Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 28th Oct 2010 18:02 UTC, submitted by viator
Legal If you can't compete, litigate. This train of thought has been quite prevalent among major technology companies as of late, most notably by Apple and Microsoft, who both cannot compete with Android on merit, so they have to resort to patent lawsuits and FUD. Both Asustek and Acer have revealed that Microsoft plans to impose royalty fees upon the two Taiwanese hardware makers to prevent them from shipping Android and/or Chrome OS devices.
Thread beginning with comment 447479
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: anti-competitive
by fretinator on Thu 28th Oct 2010 19:28 UTC in reply to "anti-competitive"
Member since:

I think the confusion centers around the term "free market". To many, that means everyone being able to compete equally based on the merits of their products. However, currently, it means the government closes their eyes and lets the big players do whatever they can to corner the market, including abusing the broken patent system.

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[2]: anti-competitive
by fretinator on Thu 28th Oct 2010 21:17 in reply to "RE: anti-competitive"
fretinator Member since:

Sometimes it is the way you use a term that matters.

For instance, one might say, "We are not charging for this product, it is 'free for all'".

On the other hand, one might say, "The judges in the Federal Eastern District of Texas, whose noses are firmly planted between the buttocks of big business, have created a 'free-for-all'".

It's all about how you use the term.

Reply Parent Score: 3