This is the best I can transcribe the important part. Steve Ballmer says, “I think it’s great the way Novell stepped up to kinda say intellectual property matters. When people use Red Hat [shrug], at least with respect to our intellectual property, in a sense, have an obligation to eventually to compensate us.”
It’s one of those laws you invent when you are unable to compete… A bit like domestic laws that they pass in the US for surveillance, warrantless wiretapping and imprisonment without trial, even torture without reasonable evidence. ‘Intellectual’ ‘property’ ‘rights’ have intellectual about them, they are not tangibles property (just thought) and they are not Mother Nature-given rights. It’s about taking away rights (e.g. of competitors or opposing powers).
As imaginary as they are, Microsoft still refuses to name them. Is it the double-click? The tabbed browsing? The smiley? PageUp/Dn?
Having put a universal tax on many things (not just computers) and evaded tax using the classic 'charity' trick, Gates is now buying the media, the schools, politicians etc. and earns as much as 10 billion dollars per year while the public is taught that Gates is a giver, not a hoarder of the worst kind
Microsoft's insecure-by-design software is causing massive damages ([cref 27802 possibly trillions] of [cref 13992 dollars in damages to date]) and yet the corporate press does not ask the right questions, let alone suggest a ban on Microsoft software
Microsoft is still breaking the Internet using completely bogus takedown requests (an abuse of DMCA) and why Microsoft Windows, which contains weaponised back doors (shared with the NSA), should be banned from the Internet, not just from the Web
Amid unrest and suspicion of misconduct in the EPO's management (ongoing for months if not years), Transparency International steps in, but the EPO's management completely ignores Transparency International, refusing to collaborate; the PR chief of the EPO is apparently being pushed out in the mean time
Another new development shows that more burden of proof is to be put on the litigant, thus discouraging the most infamous serial patent aggressors and reducing the incentive to settle with a payment out of court