This is inhuman excuse...
This is inhuman excuse...
Posted Oct 4, 2010 0:10 UTC (Mon) by Lefty (guest, #51528)In reply to: This is inhuman excuse... by khim
Parent article: Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)
Posted Oct 4, 2010 8:56 UTC (Mon)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (25 responses)
I've used Nazis not as analogue but as an example. There are others, but nazis are best known. They show succinctly why "but this is the law" defense is just wrong. This is important if we want to discuss patents fairly. Yes, laws are the laws, there are penalties for violation so you don't ignore them easily. But even Bible includes unlawful deeds made by prophets (think "The Exodus"). If you want to use "but this is the law" excuse then you must put law above everything - and eventually even above God. But if you did that then why do you react so negatively to Nazi stories related to law? The answer: Nazis are well-known story where "but this is the law" excuse led to incredible disaster and where the legitimately passed law was explicitly declared unjust later - and so they must be ignored and everyone who raises them publicly should be ridiculed and ostracized for the good of "but this is the law" religion. Yes, it makes discussion not rational but religious instead: if you don't want to accept primacy of Law and try to disprove this primacy then you are heretic and must be destroyed. Sorry, but I don't want to discuss religion beliefs here. On the other hand if you admit that law is often wrong then we can discuss patents fairly: first we should determine if they are good or bad (and there are ample evidence that they are bad: for example here), then we can decide what can be done about them without violating the law (the answer: not much, you can not ignore them and usually the only sane choice is to counterattack), etc. BTW it's obvious to anyone who's not subscribing to "the law is always right" religion that law is not always right: if "the law is always right" then why we have such a massive legislature in all countries which constantly changes this "always right"? And if law is not always right then why can't we discuss cases where it's not right? Why the law is even brought as excuse when we discuss if something is right or wrong? BTW when law is wrong, the goal is usually to change or circumvent the law, but as last resort law can be broken, too, if it's fatally unjust.
Posted Oct 4, 2010 12:11 UTC (Mon)
by pboddie (guest, #50784)
[Link] (5 responses)
I think we absolutely have to be able to discuss where the law is not right, why it isn't right, and what one can do to reconcile one's desire to do the right thing with the effect of unjust laws. And it's certainly not inappropriate to indicate that one doesn't accept the law as it stands, even if it does leave a certain amount of uncertainty about what one would recommend to, say, a business that risks getting prosecuted under such laws. Indeed, when people advocate that others shut up and accept the law, the burden is on those people to clarify whether they are only doing so in support of general obedience of the law (perhaps to caution others that they might be prosecuted, and even then, a continuous insistence that others "observe the law" makes for a tiresome Judge Dredd impersonation), whether they are doing so because they actually support the law as it stands, or whether it is because they see the law as having some legitimacy that is potentially derived from those who openly support it. Take this comment from Mr Mueller, for example: Beyond the observation that the best way to convince politicians is to show them an open briefcase filled with money, are we to believe that Mr Mueller regards the law as legitimate because large companies support it (or are not opposed to it), and that a revised law would only be legitimate if large companies supported it? This isn't idle debate, either: such matters have a significant effect on public policy. Should a society only invest in, say, renewable energy when the major oil companies decide it is appropriate? After all, they make the big money in that sector...
Posted Oct 4, 2010 18:19 UTC (Mon)
by hozelda (guest, #19341)
[Link] (4 responses)
The rationale used to attack the FSF effort was the size of the companies supporting the bad law (and you gave a great example to show the problems with that approach).
What I find impressive is that, with the limited funds the FSF has, they were able to get a lot of independent units to sign on. A statistically rigorous analysis might confirm the FSF's claims and more.
I think it would help if the FSF went back and encouraged all of those small firms to add to their website a section where customers that supported those firms could easily send a letter (or sign a petition) to gov reps against software patents.
