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 447485
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Anti-competitive?
by pallen38 on Thu 28th Oct 2010 20:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Anti-competitive?"
pallen38
Member since:
2010-10-28

"...doesn't seem to be a nice move to say the least, and it's definitely not the way any kind of patent disputes should be dealt with"

They are protecting their interests, and the law gives them this right. Is it 'nice'? No. Is it 'anti-competitive' in the legal sense? No.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Anti-competitive?
by irbis on Thu 28th Oct 2010 20:34 in reply to "RE[2]: Anti-competitive?"
irbis Member since:
2005-07-08

They are protecting their interests, and the law gives them this right. Is it 'nice'? No. Is it 'anti-competitive' in the legal sense? No.

Too bad but in this world those who have the money and the power often seem to decide which rules are accepted as common laws in a society (for example, the nonrealistic US software patent system that has quickly become a huge mess ridiculed by practically everyone already). However, in modern democracy laws should quarantee that eryone is treated equally. Laws should not just serve the interests of those who have more money and power in their hands, if we don't want to descend back to primitive totalitarianism.

"Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal." - Martin Luther King Jr.

Reply Parent Score: 4