if someone felt taking your car without your permission and driving it for his own use is stupid trivial? Should that someone get to decide or should you, the owner of the car, get to decide what is stupid trivial and what is serious? Same thing for slight variation in active tile patents. The owners should get to decide how serious the infringement happens to be. Rather than settling the argument with guns, knives, and clubs, we use courts, lawyers, and judges. At least that is the way it is done in a civilized society. THAT is not stupid trivial.

And we've just discovered how "civilized society" wages war: "courts, lawyers, and judges". If you don't think this particular matter is trivial, that is for you to decide, as for us all. If someone were to steal my car, that would be a completly different topic. More similar would be is if someone replicated exactly a song I wrote. But what if someone only has a similar beat? How closely sounding to the original song can one get without being told that they have copied it? How big do the boxes need to be in order for MS not to copy the patent of another company? DO they need rounded edges? If MS knew it would come to this, I am sure they would try to change it up (who really wants to battle in the courts?). The patent is vague. Don't even get me started on how 'just' our courts are. At the end of the day, you should be able to come to terms that too often these court battles are just so some lard butt can get his. I believe this to be the case in this instance. But you are welcome to call it differently.

I just think it is wrong for anyone to encourage corporations to go on sueing sprees. They actually have legal teams that hunt for so called patent infrengements so that they can get in on the cash in. Now some of it is real, but as I've said, I don't think it to be the case here. But perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps this other company is jealously fighting for their creation that MS stole and drove off with.

Dust,

What you seem to be saying that only physical property counts and that intellectual property cannot possibly be considered to exist or to have value. What you are not taking into account is the fact you earned the wealth to trade for the car by using the intellectual property you have acquired. A lot of it was acquired without paying out cash and a lot more required cash payment to acquire. So in a very real sense, your car is as much intellectual property as is a song, a poem, or a method and design of presenting action choices on a computer display.

Now if everyone could take everyone else's intellectual property for free without consequence, why would anyone work for decades to invent, design, implement, and provide a product using the intellectual property resulting from that very costly effort. Why then should you even have to pay for a car? Why not just take it? After all, it was created with "free" intellectual property and so should itself be free.

Oh, you say that the car took physical labor to create and that one should pay for another's physical labor. However, at the same time you are saying, in effect, the intellectual labor required to create intellectual property is irrelevant and that labor need not be paid for. This is at the very least an inconsistent hypocrisy. However, without intellectual property behind and directing the physical labor, the physical labor produces nothing let alone a car.

Yes, the nature of intellectual property and the assignment of ownership and value is a subtle and non-obvious complex thing. The building of a car is also a non obvious and complex thing or there would have been cars 20,000 years ago in the stone age. Hence we have established copyrights and patents to define intellectual property for exactly the same reason we established deeds for real estate, pink slips for cars, and bills of sale for more common less costly property.

The subtlety and non obviousness of intellectual property can often result in disputes. Rather than going to war, we simply take the dispute to court and let a usually non emotional objective process sort out the details and to define a resolution to the dispute. Is not this a much better resolution than guns, bullets, and bombs being used to settle disputes?

Unfortunately, the point in many of these cases is to restrict competition.

Tie them up as long as you can to stop their product getting to market.

Europe is somewhat better at not putting with it.

No surprise Apple didn't do too well in their action against Samsung here.

There are all sorts of other issues re IP.

People find themselves being forced to sign away all their rights in perpetuity for a pittance. If you don't do that - you don't get the job. Some other fool will do it.

There are a variety of abuses - often carried out by those who shout the loudest abut their own rights.

This is an area that needs a serious legal overhaul.

Oh, and what amazing products of SurfCast do you use?


I intend to never condone Patent Trolls, as they only stifle innovation without contributing.

Other than having four patents for the same thing,

SurfCast | Patents

I don't think anyone is using their products.

Oh and most of the "founders" of this supposed software company are investment bankers/brokers,

SurfCast | About

And more here,

What is SurfCast and can it spoil Microsoft's Windows 8 party? | Microsoft - CNET News

lkgriffith, thanks for the reply.

I wasn't saying that at all. I believe in legal disputes in courts, and intellectual property rights, etc (despite the corruption I believe is rampant). However, I am disputing that this is even a real case against MS. I am saying that the products are not similar enough and there is no evidence MS was attempting to steal from SurfCast.

I am also saying people take advantage of these suits way too often in throwing out patents in order to sue companies to make a quick buck. For example, Apple sued a supermarket over the fact that their name was Apl. No other similarity involved. It gets carried away. Somehow or other, the abuse needs to stop. Obviously our opinions on whether this is credible abuse or not differs, but that is okay too.