Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 6 Aug 2012 17:31:45 -0400
From:      Jerry <>
To:        FreeBSD <>
Subject:   Re: Patent hit - MS goes after Linux - FreeBSD ?
Message-ID:  <20120806173145.5f4efd66@scorpio>
In-Reply-To: <>
References:  <20120805045800.29444.qmail@joyce.lan> <> <> <20120805093320.7b7f0fc4@scorpio> <20120805214321.17a02e43@papi> <20120806081638.1033190a@scorpio> <> <> <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 21:48:30 +0200
Polytropon articulated:

> On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 19:08:19 +0000, David Brodbeck wrote:
> > Now, it's reasonable to argue that in some fields the duration of
> > that limited monopoly is too long, given how quickly technology
> > advances, but that doesn't mean the concept isn't sound.
> It's also debatable if one of today's most prominent use
> of patents is fair: "I tell you! I have patents! You are
> infringing! I'm not gonna tell you which patents about
> what, but I'll sue all your users!" Of course, if such
> a claim enters a court, it might be verified or discarded
> (because it's just a claim, nothing applicable). In order
> not to "risk" a lawsuit, it seems that spreading FUD is
> often the more profitable way of using patents: "I told
> you! I have patents! But if you pay me $$$, maybe I won't
> sue you and your users. Maybe... but now PAY!!!"

How many verifiable (the key word here is verifiable) cases can you
name where party A paid party B over an undisclosed patient solely on
the bases that party B might institute legal action?

Jerry ♔

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>