B&N ans Microsofy patents

[bbgruff]

It's all fascinating stuff:-

<quote>
But the most explosive section is where Barnes & Noble describes what
Microsoft said to them when they approached Barnes & Noble with a demand
that they pay for a patent license:

“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.”

The document says that Microsoft demands that all OEMs take a license from
them and pay for all Android phones whether or not they actually infringe.
</quote>

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120209222500188

[Hardon]

This sounds like heresay sadly. If they have it writing then MS are in
deep shit. Oh how I wish it is.

I still reckon the best attack on MS is them selling products not fit
for purpose. There are existing laws in the UK and no doubt elsewhere.
The fact that Windows warns you when you don't have anti-virus
installed is all that needs to be said.

--
They said God was on high and he controlled the world and therefore we
must pray against Satan. Well, if God controls the world, he controls
Satan. For me, religion was full of misstatements and reaches of logic
that I just couldn't agree with
-Gene Roddenberry

[RonB]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:36:30 +0000, bbgruff wrote:

And this is the patent extortion the WinTrolls are so anxious to defend?
As subtle as a Chicago mobster "kneecapper" from the 1930s.

--
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.7 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0
or Linux Mint 10

[Big Steel]

On 2/10/2012 4:52 PM, Hardon wrote:

<snipped>

> I still reckon the best attack on MS is them selling products not fit
> for purpose. There are existing laws in the UK and no doubt elsewhere.
> The fact that Windows warns you when you don't have anti-virus
> installed is all that needs to be said.
>

Your little UK crippled mouth blabber doesn't seem to be stopping anyone
from using the platform

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems

[Big Steel]

On 2/10/2012 5:00 PM, RonB wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:36:30 +0000, bbgruff wrote:
>
>> It's all fascinating stuff:-
>>
>> <quote>

>> But the most explosive section is where Barnes& Noble describes what
>> Microsoft said to them when they approached Barnes& Noble with a demand

>> that they pay for a patent license:
>>
>> “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.”
>>
>> The document says that Microsoft demands that all OEMs take a license
>> from them and pay for all Android phones whether or not they actually
>> infringe.</quote>
>>
>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120209222500188
>
> And this is the patent extortion the WinTrolls are so anxious to defend?
> As subtle as a Chicago mobster "kneecapper" from the 1930s.
>

He's a garbage US citizen kissing UK's citizen butt.

[Homer]

Verily I say unto thee that Hardon spake thusly:

> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:36:30 +0000, bbgruff wrote:
>>
>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120209222500188
>
> This sounds like heresay sadly. If they have it writing then MS are in
> deep shit. Oh how I wish it is.

B&N does indeed claim to have evidence:

[quote]
Rather than reviewing all facts in the light most favorable to Barnes &
Noble, as is required under ITC precedent, the ALJ’s decision actually
mischaracterizes Barnes & Noble’s factual allegations (and the evidence
supporting them) and, indeed, simply overlooks the central basis for
Barnes & Noble’s patent misuse defense.
[/quote]

> I still reckon the best attack on MS is them selling products not fit
> for purpose.

Personally I'm pinning my hopes on the recent French court case, which
set the precedent that the Windows-Tax must be refundable. This is the
next best thing to unbundling (which may now also be on the cards).

Given the almost non-existent enthusiasm for Microsoft's products in any
market where it has no OEM leverage (e.g. Tiles® 7), it's now crystal
clear that the only thing protecting Windows' dominance is "bundling".
Take that away, and Microsoft is toast.

--
K. | "You see? You cannot kill me. There is no flesh
http://slated.org | and blood within this cloak to kill. There is
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | only an idea. And ideas are bulletproof."
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 9 days | ~ V for Vendetta.

[DFS]

On 2/10/2012 7:38 PM, Homer wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee that Hardon spake thusly:
>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:36:30 +0000, bbgruff wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120209222500188
>>
>> This sounds like heresay sadly. If they have it writing then MS are in
>> deep shit. Oh how I wish it is.
>
> B&N does indeed claim to have evidence:
>
> [quote]
> Rather than reviewing all facts in the light most favorable to Barnes&
> Noble, as is required under ITC precedent, the ALJ’s decision actually

> mischaracterizes Barnes& Noble’s factual allegations (and the evidence

> supporting them) and, indeed, simply overlooks the central basis for

> Barnes& Noble’s patent misuse defense.

> [/quote]
>
>> I still reckon the best attack on MS is them selling products not fit
>> for purpose.
>
> Personally I'm pinning my hopes on the recent French court case, which
> set the precedent that the Windows-Tax must be refundable. This is the
> next best thing to unbundling (which may now also be on the cards).
>
> Given the almost non-existent enthusiasm for Microsoft's products in any
> market where it has no OEM leverage (e.g. Tiles® 7), it's now crystal
> clear that the only thing protecting Windows' dominance is "bundling".
> Take that away, and Microsoft is toast.

I thought Chrome OS meant they were toast?

And Google Apps and OpenOffice meant MS Office was toast?


Guess what? At diners across the world, the Windows\Office toast is
bought 9 out of 10 times. It's buttery perfection...

[DFS]

On 2/10/2012 4:52 PM, Hardon wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:36:30 +0000, bbgruff wrote:
>
>> It's all fascinating stuff:-
>>
>> <quote>

>> But the most explosive section is where Barnes& Noble describes
>> what Microsoft said to them when they approached Barnes& Noble with

>> a demand that they pay for a patent license:
>>
>> “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.”
>>
>> The document says that Microsoft demands that all OEMs take a
>> license from them and pay for all Android phones whether or not they
>> actually infringe.
>> </quote>
>>
>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120209222500188
>
> This sounds like heresay sadly.

"What they basically told us ..."

Sounds like one of Spamowitz's "reliable sources".

> If they have it writing then MS are in
> deep shit. Oh how I wish it is.
>
> I still reckon the best attack on MS is them selling products not fit
> for purpose.

Which is the reason Wine exists for Linux.

Does that mean Linux is in deep shit? No, it means Linux IS deep shit.

> There are existing laws in the UK and no doubt elsewhere.
> The fact that Windows warns you when you don't have anti-virus
> installed is all that needs to be said.

If you're kind of dumb that's all that needs to be said.

[Torre Starnes]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 09:24:32 -0500, DFS wrote:

> On 2/10/2012 4:52 PM, Hardon wrote:

>> If they have it writing then MS are in
>> deep shit. Oh how I wish it is.
>>
>> I still reckon the best attack on MS is them selling products not fit
>> for purpose.
>
> Which is the reason Wine exists for Linux.
>
> Does that mean Linux is in deep shit? No, it means Linux IS deep shit.

ROTFLMAO!!!

Hysterical!!