Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such) [LWN.net]

Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such)

Posted Jun 30, 2006 17:26 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
In reply to: Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such) by JoeBuck
Parent article: Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such)

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.

(Log in to post comments)

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.