Yesterday we reported that Microsoft was suing Motorola over patents relating to the Xbox 360 gaming system.
Today, Motorola has counter-sued, accusing Microsoft of infringing on 16 patents with their Xbox, Windows for servers, PCs, and mobile devices.
Says Motorola (via Cnet): "The Motorola patents directed to PC and server software relate to Windows OS, digital video coding, e-mail ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
This is really starting to get ridiculous now. It seems like everyone is trying to sue each other for old patents that they just decided is one of theirs. Even this patent thing is starting to get out of hand, I think they need to really think about how they go about doing it because some patent that they award are just dumb.
I just read that nintendo got a trademark for the phrase "It's on like donkey kong" WTF is up with that????
Originally posted by biglo30: This is really starting to get ridiculous now. It seems like everyone is trying to sue each other for old patents that they just decided is one of theirs. Even this patent thing is starting to get out of hand, I think they need to really think about how they go about doing it because some patent that they award are just dumb.
I just read that nintendo got a trademark for the phrase "It's on like donkey kong" WTF is up with that????
Some of these lawsuits are legitimate; if a company invents something they should have a right to sue other companies for using their technology without permission. Maybe there are too MANY patents, but if you develop a "catchphrase", than you should be able to trademark it.
I'm guessing that Motorola's lawsuits were long and coming.
Originally posted by biglo30: ..nintendo got a trademark for the phrase "It's on like donkey kong" WTF is up with that????
but if you develop a "catchphrase", than you should be able to trademark it.
No, you shouldn't. Its a catchy phrase, a slogan, and not a trademark, which is entirely different, ie used to identify an item or range of goods. Anyway, they haven't been granted the trademark, they have applied for it. And its a PR marketing stunt.. although, given the vagaries of the US courts, they could well be granted it (even though prior use exists..)
Lawyers, of course, will wish them well. Why? because then other clients will trademark phrases. These will be incredibly simple to search for, and thus bring cases seeking damages for "dilution of the brand" :-)
is it not every patent lawyers dream to trademark the letter 'e", and "i".
