Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 30th Apr 2012 11:53 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 516484
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.
Then you expressed it rather strangely:
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Microsoft offered this much money knowing that:
a/ their patents would never be invalidated thus keeping their Android royalties streaming in
a/ their patents would never be invalidated thus keeping their Android royalties streaming in
I.e. you said MS are sure their patents wouldn't be invalidated. I said on the other hand that MS are scared that their patents will get invalidated, crumbling their global racket scheme, that's why the bought off B&N.
Then you expressed it rather strangely:
"I wouldn't be at all surprised if Microsoft offered this much money knowing that:
a/ their patents would never be invalidated thus keeping their Android royalties streaming in
"I wouldn't be at all surprised if Microsoft offered this much money knowing that:
a/ their patents would never be invalidated thus keeping their Android royalties streaming in
I.e. you said MS are sure their patents wouldn't be invalidated. I said on the other hand that MS are scared that their patents will get invalidated, crumbling their global racket scheme, that's why the bought off B&N. "
That clearly states that offering this money to B&N will ensure that MS's patents never get invalidated in court. Which is exactly what you said too.
Sorry but I don't see the confusion. Maybe I'm just too familiar with the context of my post given that I wrote it, but it makes perfect sense to me.
Plus even if the sentence does read the other way round (eg that I'm inferring that MS thought their patents would never be invalidated) then my whole comment makes no sense. So the logical deduction would have been the actual intended context.
Anyway, semantics aside, we agree on the actual point that matters
Edited 2012-05-01 23:40 UTC




Member since:
2007-03-26
That's exactly what I just said *facepalm*
I swear sometimes people on here are so keen to express an alternative option that they don't even bother reading the post that they're supposedly rebutting.
Edited 2012-05-01 08:38 UTC