3 ms·
This is a court filing by a litigant. It's hardly an unbiased source. The assertions of an interested party should not be an excuse to avoid critical thinking.
by monochromatic 15y ago
This is a court filing by a litigant. It's hardly an unbiased source. The assertions of an interested party should not be an excuse to avoid critical thinking.
But hey, it's in line with what most of HN thinks about patents, so we're all willing to take it at face value.
- corford 15y agoTo be fair I think it's more that we're willing to take PJ at face value
- monochromatic 15y ago> Take a look especially at Exhibit D, where there is a long detailing of the incredibly insignificant patents Microsoft has the nerve to use against Android, claiming control of the entire operating system with what is pretty much a handful of stupid patents no one really needs or which are so trivial that the fees it claims become outrageous. At least that is Barnes & Noble's position. It made my blood boil to read it. Doesn't sound like pj is doing much critical thinking either. Just accepting B&N's assertions at face value, because they line up with common "knowledge" about patents.
- nitrogen 15y agoThere should be elements of B&N's assertions (like which specific patents Microsoft is using) that can be regarded as factual.
- monochromatic 15y agoAbsolutely. I have no problem stipulating to stuff like that, because it would be ridiculous for B&N to lie about it or get it wrong. But that's not the kind of assertions I'm talking about.
- Steko 15y agoHonestly as a longtime Groklaw fan I find that lately I have to read Groklaw's posts with the same sort of bias filters as I do Florian Mueller's. Groklaw's bias worked fine with SCO because SCO was a total fraud. The same bias quickly wears thin when discussing the current Android cases.