Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
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@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ ***************************************************************************
|
