The article wasn't clear just what patent was involved. The problem, many
times, is that the agreement that settles a case often also seals off
information about just what IP was involved. While there's certainly
nothing wrong about companies being paid for the invention of genuinely new
products, the current state of affairs in the US is pretty ridiculous with
companies being able to effectively shake down the competition and yet not
having to reveal just what IP they were claiming was violated.
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Ian Manners <void@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> For those interested in such things.
>
> Nikon Buckles To Microsoft, Will Pay "Android Tax" For Smart Cameras.
> (Nikon only have one Android Smart camera at present)
>
> <http://www.dailytech.com/Nikon+Agrees+to+Pay+Microsoft+Android+Tax+o
> n+Smart+Cameras/article29965.htm>
>
> Microsoft still won't actually have an unfront go at Google over
> Android.
>
> "Google still needs to take a more active role in combating IP
> trolls like Microsoft. " <== Google will stay out of it, its between
> other parties so why should Google get involved beyond telling
> other non Microsoft parties they dont actually have to pay it.
>
> Cheers
> Ian Manners
> Of nowhere in particular.
> (The Man from Nowhere)
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|