Re: Gates Patents Flipping a Light Switch

[phil hunt]

On 15 May 2004 20:17:52 GMT, Lee Hollaar <hollaar@faith.cs.utah.edu> wrote:
>In article <slrncacuj8.nde.zen19725@cabalamat.cabalamat.org> 
>zen19725@zen.co.uk (phil hunt) writes:
>>On Sat, 15 May 2004 15:13:11 -0400, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> 
>>wrote:
>>>In article <slrncac935.m82.zen19725@cabalamat.cabalamat.org>,
>>> zen19725@zen.co.uk (phil hunt) wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2004 16:45:21 -0400, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >No, I didn't overlook it.  My point is that without patents, even these 
>>>> >rare wins would be virtually impossible.  Patents are one of the few 
>>>> >weapons a small player can wield against a behemoth like Microsoft.
>>>> 
>>>> On the contrary, patents help microsoft in their fight against pesky 
>>>> competition, especially that of the open source variety. MS *loves* 
>>>> patents, because it gives them the chance to make it a crime for 
>>>> anyone to compete with them.
>>>
>>>Of course it helps Microsoft.  It helps *everyone* -- big guys and 
>>>little guys.
>>
>>So, IYO, criminalising open source software helps people who use 
>>open source software.
>
>At least in the United States, there are no criminal provisions that
>stem from patent infringement.

If you infringe a patent, and a court tells you to stop doing it, 
and you keep on doing it, I expect sooner or later the authorities 
will arrest and imprison you.

-- 
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than 
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)