Many engineers that take out patents think it is a joke. And corps that take out many of them may largely use them for defensive purposes (and Sun had many hardware patents, not just software) http://nighthacks.com/roller/jag/entry/the_shit_finally_h... . If Sun didn't have to deal with the lawsuits and time and cost and practice of taking out patent, they might still be around. The patent game is won by the most aggressive and by the largest. Most firms have reasons to dislike the economic effects patents (especially those that are but software algorithm patents in disguise) have on their firms. The bigger suitcase of patents and army of lawyer is the net winner, before the product is even looked at. And the stifling effects of patents are part of their overall unethical associations.
Posted Oct 4, 2010 18:37 UTC (Mon)
by Lefty (guest, #51528)
[Link] (3 responses)
Many engineers that take out patents think it is a joke. Perhaps you imagine that Google should go into court and tell the judge, "But those engineers were just joking when they submitted those patents!" Hey, could work.
Posted Oct 4, 2010 19:04 UTC (Mon)
by hozelda (guest, #19341)
[Link] (2 responses)
I think Google may use many tools, and certainly a survey of the motivational and quality value of patent content, generally, by those practicing the art, could be one such tool.
Such opinions could also help adjust the law (which has nothing to do with Google, but everything to do with software patents and the threats these pose to lots and lots of people).
The more people that dislike software patents and can offer reasons, the more likely change will come.
Maybe Google and these suits will become a catalyst for the next major round of activity against software patents.
Posted Oct 4, 2010 19:29 UTC (Mon)
by Lefty (guest, #51528)
[Link] (1 responses)
Your point is about dealing with the reality of lawsuits today. Indeed. That is, in fact, the subject of this story, as it turns out: the reality of a lawsuit today. Your point, speaking generously, might be about the desirability of changing the patent system at some unspecified point in the futurebut doubtless too far off to be of any assistance to Motorola, HTC or Googlethrough means that are completely unclear, other than they seem to have something to do with getting greater numbers of people to whine ineffectually about the situation in the comments columns of various web sites. I'm not sure this is really your best strategy. The "last major round of activity against software patents" in the US produced not a lot of comfort for your cause, as Florian has correctly pointed out: of the two routes they might have taken, the court took the more expansive view rather than the more restrictive one, all in all. If you do nearly as "well" in the next round, you'll be complaining even more loudly.
Posted Oct 5, 2010 2:46 UTC (Tue)
by hozelda (guest, #19341)
[Link]
For a number of reasons the situation is better. They agreed machine-or-transformation is a fairly comprehensive test, and they repeated that algorithms are abstract and obvious post solution activity cannot make the invention patentable.
They apparently knocked State Street out, and this had been used to broaden the standard in what machines/processes might be patentable.
They added as void (9-0) another example of a patent many patent supporters thought should have been acceptable.
The main problem for me is desktop software being erroneously patented. Bilski can definitely help fix this by more than just a trivial amount.
Also, a phone and many other devices should be treated similarly for patent purposes if the magic of the phone is via software instructions on ordinarily programmable chips. These are just ideal algorithms being carried out dutifully by a general purpose machine designed independent of the actual software algorithms (so it is non-novel and obvious at the time of the software invention), and the machine works to achieve the same exact value result a human would achieve. All hardware interactions are non-novel in the standard case (of the programmable chips and software). Note, that a machine created specifically to function just with those algorithms might be patentable, but that is different than having a person run those algorithms on their own general purpose machine (or, eg, existing phone). Updatable phones are not being changed in hardware (firmware upgrades might change the equation for the purpose of this narrow analysis).
There is room to argue either way, but the above is mostly why I think the situation is better today. How much near term improvement (anti-sw-pat) happens, if any, will depend on the interpretation adopted by the USPTO and future lower court judges.
