Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> The LibDave method of patent immunity
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Either way we put MS and other FUD generating companies over a barrel.
> | They either show us what patents, if any, are being infringed, and we
> | simply code around them. Or else we force them to shut their mouths and
> | end their FUD mongering. Either way, we win. And the best part is, once
> | we're done, if these companies continued their patent threats, the EFF
> | and the FSF could sue those companies for slander.
> `----
>
> http://www.raiden.net/articles/the_libdave_method_of_patent_immunity/
In EU this FUD gets smacked legally.
Show us what you got and/or stop lying.
It happened to SCO$.
Note in EU micoshaft does not make any claims on any of its web shites
that Linux infringes its patents. If it did, the same thing as happened
to SCO$ in EU will happen. The Shih will hit the fan for micoshfat EU
and they will learn how much lying in public can cost them.
I urge for example the Asus, Acer, Del and other companies
around the world to have offices in EU and then sell netbooks
through arrangments made in the EU.
If micoshaft marketing plops turn up with their patent clap trap,
then tape the bastards and give it to the EU regulators.
You can still tape the bastards even if they threaten you
about the EU markets and sales and it was made outside of the EU
because micoshaft has offices in the EU and that puts them
in breach of EU regulations.
> Steve Stites - Subject: Put your mouth where your money is
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Microsoft has spent enormous sums of money to build a huge portfolio of
> | dubious quality software patents. Armed with this immense obsolete
> | weapon they have entered into the patent wars. And lost.
> |
> | The sums of money extracted by patent trolls from Microsoft far exceed
> | whatever money Microsoft has managed to extract from other companies
> | with software patent threats. So far, software patents are a huge net
> | loss for Microsoft.
> `----
>
> http://www.linuxtoday.com
news_story.php3?ltsn=2009-07-07-028-35-NW-MS-LL-0003
>
>
> Recent:
>
> German Court: SCO Must Pay a Fine. Yes. Again.
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | SCO was enjoined from making certain claims in Germany, and it signed an
> | agreement in 2003 not to say them there, because its alternate choice
> | was to have to prove them immediately, so it chose silence. As a result,
> | SCO can't say in Germany that Linux violates SCO's IP or that end users
> | could be liable for violations of SCO's intellectual property or that
> | Linux is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX. Unless it can prove it.
> | Good luck with that. SCO hasn't been successful proving that anywhere,
> | so it can't say that in Germany. But the US website makes such claims,
> | which were apparently shown in Germany too. Naughty, naughty.
> `----
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080820140159120
>
>
> ASA Adjudications
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | A TV ad, for the iPhone, showed the phone in someone's hand and a finger
> | switching it on to reveal the menu page. The finger touched the weather
> | icon showing the forecast for Cape Town and then navigated through a
> | Heathrow Airport area map, a Safari icon, hotels and stock market
> | webpage. The iPhone rang and the hand was shown answering it. During
> | the ad, the voice-over said " You never know which part of the internet
> | you'll need. The do you need sun cream part? The what's the quickest
> | way to the airport part? The what about an ocean view room part? Or the
> | can you really afford this part? Which is why all the parts of the
> | internet are on the iPhone". The ad ended with on-screen text that
> | stated "iPhone. Only on O2".
> |
> | Issue
> | Two viewers believed the claim that all parts of the internet were
> | accessible was misleading because they understood that the iPhone did
> | not support Flash or Java, both integral to many web pages.
> `----
>
> http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_44891.htm
>
>
> SCO Moves for Summary Judgment on Slander of Title in Novell Case
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | So, Lyons and O'Gara both seem to stand before the court with an
> | ethical cloud over their heads. And recently Lyons shows up again,
> | in a SCO exhibit, again helpful to SCO's litigation agenda, writing
> | more baloney about me, but how valuable will that be under these
> | circumstances? I've wondered if Forbes wouldn't print the latest
> | Lyons hate-PJ material now showing up on his blog, and that is why
> | he was forced to join the blogosphere, ironically enough, but I
> | wouldn't wish to place the Forbes bar too high. I might get
> | disappointed. But if they did refuse, I commend them for
> | mitigating their damages. It was Lyons, after all, who first
> | insinuated a Groklaw-IBM tie. And it was he who first mentioned
> | the court filing with a different date stamp. He seems deeply,
> | deeply involved, no matter how you look at it, from my perspective.
> `----
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2007040920165874
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkpZucMACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6MtACeLOf2f9FeXhOIT1NL1T8YwYt3
> kWEAnRZekmINfUkQj66kHw43dleYBwc9
> =/NgN
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
