OSDev.org

I just thought about it for implementation in my OS. This is so lame that such basic things are patented like that.
https://www.google.ch/patents/US20080195838

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why it is such a bad idea to allow patents on procedures / software in the first place.

Like most software patents, it's probably safe to ignore it- a quick google search shows it's independently implemented in all kinds of open source projects, and has been talked about and used (as in, it's a well-known tool in the industry) several years before that patent. (For example, https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnew ... 0/?p=42263 and http://vrb.sourceforge.net/ and even http://web.archive.org/web/200306032125 ... shusr.org/)

So if I get this right bascially a circular buffer when 99% of internet, audio, video, and other streamed programs rely on?

Basically it's mapping one physical page to two consecutive virtual addresse.
So, when we write pass the first virtual page, we wrap back to the beginning of the page.

First steps to Microsoft's monopoly, folks.

Incidentally, this is exactly the same thing as mirroring in hardware, just that in this case it's done at the virtual space instead.

Rusky wrote:Like most software patents, it's probably safe to ignore it...

Yes you would probably win a court case.

But that means you would have to go through a court case, paying lawyers from your own pockets, while the sueing party has a fully payed legal department.

I tell you from personal experience, that's certainly going to mess up your bank account and your time schedule...

Lukand wrote:First steps to Microsoft's monopoly, folks.

You are either 35 years too late with that observation, or rather poor at expressing sarcasm in English.

To be fair, sarcasm is tricky in plain text.

The problem here is not Microsoft.
The actual problem are the patent offices who approve these ridicules patents.

stdcall wrote:The problem here is not Microsoft.
The actual problem are the patent offices who approve these ridicules patents.

If I do a crime to you, but someone decides that it was legit, it might still be a crime to you.

You are suggesting that your individual views are more important than those of the courts who are set up to deal with crimes. That's a dangerous road, which ends up with vigilantes.

Change the law if it's wrong, but don't take the law into your own hands.

iansjack wrote:You are suggesting that your individual views are more important than those of the courts who are set up to deal with crimes. That's a dangerous road, which ends up with vigilantes.

Change the law if it's wrong, but don't take the law into your own hands.

It is also the road that produced the mass protests that have won votes for women and the end of the slave trade.

No.

Changing the law achieved those ends, not taking the law into your own hands.

With regard to slavery perhaps. Certainly not in the case of votes for women which would not have happened without the direct action against the law.

Edit:

I originally said more about the principle, but this is not the place. Suffice to say we have a totally different view of political philosophy.