Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Patents Businesses Google Government Microsoft Software The Courts The Internet Apple News

Google, Apple, Microsoft Sued Over File Preview 250

Posted by Soulskill
from the excellent-work,-patent-office dept.
ClaraBow writes with this excerpt from MacWorld: "A small Indiana company has sued tech heavyweights Microsoft, Apple, and Google, claiming that it holds the patent on a common file preview feature used by browsers and operating systems to show users small snapshots of the files before they are opened. ... Cygnus's owner and president Gregory Swartz developed the technology laid out in the patent while working on IT consulting projects, McAndrews said. The company is looking for 'a reasonable royalty' as well as a court injunction preventing further infringement, he said. ... Cygnus applied for its patent (#7346850) in 2001. It covers a 'System and method for iconic software environment management' and was granted by the US Patent and Trademark Office in March of this year."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google, Apple, Microsoft Sued Over File Preview

Comments Filter:
  • Two words: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GrahamCox (741991) on Friday December 26, 2008 @10:27PM (#26238885) Homepage
    Two words: prior art.

    And plenty of it. We had live preview icons in an app in 1989.
    • Re:Two words: (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 26, 2008 @10:33PM (#26238927)

      What you dismiss so glibly in two words is actually hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars worth of highly technical legal arguments.

      • by McFadden (809368) on Friday December 26, 2008 @10:45PM (#26238995)
        Why not surprise those you around you with a lawsuit this Christmas? The gift that just keeps on giving.
      • by sgbett (739519) <slashdot@remailer.org> on Friday December 26, 2008 @10:47PM (#26239011) Homepage

        Weight of money does not necessarily add credance to a particular viewpoint.

        What they are patenting is now considered obvious, perhaps not at the time, but given that it was only granted recently (ie after several independant parties had made this discovery, thus making it "obvious" in its field) its hard not to see this as just another patent troll.

        • Re:Two words: (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Schemat1c (464768) on Friday December 26, 2008 @11:37PM (#26239291) Homepage

          Weight of money does not necessarily add credance to a particular viewpoint.

          You're from Earth right?

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by mysidia (191772)

        Just because they spent hundreds of millions of dollars to try to seize ownership from the public domain of a concept for which there is ample prior art, doesn't mean the two words are wrong.

        Or rather... that they hope to get hundreds of millions of dollars.

        Excuse me while I go get my patent on the concept of an online hypertext-based page that permits viewers from the public to preview comments before appending them.

      • What you dismiss so glibly in two words is actually hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars worth of highly technical legal arguments.

        Of course, "dollars" is the operative word in this statement.

      • by poetmatt (793785)

        Bilski being overturned would highly disagree.

      • If they are so lame to burn their money this way. Who am i to deny them their right?
        File previews are definitely predating 2001.

      • What you dismiss so glibly in two words is actually hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars worth of highly technical legal arguments.

        And we wouldn't want the lawyers to go hungry. ;)

      • by jafiwam (310805)

        Hundreds of years of man-hours were wasted researching the epicyclical theory of the solar system too. And it was all garbage.

        Only a stinking lawyer would think that spending more money on a point of view makes it right.

        Get off slashdot you scum.

    • Re:Two words: (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ralphdaugherty (225648) <ralph@ee.net> on Friday December 26, 2008 @10:54PM (#26239063) Homepage

      It's going to be expensive to fight these patents one by one that were rubberstamped for years. We need to throw out all software patents and return to copyright protection like we had.

        rd

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by BuddyJesus (835123)
        Right, because the solution to a ridiculously expensive problem is another problem that is equally ridiculously expensive and far more likely to result in hazardous filings.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by BoRegardless (721219)
        It is possible to file a document with prior art you have found to challenge an issued patent for a small filing fee to the US Patent & Trademark office.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by oDDmON oUT (231200)

      What can be easily said, or thought to be intuitively known, may not have been legally codified, and therein lies the rub.

      You can cite the Lexmark patent [patentstorm.us], elements of Apple's HIG [patentstorm.us], peruse the citations in one of Jakob Nielson's papers [useit.com] that would seem to support prior art, or just search Patent Storm for "iconic systems [patentstorm.us]" and seeing results dating back more than a decade figure this is a wash. Right?

