Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 23rd Jan 2008 07:02 UTC, submitted by SEJeff
Permalink for comment 297384
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-24
I knew what you meant, but also knew, as soon as I read it that people would be lining up to point out the difference.
But as you say, the tactic is the same; Only the weapon is different. SCO had a particularly poor patent portfolio, and patents were not an option. So they had to work with what they had... or more correctly, what they could *claim* they had with anything at all approaching credibility.
Again, same intent, different weapon. If copyrights are an exacto-knife, patents are a hatchet.
Edited 2008-01-23 14:35 UTC