LDR wrote:
> On our way to Redmond.
>
See http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/22/1224259 (Microsoft
will not sue over Linux patents)
And I was reading (can't find where at the moment) where some were
advertising "Sue Me, Sue Me" in an attempt to get Microsoft to reveal
the patents bein
On 5/22/07, Bruce Dawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> See http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/22/1224259 (Microsoft
> will not sue over Linux patents)
Hmmm. From the actual article:
"If we wanted to go down that road we could have done that three years
ago," said a Microsoft spokesper
On 5/22/07, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/22/07, Bruce Dawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > See http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/22/1224259 (Microsoft
> > will not sue over Linux patents)
> Hmmm. From the actual article:
> "If we wanted to go down that road we could hav
On 5/22/07, Thomas Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What gets me is, don't they *HAVE* to defend the patents? I know
> that applies to Trademarks, but I would assume that they'd have no leg
> to stand on if they blatently allowed one party to publically be
> violating their patents, and then
