It is also similar to Google warning about the patent issues with H.264 while pushing WebM and then later (through Motorola) asking for exorbitant licensing fees for H.264 patents, from Microsoft and Google. They got fined over the FRAND abuse by the courts.
http://www.idownloadblog.com/2013/09/06/apple-google-motorol...
Hate the game, not the players.
What about when the players made the rules you hate? The patent system was never intended to be used like this; it has been transformed into this by the very players you are telling us not to hate.
It's still illegal for corporations and unions to give money to political candidates' campaigns, or coordinate their own spending with those campaigns. They are free to give money to advocacy groups to run ads with a political message, or run their own ads, but that's not the same thing.
The issue was that Obama blessed a super PAC officially and his cabinet and campaign folks talked to the donors at their meetings.
Not respond to the tidal wave of advertising against him? Inevitably lose the election? Turn the election into a demonstration of what happens if you don't let money rule politics? Let the monied interests run rampant with the subsequent elected majority?
Microsoft sang a very different tune in 1991. In a memo to his senior executives, Bill Gates wrote, “If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today.” Mr. Gates worried that “some large company will patent some obvious thing” and use the patent to “take as much of our profits as they want.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/09/opinion/09lee.html