|
Authored by: stegu on Sunday, September 09 2012 @ 12:42 PM EDT |
When you put forward a strongly dissenting
point of view that is as uninformed and badly
argued as yours, then it does at least make
you indistinguishable from a troll.
You are free to express your opinion, but
if you want to be taken seriously, you need
to do better. As an example, let me point to
what I, having followed this case rather more
closely than what you seem to have, found
"trollish" about your post:
> I think the jury foreman explained that the
> systems were not interchangeable and
> thus it couldn't be prior art.
He did "explain" that, but he was dead wrong.
There is nothing about "interchangeability" in
the law for prior art, nor in the documents of
this case. He also interpreted the term in a
very strange and narrow way that seems
specifically tailored to his purpose of shooting
down any prior art and defending Apple's patents.
What he said would mean that "if it wouldn't work
as is on an iPhone, it is not prior art". The
consequence of that would be to also say "if it
doesn't work as is on an iPhone, it does not
infringe", but he certainly did not do that.
His double standards in this were pointed
out earlier in these discussions.
If you had read anything of what has been written
here before, including the article you were
commenting on, you would have seen this and
not trusted the foreman's word. He is, to put
it bluntly, a moron who overstepped his authority
by a large margin and messed up big time.
> It turns out interchangeable does not mean
> "cannot run on Apple's system".
> Instead it means the two systems produce a
> different outcome, regardless of where its run.
Taken literally, this sentence contradicts
itself and does not make any sense at all.
Guessing what you probably meant and inserting
a "not" before "interchangeable", you may be
right.
> So the foreman was right in his thinking if
> the meaning of interchangeble is what
> I've been led to believe it is.
This is a "non sequitur", a conclusion that
simply does not follow from your argument
above. (If we are to insert that missing "not",
and believe that you are trying to make sense.)
If the foreman was wrong about how to judge
the validity of the prior art, his conclusions
based on those assumptions are also wrong.
From earlier articles on this I learned that
there is nothing in the law or in the case
that requires prior art to be "interchangeable"
to be valid. That is a fabrication of the jury
foreman, who forced it on his peers.
> It just that PJ isn't happy with the outcome
> of this trial and would like to interchange
> it with the Oracle / Google case which was
> more to his liking. He is just biased, even
> more so than the jury foreman, if he was
> biased at all.
First, not taking enough care to read enough
on Groklaw to know that PJ is a woman before
you post an aggressive comment about her makes
you look like an idiot. It does not help your
argument, but that is a bit beside the point.
More to the point, it is very clear that PJ
(and most of us who comment here) dislike the
decision of the jury, but the arguments why
it is wrong run a whole lot deeper than mere
unsubstantiated opinions and whining.
Once again, if you had taken any care at all
to read what this case has been about before
you posted, you would have seen that very
clearly.
The troll score of your comment is high,
hence our dismissal of you as being a troll.
If you want to come across as a real person
and have a real discussion with people who
do not agree with you, you really need to
do better than this. You are certainly
most welcome to try. We will listen.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|