      While IANAL, what seems to make this patent different is that it is for a *system* involving multiple icons at

    • by hairyfeet (841228)
      Win98SE-Pick you picture folder-right click-properties-enable thumbnail view. And I seem to remember using apps even before that time that had that. Didn't some of the "Commander" style file managers that were the rage in the early 90's have thumbnail preview? I seem to remember using something like that back then but it has been too long for me to remember the apps name. But I'm pretty sure it was one of the "Commander" style file managers that everybody always seemed to have back then. Maybe someone here
    • by kimvette (919543)

      It was a feature in SGI's Irix (the Indigo Magic Desktop) well before 2001 (pre-1995 even!), and was present in Windows 95 for bitmap images if you enable it via a registry key.

  • will they kick the sh*t out of Gnome, KDE and other GUIs next?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kent Recal (714863)

      Interestingly if this would pass (which I strongly doubt) and MS, Apple etc. were required to remove the previews - then Gnome, KDE would benefit from that.

      It kinda works like this:

      1. Idiot sues Apple
      2. Apple must remove the previews

      1. Idiot sues MS
      2. MS must remove the previews

      1. Idiot sues Gnome Foundation etc.
      2. Gnome, KDE etc. must remove the previews
      3. One day later an unofficial patch pops up somewhere
      4. Two days later that same patch is wrapped up into RPMs, Debs etc. for one-click install
      5. Due to p

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by JTorres176 (842422)

        And then immediately lawsuits are pressed against Canonical, Debian, Novell, and anyone else who allows patented material to be added to their distributions.

        Free software still has to follow the law.

        • by Kent Recal (714863) on Saturday December 27, 2008 @12:29AM (#26239599)

          Step 3, 4 and 5 do not involve Canonical, Debian or any other distro.
          The DEBs and RPMs could be hosted anywhere and if they sue the hosters then the packages will just move to bittorrent and p2p.

          That's the beauty of OSS at work here. You cannot effectively ban a piece of software that many people find useful.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 27, 2008 @12:32AM (#26239617)

          Not if its not distributed by anyone in the US. Sure, they have to follow the law, but whos law is the question.

        • by JohnBailey (1092697) on Saturday December 27, 2008 @04:16AM (#26240405)

          And then immediately lawsuits are pressed against Canonical, Debian, Novell, and anyone else who allows patented material to be added to their distributions.

          Which would be immediately laughed out of court. They would only have a case if the distro was offering the software themselves. Anybody can set up a repository anywhere in the world. Just like anybody can offer a Windows based DVD ripper. So why have the MPAA not sued Microsoft? The same reason. They can only control what they offer themselves. If Microsoft included a DVD ripper in Windows 7, then the MPAA might have a case.

          Free software still has to follow the law.

          Absolutely... So what law are they breaking?

      • by Sebastian Reichelt (1241416) on Saturday December 27, 2008 @04:55AM (#26240521)

        Sorry to burst your bubble, but actually, if they are successful, it works more like this:

        1. Idiot sues Apple
        2. Apple pays money

        1. Idiot sues MS
        2. MS pays money

        1. Idiot sues Gnome Foundation etc.
        2. Gnome, KDE etc. must remove the previews
        3. One day later an unofficial patch pops up somewhere
        4. One month later it becomes apparent that nobody except a few techies uses that patch, and people start to blame "Linux" for lacking an essential feature

        • Sure, that option is also possible but I tend to believe that for a feature as popular as thumbnail previews, word of mouth would work quite well.
          The information about how to install the required patches would quickly propagate across all the newbie-forums, howtos and other resources.

          Keep in mind how newbies are introduced to linux: Either through a friend or through some sort of "trying out linux"-article.
          Both sources will likely introduce the step of "and then install X and Y for bling, because some assho

      • by funkatron (912521)
        Grr. Another broken feature to look up on the Ubuntu wiki. They really need to start making a special edition for the civilised parts of the world.
  • Wonderful (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 26, 2008 @10:30PM (#26238903)

    claiming that it holds the patent on a common file preview feature used by browsers and operating systems to show users small snapshots of the files before they are opened

    The page [patentstorm.us] for this patent at patentstorm.com shows users a small snapshot of the patent before it is opened.

