It's for the greater good to have people, like myself, to be the voice of reason and perspective. Groupthink wont get you anywhere. You need critics like me (no matter how much you dont like to read my words) .
You've just conveniently bypassed all the other links just to point out the lone PDF file?
Are you okay?
Those who cant take a little criticism and continue to live the yes-man life, never accomplished anything.
It's for the greater good to have people, like myself, to be the voice of reason and perspective. Groupthink wont get you anywhere. You need critics like me (no matter how much you dont like to read my words) .
And you totally ignore the opportunity to explain why 20% of your "evidence" is remotely relevant. why?
So, your other links - the first is a 5,200 word article that only seems to show Groklaw (who seem to hate Mueller as much as Groklaw claims he hates Google) disagrees with a couple of his points on a scoring of the judge's response to claims construction in a Motorola v. Microsoft case. What subset of this spew proves any relevant points?
The second link only points out what we already know that Oracle is a Mueller client. I've never called him a journalist, he's a blogger just like the "authors" of this site. What point is proved here?
The third is your 136 page worthless PDF which, given the opportunity, you fail to defend.
The fourth link points out that Microsoft is his client and nothing more. The main takeaway is "it’s hard to regard him as a disinterested party." No one in these comments, least of all me, has called him a disinterested party. He's biased against Google, but that does not make him "discredited." Plenty of "journalists" are biased against Romney does that make them discredited?
The fifth shows he's not a lawyer. Who said he was a lawyer? I said he was a legal expert and as a intellectual property analyst he could easily be considered a legal expert for intellectual property cases.
So in conclusion none of your links prove any of the contested claims. You merely threw 5 links in a reply without an reference in the hopes that no one would question you. In what way is your presence on this forum for the greater good of anyone? Critics are good, your eternally worthless posts are not.
It's for the greater good to have people, like myself, to be the voice of reason and perspective. Groupthink wont get you anywhere. You need critics like me (no matter how much you dont like to read my words) .
That's awfully generous to offer your unwanted services for free!
To add another little tidbit to Moto's possible olive-leaf action, their motion to drop the entire case came about 30 minutes after Apple requested another 30 days to respond to the original filing due to complex issues.
To add another little tidbit to Moto's possible olive-leaf action, their motion to drop the entire case came about 30 minutes after Apple requested another 30 days to respond to the original filing due to complex issues.
I'm more inclined to believe it's a fig leaf action. They're trying to cover something up.
I'm more inclined to believe it's a fig leaf action. They're trying to cover something up.
Such as?
If would certainly be in line with Google's aversion to lawsuits in general (there's been very few ever filed by them). With this one now disposed of Google has not, in the entire history of their company, initiated and followed thru on any IP lawsuit against any competitor. Even this ITC filing was the first lawsuit against a tech competitor that could even remotely be claimed to have originated with them directly AFAIK.
I detect a general tone in this thread that a peace outreach from Google would be a bad thing in the view of some Apple fans. My personal guess is that some here would much rather see Google attacking Apple, justifying any action Apple takes to "protect themselves".IIRC it was just a few months ago that Hill60 and a couple of others, perhaps even you, considered Google to be talking out both sides of their mouth. That if they were serious about their statements that patent lawsuits hinder the industry it's disingenuous to continue IP lawsuits filed by Moto and thus they should drop them. Now that they've actually dropped a very substantial one in it's entirety it seems it's not welcomed, as tho something devious must be afoot.
Even Mr Mueller is of the opinion that the most simple explanation is that it's a peace offering to further encourage negotiations. Considering his general opinion of anything Google does as evil or failing, that's quite a statement IMO
I'm more inclined to believe it's a fig leaf action. They're trying to cover something up.
Olive leaves - olive branches - fig leaves ... this has degenerated into a pretty tedious discussion. Time to rake up all the dead leaves and send the pile off to compost.
No, Steve Jobs just appeared to him in a dream, four times. Young Steve, who made Schmidt feel all the pain and anguish that came from what Microsoft stole, regular Steve, who forced Schmidt to feel all the pain and anguish from what Google stole, and Future Steve, who appeared as Steve Jobs had the cancer been beaten and showed Schmidt his vision for Apple 20 years down the road.
