Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such)
Florian Mueller
reports on a new patent suit against Red Hat Inc.
"The Patently-O blog reported yesterday that a software company named FireStar has sued Red Hat over an alleged patent infringement. Patently-O also provides the complaint and the patent document, and quotes from Red Hats patent policy. The FireStar suit relates to a piece of software that Red Hat acquired as part of JBoss Inc.s intellectual property.
It seems to me that the FireStar patent is quite broad, and if it is upheld, it will affect other companies as well."
(Log in to post comments)
Red Hat's alleged lobbying Posted Jun 29, 2006 22:59 UTC (Thu) by mjr (guest, #6979) [Link] One would like very much to hear what Red Hat has to say about the alleged pro software patent lobbying done by their counsel.
Red Hat's alleged lobbying Posted Jun 30, 2006 9:27 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] I doubt there is much to that.
Reading between the lines, it sounds like Florian is mad about something, possibly RedHat not funding him anymore, and is trying to take revenge by writing nasty stuff about them in his blog.
I'm more interested in why RedHat decided not to continue funding him. I suspect I would agree with their reasons.
More information Posted Jun 30, 2006 1:11 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] I wrote a piece on this here.Bruce
Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such) Posted Jun 30, 2006 2:52 UTC (Fri) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link] At this point I'd like to remind all those in the Free Software camp that Florian Mueller is a temporary ally.In fighting against software idea patents Free Software has found common ground with the proprietary software company startups, which, judging by the Blizzard debacle, Florian Mueller represents. He does not represent the interests of the Free Software movement en large as can be deduced by his frequent usage of the terms "intellectual property" and "piracy enablers."
In this particular "report" he seems to try to cast doubt on the motives as Redhat as a whole by the actions of some individual.
Redhat as I know it has defended their trademark as a seal of quality only, and has not locked away their code, making them a decent and respected Free Sofware citizen.
Personally I wouldn't be caught dead using Redhat as I am a tried and true Debian zealot, but I respect their right to make profit on their now trademarked brand of quality of integration.
Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such) Posted Jun 30, 2006 11:10 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Trademarks are kinda unique.. From what I understand if you don't actively 'defend' them you can loose them.
This is why Redhat goes after people like CentOS for saying their system is based off of Redhat in their code and such. If they don't then they can potentionally loose their trademark and then anybody and their mom can call their stuff 'Redhat'.
Like for instance Microsoft could create Linux compatability mode for their Windows operating system, run a bunch of binaries built from code from Redhat's servers then they could go around and start a bunch of magazine adds talking about how they created a better Redhat operating system because now you have Redhat compatability combined with the ease of use and hardware compatability of Windows. Or some such nonsense.
And since your a diehard Debian fan you already know that Debian has it's own trademark stuff going on with rules what other people can and cannot use. :)
http://news.com.com/Debian+trademark+policy+under+questio...
To me this Redhat stuff about the execuative saying this or saying that is a bunch of hearsay. The guy that owns the blog obviously disagree's with how Redhat is dealing with this 'patent issue'.
Literally he is saying that this guy told him that this other guy told him that this guy from Redhat said that he should support the patent initiative in Europe.
I think that it's something that should be taken with a grain of salt. I am sure that Redhat has a lot of people working for it that may not share the same ideals as the founders. Even if this guy did say that software patents were a good idea we don't even know if he was representing Redhat at the time or he could of been working for somebody else or could of been using his position to espouse a personal viewpoint. Who knows?
Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such) Posted Jul 7, 2006 1:10 UTC (Fri) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] "From what I understand if you don't actively 'defend' them you can loose them."
Indeed; if you don't defend your trademark, you do effectively set it loose into the world, to be used as a generic term or mark with impunity.
(That *is* what you meant, isn't it?)
