<OT> Why Microsoft has to go ...

[Alma J Wetzker]

burns <linux at burnsmacdonald.com> 01 Sep 2003 08:53:06 -0400
>
>On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 02:33, Roger Oberholtzer wrote:
>
>>On 30 Aug 2003 21:32:16 -0400
>>burns <linux at burnsmacdonald.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Nothing fishy here. The patents are intellectual property and assets of
>>>the corporation. As such they are the property of the investors and the
>>>creditors. Selling them to your wife is illegal in this instance.
>>
>>Not if the investors agree to do so. How many can there be in a company of
>>two employees?
>
>They would still have to get the OK from their investors - that IP is
>probably what their investors bought into in the first place. A company
>of 2 people has no other value.

I think the point is that the patents are all the company really has and 
M$ is stealling them.  I know that big money tends to play legal games 
to get the things they want but this makes no sense.  The license should 
cost less than the legal fees.  Plus, the bad publicity and already 
being in legal trouble with the feds.  Somebody at M$ is clearly not 
thinking.

     -- Alma