Browse by Tags

• Intellectual Property
• Microsoft
• Patent
• Things that amuse me
• Things that bother me

• Licensing the Office 2007 UI - what is Microsoft's IP strategy?

  Jensen Harris announced that the Office 2007 Ribbon UI can be licensed . For the last year or so, one of the questions I've been asked again and again has been: "Can I use the new Office user interface in my own product?" I have to be honest - I'm a bit baffled at this whole thing. Note, they are not providing any common controls for the Ribbon. Rather, they are "licensing ... intellectual property rights in the UI (which cover both design and functionality) and offering a comprehensive Design Guidelines document that is a roadmap for developers implementing the UI." The license is free as long as you follow the guidelines, and is intended "[f]or those that want to build their own UI that takes advantage of our design guidelines." The reason, as Jensen describes, is that "the new Office user interface was a huge investment by Microsoft and the resulting intellectual property belongs to Microsoft." The next question, of course, are what rights does Microsoft actually have with the Ribbon... Posted Nov 27 2006, 07:24 AM by Tim with | with 1 comment(s) Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Software Development, Things that bother me, Things that amuse me, Copyright, Patent, Microsoft

• Russian Software Developer Beats Pirate in Boxing Ring

  Apparently not content with legal remedies (after all, Russia is not known for it's anti-piracy efforts), a Russian software developer took matters into his own hands . In February, Smirnov saw the dealer selling CDs with his company’s software at a computer market without a license. Smirnov demanded that the dealer stop the illegal sale. A scuffle broke out, but they were stopped by the guard. After that, the pirate expressed a wish to continue the fight in the street, but Smirnov suggested a fitness center. The software development manager won 24-16 in 3 rounds. Posted Mar 31 2006, 03:49 AM by Tim with | with no comments Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Software Development, Things that amuse me, Copyright

• Rethinking the Exclusive Reproduction Right in the Digital Context

  In the past, I had small disagreement with Robert Scoble in terms of republishing content. Robert said that "by publishing RSS as full text you're buying into a system where your words will be republished in a variety of ways." I disagreed with him, of course. The medium in which you publish does not affect your rights. I'm writing a paper now on copyright in the digital context, and I'm starting to rethink this assertion - at least in terms of one particular right. Fred recently made the point that, "perhaps more than ever before, a large portion of the technology sector today implicitly depends on fair use to shield its customers . . . from accusations of copyright infringement." In most of these cases, the shield of fair use is needed due to an otherwise unlawful reproduction. Everything in the digital world implicates the reproduction right; even consumption creates a copy for the purposes of infringement. (See, e.g., MAI Systems v. Peak Computer). Then... Posted Dec 05 2005, 08:53 AM by Tim with | with 2 comment(s) Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Software Development, Copyright

• Innovation in the Post-Grokster Era

  Many, including myself , initially thought the unanimous Grokster decision was a disaster for innovation. Some still claim it will significantly chill innovation as nuances of the inducement test are fleshed out in litigation, but it's not the clear disaster that we once thought. As I mentioned briefly in that latter post , I don't think it dramatically affects the landscape for real innovators. In fact, it just might be the best decision they could have reached. The fact is, the bad actors are going to be punished, whether by a Court-created rule or legislation. If the Supreme Court decision let Grokster and StreamCast off, Congress would have stepped in with what would certainly have been much broader than the active inducement test. More significantly, the decision decouples the underlying technology from the intentions and actions of the creators. The decision is not an indictment on peer-to-peer software itself. The way I see it, it just means that bad actors can't hide behind the... Posted Jul 11 2005, 12:14 PM by Tim with | with no comments Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Software Development, Copyright