Jim Richardson <warlock@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 23:20:47 -0000,
> Rick <none@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 17:37:07 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 14:13:36 -0800, Tim Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <hfb085-skd.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>>> Jim Richardson <warlock@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> It's FUD, pure and simple, and every time they try it, they should be
>>>>> called on it. Put up, or shut up. Simple as that.
>>>>
>>>> Yet, for years, one of the big arguments for patent reform has been
>>>> that companies like Microsoft get broad patents from a lax patent
>>>> office, and that these cover much open source software.
>>>>
>>>> And now, when Microsoft says THE SAME THING FREE SOFTWARE ADVOCATES
>>>> HAVE SAID FOR YEARS, it becomes FUD with no factual basis? Huh?
>>>
>>> Linux advocates are a fickle bunch.
>>>
>>> They change their position like a leopard changes spots.
>>
>> Some do. Others don't.
>>
>
> My position on this is, and has been, that software patents are stupid,
> and need to go. Whether it's MS holding them, or someone threatening MS
> with one, they're bad law, and a bad idea.
Why is it a bad idea to stop people stealing your expensively researched
work?
|
|
