Microsoft recently announced it would enable RSS feeds in the next version of its operating system — Longhorn, due out in beta next month. While use of RSS feeds is only at about 5-10 percent of Internet surfers, according to Yankee Group analyst Laura DiDio, their endorsement by Microsoft is likely to push them into broader adoption. RSS, or really simple syndication, feeds are a means of sharing headlines and other Web content between sites or from one site to an individual computer.
I have a question about one of your final comments in the article - paraphrased as "you snooze, you lose". Very applicable in the case of copyrights, but what about patents? Why is it legal (it's obvious that it's not ethical) for a patent holder do essentially the same thing as your songwriting example? Except in this case, someone else develops a product (writes a "song") and you come along and asserts your rights because you hold a patent on the technology of that product. You never advertized the fact (e.g., RAMBUS, or BT's hyperlink patent) that you "thought up" the tech, and you waited for someone else with the expertise/captial to create it - and then you come out of the woods claiming you deserve royalties. Why should that be legal? Are any proposed patent reforms aimed at forcing patent holders to assert their rights in a reasonable time, instead of waiting for a particular product to become a hit?
Loading ...
IP Attorney Bruce Sunstein Discusses RSS Copyright
Posted by: Susan B. Shor July 12, 2005 05:00 AMMicrosoft recently announced it would enable RSS feeds in the next version of its operating system — Longhorn, due out in beta next month. While use of RSS feeds is only at about 5-10 percent of Internet surfers, according to Yankee Group analyst Laura DiDio, their endorsement by Microsoft is likely to push them into broader adoption. RSS, or really simple syndication, feeds are a means of sharing headlines and other Web content between sites or from one site to an individual computer.
You never advertized the fact (e.g., RAMBUS, or BT's hyperlink patent) that you "thought up" the tech, and you waited for someone else with the expertise/captial to create it - and then you come out of the woods claiming you deserve royalties. Why should that be legal? Are any proposed patent reforms aimed at forcing patent holders to assert their rights in a reasonable time, instead of waiting for a particular product to become a hit?