|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 10 2012 @ 04:57 AM EST |
Yes, I know that and I'm aware MS is trying to play the system. That doesn't
mean I think a reasonable court couldn't rule in Microsoft's favour here,
although I'd hope they consider the full picture.
That it's a standard initial offer has nothing to do with whether it's
reasonable and very little to do with whether it's non-discriminatory though I'd
suggest.
Why? Because even if you offer the "same" terms to everyone the
implications are different. Per unit royalties discriminate against free
software. % of *end* (not even "windows", the actual PC although I
think they've backed away from this now?) products also obviously have pretty
large implications for a company making a component of a larger product. How is
the judge going to sort any of this out? I have no idea.
About the only licensing terms that wouldn't disadvantage a particular party
would be royalty free, but we all know how likely that is (and certainly
shouldn't be forced in this context).
It's frustrating to see so much effort wasted over patents that shouldn't have
been issued on both sides.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
