I have lost all faith in Pamela Jones.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Jun 22, 2007 5:22 AM EDT |
This article repeats a line that irks me to the very core of my soul, and makes me distrust Pamela -- because she should know better. The line? because the study didn't find a single court-validated patent that Linux by any stretch could be claimed to be infringing. Not one. That is so misleading as to be a near-lie. Why? Courts don't validate patents. Patents are presumed to be valid until proven otherwise. That only makes logical sense. If, for example, a patent survives an attack for reason A, does that guarantee that it will survive an attack for reason B? Of course not. At best, you can say that a patent has withstood a challenge. There is another factor as well...very few patents get tested in court. Going to court is a last resort -- very expensive and very time-consuming. A nasty thing all around. Does that mean any of the Microsoft patents would survive a court challenge? No. It just means that the statement about court-validation is misleading because it is presented as having meaning that it lacks. I am no fan of Microsoft, but I am a fan of the truth. Pamela knows better -- she has to -- and still she repeats a statement like that. Not to be trusted. |
| Abe Jun 22, 2007 6:26 AM EDT |
Quoting:Courts don't validate patents. Patents are presumed to be valid until proven otherwise.Dino, I am curious though. May be, just may be the term "court-validated patent" is not the best to use, if the courts doesn't validate patents, who does? Any ways, here is the dictionary definition of validate 1. to make valid; substantiate; confirm: Time validated our suspicions. 2. to give legal force to; legalize. 3. to give official sanction, confirmation, or approval to, as elected officials, election procedures, documents, etc.: to validate a passport. I think item 2. is the courts responsibility/jurisdiction as a fundamental step of the process of legalizing an issue, don't you think? Quoting:Not to be trusted.This post of yours doesn't deserve a reponse, then again I am curious, Who do you trust, Microsoft and businesses of their type? I think your post is hateful and may be as a result of envy or even jealousy, all in all, it is out right useless. Please, don't be upset with me, I am just presenting my honest opinion. |
| kozmcrae Jun 22, 2007 7:02 AM EDT |
If a bunch of thugs (Microsoft, SCO, et al) were after me and a 5th degree black belt (Pamela Jones) was fending them off, I wouldn't be complaining that one of her moves wasn't exactly by the book. The book I haven't even read. No, I would be grateful and thankful for the tireless and high quality reporting she's done. |
| dinotrac Jun 22, 2007 7:16 AM EDT |
>I think item 2. is the courts responsibility/jurisdiction as a fundamental step of the process of legalizing an issue, don't you think? No. The legislature legalizes issues. In the United States, the Courts resolve disputes. Like it or not, that's the way the Constitution set things up and that's the way they work. As to patents, they are validated by the PTO in the application process. Unlike copyrights, which are granted automatically and not presumed to be valid, patents undergo a rather lengthy review process. The problem at present is that the PTO is really horsing up the job. I'm quite certain it is granting an unacceptably high number of patents that would not stand up under a court test. >Who do you trust, Microsoft and businesses of their type? Oh please. Where have you seen me indicate an iota of trust for Microsoft? What I don't trust is people who are willing to lie in order to make their point. You are welcome to believe that Pamela didn't lie by including that statement because it is factual. However, as a former lawyer, I know that the best lies are told with facts. >I think your post is hateful and may be as a result of envy or even jealousy You may think that, but my post is based on the truth and a small understanding of how the law actually works. You are free to find the truth hateful, but that is no concern of mine. |
| dinotrac Jun 22, 2007 7:20 AM EDT |
>No, I would be grateful and thankful for the tireless and high quality reporting she's done. I have no doubt about the tireless part. The problem is one of trust and credibility. I can't believe that Pamela doesn't understand how the law actually works. It's possible. In that case, she is simply in error. That I can live with because we all make mistakes. But...If she does understand the law as I think she does, then she is completely willing to mislead her readers to make a point. That bothers me and makes me wonder about the quality of her overall reporting. After all, I only caught this because I have some familiarity with the subject. On many of the things she writes, I wouldn't be able to do that. |
| herzeleid Jun 22, 2007 7:47 AM EDT |
dino, it sounds like you have an axe to grind. your over-the-top reaction to pamela's exact wording of her point is remarkable. Is there some history between you two that you're not telling? |
| kozmcrae Jun 22, 2007 7:51 AM EDT |
"However, as a former lawyer, I know that the best lies are told with facts" I respect the integrity of and opinions of Lewis A. Mettler at lamlaw.com and Andy Updegrove at consortiuminfo.org. They don't seem to have a problem with Pamela's reporting. She's only a paralegal and look at what she's accomplished. She's brought to light the facts and shamed the likes of Rob Enderle, Laura DiDio, Daniel Lyons, and many more would-be Linux slayers. But I can sort of see your point. If I spent years of hard studying and borrowed a ton of money to become a lawyer and then some woman who is only a paralegal comes along and makes a HUGE splash on the Internet, I'd be a little sore too. But then I'd take a walk and get over it. |
| dinotrac Jun 22, 2007 7:54 AM EDT |
> I'd be a little sore too. Kind of interesting. Nobody disputes my point. It seems you guys would rather question my motives for telling the truth than question Ms. Jones for telling a lie. Wonder what that says about your integrity? |
| bigg Jun 22, 2007 8:28 AM EDT |
I can only conclude that some of you have been tipping back the bottle this morning. Let me say this very clearly. She was wrong. She implied something that is not true. Why is there any confusion on that point. "This post of yours doesn't deserve a reponse" "I would be grateful and thankful" "it sounds like you have an axe to grind. your over-the-top reaction to pamela's exact wording of her point is remarkable. Is there some history between you two that you're not telling?" "I'd be a little sore too. But then I'd take a walk and get over it." What is this, slashdot? Let me say it again: SHE WAS WRONG. She was wrong. She was wrong. She was wrong. She was wrong. Yes, Pamela Jones was WRONG. |
| azerthoth Jun 22, 2007 8:32 AM EDT |
Stop and think for a moment and you'll see that dino has a real point here, not that he needs any help from me as I have found him more than capable on his own terms most of the time. The point I get from this is that PJ is trying to write a grand slam against her detractors and the styles and ways they use or massage the facts. While at the same time using the exact same style of factual mangling that she is railing about. While I have at times thought dino to be hypocritical over a point or two (and have said so) I find in the end that its my understanding that needs adjustment. To date I have discovered that 100% of the time that its my misunderstanding when thinking he's being hypocritical. That doesn't change that I occasionally find him with an opinion conflicting with mine, PJ on the other hand has no such luxury. She has proven that she is more than willing to twist things to her own benefit or take editorial control of a site that deals with freedoms by deleting (ala Penguin Pete) opinions and comments that she doesnt agree with. |
| dinotrac Jun 22, 2007 8:56 AM EDT |
bigg and azerthoth - Thank you very much for coming to my defense and for the kind words above and beyond. >What is this, slashdot? Please don't scare me like that! |
| Abe Jun 22, 2007 9:09 AM EDT |
Quoting:No. The legislature legalizes issues. In the United States, the Courts resolve disputes. Like it or not, that's the way the Constitution set things up and that's the way they work.You are going on a tangent here, lets focus back on the issue. No one said anything about making or creating laws, we are talking about validating issues by determining whether the issues comply or don't comply with the laws that were created by the legislative/executive branches. You said it yourself "the Courts resolve disputes", that is validation of. Quoting:As to patents, they are validated by the PTO in the application process.Yes the PTO is supposed to be checking the validity of patents, but they are not the ultimate authority of that, the courts are. The PTO doesn't resolve disputes, courts do. Back to the main issue, PJ said there hasn't been any any single "court-validated patent" case ever as a precedence over any Linux patent dispute, what she meant is, there hasn't been any case by any one to claim that Linux infringes on any patents. That is a fact since there is none on record, can you dispute that fact? Quoting:It's possible. In that case, she is simply in error.Sure it is possible, on the other hand, by stating she is "Not to be trusted." you are making it sound like you are pretty convinced she is not trust worthy. I wonder why you make this call so assertively? Quoting:Nobody disputes my point.Which point? who makes the laws? I have no dispute with that, but it is irrelevant here since we are not talking about who create laws, we are talking about whether there has been a displute. You must be reading too much into this. I just wonder why? |
| Abe Jun 22, 2007 9:16 AM EDT |
Quoting:Yes, Pamela Jones was WRONG.Bigg, You are entitled to your opinion and you can say that a million times and I still don't accept it. In my opinion, you simply didn't take everything in consideration. You are missing something in the whole picture. |
| dinotrac Jun 22, 2007 9:19 AM EDT |
> I wonder why you make this call so assertively? I explained that pretty clearly. >there hasn't been any case by any one to claim that Linux infringes on any patents. That is not what she said. It's not even very close. > I just wonder why? Wonder to your heart's content. Makes no difference to me. I long ago learned not to get myself too worked up about things said (or written) by people who don't respect the truth. |
