http://techrights.org/2009/07/13/microsoft-via-back-door-act/ Free Software Sentry – watching and reporting maneuvers of those threatened by software freedom Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:00:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://techrights.org/2009/07/13/microsoft-via-back-door-act/comment-page-1/#comment-69976 The Mad Hatter Thu, 16 Jul 2009 02:01:37 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/?p=14626#comment-69976 As I've pointed out in more than one place, the problem isn't software patents, it's patents period. Any company that claims it needs patents to be competitive, is admitting that it's incapable of competing on a level playing field. Its also admitting that its management is incompetent, but that's another matter. As I’ve pointed out in more than one place, the problem isn’t software patents, it’s patents period. Any company that claims it needs patents to be competitive, is admitting that it’s incapable of competing on a level playing field. Its also admitting that its management is incompetent, but that’s another matter.

]]> http://techrights.org/2009/07/13/microsoft-via-back-door-act/comment-page-1/#comment-69531 André Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:05:31 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/?p=14626#comment-69531 The article is misleading, there is no FFII position against the community patent (as such) and substantive patent harmonisation within the EU. Benjamin sees the new court as an instrument for a paneuropean hostile takeover of the legislative branch via a trusted court, but that is the plain result from studying the Council draft documents and their center of gravitation: The EPO in Munich. The article is misleading, there is no FFII position against the community patent (as such) and substantive patent harmonisation within the EU. Benjamin sees the new court as an instrument for a paneuropean hostile takeover of the legislative branch via a trusted court, but that is the plain result from studying the Council draft documents and their center of gravitation: The EPO in Munich.

]]>