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 278244
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: non-sensical article
by segedunum on Sun 14th Oct 2007 22:07 UTC 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