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 278250
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: non-sensical article
by segedunum on Sun 14th Oct 2007 22:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: non-sensical article"
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

Except for the fact that the evidence in question isn't strong....Of course there was. They claim MS is behind it all, and had come up with a few pieces of evidence, evidence that, according to me, is extremely weak.

Is this a competition to get the word 'evidence' into a post the most times?

Enough to counter, if you ask me.

You can't counter things just by saying that there is no evidence.

Nonsense of course - they have been saying the same thing for years. In other words, Microsoft threatening open source companies this way is not new, it has been doing it for ages, and hence can be left out of the story.

Again, you're viewing this as an individual event here. What Groklaw and everyone else is doing is taking all of those events together. Yes, Microsoft have been threatening Linux for years, but public statements about it have been more carefully selected - and it wasn't a simply a 'Linux has our IP in it' threat either, it was a specific "Cough up!" threat.

Then we move on the suing part. You are forgetting that this company used the exact same patent against Apple in April this year...

So what? The Microsoft employees joined after that, and it was at that point that Ballmer made a specific cough up threat against Linux vendors, and IP Innovation then went after those same Linux vendors after specalists in IP law from Microsoft had left and joined IP Innovation.

That makes the employee bit stand on its own

Can you tell me how many IBM, HP, Apple, Sun and other employees have been recruited by IP Innovation, and how many are specialists in IP law?

I mean, it follows that if this is merely a coincidence then we should have seen former employees of other companies joining IP Innovation during that period.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: non-sensical article
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 14th Oct 2007 22:45 in reply to "RE[5]: non-sensical article"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You can't counter things just by saying that there is no evidence.


That's not what I did. I just offered several, more logical explanations for the three events listed by Groklaw. Events that require a lot less assumptions to be made.

Again, you're viewing this as an individual event here.


Now you are not making any sense. You are accusing me of viewing this as an individual event, but when I bring other events into account (IP suing Apple, IP suing MS), you dismiss them with a "so what"? That's not very consistent.

Can you tell me how many IBM, HP, Apple, Sun and other employees have been recruited by IP Innovation, and how many are specialists in IP law?


I have absolutely not even the slightest idea. At all. But that is not important here - I am not defending someone's innocent-ness, so the load ain't on me.

I don't know if I'm right on this one, but you seem to think that I believe Groklaw is wrong. Like I clearly stated a few times already - I really do not know if Groklaw is wrong or right. All I am saying is that the presented evidence is weak, and by no means conclusive - when viewed alone, or when put together.

It might turn out that Groklaw will be 100% spot on, and that Microsoft really is orchestrating all this. I never claimed otherwise.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: non-sensical article
by segedunum on Mon 15th Oct 2007 10:20 in reply to "RE[6]: non-sensical article"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

That's not what I did. I just offered several, more logical explanations for the three events listed by Groklaw.

You basically said that Microsoft has 80,000 employees and that it isn't unusual that some specialists in IP law from Microsoft joined an IP troll company at the same time as their former CEO starts threatening people.

These are not random ordinary employees, so your your alternative explanation fails there.

Now you are not making any sense. You are accusing me of viewing this as an individual event, but when I bring other events into account (IP suing Apple, IP suing MS), you dismiss them with a "so what"?

Because they're not related. The suing of Apple happened before this whole Microsoft thing kicked off, and it isn't really evidence of anything to counter what Groklaw is saying.

I have absolutely not even the slightest idea. At all. But that is not important here - I am not defending someone's innocent-ness, so the load ain't on me.

Well, no. If you're happy to give us the logical fallacy that 80,000 employees work at Microsoft, so it isn't unusual for a couple of IP specialists from Microsoft to join an IP troll company, then it should follow that it isn't unusual for such employees from IBM, HP, Sun and others to be joining the same company.

IBM has more employees than Microsoft, following your logical fallacy to its inevitable conclusion, so they must be in the same boat.

If you don't understand this, then quite frankly, you're not a terribly logical person.

I don't know if I'm right on this one, but you seem to think that I believe Groklaw is wrong.

No. What you're doing is trying to say that the evidence is weak, and coming up with some pretty weak arguments to counter it.

Like I clearly stated a few times already - I really do not know if Groklaw is wrong or right.

Well, it's circumstantial evidence at the moment, yes, but circumstantial evidence like this cannot just be explained away with coincidences in any case.

Reply Parent Score: 3