Acacia patents address list .. - Linux

This is a discussion on Acacia patents address list .. - Linux ; "Acacia Research Corp. .. reached a license agreement with T-Mobile USA, Inc. for rights to practice US patent no. 7,072,687. The terms of the agreement is not revealed" http://www.rttnews.com/sp/Quickfacts...6/2007&item=47 "What is claimed is: 1. A system for transferring an address ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: Acacia patents address list ..

  1. Acacia patents address list ..

    "Acacia Research Corp. .. reached a license agreement with T-Mobile
    USA, Inc. for rights to practice US patent no. 7,072,687. The terms of
    the agreement is not revealed"

    http://www.rttnews.com/sp/Quickfacts...6/2007&item=47

    "What is claimed is: 1. A system for transferring an address list"

    http://www.google.com/patents?id=rLB...J&dq=7,072,687

  2. Re: Acacia patents address list ..

    On 2007-12-06, Doug Mentohl wrote:
    > "What is claimed is: 1. A system for transferring an address list"


    It's usually considered nice to indicate when you've snipped out most of
    a sentence, especially when you've removed most of it, as you have done
    above.

  3. Re: Acacia patents address list ..

    Tim Smith wrote:

    > On 2007-12-06, Doug Mentohl wrote:


    >> "What is claimed is: 1. A system for transferring an address list"


    > It's usually considered nice to indicate when you've snipped out most of a sentence, especially when you've removed most of it, as you have done above.


    The http:// thingy below the sentence indicates a URL pointing to the
    original article, such as clicking on it with the left mouse button
    brings up the original text ..

  4. Re: Acacia patents address list ..

    Doug Mentohl wrote:
    >
    > Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    > > On 2007-12-06, Doug Mentohl wrote:

    >
    > >> "What is claimed is: 1. A system for transferring an address list"

    >
    > > It's usually considered nice to indicate when you've snipped out most of a sentence, especially when you've removed most of it, as you have done above.

    >
    > The http:// thingy below the sentence indicates a URL pointing to the
    > original article, such as clicking on it with the left mouse button
    > brings up the original text ..


    Please excuse him. Mr Clippy didn't step in to help.

    --
    Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    There are only 10 kinds of people in this world,
    those who understand binary and those who don't.

  5. Re: Acacia patents address list ..

    On 2007-12-08, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
    >> >> "What is claimed is: 1. A system for transferring an address list"

    >>
    >> > It's usually considered nice to indicate when you've snipped out
    >> > most of a sentence, especially when you've removed most of it, as
    >> > you have done above.

    >>
    >> The http:// thingy below the sentence indicates a URL pointing to the
    >> original article, such as clicking on it with the left mouse button
    >> brings up the original text ..

    >
    > Please excuse him. Mr Clippy didn't step in to help.


    So your position would be that it is OK to snip a sentence in a
    misleading way, as long as a link is provided that takes someone to the
    original?

  6. Re: Acacia patents address list ..

    * Tim Smith fired off this tart reply:

    > On 2007-12-08, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
    >>> >> "What is claimed is: 1. A system for transferring an address list"
    >>>
    >>> > It's usually considered nice to indicate when you've snipped out
    >>> > most of a sentence, especially when you've removed most of it, as
    >>> > you have done above.
    >>>
    >>> The http:// thingy below the sentence indicates a URL pointing to the
    >>> original article, such as clicking on it with the left mouse button
    >>> brings up the original text ..

    >>
    >> Please excuse him. Mr Clippy didn't step in to help.

    >
    > So your position would be that it is OK to snip a sentence in a
    > misleading way, as long as a link is provided that takes someone to the
    > original?


    Here's the thing, Tim. Sometimes it's nice to trim the posts of what
    you think is not relevant to your reply.

    But no matter how you do it, someone will always screech "you snipped!",
    even when it doesn't matter.

    I imagine most newsreaders will allow you to recall yesterday's message
    by a simple back-tracking (e.g. Esc-P in slrn).

    Now post-modifying, that's just jerkism!

    --
    Tux rox!

  7. Re: Acacia patents address list ..

    Linonut writes:

    > * Tim Smith fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> On 2007-12-08, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
    >>>> >> "What is claimed is: 1. A system for transferring an address list"
    >>>>
    >>>> > It's usually considered nice to indicate when you've snipped out
    >>>> > most of a sentence, especially when you've removed most of it, as
    >>>> > you have done above.
    >>>>
    >>>> The http:// thingy below the sentence indicates a URL pointing to the
    >>>> original article, such as clicking on it with the left mouse button
    >>>> brings up the original text ..
    >>>
    >>> Please excuse him. Mr Clippy didn't step in to help.

