Paul Archer wrote: > > I agree with you in general, and the second example here is a good example > of a patent that should never have been granted. (a patent for > multithreading, granted in 1997. sheesh.) > The first example is not about patents at all, however. The suit is about a > company claiming copyright infringement in the winamp mp3 player, and > they're suing mp3.com because they say mp3.com is making money off off > winamp, which is in turn based on their code. This is very simply a case of > whether or not Nullsoft (the makers of winamp) did or did not use code from > another company illegally. > > Paul Archer Ah, you're right, I found the wrong article. mp3.com was sued earlier for the technique of downloading music in exchange for money, which apparently someone holds a patent for downloading "information" in exchange for money which applies to alot of downloadable software, music, etc. Trying to find the article.. ah, here it is Sightsounds patent: http://www.salonmagazine.com/21st/feature/1999/03/09feature.html -Paul -- R. Paul McCarty // x52059 317 Lattimore Hall, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627 Computers don't make errors; what they do, they do on purpose.-Dale/KOTH -- Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with subject of "subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" to
Wear-Hard Mailing List Archive (searchable): http://wearables.blu.org
From Wear-Hard Mailing list Archive (WH)
Maintained by R. Paul McCarty
Archive created with babymail