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 278252
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: non-sensical article
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 14th Oct 2007 22:45 UTC 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

RE[8]: non-sensical article
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 15th Oct 2007 12:02 in reply to "RE[7]: non-sensical article"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

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.


Now you are really pushing it. IP Innovation succesfully sued Apple a few months ago about patent A, making them lots of money. Now, they are sueing Novell/Red Hat (who are in the same business as Apple) over that exact same patent, and you're saying they're not related? I'd say the possible causal relationship between these two events is almost infinitely stronger than the possible causal relationship between the suit against Novell/RH and a few MS people joining Acacia.

You are only relating those specific events to one another that fit your train of thought. Other events, like it being *logical* for IP Innovation to go after other companies with patent A after having success at Apple (with or without Microsoft), doesn't fit your train of thought and so you dismiss is. That's rather weak.

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


You are turning the argumentation around here. I am not saying that because Microsoft has 80 000 employees, there must be people from MS working at IP Innovation. I am simply stating that because Microsoft has 80 000 employees, there's a bigger chance that some of the people at IP Innovation might be from MS. Consequently, your statement quoted above is incorrect. It should read: "IBM has more employees than Microsoft, so they might be in the same boat." (exactly what DrillSgt has said [1], but he doesn't provide proof).

You are twisting my argumentation (purposefully?). That's not really nice.

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


That is YOUR opinion. I wrote this article from the perspective of our justice system, and I can tell you, no one will be sentenced to anything based on this "circumstantial evidence" - exactly what I set out to prove in the first place.

In other words, you still haven't explained to me why my article is wrong. All you have done is twist my argumentation or discard it as "unrelated".

[1] http://www4.osnews.com/permalink?278253

Edited 2007-10-15 12:14 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1