| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Why hold Groklaw to a higher standard?Why hold Groklaw to a higher standard?Posted Jul 26, 2005 15:01 UTC (Tue) by penguinroar (guest, #14460)In reply to: Why hold Groklaw to a higher standard? by GreyWizard Parent article: Microsoft Patents Emoticon (Groklaw)
She has much higher standards than any other publication i know and she has been more than willing to correct things she has gotten wrong. She did infact change the title when someone pointed this error out to her. Other than the title i cant see anything to really complain about in the article.
I think the conclusions in her opinion based upon the notion that software patents is bad and that you dont have to trample directly on a patent to be toast. It suffice with a mere touch for the opponent to be able to sue you into oblivion. Thus even if this isnt really a patent on Smileys on it will be a big roadblock if its granted, even in totally unrelated implementations of smileys.
(Log in to post comments)
Still Exaggerated Posted Jul 26, 2005 17:17 UTC (Tue) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] All of that is essentially true but does not speak to the points I made. Yes, there are many positive things to be said about PJ. Yes, she often corrects errors. Yes, she did partially correct the story in question. Yes, software patents -- including the one that is at issue here -- are a serious problem. But no, Microsoft is not trying to patent the emoticon. What they are actually attemping to patent is only slightly less obvious and there is plenty of prior art, but the story on Groklaw was exaggerated when it was published and remains so at the time of this writing.
PJ has made many important contributions but that doesn't make it wrong to critice her in a constructive way.
|
|
||||||||||||