Microsoft Patents 'IsNot'

[Jeff Shannon]

Peter Maas wrote:

> Isnot is semantically equivalent to the inequality operator which is
> some hundred years old. I doubt that this can be an approved patent,
> even under the liberal patent US laws.


Maybe it's not a technically *valid* patent, but that doesn't mean it 
can't be approved.  The US  patent system has become appallingly lazy 
about checking for things like prior art and obviousness.  (After all, 
we're talking about the system that approved a patent on "one-click 
purchasing"....)

The sad thing about this is that these patents can be challenged in 
courts... but only if you can afford the legal budget necessary.  And 
big corporations can afford to defend these patents, regardless of their 
legal viability, well enough to prevent all but the most determined (and 
well-heeled) challengers from actually getting a judgement on the actual 
merits of the case.

Jeff Shannon
Technician/Programmer
Credit International