Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 6th Apr 2010 18:32 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 417469
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, 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:
2007-02-17
Well, FOSS projects could argue along the lines of "IBM claims that it encourages Open Source".
From their pledge:
So, given that IBM pledge, and that earlier action, an Open Source project can now claim it is two-faced of IBM to now attack an Open Source project using its patents. Any of its patents.
I think the legal term is "estoppel" or something like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel