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 278226
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: non-sensical article
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 14th Oct 2007 20:17 UTC in reply to "non-sensical article"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

In order to be proven "guilty" one must make an accusation of "guilty" and then try to prove it as such. Groklaw is taking the position that based on MS history, the Halloween documents and all the comments and threats (past and present), MS must be guilty. PJ and the volunteers are beginning to collect information to prove their case.


Yeah... And the evidence Groklaw has collected (so far!) to prove their accusations are extremely weak, as I have explained in the article.

After all, weren't they correct all along in regards to SCO case?


Completely and utterly irrelevant. Just because they were right on the SCO issue does not mean they are necessarily right on this issue as well. I'm sorry, logic doesn't work that way.

I think they DO HAVE credibility and PJ has the intellectual honesty to do her research.


PJ is an advocate of open source software, which is noble, and I really appreciate her work. However, she is NOT an impartial source, and hence, her words are ALWAYS to be questioned.

You took each one of Groklaw's ppoints and analized them individually. Looking at them individually and out of context might support your point of view, but that is an icorrect way of analyzing the issue.


Five pieces of weak circumstantial evidence put together still isn't a strong piece of evidence.

Thow a coin in the air and the chances of getting tail is 50% (1/2), Each time you throw it, the chance is the same 50%. Now throw 3 coins simmultaneaously and what are the chances of getting tail on each one of them? 1/8. same concept applies to the evidence that PJ is beginning to collect. Coincidence?


Really mate, you don't want to get into a statistical discussion with me. Seriously, you don't. And no, you cannot apply flipping a coin a few times to 5 pieces of circumstantial evidence. That has to be the silliest thing I have ever heard - and actually, a classical example of a strawman argument, that thing you (wrongfully, I might add) accused me of doing.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: non-sensical article
by miles on Sun 14th Oct 2007 20:35 in reply to "RE: non-sensical article"
miles Member since:
2006-06-15

"Really mate, you don't want to get into a statistical discussion with me. Seriously, you don't."

That made my day. Seriously, even if you were John Nash, that would still sound horrible. That and having to impose us the teenager's favorite (0ckh4m's R4Z0r, man!). Even if the article was ok, please let's all have a little sleep.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: non-sensical article
by segedunum on Sun 14th Oct 2007 22:07 in reply to "RE: non-sensical article"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

And the evidence Groklaw has collected (so far!) to prove their accusations are extremely weak, as I have explained in the article.

Where? Everyone here has pretty much taken your article apart, and your argument boils down to "There is no smoking gun!"

However, she is NOT an impartial source, and hence, her words are ALWAYS to be questioned.

I take things on a case-by-case basis. Can you explain why Groklaw is wrong in this case, rather than making generalisations which you actually accused the poster of doing when you said that just because Groklaw was right about SCO, they're not right here?

Five pieces of weak circumstantial evidence put together still isn't a strong piece of evidence.

You haven't explained why. That would be considered very strong circumstantial evidence in any case.

Really mate, you don't want to get into a statistical discussion with me.

When you have a counter argument, give us all a call mate. Telling us that you're a statistical master is not a counter argument.

And no, you cannot apply flipping a coin a few times to 5 pieces of circumstantial evidence. That has to be the silliest thing I have ever heard - and actually, a classical example of a strawman argument

Which basically proves you have no clue whatsoever about statistics or probability. You're taking all of those events that Groklaw listed and are viewing them as separate, individual events that could have happened at any time, in any order, with any group of employees at any company.

Yer, I could flip a coin at any time and get heads. However, if I flip it five times and I get heads every time then the odds are pretty good that something is skewing the flip - and we're only talking about two possibilities each time there.

Basic probability dictates that you multiply the individual probabilities together to get the effective chance of it happening.

Edited 2007-10-14 22:12

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: non-sensical article
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 14th Oct 2007 22:53 in reply to "RE[2]: non-sensical article"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Where? Everyone here has pretty much taken your article apart, and your argument boils down to "There is no smoking gun!"


You are making a mistake here. You are assuming I am defending Microsoft, while in fact, I am not. In a nutshell, my article boils down to:

"Groklaw claims that Microsoft orchestrates IP Innovation's lawsuit against Red Hat/Novell, and they present evidence A, B, and C. These pieces of evidence can easily be explained by other, more logical things. Therefore, Groklaw might in fact be 100% correct on their assumptions, but the evidence presented to date is not conclusive."

Which basically pr [...] at you multiply the individual probabilities together to get the effective chance of it happening.


Except for the fact that real-life cannot be explained by means of flipping a coin, which is why I was accusing the OP of a straw man argument. Reducing life to coin tosses is extremely silly.

Reply Parent Score: 2