Amazon Has To Pay Microsoft To Use Linux?
from the fud-fud-fud-fud dept
Every few years, Microsoft tries to convince the world that Linux violates its patents. Usually the company gives some arbitrary number of patents. However, when asked to show proof, the company goes quiet. It's the usual FUD. Last year was the first time the issue ever actually showed up in a lawsuit, when Microsoft sued TomTom, but for the most part, it's still not clear what about Linux infringes on Microsoft patents. Still, that doesn't mean Microsoft can't use such FUD to get others to pay up. The latest is that Amazon and Microsoft have done a patent cross-licensing deal. These sorts of "we won't sue you, if you don't sue us" deals are pretty common in the tech world, and hardly noteworthy, other than the fact that apparently some of the patents Amazon are getting protected against being sued over -- concern how it uses Linux:The deal covers both Amazon's Kindle product as well as the company's use of Linux-based servers.Even though it's a straight cross-licensing deal,
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If you don't think I diagrammed the entire sales process out a year ago for another company, you're wrong.
What patents? Oh yes... what patents. Existing documented and well defined art. Amazon is a little richer, and Microsoft is a little poorer. Accept it as such.
Why did Microsoft fire me? Oh yes, because I should have worked for Steve Ballmer. Have fun with that patent portfolio, guys.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So just see it for what it is: Perhaps Microsoft wants to get into the end-user fulfillment business.
Just let that sit for a while...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore
FTA: "Amazon will pay Microsoft an undisclosed amount of money" ... and that's in sentence 2.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore
Either way they have their challenges be it logical, temporal, or material. Question is if they actually believe in their heart that they will acquire what they seek.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore
By the way, SWAKWHTA, considering that you were caught making multiple mistakes of not having read my posts before criticizing me, you might want to tone down the snark when catching me missing a minor point like that. Just in the last couple of weeks, you falsely claimed a judge said something that I never said -- and even after multiple people called you on it, you still kept pretending I had said something I never said. Then, more recently, you accused me of saying revenue when I meant units -- but when I presented the actual numbers to prove that when I said revenue I meant revenue, you suddenly refused to admit you were wrong.
It's ok. People make mistakes. I missed that one sentence, but it's now been corrected. I appreciate you pointing out my error (especially since it makes the point of the story even stronger!). You might return the favor and admit it when you're shown to be wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You need to dig deeper
The lawsuit against TomTom wasn't about Linux. I'm pretty sure that it was about the TomTom devices using a Microsoft filesystem in their software without licensing it first. But don't let that stop you when you're talking about FUD.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore
As I said -- and then proved with numbers -- it was revenue. The fact that Peter screwed up at one point in his own post said units didn't change the fact that it was revenue all along. You used the fact that he screwed up in his post to imply that I screwed up. I did not. I said revenue, meant revenue, and never said anything else.
And you still haven't admitted that you were wrong. Stunning. Really, really stunning.
Dude, just say it: you were wrong, just like you were wrong when you pretended I said a judge said something, which I never said in my post.
The more you protest, the sillier you look. I realize that, in your business, you lose money every time you admit you were wrong (which is why you still won't admit who you are, because it would be shameful to connect your name to all of the incorrect and blatantly false statements you've been making on Techdirt the past few weeks) but since you still think you're anonymous on this site, go ahead and admit it. You were wrong. Multiple times. And got called on it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore
Wow. Chill out a bit. Peter's overall post wasn't wrong. Everything in his post was correct, except at one point he accidentally called revenue "units." But the numbers and the point were all correct -- which I double checked and posted.
And yet you kept insisting that *I* got confused and said revenue when the reality was units. I showed you that you were wrong. Yes, Peter referred to revenue as units once, and he was mistaken, but the numbers he used was correct.
Should I not link to a blog post because the author of that blog post made a typo?
Honestly, compared to the mistakes you make nearly every time you comment here, Peter's mistake (substituting the word "units" when he meant "revenue" -- which was pretty clear to anyone who actually read the full post or looked at the actual numbers, as I did) is pretty minor.
