"We can read the Linspire-Microsoft patent agreement now, or more precisely Microsoft's 'Covenant to Customers', and I thought it would be worthwhile to give it a close, line-by-line reading. I'll explain it as best I can, but ask your lawyer if it matters to you in a real-world sense. For our purposes here, let's just have fun with the worst deal I've seen yet in this category."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-09-24
Member since:2005-07-06
I guess it's the readers that claim it moreso than the site. Any site that tries to do legal analysis SHOULD leave out sarcasm/sarcastic remarks, unless it's meant to be a humorous site/article. This clearly is not.
Instead of seeing what their point was and thoughts, all I got was having to wade through sarcastic remarks. It's a shame people enjoy this.
Member since:2005-07-02
Can you tell us which part of the covenant the author didn't analyze correctly? Because as far as I know, PJ's legal expertise surpasses yours.
It seems you're dismissing the analysis off-hand just because it doesn't fit with your own personal agenda. Instead of "shooting the messenger" and shifting focus away from the actual content of the article, why don't you tell us *exactly* where PJ got it wrong?
We'll be waiting...
Member since:2005-07-06
Where did I say she got anything wrong? It was too much of a pain to sort through anything of value with all the sarcasm.
This has nothing to do with my supposed "agenda". I'd be annoyed if it were the other way around and someone was posting a piece critical of say, the GPL3, but was making a snarky/sarcastic remark every other sentence. It devalues the message greatly and turns me off from taking them seriously. It exposes their agenda for everyone to see. They actually have an agenda.
Edited 2007-07-23 15:51
Member since:
2005-07-06
Not a real legal analysis. Just full of snarky, sarcastic remarks on each sentence of the covenant. Couldn't they at least pretended to have a sense of non-bias and objective analysis? Opinion is fine, but to be sarcastic and exaggerate everything is ridiculous and pathetic.
What value does this actually offer? I don't see any. If I wanted what it is actually offered, I could read that on slashdot, here or even digg. Sites that don't pretend to be some bastion of objectiveness.