| |||||||||||||
Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such)Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such)Posted Jun 30, 2006 16:28 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)In reply to: Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such) by MW-RH Parent article: Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such) 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.
(Log in to post comments)
Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such) Posted Jun 30, 2006 17:26 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #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 HatÂ’s 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.
|
|||||||||||||