    • by sgbett (739519)

      I worry about sites that have a 'preview' option before posting content, they must be next ...

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by MichaelSmith (789609)

        I worry about sites that have a 'preview' option before posting content, they must be next ...

        We should all agree not to preview for the time being, lest sourceforge get sued.

  • Wait a minute... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Jason Pollock (45537) on Friday December 26, 2008 @10:42PM (#26238973) Homepage
    I thought Cygnus was bought by Red Hat? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat [wikipedia.org] On November 15, 1999, Red Hat acquired Cygnus Solutions. Ah, this is "Cygnus Systems"... I can see where there might be a small bit of confusion there.
  • by roman_mir (125474) on Friday December 26, 2008 @10:44PM (#26238985) Homepage Journal

    Economy (not just US economy, but especially US) is in deep f.cking shit. This is a symptom. You see, very little is actually produced in the US at this point, but more regulations, lawsuits, patents, various copyrighted materials like movies/music are still made there (I live in Canada, we are not far away from this problem here also, except that our movies/music sucks even more.)

    When there is nothing to produce except for more laws/regulations, meaningless, useless, obvious patents and lawsuits, and also the greenback, at this point you have to ask yourself a question: how is this economy, that borrows so much from the rest of the world and then buys the products from the rest of the world going to pay the freaking debt? What is it, 10 trillion in debt at least?

    Anyway, I read TFPatent [patentstorm.us] and thought to myself: holy shit. In 1998 I worked on a system for a purchase basket for a promotions company and I had to display thumbnails on the HTML page too.

    In fact various stores and also porn sites would be great at showing prior art to this BS patent.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by RockMFR (1022315)
      The patent troll in question, which won't win this suit, is based in Detroit. They are likely completely out of money and have nothing to lose.
    • by MichaelSmith (789609) on Friday December 26, 2008 @11:05PM (#26239129) Homepage Journal

      In fact various stores and also porn sites would be great at showing prior art to this BS patent.

      Yes I can confirm from personal experience that porn sites in the mid 1990's used thumbnails.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by MyHair (589485)

        Yes I can confirm from personal experience that porn sites in the mid 1990's used thumbnails.

        Sorry, this patent is for right-handed previews only.

    • by jabithew (1340853)

      You see, very little is actually produced in the US at this point

      Don't be so ignorant. A quick wikipedia search would have disabused you of this foolish notion. The United States export more now than they have ever before (well, perhaps not this year...). Things exported include corn, steal, machinery and aircraft.

      Total US exports in 2007 amounted to $1.145trillion. China's exports were worth $1.22trillion in the same year.[1] Services remain a fairly small part of that.[2]

      People think that because we see massive container ships coming from overseas the West does nothing

      • There is no reason to not assemble them outside US. The process is "security by obscurity".

        • by jabithew (1340853)

          No it's not. Boeing spent years developing know-how and the expertise to make these planes.

          Boeing themselves could shift outside the US, but I'm not sure what would be in it for them. They need the kind of highly skilled workforce only available in the West (Japan, Australia and New Zealand honorably included). They sell a lot of planes in America itself too. And even if they could get the labour outside the US, it would remain expensive.

          The American worker is still good value for money if you look at labou

          • by digitalchinky (650880) <dtchky@gmail.com> on Saturday December 27, 2008 @05:43AM (#26240649)

            I'm Australian, I now live in Asia (not Japan), have done for a lot of years so I can safely call bullshit on the skilled labour thing. You can buy quality research, manufacturing, and brains anywhere in the world. You may wish to pull your head out of your own anal passage good man. The rest of the world actually can build some pretty shit hot stuff, all on their own.

            Don't get me wrong, like I said, I'm from the west and I'm as fucking smart as all hell (It's a joke! I'm not really that smart, bottom two percent, tops), but enough with the arrogance already, the state of the art doesn't just exist in the 'west', it's everywhere.