Not sure why it made you explode, though I guess it's quite telling that you'd rather start screaming than admit that you were wrong. I had a girlfriend like that once.
Once again, you can just admit you were wrong. I'm assuming you're a functioning adult (even if you seem to break out schoolyard insults like "retarded" and "dense" at me). Apologizing when wrong is what adults do. You can do it. Really. We're all waiting now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You need to dig deeper
Don't let that stop you jumping the gun.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore
and amusing as it is that you criticize me for not responding, you abandoned the thread about the judge's ruling that you were definitely wrong about. in your post, you laid out all the steps needed to find the arbitration clause and then you said "this is all very legal." when i pointed out that florida's standard for incorporation by reference is a lot higher than that, you were quick to backtrack on your wording and say it was merely finding the terms "via" a website. you were wrong, and in your failed attempt to mitigate, you just looked even sillier.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How much do they want for each use of Linux - $699 ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Linux
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If I go out and buy a server running Linux it's not my issue if it using Microsoft patents. The maker of the Linux should be sued. Redhat etc.
So why is Amazon paying?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore
http://xkcd.com/386/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Web_Services
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore
It's better to use asterisks to emphasise, or use italics, or try to actually say something useful.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The epitome of monopoly
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
go to your room ...
If you don't like it here you can go away ... you only need to be right when it comes to people who know you & care about your opinion ...
But I believe that you are here because we give you the attention that you crave. It is entirely possible that like an addict or an alcoholic you have been abandoned by anyone who knows you personally because you are such a drag.
The opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and in no way reflect the thoughts & feelings of any other user of the internet. If you were in the same room as me you'd know that I just stuck my tongue out at you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
On EC2 Linux/Unix instances are cheaper than Windows
Ouch
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cross Licensing
Instinctively I just feel like this shows how useless software patents are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: go to your room ...
Maybe we could get rid of him with some Vinegar and water?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The epitome of monopoly
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I don't want to start yet another flamewar here, but it needed to be pointed-out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Flamewar averted?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore
You are wrong, and if you don't shut your trap, I will make a lampshade out of your sorry hide.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You need to dig deeper
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore
also, if someone doesn't respond to a post that is now days back, did you ever think it might be because some of us have real jobs that don't entail responding to some internet tabloid's incorrect statements?
First, what's with the repeated insult throwing? Look, I know we caught you being wrong, but can we discuss stuff like adults?
Second, yes, of course I assume at some point a thread peters out and people will no longer respond. But that's not what we're talking about. In this case, in future threads I pointed you back to that mistake, and you simply ignored it. So no one is saying that you had to respond, but once it was pointed out to you that you made a big mistake, were proven wrong, and yet insisted on repeating your falsehood, at some point most people will admit they made a mistake.
Except you apparently.
and amusing as it is that you criticize me for not responding, you abandoned the thread about the judge's ruling that you were definitely wrong about
No, that's simply incorrect, yet again (you're making a habit of this, and it's not pretty). It was pointed out to you, in great detail, both by myself and a bunch of other commenters on that thread, that you claimed I said something which I most certainly did not.
I stopped commenting on that thread when it reached the level of you repeating your false claim over and over again, despite me and many others clearly pointing out to you that I had not said what you claimed I had said.
in your post, you laid out all the steps needed to find the arbitration clause and then you said "this is all very legal." when i pointed out that florida's standard for incorporation by reference is a lot higher than that, you were quick to backtrack on your wording and say it was merely finding the terms "via" a website. you were wrong, and in your failed attempt to mitigate, you just looked even sillier.
And now you're repeating your false claim, rather than admitting you were wrong in that post as well.
I laid out a series of steps, and pointed out that "this is all very legal," which was clearly supported by the text of the source I was citing, which I repeated to you, listing out the cases.
What you then said, incorrectly, was that I must have been referring to what the judge ruled in a different case, even though I said no such thing -- and even explained quite clearly why that particular case *was different*. Yet, you still continued to insist I had said something that I clearly had not said.
