[IANAL]<p>It appears to me that:<p>1. B&N is arguing that Microsoft's patents are invalid based on prior art rather than that Android does not use the methods covered by the patents. This makes Microsoft's assertion of their interest legitimate even if their patents should be overturned based on prior art (or if software patents themselves ought to be abolished, altogether). This form of competing claims is exactly the sort of matter appropriate for patent litigation.<p>2. Given their financial situation and the choice of the Nook's operating system being non-central to B&N's overall profitablity, it seems to me that B&N's decision to litigate (somewhat on Google's behalf) seems to be an attempt to swing for the fences and hope for a big settlement rather than focus on business fundamentals.<p>3. The DOJ appeal seems particularly week given the market share of iOS devices.
Link to the submission with the original Groklaw story: <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3233029" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3233029</a>
I really don't have a problem with people disliking Microsoft over its business practices but I really dislike articles where people write things like "Redmond Devil". I pretty much stop reading at that point.