Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Wrong conclusion. | 211 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Wrong conclusion.

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 05:00 AM EDT

Start is good: Engineers should refuse to design according
to encumbered standards. They should refuse to participate
in standards bodies that allow encumbered standards.

The next sentence is wrong, though. It says something about
what engineers should seek out - standard bodies,
unencumbered standards, etc. Instead it should talk about
use of sticks and stones for the local subsistence economy
which will arise when said engineers will be fired.

For better or for worse there are plenty of engineers and
not enough vacancies and situation is becoming worse, not
better. Which means engineers are not calling the shots -
business managers are. And as long as patents are legal they
will insist on the for in a world where one party have
patents and other party does not first party always wins.

That's what this lawsuit is all about: Microsoft is trying
to reduce price of RAND patents to then sue everyone for
it's NON-RAND patents "violations" with impurity.

[ 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 )