Microsoft Hit with Patent Lawsuit Over Skype Features

Status
Not open for further replies.

cepheid

Distinguished
Sep 9, 2011
7
0
18,510
Why? This is what Apple and all the big companies have been doing for years now. Just because they don't make a product doesn't mean they're any worse than big business.
 

balister

Distinguished
Sep 6, 2006
74
0
18,580
CTI is going to lose both those patents as both fall on prior art if they were issued in 2005 or later (as the article seems to allude to). PGP was doing the task of the first patent back in the late 90s, well before the patent was issued. The second one can easily shown to exist in the early 90s.
 

dalethepcman

Distinguished
Jul 1, 2010
541
0
18,940
Wow I didn't know you could be awarded a patent for "A device for providing secure communications over a network" in 2005. I'm fairly certain secure network communication devices were around long before the filing (2002) or approval date of this patent.
Additionally Private/public key has been around since 1976, and this was filed for in 1999 and is essentially what their patent describes.
Stating that they had been doing it for 30 years seems meaningless, since these were patented nearly 40 years ago.
some people's children...
 

Thunderfox

Distinguished
Sep 3, 2006
177
0
18,630
Patent holding companies should be illegal. If you aren't in business to make something or do something, you don't need to be in business.
 

SteelCity1981

Distinguished
Sep 16, 2010
249
0
18,830
these patent lawsuits are starting to get stupid. Even more so now since the patent laws have changed recently that you don't even have to have a working product to patent something you just have to draw it up and can patent it, which will cause even more patent lawsuits in the future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.