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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Ganging up on Android - commodity markets | 113 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Ganging up on Android - commodity markets
Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, November 27 2012 @ 06:08 PM EST
I actually removed that sentence, after more
thought. It's not fair to assume, and I'll
wait for more evidence before assuming that
Ericsson is part of the cabal.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Ganging up on Android - commodity markets
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 27 2012 @ 08:13 PM EST
The problem (and it's pretty obvious) that MS, Oracle and Adobe etc see with
Linux and Android etc is that it is gratis.
There is very little proprietry software that cannot be replaced with something

that costs nothing except a little bit of work which you would have to do with
the propriety stuff anyway - if you could.
Their very businesses are at stake!
Apple is bit different because they sell hardware but software only businesses
that don't do support and customization as their main revenue stream are
doomed.
Chris B

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Ganging up on Android - commodity markets
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 27 2012 @ 10:20 PM EST
Fleecing your customer is a much much harder proposition when what you sell has
been transformed into a commodity product. And Linux is the embodiment of a
commodity OS which scares not only MS but Apple and the other 'cabal' members
that spent big $$ to buy the Nortel patents.

This 'cabal' purchase was not a defensive move, rather it was an offensive
strategy to use these patents as a stick to fight off the degradation into a
commodity market, the effect of which is to maintain a high price for products
sold to the public by these cabal members.

From wikipedia, the purpose of the Sherman Act was "To protect the
consumers by preventing arrangements designed, or which tend, to advance the
cost of goods to the consumer".

To me, what the 'cabal' has done by purchasing the Nortel patents and jumping
into litigation only reinforces the view that it is the 'cabals' desire to kill
off any commodity OS the result of which only serves to maintain a high product
price for all consumers. It smacks of anti-competition behaviour and a restraint
of trade of open source software, whether it be OS, middleware or application
software. What's worse is that software patents, which can't exist if i
understood the comments from the SCOTUS correctly, are the instrument of this
anti-competitive attack on OSS.

I wonder why such collusion is allowed to go unpunished and why such restraint
of trade has not been addressed by the government as required by the Sherman
Act?

But then again, IAMAL so my views could all be wrong.

[ 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 )