Huh? If Sun says "law x is damaging to business because it means that companies
are able to do y", that does not mean that Sun is precluded from doing y itself,
as long as law x is in place. Why should they be treated worse than their
competitors, just because they have stated that x is a bad idea?
Most
certainly Sun has involved in the past action of stating that software patent
laws are a bad idea with bad effects. But the court does not make the laws, and
is not in the position to question them. Whether or not Sun or anybody else
considers those laws a bad idea (or has considered them as such in the past),
they are a given for the sake of the court.
If anything, this case
sends a strong reinforcement to law makers: "See why those
laws are a bad idea? We told you, but you chose not to listen. As long as you
keep this legislation in place, we are, like anybody else, not just subjected,
but also entitled to its consequences." [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|