            You really think the American worker is value for money? Here's a clue for you, good value for money is a bunch of low paid men and women (sometimes children) working the sewing machines and industrial fires for 12 hours a day 6 days a week, all for the lofty sum of $150 USD a month. On the backs of all this one can then sell those wares and gain quite a few orders of magnitude back in pure profit. In comparison the American worker is high maintenance and very expensive from an economic perspective.

    • by budword (680846)

      How are we going to pay the debt ? As a last resort, we print the money. If the other countries push us too hard, we COULD print enough to pay them off, and the next month, introduce the new and improved AMERICAN PESO !!. We won't though, because we don't need to. Slow steady inflation will take care of most of that debt.

      Now, do we deliver ourselves into our enemies hands ? Not really. There is an old saying, borrow a little, and you have a debtor. Borrow a lot, and you have a partner.

      They won't be able to

  • by mwilliamson (672411) on Friday December 26, 2008 @10:46PM (#26239005) Homepage Journal
    talk about prior art...if this survives the challenge I'm leaving.
  • by phrostie (121428) on Friday December 26, 2008 @10:49PM (#26239027)

    doesn't this infringe on the patent troll patent?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tobiasly (524456)
      Not only that... check out the screen mockup [arstechnica.com] from the patent! Those are obviously representations of the MS Paint and Excel UIs, as well as shitty MS clipart... can't they sue them for copyright infringement in their patent claim??
  • Apple Lisa (Score:3, Informative)

    by WiiVault (1039946) on Friday December 26, 2008 @10:51PM (#26239043)
    Apple and MS have had file previews since Mac OS 1 and Windows 1 back in the 80's. In fact I think the Apple Lisa OS may have been the first- at least for home users.
  • KDE prior art (Score:5, Informative)

    by fishyfool (854019) on Friday December 26, 2008 @10:53PM (#26239059) Homepage Journal
    Take a look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KDE_1.0.jpg [wikipedia.org] see the view of the virtual desktops on the top right? KDE has had this feature since at least 98 and I think the beta's had even more. Gregory Swartz just patented someone elses work likely seen while working as a consultant in the working environments of his clients.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Daengbo (523424)
      The original application was in 1998. Only the final application was in 2001.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by jrumney (197329)
        Legally, the earlier application has no significance now. It is abandoned, and the patent office did not think it was substantially enough similar to give the issued patent a priority date from the earlier application.
    • by jrumney (197329)
      IIRC, Gnome added the feature around 2000 or early 2001 too - certainly Nautilus had been publicly demoed before this patent was filed.
  • Prior Art. (Score:5, Informative)

    by bmo (77928) on Friday December 26, 2008 @10:54PM (#26239065)

    http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-6.2-Manual/getting-started-guide/index.html [redhat.com]

    Copyright © 2000 by Red Hat, Inc.

    http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-6.2-Manual/getting-started-guide/s1-managers-kfm.html [redhat.com]

    "Show Thumbnails -- If you have images in a directory, selecting this option will show you tiny representations of them. This view is useful if you keep family photos or artwork."

    --
    BMO

  • I'll testify .... (Score:5, Informative)

    by mlwmohawk (801821) on Friday December 26, 2008 @10:56PM (#26239073)

    In the late 1980s I wrote the Windows version of Business & Professional Software's Trumpet Presentation program. In it, I showed iconic representations of presentations.

    I'd call that prior art. Just contact me.

  • Claims (Score:5, Informative)

    by Dachannien (617929) on Friday December 26, 2008 @11:08PM (#26239137)

    Since people are too lazy to click on the link and read the claims for themselves, I'll post the two independent claims here:

    1. A method of accessing one or more computer files via a graphical icon, comprising the steps of:
    capturing automatically one or more graphical representations of one ormore portions of information content of one or more computer files while an application is manipulating the one or more computer files;
    creating automatically an icon including selected portions of the captured one or more graphical representations ofthe information content of the one or more computer files wherein the icon graphically depicts at least a portion of the information content from the one or more computer files and wherein the icon is created while the application was manipulating theicon's corresponding one or more computer files and includes selected portions of the captured one or more graphical representations of the information content;
    linking the icon to the application and to the one or more computer files based on theability of the application to manipulate the information content of the one or more computer files corresponding to the icon;
    storing the icon in a memory;
    displaying the icon in a window on a display screen;
    invoking the application for manipulatingthe information content of the one or more computer files upon selection of the icon by accessing the more or more computer files by reference to an underlying file system corresponding to the icon and opening the one or more computer files within theapplication.

