imo microsoft should do make msoffice open source and give it free with windows and just lol like what they did with internet explorer
.docX is dead! Yay! - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Grimatoma2
United States68 Posts
imo microsoft should do make msoffice open source and give it free with windows and just lol like what they did with internet explorer | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
Last Romantic
United States20661 Posts
Insofar as ubiquity goes, sure, .doc is more common, but .docx is.... better. This is even more ridiculous than Cisco's suit against Apple due to its ownership of the name "iPhone". Delay of technological advance due to some petty detail is... well. A bit silly. @grimatoma, have you worked in a large tech firm? Those few 'killabytes' total up to a few million... what would you call them.... 'giggabytes'. And then you have to buy more storage, and service that storage, and all sorts of useless spending that can easily be prevented. Microsoft is a profit-making venture. Asking them to give away their hard work for free is despicable. As a Microsoft shareholder I encourage them to make money in as many ways as possible. | ||
|
Husky
United States3362 Posts
| ||
|
PianoMan
Pakistan54 Posts
On August 13 2009 03:40 Grimatoma2 wrote: why are you guys complaining about the size of a document? we have drives with 1 terabyte, and u guys r talking about the different of a few killabytes??? imo microsoft should do make msoffice open source and give it free with windows and just lol like what they did with internet explorer Yeah man, rage against the man, man. Microsoft should just give away everything for free and pull money out of their hats. P i a n o M a n | ||
|
ParasitJonte
Sweden1768 Posts
On August 13 2009 03:32 Jibba wrote: What? The XML files are superior in every way (especially size.) There's a compatability pack for older versions of Office so they read .docx without having to convert anything. You guys are dum. Thank you. And no there's no reason to be happy about this. Some stupid company (i4i -> lol?) taking advantage of stupid rules and possibly forcing Microsoft to change the format in which word documents are saved. For portability issues I always use this http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/thankyou.aspx?familyId=f1fc413c-6d89-4f15-991b-63b07ba5f2e5&displayLang=en and export my .docx files to pdf. | ||
|
StorrZerg
United States13919 Posts
On August 13 2009 03:42 HuskyTheHusky wrote: Yeah this is definitely going to get overturned. This is like saying Ford can no longer make trucks. yeah sums it up pretty well. just give the guy his millions and let Microsoft be Microsoft. | ||
|
Aerox
Malaysia1213 Posts
| ||
|
-fj.
Samoa462 Posts
Esp. When it is applied to computers, it mostly just prevents people from doing the best work they can... Its like a limit on what you can make, for example people have to use worse / less efficient methods of rendering shadows in 3D games because the best ways are patented. Capitalism does this all the time.. Makes things shitty for everyone just so 1 person can make money. Planned obsolescence, anyone? | ||
|
Ganfei
Taiwan1439 Posts
On August 13 2009 03:41 Last Romantic wrote: Agreed with Jibba, Insane, and azndsh. Insofar as ubiquity goes, sure, .doc is more common, but .docx is.... better. This is even more ridiculous than Cisco's suit against Apple due to its ownership of the name "iPhone". Delay of technological advance due to some petty detail is... well. A bit silly. @grimatoma, have you worked in a large tech firm? Those few 'killabytes' total up to a few million... what would you call them.... 'giggabytes'. And then you have to buy more storage, and service that storage, and all sorts of useless spending that can easily be prevented. Microsoft is a profit-making venture. Asking them to give away their hard work for free is despicable. As a Microsoft shareholder I encourage them to make money in as many ways as possible. uh where exactly is this "free" part that you are gleaning from the article? And quite regardless of whether or not it's good, worked, or doesn't work, if Microsoft did in fact steal another company's idea or programming or whatever the fuck it is, then Microsoft needs to pay that company. I don't know if they did or not...but if they did, then they should. | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
just another patent troll | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On August 13 2009 03:25 Nytefish wrote: I always wonder about these kind of rulings. How much does the judge understand the technology? Was the patent stupidly vague in the first place? Should I be happy that Microsoft is on the losing end? not at all yes no | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On August 13 2009 03:50 -fj. wrote: Patent law -_- Esp. When it is applied to computers, it mostly just prevents people from doing the best work they can... Its like a limit on what you can make. People have to use worse / less efficient methods of rendering shadows in 3D games because the best ways are patented. Capitalism does this all the time.. Makes things shitty for everyone just so 1 person can make money. Planned obsolescence, anyone? Uh... if you create something you deserve to profit off of it. If patent holders couldn't make money off their inventions, those rendering methods wouldn't have been created in the first place. The problem is when the law is stretched to an unreasonable extent, and this is one of them. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On August 13 2009 03:51 NoobsOfWrath wrote: if Microsoft did in fact steal another company's idea or programming or whatever the fuck it is, then Microsoft needs to pay that company. I don't know if they did or not...but if they did, then they should. Patent Basically a file with metacodes.Method and system for manipulating the architecture and the content of a document separately from each other Abstract A system and method for the separate manipulation of the architecture and content of a document, particularly for data representation and transformations. The system, for use by computer software developers, removes dependency on document encoding technology. A map of metacodes found in the document is produced and provided and stored separately from the document. The map indicates the location and addresses of metacodes in the document. The system allows of multiple views of the same content, the ability to work solely on structure and solely on content, storage efficiency of multiple versions and efficiency of operation. The fun thing is that MS is just being singled out for $$$. Apple, IBM, Sun, etc. are all using the same format. | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On August 13 2009 03:55 Jibba wrote: Uh... if you create something you deserve to profit off of it. If patent holders couldn't make money off their inventions, those rendering methods wouldn't have been created in the first place. The problem is when the law is stretched to an unreasonable extent, and this is one of them. computer patents have a whole host of other problems since a) the turn over is a lot faster than in other fields. Having a company able to sit on a patent for 17 years is pretty ridiculous. b)when you do a patent, you are patenting an algorithm, which is just a generic way to accomplish a task. The vast majority of tech patents are ridiculous for this reason. The company can make money off the program itself. If patent holders couldn't make money off their inventions, those rendering methods wouldn't have been created in the first place. its more than a bit flimsy to say that by itself without justification. Of course those rendering methods would still be used. You use those algorithms to produce a superior product which you then sell. Someone using the same/similar algorithms doesnt mean they will have the same product. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
andiCR
Costa Rica2273 Posts
Now its as if they try to sue Microsoft into bankrupcy just for the sake of.. what??? This makes no sense to me. I find it malicious. I dont care if docx is not "portable" enough, it's their fucken software.. | ||
|
BBS
Germany204 Posts
| ||
|
azndsh
United States4447 Posts
| ||
|
Last Romantic
United States20661 Posts
On August 13 2009 03:51 NoobsOfWrath wrote: uh where exactly is this "free" part that you are gleaning from the article? And quite regardless of whether or not it's good, worked, or doesn't work, if Microsoft did in fact steal another company's idea or programming or whatever the fuck it is, then Microsoft needs to pay that company. I don't know if they did or not...but if they did, then they should. Not from the article, from the previous poster who said that Office should be open source/free to download like internet explorer is. | ||
| ||