| Abe Jun 22, 2007 9:26 AM EDT |
Quoting:"This post of yours doesn't deserve a reponse" .... What is this, slashdot?What is so "slahdot" about it? The original post was by a FOSS advocate to muddy the water about the main subject in an excellent article written by dedicated FOSS advocate. That is why it doesn't deserve a response and nothing "slashdot" about. |
| dcparris Jun 22, 2007 9:38 AM EDT |
Frankly, when I think of all the journalists we lambast for misusing the terms "open source", "free software" and things of that nature, it only seems fair to expect someone like PJ to report accurately on a subject she seems to know quite well. Many of those other reporters, when I have suggested they distinguish between "Free Software" and "freeware", have stated openly they are simply using terms in a way they think their audience will understand - not the correct way. I happen to believe that catering to the ignorance of readers is a bad thing. |
| Abe Jun 22, 2007 9:43 AM EDT |
Quoting:...said (or written) by people who don't respect the truth.What truth you speak of Dino? Your own personal interpretations of what she said? |
| DarrenR114 Jun 22, 2007 9:58 AM EDT |
Dino, I can only warn you, from personal experience, I've found it's a hard row to hoe when you start openly criticising the product quality of the nascent darling of the FLOSS "community". |
| tuxchick Jun 22, 2007 9:58 AM EDT |
Geez dino, sure sounds like an over-reaction to me. You disagree with one thing that PJ says so everything she writes is suspect? It's no reason to pitch a tantrum, and you've been grumpier than usual all week anyway, to the point that I've avoided most the of the threads you've posted in. The phrase "court-validated" may not be a gen-yoo-wine legal term, but that doesn't stop people, including lawyers, from using it. In a climate where most folks, including the biggest patent holders, agree that the majority of software patents are bogus and would not survive a challenge, the presumption of validity isn't there any more. At best it is a polite fiction. PJ's point, however much you dislike how she expresses it, is that the alleged patent threat against Linux is an empty threat, no matter what Microsoft and Laura DiDio and other MS shills say. PJ isn't right all the time, and you may be right that her use of "court-validated" is egregious and icky. I don't see that it invalidates the main point of her article, let alone everything she's ever written. |
| dinotrac Jun 22, 2007 10:09 AM EDT |
>I don't see that it invalidates the main point of her article, let alone everything she's ever written. It doesn't invalidate the point of her article, but it does go to the issue of trust, and that matters a lot when dealing with journalists. I have a similar issue with NASA's Jim Hansen, who has been known to excuse fudged facts on global warming when, as in the case, for example, of An Inconvenient Truth, he considered the overall message to be correct. I want to rely on scientists and journalists as seekers of truth. Errors are ok because we all make them. I want to know that the truth matters to them. I don't have an independent way to corroborate most of what they tell me. |
| vainrveenr Jun 22, 2007 10:09 AM EDT |
Quoting:This article repeats a line that irks me to the very core of my soul, and makes me distrust Pamela -- because she should know better.Is the very core of this writer's soul really so irked? Like others above, "Methinks Thou Dost Protest Too Loudly" Also, “Protest long enough that you are right, and you will be wrong” |
| DarrenR114 Jun 22, 2007 10:09 AM EDT |
TC, Dino's point is similar to my complaint about PJ in recent months - we don't really know her qualifications because her background has never been openly vetted by any organisation. In this most recent incident, Dino points out that while she purports to be a highly qualified paralegal, she makes what really amounts to an amateur mistake of the sort one would expect someone like me to make. In a lawyer's eyes, this would call into question all of her purported experience and qualification as a paralegal. There's an old Roman maxim that carries over to today's American Jurisprudence that really says it all: "Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus". This is the very thing that Judge Penfield Jackson stated when giving his reasons for finding Microsoft guilty in that famed anti-trust trial. |
| vainrveenr Jun 22, 2007 10:11 AM EDT |
Quoting:we don't really know her qualifications because her background has never been openly vetted by any organisation.And just how exactly is this NOT more FUD thrown on PJ?? |
| Abe Jun 22, 2007 10:13 AM EDT |
Quoting:It's no reason to pitch a tantrum, and you've been grumpier than usual all week anyway, to the point that I've avoided most the of the threads you've posted in. TC, Don't blame Dino, blame it on me. |
| dinotrac Jun 22, 2007 10:15 AM EDT |
vainrveenr > Is your position that we should always say nice things about Pamela without any regard to what she actually writes? |
| dinotrac Jun 22, 2007 10:19 AM EDT |
>Don't blame Dino, blame it on me. Nah. She can blame it on me. If I'm being grumpier than usual, it's my fault, not anybody else's. TC may be right -- It's been a rather harried week for me all around. My patience may be a little thin, especially with people who don't know me casting aspersions on my motivations. As long as I have been around the community (not to mention the handful of things I've actually written), you'd think I could get a wee bit more consideration than that. |
| jdixon Jun 22, 2007 10:21 AM EDT |
> Nobody disputes my point. OK. Allow me. Donning my devil's advocate hat for the moment: > Courts don't validate patents. Patents are presumed to be valid until proven otherwise. You are absolutely correct. But then: > As to patents, they are validated by the PTO in the application process. Unlike copyrights, which are granted automatically and not presumed to be valid, patents undergo a rather lengthy review process. The problem at present is that the PTO is really horsing up the job. This last fact is what makes the distinction of "a patent which has been upheld in a court of law" versus just "a patent" important, which is why Pamela makes the distinction. So, it looks to me like, while your facts are correct, and Pamela should choose her words more carefully, you actually agree with her about the current situation. :) Doffing devil's advocate hat. |
| Abe Jun 22, 2007 10:23 AM EDT |
Quoting:we don't really know her qualifications because her background has never been openly vetted by any organisation. Couple years of writing and opining on Gorklaw is more than enough and sufficient for me. |
| DarrenR114 Jun 22, 2007 10:28 AM EDT |
@vainrveenr Would you trust a doctor to give you medical advice if he were found to be practicing medicine without a license? Would you trust a lawyer to represent you in court if he had not been accepted by the state bar? Expecting that you would answer "no" to both questions, I have to ask why do you trust legal analysis from someone who has given zero verification as to her qualifications in the legal profession? The blogger known simply as "Pamela Jones" or "PJ" has not made any CV information public, except a slight mention of a position, of an undisclosed nature, with the OSDL. If a doctor were to examine my foot and tell me that he suspects a fracture of the navicular at the base of the third metacarpal, I'd be making a beeline for the door without paying for the examination or diagnosis. If a lawyer were to look at an agreement for a pending real estate sale and tell me that it's missing a required codicil clause, I'd be looking in the phonebook for another attorney. When an expert in any field makes an amateur mistake, it's not spreading FUD but is very proper to start questioning any and all conclusions ever proffered by said "expert". |
| dinotrac Jun 22, 2007 10:37 AM EDT |
>So, it looks to me like, while your facts are correct, and Pamela should choose her words more carefully, you actually agree with her about the current situation. :) I do, but that was not the point of my post. I don't expect my enemies to be honest with me unless it suits their purpose. I do, however, want my friends to tell the truth, especially when I need to rely on their trustworthiness. Pamela didn't choose her words carelessly. That phrasing is very specific and meant to cast aspersions on patents that are legally valid and that will be legally valid until somebody goes to court to prove otherwise. That is the normal case for patents. |
| Abe Jun 22, 2007 10:46 AM EDT |
Quoting:DarrenR114, Would you trust a doctor ...You are basing your whole argument on the assumption that PJ has willfully and intentionally lied. Do you know something we don't? Can you verify your claim? |
| jdixon Jun 22, 2007 10:50 AM EDT |
> That phrasing is very specific and meant to cast aspersions on patents that are legally valid and that will be legally valid until somebody goes to court to prove otherwise. That is the normal case for patents. Dino, we (including PJ) are not talking about all patents here, only software patents. I would argue that the vast majority of, if not all, software patents are invalid. Thus, that would not be "the normal case" for the patents under discussion. |
| DarrenR114 Jun 22, 2007 10:56 AM EDT |
No, Abe, I'm NOT basing my whole argument on the assumption that PJ has willfully and intentionally lied. I'm basing my entire line of reasoning on the premise that truly qualified "experts" don't make such blatently amateur mistakes (an honest mistake which reveals a dishonest representation of experience on the part of PJ.) Then there's always the possiblity that PJ is purposely using such inexact language in order to distort the truth (a dishonest act.) This is what I understand Dino's analysis to conclude. Neither speaks well of PJ and I don't see another line of argument that lends itself to any other conclusion besides these two possibilities. |
| dinotrac Jun 22, 2007 11:02 AM EDT |
Darren -- I would not be that bothered by a mistake on PJ's part. Nobody knows all of the law, and even very similar families of law can differ significantly. For example, people often try to slop the requirement to defend a trademark over into copyright and patents. I don't believe, however, that this is a case of PJ being mistaken. I think she is deliberately overstating or repeating somebody else's overstatement. I could be wrong and this is one time that I would rather be wrong than right. |
