[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Bob Kline <bkline@rksystems.com>
- To: Dan Mabbutt <Seigfried@msn.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:56:21 -0400 (EDT)
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Dan Mabbutt wrote:
> OK ... Thinking Dilbert, I can imagine one reason why BT did this
> that doesn't put them in a pathetic light. (If my idea has any
> truth to it, all of us are in a pathetic light for allowing it to
> happen.)
>
> My experience is that lawyers will sue for any cause that might
> yield fees for themselves. If a lawyer can convince a court to
> entertain a suit against management for not protecting an "asset" of
> the company (the hyperlink patent rights), fees can be generated.
> What if BT management is simply protecting themselves from frivolous
> lawsuits by filing frivolous patent applications?
I think you must have missed the original posting. According to the
news report, BT isn't just filing patent applications, they're trying to
(or pretending to try to -- according to the Dilbert theory) collect
royalties. If they're not pretending, then I don't understand how their
actions could be construed as anything but pathetic. You don't for a
moment suppose that they have any chance after all these years of
convincing a court to force everyone who uses hyperlinks to pay BT for
the privilege, do you?
--
Bob Kline
***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************
|