3 ms·

> I think that MS here is being used as a convenient scapegoat. Yup, the fact that many prominent desktop people from that era refute that here, that all the l

by antod 4y ago

> I think that MS here is being used as a convenient scapegoat. Yup, the fact that many prominent desktop people from that era refute that here, that all the links in the article point to TheRegister, and that nobody else seems to remember it happening that way - it is probably safe to disregard it.

lproven 4y ago
Hi. I wrote the article. You're wrong. I work for the Register now. That's why I pick links to them: I have saved searches that make it quick and easy. I wasn't working for them then. In fact I only started freelancing for them in 2009 and went full-time late last year. Secondly, many other now-popular tech news sites weren't around 15 years ago, or the links have gone. The Reg is stable and doesn't delete or move old stories. This was entirely factual, and if you go Googling you can find plenty of supporting evidence from other sites. CNN: https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/ https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007... ComputerWorld: https://www.computerworld.com/article/2566211/study--linux-may-infringe-on-283-patents.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2566211/study--linux-m... And so on. https://www.mercurynews.com/2007/05/15/microsoft-says-linux-open-office-free-e-mail-step-on-patents/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2007/05/15/microsoft-says-linux-... The fact that some people weren't paying attention and forgot this does not mean it isn't true.
- jsnell 4y ago
  The claim you made originally was not just that there were patent threats: it's that those patent threats were taken seriously by the people building the desktop environments and that the major redesigns were motivated by the threats. You keep posting links to the first, none to the latter. And it's specifically the latter part that people doubt. If this had actually happened like you claim, there would surely be some kind of actual evidence of the redesigns being motivated by patents. Links to email discussions, design documents, recordings of presentations, something. But you seem to have nothing, and are instead trying to boost the credibility of the stuff you invented by providing links to the part of the story that wasn't actually under doubt. Even if there had been some kind of a secret motivation behind the designs, and the publicly claimed justifications were really just a parallell construction, it's completely implausible that this shadowy cabal could have mainted opsec for this long without something leaking to the public.
  - toyg 4y ago
    The fact that this is the quality of journalism that The Register pushes these days, is just sad.

by antod 4y ago

lproven 4y ago

Hi. I wrote the article. You're wrong. I work for the Register now. That's why I pick links to them: I have saved searches that make it quick and easy. I wasn't working for them then. In fact I only started freelancing for them in 2009 and went full-time late last year. Secondly, many other now-popular tech news sites weren't around 15 years ago, or the links have gone. The Reg is stable and doesn't delete or move old stories. This was entirely factual, and if you go Googling you can find plenty of supporting evidence from other sites. CNN: https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/ https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007... ComputerWorld: https://www.computerworld.com/article/2566211/study--linux-may-infringe-on-283-patents.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2566211/study--linux-m... And so on. https://www.mercurynews.com/2007/05/15/microsoft-says-linux-open-office-free-e-mail-step-on-patents/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2007/05/15/microsoft-says-linux-... The fact that some people weren't paying attention and forgot this does not mean it isn't true.

jsnell 4y ago
The claim you made originally was not just that there were patent threats: it's that those patent threats were taken seriously by the people building the desktop environments and that the major redesigns were motivated by the threats. You keep posting links to the first, none to the latter. And it's specifically the latter part that people doubt. If this had actually happened like you claim, there would surely be some kind of actual evidence of the redesigns being motivated by patents. Links to email discussions, design documents, recordings of presentations, something. But you seem to have nothing, and are instead trying to boost the credibility of the stuff you invented by providing links to the part of the story that wasn't actually under doubt. Even if there had been some kind of a secret motivation behind the designs, and the publicly claimed justifications were really just a parallell construction, it's completely implausible that this shadowy cabal could have mainted opsec for this long without something leaking to the public.
- toyg 4y ago
  The fact that this is the quality of journalism that The Register pushes these days, is just sad.