| jdixon Jun 22, 2007 11:09 AM EDT |
> Then there's always the possiblity that PJ is purposely using such inexact language in order to distort the truth (a dishonest act.) This is what I understand Dino's analysis to conclude. My understanding is that Dino is saying she is either deliberately misstating or being incompetent, either of which disqualifies her as a trusted agent. |
| dinotrac Jun 22, 2007 11:13 AM EDT |
jdixon >being incompetent, In this context, incompetent is a tough call because there is no professional standard for what she is doing. Were she an attorney, then, yes. That said, I'd still be very surprised if she doesn't understand the way it works. |
| DarrenR114 Jun 22, 2007 11:17 AM EDT |
@Dino,Quoting: I would not be that bothered by a mistake on PJ's part. Nobody knows all of the law, and even very similar families of law can differ significantly. For example, people often try to slop the requirement to defend a trademark over into copyright and patents. I've done that - until *you* corrected me. I was so wrapped up in getting a patent application submitted, some related copyrights registered, and a trademark registered, involving 3 different attorneys with expertise in different parts of IP law, that I confused the requirements among the three different things. So I fully appreciate what you mean by nobody knowing the whole body of the law. But then again, I try not to offer legal analysis beyond recounting my direct personal experience, and always with the caveat, IANAL. Perhaps it's because I'm not a lawyer that I feel there are just some things that anyone with a basic legal education should know. My rule of thumb is if I happen to know it then any lawyer should know it. But as you indicate, maybe that's expecting too much. |
| dinotrac Jun 22, 2007 11:20 AM EDT |
>But as you indicate, maybe that's expecting too much. Let's put it this way -- A friend asked me a rather complicated family law question this morning. I'm glad he was on the phone and couldn't see my glazed over expression! |
| jdixon Jun 22, 2007 11:21 AM EDT |
> maybe that's expecting too much. Quite likely it is. The law is a broad subject. A lawyer with no experience in patents, copyrights, or trademark may know very little about them. It might be very much like expecting a civil engineer to know how a TV works. Even doctors recommend people to specialists. Added: And if PJ is a normal paralegal, she may have been mostly dealing with wills, deeds, personal contracts, and other such "mundane" matters. |
| DarrenR114 Jun 22, 2007 11:46 AM EDT |
@jdixon,Quoting: > maybe that's expecting too much. I was actually thinking about doctors and medical specialties when I was reading Dino's reply. When I visited a neurologist back in 2005 about some debilitating migraines, the guy obviously knew his stuff, regarding headaches and such. Of course the medication he prescribed had some fairly unpleasant side effects, but he warned me ahead of time so I didn't complain too much (at least *I* didn't think it was too much - my wife might give a differing opinion about how "grumpy" I became.) I would not expect this doctor to give me advice on my foot pain (I had a fractured foot from back during my military tenure which the Army didn't catch until *after* it had already started to heal - combat boots do make a decent makeshift cast though.) However, I do expect my chiropractor to take my old fractures in my foot and collar bone into account when "aligning" my spine. In the same way, regarding legal specialties, I don't necessarily expect to get good advice from a criminal defense attorney when it comes to submitting a patent application. But then, I also don't expect to see any articles about patents, written by such an attorney, published for the public at large. Along those same lines, *if* PJ does not have experience in the area of patents, then she shouldn't be offering up articles on patents when people expect a certain level of qualification from her. On the flipside of that, *if* PJ does have experience in the area of patents, then she shouldn't be wording her analysis so egregiously, intentionally or otherwise. Experts are not allowed to testify in court beyond the scope of their expertise, and neither should we accept articles as "expert" or "qualified" from bloggers posting analysis and conclusions that go beyond their expertise. Nor should it ever be acceptable for anyone, acting as a journalist, to purposely word statements that they misrepresent the truth. |
| jdixon Jun 22, 2007 11:56 AM EDT |
> then she shouldn't be offering up articles on patents when people expect a certain level of qualification from her. May I point out that since both you and Dino have more experience with the law than most of people, your expectations may not be the norm. This is not to say they're incorrect, merely that they're different from those of most people. Simply put, you're not her target audience. |
| dinotrac Jun 22, 2007 12:07 PM EDT |
>Simply put, you're not her target audience. That would be my guess. |
| kozmcrae Jun 22, 2007 12:15 PM EDT |
Is PJ a lawyer? No. Does she say she's a lawyer? No. Does she remind us continually that she is not a lawyer? Yes. And I don't, after 2 years, recall ever reading any case analysis by her. Opinions, yes. And lot and lots of sorting through and organizing hundreds of details (what a paralegal does) so as to remove the obfuscation of the legal process for us mere non-legals. She's perfectly human I'm sure. But I will feel compelled to respond to anybody who attacks her or her writing (ok it's your opinion that's attacking her, not you). Here's why. There's a whole boat load of "people" out there who will do the dirty work for you and some of them are far more qualified you. And they are the people who want to destroy our beloved Linux. Please don't help them, really. If you don't think PJ is helping Linux/OS then just ask Darl McBride how his life would be without her casting a spotlight on SCO. I sometimes wonder if people who look for, discover, or read about "flaws" in celebrities and then go on to write commentary on it, are really looking to show everybody how they are better, or greater than the celebrity. If Lxer is a hostile place for PJ, then I have nothing to say or do here. I see too much of that copralite elsewhere on Web. |
| dinotrac Jun 22, 2007 12:17 PM EDT |
kozmcrae - Sigh. |
| number6x Jun 22, 2007 12:34 PM EDT |
dino, she says she's a paralegal turned journalist. So as a journalist, she's just putting a spin on things. I know journalists like to hide under the cover of 'unbiased third party', but how many journalists are unbiased? I never think of stuff on Groklaw as un-opinionanted or un-biased. Now your being a lawyer, I can see why it annoys you. You want more information, not spinformation. I agree with your assesment that the statement was worded in order to convey an impression that isn't really true. I think it could be called a 'fact rich' piece of opinion based journalism. Don't worry dino, I'll never lose my faith in you! I'm sure you'll always come up with an alternative opinion, no matter what the subject. :) |
| azerthoth Jun 22, 2007 12:34 PM EDT |
We are NOT attacking Groklaw or the work done there. The amount of real research and documentation there are fantastic. That being said Groklaw is a community and its membership does good work. What is being called into question is basically an op-ed piece that was poorly worded. As a researcher PJ has dug up some really good stuff, that appears to be her forte. As a commentator / benevolent dictator ... |
| jdixon Jun 22, 2007 12:40 PM EDT |
> ...If Lxer is a hostile place for PJ,... Dinotrac != LXer. DarrenR114 != LXer. Jdixon != LXer. Opinions vary. LXer has historically given it's member free reign to voice those opinions within broad limits. Note that neither Abe nor I agree with Dino and Darren, though I understand where they're coming from. However, PJ is not some divine authority whose statements should go unquestioned. Both Dino and Darren have a point. If PJ actually understands patent law, then she misspoke, either deliberately or by mistake. If she doesn't, she needs to state more clearly that it's outside her area of expertise. I'm assuming both that it's outside her area of expertise and that she's not using explicit legal language (at least correctly) because that would be beyond her target audience, but that's not clear from her comments. |
| dinotrac Jun 22, 2007 12:49 PM EDT |
6x - > I think it could be called a 'fact rich' piece of opinion based journalism. An unfortunately common phenomenon these days. What's annoying is that she doesn't have to do it. She's got right on her side. Worse still, In the context of her piece, the usage makes it sound like there are a patents that Linux does violate. Otherwise, there would be no need for the "court-validated" crap. The most telling question is simple: You think Linux violates your patents? Fine. Name them. I have yet to see anybody put their money where their mouth is on that one. |
| dinotrac Jun 22, 2007 12:50 PM EDT |
jdixon - What you said. And yes, reasonable people can disagree without making devils of each other. |
| tuxchick Jun 22, 2007 2:09 PM EDT |
"...people who don't know me casting aspersions on my motivations. As long as I have been around the community (not to mention the handful of things I've actually written), you'd think I could get a wee bit more consideration than that." How dare they! Name names. Give addresses. We'll fix 'em. *kicks dirt* |
| tracyanne Jun 22, 2007 2:15 PM EDT |
Quoting:I have lost all faith in Pamela Jones. I never had any faith in her in the first place. But I don't have any faith in anyone or anything. On the other hand I find her blogs to be useful and informative, and much more factual, and more honest than most. |
| jezuch Jun 22, 2007 4:02 PM EDT |
@Abe:
Quoting:You are entitled to your opinion This reminds me... Very recently (like a month ago) the Constitution Tribunal in Poland struck down, on many, many grounds, one of the acts that the government was very, very proud of. After that, the president - president! - said that the Constitution Tribunal is of course entitled to its opinion, but it doesn't make it right. And he is a lawyer. You see, I couldn't make an April Fool's day joke this year, because there was nothing I could do to top our politicians. Just my 3 grosze ;) |
| Abe Jun 23, 2007 7:52 AM EDT |
Great beneficial discussion, good job everyone.
