RE: Freedom Scientific's Lawyers Strike Again
- From: Jamal Mazrui <empower@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 07:21:01 -0400 (EDT)
Hi Ken,
I suspect you were being tongue in cheeck (and I love your sense of
humor!). Although legal fights can be entertaining, I don't see how this
is in the interest of blind people, forcing a company to spend money on
defending against litigation rather than on R&D to improve access to
mainstream software.
FYI -- the patent FS claims was violated is described at
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%226,993,707+B2%22&OS=
I'm amazed that FS thought its placemarker feature was innovative enough
to patent. This seems like an example of taking advantage of the magical
nature of assistive technology to the uninformed, and then trying to
leverage it in questionable trade practices for corporate gain. The fact
that GW was never notified of the concern while its product has been in
beta with public demos strongly suggests that the aim is to damage GW
economically, not actually to protect intellectual property.
What do others think?
Jamal
On
Fri, 25 Jul
2008, Ken Perry wrote:
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:43:30 -0700
> From: Ken Perry <whistler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Freedom Scientific's Lawyers Strike Again
>
>
>
> I say let them fight and while they are fighting I hope Saratek is coding.
>
> Ken
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jared Wright
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 6:58 PM
> To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Freedom Scientific's Lawyers Strike Again
>
> Hi James, Worked here just now, so I'm not sure what's at fault. The long
> and short is that Freedom claims GW Micro's implementation of webpage
> placemarkers in Window Eyes 7 violates their patint on, I guess, being able
> to have placemarkers on a webpage. They filed litigation today.
>
> Jared
>
>
> Jared
>
> James Panes wrote:
> > Hi Guys,
> >
> > Just thought I would let you know that this page is not available.
> >
> > Did FS lawyers have something to do with this?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jim
> > jimpanes@xxxxxxxxx
> > jimpanes@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > "Everything is easy when you know how."
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jared Wright" <wright.jaredm@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 12:53 PM
> > Subject: Freedom Scientific's Lawyers Strike Again
> >
> >
> > http://www.gwmicro.com/blog/index.php/all/2008/07/24/do_companies_real
> > ly_compete_on_who_has_t
> >
> > Read it and weep, at least if seeing screen readers compete on their
> > functionality for all our general betterment is at all appealing to you.
> > Jared
> >
> >
> > __________
> > View the list's information and change your settings at
> > //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
> >
> > __________
> > View the list's information and change your settings at
> > //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
> >
> >
> >
>
> __________
> View the list's information and change your settings at
> //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
>
> __________
> View the list's information and change your settings at
> //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
>
__________
View the list's information and change your settings at
//www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
Other related posts:
