Microsoft Receives Quantum Computing Patent
Microsoft filed a patent for "quantum computational systems" back in 2009 and received confirmation by the USPTO yesterday.
What makes this patent interesting is not just the fact that Microsoft has begun covering its bases in quantum computing, which gives this field much more credibility, but its general nature to improve on "prior art" in topological quantum computing. Without a deep dive into quantum computing itself, much of the content covered by patent is confusing enough to make your head spin, but it is obvious that Microsoft is targeting quantum computing functionality in wide range of applications.
The Microsoft patent refers to specific quantum computing devices, including quantum computers, quantum cryptography systems, quantum information processing systems, quantum storage media, and special purpose quantum simulators, all of which are covered in this patent by themselves and in combination with traditional computing systems. Microsoft spends quite a bit of time on cryptography systems and states that "cryptography also would be revolutionized" if computers could "exploit quantum mechanical superpositions".
In a cryptography application, Microsoft explains that "respective braids that correspond to the plain text and the encryption key may be defined. The key braid may be applied to the plain-text braid to generate an encrypted-text braid. To decrypt the encrypted text, the key braid may be applied to the encrypted text braid to reestablish the plain-text braid." It is generally believed that quantum computing systems could deliver cryptography applications that are far more secure than today's solutions

Microsoft are not actively engaged in producing working quantum computing devices. They never will be.
Are research students / groups the world over now more likely to put in years of effort to realise a technolgy that microsoft already has the patents for or are they more likely to just think 'f**k it dude, let's go bowling'?
How is Linux and Mac OS relevant to quantum computing? What sets apart quantum computing from standard computers in mainly transistors (and the fact that quantum computers use quantum mechanic principles).
I agree, but hopefully this will destroy Linux and Mac OS
Microsoft are not actively engaged in producing working quantum computing devices. They never will be.
Are research students / groups the world over now more likely to put in years of effort to realise a technolgy that microsoft already has the patents for or are they more likely to just think 'f**k it dude, let's go bowling'?
How is Linux and Mac OS relevant to quantum computing? What sets apart quantum computing from standard computers in mainly transistors (and the fact that quantum computers use quantum mechanic principles).
They're not, because that MS patent will keep them away from it for good.
Wow, lots of Linux fanboys on Tom's recently! What are you doing here?
But they will make an OS to work with them. And of course they don't want some open source BS to steal their profits! Besides, research WILL be done, whether they want it or not; Asia, or example, doesn't care about patents and copyrights at all, 90% of all software here is pirated. And it gets work done
I know MacOS is annoying, but give open source programs their due! Without open source stuff we'd be in a pretty shitty world...and Linux does have its advantages.
+10^6
Though the fact that software is pirated so much lets PC game make devs lame excuses...
Never used Linux bro. The irony here is that your a Windows fanboy, so any comment that you refer to someone else as a Linux fanboy is invalid and void. Now, get of your computer before your mommy finds you saying bad things in the internet.
And Linux as a desktop OS will never breach 5% market share, less it can barely hit 2%.
Problem with open source for the general consumer? There's a bunch of nerds who make 400 different variations of the SAME THING and think that's what is going to drive people to using the product.
I've heard many times from people trying to get into Linux that the worst experience was when they go into a forum to ask for beginners help and they're pretty much told to screw off and they shouldn't be playing with it if they don't know it.
The community is a bunch of pissed off nerds who hate MS, yet they can't all band together to create a decent OS for a general user.
I could advise the same to you... what a pathetic ruse
+10^6
Though the fact that software is pirated so much lets PC game make devs lame excuses...
Open source on Windows = WIN. Open source on Linux = FAIL. Even Firefox is half-assed there. Linux is cool, I work with it all the time, but keep it away from home desktops.
You sound mad, my friend. This is the internet. If it pisses you off that people make grammatical mistakes, you do not belong here. If you are a general user, Windows is fine for you. No one is forcing you into Linux. I personally do not use Linux as it doesn't work well with all hardware, and that Windows is enough for me. Why switch? Depending on what you are finding difficult, you can simple do a quick Google search on the topic or even look up a beginner's guide for Linux. What I find annoying is that Linux-as you claim-are a bunch of MS hating nerds (if you are implying "nerd" is an insult, I question why you are here), yet it seems as though the Windows community is becoming just as shallow and obnoxious as the Linux community.
And Linux as a desktop OS will never breach 5% market share, less it can barely hit 2%.
Problem with open source for the general consumer? There's a bunch of nerds who make 400 different variations of the SAME THING and think that's what is going to drive people to using the product.
I've heard many times from people trying to get into Linux that the worst experience was when they go into a forum to ask for beginners help and they're pretty much told to screw off and they shouldn't be playing with it if they don't know it.
The community is a bunch of pissed off nerds who hate MS, yet they can't all band together to create a decent OS for a general user.
As much as I disrespect Linux for different things, I've actually never witnessed a problem with beginners being flamed. And I check forums a lot, because... well, because it's Linux
And they actually put it as an advantage... 400 distros, find the one you like
And I totally agree about a bunch of pissed off nerds. The people who've created the kernel and most of the OS are really skilled, but the rest of this "community" are a bunch of haters and I've seen too many stupid posters asking "You use WINDOWS? So how often does it BSOD on you?" I mean, if they're that outdated with that info and don't want to pay, maybe they should just pirate Windows 7 and check if it's really THAT bad
It might look ridiculous now ,but wouldn't it be an epic move for microsoft if it does really does profit them half a century later?
Isn't that something to be thankful for?
Apparently not, this has now decended into a bitter fanboi war, grow up, all of you.
Destroying the Monopoly of iShit is fine, but when you try to "Destroy" Linux you will be destroying a HUGE server platform & open-source medium that helped build the internet & home computer. THINK before you spew your jargon.
Well.. not really. Linux is cool and all, but keep it away from home desktop and don't DARE to make ANY demands of hardware manufacturers. Don't wanna pay - why should they develop a driver for your OS?
So, logistically speaking, no Linux=No Android OS, which I believe you prefer compared to iOS or any other mobile OS. So if Linux did not exist, the mobile market, as well as the face of computing, would differ from what we see now. So yes, Linux is important and has a much larger role in the market than the desktop market.