User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

This is a badly researched article.

This is a badly researched article.

Posted May 27, 2010 3:39 UTC (Thu) by roc (subscriber, #30627)
In reply to: This is a badly researched article. by KotH
Parent article: Swift and predictable reactions to WebM

> And he definitly does not claim that VP8 violates any patents (he writes
> that the claim that VP8 is patent free is dodgy at best)

Right, he doesn't make any concrete claims that could be refuted, he just speculates and suggests. That's called FUD.


(Log in to post comments)

This is a badly researched article.

Posted May 27, 2010 9:37 UTC (Thu) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]

>Right, he doesn't make any concrete claims that could be refuted, he just speculates and suggests. That's called FUD.


Yes, because clearly anyone trying to point out any problem somebody might have, but without investing millions in a full solution and handing it over on a silver platter with dinner and a movie, is engaging in FUD.

Please, now you're just being offensively paranoid.

This is a badly researched article.

Posted May 27, 2010 10:12 UTC (Thu) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link]

Cut the rhetoric, please. I didn't see anyone asking for a full solution on a silver platter, except you in this comment. And I'm afraid that I agree with roc; he doesn't point to patents which are infringed, and say "I think you infringe this patent". Instead, he says, "well, this is very similar to H.264 (which we know is patent encumbered), but slightly different. Ergo, the patents we know about might affect it, so you can't claim you don't need a patent licence to use it without being on dodgy legal ground".

It's no different from me saying "well, we know Microsoft have software patents on Windows and Office, and Linux with GNOME and OpenOffice.org is awfully similar to Windows and Office. Ergo, the patents we know about might affect it, so you can't claim you don't need a patent licence to use it without being on dodgy legal ground."

This is a badly researched article.

Posted May 29, 2010 10:20 UTC (Sat) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]

He didn't point out any specific problems, that's why it's FUD.

If he said something like "VP8 infringes patent #1234567 on flux capacitor tuning", that would have identified a problem specific enough to be refuted, and would not have been FUD.

This is a badly researched article.

Posted Jun 1, 2010 11:27 UTC (Tue) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]

Do you have any idea of the kind of work you are demanding? It's fairly obvious that you are strongly biased here, so there is probably no convincing you, but let's try to take this into another domain which may be more comfortable.

Let's imagine we're talking about, say, performance. One individual has undertaken to provide a review of another's work, though it is of no benefit to them. Looking over it, they point out several sections and say: 'I think this technique might not be too good. Perhaps you could research this bit and see if you might improve it. Right now it would cost me a lot of time to look into it for you myself, and I could well be wrong, but I hope this pointer is of some use'. Is that FUD? 'He pointed out an area which looks suspicious, but didn't fully analyse or benchmark it! That monster!'.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds