A new VFAT patent avoidance patch

True fact. However:

I can accuse you of being a pedophile, and you will have to defend yourself in court, against my accusation (to the extent that I choose to be legally and/ or publicly aggressive). You will have to prove that you are not a pedophile in a system that favors the accuser.

Whilst the onus of proof does lie upon the accuser, it is irrelevant, because the 'winner' in all these battles is the lawyers. Tom Tom is well aware of this.

Whilst the accusation and claim by Microsoft, most likely has no substantive ground and little or no prospect of success against a deep pocketed member of our community, it is nonetheless the case that Microsoft in its belligerent aggression against our community is willing to try any avenue, not the least of which is direct aggression by way of litigation.

Those in the know in the community are confident that it is only a matter of time before these particular patents fall. Unfortunately, the 'time to correct' and 'cost to correct' factors are an indictment against the US patent and legal systems.

2. "Blaming Microsoft with trying to deal with a system where they are much more frequently a victim then a aggressor"

False presumption.

Explanation:
An implied presumption you have put here is that 'because Microsoft is more frequently a victim, it's OK that they be an aggressor'. More strictly, you are saying that because Microsoft is more often the victim, we should _not_ blame them for being the aggressor (implied context, is _this_ particular case of Microsoft's aggression).

But if they're being an aggressor then they _are_ actually being an aggressor. And to blame or rather _name_ them as being an aggressor has benefits including helping others in our community to identify Microsoft as an aggressor against our community, at the very least in this particular case of actual, demonstrated aggression.

I say it is OK to name Microsoft as an aggressor when Microsoft acts aggressively towards those in our community!

3. Microsoft aggressive? Look at aggressive hardware deals (the win-modem fiasco is yet to be fully told), operating-system license pricing lock-in with pc vendors, the endless SCO saga (see groklaw.org), recycled "Get the facts" campaigns, anti-competitive practices, netbook 'sales figures', and on and on it goes...

Don't try to convince me Microsoft is unworthy of the "aggressive against the community" label! Anyone abused of such a notion, ought to promptly disabuse themselves of such a notion.

From the desk of Zen