Yet several critical glaring omissions here.....
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| vainrveenr Oct 18, 2007 2:22 PM EDT |
.... as though the writer wishes to generate a little FUD herself maybe? 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 Quoting:Pamela Jones of Groklaw was among the first to point out Ballmer's apparent clairvoyance with respect to the filing that was timed so close to his speech in London. She suggests that the hand of Microsoft may be reaching out from Redmond to orchestrate some of the events, since Acacia apparently employs a number of Microsoft employees, including Brad Brunell, former general manager of intellectual property licensing at Microsoft, who was named Acacia's senior vice president on October 1.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 Quoting:Some fear that this lawsuit is the first of many that the open source community is likely to see in the coming years as Linux-based products continue to gain traction in the software market. Edward J. Naughton, a Boston-based attorney specializing in intellectual property litigation, says that idea isn't really too far-fetched -- and was probably inevitable.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?? Quoting:Don't think Naughton a technical egghead who has no appreciation for something like client development. After all, this is the guy who brought Microsoft to his firm as a client.(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. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!