One of these days, you'll probably get pushed sufficiently enough into the corner and....
That said, you still have not responded to my bewilderment at your massive swipe at Apple about '....courtooms they did not like....'.
Care to elaborate, or are you being coy? Or perhaps just avoiding the question?
I'm frankly surprised you weren't aware of Apple's aggressive enforcement of potential IP infringement (trademark, copyright, patent etc) which they themselves freely admit. Instead I personally think you're either choosing to ignore much of Apple's courtroom history or considering any mention of it an attack on Apple's good name. Maybe both.
IMHO it's hardly a "massive swipe" at Apple . I actually intended it a a light-hearted reference to Apple and the courtroom. They're fully within their rights to question every possible instance of another company or individual straying too close to something Apple is claiming ownership of. If that questioning means Apple chooses a legal filing so be it. But to make believe Apple is shy about resorting to the courtroom as a matter of business policy you'd have to ignore:
-Two different Federal judges in two different and recent cases, Judge Robert Scola and Judge Barbara Crabb, commenting on Apple's use of their courtroom as a negotiation tactic rather than settlement.
Controversial actions against Think Secret, various "John Does", Amazon App Store, Odioworks and the SanFrancisco Canyon Company have all been undertaken by Apple in the past few years.
So yeah, I think the evidence of how important Apple views the courtroom as a venue for helping ensure the success of their business is pretty clear. But that doesn't in any way say it's wrong either. It just is. Now if you personally consider the courts to be a last resort and legal actions as something to be studiously avoided then you might consider my mention of Apple and the courtroom as a "massive swipe" I suppose. Pretty sure Apple doesn't see it that way.
My original comment that you took umbrage with concerned the very small number of patents that Apple has chosen to use in the numerous infringement actions they've undertaken to date. Deeming the ones they haven't litigated as just as worthless as the ones that Google hasn't litigated sounds pretty darn silly doesn't it? Yet several posters seem to feel if Google ain't suing with'em they must be no good. Agree or disagree?
One of these days, you'll probably get pushed sufficiently enough into the corner and....
That said, you still have not responded to my bewilderment at your massive swipe at Apple about '....courtooms they did not like....'.
Care to elaborate, or are you being coy? Or perhaps just avoiding the question?
I'm frankly surprised you weren't aware of Apple's aggressive enforcement of potential IP infringement (trademark, copyright, patent etc) which they themselves freely admit. Instead I personally think you're either choosing to ignore much of Apple's courtroom history or considering any mention of it an attack on Apple's good name. Maybe both.
IMHO it's hardly a "massive swipe" at Apple . I actually intended it a a light-hearted reference to Apple and the courtroom. They're fully within their rights to question every possible instance of another company or individual straying too close to something Apple is claiming ownership of. If that questioning means Apple chooses a legal filing so be it. But to make believe Apple is shy about resorting to the courtroom as a matter of business policy you'd have to ignore:
-Two different Federal judges in two different and recent cases, Judge Robert Scola and Judge Barbara Crabb, commenting on Apple's use of their courtroom as a negotiation tactic rather than settlement.
Controversial actions against Think Secret, various "John Does", Amazon App Store, Odioworks and the SanFrancisco Canyon Company have all been undertaken by Apple in the past few years.
So yeah, I think the evidence of how important Apple views the courtroom as a venue for helping ensure the success of their business is pretty clear. But that doesn't in any way say it's wrong either. It just is. Now if you personally consider the courts to be a last resort and legal actions as something to be studiously avoided then you might consider my mention of Apple and the courtroom as a "massive swipe" I suppose. Pretty sure Apple doesn't see it that way.
My original comment that you took umbrage with concerned the very small number of patents that Apple has chosen to use in the numerous infringement actions they've undertaken to date. Deeming the ones they haven't litigated as just as worthless as the ones that Google hasn't litigated sounds pretty darn silly doesn't it? Yet several posters seem to feel if you aren't suing with'em they must be no good. Agree or disagree?
