5 ms·
The title is typical EFF bluster. This case is about a relatively narrow question on patent exhaustion, not a referendum on patents in general.
by monochromatic 10y ago
The title is typical EFF bluster. This case is about a relatively narrow question on patent exhaustion, not a referendum on patents in general.
- JustSomeNobody 10y agowhile this may be, when it comes to the EFF I give them some latitude. I think they're fighting the good fight in general and if they get more exposure then I'm ok with that.
- throwawaykf09 10y agoThey do this everytime. Pretty much any EFF post that makes it to the top of HN, I see a comment pointing out how the post is flawed and clickbaity.
- 6stringmerc 10y agoTime and time again the EFF articles throw so many coats of fear mongering and "Chicken Little" doom over worthwhile subjects and causes for Review / Reform / Revision that they become an art of self-parody. If they'd drop the National Enquirer song and dance of extrapolating one to three case examples into an epidemic it would be to their benefit, in my opinion. They're free to behave as they please and raise funds if it works for them, and I'm fortunate enough to live in a place where I can criticize openly, because I do share some guiding principles I'm certain.