    >>
    >> So your position would be that it is OK to snip a sentence in a
    >> misleading way, as long as a link is provided that takes someone to the
    >> original?

    >
    > Here's the thing, Tim. Sometimes it's nice to trim the posts of what
    > you think is not relevant to your reply.
    >
    > But no matter how you do it, someone will always screech "you snipped!",
    > even when it doesn't matter.


    You get accused of selective snipping more than most.

    Q) I wonder why that is?

    A) You snip things which correct your original statements in order to take
    the moral high ground for anyone joining the thread late.

  8. Re: Acacia patents address list ..

    Hadron wrote:

    > Linonut writes:
    >
    >> * Tim Smith fired off this tart reply:
    >>
    >>> On 2007-12-08, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
    >>>>> >> "What is claimed is: 1. A system for transferring an address list"
    >>>>>
    >>>>> > It's usually considered nice to indicate when you've snipped out
    >>>>> > most of a sentence, especially when you've removed most of it, as
    >>>>> > you have done above.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The http:// thingy below the sentence indicates a URL pointing to the
    >>>>> original article, such as clicking on it with the left mouse button
    >>>>> brings up the original text ..
    >>>>
    >>>> Please excuse him. Mr Clippy didn't step in to help.
    >>>
    >>> So your position would be that it is OK to snip a sentence in a
    >>> misleading way, as long as a link is provided that takes someone to the
    >>> original?

    >>
    >> Here's the thing, Tim. Sometimes it's nice to trim the posts of what
    >> you think is not relevant to your reply.
    >>
    >> But no matter how you do it, someone will always screech "you snipped!",
    >> even when it doesn't matter.

    >
    > You get accused of selective snipping more than most.


    Really? I wonder who accuses him. Might those be "Hadron Quark"
    and "flatfish", the only existing "true linux advocates"?

    > Q) I wonder why that is?
    >
    > A) You snip things which correct your original statements in order to take
    > the moral high ground for anyone joining the thread late.


    I am sure you will be able to back that claim up, just as you were able to
    do with your "cola gang says linux is perfect" claim, Hadron Quark
    --
    Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
    Let it get in YOUR way. The problem for your problem.


  9. Re: Acacia patents address list ..

    On 2007-12-08, Linonut wrote:
    >> On 2007-12-08, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
    >>>> >> "What is claimed is: 1. A system for transferring an address list"
    >>>>
    >>>> > It's usually considered nice to indicate when you've snipped out
    >>>> > most of a sentence, especially when you've removed most of it, as
    >>>> > you have done above.
    >>>>
    >>>> The http:// thingy below the sentence indicates a URL pointing to the
    >>>> original article, such as clicking on it with the left mouse button
    >>>> brings up the original text ..
    >>>
    >>> Please excuse him. Mr Clippy didn't step in to help.

    >>
    >> So your position would be that it is OK to snip a sentence in a
    >> misleading way, as long as a link is provided that takes someone to the
    >> original?

    >
    > Here's the thing, Tim. Sometimes it's nice to trim the posts of what
    > you think is not relevant to your reply.


    Sure, but this was not that. This was the original poster trimming out
    most of a sentence that he quoted from an article he was linking to,
    without indicating that it was trimmed. In that case, one should use
    one of the standard methods of indicating that the sentence itself has
    been cut.

    This is particularly important when what is being quoted is a patent
    claim, where leaving only the first small part of the sentence makes it
    look like the patent is far broader than it actually is. (This one
    still appears to be pretty broad, at least in claim 1, so there is no
    need to artificially boost it by cutting out the parts that actually say
    what is claimed).

  10. Re: Acacia patents address list ..

    * Hadron fired off this tart reply:

    > Linonut writes:
    >
    >> * Tim Smith fired off this tart reply:
    >>
    >>> So your position would be that it is OK to snip a sentence in a
    >>> misleading way, as long as a link is provided that takes someone to the
    >>> original?

    >>
    >> Here's the thing, Tim. Sometimes it's nice to trim the posts of what
    >> you think is not relevant to your reply.
    >>
    >> But no matter how you do it, someone will always screech "you snipped!",
    >> even when it doesn't matter.