Having said that, I am still not convinced that PJ is inaccurate. Let us consider a typical situation. Tomorrow, MS, out of its goodness, comes out and declares that its XYZ patent, registered and validated by PTO (let us assume they did their work), is being infringed upon by Linux. FSF says, this is hog wash, there is prior art which the PTO missed, and that makes it invalid. What do you know! We have a dispute. What do you think is going to happen? MS goes to court to enforce its beloved patent The court listens to both sides making their case along with a slew of opinions by many experts. When all is finished and done with, the court is the one who has the ultimate decision and determines to declare whether the patent is valid or not. So PJ is correct in using the term "Court-Validated patent". I rest my case. Have a good weekend everyone. Off to Silver Lake picnic. |
| jrm Jun 23, 2007 8:43 AM EDT |
So if you're all done with that, there's something I'd like to address... >> I have a similar issue with NASA's Jim Hansen, who has been known to excuse fudged facts on global warming when, as in the case, for example, of An Inconvenient Truth, he considered the overall message to be correct. IMHO, a bigger problem has been the misrepresentation of Hansen's work by the right wing lunatics who are still in denial about global warming. Where's the outrage about that? (Hansen has always maintained that science is best served by challenging ALL positions.) Dino, you can't hold yourself out as the official "Seeker of Truth", and then manipulate facts and ignore everything that doesn't support your own position. It makes for an interesting parlor game, but it's a lousy way to learn anything. The hit-and-run on Hansen was totally unfair. >> And yes, reasonable people can disagree without making devils of each other. ROFL. This from the guy who calls people left-wing nutcase conspiracy theorists (with tin-foil hats). |
| jdixon Jun 23, 2007 10:15 AM EDT |
Edited for clarity. I must have missed something. Since when does "left-wing nutcase conspiracy theorists (with tin-foil hats)" = "devils". One is a fairly valid description of a class of people (whether any individual belongs to such a class is a matter for debate), the other is a (presumed for the sake of this discussion) mythical creature. There is also a fairly valid description of another class of people called "gun toting, foaming at the mouth kneejerk conservatives". Again, whether any individual belongs to this group is a matter for debate. Placing a person in either group does not deny their humanity. Considering them devils (or alternatively, demons) does. This is an important distinction which should not be ignored. Classifying people as non-human is the first step in a process which can have a number of very unpleasant outcomes. |
| dinotrac Jun 23, 2007 10:43 AM EDT |
>When all is finished and done with, the court is the one who has the ultimate decision and determines to declare whether the patent is valid or not. No. The court will rule on whether or not a claim in the patent is being infringed. The defendant may or may not assert an affirmative defense that the claim is invalid for whatever reason. If the court finds the claim is invalid, the patent (or, at least, that claim) will be invalidated. Otherwise, infringement will be found. If infringement is found, the invalidity claim will be rejected. That is not the same as validating the patent, which is presumed to be valid. It is saying that the defendant failed to present evidence sufficient to support a claim that the patent is invalid. >I rest my case And I mine. Enjoy your weekend at Silver Lake. |
| dinotrac Jun 23, 2007 10:44 AM EDT |
>Dino, you can't hold yourself out as the official "Seeker of Truth", and then manipulate facts and ignore everything that doesn't support your own position. It's a good thing, then, that I don't do any of that. |
| dinotrac Jun 23, 2007 10:46 AM EDT |
>ROFL. This from the guy who calls people left-wing nutcase conspiracy theorists (with tin-foil hats). As a seeker of truth, tt would be wrong to lie. |
| Scott_Ruecker Jun 23, 2007 11:30 AM EDT |
Quoting:On the other hand I find her blogs to be useful and informative, and much more factual, and more honest than most. I agree, we can all discuss if we like or dislike her or if we agree with her opinions all the time or if this latest article is good or not but the role Groklaw plays in our community is important and needed. So she took a page out of the book the many have been using against her, she is only human. Everyone has done it, you, me, everybody. Because of all the great work she has done we all hold her to a very high standard, and deservedly so. But if after all that has been said about her she gets a little defensive for once, I can understand and cut her some slack that she doesn't get very often. |
| dinotrac Jun 23, 2007 12:12 PM EDT |
>by the right wing lunatics who are still in denial about global warming. Or, perhap, those who actually look at the data? How about the left wing lunatics who are in denial about the period of global cooling we are currently in? (hint: Check data that doesn't end in 2000) |
| jrm Jun 23, 2007 1:58 PM EDT |
>> Since when does "left-wing nutcase conspiracy theorists (with tin-foil hats)" = "devils". Maybe I'm the one who missed something. Did someone call Dino a devil? I know I didn't. Didn't Dino use that term, implying that he was the subject of abuse? Dino would be the first to admit that he can take care of himself. Having been on the receiving end, I believe that some of his responses go past what can be characterized as civil discourse. |
| jrm Jun 23, 2007 1:59 PM EDT |
Dino, do you accept that Hansen's data has been misrepresented by some right wing scientists? If they're wrong when they do that, why should we trust them about anything? Is that different only because overall you agree with them? Do you really not understand? We all see the world through our own biases. The Hansen comment was a cheap shot, so vague that it's impossible to refute. >> It's a good thing, then, that I don't do any of that. I disagree, but I don't think that you're the devil. (Although I do wish that you would be a bit more tolerant of other people's opinions.) |
| jdixon Jun 23, 2007 2:08 PM EDT |
> Did someone call Dino a devil? I know I didn't. No one said you did. Quoting the relevant post: Dino: >> And yes, reasonable people can disagree without making devils of each other. JRM: > ROFL. This from the guy who calls people left-wing nutcase conspiracy theorists (with tin-foil hats). You effectively equated the two things. I pointed out that they're very different, both in kind and degree. Dino may often disparage the thoughtfulness of his debating partners. He will often question their knowledge of the subject at hand. He may even question their ability to perform the necessary thought processes. I don't think he's ever questioned their humanity. TC, on the other hand, has often accused folks of being non-human lifeforms adverse to sunlight. :) |
| jrm Jun 23, 2007 2:28 PM EDT |
> You effectively equated the two things.