Or abbreviated... Posted Jun 30, 2006 14:37 UTC (Fri) by hildeb (subscriber, #6532) [Link] One can abbreviate the whole patent claim to the amazing invention of:
1. A program that does something with a database.
Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such) Posted Jun 30, 2006 15:01 UTC (Fri) by MW-RH (guest, #38738) [Link] I will leave it to others to understand Mr. Mueller's motivations for putting forth unverifiable statements as to my activities on July 4-5 of last year. What I am happy to share with you is the statement put out by Red Hat and Sun, which I spent much of the day on July 4, 2005, e-mailing to MEPs and which the FFII then helped us distribute on July 5. You can then draw your own conclusions as to the veracity of Mr. Mueller's statements. The Red Hat/Sun Position Statement:"Red Hat and Sun believe that adoption of the Council Common Position on the CII Directive will seriously reduce competition in the software industry in Europe unless appropriately amended. Red Hat is a small but fast-growing commercial open source software developer and leading publisher of Linux operating system software. Sun Microsystems is a leading computer hardware and software company that is dedicated to open source (e.g., Open Office and Open Solaris). Open source developers are software innovators. They provide greater consumer choice and new products that are a real alternative to the proprietary software of dominant firms. The open source community is worldwide, but an estimated 60% of open source developers are based in Europe. Those favouring patents on software maintain that software patents are necessary for innovation. There is not a single independent, empirical study that has found a correlation between software patents and innovation. Nor has a single major software company in the world gotten to its present market position because of software patents. Software patents are a relatively recent phenomenon, and they do not encourage innovation they facilitate the protection of acquired market share. Software patents do not induce innovation, they invite reduced competition. A balanced CII Directive is necessary to remove uncertainty about the scope of patentability of computer implemented inventions in the EU. Software patent creep will chill open source software development. Europe must avoid the development of a situation like that in the US, where pure software and even business methods are patentable. For these reasons, Red Hat and Sun urge you to support the 21 amendments tabled by the PSE Group, the GUE/NGL Group, the Verts/ALE Group, the IND/DEM Group, Ms Roithova/Mr Buzek and others and Mr Duff and others (amendment numbers 40 to 60=72 to 92=93 to 113=114 to 134=135 to 155=158 to 178). These amendments provide coherent and workable definitions of technical contribution and field of technology as well as eliminating patent claims for computer programs. They make it clear that software as such should not be patentable. They do not threaten the patentability of computer implemented inventions in the electro-technical field, for which the CII Directive was intended. Red Hat and Sun further urge you to support amendment of the Common Position to guarantee interoperability. Support for the amendments on interoperability (amendment numbers 19 and 50=82=103=124=145=168) will provide a necessary safety net or insurance policy where the scope of a patent on a computer-implemented invention could be used to eliminate competition in the software sector. Again, such amendment does not threaten appropriate protection for electro-technical innovation. An approach to interoperability based on a compulsory licence simply is not workable. It is not feasible for thousands of open source developers individually to seek and obtain licences. A compulsory licensing approach risks different interpretations in different Member States that would further fragment the internal market. Finally, technology obtained through a compulsory licence is encumbered by the licensing terms and cannot be further distributed as open source. For these reasons, Red Hat and Sun firmly oppose amendments number 25, 63, and 67. In the event that our preferred interoperability amendments are not adopted, amendments number 68 to 70 could provide a viable compromise on interoperability. Red Hat and Sun urge you to vote for amendments 68 to 70 if our first choice amendments are not approved." M Webbink
Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such) Posted Jun 30, 2006 16:28 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Mr Webbink,Instead of writing "I will leave it to others to understand Mr. Mueller's motivations for putting forth unverifiable statements as to my activities on July 4-5 of last year" I would have preferred to see a direct denial. Writing it the way you did looks like you're confirming the charge. If you're defending someone in a criminal case, then this line works (you're saying that the prosecution can't prove its case). But here you are, charged with undercutting the open source movement's top legal priority in Europe (and perhaps your employer's own policy, given the official statement from Red Hat that you post), and all you say is that the charge is "unverifiable"? Please. If it's a false charge, clearly say so.
Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such) Posted Jun 30, 2006 17:26 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] How could Mr. Webbink confirm or deny that someone claiming to be "an adviser to a key MEP (Member of the European Parliament) told a private FFII mailing list" anything?
