I don't care whether the patent was valid or not. ActiveX was a crime against humanity, and they need to be punished, preferably eternally.
Well actually...
By Anonymous Coward
Posted Monday 4th June 2007 23:12 GMT
...a crime may well have been committed; if employees of the university filed for a patent whilst knowing there was prior art (and if it was by one of their own students they are going to have a hard time arguing they didn't know about it) then haven't the signatories to the patent application have committed fraud?
But...?
By Matt
Posted Tuesday 5th June 2007 09:52 GMT
I suppose it would depend how Wei released viola. Part of course/project work => belongs to UC. Done in own time as a personal project -> I think it belongs to him. If it was part of course/project work and therefore belonged to UC then can the prior art argument be used at all, seeing as they themselves owned it (by extenstion)?
The check finally cleared
By Eduard Coli
Posted Tuesday 5th June 2007 15:52 GMT
This is doubtful at best.
M$ came in late on the Internet so if they do have a patent it would have been though acquisition.
Univ. of Calif. is not necessarily UC Berkeley
By Christopher E. Stith
Posted Tuesday 5th June 2007 23:57 GMT
The University of California system has ten campuses with over 200,000 active students and over 1.4 million alumni. Unless the prior art was turned in as a major assignment, there's not really any reason for the Regents of the university system to have ever even heard of the project.
Better check the MS 'Evidence'
By Anonymous Coward
Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 02:40 GMT
Microsoft is not above manufacturing evidence if it thinks it will help with it's court cases.
Remember the manufactured demonstrations from the IE-Bundling lawsuit(s) ?
The period for commenting on this story has finished
Biting the hand that feeds IT
