| |||||||||||||
Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such)Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such)Posted Jul 3, 2006 7:21 UTC (Mon) by Wol (guest, #4433)In reply to: Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such) by pyellman Parent article: Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such)
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,
(Log in to post comments)
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
|
|||||||||||||