decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
That's the MS defense | 149 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
That's the MS defense
Authored by: PJ on Friday, September 14 2012 @ 12:22 PM EDT
Abusive how? It's Acer, if one believes any
of this, that was being abusive by accepting
special relationship status and then ignoring
any responsibilities.

And I note Acer says it still will be doing the
other phone, after it discusses this more with
Google. So it must be some kind of contract
situation, and if you sign on the dotted line,
you are responsible for what you signed, and
apparently Acer realizes it.

The fact that this is being presented as news
of Google being evil when NOBODY knows the
details is what should clue you in that this
is part of the ongoing smear campaign against
Google. Every day there's a new negative story,
and all arrows point to Microsoft.

When I first started doing Groklaw, and the
threats started, I asked someone who had long
dealings with Microsoft whether they kill people
or not. He said not that he knew of, but what
they do is kill your reputation. That's what I
suspect is happening now to Google.

Did you notice that even Judge Alsup seemed to
be influenced by the negative press? And none
of it was true at all. When he dug into it,
there was nothing there. Yet there had been
articles in the press about Google's wide
support base that it allegedly paid for to
give it support, and Oracle played that card,
to their shame. But it was a lie, both in the
press and in the courtroom.

So it's a very big smear campaign, one that
has had some success. How many times have you
seen article with "Don't be evil" used cynically
to present the idea that Google is being evil?
But where is it? Seriously, what is so evil?
They've made some mistakes, paid for them, but
that's not the same as being deliberately evil.

Now, look at Microsoft. Look at the patent deal
with Nokia and MOSAID to apparently avoid having
to restrict royalties on standards patents, despite
promises earlier made, while simulaneously accusing
companies with other standards patents of overcharging
when the price is comparable? I mean, is that
evil or is that evil?

ANd they have Congress in this and antitrust
bodies. It's an amazingly big lie.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )