Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 7th Sep 2011 23:33 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 489007
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.
RE[6]: Comment by testman
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 9th Sep 2011 15:23
in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by testman"
Perhaps printing them, rolling them up tightly, then hitting the lawyers on their head until they withdraw their patent lawsuits could be considered another case of "defensive patent use" but I doubt it would work.
WHERE CAN I SIGN UP FOR THIS WHACKING OF LAWYERS YOU SPEAK OF? I DEMAND TO KNOW.




Member since:
2005-09-10
HTC was sued by Apple so when they counter-sue, they are using those patents defensively. HTC did not initiate (offensive use of patents) lawsuits against Apple, it sued Apple in response (defensive use of patents) to being sued by Apple.
Now you're just arguing semantics.
While they might be defending themselves, a counter-sue is still going on the offensive. Which was the point the original poster was making; if HTC own the patents then they're not sitting around avoiding getting attacked, they're counter-attacking. "
Using patents defensively and offensively are well established terms. Using patents defensively has only one possible interpretation: suing back. Original poster claimed HTC is using these patents offensively, which is plain nonsense. Offensive use would be suing others without getting sued or threatened first. I stand by what I wrote - saying that counter-suing is offensive patent use is bullshit. It's by definition defensive, unless you can propose another way to use patents defensively. Perhaps printing them, rolling them up tightly, then hitting the lawyers on their head until they withdraw their patent lawsuits could be considered another case of "defensive patent use" but I doubt it would work.