| |||||||||||||
Pure propagandaPure propagandaPosted Nov 15, 2010 14:54 UTC (Mon) by jejb (subscriber, #6654)In reply to: Pure IBM/Red Hat propaganda by FlorianMueller Parent article: Red Hat's Secret Patent Deal and the Fate of JBoss Developers (Gigaom)
> The organizations you gave haven't solved any patent-related problem. You just promote organizations funded by IBM and Red Hat and some of their allies.
Ah, right, it's one of those irregular verbs: I spout truth from pure motives, you make questionable statements, he publishes propaganda.
If you define the problem as overturning the US patent system, then possibly you might be correct. If you define the problem as protecting the Linux and Open Source ecosystem from patent threats, then you're completely wrong. I choose the latter definition.
> Especially the Open Invention Network has shown its complete failure already: both Google and Oracle are OIN licensees but Oracle sues Google anyway, over a Linux distribution although the OIN claims to protect Linux.
The Oracle/Google spat isn't a community threat:
Firstly, the patents and copyrights are available to anyone who wants to produce a GPL version of the JVM derived from the oracle one.
Secondly, if you think about it, by providing resources to organisations who specifically reverse engineer something to escape from the copyleft provisions of the GPL we'd be endorsing that behaviour. That would throw a nice spanner in the works of GPL enforcement actions if anyone could say "reverse engineering" and watch us fight internally.
> Your claim that Linux is relatively safe because of those organizations is unfounded and unsubstantiated, and in my view, it's completely wrong. Those organizations haven't made any meaningful contribution. There's been and there continues to be on an ongoing basis a lot of patent enforcement concerning Linux. Just look at the Android situation. Look at Amazon, Salesforce, TomTom, HTC and so many others having agreed to pay royalties on patents that pretty obviously read on Linux.
Your view seems to be a bit clouded. If I take TomTom, the settlement was achieved the moment they took an OIN license. Furthermore, Microsoft acknowledged indirectly that the settlement was a direct result of this action, and finally it caused them to rethink their direct attack strategy. I think that's more of a result than other approaches have yet achieved.
(Log in to post comments)
Pure propaganda Posted Nov 15, 2010 17:34 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] You're doing everything to reaffirm my impression that your comment was pure propaganda, including that you make a completely false claim about something having been said that was never said. This shows you run out of facts-based arguments, so you present untruths. If I take TomTom, the settlement was achieved the moment they took an OIN license. Furthermore, Microsoft acknowledged indirectly that the settlement was a direct result of this action, and finally it caused them to rethink their direct attack strategy. The first part is right as a coincidence but doesn't mean any causation. Microsoft's other patent cases were all settled similarly quickly (except for the current one with Motorola). Apparently all those companies just tested Microsoft's determination and they all ended up agreeing to royalty payments (according to the announcements) when they saw Microsoft was serious and did go to court. But the "acknowledged indirectly" part is absurd. Here's the announcement that was made. There's nothing whatsoever in it that would suggest an acknowledgment of the OIN's role. Nothing at all. So unless you can present evidence for what you claimed, you can't be considered a reliable source of information in this context. Let me assure you that my criterion for the OIN's effectiveness is not related to the abolition of software patents but to what you say: does it protect the Linux and open source ecosystem from patent threats? And looking at what has happened and what is happening, the OIN just tries to create its own legend by claiming that it helped TomTom (although the announcement makes it clear to me that TomTom lost) and I don't see that the OIN has changed Microsoft's calculus thereafter. After TomTom, Microsoft collected patent royalties from a number of other companies, on Linux, including much more significant companies than TomTom (examples: Amazon, Salesforce, HTC, ...).
Pure propaganda Posted Nov 15, 2010 18:55 UTC (Mon) by jejb (subscriber, #6654) [Link]
> You're doing everything to reaffirm my impression that your comment was pure propaganda, including that you make a completely false claim about something having been said that was never said. This shows you run out of facts-based arguments, so you present untruths. [...] The first part is right as a coincidence but doesn't mean any causation.
So now irregular logic follows irregular verbs. I say A implies B you say A preceded B but does not necessarily imply it (which is a possible construction) and then conclude therefore it's completely false that A could ever imply B.
> But the "acknowledged indirectly" part is absurd. Here's the announcement that was made. There's nothing whatsoever in it that would suggest an acknowledgment of the OIN's role. Nothing at all.
If it were in the press release it would hardly be indirect. It was actually in an unpublished exchange between the parties.
> So unless you can present evidence for what you claimed, you can't be considered a reliable source of information in this context.
Right, so you can make baseless insinuations about Red Hat and any other organisation that doesn't happen to agree fully with you, but others have to have hard evidence to support their positions.
> Let me assure you that my criterion for the OIN's effectiveness is not related to the abolition of software patents but to what you say: does it protect the Linux and open source ecosystem from patent threats? And looking at what has happened and what is happening, the OIN just tries to create its own legend by claiming that it helped TomTom [...]
You don't have to take my word for it; just google for "+tomtom +OIN +patents" that will pull up most of the analyst commentary ... although most of them probably won't get past your disagrees with my position filter.
