Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 6th Jul 2011 14:00 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 479858
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 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
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
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-09-21
In the case of Google, I'm guessing that it has more to do with business opportunities. First go for royalties, since it is cheaper to negotiate than litigate. Cell phone makers have the most to lose in this equation, so go for the instead of Google. If that fails, sue. It is risky, so Microsoft would probably have a few legs (patents) cut off in the process. But I highly doubt that every patent would be invalidated, so they would win the battle.