3 ms·

Oh I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, I'm not attacking you personally. Just to be clear about that. Your response was just a good example of the kinds of tactics gui

by geuis 13y ago

Oh I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, I'm not attacking you personally. Just to be clear about that. Your response was just a good example of the kinds of tactics guilty parties use sometimes by trying to silence critics. Do you blog about your experiences? One thing I could stand to learn about more are the internals of patent litigation.

dctoedt 13y ago
> Do you blog about your experiences? No, not about patent litigation. It's been a long time since I've done that kind of work, and I never was one of the star litigators in any case. But thanks for asking!
benologist 13y ago
So far disagreeing with you = criminal activity, ignorance, small-mindedness, and what 'guilty' parties do to silence their critics. Alternatively, you might like to consider the possibility your opinions are simply not universal truths.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  > So far disagreeing with you = [...] what 'guilty' parties do to silence their critics. I don't think that is a fair assessment of the above claim. The claim is that threats of libel suits are what guilty parties do to silence their critics, not disagreeing.
  - pyre 13y ago
    Calling libel suits the "tactic of snakes" doesn't really help out since libel is an actual thing that can severely damage a person's reputation.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Libel suits (or threats of them) where there isn't actually something that most reasonable people would consider libel is the tactic of snakes. It is nothing more than a specific case of SLAPP. Furthermore, I would loosely file "warning somebody about libel suits where there realistically is no chance of one occurring" under "'concern' trolling". Even if what @geuis said was libel (and to be clear, it isn't), there is fuck-all probability that he will become entangled in a libel lawsuit over it. Nobody but the deranged give a shit what random semi-anonymous nobodies with no influence or credibility say about them on the internet.

by geuis 13y ago

dctoedt 13y ago

> Do you blog about your experiences? No, not about patent litigation. It's been a long time since I've done that kind of work, and I never was one of the star litigators in any case. But thanks for asking!

benologist 13y ago

So far disagreeing with you = criminal activity, ignorance, small-mindedness, and what 'guilty' parties do to silence their critics. Alternatively, you might like to consider the possibility your opinions are simply not universal truths.

jlgreco 13y ago
> So far disagreeing with you = [...] what 'guilty' parties do to silence their critics. I don't think that is a fair assessment of the above claim. The claim is that threats of libel suits are what guilty parties do to silence their critics, not disagreeing.
- pyre 13y ago
  Calling libel suits the "tactic of snakes" doesn't really help out since libel is an actual thing that can severely damage a person's reputation.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Libel suits (or threats of them) where there isn't actually something that most reasonable people would consider libel is the tactic of snakes. It is nothing more than a specific case of SLAPP. Furthermore, I would loosely file "warning somebody about libel suits where there realistically is no chance of one occurring" under "'concern' trolling". Even if what @geuis said was libel (and to be clear, it isn't), there is fuck-all probability that he will become entangled in a libel lawsuit over it. Nobody but the deranged give a shit what random semi-anonymous nobodies with no influence or credibility say about them on the internet.