3 ms·

You're getting hot and bothered about legal arguments that just aren't there. Other than alleging antitrust implications by Nokia and Microsoft cross-licensing

You're getting hot and bothered about legal arguments that just aren't there. Other than alleging antitrust implications by Nokia and Microsoft cross-licensing patents from (between them) a dominant position in the mobile phone industry, there aren't any legal arguments about monopolies in this filing. 98% of this filing is about misapplication of patent law and bad patents. This has nothing to do with anti-trust other than one line in one paragraph in a 70-paragraph defense and counterclaim section.

kenjackson 15y ago
Well I'd agree with you if not for the fact that Groklaw made anti-trust the central thesis of their blog entry, which is the article this thread is referring to. Here's Groklaw's concluding sentence: "You know how for years I've told you that I expected that one day Microsoft's anti-Linux patent threats would be an antitrust matter? That day has come, at last, and while others have apparently caved to Microsoft, Barnes & Noble had the wisdom to refuse to sign an NDA, and so it is free to speak" You may want to let them know that antitrust isn't really the crux here.
- cooldeal 15y ago
  Sadly, Groklaw seems to have turned into a cesspool of Microsoft haters. Can't really hope for any impartiality when it comes to reporting on MS. It's doubly sad because it's such a good resource otherwise.
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    > Can't really hope for any impartiality when it comes to reporting on MS Have you taken the trouble of actually reading the patents? http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,957,233.PN.&OS=PN/6,957,233&RS=PN/6,957,233 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec... http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,891,551.PN.&OS=PN/6,891,551&RS=PN/6,891,551 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec... http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,889,522.PN.&OS=PN/5,889,522&RS=PN/5,889,522 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec... http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,339,780.PN.&OS=PN/6,339,780&RS=PN/6,339,780 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec... http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,778,372.PN.&OS=PN/5,778,372&RS=PN/5,778,372 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...
    - kenjackson 15y ago
      I had done a brief look at these patents in a previous thread. I do find some of them pretty compelling, if they do survive invalidation attempts. Ironically, if MS loses their current case in the Supreme Court, the bar for B&N will be extremely high (the current standard is clear and convincing).
      - rbanffy 15y ago
        It never crossed my mind they could lose on purpose. Until now. Considering the size of the desktop market and the size of the mobile market a few years from now, they could, very well, sacrifice one for the other.

kenjackson 15y ago

Well I'd agree with you if not for the fact that Groklaw made anti-trust the central thesis of their blog entry, which is the article this thread is referring to. Here's Groklaw's concluding sentence: "You know how for years I've told you that I expected that one day Microsoft's anti-Linux patent threats would be an antitrust matter? That day has come, at last, and while others have apparently caved to Microsoft, Barnes & Noble had the wisdom to refuse to sign an NDA, and so it is free to speak" You may want to let them know that antitrust isn't really the crux here.

cooldeal 15y ago
Sadly, Groklaw seems to have turned into a cesspool of Microsoft haters. Can't really hope for any impartiality when it comes to reporting on MS. It's doubly sad because it's such a good resource otherwise.
- rbanffy 15y ago
  > Can't really hope for any impartiality when it comes to reporting on MS Have you taken the trouble of actually reading the patents? http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,957,233.PN.&OS=PN/6,957,233&RS=PN/6,957,233 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec... http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,891,551.PN.&OS=PN/6,891,551&RS=PN/6,891,551 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec... http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,889,522.PN.&OS=PN/5,889,522&RS=PN/5,889,522 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec... http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,339,780.PN.&OS=PN/6,339,780&RS=PN/6,339,780 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec... http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,778,372.PN.&OS=PN/5,778,372&RS=PN/5,778,372 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    I had done a brief look at these patents in a previous thread. I do find some of them pretty compelling, if they do survive invalidation attempts. Ironically, if MS loses their current case in the Supreme Court, the bar for B&N will be extremely high (the current standard is clear and convincing).
    - rbanffy 15y ago
      It never crossed my mind they could lose on purpose. Until now. Considering the size of the desktop market and the size of the mobile market a few years from now, they could, very well, sacrifice one for the other.