| |||||||||||||
Third time is the charm?Third time is the charm?Posted Mar 2, 2009 22:19 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)Parent article: Third time is the charm? Even without VFAT, any filenames that fit in the old 8.3 format show up correctly when mounted as FAT (which isn't patented), and the remaining names get tildes in them. But it would be much better to beat the patent. Antitrust is another possible route: the only purpose of these patents is to block interoperability.
(Log in to post comments)
Antitrust vs. patents Posted Mar 3, 2009 2:34 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]
As I understand it, patents trump antitrust. The whole point of patents is to establish or maintain a monopoly. But I'm no lawyer.
I would welcome education on the topic.
Antitrust vs. patents Posted Mar 3, 2009 4:12 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
antitrust isn't having a monopoly, it's abusing having a monopoly.
as such antitrust could still be involved with patents if the company with the pantents is abusing it's monopoly status.
Antitrust vs. patents Posted Mar 3, 2009 9:39 UTC (Tue) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]
Antitrust is basically « you're so big you've escaped normal market forces so either you play nice and self-regulate or we'll have to regulate you ourselves to keep competition (and market) alive ». It can trump pretty much everything else when there's an actual political will behind.
Antitrust vs. patents Posted Mar 6, 2009 18:50 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] We're looking at two different monopolies here: the monopoly over selling of VFAT, which is what the patent creates, and the monopoly over selling computers with removable storage, which results if VFAT has somehow become the only practical way to do removable storage. In cases where companies have lost antitrust lawsuits because they used a patent to control interoperability like this, the redress was not that the invention became public domain, but that the patent holder was forced to license the patent for royalties the court determined were fair -- basically, what the patent holder would be able to get if he hadn't been able to corner the market.
Antitrust vs. patents Posted Mar 17, 2009 4:05 UTC (Tue) by yuhong (guest, #57183) [Link]
And as it turns out, MS is already making these FAT patents available for licensing, though I doubt it is compatible with open source software.
Third time is the charm? Posted Mar 3, 2009 3:17 UTC (Tue) by jordanb (guest, #45668) [Link]
> Antitrust is another possible route: the only purpose of these patents is > to block interoperability.
This is a good point. But it'd be up to the AG to take the case. In the past there would have been little chance of that happening (recall that one of the earliest actions of Ashcroft after Bush was sworn in was to terminate the US vs. Microsoft suit). But Now that there's a new sheriff in town, this could turn up being an incredibly stupid move for Microsoft by demonstrating that they are still unrepentant monopolists.
Third time is the charm? Posted Mar 3, 2009 6:42 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link] http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2236785/google-face-monopoly-probeFor me, Microsoft is so last century. They are not the problem, Varney said at a panel discussion sponsored by the American Antitrust Institute. The US economy will continually see a problem potentially with Google because it already has acquired a monopoly in internet online advertising", she said, according to Bloomberg.http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000115
Third time is the charm? Posted Mar 3, 2009 15:06 UTC (Tue) by jordanb (guest, #45668) [Link]
Yes. I expect we've all seen that quote.
The point is that the previous Department of Justice was *uninterested* in enforcing antitrust laws. The new one presumably will not be.
Ms. Varney is probably right to be focused more on Google than Microsoft as the latter's monopoly is certianly waining.
But the only earthly reason why someone would want to do what's covered in in the VFAT patent is to be compatible with a (bad) Microsoft technology that has become a standard due to the omnipresence of Windows.
Microsoft is now attacking their most credible a competitor with a patent purely to prevent us from using VFAT. That demonstrates very clearly that Microsoft is still capable and willing to illegally leverage its monopoly.
Before last month, such actions would have been ignored by the Federal government. Now I think that is less likely.
Third time is the charm? Posted Mar 3, 2009 15:46 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link] Now I think that is less likely.Given the statement of the DoJ official in charge of anti-trust and the campaign contributions I linked to, I think your position is naiive. Only time will tell, however.
|
|||||||||||||