whoa they better not touch nero lol

---

OMG!! see this is why software patents really suck!

---

software patents really do suck!

Think about what they're saying they own the rights to. You shouldn't be able to patent something like that, just doesn't seem right.

If the lawsuit goes through, they will hit the biggest names names for more cash, and I'll bet never release a piece of software

---

Like most ideas in the past, software patents were good ideas when they came out but a lot has changed since then and there doing more harm then good now.

Just look what Bill Gates did. But of course the whole thing started when Steve Jobes stole the idea from Xerox then Gates stole the idea from Jobes, and now Gates is the richest thief in the world. Not bad, huh.

Patents are supposed to protect one's idea's, but in today's society, their just an excuse to sue somebody.

Well said.

---

I'd say, typical of the tech sector right now, everyone is looking for a way to raise cash and sueing people or other companies seems to be in vogue now.

I'd also bet this company, Optima, has either recently gotten an infusion of cash or has new management and this is why they are taking on Roxio to gain attention and money if they win.

---

If Roxio is smart, and have deep enough pockets this should be a no brainer, the first version of ezcd creator that I ever used was purchased in 1994. It was based on Toast which was definitely around in 1993 and possibly earlier (?). Based on the patent description, there is sufficient prior art that a. the patents will be unenforceable and b. should never have been granted in the first place.

It is pretty easy to go out and look at how something is working and then submit a patent on it.

winning in court will be the trick.....

Courts should be able to impose reverse damages or costs anyway when you have a blatant attempt to pursue on a patent that is so obviously not valid. That might cut down on some of these frivolous lawsuits. (Then the lawyers would be arguing about whether it was blatant or obvious)

Hey, give them credit for coming up with the Imaging technology first. Its acutally a great stratigy to make money: create and patent a small, but vital, program that you know big companies are going to incorporate into their programs, then sue them for all their worth when they do.

These broad vague conceptual patents and patent laws are a burden on society and the court system. The way they're set up if the car was just being invented a company could patent the steering wheel calling it a "directional control interface for personal transport systems". Then everybody pays royalties for 50 years on a damn steering wheel... Friggin' "intellectual property" squatters leaching off us all. Throw the moneychangers out of the temple already.

---

USOC has the exclusive right to the word "olympic". They filed papers against some tv show called "Robolympics" for using "olympics" even though the word's been around for centuries. Stupid, stupid crap goes these days.

---

In the same situation a small company (Quarterdeck)writes a program called cleansweep,which worked great, sues Symantec for stealing code, wins the suit and then proceeds to get bought out by the giant because they don't want to pay (admission of guilt). Small company demands payment. Nortons won't admit guilt. Small company gets bought out. Moral of the story, if you can't win buy them out and close them down. SAD!!! Now Nortons cleansweep!!! sucks

---

I think the problem here is that the company placed a patent on a concept that was previously in use (patent should never have been granted). I have no issue if something is new or represents a signficant technilogical advancement from anything previously available being patented. This however is a situation where there is ample evidence that the concept was already in use in a commerical product.I do not know how long prior to 1993 this concept was in use, but the first burner software I had (1993-1994) used this concept and this was 2 years prior to when the patent being discussed was even applied for.

If the did develop it, apparently somebody else developed the concept before them. Actually if you come right down to it weren't orginal cd's (music) when produced by music company built up as a file system, then mastered as a whole cd. (I cannot remember how long ago they came out but I am pretty sure it was before 1987) . If this is the case the company with this patent would need to establish that music cd's were not compiled originally in some sort of file system and then mastered. If played right this lawsuit should go away quite quickly......probably 2 - 3 years (quickly for lawsuits that is)

Is this the same Optima Technologies we have in Australia? OPtima Technologies here sells pc systems and that sort of thing.

Bailey

Quote from kieran32>" I have no issue if something is new or represents a significant technological advancement from anything previously available being patented."

kieran32, I basically agree with your post. What I don't get is that patent law allows companies to patent concepts that in many cases are an inevitable evolution of technology. If Roxio stole Optima's code that would be cut and dried. Just because Optima documented the idea and ONE WAY to implement it first should not grant them patent rights to the IDEA. To allow that sort of basic concept to be patented is just, well, stupid in my mind.

Bottom line: I feel like where software is concerned, you should be able to patent code, not ideas. By the logic of this case the concept of a PC operating system would be patentable if it did not already exist. Then anyone who develops a competing OS pays royalties? I don't get it.

---

I under stand it and agree, i mean for example you invent cold fusion, patent it, no one trust your idea although your ideas are proven, you give up, a few years later another large corporation, not knowingly, uses yout panted idea, would you want your money, although it is on a much larger scale it is esentially the same issue, again THEY BETTER NOT TOUCH NERO, lol

---

Sorry grey reread your comment, just apply the same consept above to say a massive security prog, or something of simular nature, you may not personally have the ability to implement this design but you atlreat want credit and roylities for someone else that does using it.

---

HAHAHA!!!!
They are sueing becuz their broke, The patent website says the patent expires on September 7, 2001 becusz they didnt pay fees due

---

Roxio doesn't make an image you can edit, it makes the image after you select what to burn. If the former it would bomb if you don't have enough free space to hold the image, would take forever to delete, and add files.
Has been awile but does roxio software let you select
the order you want the data now? Version 4 didn't let
me organize files, just add and remove them.

12 idiots might give this one a chance of winning