The fiduciary duty of the decision makers in this organization is not to bankrupt their company battling in court the deepest pockets they can find so posters on/. are satisfied for the moment. Their duty is to maximize shareholder wealth.
Could you please stuff that "fiduciary duty" somewhere far away when the subject company is NOT US corporation? Without deeper knowledge of Taiwanese law you can't say that their duty "is to maximize shareholder wealth", it doesn't always hold true.
There are a lot of precedents where judges throw out cases where a US based company sues a non US based company on the grounds that the non US based company doesn't have economic or commercial presence/interest in US*. So, yeah they could sue for US patent infringing products sold in Europe, but the case would be thrown out.
There are companies that specifically don't sell to US. Or have product ranges that aren't sold in US. And I understand the argument, that "If you want access to US market, please pay for a global license", however it is imposing US laws onto the world via economic tools. Economic imperialism indeed...
* - Last time that happened to my friend, was because one of his clients used his US patent infringing software in US. The judge threw out the case against his company, because the software was labelled as intended for EU use and was not sold to US customers. The patent owners might have sued his client after that.
I call it faulty not because of the existence of software patents, but because invalidation of objectively invalid patents is much more expensive than paying off the owner of patent.
And your following sentence just displays it best:
or sued out of existence
And that sentence also shows that the legal system should be revolutionised. There is no way anyone should become unable to protect himself and legal protection should never result in bankruptcy. Only as a result of a court decision can someone be stripped of belongings. It needs to become what as it was devised - a simple legal system where a person can comprehend the laws and defend himself.
It removes the threat of litigation from Microsoft only. As seen by the Apple vs HTC suit. And in general, I bet they did it to have easy access to WinMo and WP7.
Obviously they couldn't sue. What they could do is not license the patents at all and demand US ITC to block imports of HTC devices. So obviously Microsoft is abusing the US patent system to enforce it's patents globally.
That would be OK, if HTC was an US based company or the devices were manufactured in US.
That's a problem with software patents in general. Proper patents require a schematic, software patents should require source code. And if they would require source code, then it would make software patents as narrow as copyright, that is why "people" are fighting for broader patents.
+1 on that. If PageRank was a trade secret, they would need to patent it and therefore it wouldn't be published.
On the other hand, Altavista could have implemented PageRank secretly... It's virtually impossible to identify the infringement if the software is not publicly available... I bet Bing uses some very similar algorithm, that probably infringes on PageRank patent
And Google became popular, not because their PageRank was/is better. Their interface was much cleaner and usable.
They should, but here we see an absolute abuse of one country system to impose it worldwide. I don't care if the Americans pay extra $5 for HTC phones it's an American law, as long as I don't pay for a patent that is not valid where I live!
That is why I don't bother paying for MS licenses, I already paid for them with illegal taxes.
And they wonder why I hate MS... These assholes are abusing the faulty US patent system to effectively enable it worldwide. Why are they paying $5 for EVERY phone, even those that are not destined for US market.
HTC is NOT an American company. The phones are not manufactured in US. I don't live in US. Why does the US patent law apply to me when I buy an HTC Android phone?!?!?!?!?!
I'd love to see in what company that has an IT related department do middle-managers have the power to approve buying a Mac. Sure, if the company CEO thinks that "We don't need no stinkin' IT support or IT department" then yeah, middle managers could make those decisions.
It means that they aren't focused enough to actually attract business customers with compelling offers. And when those people start needing business oriented features Apples comes up empty handed or, even worse, cancelling whole business oriented product lines(rack mountable server).
Long term support and long term roadmaps are like crack to IT department managers. I just happen to be a consultant in that area.
I'm not saying that it's good, but CYA clause is almost mandatory for those people. Apple does not provide such a thing...
Slashdot Mirror
ThinkPad also has the "pad" in it. It's not the Pad in the name, it's the predominant usage of Pad in the name
When a padfone meets the eye, you get a black eye.
Nooo.... It's 0.4.59999999999999999+ times better.
You might be not aware that software patents are legal in Japan. Their patent office is more diligent than USPTO though.
