3 ms·

The hypocrisy of Microsoft is really a turn-off. Microsoft statement on this new action against Barnes and Noble: Their refusals to take licenses leave us no

The hypocrisy of Microsoft is really a turn-off. Microsoft statement on this new action against Barnes and Noble: Their refusals to take licenses leave us no choice but to bring legal action to defend our innovations and fulfill our responsibility to our customers, partners, and shareholders to safeguard the billions of dollars we invest each year to bring great software products and services to market? Then there is their statement regarding their appeal of the $290 millions dollar judgement against MS for infringing on i4I. This case can be summed up in one world – balance,” Microsoft’s David Howard, corporate vice president and deputy general counsel for litigation, said in a statement. “The current approach taken by the Court of Appeals improperly tilts the scales to reward invalid patents. That approach needs to be corrected in favor of a system that ensures the process for obtaining and defending patents is clear, reasonable and doesn’t unduly burden the system or innovation.

tzs 16y ago
What hypocrisy? The two quotes you give do not show any sign of hypocrisy. Microsoft's position is that software should be patentable, but that the standard for obtaining software patents is off and the courts are not doing a good job dealing with them. Both of the quotes you give are consistent with this view.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  And by trying to publicly extort a company that hasn't access to endless legal resources that made a really successful product using patents that are blatantly obvious and/or a rehash of things invented by others a long time ago while at the same time pretending patent reform is needed is what? And to think someone just ruined their reputation by putting Microsoft in the top 5 more ethical companies in the software business...
- forgotAgain 16y ago
  In the first instance they are wrapping themselves in the righteousness of their claims which are at best questionable. In the second they are lamenting how wrong it is that a company has to defend itself against spurious claims.
  - tzs 16y ago
    The mens rea for hypocrisy is that the alleged hypocrant believes one thing and is acting in a way inconsistent with that belief. They may be wrong about their belief, but that is irrelevant. You assert that Microsoft's claims are questionable. Assuming that is so for the sake of argument (I have not looked at the patents so cannot say), I see no reason to believe that Microsoft thinks their claims are questionable. In your first case, they likely believe that they have valid patents which they are asserting against an infringer. In your second, they believe that invalid patents are being asserted against them. There is simply nothing hypocritical here. EDIT: had the word "patentable" in the second paragraph where it should have said "questionable".
    - forgotAgain 16y ago
      If we were in a court of law then I would agree with you but since we are not in a court of law I will hold to a different definition of hypocritical: applying a criticism to others that one does not apply to oneself.

tzs 16y ago

What hypocrisy? The two quotes you give do not show any sign of hypocrisy. Microsoft's position is that software should be patentable, but that the standard for obtaining software patents is off and the courts are not doing a good job dealing with them. Both of the quotes you give are consistent with this view.

rbanffy 16y ago
And by trying to publicly extort a company that hasn't access to endless legal resources that made a really successful product using patents that are blatantly obvious and/or a rehash of things invented by others a long time ago while at the same time pretending patent reform is needed is what? And to think someone just ruined their reputation by putting Microsoft in the top 5 more ethical companies in the software business...
forgotAgain 16y ago
In the first instance they are wrapping themselves in the righteousness of their claims which are at best questionable. In the second they are lamenting how wrong it is that a company has to defend itself against spurious claims.
- tzs 16y ago
  The mens rea for hypocrisy is that the alleged hypocrant believes one thing and is acting in a way inconsistent with that belief. They may be wrong about their belief, but that is irrelevant. You assert that Microsoft's claims are questionable. Assuming that is so for the sake of argument (I have not looked at the patents so cannot say), I see no reason to believe that Microsoft thinks their claims are questionable. In your first case, they likely believe that they have valid patents which they are asserting against an infringer. In your second, they believe that invalid patents are being asserted against them. There is simply nothing hypocritical here. EDIT: had the word "patentable" in the second paragraph where it should have said "questionable".
  - forgotAgain 16y ago
    If we were in a court of law then I would agree with you but since we are not in a court of law I will hold to a different definition of hypocritical: applying a criticism to others that one does not apply to oneself.