Actually, my understanding was that Dino equated the small amount of abuse in this thread to being called a devil. I pointed out that he has said worse than what has been said here. > He may even question their ability to perform the necessary thought processes. Bingo! Where on this planet other than the internet is that considered acceptable behaviour? |
| jdixon Jun 23, 2007 2:44 PM EDT |
> Actually, my understanding was that Dino equated the small amount of abuse in this thread to being called a devil. No, he didn't. What he said was: > ...reasonable people can disagree without making devils of each other. There's no linkage to any post other than mine in his comment. Any suppositions you might make as to his motivations for saying so are merely that: suppositions. > Where on this planet other than the internet is that considered acceptable behaviour? Acceptable? That's debatable. Practiced? Pretty much everywhere. Radio, television, and real life conversations a just a few of the places I've encountered it. In my experience, Dino usually says it when he has concluded that no amount of what he considers reasonable factual evidence gets through to a person and ends his participation in that particular debate. It's not like he throws it about willy-nilly. |
| dinotrac Jun 23, 2007 2:48 PM EDT |
jrm - >Actually, my understanding was that Dino equated the small amount of abuse in this thread to being called a devil. Your understanding is wrong. No surprise there. It's called a generalization, or, if you prefer a trite little truism. I was not called a devil. Instead, we simply had a couple of folks who, unable to muster an argument on facts and reason, resorted to clumsy and baseless assaults on my character. Classy, eh? Contrast that with my posts on PJ. I was very specific about what bothered me, why it bothered me, and what it affected. I did not question PJ's motives, whether she has any axes to grind, etc. That's because I actually am able to make an argument based on facts and reason. >Where on this planet other than the internet is that considered acceptable behaviour? Don't get out much, do you? |
| azerthoth Jun 23, 2007 2:52 PM EDT |
jrm reading back through this .. just where are you going with any of this. So far none of it has been relevant to the initial topic. Dont take it as an affront , I'm just curious if your intentionally derailing the topic. |
| jrm Jun 23, 2007 2:53 PM EDT |
>> Dino, do you accept that Hansen's data has been misrepresented by some right wing scientists? If they're wrong when they do that, why should we trust them about anything? Is that different only because overall you agree with them? Well? |
| dinotrac Jun 23, 2007 2:56 PM EDT |
>Dino, do you accept that Hansen's data has been misrepresented by some right wing scientists? I don't actually know what you're referring to, so I don't know if it's true or not. >If they're wrong when they do that, why should we trust them about anything? I tend to trust science more than I trust scientists. One question, though? What is this about "wingedness" of scientists? With the exception of social science, I don't give a rat's hindquarters about a scientist's politics. I care an awful lot about the science -- at least to the extent that I can understand it. But your reference to "right wing" scientists raises some interesting questions. How do you determine whether a scientist is right-wing or left-wing? If you don't like their results, does that make them bad guys? If they disagree with Al Gore, are they right wingers? BTW -- did you read the New York Times piece on the errors in "An Inconvenient Truth"? Is the New York Times a right wing hate rag? Seriously, because I really don't know the politics of most scientists, especially those from outside the United States. |
| jrm Jun 23, 2007 3:04 PM EDT |
>> jrm reading back through this .. just where are you going with any of this. So far none of it has been relevant to the initial topic. Dont take it as an affront , I'm just curious if your intentionally derailing the topic. You're right. It's not going anywhere. I took offense at a comment about a scientist that I respect. I think Dino has a tendency to be pompous, and I'm not fond of what I consider to be cheap debate tactics. I think he should listen more and post less. I've actually tried not post to threads that include him, but that would be everything. But he has props here and I don't, so that's cool. Sorry. |
| Scott_Ruecker Jun 23, 2007 3:30 PM EDT |
I let this get out of hand.. jrm: Not posting in threads that a particular person is involved in is not a good reason to not post. Not posting because you are not interested in the thread is. If your going to take the time to defend someone, defend yourself, not others. I am not trying to defend dinotrac, I am trying to let you know that if you want to say something regarding an article, do so. Without worrying about who else may be involved in the conversation. dinotrac: You have the exceeding ability to get underneath peoples skin which I respect because you bring an alternative point of view to bear that most do not consider, but at times it takes the conversation away from the initial subject matter. If someone reacts to something you have said in a vehemently/emotionally negative fashion, please do not incite them further. Just let it go. I cannot believe that you would be happy in thinking that you would be the reason people would choose not to participate or contribute to the forums or LXer in general. If the two of you want to continue your conversation in this manner please do it through member e-mail. I really don't like playing bouncer in the forums, but I will when the need arises. Scott |
| dinotrac Jun 23, 2007 4:09 PM EDT |
Scott - >If someone reacts to something you have said in a vehemently/emotionally negative fashion, please do not incite them further. Sorry. I can get a little harsh... >I cannot believe that you would be happy in thinking that you would be the reason people would choose not to participate or contribute to the forums or LXer in general. I would rather end my involvement than chase others away. I did it once before and would willingly (not happily) do it again. |
| jdixon Jun 23, 2007 4:49 PM EDT |
> But he has props here and I don't, so that's cool. If you think I was defending Dino, you're misunderstanding my comments. :) I have done so on occasion, but this isn't one of those times. I've also disagreed with him on more than one occasion. |
| dinotrac Jun 23, 2007 4:55 PM EDT |
> I've also disagreed with him on more than one occasion. I believe that everyone on this forum has disagreed with me on more than one occasion. Heck, I've probably disagreed with myself a few times! |
| bigg Jun 23, 2007 6:25 PM EDT |
@jrm: I don't know how long you've been hanging around here, but you do need to do your homework before posting. Otherwise, you'll get some blunt responses. Part of it (at least from me) is to prevent the Slashdotization of LXer that I referred to above. If you don't like Dino, feel free to ignore his posts. Nobody is going to be offended if you disagree with them, and oftentimes you have to agree to disagree, just don't make it personal. Nobody has props. You have the same right to post your opinions as anyone else. Just my two cents based on personal observation. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 23, 2007 7:32 PM EDT |
Would the words "that a court has found valid" have passed muster? Because I see nothing different between that and "court validated". Validated is just "found to be valid". So even if her wording was not legalistically perfect legalese, was the statement wrong? Has a patent been upheld in court against Linux? |
| devnet Jun 23, 2007 7:53 PM EDT |
Well, I read every single post in this thread of discussion and there are some problems 1. Dino's main points still stand. No one has refuted them. They've tried but offered no tangible reasons that he's wrong. 2. People have, instead of refuting with evidence dino's reasons, personally attakced Dino (and you guys know I come at odds with Dino quite a bit) opting instead to show what she's (PJ) done for this or that...which is irrelevant to Dino's argument. He's saying that what she is stating now is erroneous. It shouldn't matter if she invented the light bulb before and created world peace....she's human, she makes errors, and thus can be shown to have made said mistake. Saying dino has an axe to grind is a cop out. completely. Saying that pamela did this or that and deserves something is a cop out. Calling any names is a complete cop out. Saying that PJ has proved anything with longevity of service to a community is also a cop out...Dino isn't questioning this. Continuation of inability to provide tangible evidence to the contrary of Dino's first post gives evidence that he's correct in this instance...which means that a MISTAKE was made...nothing more. it doesn't mean PJ is anything less now than she was before. It doesn't mean groklaw sux. It doesn't invalidate any previous servitude that she's given to the community. I welcome anyone to try to invalidate his post. I don't think you will. Just like you guys have been saying that since you've been around PJ for X years or a groklaw member for X years or know from her works for X years that she's been pretty correct...I can counter that and say I've known for X years that she's removed comments that don't agree with her or her message and she's deleted accounts for posting, mislead posters into thinking that their post is showing to others when it only shows to them, and even removed accounts for no reason...all while defending freedom and software. This proves nothing other than the fact that everyone has different viewpoints of PJ's character and that it cannot be used to validate whether a statement is factual or not. Just my two cents on it. And please, someone prove Dino wrong...like they say to MS...show us where the patents are...show us where Dino is wrong. |
| dinotrac Jun 23, 2007 8:22 PM EDT |
devnet - **blush** |
| dinotrac Jun 23, 2007 8:27 PM EDT |
>Would the words "that a court has found valid" have passed muster? It's the context that's problematic, not the words. |
| jdixon Jun 23, 2007 8:30 PM EDT |
> No one has refuted them. I disagree. See my posts above. > He's saying that what she is stating now is erroneous. No. He's saying that what she said is erroneous, and that for that reason he no longer trusts her. I'm not arguing the point that what she said is erroneous. Both Dino and Darren agree that it is, and they have far more experience in the law than I do. It's the loss of trust I disagree with. I've argued thus far that 1) while she using the legal terminology incorrectly her point is still valid (Dino seems to agree with this), 2) there's no reason to think she's an expert in this particular aspect of the law and would know the correct usage (I would point out that this is not the first mistake she's made when discussing the various aspects of IP), and 3) she's probably not trying to use the terms in their legal sense, because her audience is not those with legal experience. IMO, any of these is sufficient reason for Dino to be wrong about trusting her. Thus far, Dino seems unconvinced. |