Also, others will argue fairly well (and I could to some extent, but, for various reasons, I am willing to focus on the more gross problems) that even much hardware circuit logic (especially using old technology for digital behavior) also should not be patentable because these are an expression of mathematics. Eg, see http://web.archive.org/web/20200102195352/http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2010092621054289
Also, the court has not ruled on criteria that I think more clearly should remove software from patenting: does it promote the progress (a monopoly hand-cuffs many in the software field which creates a huge liability, especially because it lasts so long), are the patent laws equitable to all or do they discriminate, is free speech being hindered, etc.
Posted Oct 4, 2010 13:14 UTC (Mon)
by Lefty (guest, #51528)
[Link] (18 responses)
They show succinctly why "but this is the law" defense is just wrong. You're confused again: "this is the law" is not a "defense", it's a simple statement of fact. That is the law. Disliking it does not exempt one from it, and "I don't believe that's the law, or at least, it shouldn't be" is not a defense, either. Leave the Nazis out next time, you make yourself look as though you're not worth listening to by bringing in inflammatory irrelevancies. But even Bible includes unlawful deeds made by prophets (think "The Exodus"). When patent law comes to rely on the Bible, then that might be relevant. But it doesn't and it's not. On the other hand if you admit that law is often wrong... However, I don't believe the law is wrong in this case: I believe that Google, in its creation of Androidan effort in which it both set out to leverage the works of others while engaging in a variety of efforts to attempt to avoid the responsibilities attendant on using those worksalmost certainly violated a variety of patents held (now) by Oracle, as well as a variety held by Apple, as well as a variety held by Microsoft. Google did an end-run around the Sun's Java licensing provisions with Dalvik, and they did an end-run around the GPL with Bionic. I believe there's a good likelihood that Google is in the wrong here, not the law. Google's not being victimized here, there's a serious question about the propriety of their actions. Finally, you seem to be under the impression that I'm arguing that "the law is always right". This is most certainly not the case. The time to argue that a law is wrong, however, is not immediately after you've been charged with a crime under it. Presumably Google didn't create Android in order to be able to demonstrate their "civil disobedience" as far as patents went, but if they did, then they'll be gratified to be hauled into court, I suppose, and you shouldn't get in their way. If a law is wrong, you need to get the law changed, not whine about it's being wrong, not pretend it doesn't exist, not compare it with "plague" and "Nazis" and "unlawful prophets", none of which have anything to do with anything here. Those who believe that the prohibition against recreational use of marijuana in California is wrong are working, for example, to pass Proposition 19 to get the law changed. That's what you do when you think the law is wrong: you try to get the law changed. You don't pretend that it's okay to ignore violations of the law while it's still on the books, though. If someone is caught with a joint in California, "I support Prop 19!" is not going to help them in court (and least not before it passes, assuming it does pass, in November). While there are problems with the patent systemlargely owing to its being overloaded, and to terms of protection being arguably too long, and costs of litigation being too high. The latter seems to be the worst of the issues, and could be very easily remedied by the courts' adopting the principle that in a patent infringement case, if the defendant wins, the plaintiff pays all costs.
Posted Oct 4, 2010 17:54 UTC (Mon)
by hozelda (guest, #19341)
[Link] (5 responses)
This is the law is a defense as used by some. Perhaps you weren't using it as a defense, but it can certainly be a technique used to avoid discussing the fairness and desirability of a given law. Why might someone want to avoid such a discussion? Because they might support such a law and not want opposition to the law to grow enough to help it effect a changing of the law.
In short, if a person is defending something that benefits from the continuance of a given law, then "this is the law" is one approach to trying to defend the lasting condition of that law.
>> almost certainly violated a variety of patents held (now) by Oracle, as well as a variety held by Apple, as well as a variety held by Microsoft.
Are you talking about the (legally unacceptable) patenting of algorithms? The USPTO just asked for guidance in light of Bilski. Many people, for example, had used State Street decision to support the granting of "software patents" and very likely acquired these patents which were only justified by State Street interpretations of the law.
