5 ms·
To be fair I think it's more that we're willing to take PJ at face value
by corford 15y ago
To 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.