I was wondering Patchou created fantastic addons for MSN.
May Microsoft copy the addons and may it use it for the further creation of the Messenger.

Or Microsoft must ask Patchou for the rights for each addon!!!

"Messenger Plus!" is copyrighted by Patchou, so Microsoft can't use that name in its products, however I think that the features of Plus are not copyrighted so Microsoft can copy then (in fact I think Patchou has said that there's no problem in making another program (like when talkng about aMSN) that uses the same codes that Plus uses to make colors, formatted text, etc...)

Anyway, even if it's legal for Microsoft (and for everyone else) to copy those features, I think it's a moral must asking Patchou for his permission to do that.

yes i totaly agree patchous permission should be asked for in the event microsoft wanted to copy patchous work.

Well, I wouldn't mind if Microsoft got some "inspiration" from my software, however, my software is protected by intellectual property rights. You just can't create a plugin featuring a "custom names" feature that works exactly the same. But in any case, dont worry, when Microsoft wants something it buys it, it doesn't steal it. And there's no reason for them to buy Messenger Plus! as it currently doesn't cost them acent and them get indirect benefits from its popularity . I just hope that this silent cooperation will continue.

didn't you buy a digital signature patchou?, what exactly does that do and where can we view it

Ooo.....digital signature.

If you ask me, if Microsoft were to rip Patchou off, all the Plusers would go f***ing nuts, and that's a bad thing for Microsoft, as people would probably stop using their dodgy products like Frontpage and Windows. Also, some people might go the extra step and......well.....you know......

Digital signatures are for a very different purposes. Intellectual Copyrights are implicit anyway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patchou
Well, I wouldn't mind if Microsoft got some "inspiration" from my software...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by thekid

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patchou
Well, I wouldn't mind if Microsoft got some "inspiration" from my software...

---

They have already gotten some inspiration.

* thekid opens the chat logs folder and reads some logs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chaotic_Shield
if Microsoft were to rip Patchou off, all the Plusers would go f***ing nuts, and that's a bad thing for Microsoft, as people would probably stop using their dodgy products like Frontpage and Windows

---

Microsoft needs Patchou, with his ideas MSN keeps on running. Without Patchou MSN is never be so great... I am still using MSN 6.2 and when the new plus comes out. I am gonna use MSN 7 with it.

True, Messenger is QUITE boring now without Messenger Plus!  In fact, I doubt i'd use MSN Messenger if Plus! went away...

As Patchou said, Microsoft would prolly pay him thousands (if not millions) for his features if they really wanted Plus!

quote:

---

Originally posted by R-Style
Microsoft needs Patchou, with his ideas MSN keeps on running. Without Patchou MSN is never be so great... I am still using MSN 6.2 and when the new plus comes out. I am gonna use MSN 7 with it.

---

Microsoft knows exactly what Patchou does.
I know for sure that MS is keeping an eye on this Forum. To look what Patchou is doing right know. Messenger plus is free advertisement for MSN. Whit this advertisement of a great tool MSN keeps on running. Big M knows also MSN must stay free......

They must be leet to have that wrote on their site, websites never lie do they ...

Its pretty cool about all of this really... I agree with choli that its just morally incorrect to 'steal' features without permission...

quote:

---

Originally posted by traxor
I agree with choli that its just morally incorrect to 'steal' features without permission...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saint

but not all people care about morals

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by johny

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saint

but not all people care about morals

---

i think MS needs to have some morals...or the anti MS movement will get bigger and bigger...

---

MS are talking about or at least appear to be thinking about custom away mesages, isn't this "yours"

They must pay you. even if it runs different they should send you money anyway.

If it works differently (i.e. protocol-supported), they won't have to pay any money. In fact, they may not even infringe intellectual proerty rights.
Anyway, Plus has way more genuinely useful features than custom statuses. Like coloured nicks, the whole plugin subsystem, event logger, contact list clean-up helper thingymajig, quick texts, custom status shortcuts...

From a technical point of view, right now, plus! is untouchable and definitely unique in one way or another... anything that is created, won't compare to plus! and its awesome features.

