Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 16:36 UTC
Permalink for comment 412156
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 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-11-04
The problem is, if you look at any old patent cases a lot of times you'd find tons of prior art. But the defendants almost never use that, because it's actually very difficult to get the patents invalidated, but also because they also have lots of patents that have prior art. They just don't want to draw attention to the fact that a lot of their patents are bulls**t. The more patents you have the higher your stock price, if people suddenly found out most of these patents are nil, your stock price drops.
In addition to that, this case is leaving a bad taste in many mouths. I have been starting to move away from Apple products and this recent move of theirs just guaranteed that I will never buy any of their products again. Apple, you've just joined Sony and Microsoft (at least MS software) on my boycott list.