| dinotrac Jun 23, 2007 8:42 PM EDT |
> It's the loss of trust I disagree with. If that's the case then we have no argument, because trust is a personal thing. But note...my concern has nothing to do with legal terminology. Validating patents is not any kind of special legal terminology that I'm aware of. My belief -- that you clearly do not share -- is that she tried to make her argument sound better by saying something that has no practical meaning but sounds like it does. |
| jdixon Jun 23, 2007 9:58 PM EDT |
> My belief -- that you clearly do not share -- is that she tried to make her argument sound better by saying something that has no practical meaning but sounds like it does. Correct. I don't believe that's what she did. I believe she used the terms as a layman would use them, and meant what she said with that meaning. > Validating patents is not any kind of special legal terminology that I'm aware of. It must be, or I would not have needed you and Darren to explain that she was using it incorrectly. :) I would have taken it to simply mean that the patents had not yet been test in a court of law, and were thus suspect. To be fair, as I've already noted, I consider all software patents suspect. In the past and in my experience, when PJ has used a legal term she's usually been careful to explain that it is a legal term, and try to explain what it means in layman's terms. She didn't do so in this case, which I believe indicates she intended a layman's meaning. I think your knowledge in the area is causing you to mistake her intent. As always, you are free to disagree. It's a judgment call, and the kind which has to be made intuitively, as there's simply not enough factual information to make the decision any other way. Now, that's not saying that her post isn't biased and isn't meant to convey and advance that bias. It is. |
| dinotrac Jun 24, 2007 2:34 AM EDT |
>I would have taken it to simply mean that the patents had not yet been test in a court of law, and were thus suspect. Thank you. You have just made my point. |
| DarrenR114 Jun 24, 2007 6:29 AM EDT |
@devnet,Quoting: I welcome anyone to try to invalidate his post. I don't think you will. Just like you guys have been saying that since you've been around PJ for X years or a groklaw member for X years or know from her works for X years that she's been pretty correct...I can counter that and say I've known for X years that she's removed comments that don't agree with her or her message and she's deleted accounts for posting, mislead posters into thinking that their post is showing to others when it only shows to them, and even removed accounts for no reason...all while defending freedom and software. This proves nothing other than the fact that everyone has different viewpoints of PJ's character and that it cannot be used to validate whether a statement is factual or not. It's even worse than what you say here and does cut right to the heart of "journalistic integrity." If you happen to post something that she doesn't like and therefore marks your IP address for "filtering", as you describe above, then anyone's posting from that IP will be "filtered" from the general view. And if you happen to later login with an account from that filtered IP, then all posts from that account will be also be "filtered", EVEN IF the account owner isn't necessarily the same individual who so affronted the great and infallible PJ. This is just one more indication that there is a grave lack of journalistic integrity on the part of "Pamela Jones" (*if* that is his/her name.) |
| Abe Jun 24, 2007 7:55 AM EDT |
Quoting:If you happen to post something that she doesn't like and therefore marks your IP address for "filtering", as you describe above............Many of the posts on this thread are not even related to the issue at hand, if that doesn't show the personal vendetta I don't know what does. It is getting so much on tangent it is not worth continuing. I believe usage of the term "court-validated patent" is correct and basing trust or no trust on its usage was totally inappropriate. This thread has become too jumbled it needs a judge to resolve the issue, just like resolving a suspect patent dispute requires a judge. To get the best out of an argument is to drop it. May be we all do better in a different thread. |
| dinotrac Jun 24, 2007 8:11 AM EDT |
>just like resolving a suspect patent dispute requires a judge. Actually, that's usually done by a jury. |
| DarrenR114 Jun 24, 2007 8:42 AM EDT |
Quoting: Quoted: If you happen to post something that she doesn't like and therefore marks your IP address for "filtering", as you describe above............ The title of this thread (started by Dino) *is* "I have lost all faith in Pamela Jones." Discussions as to why he or anyone else feels this way (or doesn't) are very relevant and prove NOTHING as to any "personal vendetta". In fact, being defensively dismissive of such anecdotes as presented by devnet, Dino, myself or anyone with such characterisations would seem a bit off-base. |
| jdixon Jun 24, 2007 8:46 AM EDT |
> I believe usage of the term "court-validated patent" is correct and basing trust or no trust on its usage was totally inappropriate. Yes, that is the point. And I while I don't agree that it's correct usage, I agree that it's not a sufficient basis for determining whether PJ is trustworthy or not. Dino obviously still disagrees, as is his right. > ...is to drop it. Agreed. We're beating a dead horse. All sides have made their points, and no one is being convinced. As I noted, it's a judgment call, as the facts themselves aren't sufficient to make the decision. |
| jrm Jun 24, 2007 11:50 AM EDT |
>> I let this get out of hand.. No, I take the responsibility for that. >> I would rather end my involvement than chase others away. That is totally unnecessary. You said something a couple of weeks ago that REALLY got under my skin, but you would have had no reason to understand why. I will explain that to you by email, but since I had a temper tantrum in front of everyone, then I think I at least owe it to you to apologize to you in front of everyone. I was very much out of line. |
| dinotrac Jun 24, 2007 12:58 PM EDT |
> I at least owe it to you to apologize to you in front of everyone. Not owed, but appreciated. >I was very much out of line. Nah. Slashdot is for very much out of line. Around here our (note the inclusive pronoun!!!) passions and convictions can heat things up a little from time to time. That's ok, because it tends to be a sincere heat. Sincere heat can be uncomfortable, but sure as heck beats the absence of passion and conviction. |
| jdixon Jun 24, 2007 1:19 PM EDT |
> ...but since I had a temper tantrum in front of everyone, then I think I at least owe it to you to apologize to you in front of everyone. I was very much out of line. Another example of the fine class of folks here at LXer. And the reason it's my primary Internet stopping point these days. Congrats, jrm, it takes class to admit you made a mistake. Of course, some of us make enough of them that we're old hands at it, and hardly count. :) |
| devnet Jun 24, 2007 1:34 PM EDT |
Darren Just to clarify...I've never posted on Groklaw. Ever. I read stuff there...I have an account. I got it quite a few years ago. I did it for research. I've never personally experienced anything but have spoken with more individuals that I have fingers and toes who have. If you read my blog, you'll understand why I try to make sure that questioning Groklaw and PJ are always given a fair shot...because people somehow have this huge problem with anyone saying anything wrong about PJ and her site...even when it is evident to be true. I've written extensively on the subject. Google "groklaw censorship" and feel lucky. |
| Abe Jun 25, 2007 5:47 AM EDT |
Quoting:...because people somehow have this huge problem with anyone saying anything wrong about PJ and her site...even when it is evident to be true.May be because of couple things: 1. She tries her best to be objective, accurate, present good evidence, and most of all dedicated and truthful to FOSS. 2. Mostly does great work defending FOSS and present legal issues in layman's terms not legal monbo-jumbo. She has her opinions and other might disagree with her, but that doesn't mean she is wrong. If anyone has clear valid evidence not subjective evidence, contrary to what she says, I think most of her readers will definitely be aware of it. They might not attack her, and I am sure they will not defend her either if she is wrong. I believe they will give her a break in appreciation and credit to all her efforts and all she does. I don't believe that her readers are morons. She is human and, as we all know, humans make mistakes. On the other hand, her mistakes, in my opinion and in the eyes of many, are trivial compared to her contributions. Putting her mistakes in one pan of a balance and her contributions to FOSS on the other, I would say the good ones far out weigh her flaws. I think that is fair assessment, don't you think! |
| bigg Jun 25, 2007 6:42 AM EDT |
> Putting her mistakes in one pan of a balance and her contributions to FOSS on the other, I would say the good ones far out weigh her flaws. That might be true. What I don't understand is why it's a big deal to point out that she made a very significant error. Yes, she paraphrases legalese for the layperson. But it usually helps if that is done correctly. I don't know if she lied on purpose, or if she lied due to ignorance, but she did lie. Some of you believe this is a trivial bit of using loose language in a way that will make a lawyer uncomfortable. That just shows you don't understand how the patent system works. This is along the lines of a physical scientist proclaiming the Earth is flat, and then when challenged by other scientists, his fans argue that precise terminology is not important. The worst thing is that her fan club will read this and then parrot the same nonsense elsewhere. I've never had faith in Pamela Jones because I have not read much of what she has written. I'm not likely to have faith in her after this. |
| devnet Jun 25, 2007 7:05 AM EDT |
