Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 15th Feb 2012 23:40 UTC
Legal "We learned on January 31 that Barnes & Noble had suffered a major setback in a patent-infringement lawsuit filed against the company by Microsoft. That day, an administrative law judge at the International Trade Commission had tossed out the company's key defense, that Microsoft was engaging in 'patent misuse' as part of a larger scheme to 'kill Android'. Today the full opinion has been made public." Microsoft's protection racket might be legal, but that doesn't make it moral. It's based on software patents, and is thus, by definition, morally reprehensible and sleazy.
Thread beginning with comment 507316
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Thu 16th Feb 2012 00:02 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

It's not really over yet: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120209222500188

Very interesting part from there: (B&N talking about how MS trolls initially approached them about this):

“And what they basically told us was, it doesn’t matter if you have defenses, whether you don’t infringe, whether our patents are invalid, you’re going to need to take a license, because there’s no way that you can get out of our grasp, that we have so many patents that we could overwhelm you.”

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by shmerl
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 16th Feb 2012 00:11 in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Nice e-reader business you got there. Be a shame if something happened to it.

Reply Parent Score: 11

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by stabbyjones on Thu 16th Feb 2012 00:50 in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
stabbyjones Member since:
2008-04-15

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNj1dXi-z0M

One thing i never thought of, are these agreements related only to the US?

So let's say I buy a new Galaxy Nexus in Australia does Samsung still have to pay MS?

Reply Parent Score: 2