>> If a law is wrong, you need to get the law changed, not whine about it's being wrong, not pretend it doesn't exist, not compare it with "plague" and "Nazis" and "unlawful prophets", none of which have anything to do with anything here.
Your motivation is proper, but you do understand why people feel frustration and consider analogies, right?
>> While there are problems with the patent systemlargely owing to its being overloaded, and to terms of protection being arguably too long, and costs of litigation being too high.
There are other important problems (independent invention not recognized; burden of proof should be on the attacker; patenting being so costly creates a situation where small and medium entities can be sued repeatedly without them having leverage; prior art not being usable to sue for damage against those that sue with patents; the criteria of "nonobvious" being such a low bar that inevitable stifles when under any sort of stress; patents not being clearly ruled out in cases where the costs of manufacture were not very high; ..)
Yes, I agree with your examples as well. Thankfully, the abstract was clarified in Bilski not to be patentable. And process patents likely must pass the machine-or-transformation test and various past SCOTUS rulings (eg, to avoid a loophole of sneaking in information patents as a way to use a common machine for it's intended purposes).
Posted Oct 5, 2010 0:31 UTC (Tue)
by Lefty (guest, #51528)
[Link] (4 responses)
Thankfully, the abstract was clarified in Bilski not to be patentable. Don't be too thankful yet: a "load-leveling" method for NAND Flash, to cite just one example, ain't that "abstract". And with the sheer number of patents that are being brought to bear against Android overall, with suits against Motorola, HTC, and Google itselfit's highly unlikely that all of them are going to be tossed out.
Posted Oct 5, 2010 0:58 UTC (Tue)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Oct 5, 2010 1:29 UTC (Tue)
by Lefty (guest, #51528)
[Link] (1 responses)
I'll certainly take it under advisement, but I've used that quoting style for probably eight years, in a wide variety of contexts, and in all that time, you and Martin are actually the first two to ever mention it, much less complain about it. Forgive me if it strikes me as just a wee bit high-strungI have to wonder how you manage to walk down the street if you find simple bold text this "jarring" that it's worth commenting on, much less demanding that I do something different. And what am I to do when the guy who hates italics comes along?
Now, I've seen someone using blockquote and purple text here, which I personally found visually irritating, especially in relation to the rest of the site's color scheme, but I managed to restrain myself from remarking on it. Should I have advised him to conform to my own preferred style...? Evidently not, since that would apparently vex you. It's a problem.
Tell you what: since this is evidently your "itch" to "scratch", why don't you and Martin start up a study group to put togetheror better still, demand that Jon put together (purely so I can see his response, actually)an HTML Style Guide for LWN.net?
Posted Oct 5, 2010 5:38 UTC (Tue)
by ABCD (subscriber, #53650)
[Link]
Posted Oct 5, 2010 2:57 UTC (Tue)
by hozelda (guest, #19341)
[Link]
I will guess what that is about, and it seems it isn't a software patent issue in the sense of limiting what software you run on the device.
I worry as a user and foss developer. Sure, patents have problems for many groups. The idea though is that once you buy the hardware, the patent issue has been resolved and you can create for it whatever software you want.
The open source hardware people will have more stuff to worry about, yes. And indirectly so will those of us that would prefer open source hardware.
One reason I care more about software is that most changes and creations occur as software. To relate to a different field, I don't want novels and other writings to be bogged down by patent monopolists. That too would remove too much from society.
I think one way to get the legal profession to rethink patents would be to allow patents for the work carried out routinely in that profession. A monopoly is just disgusting (for most participants) if you care about the practice.
Posted Oct 4, 2010 17:56 UTC (Mon)
by martinfick (subscriber, #4455)
[Link] (11 responses)
You clearly are stating your opinion about what should be done when a law is bad, but dismissed the original poster's opinion on how he feels people should deal with bad laws. His Nazi example gave good justification for why simply attempting to change the law is often not a good enough solution. Do you have a good justification why people should live with unjust laws and only fight them by attempting to overturn them? Can you cite some examples where this has ever been effective for radical change?
