To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
If they really thought they could win, and all of Microsoft's patents were invalid, and had prior art, blah blah blah, then they would've let the legal system work.
LOL what? Barnes and Noble refused to pay, brought in the DOJ which in turn had Microsoft stop litigating and offer them a $300 million investment in a joint venture where Barnes and Noble holds 82.4% ownership.
By refusing to pay Microsoft's android patent-extortion fees and deciding to take it to court Barnes & Noble where given a sweet deal in order to 'stop making a fuss!!'.
You trying to spin this off as some verification of the validity of Microsoft's patent claims is hilarious.
Did Barnes and Noble take a license? Yes.
That's the whole point, a vast majority of these patent issues are settled out of court, and a lot of patents are invalidated in courts. In fact, way more than are ever used for injunctions.
This irrational hate for our judicial system, despite it working quite well, is tiring. It has been a pretty consistent avenue by which to litigate such matters.
If Microsoft was able to work out a scheme to license patents that was favorable to Barnes and Noble, then good for them. I don't think it shows a relative weakness in Microsoft's position, but more, a pragmatic approach to ensuring that intellectual property is licensed.
I think it was even more amusing watching your White Knight eventually sign on to mean old Microsoft's protection racket.
More like Microsoft gave enough money to B&N to get them to agree to a deal, so that Microsoft would not lose their patents.
Not that it matters much that Microsoft paid B&N in order to get out of this case, it turns out that at least some of the feeble Microsoft patents in question might get invalidated in any case:
http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1066794-torvalds-invalidates-micr...
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/VFat-patent-could-be-invalid...
Edited 2013-01-06 11:57 UTC





Member since:
2005-11-29
But, eventually, even Barnes and Nobles took a royalty bearing license.
If they really thought they could win, and all of Microsoft's patents were invalid, and had prior art, blah blah blah, then they would've let the legal system work.