I have long been curious how much of their actions (patent threats and
pacts) are not just meant as market and competition control but as
legalistic defensive measures against the potential of action against
Microsoft for the high number of infringements they are likely guilty of. I
mean the argument that it is hard to produce software without violating
patents swings both ways.
While m$ has the money to pay royalties, their history would seem to
indicate they have "stolen" both code AND software designs often in the
past. Makes me wonder if anyone has seriously looked into that (again as a
purely defensive measure).
Dazed_75 a.k.a. Larry
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)