    >
    > You get accused of selective snipping more than most.


    Only by you, numbnuts.

    > Q) I wonder why that is?
    >
    > A) You snip things which correct your original statements in order to take
    > the moral high ground for anyone joining the thread late.


    Hadron, I've come to the conclusion that you are just an idiot.

    In other words, I'm going to pay very little attention to you, for the
    most part.

    You remind me a lot of an old COLA poster, "Chad Myers, jerk".

    --
    Tux rox!

  11. Re: Acacia patents address list ..

    Linonut writes:

    > * Hadron fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> Linonut writes:
    >>
    >>> * Tim Smith fired off this tart reply:
    >>>
    >>>> So your position would be that it is OK to snip a sentence in a
    >>>> misleading way, as long as a link is provided that takes someone to the
    >>>> original?
    >>>
    >>> Here's the thing, Tim. Sometimes it's nice to trim the posts of what
    >>> you think is not relevant to your reply.
    >>>
    >>> But no matter how you do it, someone will always screech "you snipped!",
    >>> even when it doesn't matter.

    >>
    >> You get accused of selective snipping more than most.

    >
    > Only by you, numbnuts.
    >
    >> Q) I wonder why that is?
    >>
    >> A) You snip things which correct your original statements in order to take
    >> the moral high ground for anyone joining the thread late.

    >
    > Hadron, I've come to the conclusion that you are just an idiot.
    >
    > In other words, I'm going to pay very little attention to you, for the
    > most part.
    >
    > You remind me a lot of an old COLA poster, "Chad Myers, jerk".


    You can give it, but you can't take it I see.

    Lightweight.

    It must be annoying you that you have agreed with me on almost
    everything discussed recently.

  12. Re: Acacia patents address list ..

    >Hadron snotted:
    >>
    >> You get accused of selective snipping more than most.


    You get accused of beinga snotty prick more than most.


  13. Re: Acacia patents address list ..

    chrisv writes:

    >>Hadron snotted:
    >>>
    >>> You get accused of selective snipping more than most.

    >
    > You get accused of beinga snotty prick more than most.
    >


    You accuse people more than most. Little man's disease. You can get built
    up boots you know.

    Here:

    http://www.shoelift.com/

  14. Re: Acacia patents address list ..

    Peter KŲhlmann wrote:

    >Hadron snotted:
    >>
    >> Q) I wonder why that is?
    >>
    >> A) You snip things which correct your original statements in order to take
    >> the moral high ground for anyone joining the thread late.

    >
    >I am sure you will be able to back that claim up, just as you were able to
    >do with your "cola gang says linux is perfect" claim, Hadron Quark


    Well, Quack clearly doesn't know what it means to back a claim up. To
    him, it seems to mean saying "google for it yourself".


  15. Re: Acacia patents address list ..

    chrisv writes:

    > Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >
    >>Hadron snotted:
    >>>
    >>> Q) I wonder why that is?
    >>>
    >>> A) You snip things which correct your original statements in order to take
    >>> the moral high ground for anyone joining the thread late.

    >>
    >>I am sure you will be able to back that claim up, just as you were able to
    >>do with your "cola gang says linux is perfect" claim, Hadron Quark

    >
    > Well, Quack clearly doesn't know what it means to back a claim up. To
    > him, it seems to mean saying "google for it yourself".
    >


    Actually no. It means just hit the ^ key or whatever your Windows
    newsreader is in order to climb back up the thread.

    Another fine advocacy post from Peter "Anti aliasing can't be seen in a
    snapshot" Koehlmann and Chris "plonktardic" V (for f*ck you).

  16. Re: Acacia patents address list ..

    Hadron wrote:

    > chrisv writes:
    >
    >> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>
    >>>Hadron snotted:
    >>>>
    >>>> Q) I wonder why that is?
    >>>>
    >>>> A) You snip things which correct your original statements in order to
    >>>> take the moral high ground for anyone joining the thread late.
    >>>
    >>>I am sure you will be able to back that claim up, just as you were able
    >>>to do with your "cola gang says linux is perfect" claim, Hadron Quark

    >>
    >> Well, Quack clearly doesn't know what it means to back a claim up. To
    >> him, it seems to mean saying "google for it yourself".
    >>

    >
    > Actually no. It means just hit the ^ key or whatever your Windows
    > newsreader is in order to climb back up the thread.