Typical of the biased nonsense you often post, using a cloak of 'See, I am so transparent, look at all the links and cites! Whee!...'
Why don't you do a similar analysis for Google, Amazon, Samsung, and Microsoft in their respective domain of expertise and tell us whether Apple's affection for lawsuits and courtrooms is better, the same or worse? Can you refute the assertion that Apple might be less prone to this sort of behavior than any of the others?
Add: Your last para (and the question there) makes no sense to me at all.
Typical of the biased nonsense you often post, using a cloak of 'See, I am so transparent, look at all the links and cites! Whee!...'
Why don't you do a similar analysis for Google
As you asked:
One Federal Judge (Scola) was of the opinion that neither Apple nor Motorola Mobility were really interested in settling their lawsuit but instead using it as part of a business negotiation.
Figured I'd tackle the shortest list first. Pretty sure I'll discover Microsoft actions are at least as numerous as Apple's, maybe more. Better yet rather than depending on me to do your research for you look into it for yourself. What better to trust than your own eyes and research skills.
Based on your reply you appear to consider taking legal action against other companies to be something to be looked down on but yet a necessary evil and all the big techs are just as evil as another? That's really the only thing I'm getting from you.
Apple don't promote themselves as being against patents and the protection of IP.
Google does with lobbying and whining to the media every chance they get.
It's Google's hypocrisy that is the issue.
So you believe patent privateering and NPE's in general something to be encouraged? That's what I've seen Google most vocally lobbying against on the patent front. Perhaps you've heard something different? Feel free to educate me.
So is there a newsletter that goes out each month with anti-Google talking points so a few blogs can all get on the same page? I've no issue at all with supported validated complaints. I even share them on occasion. I don't see any big corporation as a shining star and beacon of truth for the world, whether Google or anyone else (See my earlier post of issues with Google).
With that said some of the accusations have near-zero factual basis, or at least the poster doesn't feel they need to be bothered to offer something resembling evidence for their claim. Perhaps the idea is that by repeating disinformation often enough it becomes an accepted fact? It's too easy to repeat something you heard who knows where. It's a little harder to take a look for yourself.
If you're really interested in learning, sharing knowledge, and factual information I would think you'd encourage questioning posts rather than pushing group-think. I'm aware of a couple of educators here who if they consider that comment will probably agree with me whether they voice it or not.
First, note that the methodology is quite careful, not some random stuff pulled out of his wherever, like yours is: the author “…wrote a perl script called the litig-o-meter that searches google scholar for lawsuits involving specific companies. It graphs how many cases the companies have been involved in every year; whether those cases were at the circuit, appellate, or supreme court level; and whether the company was the plaintiff or the defendant. Essentially, it does a search for “allintitle: [company name]” of federal court cases and interprets the results.”
Second he’s very careful with his disclaimers and limitations, but also notes why it is unlikely to pose an issue here.
His main conclusion? (Brace yourself.) “Apple is even more startling. Whereas both Google and Microsoft average around 40 major lawsuits a year, Apple has only 4! This is despite the fact that Apple is a larger company than both Google and Microsoft by total assets, market capitalization, net income, and many other measures. In fact, out of the 20 companies that I analyzed, Apple had by far the fewest lawsuits of all of them. So, despitelotsofpressaboutApple’srecentlawsuits, they’re actually historically a very non-litigious company. So, props Apple! We need more companies like you.”
Sure, you’ll respond by saying it does not cover 2012 and 2013. But it’s incumbent upon you to show us (with equivalently careful analysis) that things somehow did a 180-degree with Apple after 2011.
If you’re unable to provide equivalent counter-evidence, I truly hope you’ll stop with your persistent, annoying-- and frequently wrong -- anti-Apple, pro-Google crap.