Posted Oct 4, 2010 19:38 UTC (Mon)
by Lefty (guest, #51528)
[Link] (10 responses)
....dismissed the original poster's opinion on how he feels people should deal with bad laws... I did, indeed, becausein the reality of the situation which this story discusseshis "opinion" on how "people" (presumably Motorola, in this instance) should deal with a (putatively) "bad law" (i.e. the law regarding the infringement of patents) is ridiculous and pointless. His "opinion" is evidently that Motorola should march into court and announce that the law is bad and that they refuse to be a party in any way, shape or form to this proceeding and then march out again. Flawless Victory. I frankly don't see Motorola coming out ahead in the end with an approach like that. So, should I have given his "opinion" deeper consideration? Why?
Posted Oct 4, 2010 19:58 UTC (Mon)
by martinfick (subscriber, #4455)
[Link] (9 responses)
Posted Oct 4, 2010 20:21 UTC (Mon)
by Lefty (guest, #51528)
[Link] (8 responses)
Well, if that wasn't what he was suggesting, he needs to be clearer. In the face of a law requiring the reporting of Jewish patients to Nazi authorities, he stated that he wouldn't do so. How else is one to project that into the situation we're actually discussing? What should Motorola do based on this model, if not what I suggested? All I can see for them, in order to flout this "bad law", is to refuse to participate. Which would likely wind up in them owing Microsoft quite a bit of money, as I suggested. And no, I've never proposed that Motorola should take the course of action you suggest. They're named as a defendant in a suit (remember, that's what we're actually discussing here), and they need to respond to that, either by fighting it or by settling it. That would seem to be the range and breadth of their available options. I have no reason to believe that Motorolathe possessor of a significant patent portfolio themselveshave any desire to see the law changed, but if they do, it's a completely separate (although not entirely unrelated) issue to what they do in response to this actual suit. It's in no way a response to the suit which is the subject of this storysomething the poster in question failed to provide.
Posted Oct 4, 2010 21:01 UTC (Mon)
by martinfick (subscriber, #4455)
[Link] (7 responses)
Yes, perhaps the the original statement was off topic and not very relevant to the exact conversation which started the threads, but it veered off course before he responded. It's understandable if such threads are hard to follow. But, it was clear that the original statement
Claiming that the conversation was about Motorola specifically and droning on about your conclusions on this case seems rather pointless and evasive. You won't stand by your statements when they are pointed out to be potentially flawed, you simply tell us that we should be returning to the original topic.
Posted Oct 4, 2010 21:30 UTC (Mon)
by Lefty (guest, #51528)
[Link] (6 responses)
You seem bent on ignoring what people are actually talking about when it suits you... Actually, I'm "bent" on attempting to discuss the substance of this story, not people's inappropriate equivalencing of patents with plague. Silliness like that deserves to be ignored, once it's been pointed out as silly. Yes, perhaps the the original statement was off topic and not very relevant to the exact conversation which started the threads... Which would make it "off-topic" and "irrelevant", as I've said. It's understandable if such threads are hard to follow. They're not hard: they're pointless. Being off-topic and irrelevant, they add nothing to the actual discussion. ...a generalized approach to fighting bad law... Fine. And I've challenged himor youto show me how this "generalized approach" actually applies in this case. I've suggested that Motorola could boycott the proceedings entirely, which would result in their getting their asses decisively kicked. What's your suggestion, then? Or did you just feel like hijacking the comments here to declare your love of civil disobedience or something...? Claiming that the conversation was about Motorola specifically and droning on about your conclusions on this case seems rather pointless and evasive. You won't stand by your statements when they are pointed out to be potentially flawed, you simply tell us that we should be returning to the original topic. Perhaps you can show me more specifically where my "statements...are pointed out to be potentially flawed". I'm not seeing it, and I believe that you're making that claim as a dodge to continue an irrelevant and off-topic line of discussion, possibly because you feel you're at a disadvantage in actually discussing this story (which is about, let us recall, "Motorola specifically").
