Al Johnson wrote:
On Thursday 05 February 2009, Helge Hafting wrote:
arne anka wrote:
(http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=WONR=2009012
344A2KC=A2FT=Ddate=20090122DB=EPODOClocale=en_US)
i didn't read it fully, but how does that differ from a simple hub or the
common
2009/2/5 Al Johnson openm...@mazikeen.demon.co.uk:
On Thursday 05 February 2009, Helge Hafting wrote:
arne anka wrote:
(http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=WONR=2009012
344A2KC=A2FT=Ddate=20090122DB=EPODOClocale=en_US)
i didn't read it fully, but how does that differ
arne anka wrote:
(http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=WONR=2009012344A2KC=A2FT=Ddate=20090122DB=EPODOClocale=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
On Thursday 05 February 2009, Helge Hafting wrote:
arne anka wrote:
(http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=WONR=2009012
344A2KC=A2FT=Ddate=20090122DB=EPODOClocale=en_US)
i didn't read it fully, but how does that differ from a simple hub or the
common docking station
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 -- be
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.
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.
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
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 art
and
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 link to an
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 the
article
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 message
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 FOSS
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 have
no idea.
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
2009/2/3 Helge Hafting helge.haft...@hist.no:
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
On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 09:13:50 -0500 Jon 'maddog' Hall mad...@li.org 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
2009/2/3 Peter Nijs pe...@familienijs.be:
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://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=WONR=2009012344A2KC=A2FT=Ddate=20090122DB=EPODOClocale=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
On Tuesday 03 February 2009 20:10:08 arne anka wrote:
(http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=WONR=20090123
44A2KC=A2FT=Ddate=20090122DB=EPODOClocale=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
20 matches
Mail list logo