However, if someone with credibility *did* make such a statement that long ago, I would have expected to have heard something about it by now. Why would the FFII quietly sit on such a thing? Add to that the fact that RH has absolutely nothing to gain from software patents and absolutely everything to lose, and the fact that RH has been staunch in its position on software patents, and Florian's accusation simply makes no sense.
What does make a lot of sense is the idea that Florian is in a snit, looking for revenge, and is slinging mud at RedHat. It's an age old story, given new life in this age of personal blogs.
Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such) Posted Jul 1, 2006 1:11 UTC (Sat) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] I'm talking about the charge against Mr. Webbink: that he secretly lobbied in favor of software patents. He could clearly state that he never did any such thing, and if anyone told FFII otherwise, that person must have been mistaken.
Burden of Proof Posted Jul 5, 2006 22:09 UTC (Wed) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026) [Link] He could. But Florian Mueller could say something more convincing than "a little bird told me Mark Webbink lobbied in secret for software patents in Europe" too. Place the burden of proof where it belongs.
Burden of Proof Posted Jul 7, 2006 10:45 UTC (Fri) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link] Its true, one should not claim such a thing without being ready to support the claim in some manner.But don't you still think it's strange ? If someone claimed you did something, which you never did, what response would you most likely give ? "They can't prove it." OR: "I never did that, and they offer no evidence to the contrary." The crucial difference is plainly stating that you did not. "You can't prove it" does tend to sound very much like something someone would say when they are guilty as hell, but think that they managed to avoid leaving all-too-obvious evidence.
Burden of Proof Posted Jul 7, 2006 16:27 UTC (Fri) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026) [Link] How one responds to such charges will depend on personality and professional disposition (for example, a lawyer might develop a habit of writing obliquely). Interpreting Mark Webbink's response as some kind of rhetorical flourish is simple. Interpreting it as a distraction from an attempt to undermine his own documented efforts and the interests of his employer is complex. Making the latter work requires something more than an anonymous source passed along by a person with a history of hostility toward the copyright interests of the free software movement in general and an admitted grudge against RedHat in particular.
Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such) Posted Jun 30, 2006 18:13 UTC (Fri) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link] Well one problem is that the statement is a bit vague...
"an adviser to a key MEP (Member of the European Parliament) told a private FFII mailing list that Red Hats deputy general counsel Mark Webbink lobbied him on the day before the decisive vote and tried, unsuccessfully, to prevent the rejection of the software patent directive by the parliament."
Who is the advisor
If Mr Webbink did talk to this MEP, but there was a misunderstanding.. then the answer could be Yes, could be No, or could be Mu depending on what point of view you took from the conversation.
Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such) Posted Jun 30, 2006 19:27 UTC (Fri) by riel (subscriber, #3142) [Link] Wasn't this after the "software patent directive" was amended to explicitly exclude software from being patentable?
That is, after the law proposal was changed to make it explicitly impossible to patent software, free software people had an interest in making sure this (changed) directive was passed.
Of course, the European Commission quickly withdrew the whole thing, since the proposal now said the opposite of what they wanted...
Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such) Posted Jul 2, 2006 20:26 UTC (Sun) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > If it's a false charge, clearly say so.
The way I read Webbink's post, this would seem implied. Otherwise, why would the statements be *unverifiable*?
Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such) Posted Jul 3, 2006 4:06 UTC (Mon) by pyellman (guest, #4997) [Link] I really wish that were true, but unfortunately, no, Mr. Webbink's post does not even go as far as implying what you imply; it simply invites the reader to consider that possibility.
Mr. Webbink's post is classic lawyerly language -- that is, a meanlingless but emotion invoking preamble followed by a reprint of RedHat's official, for-the-press position regarding this matter. It does not address in any way Mr. Mueller's charge, which is specifically that while RedHat was publicly supporting the effort to defeat the EU patent directive, it was working behind the scenes, in the person of someone in a position similar to Mr. Webbink's, in a manner which could be considered contrary to that public position.
