Taken out of context and grossly misinterpreted

Posted Aug 20, 2010 3:07 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]

Oh, come on. TH asks IBM for "IP it might infringe", IBM responds "this is our IP in what you use, you don't have a license so we think you infringe", and TH cries foul?!

This is just another attempt to mislead people by an utterly selective recital of fact. But a half-truth is -- if intentional -- a whole lie.

So to make it clear with a simple analogy: if someone stands in front of you and tells you "oh and by the way, I don't like what you're doing and I have a weapon with which I can kill you whenever I want", this is a threat even though the weapon isn't shown. If you're surprised and ask for what kind of weapon, and the other person then waves a gun around, then you didn't just ask to see the gun: you asked for a gun with which you were already threatened.

Or to put it this way: a threat is a threat is a threat. IBM made a threat. The patent list was version 2.0 of the threat, a more elaborate version of what was previously sent as version 1.0.

The second letter from IBM with version 2.0 of the threat was much clearer. That's why it was the one I published initially. Anyone could see in that letter that there was a history. That history is that before the threat was specified, it was made in an unspecific way (even more malicious I would argue). I knew that history, and that's why I felt it was right to show version 2.0 of the treat.

So what about IBM's first letter? Tell us what you think of threat v1.0.