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 278382
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
pointless and irrelevant
by autocrat on Mon 15th Oct 2007 17:35 UTC
autocrat
Member since:
2007-10-14

"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."

Could you explain how and why you thought it was prudent and relevant to write the article from the perspective of a justice system?

No wonder people are confused.

MICROSOFT IS NOT ON TRIAL IN A COURT OF LAW FOR ITS CONNECTION TO IP INNOVATION IN RELATION TO THE SUIT AGAINST NOVELL AND REDHAT.

Your op-ed is totally moot.

You managed to have completely conflated what "Many claim" and what groklaw claim.

Could you provide direct reference where the groklaw article states that MS is legally guilty of a criminal offense? You can't, because there is no such reference. In fact, you would be hard-pressed to provide a single quote from that article which claims anything other than that there is a _connection_ between Microsoft and IP Innovation via 3 recently former MS employees - the groklaw article does nothing further aside from asserting that it is up to the reader to decide to what extent this connection is more than mere coincidence.

Again, your ridiculous op-ed piece is totally moot.


Even were you to not have utterly botched and misrepresented the groklaw article; and instead focused purely on whatever vague number of people who you feel were unjustly accusing MS of conspiracy or anti-competitive practice in regards to the IP Innovation suit - then your opinion piece would have _still_ been irrelevant, as what in the world does a smattering of popular/public opinion in regards to some current event apply to the particular mechanics, protocol and implementation of a legal system as practiced within a court of law?

Public opinion IS NOT JURISPRUDENCE, sheesh.

Your incoherent article could have boiled down to a simple: "I have seen how some people think that MS is certainly guilty of conspiracy/whatever, but the circumstantial evidence involved would not be sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law in the US."

WHoah, that is one seriously EARTH SHATTERING revelation there. The mind reels.

Microsoft are not on trial in regards to this. There's no case. No judge, no jury. No court. And yet somehow you feel that it was relevant to prove that "no one will be sentenced to anything based on this 'circumstantial evidence'".

To use your own phrase yet again: no shit

Edited 2007-10-15 17:43

Reply Score: 4