Then regular Steve returned and showed him what the world would be like without Google: No Android whoring out stolen tech, no advertising stranglehold on privacy and personal information… It was, in every way, better. And then Steve showed him what the world would be like without Apple. Blinkenlights machines until 1980, no GUI until 1989, and that was a failed experiment that didn't become usable until '93, fast forward to October 2001 and the best PMP on the market was a portable CD player that carried three (count 'em!) CDs at once, and then to 2010 where Dell releases its new tablet computer, 7.85", 16:10 screen at 640x400, powered by Microsoft PenSight 2012, a version of Microsoft InSight (TTL's Windows analogue) that supports the use of a stylus (only) on a resistive screen. Uses Intel's lowest-power chip, the lowest-end, under-clocked 25w model, only needs one fan to cool, battery lasts two hours, and it only weighs four pounds.
Either that or someone just got some intelligence knocked into Google in a meeting and they withdrew everything. I prefer the former.
It is difficult to tell who are the shills on the internet. It is certainly possible for a person to be paid or sponsored to blog about certain subjects and still publish the facts. Expert witnesses (who are paid, BTW) in court cases are expected to do just this. I have found Mueller's blogs to be interesting, well written and substantiated. He has not failed a single crosscheck test that I have performed on his patent reporting to date.
If you have found otherwise, please let us (readers) know as, as of this date, his credibility with me is certainly higher than both of yours.
Basically... if Mueller's opinions don't favor google, these retards will automatically say that he has no credibility. But on the other hand, if he sides with Google, he is credible and has great expertise. That's the way it works with these idiots.
Basically... if Mueller's opinions don't favor google, these retards will automatically say that he has no credibility. But on the other hand, if he sides with Google, he is credible and has great expertise. That's the way it works with these idiots.
When did he ever side with Google?
EDIT: I was kinda kidding when I first wrote that but...
On further reflection I can't think of a single article from Florian Mueller over the years that ever cast Google in a positive light. Come to think of it does anyone know of even one FOSSPatents blog article that casts aspersions on Microsoft? With the hundreds of articles he's' written at FOSSpatents you'd think there would be at least one. Please link if you know of an example of either one.
It almost seems as tho he might have an agenda against Google and that heavily favors Microsoft if we didn't know better.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
It's for the greater good to have people, like myself, to be the voice of reason and perspective. Groupthink wont get you anywhere. You need critics like me (no matter how much you dont like to read my words) .
That's some case of self-delusion you have there.
You've just conveniently bypassed all the other links just to point out the lone PDF file?
Are you okay?
Those who cant take a little criticism and continue to live the yes-man life, never accomplished anything.
It's for the greater good to have people, like myself, to be the voice of reason and perspective. Groupthink wont get you anywhere. You need critics like me (no matter how much you dont like to read my words) .
And you totally ignore the opportunity to explain why 20% of your "evidence" is remotely relevant. why?So, your other links - the first is a 5,200 word article that only seems to show Groklaw (who seem to hate Mueller as much as Groklaw claims he hates Google) disagrees with a couple of his points on a scoring of the judge's response to claims construction in a Motorola v. Microsoft case. What subset of this spew proves any relevant points?
The second link only points out what we already know that Oracle is a Mueller client. I've never called him a journalist, he's a blogger just like the "authors" of this site. What point is proved here?
The third is your 136 page worthless PDF which, given the opportunity, you fail to defend.
The fourth link points out that Microsoft is his client and nothing more. The main takeaway is "it’s hard to regard him as a disinterested party." No one in these comments, least of all me, has called him a disinterested party. He's biased against Google, but that does not make him "discredited." Plenty of "journalists" are biased against Romney does that make them discredited?
The fifth shows he's not a lawyer. Who said he was a lawyer? I said he was a legal expert and as a intellectual property analyst he could easily be considered a legal expert for intellectual property cases.
So in conclusion none of your links prove any of the contested claims. You merely threw 5 links in a reply without an reference in the hopes that no one would question you. In what way is your presence on this forum for the greater good of anyone? Critics are good, your eternally worthless posts are not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
It's for the greater good to have people, like myself, to be the voice of reason and perspective. Groupthink wont get you anywhere. You need critics like me (no matter how much you dont like to read my words) .
That's awfully generous to offer your unwanted services for free!
(How do we unsubscribe?)
