Re: Red Hat pays $800,000 + costs for a patent deal

[Linonut]

* Alexander Terekhov peremptorily fired off this memo:

> http://sanantonio.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2008/06/09/daily18.html
>
> Reactions from the freetards universe:
>
> http://technocrat.net/d/2008/6/11/43190
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080611191302741
>
> ROFL
>
> regards,

Bullshit.  You have no "regards" for anyone.

> alexander.

Idiot.

Your normal gambit:  quote some text, and laugh at it.  Then we're
supposed to supply our own interpretation of why you laugh at it.

Why?

Because you don't have any cogent interpretation, is my guess.

Hence, the troll tactic.

So Red Hat paid a significant, but small amount, to a patent-troll
venture capitalist, to protect not only themselves, but a large class of
users, from being forced to pay royalties.  

Sounds like a pretty good bargain that gives Free software some
protection that is needed in this world of people that, like yourself,
are contemptuous of Free software.

And talk about your ROFL:

   Suits are still pending against "a number of major companies,"
   Amphion said in a statement, though it did not say which ones. Bank
   of America, Visa, Wachovia and Delta Air Lines were among the
   defendants in one of the suits against Red Hat.

Are you contemptuous of those proprietary entities, too?

Are you contemptuous of this proprietary entity?

   http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107100653

   Microsoft Litigation

Narrow-minded (and perhaps naive) idiot.

-- 
I actually thought that it would be a little confusing during the same
period of your life to be in one meeting when you're trying to make money,
and then go to another meeting where you're giving it away.
   -- Bill Gates