Messenger Plus to me is a great add-on to messenger.  They may add what ever feature they like to messenger even if it is comparable to Plus!.  As long as the feature doesn't work plainly in the same way.  Which is easy to microsoft as they have access to source code and can manipulate how they want

microsoft have an imago sow they will not steal

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patchou
And there's no reason for them to buy Messenger Plus! as it currently doesn't cost them acent and them get indirect benefits from its popularity

---

Patchou it would do you good to read up some on Intellectual Property rights.

There are four types of protection for Intellectual Property:

- Copyrights
- Patents
- Trademarks
- Trade Secrets

Copyrights covers only your source code. Microsoft cannot copy your code and implement it into MSN messenger. Copyrights don't protect your ideas though. So Microsoft is free to implement a feature of plus as long as they don't copy any of your code.

Patents protect inventions and in the US software can also be patented. I doubt you have a patent on your software. It is a costly process. To protect your "genuine" features you would have to patent them.

Trademarks protect the term "Messenger Plus!" for example. Microsoft could not use this term because of Trademark protection

Trade Secrets protect secret business practices that are not publicly known. This protects against corporate espionage for example.

To sum up, Microsoft could if it wanted to implement some of the features that plus offers into MSN messenger as long as they don't copy your source code but develop the feature independently. Unless you have protected those features with patents of course which i believe isn't the case.
You are really naive if you think Microsoft only buys things but never steals anything. If they were only interested in going the legal route then they would not have been convicted to have illegaly leveraged their monopoly in the US and the EU.

Well I don't know how many people here are MSN Messenger BETA testers but in the surveys about possible future features alot of them were shall we say "inspired" by Messenger Plus!

quote:

---

Originally posted by tgnb

There are four types of protection for Intellectual Property:

- Copyrights
- Patents
- Trademarks
- Trade Secrets

---

well if you do something original it is copywrited to you automaticly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Anderton
How much does it cost to get one of these if u have ur own "original" product ??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GiantSpider
well if you do something original it is copywrited to you automaticly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tgnb
Its not that easy. The procedures for each protection are different and can be quite complex. There are different ways for example of copywrighting something. You can start by placing a copyright notice on your product. You can send yourself the source code via US mail in a sealed envelope for example. But the best protection you get is if you do several of these things in combination. I don't have time to go into it all here. If you are genuinely interested i would suggest reading up on it. Google and Wikipedia are a good starting point for you.

---

* John Anderton saves all the links

quote:

---

Originally posted by tgnb

quote:

---

Originally posted by GiantSpider
well if you do something original it is copywrited to you automaticly.

---

No its not. Go read up about it if before you say things like that. There are certain things you need to do before your code is copyrighted.

---

Yes GiantSpider is right when you create the code it becomes automaticly copyrighted to the codes author.

GiantSpider, I already posted several links where you can read all about IP and Copyrights. If you choose to ignore that and ask for the same information over again then nothing I can say will change your mind.

And Carltos Cool, no matter how many times you repeat it, things do NOT automatically become copyrighted. You have to do things for them to be copyrighted. It doesn't just happen on its own magically as you write code. Even if its as simple as attaching a copyright notice to start with. At a bare minimum you have to do something if you expect to get any protection under Copyright law. Doing nothing won't give you copyright. Go back and click on the links i posted previously and do some reading. Its a lot because its a complext topic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by tgnb
GiantSpider, I already posted several links where you can read all about IP and Copyrights. If you choose to ignore that and ask for the same information over again then nothing I can say will change your mind.

And Carltos Cool, no matter how many times you repeat it, things do NOT automatically become copyrighted. You have to do things for them to be copyrighted. It doesn't just happen on its own magically as you write code. Even if its as simple as attaching a copyright notice to start with. At a bare minimum you have to do something if you expect to get any protection under Copyright law. Doing nothing won't give you copyright. Go back and click on the links i posted previously and do some reading. Its a lot because its a complext topic.