To add another little tidbit to Moto's possible olive-leaf action, their motion to drop the entire case came about 30 minutes after Apple requested another 30 days to respond to the original filing due to complex issues.
I'm more inclined to believe it's a fig leaf action. They're trying to cover something up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I'm more inclined to believe it's a fig leaf action. They're trying to cover something up.
Such as?
If would certainly be in line with Google's aversion to lawsuits in general (there's been very few ever filed by them). With this one now disposed of Google has not, in the entire history of their company, initiated and followed thru on any IP lawsuit against any competitor. Even this ITC filing was the first lawsuit against a tech competitor that could even remotely be claimed to have originated with them directly AFAIK.
I detect a general tone in this thread that a peace outreach from Google would be a bad thing in the view of some Apple fans. My personal guess is that some here would much rather see Google attacking Apple, justifying any action Apple takes to "protect themselves".IIRC it was just a few months ago that Hill60 and a couple of others, perhaps even you, considered Google to be talking out both sides of their mouth. That if they were serious about their statements that patent lawsuits hinder the industry it's disingenuous to continue IP lawsuits filed by Moto and thus they should drop them. Now that they've actually dropped a very substantial one in it's entirety it seems it's not welcomed, as tho something devious must be afoot.
Even Mr Mueller is of the opinion that the most simple explanation is that it's a peace offering to further encourage negotiations. Considering his general opinion of anything Google does as evil or failing, that's quite a statement IMO
Olive leaves - olive branches - fig leaves ... this has degenerated into a pretty tedious discussion. Time to rake up all the dead leaves and send the pile off to compost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
No, Steve Jobs just appeared to him in a dream, four times. Young Steve, who made Schmidt feel all the pain and anguish that came from what Microsoft stole, regular Steve, who forced Schmidt to feel all the pain and anguish from what Google stole, and Future Steve, who appeared as Steve Jobs had the cancer been beaten and showed Schmidt his vision for Apple 20 years down the road.
Then regular Steve returned and showed him what the world would be like without Google: No Android whoring out stolen tech, no advertising stranglehold on privacy and personal information… It was, in every way, better. And then Steve showed him what the world would be like without Apple. Blinkenlights machines until 1980, no GUI until 1989, and that was a failed experiment that didn't become usable until '93, fast forward to October 2001 and the best PMP on the market was a portable CD player that carried three (count 'em!) CDs at once, and then to 2010 where Dell releases its new tablet computer, 7.85", 16:10 screen at 640x400, powered by Microsoft PenSight 2012, a version of Microsoft InSight (TTL's Windows analogue) that supports the use of a stylus (only) on a resistive screen. Uses Intel's lowest-power chip, the lowest-end, under-clocked 25w model, only needs one fan to cool, battery lasts two hours, and it only weighs four pounds.
Either that or someone just got some intelligence knocked into Google in a meeting and they withdrew everything. I prefer the former.
That was just awesome!
Quote:
Originally Posted by softeky
It is difficult to tell who are the shills on the internet. It is certainly possible for a person to be paid or sponsored to blog about certain subjects and still publish the facts. Expert witnesses (who are paid, BTW) in court cases are expected to do just this. I have found Mueller's blogs to be interesting, well written and substantiated. He has not failed a single crosscheck test that I have performed on his patent reporting to date.
If you have found otherwise, please let us (readers) know as, as of this date, his credibility with me is certainly higher than both of yours.
Basically... if Mueller's opinions don't favor google, these retards will automatically say that he has no credibility. But on the other hand, if he sides with Google, he is credible and has great expertise. That's the way it works with these idiots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vqro
Basically... if Mueller's opinions don't favor google, these retards will automatically say that he has no credibility. But on the other hand, if he sides with Google, he is credible and has great expertise. That's the way it works with these idiots.
When did he ever side with Google?
EDIT: I was kinda kidding when I first wrote that but...
On further reflection I can't think of a single article from Florian Mueller over the years that ever cast Google in a positive light. Come to think of it does anyone know of even one FOSSPatents blog article that casts aspersions on Microsoft? With the hundreds of articles he's' written at FOSSpatents you'd think there would be at least one. Please link if you know of an example of either one.
It almost seems as tho he might have an agenda against Google and that heavily favors Microsoft if we didn't know better.