First, note that the methodology is quite careful, not some random stuff pulled out of his wherever, like yours is: the author “…wrote aperl script called the litig-o-meter that searches google scholar for lawsuits involving specific companies. It graphs how many cases the companies have been involved in every year; whether those cases were at the circuit, appellate, or supreme court level; and whether the company was the plaintiff or the defendant. Essentially, it does a search for “allintitle: [company name]” of federal court cases and interprets the results.” Second he’s very careful with his disclaimers and limitations, but also notes why it is unlikely to pose an issue here. His main conclusion? (Brace yourself.) “Apple is even more startling. Whereas both Google and Microsoft average around 40 major lawsuits a year, Apple has only 4! This is despite the fact that Apple is a larger company than both Google and Microsoft by total assets, market capitalization, net income, and many other measures. In fact, out of the 20 companies that I analyzed, Apple had by far the fewest lawsuits of all of them. So, despitelotsofpressaboutApple’srecentlawsuits, they’re actually historically a very non-litigious company. So, props Apple! We need more companies like you.” Sure, you’ll respond by saying it does not cover 2012 and 2013. But it’s incumbent upon you to show us (with equivalently careful analysis) that things somehow did a 180-degree with Apple after 2011. If you’re unable to provide equivalent counter-evidence, I truly hope you’ll stop with your persistent, annoying-- and frequently wrong -- anti-Apple, pro-Google crap.
Well I suppose once you can blind yourself enough to get past the author's basing his conclusion on the premise that Apple was the plaintiff in only two lawsuits over 11 years :err: the rest of it should go down much smoother. IMO spit instead of swallow would be a good policy with that particular piece.
FWIW if I use the same 2000-2011 timeframe the author did and searching for Apple involvement in case law via Google Scholar just as he claimed to have done I come up with far more than 4 instances. Here ya go, try it for yourself. Careful methodology my #** http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=apple&hl=en&as_sdt=40006&as_ylo=2000&as_yhi=2011
Well I suppose once you can blind yourself enough to get past the author's basing his conclusion on the premise that Apple was the plaintiff in only two lawsuits over 11 years the rest of it should go down much smoother. IMO spit instead of swallow would be a good policy with that particular piece.
FWIW if I use the same 2000-2011 timeframe the author did and searching for Apple involvement in case law via Google Scholar just as he claimed to have done I come up with far more than 4 instances. Here ya go, try it for yourself. Careful methodology my #**
C’mon, you’re surely better than that, Gatorguy. What about the phrase ‘per year’ in the 40 v. 4 did you not understand? Yikes.
His methodology is quite simple and explicit: he focuses on published judicial opinions. There were two involving Apple as plaintiff. Yours is a laundry list of any and all. (Incidentally, can you show us a similar google.scholar list for Google, MSFT, AMZN?)
Note that this guy’s hardly partial to Apple: he’s a Linux/Android user (again, read).
Finally, if you’re telling me that that a 10:1 ratio for Google v. Apple – as long as it’s a carefully measured, consistent metric that’s being used as opposed to your random, pulled-out-of-some-orifice, seemingly agenda-driven ‘methodology’ – does not tell us something about a company’s proclivity for litigiousness, ‘my ass’ is a right sentiment indeed.
Add: One more thing. Considering Google wasn't even a public company until late-2004, a fair comparison would perhaps be in the first ~10 years of their public lives as a corporation (or at a minimum, from end-2004 and on for Apple).
Amant, even [B]IF[/B] (notice the big IF) you accept the author's original assertion (note his later claification quoted for you below) that published case law is an accurate measuring stick for a companies overall level of litigiousness there's no explanation of why that should be the case Further a simple year by year search reveals many more than 4 per year. You can get to the count of four in just one page of yearly results and ignore the others.
