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 278186
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Monopolist
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 14th Oct 2007 17:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Monopolist"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Suddenly an unknown patent harvesting firm, chocked to the brim with ex-Microsoft employee's appears threatening *only* *NIX vendors. If these patents were so broad, then come how they haven't attacked Microsoft, Apple or any other vendor?


Kaiwai, did you actually read the article? This EXACT SAME COMPANY sued Apple in April 2007 over the EXACT SAME PATENT, as the article explains. In addition, they have sued Microsoft too over another patent - also mentioned in the article.

My conclusion is that you didn't read the article very well, or not at all. Please do so if you comment, it's even in our rules.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Monopolist
by kaiwai on Sun 14th Oct 2007 17:35 in reply to "RE[2]: Monopolist"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Kaiwai, did you actually read the article? This EXACT SAME COMPANY sued Apple in April 2007 over the EXACT SAME PATENT, as the article explains. In addition, they have sued Microsoft too over another patent - also mentioned in the article.

My conclusion is that you didn't read the article very well, or not at all. Please do so if you comment, it's even in our rules.


1) It is 6:32am in the morning - there is no need to be rude. Politely correct what I have said and move on. The reaction you have displayed as if I had just punched your mother in the face.

2) Now that you have corrected me, I understand where you come from in regards to it not being some grand unified conspiracy theory given I have read the article again.

3) The question remains, who is this group; and on what grounds did they acquire these so-called 'patents'?

Reply Parent Score: 6

v RE[4]: Monopolist
by CrazyDude1 on Sun 14th Oct 2007 23:12 in reply to "RE[3]: Monopolist"
RE[3]: Monopolist
by porcel on Sun 14th Oct 2007 20:18 in reply to "RE[2]: Monopolist"
porcel Member since:
2006-01-28

Let's play the conspiracy card a little more.

It's convenient for them to sue Microsoft. Doing so allows Microsoft to give this "IP Innvation" company a ton of money while providing a perfect alibi.

I am sure they were in fact were given a good amount of money, enough to line up the pockets of the former Microsoft executives while making sure they don't run out of cash in their suits against Novell and Red Hat.

Remember, it's only paranoia if they are not really after you.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[3]: Monopolist
by wirespot on Sun 14th Oct 2007 21:34 in reply to "RE[2]: Monopolist"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Kaiwai, did you actually read the article?


I did, and it made one thing clear. If there was any doubt left whether you're a Microsoft fan and biased in their favor, it's pretty much gone now. I have no other way of explaining why, in the light of everything Microsoft is famous for, you can bury your head in the sand and ask people to just look at the obvious facts, no further, so as to give them the benefit of the doubt.

How can we do that? Microsoft has the means, the history, the strong motive. Red Hat is an obvious target. If Microsoft are half smart we'll never find their prints on the murder weapon, but asking us to not suspect them is too bloody much, to the point of questioning our intelligence.

Occam's razor, hah. It's a reasoning tool. If you apply it to a select narrow set of facts, yeah, I guess it will even point at Microsoft being innocent.

And to go to the trouble to make an "article" of it, too. Using OSNews to promote your bias is pretty low, but trying to impress it upon others is a whole new level of low.

Edited 2007-10-14 21:35

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[4]: Monopolist
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 14th Oct 2007 21:55 in reply to "RE[3]: Monopolist"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

If there was any doubt left whether you're a Microsoft fan and biased in their favor, it's pretty much gone now.


I couldn't care less what people like you think of me. I have principles, and one of them is to look at the facts. And if the facts happen to be in favour of Microsoft (at this point in time, in this specific case), then so be it.

I have no other way of explaining why, in the light of everything Microsoft is famous for, you can bury your head in the sand and ask people to just look at the obvious facts, no further, so as to give them the benefit of the doubt.


I ask them that because that is what I, raised in an empirical society, have learnt to do. I refuse to give up hundreds of years of empirical thinking just because people like you have such a deep hatred of Microsoft. To me, it's just a compny, like Apple, like Red Hat, like Google. They are here to make money, and I'm here to annoy the crap out of them as a customer and yell at them for being assholes.

That's how it works. Microsoft has no special place for me.

And to go to the trouble to make an "article" of it, too. Using OSNews to promote your bias is pretty low, but trying to impress it upon others is a whole new level of low.


That's an editorial for you. If you don't like to hear views that oppose your own, then don't live in a free society.

Reply Parent Score: 2