VFAT patent avoidance and patent workarounds [LWN.net]

VFAT patent avoidance and patent workarounds

Posted Jul 1, 2009 0:27 UTC (Wed) by gdt (subscriber, #6284)
In reply to: VFAT patent avoidance and patent workarounds by sbergman27
Parent article: VFAT patent avoidance and patent workarounds

Yes, your point on the futility of the legal wisdom of questioning the effectiveness of the patch is well made. But making a point isn't really what comments on LWN are about. Rather comments are a service to the reader, to point out errors in the article or alternative points of view. Should Microsoft decide to sue a party over the VFAT patents I'm sure the pain in the butt that is discovery and deposition will gain us readers a measure of revenge for your rather poor joke.

On a related note, I've no idea why Jon permits comments on these patent patch articles. It is painfully obvious reading the comments to date that comments are only hurting the effectiveness of those patches, rather than contributing to a discussion of a high enough quality where upholding 'free speech' might be worth the consequences.

(Log in to post comments)

VFAT patent avoidance and patent workarounds

Posted Jul 1, 2009 0:54 UTC (Wed) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link]

Are you talking to me, or to the poster I was replying to?

I have found the discussion in this thread to be interesting. I would not necessarily have expected it to go in the direction it has. Sometimes, on this site, an essentially political story spawns technical discussion which quickly goes over my head. Other times a technical article results in a political discussion. It's really hard to predict. But few sites on the Internet consistently have such *good* discussions. And few flame wars, despite the fact that we are an opinionated bunch.

I suggest that you might want to reconsider your opinion on allowing comments to patent-related articles. I'm not at all sure that cloaks and daggers are likely to benefit our community.