So since you apparently must have missed the authors followup comment when just that issue was brought up I'll post it for you:
[B]"You’re right that Apple has sued way more than two companies in the last 11 years. What I tried to show is that there’s only been 2 published judicial opinions about their lawsuits. Likewise, both Microsoft and Google have sued many more times than is listed here.[SIZE=4] I’m hoping that the number of published opinions is roughly proportional[/SIZE] to the total number of lawsuits, and that’s what I’m basing my conclusions off of. [SIZE=4]But like I say in the disclaimer, that may be way off base.[/SIZE]"[/B]
Yet you want to proclaim that his "study" was carefully considered and his conclusions beyond question based on solid methodology.. Sure they are. All you have to do is ignore what he himself says about the reliability of his conclusions.
It appears he never used his "litig-o-meter" again. It was a silly piece with a flawed premise when you first brought it up and several posts later it's still a silly piece with claims that rely on accepting a leap of faith.
You have to have missed the big egg in his chart for Apple showing the number of cases where they were plaintiff or defendant. It clearly shows his carefully crafted litig-o-meter :rolleyes: only found two cases of Apple as the plaintiff from 2000-2011. And you fell for that? That should'a been a big ol' clue that something wasn't quite right. If it was wrong there what made you believe it was right everywhere else and led to a clear and accurate conclusion?
Amant, even IF (notice the big IF) you accept the author's original assertion (note his later claification quoted for you below) that published case law is an accurate measuring stick for a companies overall level of litigiousness there's no explanation of why that should be the case Further a simple year by year search reveals many more than 4 per year. You can get to the count of four in just one page of yearly results and ignore the others.
So since you apparently must have missed the authors followup comment when just that issue was brought up I'll post it for you:
"You’re right that Apple has sued way more than two companies in the last 11 years. What I tried to show is that there’s only been 2 published judicial opinions about their lawsuits. Likewise, both Microsoft and Google have sued many more times than is listed here. I’m hoping that the number of published opinions is roughly proportional to the total number of lawsuits, and that’s what I’m basing my conclusions off of. But like I say in the disclaimer, that may be way off base."
Yet you want to proclaim that his "study" was carefully considered and his conclusions beyond question based on solid methodology.. Sure they are. All you have to do is ignore what he himself says about the reliability of his conclusions.
It appears he never used his "litig-o-meter" again. It was a silly piece with a flawed premise when you first brought it up and several posts later it's still a silly piece with claims that rely on accepting a leap of faith.
You started it with your nonsensical assertion.
Come up with something better then to back up your assertion, before you throw around claims like Apple is some ridiculously lawsuit-hungry, 'courtroom-loving' company, when the truth could well be that it's Google that fits that bill.
At a minimum, go back to your own Google Scholar search, and do a count of the actual case numbers, adjusted for equivalent time periods, if nothing else. Of course, I don't expect you to.
Do you believe there's a direct correlation between mentions and the volume of lawsuits filed by any company? How many lawsuits do you assume for each judicial ruling counted? How does a count of judicial opinions define the importance of a courtroom to a companys business planning? If it doesn't why bother with busy work that accomplishes nothing? I don't believe you've actually thought thru whether or how one relates to the other.
What do you think that count would prove? Are you still of the belief that counting case law is evidence of how important filing lawsuits is to a company's business planning? Do you believe there's even a direct correlation between mentions and the volume of lawsuits filed by any company? How many lawsuits do you assume for each judicial ruling counted? If there's not one why bother with busy work that accomplishes nothing?
Stop the tripe. You're just adding to your blather at this point. Perhaps you'll think a bit more before you post the next time (although I doubt it).
I am done wasting my time with you in this thread.
Comments
I'm frankly surprised you weren't aware of Apple's aggressive enforcement of potential IP infringement (trademark, copyright, patent etc) which they themselves freely admit. Instead I personally think you're either choosing to ignore much of Apple's courtroom history or considering any mention of it an attack on Apple's good name. Maybe both.