---

quote:

---

In the United States, copyrights are automatic as soon as the expression is secured in a fixed medium (for example, a drawing, sheet music, a videotape or a letter). There is no requirement that a copyright be officially registered for the author to obtain rights. Registration of works does however, have its benefits: serving as prima facie evidence of a valid copyright and being able to be awarded statutory damages and attorney's fees (whereas works registered after an infrigement only recevie actual damages and profits). The original owner of the copyright may be the employer of the actual author rather than the author himself if the work is a "work for hire". Again, this principle is widespread; in English Law the Copyright Designs and Patents 1988 provides that where a work in which copyright subsists is made by an employee in the course of that employment, the copyright is automatically assigned to the employer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guido
From your own links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

quote:

---

In the United States, copyrights are automatic as soon as the expression is secured in a fixed medium (for example, a drawing, sheet music, a videotape or a letter). There is no requirement that a copyright be officially registered for the author to obtain rights. Registration of works does however, have its benefits: serving as prima facie evidence of a valid copyright and being able to be awarded statutory damages and attorney's fees (whereas works registered after an infrigement only recevie actual damages and profits). The original owner of the copyright may be the employer of the actual author rather than the author himself if the work is a "work for hire". Again, this principle is widespread; in English Law the Copyright Designs and Patents 1988 provides that where a work in which copyright subsists is made by an employee in the course of that employment, the copyright is automatically assigned to the employer.

---

*cough*

---

He didn't proof himself wrong...


Copyright is indeed a VERY complex issue. Many things depend on what country the original author is in, what he made, why he made it, etc...

When people (especially on the net) say that something is automatically copyrighted if they write it, then be sure that it isn't (at least not in the way they think it is). Especially on the net, where international laws and national laws contradict or don't exist.

Furthermore, what is said in that Wiki is very true: simply put: copyright is BS (again especially on the net), it means simply and absolutely nothing. If you place a copyright mark under a written text of yours and publish it on the net, everybody can still copy it freely and claim it as his own! It is only until you have PROOF that you have written it that you can do something about it (and no, the copyright mark is not proof at all; proof is when you have registered it at an official bureau -and this costs money-). This is called registering the product. Also, there are many forms of registrations, one thougher/stronger then the other.

Note that even the "poor mans' copyright"* isn't officialy (in court) proof that you have something written/made first. The judge (or whoever is in charge of the despute) doesn't need to take this into consideration at all.

* post the article to yourself in an evelop and never open it. The validated poststamp proofs the date and time.

Also note that you can't copyright certain things at all (even if you put the copyright mark under it).

90% of all copyright marks on the net mean nothing more then a sign that the author whishes that the text/whatever isn't copied without asking him/her, nothing more (even if you whish it was more)...

And this is also exactly what tgnb said/meant.

quote:

---

Originally posted by tgnb
There are certain things you need to do before your code is copyrighted in the REAL way (not in the "lets-just-place-a-copyright-mark-underneath-it"-way.

---

The point is, you don't need to put a © or whatever, it's just a reminder to frighten people. Copyrights "ARE" automatic, although in theory: as long as you can't prove you made it before another one, no one gives shit about it.

As long as you can (be it by registering, being by having a letter to yourself, being by another method) then you don't need to "copyright" things.

You just need to be sure people know when you did it.

so patchou, has microsoft bought anything from you yet?

Yes, copyrights are complex and no, Microsoft didn't buy anything from me . As I said previously, I'm generally counting on good-faith, which, when it works, is always the best sollution for everybody. However, in case of trouble, I have my trademark to defend myself a little, but a trademark doesn't prevent anybody from stealing any of your ideas.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
In short: the copyrights of which 90% of all people are talking about means absolutely nothing, nil, zero, nada (well, maybe it gives you the "right" to start flaming the person who breached your "copyright", but that's it. And indeed, we then come again to moral, which is already talk about in this thread).

---

Off topic:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tgnb
If they were only interested in going the legal route then they would not have been convicted to have illegaly leveraged their monopoly in the US and the EU.

---

CookieRevised thanks for saying this in a way i couldnt

Offtopic: MrCobra making your text bold doesn't change the fact that MS was convicted as illegaly leveraging their monopoly in the US and EU. Your entitled to have a different opinion of course but your opinion doesnt change the facts.