Posted Oct 4, 2010 21:54 UTC (Mon)
by martinfick (subscriber, #4455)
[Link] (5 responses)
I have little opinion about what Motorola should do, it doesn't justify your dismissal of so many people's opinions here, nor your flip flopping and shouting (that is what you sound like). And, if you can't admit that it might be flawed to solely attempt to "change bad law" in many cases, well, then I feel very saddened that you would be willing to apply bad law to people simply because it is law.
P.S. Do you really need to bold and italicize everything you quote (it has a strong shouting impact which perhaps you do not intend)?
Posted Oct 4, 2010 22:08 UTC (Mon)
by pboddie (guest, #50784)
[Link]
Indeed, I find the
Posted Oct 4, 2010 23:01 UTC (Mon)
by Lefty (guest, #51528)
[Link] (3 responses)
...civil disobedience can be appropriate... So you keep claiming, but when asked (repeatedly) to provide a practical example of how it would be appropriate, or even applicable, to this situation, you come up with nothing. Less than nothing, really. I have little opinion about what Motorola should do... Then why are you posting here? If you simply want to air off-topic opinions, or regale the world with your views on unrelated matters, get yourself a blog. This is for commenting on the stories published here, something which seems to have escaped your notice. Do you really need to bold and italicize everything you quote... Yes. I really do. It's called "HTML". It's used widely on this new thing called "the web". I suppose you're simply going to have to bear with me.
Posted Oct 4, 2010 23:13 UTC (Mon)
by martinfick (subscriber, #4455)
[Link] (2 responses)
Yes, I have commented way too much already, for this I am sorry. I agree that my words are not that important. But, yours apparently are, your comment count on this article is 25 so far, I suspect more than anyone else. The personal blog idea, it's probably a good one.
Posted Oct 4, 2010 23:38 UTC (Mon)
by Lefty (guest, #51528)
[Link] (1 responses)
I'll take that as "I intend to shout at you and everyone else here". Well, you can certainly take it any way you please, Martin, that's your lookout, not mine. My "shouting at you" is entirely in your head, a complete figment of your own imagination, and I accept no responsibility whatsoever for it. I don't recall saying that your words weren't "important", but I did suggest that you were being off-topic, and you seemed to agree.
I don't recall insisting that my words were "important", either, but as someone who's assisted in the writing of patents and developing strategy around patent portfolios on a professional basis, I actually have an interest in the substance of this story, as opposed to using it as a hobbyhorse for venting my various political views on tangential or unrelated issues. Again: if you want to discuss actual patent reform in concrete and informed terms, fine. If you want to discuss this story, fine. However, if you just saw the words "Microsoft" and "patent" and had some sort of Pavlovian impulse to just drop in and tell us all how nice it would be the world were an entirely different place than the place it is, or inform us as to Florian's choices of software, or call people names, or insist that patents are a disease, or let us know what the appropriate response to Nazis demanding whether you have Jewish patients in your hospital might be, that seems unreasonable to me.
Posted Oct 5, 2010 8:59 UTC (Tue)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link]
> blah blah blah
Posted Oct 4, 2010 17:32 UTC (Mon)
by hozelda (guest, #19341)
[Link] (4 responses)
You do know the meaning of an "analogy", right?
I am sure we could find suitable analogies between progress destroying, industry debilitating, consumer taxing, freedom abridging entities like the above and software patents.
Posted Oct 4, 2010 17:54 UTC (Mon)
by pboddie (guest, #50784)
[Link]
Except that there's no need to: an example was made using a situation widely regarded as one where the applicable laws were unjust and where one would rightfully choose not to accept the imposition of such laws. Thus, it was merely an illustration of the principle of not accepting bad laws, not to provide an excuse for people to "cry Godwin".
