Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 14th Oct 2007 15:12 UTC
Legal This week's 'big' news on OSNews was about software patents. You know, those things that say you cannot stack four pixels on top of one another unless you pay money to the guy who invented four-pixel-stacks (or the guy who bought the guy who invented four-pixel-stacks). A company called IP Innovation, LLC, has sued Novell and Red Hat for infringement of the company's IP portfolio. Software patents are of course generally completely ridiculous, so I will not focus on that here. I want to focus on something else.
E-mail Print r 0   · Read More · 93 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 278169
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Ockham's Obsession?
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 14th Oct 2007 17:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ockham's Obsession?"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Considering that the whole article pretty much hinges on your usage of Ockham's Razor, I'm afraid that h3rman hit the nail on the head.


?

I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense. I'm just giving alternative, more logical (in my eyes) explanations for the things Groklaw found. That's all.

I added Ockham's Razor at the end because the Razor happens to fit my story fairly well.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Ockham's Obsession?
by h3rman on Sun 14th Oct 2007 17:13 in reply to "RE[3]: Ockham's Obsession?"
h3rman Member since:
2006-08-09

I'm basically with you here.
One thing I've learned discussing 'conspiracy theories' is not to bother bringing them up unless you have very sound evidence.
Well. even if I have, many do not listen.
Which I'm learning to live with, makes me feel I'm getting older though.

Ceterum censeo...
Sorry Thom, you should have used an accusative. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Ockham's Obsession?
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 14th Oct 2007 17:18 in reply to "RE[4]: Ockham's Obsession?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Sorry Thom, you should have used an accusative.


Heh, I just took Cato Maior's line regarding Carthago, and replaced "Carthago" with my own Latinisation of "software patents" - and, well, let's just say my last class in Latin at Latin/Greek school was... Seven years ago.

:)

Edited 2007-10-14 17:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Ockham's Obsession?
by SReilly on Sun 14th Oct 2007 18:24 in reply to "RE[3]: Ockham's Obsession?"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense. I'm just giving alternative, more logical (in my eyes) explanations for the things Groklaw found. That's all.

Nonsense? Pull the other one, it's got bells on it ;-)

Your whole article is based on the premises that the simplest explanation, i.e. yours, is naturally the most logical, ergo O.R.

Sure, you point out, and rightly so, that in most western legal systems one is innocent until proven guilty but the main gist of your article can easily be discerned as hinging on the above mentioned razor.

Besides that, it seems that I misinterpreted h3rman's comment as taking a swipe at your article. My bad!

Reply Parent Score: 3