    You mean this claim of yours:
    "You get accused of selective snipping more than most"

    Well, Hadron, that is a claim *you* are making. Without backing it up in
    whichever way.
    And the proof to that can *not* be found in the thread at all
    Actually, I have never seen anyone making that claim. Just you

    --
    Software, n.:
    Formal evening attire for female computer analysts.


  17. Re: Acacia patents address list ..

    >Hadron lied:
    >
    >> chrisv writes:
    >>>
    >>> Well, Quack clearly doesn't know what it means to back a claim up. To
    >>> him, it seems to mean saying "google for it yourself".

    >>
    >> Actually no. It means just hit the ^ key or whatever your Windows
    >> newsreader is in order to climb back up the thread.


    Bull****, you lying asshole.

    Just last week, you made a claim that some advocates were "liars"
    because of what they wrote regarding Linux' suitability, of 10 years
    ago, for "most users". When challenged to back-up your claim, you
    responded 'Still unable to use google "chrisv"?' There was,
    obviously, nothing in thread that backed-up your claim.

    You're a lying POS, Quack. Not that you don't already know that.


  18. Re: Acacia patents address list ..

    chrisv writes:

    >>Hadron lied:
    >>
    >>> chrisv writes:
    >>>>
    >>>> Well, Quack clearly doesn't know what it means to back a claim up. To
    >>>> him, it seems to mean saying "google for it yourself".
    >>>
    >>> Actually no. It means just hit the ^ key or whatever your Windows
    >>> newsreader is in order to climb back up the thread.

    >
    > Bull****, you lying asshole.
    >
    > Just last week, you made a claim that some advocates were "liars"
    > because of what they wrote regarding Linux' suitability, of 10 years
    > ago, for "most users". When challenged to back-up your claim, you
    > responded 'Still unable to use google "chrisv"?' There was,
    > obviously, nothing in thread that backed-up your claim.
    >
    > You're a lying POS, Quack. Not that you don't already know that.
    >


    That case? I simply could not be arsed. You know full well that your
    mate Willy Boaster has frequently claimed this. That Gregory Shearman
    claims similar things. That Kelsey claims similar things.

    But what do you know? You have everyone kill filed and you use Windows
    software.

    *plonk*

    Remember?


    --
    La violencia en la voz no es a menudo más que el estertor agónico de la
    razón en la garganta.
    -- John Boyes.

  19. Re: Acacia patents address list ..

    Hadron wrote:

    > That case? I simply could not be arsed. You know full well that your
    > mate Willy Boaster has frequently claimed this. That Gregory Shearman
    > claims similar things. That Kelsey claims similar things.
    >


    ****ing bull**** Quark. Pull your head in.

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  20. Re: Acacia patents address list ..

    Hadron wrote:

    > chrisv writes:
    >
    >>>Hadron lied:
    >>>
    >>>> chrisv writes:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Well, Quack clearly doesn't know what it means to back a claim up. To
    >>>>> him, it seems to mean saying "google for it yourself".
    >>>>
    >>>> Actually no. It means just hit the ^ key or whatever your Windows
    >>>> newsreader is in order to climb back up the thread.

    >>
    >> Bull****, you lying asshole.
    >>
    >> Just last week, you made a claim that some advocates were "liars"
    >> because of what they wrote regarding Linux' suitability, of 10 years
    >> ago, for "most users". When challenged to back-up your claim, you
    >> responded 'Still unable to use google "chrisv"?' There was,
    >> obviously, nothing in thread that backed-up your claim.
    >>
    >> You're a lying POS, Quack. Not that you don't already know that.
    >>

    >
    > That case? I simply could not be arsed.


    Translation: You lied. As usual

    > You know full well that your
    > mate Willy Boaster has frequently claimed this.


    Thenb it should be extremely easy for you to provide links, right?

    > That Gregory Shearman claims similar things.


    Good. Your "proof" is getting easier than ever now

    > That Kelsey claims similar things.


    Now it should be downright a piece of cake for you to prove it

    > But what do you know? You have everyone kill filed and you use Windows
    > software.
    >


    What does "using windows software" do to the ability to remember / know
    something (or not)?

    If you want to imply that only people somewhat mentally handicapped use
    windows software on the internet, you certainly have a point. But I don't
    see any connection with "remembering anything" even then

    --
    Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
    Let it get in YOUR way. The problem for your problem.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast