Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 24th Nov 2010 19:06 UTC
Permalink for comment 451063
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 05/24/13 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
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2008-03-17
Whilst I can see how some would like to brush this off as a patent troll the fact that the company actually designs things is quite a bit different to a company that buys up or patents vague concepts in order to try to cash in.
Personally I have no problem considering a innovative and technical design as an application of a patent (software/business method patents excluded unconditionally).
Nevertheless, it is sad that with deals like this just maintain the minefield upon which newcomers maul themselves on.
Edited 2010-11-24 23:48 UTC