The fiduciary duty of the decision makers in this organization is not to bankrupt their company battling in court the deepest pockets they can find so posters on /. are satisfied for the moment. Their duty is to maximize shareholder wealth.
Could you please stuff that "fiduciary duty" somewhere far away when the subject company is NOT US corporation? Without deeper knowledge of Taiwanese law you can't say that their duty "is to maximize shareholder wealth", it doesn't always hold true.
There are a lot of precedents where judges throw out cases where a US based company sues a non US based company on the grounds that the non US based company doesn't have economic or commercial presence/interest in US*. So, yeah they could sue for US patent infringing products sold in Europe, but the case would be thrown out.
There are companies that specifically don't sell to US. Or have product ranges that aren't sold in US. And I understand the argument, that "If you want access to US market, please pay for a global license", however it is imposing US laws onto the world via economic tools. Economic imperialism indeed...
* - Last time that happened to my friend, was because one of his clients used his US patent infringing software in US. The judge threw out the case against his company, because the software was labelled as intended for EU use and was not sold to US customers. The patent owners might have sued his client after that.
Apple and MS basically cross license everything.
And your following sentence just displays it best:
or sued out of existence
And that sentence also shows that the legal system should be revolutionised. There is no way anyone should become unable to protect himself and legal protection should never result in bankruptcy. Only as a result of a court decision can someone be stripped of belongings. It needs to become what as it was devised - a simple legal system where a person can comprehend the laws and defend himself.
Yeah... I'll tell that next time I have lunch with my country's Microsoft country manager and MS tech evangelists...
It seems that they pay "per device manufactured". That is, without regional diversification.
It removes the threat of litigation from Microsoft only. As seen by the Apple vs HTC suit. And in general, I bet they did it to have easy access to WinMo and WP7.
Obviously they couldn't sue. What they could do is not license the patents at all and demand US ITC to block imports of HTC devices. So obviously Microsoft is abusing the US patent system to enforce it's patents globally.
That would be OK, if HTC was an US based company or the devices were manufactured in US.
That's a problem with software patents in general. Proper patents require a schematic, software patents should require source code. And if they would require source code, then it would make software patents as narrow as copyright, that is why "people" are fighting for broader patents.
+1 on that. If PageRank was a trade secret, they would need to patent it and therefore it wouldn't be published.
On the other hand, Altavista could have implemented PageRank secretly... It's virtually impossible to identify the infringement if the software is not publicly available... I bet Bing uses some very similar algorithm, that probably infringes on PageRank patent
And Google became popular, not because their PageRank was/is better. Their interface was much cleaner and usable.
They should, but here we see an absolute abuse of one country system to impose it worldwide. I don't care if the Americans pay extra $5 for HTC phones it's an American law, as long as I don't pay for a patent that is not valid where I live!
That is why I don't bother paying for MS licenses, I already paid for them with illegal taxes.
And they wonder why I hate MS... These assholes are abusing the faulty US patent system to effectively enable it worldwide. Why are they paying $5 for EVERY phone, even those that are not destined for US market.
HTC is NOT an American company. The phones are not manufactured in US. I don't live in US. Why does the US patent law apply to me when I buy an HTC Android phone?!?!?!?!?!
She was high, I take it then?
I'd love to see in what company that has an IT related department do middle-managers have the power to approve buying a Mac. Sure, if the company CEO thinks that "We don't need no stinkin' IT support or IT department" then yeah, middle managers could make those decisions.
It means that they aren't focused enough to actually attract business customers with compelling offers. And when those people start needing business oriented features Apples comes up empty handed or, even worse, cancelling whole business oriented product lines(rack mountable server).
http://www.cultofmac.com/antivirus-software-within-apple-is-mandatory-but-should-it-be-on-your-mac/96290
Yeah, ACs are always so enlightened...
Long term support and long term roadmaps are like crack to IT department managers. I just happen to be a consultant in that area.
I'm not saying that it's good, but CYA clause is almost mandatory for those people. Apple does not provide such a thing...
Well... It's obvious! He hates children... I'm thinking too many flights with infants with stupid parents.
They needed to add "How not to do it" part, didn't they?
IT hate Apple is because of the lack of roadmaps and their secrecy.
They usually compare same quarters from a year ago.