
Thread beginning with comment 278222
To view parent comment, click here.
RE[4]: LOL
by dylansmrjones on Sun 14th Oct 2007 19:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: LOL"
Member since:

Does it mean anything at all that MS people went to this company?

No it doesn't have to mean anything. Just because there is a sequence doesn't mean the elements are related. In order to establish relationship we need more information than just sequence. If you read my post, you'll see that I'm not basing it solely on sequence but on further analyses.

It is suspicious that execs with special knowledge on patents and patent ligitation are switching company just prior to (or at the same time as these) warnings about patent ligitation.

No. But of course, you see MS "Men in Black" around every corner and can't comprehend the fact that execs do change companies now and then.

Insults and ad hominem attacks are not valid arguments. But no, I don't see MS "Men in Black" _anywhere_. But Microsoft does have a proven track record for violating laws and stooping as low as possible to beat competitors. Of course I can comprehend people switching from one company to another, but when people with special knowledge about patents and patent ligitation switches to another company just prior to their former company warning about lawsuits against a specific company, and their new company just after that warning sues that named company, then the pattern is VERY suspicious. That this is a sequence of "coincidences" are highly unlikely, considering their knowledge, the timeframe, the warnings from Steve Ballmer, the new company's reputation as patent troll, Microsoft's past as criminal organisation with no respect for laws at all or decent behavior.

Acacia didn't just take some people. They took some people just prior to suing Red Hat. And these people have special knowledge about patents and patent ligitation and Acacia sued (through proxy) Red Hat just after Steve Ballmer warned about patent ligitation against Red Hat.

I never read slashdot. Slashdot are for GPL-fanatics and Microserfs. I read Groklaw, but Groklaw is about law and not about Microsoft or Red Hat or anything but lawsuits about software.

When Microsoft misbehaves it deserves bashing. When Red Hat misbehaves it deserves bashing. When Microsoft does something right, it deserves being applauded. Sometimes I'm against Microsoft, sometimes I'm pro-MS.

There are many posts at OSN where I defend Microsoft. There are also many posts where I bash Microsoft. Does that make me a GPL-zealot (despite being ambivalent about GPL)? Does that make me a MS-basher (despite often defending Microsoft)?

Reply Parent Score: 2