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 447657
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Zero surprise.
by kristoph on Fri 29th Oct 2010 18:10 UTC in reply to "Zero surprise."
kristoph
Member since:
2006-01-01

I am no fan of Microsoft but asking a company to pay for a license fee for a patent you hold is perfectly legal.

]{

Reply Parent Score: -2

RE[2]: Zero surprise.
by TheGZeus on Fri 29th Oct 2010 20:43 in reply to "RE: Zero surprise."
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

I didn't say "illegal" I said "anti-competitive".
Jim Crow was legal. It was also evil.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Zero surprise.
by JAlexoid on Fri 29th Oct 2010 22:18 in reply to "RE: Zero surprise."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I am no fan of Microsoft but asking a company to pay for a license fee for a patent you hold is perfectly legal.

]{


Really, even when they will* demand a cut of GLOBAL sales and not only the ones in the patent's jurisdiction? I.e if you live in a country where software patents are not valid, you will be paying MS for it. No wonder I refuse to buy a single license for MS's products(Ubuntu is the only OS installed on my machine). And when I have to use, I use a pirated version of anything from MS**.

*- And by a number of past convictions, we know they will

**- Principle = they steal from me, I steal from them.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Zero surprise.
by lemur2 on Sat 30th Oct 2010 12:00 in reply to "RE: Zero surprise."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I am no fan of Microsoft but asking a company to pay for a license fee for a patent you hold is perfectly legal.


What is your view about this situation, however, where Microsoft is asking a company to pay for a license to Microsoft patents which the company's products do not embody?

BTW: It has been said many times before that the easiest way to spot a Microsoft astroturfer is when they helpfully identify themselves by prefacing their posts by saying "I am no fan of Microsoft".

It is truly a great help, so thanks for that.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Zero surprise.
by fewt on Sat 30th Oct 2010 13:54 in reply to "RE[2]: Zero surprise."
fewt Member since:
2010-06-09

That tin foil hat is pretty snug huh? Funny how people aren't allowed to have dissenting opinions without getting accused of being paid by company X. There really are free thinkers that happen disagree with you; this doesn't make them "paid M$ $hills", it just means that they disagree. Making baseless accusations doesn't strengthen your argument, it weakens it.

Reply Parent Score: 1