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 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.

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.

Lebon14 said:

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

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


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

FuturDreamz said:

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

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

CNET spoke briefly with Ovid Santoro, one of the founders of the company. We asked if patent No. 6,724,403 was acquired by SurfCast and if it was an original invention by Santoro, who has a background in investment banking and venture capital, and Klaus Lagermann, a former IBM executive and programmer. Both are listed as inventors on the patent filing. Santoro responded that he was unable to comment. He gave the same response when asked whether SurfCast makes any products other than the patents it holds. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office records indicate that the inventors of SurfCast's patents have only authored those four patents.