IMHO it's hardly a "massive swipe" at Apple . I actually intended it a a light-hearted reference to Apple and the courtroom. They're fully within their rights to question every possible instance of another company or individual straying too close to something Apple is claiming ownership of. If that questioning means Apple chooses a legal filing so be it. But to make believe Apple is shy about resorting to the courtroom as a matter of business policy you'd have to ignore:
-Two different Federal judges in two different and recent cases, Judge Robert Scola and Judge Barbara Crabb, commenting on Apple's use of their courtroom as a negotiation tactic rather than settlement.
-Fully 70% or more of the citations noted in the "smartphone wars history" involve Apple.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_patent_wars
-Around 400 Apple legal actions with the USPTO just between 2010 and 2013, most involving perceived threats to Apple trademarks.
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pnam=Apple Inc. &page=16
Controversial actions against Think Secret, various "John Does", Amazon App Store, Odioworks and the SanFrancisco Canyon Company have all been undertaken by Apple in the past few years.
So yeah, I think the evidence of how important Apple views the courtroom as a venue for helping ensure the success of their business is pretty clear. But that doesn't in any way say it's wrong either. It just is. Now if you personally consider the courts to be a last resort and legal actions as something to be studiously avoided then you might consider my mention of Apple and the courtroom as a "massive swipe" I suppose. Pretty sure Apple doesn't see it that way.
My original comment that you took umbrage with concerned the very small number of patents that Apple has chosen to use in the numerous infringement actions they've undertaken to date. Deeming the ones they haven't litigated as just as worthless as the ones that Google hasn't litigated sounds pretty darn silly doesn't it? Yet several posters seem to feel if Google ain't suing with'em they must be no good. Agree or disagree?
Typical of the biased nonsense you often post, using a cloak of 'See, I am so transparent, look at all the links and cites! Whee!...'
Why don't you do a similar analysis for Google, Amazon, Samsung, and Microsoft in their respective domain of expertise and tell us whether Apple's affection for lawsuits and courtrooms is better, the same or worse? Can you refute the assertion that Apple might be less prone to this sort of behavior than any of the others?
Add: Your last para (and the question there) makes no sense to me at all.
As you asked:
One Federal Judge (Scola) was of the opinion that neither Apple nor Motorola Mobility were really interested in settling their lawsuit but instead using it as part of a business negotiation.
Legal citations in the "smartphone wars" mentioning Google including those involving Motorola Mobility since Apple's takeover? Less than 6%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_patent_wars
Number of controversial IP lawsuits filed by Google in their company history? None that I know of
Number of new active lawsuits from Motorola Mobility since the Google takeover? None that I know of
Number of patent lawsuits filed by Google in their company history? One (British Telecom) that I know of
Number of Google legal actions with the USPTO in the same 2010-2013 timeframe, most involving perceived threats to Google trademarks? 1/4 as many, about 100.
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?procstatus=All&pn=Google&qt=adv&page=4
Figured I'd tackle the shortest list first. Pretty sure I'll discover Microsoft actions are at least as numerous as Apple's, maybe more. Better yet rather than depending on me to do your research for you look into it for yourself.
Based on your reply you appear to consider taking legal action against other companies to be something to be looked down on but yet a necessary evil and all the big techs are just as evil as another? That's really the only thing I'm getting from you.
blah blah blah
Apple don't promote themselves as being against patents and the protection of IP.
Google does with lobbying and whining to the media every chance they get.
It's Google's hypocrisy that is the issue.
So you believe patent privateering and NPE's in general something to be encouraged? That's what I've seen Google most vocally lobbying against on the patent front. Perhaps you've heard something different? Feel free to educate me.
So is there a newsletter that goes out each month with anti-Google talking points so a few blogs can all get on the same page? I've no issue at all with supported validated complaints. I even share them on occasion. I don't see any big corporation as a shining star and beacon of truth for the world, whether Google or anyone else (See my earlier post of issues with Google).