Abe, I also try my best to be the same way...objective, accurate, and present good evidence and try to be dedicated and truthful...does that mean that if I bring up evidence that supports that PJ is falling short in various areas she is supposedly excelling in that I should be ostracized or told to shut up? Should my information be written off immediately? Should no one consider the concrete evidence? Afterall, I'm trying to accomplish the same things as PJ right? Should others bringing up alternative opinions be ostracized? Nope. But that is what happens when someone brings up the possibility of PJ being human...making mistakes...or being on the wrong side of the fence on something. Quoting:If anyone has clear valid evidence not subjective evidence, contrary to what she says, I think most of her readers will definitely be aware of it. Abe, many of them are aware of it...especially those from the early days. But they don't wanna hear it. Anytime someone brings up a different opinion, they're immediately expelled and then immediately ostracized. By then, no one in the community will believe anything they say even IF they have evidence. This has happened more than once. Like I said, I've written on this in the past and I've attempted to contact PJ to get clarification. She didn't even bother responding. She could have set things straight in one swoop and but evidently my blog was small potatoes enough she didn't have to respond. Like I said, do a search for "groklaw censorship" at google and hit the "I'm feeling lucky" button...You'll see plenty of evidence there. I've found PJ's actions (not her words) to go against that which she defends. That's my experience in the matter which is why I always try to offer an alternative to the widely accepted "PJ can do no wrong" attitude that is prevalent in much of her reader base. |
| jdixon Jun 25, 2007 7:24 AM EDT |
> What I don't understand is why it's a big deal to point out that she made a very significant error. It's not, at least for me. > ...if she lied due to ignorance... As a general rule, if someone makes a mistake due to ignorance, it's not considered a "lie", it's simply a mistake. Normally the term "lie" is only used for deliberately false statements. > Some of you believe this is a trivial bit of using loose language in a way that will make a lawyer uncomfortable. Yes, some of us do. We're not lawyers. And neither is PJ. > That just shows you don't understand how the patent system works. True, I don't. IANAL. What does that have to do with the matter? Allow me to requote Dino's original paragraph: > This article repeats a line that irks me to the very core of my soul, and makes me distrust Pamela -- because she should know better. You obviously agree that she should have known better. I don't. Nor, even if she did know the correct legal usage, do I consider her usage incorrect. As far as I can tell, from a layman's perspective, there's absolutely nothing wrong with her usage. In short, I don't see anything in the article that would cause me to distrust PJ. |
| dinotrac Jun 25, 2007 7:40 AM EDT |
>Nor, even if she did know the correct legal usage, You are twisting the conversation. It is not about legal usage. We are not talking about legal terms. We are talking about layman's language and spin. |
| Abe Jun 25, 2007 7:53 AM EDT |
Quoting:I've never had faith in Pamela Jones because I have not read much of what she has written. I'm not likely to have faith in her after this.I can't make sense out of this statement. If you "... becauseI have not read much of what she has written", what then do you base on your reason "not to have faith in her"? Quoting:she made a very significant error.I never said her errors we significant, I said they are trivial. Quoting:I don't know if she lied on purpose, or if she lied due to ignorance, but she did lie.I can't make any sense out of this statement either. A lie, by definition, is not telling the truth on purpose. Dictionary definition : a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. making a mistake out of ignorance is not a lie, it is an error. There is a big diffeerence. First you don't know, then you assert that she did lie. You need to make up your mind and come up with evidence Bigg. The main subject of this thread is "court-validated patent", this was not a lie. I believe what she meant is, there has been no court case, on record, related to Linux infringing on any patents that has been affirmed or asserted by court. End of story. Let's not bring subjective opinions, ideas or he said this and that into this discussion. It just not helpful. |
| dinotrac Jun 25, 2007 7:58 AM EDT |
>I can't make any sense out of this statement either. A lie, by definition, is not telling the truth on purpose. An error can be a misrepresentation, but, if not intentional, it cannot be a lie. |
| bigg Jun 25, 2007 7:59 AM EDT |
> What does that have to do with the matter? Quite a lot, actually. Dino made an important point about her argument being incorrect. It's not the terminology that make her argument incorrect. The response has been "Oh well, she messed up a couple of words, but that's no big deal." The wording is not important, it's what she said that is important, and some of Dino's critics do not understand that. She is arguing, in effect, that because no court has ever said "this patent is valid" to any of the relevant patents, that we can ignore all of Microsoft's claims. That's not a meaningful statement because courts don't say patents are valid. I could play devil's advocate and say that we should fear Microsoft's claims about 235 patent violations in Linux because no court has ever said Microsoft is wrong. |
| bigg Jun 25, 2007 8:06 AM EDT |
> A lie, by definition, is not telling the truth on purpose. I included that statement intentionally. You recognize the difference in meaning, don't you? I was not sure if anyone would call me on it. I meant "stating something that is not true" but I used terminology that implied something more than that. It was originally included by accident. Then upon proofreading I decided to do a Pamela Jones and leave it in there. |
| jdixon Jun 25, 2007 8:07 AM EDT |
> You are twisting the conversation. Possibly, but not deliberately. > It is not about legal usage. Well, yes and no. You're objection to her choice of language is based on your understanding of patent law. To me that makes it about legal usage. But the disagreement is actually about trust. Is anything in the article sufficient reason to distrust PJ? To you, the answer is obviously yes. To me, the answer is no. > We are talking about layman's language and spin. As I already noted, as a layman, I have no problem with her usage of terms. I do appreciate your taking time to explain that they're not really correct. That's useful information which I otherwise wouldn't know. As to spin, all of PJ articles are spin. They're all designed to advance her pro-FOSS viewpoint and agenda. That's why she writes them. She's quite clear about her biases. That's not a reason for me to distrust her. I'm going to drop my participation in this thread. I've said everything I have to say a couple of times now, probably as well as I can say it. Except for the matter of trust, we're obviously agree, and I think we both agree that trust is a highly subjective matter. At this point, we're obviously talking right past each other. |
| jdixon Jun 25, 2007 8:16 AM EDT |
> She is arguing, in effect, that because no court has ever said "this patent is valid" to any of the relevant patents, that we can ignore all of Microsoft's claims. That's not a meaningful statement because courts don't say patents are valid. OK, since you're not Dino. One last comment, but this really is my last one. No, as far as I can tell, that's not what she's arguing at all. If you think she is, I can see why you disagree with her. |
| dinotrac Jun 25, 2007 8:24 AM EDT |
>You're objection to her choice of language No. I'm objecting to her implication. |
| Abe Jun 25, 2007 8:46 AM EDT |
Quoting:She is arguing, in effect, that because no court has ever said "this patent is valid" to any of the relevant patents, I think you are putting words in her mouth. This is not what she said, here is exactly what she said and was quoted partially by Dino in his first post. In fact, I read the study as proving that Linux didn't have any more IP worries than any other chunk of code, and probably less than Microsoft's, because the study didn't find a single court-validated patent that Linux by any stretch could be claimed to be infringing. Not one. That is what the study said. So not only does LinuxInsider and DiDio get it wrong factually about who did the study, they get wrong what the study found too. I don't see any "ever" and she was very specific about what the report has said. What you are saying is what you understood she said not exactly the same what she said in words. Edited: Here is where she said "never" Microsoft can't say that about its code, now can it? It regularly goes to court and ends up paying for patent infringement. There has never been a patent infringement lawsuit against Linux, by the way, something else Microsoft can't claim about itself. This is completely in different scope and very clearly specifies that there has been no IP infringemnet lawsuit against Linux. That is exactly what she was referring to in the preceding section. |
| dcparris Jun 25, 2007 7:35 PM EDT |
Abe:
> because the study didn't find a single court-validated patent that Linux by any stretch could be claimed to be infringing That implies that a court has not validated the patents in question. Ever. If the courts had validated patents, she would have had to qualify that statement accordingly. @ everyone: I just love it when the LXer forums get a little heated. As dino mentioned previously, LXers are a passionate bunch of people. People offend each other sometimes. It happens. We usually - with only two, maybe three exceptions - wind up shaking hands and buying each other a virtual beer. |
| pogson Jun 25, 2007 9:23 PM EDT |
This thread is absurd. M$ is the enemy, not PJ. I have followed GROKLAW ever since SCO started threatening the Linux community and she has a remarkable insight into all the legal niceties. Time and again, recognizing some puzzle in the known information, she correctly anticipated the truth which became clear to all when stuff appeared in the court filings or some research turned up a gem. She has also shown several times that she admits an error publicly when she makes one and does not hesitate to acknowledge the contributions of others in the activities of GROKLAW. She has also tried to maintain the integrity of GROKLAW by protecting the privacy of individuals in any camp. I trust her completely, not just as a matter of faith but from long observation of her actions over years. M$ is making idle threats. They have more to lose than Linux over any confrontation on patents. It is all part of the FUD campaign they have used against Linux since it appeared on their radar years ago. PJ is correct on this matter. Anyone who claims she is wrong should cite any court finding that some patent was violated by Linux. Anyone who claims she is wrong should cite any court finding that any of M$'s "patents" specified by M$ as violated by Linux are valid. M$ has not even specified a single such patent that has been violated by Linux. How could PJ's article then be in error? I have been disgusted by this thread. It plays into M$'s hands by taking the FUD seriously. PJ has dispelled a lot of FUD. Giver her credit. |
| dinotrac Jun 26, 2007 3:15 AM EDT |
