5 ms·
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 wro
by 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 agoThe 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 agoIf 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.