    16. A method for providing a user interface for accessing a file based on a corresponding icon comprising:
    storing a plurality of icons in a memory along with a corresponding plurality of references to an underlying file system for storageinformation for a plurality of files, each icon having an appearance substantially depicting information content from its corresponding file, wherein the plurality of icons were created by capturing automatically one or more graphical representations ofone or more portions of information content of an icon's corresponding file while an application was manipulating an icon's corresponding file and include selected portions of the captured one or more graphical representations of the information content;
    linking an application to each icon based utility on the ability of the application to manipulate the information content of the file corresponding to the icon;
    providing a window on a display screen for displaying the plurality of icons;
    invoking theapplication for manipulating the information content of the file corresponding to the selected icon upon selection of an icon from the plurality of icons in the window;
    accessing the file designated by the reference to the underlying file systemcorresponding to the selected icon; and
    opening the accessed file into the corresponding application.

    In order for prior art to cover this, either one reference, showing that this was known before the patentee's invention, has to anticipate every one of the limitations in the claim; or, it must have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine multiple references which, when put together, cover every limitation in the claim.

    • Re:Claims (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mpaque (655244) on Friday December 26, 2008 @11:41PM (#26239315)

      NeXTSTEP 4.0 Alpha; sometimes mis-called Beta on web sites.

      The software featured tabs across the screen bottom for various window types. (We cribbed these for Mac OS 8.5 after the merger, as the tabbed window feature.) The Documents tab was a window which presented icons of documents, each of which could be a preview of the actual document, badged to indicate the associated application.

      This implementation nicely meets all the claims, but predates the patent application by 5 years. I won't bother going through all the details, but Cygnus is boned. Software patent litigation as a business model is so last decade...

    • I guess I'd be able to develop a better response if the claims were written in legible English.
    • by 3seas (184403)

      And my response is...... one or more "huh?"

      I swear I've seen AI programs produce more concise, clear and fully descriptions text than this.

      They must have been using an older version.

    • In order for prior art to cover this, either one reference, showing that this was known before the patentee's invention, has to anticipate every one of the limitations in the claim; or, it must have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine multiple references which, when put together, cover every limitation in the claim.

      INAL goes with saying.

      Please see patent office http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html [uspto.gov]

  • I would like to see this patented process. Can someone send me a copy of the process?

    I have a older family friend who patented a tool for working on IBM Selectric typewrites back in the '60s. He could show me the tool and the designs.
  • by fibrewire (1132953) on Friday December 26, 2008 @11:18PM (#26239199)

    The moment where patent trolls battle it out with large corporations is right around the corner. I feel that this is not only the beginning of a shitstorm, but when it's finished - software patents will be made illogical if not illegal in most countries, and people will realize that it was just a marketing scam that big corporations used to squash the little guys, and then differently designed little guys built to take advantage of an unfair law will take down the big corporations at their own game. Its the way of things, until balance is found. Same with licensing software, same with MPAA and RIAA, and other such BS. No unfair advantage cannot be exploited, which is why free enterprise & the internet kicks ass. Value through innovation will always win. Period.

  • by s0litaire (1205168) on Friday December 26, 2008 @11:19PM (#26239203)
    ...I can copyright the procedure to engage in ludicrous legal actions on flimsy evidence between parties. 1) Read slashdot 2) Contact lawyers 3) Profit... 4) Sue myself 5) ... :D:D
  • by babernat (1429727) on Friday December 26, 2008 @11:37PM (#26239293)
    I'm going to run out and patent malloc and free separately. Of course I would make more money off of malloc than free. :)
  • Bilski sort of invalidates things that are obvious or not tied to hardware. So how do they expect to defend this patent while not getting it overturned?
    • The best they can hope for is being slapped down quickly, before Microsoft, Apple and Google incur much legal costs for them to pay.
      This sounds like a quick way to bankruptcy.