I have no idea what really went down. The only things I know for sure are: a) Mr. Mueller has made certain charges which have not (yet) been corroborated by any other person, charges which may pertain to Mr. Webbink, and b) Mr. Webbink has not denied these charges. Period.
Peter Yellman
Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such) Posted Jul 3, 2006 7:21 UTC (Mon) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] One quick question...
Bear in mind that the actions in question have been described as "unverifiable". The implication from that is that Mr Webbink doesn't actually know what the charges are! Do *YOU* know what has been alleged?
Yes Mr Webbink is a lawyer. But I'm not, and if I were in the position of not actually knowing what had been said, I'd be very unhappy at being put on the spot and asked to "deny the allegations".
It sounds to me very much as if Mr Webbink's correct response here should be "Mu - I can't deny what I don't know".
Also. Don't forget. Florian is in favour of software patents. He is an "ally of convenience", not a friend. He has every incentive to twist things to make Red Hat appear in favour of software patents...
Cheers,
Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such) Posted Jul 3, 2006 14:21 UTC (Mon) by pyellman (guest, #4997) [Link] >Bear in mind that the actions in question have been described as "unverifiable". The implication from that is that Mr Webbink doesn't actually know what the charges are!
Umm.... What planet? Mr. Mueller's blog post, linked above, lays out the charges in pretty plain language. And there's that word again: implied.
> Do *YOU* know what has been alleged?
Ummm... Well, yes! I gave what I think is a respectable summary of those charges in my original post!
Re: unverifiable. Word games are rarely a positive contribution to a discussion. I could offer a strict reading of that passage in Mr. Webbink's post that it could be interpreted to mean that the very fact that Mr. Mueller had made certain statements was unverifiable, but that would obviously be nonsensical as the charges are, as pointed out, contained in a written blog post accessible to almost anyone with an internet connection. "Unverifiable" as used here refers to the veracity of the charges, specifically, that they have not been corroborated (publicly) by anyone else -- not their content. Like another poster, I would have preferred to see Mr. Webbink use the word "false" where he used the word "unverifiable".
I'm just calling 'em the way I see 'em. It would seem that you have taken sides, if not for Mr. Webbink, at least against Mr. Mueller. As Yoda would say, your feelings have blinded your vision, allowing you to see things in Mr. Webbink's post that just aren't there, a process that you call deriving implications. For my part, I'm not taking sides. I'm familiar with Mr. Mueller's work against the EU patent directive, as I am with the charges that he has his own conflict(s) of interest --neither of which has affected my ability to read.
Peter Yellman
Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such) Posted Jul 3, 2006 20:06 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > "Unverifiable" as used here refers to the veracity of the charges, specifically, that they have not been corroborated (publicly) by anyone else -- not their content.
I'm a non-native speaker of English, so maybe I'm not getting this right (apologies in advance)...
Shouldn't the word in the above explanation actually be "unverified"? "Unverifiable" to me would seem like "something that cannot be verified", not "something that hasn't been verified", which I would normally associate with "unverified".
Now whether the statements are "unverifiable" because they are false or all people that would verify them have been silenced in one way or another, I don't know :-)
Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such) Posted Jul 3, 2006 22:02 UTC (Mon) by pyellman (guest, #4997) [Link] If allegations are unverifiable for the simple reason that they are false, I can assure you, as a native English speaker, that the only appropriate phrase to use would be "they are false". My opinion is that Mr. Webbink's use of the term "unverifiable" demonstrates his confidence that the only person(s) in a position to "verify" these allegations are extremely unlikely to do so. I suspect that as with politicians in our country, EU politicians are exceedingly unlikely to volunteer details on their conversations with lobbyists, and can rarely even be compelled to do so.
In any case this story is mildly interesting but barely ranks as news. Anyone who's having trouble believing that RedHat (NASDAQ RHAT), a large, publicly traded US software corporation, might actually not favor the complete or even near complete elimination of software patentability in one of its major markets, really has his head in the sand. And anyone who might be counting on RedHat as a reliable ally in rolling back software patents in the US has some major disappointments coming. What baffles me is how the mere mention of Florian Mueller's name seems capable of reducing otherwise sensible, intelligent people to enraged incoherence. What if Florian Mueller said the world was round? Would a debate errupt? Would we see converts to the flat earth society?
