"Robt. Miller" <robtmil.killspam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:slrnf8ahvr.oq6.robtmil.killspam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On 2007-06-29, John Locke <johnlocke98513@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:46:45 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
>><newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>____/ Anonymous on Friday 29 June 2007 10:55 : \____
>>>
>>>> A
>>>
>>>Microsoft will not sue. It will only pretend that it might,
>>
>> Same old story. They don't need to sue. They're sitting on a pile
>> of money. None can afford to engage in litigation with Microsoft.
>
> I'll bet IBM could afford it, if they had to.
>
In which case it would be the unstoppable force vs. the immovable object.
Only the lawyers win.
IBM would not do such a thing. IBM owns more patents than Microsoft and if
patents were abolished/overhauled then IBM stands to lose more. Don't fool
yourself because it IS about the money. IBM is a business not a good will
organization. They will always do what's in the best financial interest of
IBM and this means keeping the patent system in its current state.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|