With that said some of the accusations have near-zero factual basis, or at least the poster doesn't feel they need to be bothered to offer something resembling evidence for their claim. Perhaps the idea is that by repeating disinformation often enough it becomes an accepted fact? It's too easy to repeat something you heard who knows where. It's a little harder to take a look for yourself.
If you're really interested in learning, sharing knowledge, and factual information I would think you'd encourage questioning posts rather than pushing group-think. I'm aware of a couple of educators here who if they consider that comment will probably agree with me whether they voice it or not.
OK, here’s some actual evidence, comparing Microsoft, Google, and Apple, as of end-2011: http://izbicki.me/blog/measuring-corporate-evilness-by-scraping-litigation-results-from-google-scholar
First, note that the methodology is quite careful, not some random stuff pulled out of his wherever, like yours is: the author “…wrote a perl script called the litig-o-meter that searches google scholar for lawsuits involving specific companies. It graphs how many cases the companies have been involved in every year; whether those cases were at the circuit, appellate, or supreme court level; and whether the company was the plaintiff or the defendant. Essentially, it does a search for “allintitle: [company name]” of federal court cases and interprets the results.”
Second he’s very careful with his disclaimers and limitations, but also notes why it is unlikely to pose an issue here.
His main conclusion? (Brace yourself.) “Apple is even more startling. Whereas both Google and Microsoft average around 40 major lawsuits a year, Apple has only 4! This is despite the fact that Apple is a larger company than both Google and Microsoft by total assets, market capitalization, net income, and many other measures. In fact, out of the 20 companies that I analyzed, Apple had by far the fewest lawsuits of all of them. So, despite lots of press about Apple’s recent lawsuits, they’re actually historically a very non-litigious company. So, props Apple! We need more companies like you.”
Sure, you’ll respond by saying it does not cover 2012 and 2013. But it’s incumbent upon you to show us (with equivalently careful analysis) that things somehow did a 180-degree with Apple after 2011.
If you’re unable to provide equivalent counter-evidence, I truly hope you’ll stop with your persistent, annoying-- and frequently wrong -- anti-Apple, pro-Google crap.
See above.
"If we don't copy it, boy are we screwed" Google.
...and it came to pass that they did, using bullshit "open" marketing spin to justify their wholesale theft of Apple, Oracle and Microsoft's IP.
Well I suppose once you can blind yourself enough to get past the author's basing his conclusion on the premise that Apple was the plaintiff in only two lawsuits over 11 years :err: the rest of it should go down much smoother. IMO spit instead of swallow would be a good policy with that particular piece.
FWIW if I use the same 2000-2011 timeframe the author did and searching for Apple involvement in case law via Google Scholar just as he claimed to have done I come up with far more than 4 instances. Here ya go, try it for yourself. Careful methodology my #**
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=apple&hl=en&as_sdt=40006&as_ylo=2000&as_yhi=2011
To be specific, any Apple products without the Samsung product label on the case...?
Well I suppose once you can blind yourself enough to get past the author's basing his conclusion on the premise that Apple was the plaintiff in only two lawsuits over 11 years
FWIW if I use the same 2000-2011 timeframe the author did and searching for Apple involvement in case law via Google Scholar just as he claimed to have done I come up with far more than 4 instances. Here ya go, try it for yourself. Careful methodology my #**
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=apple&hl=en&as_sdt=40006&as_ylo=2000&as_yhi=2011
C’mon, you’re surely better than that, Gatorguy. What about the phrase ‘per year’ in the 40 v. 4 did you not understand? Yikes.
His methodology is quite simple and explicit: he focuses on published judicial opinions. There were two involving Apple as plaintiff. Yours is a laundry list of any and all. (Incidentally, can you show us a similar google.scholar list for Google, MSFT, AMZN?)
Note that this guy’s hardly partial to Apple: he’s a Linux/Android user (again, read).
