Thread: GoodLink?
View Single Post
Old 02-24-2006, 09:17 PM   #11 (permalink)
Silentknight
Knows Where the Search Button Is
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: USA
Model: 7250
Carrier: Earthlink
Posts: 28
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Good_Guy said:
"Visto has filed a suit, nowhere near the status of NTP v. RIMM. We have not been through the court process, appeals process, etc. The suit was just filed."
True, but I would think that most companies would not want to go from one company tied up in a lawsuit to another company facing a similar lawsuit, no matter how far into the litigation process either company is. The prudent thing to do, if one must make a change, is to find a company not embroiled in any kind of legal wrangling with regard to its product. That's just common sense.

Good_Guy said:
"Visto has a history of litigation, none of it successful, including the announcement of a lawsuit against Microsoft the day after they signed a license agreement with NTP."
With all due respect, this is not particularly germane to the topic. Visto's "history of litigation", such as it is, has nothing to do with whether Goodlink is or is not in violation of patent rights. Even the boy who cried wolf could count on being right at least a percentage of the time.

Good_Guy said:
"We’ve preliminarily reviewed the patents in question, and they appear to describe a system that is unrelated to how GoodLink works. With that in mind, we will encourage Visto to resolve this quickly."
So said RIM. Except, they felt strongly enough about their position that, rightly or wrongly, they chose to fight - hard. Now, one can say that they should have just quickly settled, but there are pros, cons, and implications to choosing that path. Implying that an entity involved in litigation is always better for having "settled" the case seems, somehow, disingenuous.

Good_Guy said:
Lastly, and IMO, most importantly, Good has a history of settling litigation as opposed to using resources that could better be used elsewhere.
Well, I suppose an interested party could take that two ways. One is, :Bravo! These folks didn't waste time and resources fighting to uphold their position."
The other way is, "Why the heck do they have a history of settling litigation? There's something wrong with that picture...."

Look my friend, I don't want to argue. As a business owner myself, I simply made an observation that, I hope, gave the original poster some insight into his/her work situation. I wish both of you the best of luck.
Offline