I think you're being overly harsh. He quotes Apple's legal papers in which they clearly state that the concept of an app store is unprecedented and then he expo

I think you're being overly harsh. He quotes Apple's legal papers in which they clearly state that the concept of an app store is unprecedented and then he exposes that as inaccurate. You might think of him as a "minor freetard business celebrity" but he took the brilliance of Linux software repositories, made them easier to use and more accessible, and integrated in the ability to pay for software long before Apple did the exact same thing. That makes him extremely qualified to offer some insight on the topic regardless of how big of a celebrity he is. It also explains why he focuses on countering Apple's claim that they invented the concept despite it being less relevant to the trademark dispute. He was also involved with the Microsoft v. Lindows case in which Microsoft claimed to own the trademark on all words that rhyme with Windows. Remember that one? Where Microsoft couldn't win so they ended up paying $20 million to Lindows for them to change their name to Linspire? He's had direct experience with a frivolous trademark suit from a major software company in the past. Again, that makes him highly qualified to share an opinion on the current situation, which he does. He directly addressed the fact that that app store had been in common usage before Apple started using it. It would've been nice if he could have given more concrete examples but he did still address it. In conclusion, calling him a freetard is childish and contributes nothing to the discussion of the article. Saying that he fails to distinguish trademarks from patents is flat out wrong and gives people skimming the comments a totally inaccurate impression of the article and its relevance.