  • by carlzum (832868) on Friday December 26, 2008 @11:47PM (#26239351)
    Cygnus Systems [cygnus-sys.com] (not to be confused with the Cygwin guys) doesn't appear to produce any commercial software. They look like some kind of software/hardware reseller, providing some business application develop services at best. They applied for this patent in 2001, where's the product they were trying to protect? It's one thing to abuse the system to fight off competition, but registering vague patents with no intention of implementing them is patent trolling at its worst.
    • by pammon (831694) on Saturday December 27, 2008 @03:08AM (#26240195)

      It would be a big mistake for a company like this to produce any products. These companies exist only to license out IP they buy or otherwise "invent," and to sue non-licensees for patent infringement. If they were to produce a product, they would make themselves vulnerable to a countersuit.

    • They're just small-time pissants hoping for lottery-by-court. They think they can get a quick payoff or get lucky in the courts, and they probably have someone willing to give cheap legal services. There's nothing to see here - they are insignificant and will quickly be squashed like cockroaches.
  • by martin-boundary (547041) on Friday December 26, 2008 @11:58PM (#26239443)
    Who needs file preview anyway? I just use less(1). You can get used to it. I don't even see the control codes. All I see is blonde, brunette, redhead...
    • Matrix jokes aside, the people I know who use file preview in windows are those that can only type with their index fingers whilst looking at the keyboard.
  • Troll (Score:2, Insightful)

    by wshwe (687657)

    Just another greedy patent troll!

  • by bigbigbison (104532) on Saturday December 27, 2008 @01:15AM (#26239793) Homepage
    The website for Cygnus System, Inc. states: "ygnus Systems, Inc. focuses on the unique computing, networking and application needs of small to midsized businesses and offices in the southeastern Michigan area. " and the bottom of the website says they are in Taylor, MI http://www.cygnus-sys.com/AboutUs [cygnus-sys.com]

    If the article confuses Indiana with Michigan then maybe it is confused about the lawsuit as well?
  • As the judge gleams over his PC and noticed it too uses the preview thumbnails feature and started to realize...holy crap...if I pass judgment then how the hell am I gonna find my pictures?!?!

    What bothers me tho as more and more of these silly lawsuits crop up it will stifle innovation. Eventually it will choke open source software as they lack funds to fight this. Apple and Microsoft have deep pockets so they will survive, just we will end up paying for it later.

    I just hope I can continue to use Ubuntu w

  • Creating Unity (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pingveno (708857) on Saturday December 27, 2008 @03:27AM (#26240257)

    There's a least one benefit to patent trolls like these guys. They unify companies that normally are fierce competitors. Or, as Psycho Dave from Kuro5hin describe another group:

    "...what common ground does pretty much every person regardless of their political or religious beliefs have? They all hate the Westboro Baptist Church."

  • If only (Score:4, Interesting)

    by symbolset (646467) on Saturday December 27, 2008 @05:08AM (#26240575) Journal

    If only we could find a way to abolish these Copyright and Patent issues we might have progress, which is what copyrights and patents are supposed to provide.

    • by BountyX (1227176)
      I will share with you how to do this. First step to abolishing copyright and patent issues is to ignore them. Here's a car analogy. You need to get to work, but your car is broken and it's been broken for the last 10 years becuase its an old peice of shit. Do you use your obviosuly broken car, or do you get another ride? So ignore the damn laws, and get another ride. Any IP you dont want the shit sued out of, establish an outsourced corporation in a country with sane copyright laws. The system will eat its
    • If only we could find a way to abolish these Copyright and Patent issues we might have progress, which is what copyrights and patents are supposed to provide.

      Because destroying incentives which lead to capital investment and collapsing industries based on intellectual property would clearly help progress. What is needed is massive reform, not complete abolition.

  • From their website...:
    Our Mission

    To bring the power of computer technology to business through the use of advanced products and technical consulting services.

    To provide computer technology solutions to our clients using our proven process of identifying, simplifying and comunicating a better way to get the most from their technology investments.

    Committed to: Customer service, Individual ability and creativity, professional responsibility, human touch experience.

    It also looks like their logo is prior art too

What the world *really* needs is a good Automatic Bicycle Sharpener.

Working...