EPT.docX is dead! Yay! - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
| ||
|
mindspike
Canada1902 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 Smaller file size without loss of features or data is always good. Some reasons: downloads are faster uploads are faster loading time is faster memory requirements are smaller One of the big reasons why photoshop always feels like its running super slow is because the .psd format is completely bloated. | ||
|
ShadowDrgn
United States2497 Posts
On August 13 2009 08:16 Ecael wrote: When was the last time we actually saw that? From what I have read they have a track record favoring the patent holders quite a bit. Just a question, I haven't read anything too recent on the topic, so I don't know if the...what was it, 2006 revisions I think, has changed the matter much. The Fed. Cir. invalidated a business method patent in Bilski last year for being unpatentable subject matter, and that decision is being used against all types of software patents at the USPTO, the board of patent appeals and interferences, and district courts. The Bilski test is (1) whether a claimed process is tied to a particular machine or apparatus or (2) whether it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing. Unfortunately, the court didn't give any guidance as to what a "particular machine" entails so no one really knows which software patents are valid and which aren't. Bilski is on appeal to the US Supreme Court so maybe they'll tell us. Right now, software patents are a mess and my job has become even more difficult.  So yeah, it's quite possible that the Fed. Cir. could invalidate this patent for Microsoft if they find the claims aren't tied to a particular machine (they certainly don't transform any physical objects). Microsoft's problem is that the injunction begins in 60 days and the appeals process takes a lot longer than that. | ||
|
AssuredVacancy
United States1167 Posts
On August 13 2009 09:05 mindspike wrote: Smaller file size without loss of features or data is always good. Some reasons: downloads are faster uploads are faster loading time is faster memory requirements are smaller One of the big reasons why photoshop always feels like its running super slow is because the .psd format is completely bloated. Generally when data's smaller, the loading time's faster because it takes longer to decompress the file, and usually the memory requirements will be higher for that reason. Photoshop runs slow because of your lack of temporary storage, so the writing speed would be the bottleneck. | ||
|
Abyzou
Sweden209 Posts
THANK YOU TEXAS JUDGE YOU ARE A MANLY MAN. And yes tons of people in my class had that problem with documents that wouldn't fly on school computers. Microsoft is retarded sometimes. | ||
|
vx70GTOJudgexv
United States3161 Posts
On August 13 2009 07:02 fanatacist wrote: That sucks, I used to take random apps and rename them as .docx and send them to my teachers, then when they couldn't open it I would have an extra day to do my assignments. Fucking awesome. Haha that's fucking awesome. I wish I had thought of that. LOL. I like *.docx personally, but I hated having to save everything in .doc because no one would upgrade their shit. FFS, the compatibility pack was free. -_- So everyone bitching about "Microsoft used *.docx to make people shell out money" is really ignorant. This is just seemingly retarded to me. | ||
|
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
11739 Posts
| ||
|
DeCoup
Australia1933 Posts
| ||
|
-fj.
Samoa462 Posts
On August 13 2009 06:15 tec27 wrote: You made sense until that last point. Patents are not a creation of capitalism, they are a creation of governments. They do allow people to make more money than they otherwise would, but only through a grant of monopoly by governments, not through market power. Well, I wasn't saying capitalism created patents or anything of the sort. I will say though that they go hand in hand. Without profit as a legitmate highest value, patents don't make sense at all. What I really was saying is that, in all ways including supporting patent-culture, capitalism kind of prevents mankind's creations from being as good as they could be. | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
| ||
Nyovne
Netherlands19140 Posts
On August 13 2009 03:06 Crunchums wrote: oh god american patent laws, run lol yes. | ||
|
SOB_Maj_Brian
United States522 Posts
| ||
|
writer22816
United States5775 Posts
I particularly liked the ingenious troll post on the second page 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 haha lmao | ||
|
DoX.)
Singapore6164 Posts
On August 13 2009 03:14 Kau wrote: I hate when people send me docx's. Now if we could get everyone to use .odt, the world would be a better place. qft | ||
|
Badjas
Netherlands2038 Posts
On August 13 2009 16:30 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: Wouldn't it be funny if Microsoft got an appeal, won it, and then sued this company for loss of revenue for however long they couldn't sell their product and won that too? I would laugh. The loss of revenue that would not be fair according to the judge of appeals, would have been caused by the patent office's examiner, not the company filing for the patent. So Microsoft would have to sue the patent office if it seeks damage compensation. | ||
|
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
| ||
|
Badjas
Netherlands2038 Posts
On August 13 2009 07:37 ShadowDrgn wrote: No, certainly not. In fact, software developers wouldn't search through patents like that because of damages issues (i.e. willful infringement damages like we see in this case). The publication of software patents isn't even a good policy argument because it's hard to imagine what kind of methods and systems someone could keep secret and still be useful after 20 years in this area. Maybe innovation will slow down in the future (not likely), but right now, 20 years is forever for computers. Drawing a box around software patents is hard though. Any "software" invention can be implemented in hardware so why should someone be able to patent a device that does X but not the underlying method of doing X? Should a router be patentable but not a general purpose computer configured to act exactly like the router? With the way technology is progressing, everything is becoming electronic, computerized, and software-driven, which makes it hard to separate what's a useful invention and what's "just an algorithm." With the suggestion that software companies look in the patent databank looking for something useful, I meant not for those companies to infringe in the patent, but to get a license for the patent. (as could happen with non-software patents.) Anyway, I agree with your points. A physical box that has a certain unique function that would satisfy 'traditional' patent law should of course be patentable. The software in the thing would simply be a means to an end, not separately patentable. For much the same reason that mathematical formula's aren't patentable. I'm not in the business like you are but in my imagination, the line would be pretty easy to draw. I guess you have seen many a vague edge case. And, I believe, software can only be implemented in hardware if you use physical metaphors for the abstract things that govern software. | ||
|
Samurai-
Slovenia2035 Posts
| ||
|
CubEdIn
Romania5359 Posts
On August 13 2009 21:44 Samurai- wrote: Yes because the internet is so slow this days and hard disks are so small that making a fuss if the file is 50k or 80k is important.. You have no idea what you're talking about. And neither does anyone who only views this from the student/housewife/solo-user point of view. This has a huge impact on large companies who have millions of files in office. In the 3 years I worked for the company I'm currently employed with, I have made/worked with over 20.000 files. And they are all stored on the server. If you multiply that by 20 employees, you get 400.000 files. So that 30kb extra is actually about 10Gb of extra data, and we're a SMALL company. You have no idea what kind of impact this has on large companies. Besides, it's not like it matters that you have to DOWNLOAD office 2007 anyway, but what about all those companies that bought and use it? Should they stop making docx files now? Should they start converting all their files back? It's absurd. Most people who are pro-this don't see the big picture. | ||
|
Badjas
Netherlands2038 Posts
On August 13 2009 22:15 CubEdIn wrote: You have no idea what you're talking about. And neither does anyone who only views this from the student/housewife/solo-user point of view. This has a huge impact on large companies who have millions of files in office. In the 3 years I worked for the company I'm currently employed with, I have made/worked with over 20.000 files. And they are all stored on the server. If you multiply that by 20 employees, you get 400.000 files. So that 30kb extra is actually about 10Gb of extra data, and we're a SMALL company. You have no idea what kind of impact this has on large companies. If mom and pops can afford the disk space to the extend that they don't need to look after the file sizes of their word documents, then so can companies small and large. The amount of storage space spent is proportionate to turnover, depending on the kind of work the company does of course. | ||
| ||
