5 ms·

I am going to be disillusioned with HN if this uninformed speculation isn't buried.

neya 14y ago
So you conclude the patent system and the legal structure is fine as it is? Because, my conclusion is the opposite from all the points I make above.
- rbanffy 14y ago
  False dichotomy alert: the patent system may be broken in ways other than your speculation. I don't think bribes were involved, for instance. Also, it's wise not to attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence. This jury was obviously incompetent and manipulated (even if not deliberately) by a foreman with his own agenda. Another one a good friend once taught me: when you think you have figured out something nobody else did, odds are you're wrong. He used lines on a bank as an example: if there are two lines and one is much smaller than the other, they are probably not interchangeable and, if you enter the short one, you may realize you entered the wrong one.
  - neya 14y ago
    >The patent system may be broken in ways other than your speculation. I claim that the patent system is broken because it allows anyone to patent BS trivial stuff, which can later be used to sue their competitors. I would love to hear your version of 'the ways other than your(my) speculation'
    - rbanffy 14y ago
      I don't disagree with this specific point, but you made a lot of other points in your post. I also suggest you are coming across as somewhat aggressive. We can disagree in less emotional ways, even if it is an emotional issue for most of us.
      - neya 14y ago
        >I also suggest you are coming across as somewhat aggressive. It is true, even when I read my own comment now, I do find it a bit aggressive. I'm genuinely sorry for that...actually I was kind of taken aback after reading that Jury's reasoning...and used the same spirit to type that comment...Nothing is fair in this world..
- gurkendoktor 14y ago
  No, but the part about bribery is pure speculation. I am also shocked to find this at the top spot.
  - scotty79 14y ago
    So much money is in the play that bribery should be assumed by default until proven beyond reasonable dubt otherwise.
    - greedo 14y ago
      And logically you could extend that to ridiculous extremes. Assuming anything by default is a sign of a weak argument.
      - scotty79 14y ago
        In my feeling assuming that there were no bribes in $1bn trial is already ridiculous extreme of rule: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
greedo 14y ago
I'm always reminded of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and rants like this spinning conspiracy tales never meet that standard.

neya 14y ago

So you conclude the patent system and the legal structure is fine as it is? Because, my conclusion is the opposite from all the points I make above.

rbanffy 14y ago
False dichotomy alert: the patent system may be broken in ways other than your speculation. I don't think bribes were involved, for instance. Also, it's wise not to attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence. This jury was obviously incompetent and manipulated (even if not deliberately) by a foreman with his own agenda. Another one a good friend once taught me: when you think you have figured out something nobody else did, odds are you're wrong. He used lines on a bank as an example: if there are two lines and one is much smaller than the other, they are probably not interchangeable and, if you enter the short one, you may realize you entered the wrong one.
- neya 14y ago
  >The patent system may be broken in ways other than your speculation. I claim that the patent system is broken because it allows anyone to patent BS trivial stuff, which can later be used to sue their competitors. I would love to hear your version of 'the ways other than your(my) speculation'
  - rbanffy 14y ago
    I don't disagree with this specific point, but you made a lot of other points in your post. I also suggest you are coming across as somewhat aggressive. We can disagree in less emotional ways, even if it is an emotional issue for most of us.
    - neya 14y ago
      >I also suggest you are coming across as somewhat aggressive. It is true, even when I read my own comment now, I do find it a bit aggressive. I'm genuinely sorry for that...actually I was kind of taken aback after reading that Jury's reasoning...and used the same spirit to type that comment...Nothing is fair in this world..
gurkendoktor 14y ago
No, but the part about bribery is pure speculation. I am also shocked to find this at the top spot.
- scotty79 14y ago
  So much money is in the play that bribery should be assumed by default until proven beyond reasonable dubt otherwise.
  - greedo 14y ago
    And logically you could extend that to ridiculous extremes. Assuming anything by default is a sign of a weak argument.
    - scotty79 14y ago
      In my feeling assuming that there were no bribes in $1bn trial is already ridiculous extreme of rule: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

greedo 14y ago

I'm always reminded of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and rants like this spinning conspiracy tales never meet that standard.