Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 15th Feb 2012 23:40 UTC
Legal "We learned on January 31 that Barnes & Noble had suffered a major setback in a patent-infringement lawsuit filed against the company by Microsoft. That day, an administrative law judge at the International Trade Commission had tossed out the company's key defense, that Microsoft was engaging in 'patent misuse' as part of a larger scheme to 'kill Android'. Today the full opinion has been made public." Microsoft's protection racket might be legal, but that doesn't make it moral. It's based on software patents, and is thus, by definition, morally reprehensible and sleazy.
Permalink for comment 507400
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Software patents as usual
by vaette on Thu 16th Feb 2012 12:36 UTC
Member since:

Very sensationalistic headline that would have been better phrased as "Software patents continue to exist". Having opinions about isolated cases is not very useful, the whole system needs to be reformed. If anything if Microsoft had somehow lost it would just have confused an important issue; the future of software patents and their relation to innovation and new enterprise. Also I don't think morality much enters into this, the law is mostly working as intended in this case. Microsoft is after all leveraging a lot of patents like the FAT32 file name resolving stuff, which they did invent and which Motorola is using since Android uses FAT32. Additionally Microsoft can't really do anything else, they are required by law to do what is best for their shareholders. On the other side of the coin they also pay vast sums in patent licensing themselves, so Microsoft is hardly on the benefiting side in a broader perspective.

The problem is not the interpretation of the as written law, or any lack of morality in the actors. It is the actual letter and even intent of the law that is at fault here.

Reply Score: 5