I'm rather curious, though, why you expend so much effort venting spleen against OIN. If it's so ineffective as you claim, then surely it's just another example among many of big corporations wasting big bucks to no effect? If you secretly suspect it's effective and thus damaging to the cause of patent reform by shielding us from its effects, why not look at it in a different way: The fact that a shield like this has to be constructed at fairly massive expense is surely useful evidence of the brokenness of the current system.
Pure propaganda Posted Nov 15, 2010 19:01 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]
<blockquote><i>If it were in the press release it would hardly be indirect. It was actually in an unpublished exchange between the parties.</i></blockquote>
If such myths, absolutely unverifiable and anything but credible, are all that OIN can bring to the table so far, then that's insufficient for an organization that's spent north of $100 million on patent acquisitions. On what basis do you claim to know this kind of unpublished exchange? And if the OIN (as you claim, which I don't believe at all) helped TomTom, why couldn't it help Amazon, Salesforce, HTC etc.? Either the OIN has something in its hands that changes Microsoft's calculus -- and then it would work in all those cases -- or, which is the way I view it, it doesn't.
By saying you know something that's completely unverifiable you turn this into a "trust me, trust me" kind of story. Again, "trust me, trust me" isn't sufficient after spending so much money. For a total cost north of $100 million, there should be a verifiable success story in place after five years.
Pure propaganda Posted Nov 15, 2010 19:03 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]
Also, what you call analyst commentary isn't anything serious. Which analysts do you mean? GroklXX? They've always supported anything IBM has ever done with patents. Who else? Any independent, knowledgeable patent professional? I haven't seen any serious analysis supporting the OIN's propaganda.
Please stop Posted Nov 15, 2010 21:13 UTC (Mon) by kfiles (subscriber, #11628) [Link]
Mr. Muller, could you please continue your acerbic dialogue elsewhere, such as on your own blog?
The discussions at LWN are usually characterised by their brevity and cordiality. There are other forums where different customs hold sway.
I read the LWN comments through their RSS feed, which has been unreadable lately, due to being swamped with the high noise-to-signal ratio of the patent arguments. Please keep the responses brief and on-point, and accept that no amount of heated discourse will change everyone's minds.
Please stop Posted Nov 15, 2010 21:19 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]
@kfiles:
There is a feature that allows you to disable all comments from particular users. I know it's available to those reading the discussions on the LWN website. For an RSS feed you may need to find a similar situation, depending on how programmable/configurable your reader is.
You complain about certain characteristics of those discussions but I can't see why you blame me. I made one comment initially. It resulted in lots of additional comments, many of which were partly or even mostly off-topic. It doesn't make sense to me that you single out me as the target of your criticism.
Pure propaganda Posted Nov 15, 2010 21:26 UTC (Mon) by stumbles (guest, #8796) [Link] I see, still smarting over the spankings you have gotten at Groklaw. Your childishness is belied by your lameness over using "GroklXX".
Pure propaganda Posted Nov 15, 2010 21:31 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] the spankings you have gotten at Groklaw. I don't know what you mean by that. There have been baseless accusations and I'm aware of GroklXX occasionally talking about me in the News Picks column and in the forum. So "smear" would be more appropriate than "spankings". In connection with the OIN and TomTom, GroklXX is the only site that I know that has repeatedly (even recently) supported the OIN's effort to claim victory when the announcement made it clear who ended up having to pay and when non-OIN licensees got their settlements similarly quickly, except for Motorola, which is obviously a case of a different profile than the others were.
Pure propaganda Posted Nov 15, 2010 22:14 UTC (Mon) by jejb (subscriber, #6654) [Link]
> Also, what you call analyst commentary isn't anything serious.
Ah, right, so you proactively define anything I might happen to quote as not serious.
> Which analysts do you mean? GroklXX? They've always supported anything IBM has ever done with patents.
I've no idea what you've got against groklaw. I might not agree with some of their analyses, but I've always found them to be an invaluably useful site for doing the tedious drudge work of gathering, transcribing and publicising what went on inside various court rooms which it would otherwise be very difficult to get.
> Who else? Any independent, knowledgeable patent professional? I haven't seen any serious analysis supporting the OIN's propaganda.
Eben Moglen is the most recent one on record with such an analysis, but I think you've already got them blocked in your disagrees with me filter.
Pure propaganda Posted Nov 16, 2010 5:17 UTC (Tue) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]
OK, so the only answers you've provided to the question of what you meant by "analyst commentary" in favor of OIN (in connection with TomTom) are GroklXX and Eben Moglen. Both are known to have been loyal to IBM ever since (GroklXX even favors patent aggression by IBM against open source), and IBM is OIN's largest owner. In Eben Moglen's case, the "analysis" is made even more partial by the fact that his SFLC also claimed credit for helping TomTom.
Concerning the "tedious drudge work of gathering, transcribing und publicising what went on inside various court rooms", that's obviously a kind of activity of GroklXX with which I don't have any problem. The problem is once GroklXX provides "analysis", which always comes down on IBM's side even if that means to praise patent aggression and which is often fundamentally flawed. On TomTom, GroklXX hasn't really provided any information that would buttress the claims OIN made. GroklXX just parroted OIN's propaganda and told people they must believe it. Then, GroklXX always tells people to believe anything an IBM entity or affiliate wants them to believe.
|
|||||||||||||