> people who don't benefit from those practices); what people are
> allowed to
> do by law is not necessarily the same as what they should do.
>
While that may be true, it would seem to me then that it is actually
the law that is considered unethical and not the company. The truth is
that common business practices are just that; common. It is just that
people only seem to get upset when one of those companies does
something common that affects them.
> Eolas doesn't actually produce anything. To the best of my knowledge,
> they
> didn't ever implement their idea, they just thought it up and rushed
> to the
> patent office with it. While this is perfectly legal, it strikes me
> that
> this behavior could be interpreted as parasitic, to say the least. I
> can
> certainly understand why so many people oppose software patents.
>
Is it then okay for a company that produces a product to patent other
ideas they never implement? Because the practice of patenting ideas
without implementing them into a product is quite common. I would even
say that most companies engage in this practice, which by your logic
would mean that most companies could be interpreted as parasitic.
> I was under the impression that they did not offer to license their
> patent
> to Microsoft. I agree that they are "playing fair" in the sense that
> their
> actions are legal, and maximize shareholder benefits, but they will
> certainly have a negative effect on lots of third parties who have
> done them
> no harm.
>
Eolas has offered Microsoft a license. Beware of Microsoft FUD! In
regard to harming 3rd parties with legal actions, such is life. Most
legal actions entered into for economic benefit harm 3rd parties.
Matt Liotta
President & CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.MontaraSoftware.com
(888) 408-0900 x901
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