Posted Oct 4, 2010 18:31 UTC (Mon)
by Lefty (guest, #51528)
[Link] (2 responses)
Now, plagues are noted for killing their victims indiscriminately; Nazis are noted for instigating wars and committing willful genocide. Software patents do none of those things, and to make analogies which somehow suggest that they do leaves the impression that you lack even the slightest sense of actual perspective on the situation.
This impression may, for all I know, be entirely accurate. If it isn't, however, and if you don't care to make the impression that you're simply a histrionic indulging in ridiculous hyperbole, you should choose your analogies more carefully. If your certainty is accurate, see whether you can manage to make better (or even some) sense next time around.
Posted Oct 5, 2010 3:04 UTC (Tue)
by hozelda (guest, #19341)
[Link] (1 responses)
Well, I didn't make the analogies. I'm not even sure if I read over the examples, but I could find common points and so I replied. Using hyperbole can be a very useful tool.
Someone (pboddie) who apparently did pay more attention to the example already commented on it in a reply to me. It was stated that the analogy was aimed at our relationships to bad laws (and not specifically a patent issue).
Posted Oct 5, 2010 6:24 UTC (Tue)
by Lefty (guest, #51528)
[Link]
Using hyperbole can be a very useful tool. If you're attempting to appeal to emotion rather than reason, perhaps. It was stated that the analogy was aimed at our relationships to bad laws (and not specifically a patent issue). Which would make it off-topic and irrelevant, unless someone can manage to tie it back to a patent issue, something which no one seems capable of managing.
This is probably the end of discussion...
This is probably the end of discussion...
And if law is not always right then why can't we discuss cases where it's not right?
The NoSoftwarePatents cause has too little support from businesses. I explained in this recent LWN comment what it would take to convince politicians of abolition. So contrary to what some people sometimes allege, I don't just criticize but actually say what would be required.
This is probably the end of discussion...
>> > The NoSoftwarePatents cause has too little support from businesses.
This is probably the end of discussion...
This is probably the end of discussion...
This is probably the end of discussion...
This is probably the end of discussion...
This is probably the end of discussion...
This is probably the end of discussion...
>> I believe there's a good likelihood that Google is in the wrong here, not the law. Google's not being victimized here, there's a serious question about the propriety of their actions.
This is probably the end of discussion...
please cut out the bold
the italics for quotes is a good idea, but the bold is a bit jarring
please cut out the bold
Any logged-in user can change the displayed color of the purple text via My Account → Customize your account (the option is Quoted text (in email) color under Display preferencesnot to be confused with Quoted text preferences, which is the dark red color in articles), so if you don't like that color, just change it. ☺
please cut out the bold
This is probably the end of discussion...
This is probably the end of discussion...
This is probably the end of discussion...
This is probably the end of discussion...
This is probably the end of discussion...
This is probably the end of discussion...
(http://lwn.net/Articles/408287/ "If the game is deadly and unjust (like software patents game is) you must play it as little as possible...") was one a generalized approach to fighting bad law. I was responding to your clearly generalized statement that this is bad (http://lwn.net/Articles/408334/ "If a law is wrong, you need to get the law changed...")
This is probably the end of discussion...
This is probably the end of discussion...
This is probably the end of discussion...
P.S. Do you really need to bold and italicize everything you quote (it has a strong shouting impact which perhaps you do not intend)?
blockquote tag suitable for quoting text, although others surely have their own favourites.This is probably the end of discussion...
This is probably the end of discussion...
This is probably the end of discussion...
This is probably the end of discussion...
This is inhuman excuse...
This is inhuman excuse...
I am sure we could find suitable analogies between progress destroying, industry debilitating, consumer taxing, freedom abridging entities like the above and software patents.
This is inhuman excuse...
This is inhuman excuse...
This is inhuman excuse...