"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 view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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:2005-07-02
As people have already said, PJ has never tried to hide her bias. Knowing this, it's relatively easy to filter it out and just get the facts.
So, basically, you didn't have anything to say about the substance of what she wrote, but you still took time to complain about the style it was written in...again, that seems to me as if you're trying to change the subject and draw attention away from the fact that Linspire got *shafted* by MS with this deal.
I disagree. I find that it actually makes it more interesting to read than the average legal analysis, while being just as informative. I think your bias is simply preventing you from filtering out the commentary part...
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...