I'm not looking to be Mr. Mueller's defender, but if that goes hand in hand with open minded common sense, so be it. What I find more disturbing is the possibility that if RedHat had not withdrawn its financial support for Mr. Mueller's organization, he would never have brought these charges to light.
Peter Yellman
Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such) Posted Jul 5, 2006 1:34 UTC (Wed) by wookey (subscriber, #5501) [Link] Mark Webbink has written a number of articles in the press which are generally sound and against software patents. From what I have written I find him to be definately 'on our side', although writing from the perspective of a big-company representative and thus being quite restrained and middle-of-the-road.
Florian Mueller has been a leading light of the anti-software-patent debate in the EU, doing a sterling job of mobilising the lesser EU countries with his multi-lingual nosoftwarepatents.com site. On the other hand he seems prone to 'loose-cannonism' and has got rather carried away on several occaisions, being very offensive about the Irish, promoting dubious conspiracy theories and definding the (IMHO) wrong bnetd descision. I know that a number of swpat activists decided he was more trouble than he was worth and wanted nothing more to do with him. The FFII did the primary work of analysis, money-raising and lobbying, but IMHO Florian certainly helped. Unfortiunately I haven't yet got to meet him in person.
The decision of whether or not to go for complete rejection on the CII directive was quite finely balanced as I recall, with quite a few people keen not to kill the thing completely, in the hope of getting a 'good directive' which would clearly make swpats illegal. Killing the directive (whilst a huge achievement) does not change the status-quo of the EPO issuing numerous software patents every week. Not-killing was a much higher-risk approach, as we might get a 'bad' directive, and most of us took the safer option.
It was a perfectly reasonable stance to want to keep the directive and still being entirely against software patents. For a non-zealot in Mark's position, accepting the possibility of a compromise position where swpats were permitted but ameliorated by strong 'interoperability' provisions, was also a reasonable fallback position.
I remain skeptical of the effectiveness of the Open Invention Network, but it is possible that in the terrible legal environment of the US, it could be helpful, and it probably makes sense in terms of RedHat trying to protect themselves. Again I don't think we can really claim that it means Red Hat (or Mark Webbink) really do actually want swpats.
So I conclude from all this that what Florian says happened may well be true, but that it is no real indication of bad faith. It seems to me that he is blowing it out of proportion (not for the first time). Both of these people have done a good job in terms of helping keep swpats at bay in the EU. I expect both of them to continue doing so, whilst not necessarily agreeing on tactics or approach.
Mueller's blog Posted Jul 1, 2006 8:44 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] For those whose coffee has not yet made effect, like me. After the news Florian Mueller writes in his blog, in bold:Yes: A Red Hat executive lobbied for the EU software patent directive at the 11th hour [...]Wow, Florian Mueller taking advantage of a report for his personal aims? I can't believe it. (The last link is particularly entertaining, look for Jonathan Corbet's comments in there.)
Mueller's blog Posted Jul 1, 2006 21:53 UTC (Sat) by rmstar (guest, #3672) [Link] Unfortunately, it isn't really funny. From that thread The way this discussion here goes reaffirms my concerns that a number of members of the open-source community have a value system that, right or wrong, is not compatible with that of a political majority. Wisdom is definately on his side. Look, the EFF has lost a variety of cases that should have been won, and it has only itself to blame by taking radical positions that could do nothing but lose. Florian Mueller and his band of merry men have, instead, WON!! FOR FUCK'S SAKE!!. And for those that didn't pay attention, the odds were stacked ridiculously high against them. And by the way things look, a lot of that was possible only because he had a good feeling for what could be done under the circumstances. I have a great deal of respect for Florian Mueller, and am thankful for what he has achieved. I find it a scandal the way he is being libeled and insulted in this forum.
