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.
Thread beginning with comment 278224
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: non-sensical article
by dylansmrjones on Sun 14th Oct 2007 20:10 UTC in reply to "non-sensical article"
dylansmrjones
Member since:
2005-10-02

Yeah, Thom is a master of using logical fallacies.

Just because MS has 80,000 employees doesn't mean that Microsoft has 80,000 execs with special knowledge about patent and patent ligitation. The number of employees in general is irrelevant and using that number as an argument is void. And Thom knows that (or ought to).

It is also a logical fallacy to treat parts of a larger argument as if they were separate. They can only be treated as one large argument. Ripping them out of context makes any analysis void. Thom also knows that.

When several "coincidences" fit together very well, they are no longer "coincidences".

The part about Acacia having sued Microsoft is irrelevant. This happened prior to Microsoft moving employees to Acacia. Approx. four months earlier btw.

The amount of very fitting "coincidences" is so high that believing it is "coincidences" is like claiming water doesn't boil just because you are heating it.

EDIT: Ockham's Razor does not support Thom's conclusion. Rather the opposite.

Edited 2007-10-14 20:14 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 12

RE[2]: non-sensical article
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 14th Oct 2007 20:35 in reply to "RE: non-sensical article"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

When several "coincidences" fit together very well, they are no longer "coincidences".


They will only cease to be coincidences as soon as definitive, conclusive proof has been given that they are, in fact, not coincidences - before that, they are just coincidences, and people using them as conclusive proof are making up a conspiracy.

As I clearly stated in the article, Groklaw might really turn out to be right. I really, really, really do not know. I just tend to look at the world from a more scientific point of view, and if somebody makes claims or statements, presenting them as fact, THEY BETTER HAVE THE PROOF TO BACK IT UP. [excuse me for the caps, but that really needed emphasis] I am simply doing proper peer review - offering much more logical possible alternative explanations for the string of coincidences listed by Groklaw - it is up to you to, as a reader, to make up your own mind.

That is how peer review works. It's now your turn to make your case, as a supporter of the original premise. Sadly, you seem unable to, and only had to resort to personal attacks.

Which really does not help your case.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: non-sensical article
by segedunum on Sun 14th Oct 2007 21:54 in reply to "RE[2]: non-sensical article"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

They will only cease to be coincidences as soon as definitive, conclusive proof has been given that they are, in fact, not coincidences - before that, they are just coincidences, and people using them as conclusive proof are making up a conspiracy.

Thom, strong circumstantial evidence is still strong circumstantial evidence, regardless of whatever way you want to cut that. Coming along and saying "Oh, it's all a coincidence!" is simply not a counter argument, and quite frankly, the article was utterly pointless. There was no logical reasoning at all to counter what Groklaw had come up with, and you seem to have got a bee in your bonnet about conspiracy theories at Groklaw.

If I work at Microsoft and then leave, yes, the odds are pretty good that I'm going to then work for another technology related company. No surprise there. If I work at Apple, IBM, HP or another tech company and leave, then yes, I might end up working for other tech companies. No surprise there. That's not a counter argument here.

However, if several former Microsoft employees join an IP troll company at the same time that Microsoft's CEO says that Linux companies will have to cough up effectively, and then said IP troll company with former Microsoft employees then sues said Linux companies, then the chances of that being a coincidence, and a black helicopter conspiracy as you amusingly call it, are practically zero.

Oh, and these are specialists in IP litigation as well. They're not just random tech people who've left Microsoft to actually create the IP Innovation they claim they own!

Those events at different times may mean nothing and might be coincidences. Those events happening at the same time mean quite a bit.

I just tend to look at the world from a more scientific point of view...

OK. Your argument boils down to the fact that you're arguing that tech employees move around all the time, and that there is nothing unusual about a handful of Microsoft employees leaving and going to IP Innovation. Can you go and find out how many former employees of IBM, HP, Apple and others have joined IP Innovation? I doubt you'll find many, and I doubt you'll find many whose former employers are currently threatening IP litigation.

You see, going out and finding that kind of evidence would have provided a counter argument for what you're trying to say. Squealing for a smoking gun is simply not an effective response. It never has been and it never will be because it's not an effective counter argument to what has actually been observed.

That is how peer review works.

No it isn't. Peer review depends on someone having something effective you can respond to.

It's now your turn to make your case, as a supporter of the original premise.

When I see your actual response, I'll be all ears.

Sadly, you seem unable to, and only had to resort to personal attacks.

Ahhh, the old personal attacks ploy. Sadly Thom, there were absolutely no personal attacks at all in the post you replied to.

Like the original poster in this thread says, it's like claiming that water doesn't boil just because you've heated it, or protons, neutrons and electrons don't exist because you haven't seen them with your own eyes. The evidence that they exist is just a coincidence.

Reply Parent Score: 8