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 278321
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: non-sensical article
by autocrat on Mon 15th Oct 2007 09:05 UTC in reply to "RE: non-sensical article"
autocrat
Member since:
2007-10-14

"Now, in the case at hand, there is insufficient evidence to draw linkages between the isolated points and to start saying there is something sinister and underhanded going on."

We're not talking inanimate, non-sentient objects being cast in such a manner to generate randomness - we're talking complex autonomous conscious entities/agents operating within an environment that strongly fosters self-interest via profit-motive.

Applying coin-flipping probability to such human/corporate behavior is... absurd.

There are no 'isolated points' in the situation under scrutiny, any more than the economy could be said to merely be a large aggregation of isolated events operating within a vacuum.


"Thom has analysed the issue correctly IMO."

In my opinion, he has analysed and framed the issue very poorly on every account aside from the single obvious fact that the connections and circumstantial evidence do not amount to sufficient empirical proof for MS to be held guilty of (...something) - in a court of law. Well, (to use his words) _no_shit_!

However it seems he's going so far as to actually belittle all the elements involved, as though the situation isn't even vaguely questionable - let alone suspicious in its own right. If one were to take his arguments at face value, there would never be reason to ever even _suspect_ anybody of anything without ample, pre-existing, self-evident, overwhelming evidence -- clear motive is insufficient to be suspicious, debateably plausible circumstantial evidence is insufficient to be suspicious, and past antisocial behavior/history is insufficient to be suspicious; even the combination of all three is... insufficient... to. be. suspicious. Wow, talk about a criminal _paradise_!

Edited 2007-10-15 09:08

Reply Parent Score: 1