Mueller's blog Posted Jul 2, 2006 2:35 UTC (Sun) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] Yeah. I agree. Libel is cool... as long as you get results.
Mueller's blog Posted Jul 2, 2006 21:47 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Look, the EFF has lost a variety of cases that should have been won, and it has only itself to blame by taking radical positions that could do nothing but lose.There are not two sides here: the EFF and Mueller. We, as a group, have different opinions on code, licenses, patents and other things. Mueller was asking us to condemn "piracy enablers" (bnetd) which were actually servers that interoperate with commercial games, and most people here disagreed with him. Florian Mueller and his band of merry men have, instead, WON!! FOR FUCK'S SAKE!!. And for those that didn't pay attention, the odds were stacked ridiculously high against them. And by the way things look, a lot of that was possible only because he had a good feeling for what could be done under the circumstances.Sorry, but we all won. Mueller is selling it as if he did all the work, but there were a multitude of organizations (FFII at the helm) which all helped, plus a myriad websites which closed in support, plus a lot of people who actually demonstrated and wrote to their representatives and so on, plus political parties around Europe which voted against in the Parliament. You get the idea. I have a great deal of respect for Florian Mueller, and am thankful for what he has achieved. I find it a scandal the way he is being libeled and insulted in this forum.Most people disagreed with him, but I see no libel or insults anywhere. Could you point to precise examples?
Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such) Posted Jul 3, 2006 6:21 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] For the record, I have meanwhile published excerpts from emails posted to an anti-software patent mailing list by an adviser to a key MEP (Member of the European Parliament):http://www.no-lobbyists-as-such.com/florian-mueller-blog/red-hat-mark-webbink/ The author asked me not to publish his name, but he did authorize the publication of those excerpts. I hope this will address some people's concerns about whether I said the truth.
Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such) Posted Jul 3, 2006 7:35 UTC (Mon) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link] In your blog entry you write:
"I believe the above should eliminate all reasonable doubt about what happened that day."
Yes, I think it now stands that someone called someone (who knew someone) to whom that call seemed odd and then wrote about that on a private mailing list.
But to jump to the conclusion that Mark Webbink on that day actively worked against no software patents requires a leap of faith I'm not willing to make considering that political lobbying is an industry where ones mastery of smoke and mirrors is considered a valuable asset and hidden personal agendas are a fact of life.
To give an example of what I consider to be opaque political manoeuvring:
As to your motives you write early on:
"Its really simple: on the occasion of a patent suit having been filed against Red Hat, I thought it was time to tell the truth. Especially the free and open source software (FOSS) community should know where certain key players stand."
People should know where Redhat stands
and at the end:
"Id like to reiterate what I said in my previous post: What Mark Webbink did behind the scenes is not necessarily Red Hats position as a company, even though Red Hat has entrusted him with patent lobbying."
which combined give:
Such rhetorics do not instill trust.
I hope you can see why at least some people find it hard to take your allegations at face value.
Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such) Posted Jul 3, 2006 15:21 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] I don't understand how publication in your blog of snippets of emails, editted by you, still from an anonymous source, allegedly posted to a private list which we do not have access to, which don't really even come out fully in support of your claims, is supposed to help your position.
I'm still as skeptical as I was before, since nothing has changed, except that you have again failed to provide anything that we can verify.
One could hope that a self-proclaimed champion of the software patent resistance would demonstrate better judgement.
Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such) Posted Jul 5, 2006 20:45 UTC (Wed) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026) [Link] Well said.
Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such) Posted Jul 7, 2006 1:29 UTC (Fri) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] "I don't understand how publication in your blog of snippets of emails... *which don't really even come out fully in support of your claims*, is supposed to help your position." [my emphasis]
Exactly my thoughts on reading what Mr Mueller published; even with the heavy editing and removal of almost all context, the emails only suggest (at worst) that an advisor to an MEP formed an impression and agreed with an allegation.
Mr Webbink may be a lawyer; it's clear that Mr Mueller is a politician.
|
|||||||||||||