Irrlicht Engine

Yes, read it, you'll be pissed too considering Irrlicht's use of XML.

http://software.silicon.com/application ... 795,00.htm

Before we go bashing microsoft, you have to look at their history with patents.

Sure, they have patented some silly stuff (i recall they patented the double click), they never have enforced it. Its not used to get rid of open source. They're purely defensive.

So before we go freaking out over the fact that we'd be sued, the widespread use of xml and the invention time makes the patent impossible to defend in court.

So, if they have a patent they aren't able to use to bash rivals with, why would they bother patenting in the first place?

Robomaniac wrote:...makes the patent impossible to defend in court.

Ah ha! But you forgot that the USA's courts like to defend stupid and meaningless things! And usually does what the mega-corpation wants it to.

AssiDragon wrote:So, if they have a patent they aren't able to use to bash rivals with, why would they bother patenting in the first place?

To give them a trump card so to speak to use when the time is right. Seems to me they are collecting patent's on things that as a single part are useless but as a whole can cause alot of trouble for open source.

The key is that they patent everything, not so they can sue us little people (that's the RIAA's job), but so they can make it hard (if not impossible) for other large companies (like Apple, Novell, Adobe, ect.) to make competing products.

And then, if they get busted, all they have to do is "lease" these technologies to the big companies (so they can say that they are not trying to be noncompetitive).

Just like when they tried to patent the FAT file system... it was to try to either elbow out competitors, or get a "piece of their action," to quote a smart kid from Star Trek.

AutoDMC wrote:The key is that they patent everything, not so they can sue us little people (that's the RIAA's job), but so they can make it hard (if not impossible) for other large companies (like Apple, Novell, Adobe, ect.) to make competing products.

Contradicting argument - the only way patents hold back other companies from doing such things is threatening to sue them over the issue, or even sue them if it gets to it (in economics you call that credible threat). That said I don't know how far they'd go against open source products which they consider a threat; Linux and Firefox might show pretty soon.

I thought it was more defensive, so if another company patents something a MS product uses (eg: XML) then they can't sue MS and force them to pay through the nose. I don't think it's going to hurt anyone really, especially us small guys.