I hadn't really picked up a strong "they're all wrong" vibe from what I've seen of your coverage of the smartphone mess.
I hadn't really picked up a strong "they're all wrong" vibe from what I've seen of your coverage of the smartphone mess.
You previously just phrased my 3rd option differently to artifically create a 4th option.
Now you don't take into account that I explained 3 different approaches: grant a free license, grant a FRAND license, and prohibit any implementation of the patented invention only to foreclose competition, which is exactly what IBM (a monopolist in the context we're discussing) tried. Fortunately, the European Commission is investigating IBM for suspected violations of EU competition law.
Further, IBM's decade of tolerating Hercules development suggests that they do see a difference between community infringement and commercial infringement.
Your second paragraph doesn't make sense to me given that the patents asserted by IBM in that correspondence were related to the Hercules open source emulator, not specific to any commercial offering. The maintainer of the Hercules project explained on his blog why this was an attack on the Hercules project as a whole: http://ibmvshercules.com/