>This thread is absurd. M$ is the enemy, not PJ. Who said PJ was the enemy? OTOH, it is not bad to be grown-up about one's friends. |
| number6x Jun 26, 2007 4:51 AM EDT |
You guys are still on this thread? OK. Well, make sure someone turns out the lights when your done. And don't just leave those pizza boxes stacked up for Scott to clean up. Put'em out back in the trash bin. :) |
| pogson Jun 26, 2007 5:35 AM EDT |
number6x wrote: "You guys are still on this thread?" M$ will never get my computer even after I lose bandwidth and they pry my cold, dead fingers from my keyboard. My children respect me too much to ever install that OS on my machine. While I still breathe I will never install that other OS even if I have to run Etch forever. In my workplace that other OS will have to compete on its merits or it is gone. Mostly it is gone. In 2003, SCOX's FUD disturbed me for a few weeks until I hit on GROKLAW. PJ has done a wonderful thing and I believe she has had an effect on par with some of the luminaries of FLOSS. GROKLAW is a site where movers and shakers and ordinary folk can see the truth for themselves and FUD becomes transparent in the bright light. A lot of energy has been invested in GROKLAW and I believe it has been worthwhile. |
| jrm Jun 26, 2007 5:49 AM EDT |
number6x wrote: "You guys are still on this thread?" Well, we never really did get into any serious data on climate change... I guess we could start that up again if someone can relate it to Groklaw. :-} |
| NoDough Jun 26, 2007 6:16 AM EDT |
Quoting:...buying each other a virtual beer. In this thread, everyone is virtually inebriated. :) |
| dinotrac Jun 26, 2007 6:31 AM EDT |
>Well, we never really did get into any serious data on climate change... Hmmm...tie it to the thread...Well, PJ will die if the planet turns into a boiling stewpot. And so... That's not as easy to do as you'd think. I've been poking around a bit. Lot's of what's out there ends at 2000 or has been manipulated to show specific stuff, etc. What got me started was a claim somebody made somewhere - I don't even remember who or where - that global warming stopped in 1998. A ten year trend is even less impressive than a 200 year trend when it comes to something like the climate, but the claim intrigued me for a couple of reasons: 1. Some Russian astrophysicists and others have claimed that we are at the beginning of a 40 year cycle of cooling due to variations in solar output. 2. It's a potential honesty check. A cycle within a cycle doesn't mean the greater trend isn't still there, but if temperatures actually go down and I continue to see people point to current events as the result of global warming, I will have a better idea of who I can trust. I also heard something today on the radio that I would like to check out, but, being on the radio and me being old and fuzzy-headed the guy's name is gone, but, apparently, some sea-level specialist has said that the UN's claims about rising sea levels is fiction designed to reap money from western nations. Something about actual observed sea levels not changing, but applying a corrective factor that makes models predict a rise. So, needless to say, I would love to find out the details on that. I would also like to see some supposed friend of the environment politician acknowledge the impact of jet contrails on warming by cutting back on private jet travel, but, I suspect that sacrifice is for the little people. |
| jrm Jun 26, 2007 7:09 AM EDT |
I believe it is unlikely that PJ will die due to climate change. Note that I said climate change and not global warming. I don't know about the Russian data, but we have ice core samples going back thousands of years, and we SHOULD be in a cooling down period. Something weird is going on with weather patterns. I believe that we're causing it, but I don't think we know enough to make accurate predictions. Some of our solutions could end up being worse than the problem. Corn-based ethanol uses a tremendous amount of water, which could come back to haunt us before climate change does. I just wish we'd stop pouring oil down the drain. > I would also like to see some supposed friend of the environment politician acknowledge the impact of jet contrails... ROFL. Yes, I noticed Gore doesn't live in a grass hut. |
| dinotrac Jun 26, 2007 7:16 AM EDT |
>Some of our solutions could end up being worse than the problem. 480000 brownie points and acknowledgement of actual intelligence. I nod in respect. >I believe that we're causing it, I think we get a little full of ourselves. Nature is awesomely powerful and we are pretty darned pitiful. Still, it's not unreasonable to think that we play a role. Besides, the sooner we stop pulling oil out of the ground just to burn it up, the better off we will be on so many levels. |
| jdixon Jun 26, 2007 7:27 AM EDT |
Ooh, global warming. OK, that I'll talk about. :) I'm what most would refer to as a global warming skeptic. I agree that there has been global warming over the past 30 or so years. However, I also remember in the 1970's when we were all being warned of the coming ice age. And I live in West Virginia, with the all to common reminders that the Appalachian mountains were once a subtropical swamp, when no people were around to generate carbon dioxide emissions. For these and numerous other reasons, I consider our being the sole cause of the recent period of warming to be unlikely, though not impossible. I consider it far more likely that it is merely a normal fluctuation, well within historical norms. News stories and articles supporting the man made global warming side of the debabe are widespread. One's questioning it are somewhat harder to find. One recent one was: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/sto... However, since my old computer recently died, and my old car had reached 125K miles, I've replaced both with more energy efficient models in the few past months. So I'm doing my bit to reduce carbon dioxide emissions anyway. Given the possibilities, there's no reason not to take simple and easy steps to do so when you can. |
| dinotrac Jun 26, 2007 8:14 AM EDT |
>So I'm doing my bit to reduce carbon dioxide emissions anyway. Good deal, and one that goes to show how tangled the whole question is. CO2 is a relatively lightweight greenhouse gas as greenhouse gases go. Methane is much more powerful. And, at the time we've seen man-made CO2 levels increase we've also seen corresponding increases in man-made methane as a result of taste for beef = cattle. Killing cows (or, if I understand correctly, altering their feed) may be more effective than reducing CO2. |
| jrm Jun 26, 2007 8:43 AM EDT |
>> Ooh, global warming. I don't know who named it that, but they helped steer the issue off course. It should be global climate change. >> I consider our being the sole cause of the recent period of warming to be unlikely, though not impossible. Now's where we come to how you interpret the data. Ice core samples provide evidence for some fairly reliable cyclical weather patterns. The patterns start deviating from expectations at about the time of the Industrial Revolution. |
| jrm Jun 26, 2007 8:43 AM EDT |
>> we've also seen corresponding increases in man-made methane as a result of taste for beef = cattle. It’s going to be extremely difficult to argue this if you continue to say things that I agree with. |
| jdixon Jun 26, 2007 10:21 AM EDT |
> It should be global climate change. Yes, it should. > The patterns start deviating from expectations at about the time of the Industrial Revolution. If you ignore discrepancies like the midieval warm period and little ice age, I'd say yes. Unfortunately, those are significant discrepancies. |
| dinotrac Jun 26, 2007 10:30 AM EDT |
>If you ignore discrepancies like the midieval warm period and little ice age, I'd say yes. Unfortunately, those are significant discrepancies. But why let the facts get in the way of a good story? Seriously, though, the discrepancies don't prove that human-influenced global warming isn't happening. They do, however, represent chinks in the "unassailable truth of human-caused climate change" that need to be understood and explained. That's what really frosts me about the current, er, climate. When people like Ellen Goodman equate people who have questions, people who have contradictory evidence, and people who want to find the truth with Holocaust deniers, we do not hae a healthy environment for ferreting out the whys, the whats, and, most important, the what-to-dos. |
| jdixon Jun 26, 2007 10:48 AM EDT |
> Seriously, though, the discrepancies don't prove that human-influenced global warming isn't happening. Agreed. > ...that need to be understood and explained. Yep. I think it likely that human beings are contributing to the current climate change. I don't think it likely that we're the sole cause. And unless we understand what's actually happening, there's the risk that any action we take could actually make things worse rather than better. |
| dinotrac Jun 26, 2007 11:01 AM EDT |
>And unless we understand what's actually happening, there's the risk that any action we take could actually make things worse rather than better.
Funny how people don't understand that concept. I wonder what would have happened had the Kyoto Accords been implemented. China is now the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gas and working hard to distance itself from the rest of the pack. China was also exempted from the Kyoto Accords (India, too -- another major fast-riser). So...If one believes that complying with the Kyoto Accords would raise the cost of manufacturing, the agreement might have had the effect of moving relatively clean and regulated industry to China and free reign to spew. In other words: Things might have gotten worse instead of better. The old saying about there being answers to complex problems that are both simple and wrong needs a companion: answers to complex problems that are both complex and mind-numbingly, stupefyingly wrong. |
| Sander_Marechal Jun 26, 2007 12:25 PM EDT |
Quoting:China was also exempted from the Kyoto Accords (India, too -- another major fast-riser). True. But Kyoto ends in 2012 and China most likely won't be exempted in it's successor. Quite the opposite. China has signed on for the 'Washington agreement' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G8+5). Nothing solid and binding but at least they're willing to work on it. |
| dinotrac Jun 26, 2007 12:41 PM EDT |
> Quite the opposite. Not quite the oppostie, but, I suppose, better than nothing. China rejects all mandatory caps on carbon emissions. China is instructive. We in the west tend to forget that most of the world isn't fully industrialized. From a non-western standpoint, I cannot imagine that it's difficult to characterize controls as a way for the rich to keep their place in the pecking order while the rest of the world stays on the outside looking in. Emissions tend to follow development and industry, and the rest of the world will want to join the party. |
You cannot post until you login.