3 ms·
I'm curious, why? The patents Microsoft is suing others over (for example, B&N) are all very general and necessary to implement a modern OS. Just comparing the
by azakai 15y ago
I'm curious, why? The patents Microsoft is suing others over (for example, B&N) are all very general and necessary to implement a modern OS. Just comparing the patents to the ones Microsoft is crying foul over here, both sets of patents seem about the same - general, of dubious quality, but necessary to implement a modern OS.
The fact that some of those patents happened to have a committee around them earlier (and some deals in the committee regarding future use of the patents), is a quirk of history. In all fairness, all of these patents should be licensed under FRAND terms (or better) today, or none.
- tzs 15y agoThe difference is that with one set of patents, the owner of the patents asked for them to be included in standards, and promised to license then on fair and reasonable terms to anyone who wished to implement the standards. That did not happen with the other set.
- azakai 15y agoBut regardless of that promise, both sets of patents are necessary today to implement modern OSes. Why should one of them be usable to extort huge sums and the other not?
- fpgeek 15y agoWith the other set, the owner of the patents is a convicted monopolist who used their monopoly power to create de facto standards that depended on their dubious patents. I think it is understandable why some people might be more angry about that.