|
Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, July 25 2012 @ 01:52 PM EDT |
I concur about civility. This is a Groklaw virtue.
But I don't believe these anonymous posters want us to refine our arguments.
They are just stubbornly reiterating the same position as if repetition would
make the contents of the article go away. It distracts from reasoned discussion
and gives the comments the feel of a dumb dual monologue. "It is a new
machine. No it is not. Yes it is. No it is not." Continued ad nauseam. I
can see that this is wearing down the patience of some of the readers.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: wharris on Thursday, July 26 2012 @ 02:47 AM EDT |
Here is a key point I think you have missed based on your claim that the
anonymous posters are trying "to improve the argument".
The "argument" is extremely simple:
"Current patent case law is based on factual error."
90% of the article is a technical explanation of the nature of computers. It
attempts to strike a careful balance between being "It's not a new machine
because I say so" and being an integrated textbook for a three-year course
in Computer Engineering.
We are the experts who have created (or at a minimum have the knowledge and
ability to create) the machine that is a computer. We are the experts who have
written (or at a minimum have the knowledge and ability to write) the software
that is under discussion.
When we claim that a machine has particular capabilities, or describe precisely
the physical differences between a machine with software and a machine without
software, we are not making a legal argument; we are stating a technical truth
as expert witnesses.
Yes, we want our explanation to be as comprehensible as possible. But there
comes a point where furthur discussion is not productive, and continued
opposition should either be ignored, or if someone is sincere, then direct them
to take one or more courses in computer science and/or engineering.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|