Finally, if you’re telling me that that a 10:1 ratio for Google v. Apple – as long as it’s a carefully measured, consistent metric that’s being used as opposed to your random, pulled-out-of-some-orifice, seemingly agenda-driven ‘methodology’ – does not tell us something about a company’s proclivity for litigiousness, ‘my ass’ is a right sentiment indeed.
Add: One more thing. Considering Google wasn't even a public company until late-2004, a fair comparison would perhaps be in the first ~10 years of their public lives as a corporation (or at a minimum, from end-2004 and on for Apple).
So since you apparently must have missed the authors followup comment when just that issue was brought up I'll post it for you:
[B]"You’re right that Apple has sued way more than two companies in the last 11 years. What I tried to show is that there’s only been 2 published judicial opinions about their lawsuits. Likewise, both Microsoft and Google have sued many more times than is listed here.[SIZE=4] I’m hoping that the number of published opinions is roughly proportional[/SIZE] to the total number of lawsuits, and that’s what I’m basing my conclusions off of. [SIZE=4]But like I say in the disclaimer, that may be way off base.[/SIZE]"[/B]
Yet you want to proclaim that his "study" was carefully considered and his conclusions beyond question based on solid methodology.. Sure they are.
It appears he never used his "litig-o-meter" again. It was a silly piece with a flawed premise when you first brought it up and several posts later it's still a silly piece with claims that rely on accepting a leap of faith.
You have to have missed the big egg in his chart for Apple showing the number of cases where they were plaintiff or defendant. It clearly shows his carefully crafted litig-o-meter :rolleyes: only found two cases of Apple as the plaintiff from 2000-2011. And you fell for that? That should'a been a big ol' clue that something wasn't quite right. If it was wrong there what made you believe it was right everywhere else and led to a clear and accurate conclusion?
Amant, even IF (notice the big IF) you accept the author's original assertion (note his later claification quoted for you below) that published case law is an accurate measuring stick for a companies overall level of litigiousness there's no explanation of why that should be the case Further a simple year by year search reveals many more than 4 per year. You can get to the count of four in just one page of yearly results and ignore the others.
So since you apparently must have missed the authors followup comment when just that issue was brought up I'll post it for you:
"You’re right that Apple has sued way more than two companies in the last 11 years. What I tried to show is that there’s only been 2 published judicial opinions about their lawsuits. Likewise, both Microsoft and Google have sued many more times than is listed here. I’m hoping that the number of published opinions is roughly proportional to the total number of lawsuits, and that’s what I’m basing my conclusions off of. But like I say in the disclaimer, that may be way off base."
Yet you want to proclaim that his "study" was carefully considered and his conclusions beyond question based on solid methodology.. Sure they are.
It appears he never used his "litig-o-meter" again. It was a silly piece with a flawed premise when you first brought it up and several posts later it's still a silly piece with claims that rely on accepting a leap of faith.
You started it with your nonsensical assertion.
Come up with something better then to back up your assertion, before you throw around claims like Apple is some ridiculously lawsuit-hungry, 'courtroom-loving' company, when the truth could well be that it's Google that fits that bill.
At a minimum, go back to your own Google Scholar search, and do a count of the actual case numbers, adjusted for equivalent time periods, if nothing else. Of course, I don't expect you to.
....a silly piece with claims that rely on accepting a leap of faith.
That had to to be greatest laugh-getter of this whole thread, considering that every one of your assertions is spurious.
Hmmm.. You conveniently ignored Post #74.
Do you believe there's a direct correlation between mentions and the volume of lawsuits filed by any company? How many lawsuits do you assume for each judicial ruling counted? How does a count of judicial opinions define the importance of a courtroom to a companys business planning? If it doesn't why bother with busy work that accomplishes nothing? I don't believe you've actually thought thru whether or how one relates to the other.
Stop the tripe. You're just adding to your blather at this point. Perhaps you'll think a bit more before you post the next time (although I doubt it).
I am done wasting my time with you in this thread.