The patent infringement suit: A playbook
|
|
|
Comments (1)
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post

Why no mention of East Texas's notoriety as being so plaintiff-friendly, in addition to the fact that East Texas itself is the central location of Acacia's IP Innovation, LLC ??
Article quote Yet why does Lisa Hoover omit mentioning the major "hand of Microsoft" that PJ so thoroughly delved into over the last several years, namely Microsoft's major hand with BayStar in the SCO vs. IBM trial (e.g., at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061009152706664) ?? How about any mention of Microsoft's ongoing direct litigation efforts, as Groklaw's PJ continues to highlight at http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107... ??
Article quote And why does this Linux.com piece by Hoover fail to acknowledge that this particular "inevitable" FUD-quote comes from a noted Microsoft-favoring (OpenXML-favoring?) Massachusetts lawyer?? (from http://www.masslaw.com/ma20030825feat.cfm)
Why the omission in Hoover's so-called "playbook" or "scorecard" any mention at all of the very auspiciously-timed news of the Court of Appeals' allowing Novell's anti-trust suit against Microsoft, http://blue-gnu.biz/content/exclusionary_agreement_grievance... ?? Given that both cases certainly involve Novell and "may" involve Microsoft, then how indirectly related can both these cases really be ??!!
All-in-all, maybe this Lisa Hoover should continue blogging reviews of Microsoft Windows software at http://www.downloadsquad.com/bloggers/lisa-hoover/ rather than writing technical articles such as this Linux.com one.