And you are doing so again.
And you still haven't admitted you were wrong on this topic or the one where you falsely said I screwed up units and revenue.
You are an amazing specimen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Now that SCO is essentially dead, they have to do their own dirty work.
Another problem with these big company cross licensing deals is they create massive barriers for entry for new companies.
Software patents are a horrible stifling of innovation and competition.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore
And you still can't even admit you were wrong. I'm speechless.
You were wrong. You can admit it. Really. You claimed I mixed up revenue and units, I did not. You were called on it, and you insisted I had. I presented you with the numbers... and you disappeared. Yet I pointed it out to you in later threads -- including this one -- and you are still standing by your totally incorrect claim.
And now we called you on it and you screamed in response (yes, capital letters are well established as screaming, and since you claim to know what you're talking about on internet issues, I know you know that).
And yet... still no admission that you were wrong.
Frankly, I'm amazed at the lengths you will go to to avoid a simply statement. Here, I'll even help you out: "Mike, I'm sorry, you were right. I was overzealous in trying to prove you wrong, and I misread your posts."
It's not hard.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Since they take code from BSD, I'm not so sure they would be too quick to go after software infringing parties. Unless it comes to design or something to do with iTunes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore
no. that's NOT what the judge said. you're saying that some document multiple steps away by mere weblinks is "all very legal." you cited the bna article for that assertion (which cited the court opinion). neither the court opinion, nor the bna article stand for the assertion that "this" (being the multiple steps) "is all very legal." you are the only one who said that. the judge did not. otoole from bna did not. incorporation by reference in florida is a much higher standard than that. the most obscure reference for notice in the cases listed was a case referencing some ToS on a clearly labeled sheet directing the user to a specific agreement on a specific page. none of them talked about a paper which leads to a webpage which leads to another webpage which has a link at the bottom which leads to another webpage. on top of all this, a ruling that "this is all very legal" would be a judgment on the merits, and this was clearly a procedural ruling.
it's even funnier that you are relying on statements by other non-lawyers who also have no idea what they're talking about. truth by consensus only works when the agreeing majority is qualified to formulate an informed opinion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore
Wow. Look man. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I'm just stunned. I didn't say that's what the *judge in this case said*. You keep pretending I did, and just did so *again*. It's really stunning. I was no referring to that particular case, because *that* case had a specific fact pattern that was different from what I laid out.
But what I laid out *is* supported in the case law -- which is what I said.
The fact that you immediately go back to "that's NOT what the judge" said is stunning, because I never said that's what the judge said.
I give up. I am *stunned* by the way that you still haven't apologized and admitted you were wrong for the other situation. On this particular issue, I can see that you have it in your mind that I implied what the judge said, even as I said no such thing. I'm willing to chalk that up to a difference of opinion. But on the other one, where you falsely claimed I screwed up units and revenue, when I did not, you were blatantly shown to be wrong, and yet you still won't admit it and apologize. Frankly, it's really amazing. You're beyond the pale. I've never seen someone so afraid to admit he was wrong.
it's even funnier that you are relying on statements by other non-lawyers who also have no idea what they're talking about. truth by consensus only works when the agreeing majority is qualified to formulate an informed opinion.
It's not truth by consensus. First, other lawyers *do* agree with me. Some of the comments in that thread were from lawyers. Second, the point wasn't a *legal* issue but one of basic reading comprehension. You falsely claimed I made a statement about what the judge said. You were wrong. And anyone (you don't have to be a lawyer) could read it and see that you were wrong. And they all called you on it. And your response is that only lawyers can tell you when you make a false statement? Wow. You're incredible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
uh, because amazon has more money that redhat? i thought that was fairly obvious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steve Ballmer wants to sell Windows 7 Book Pad Edition
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Steve Ballmer wants to sell Windows 7 Book Pad Edition
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Steve Ballmer wants to sell Windows 7 Book Pad Edition
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Steve Ballmer wants to sell Windows 7 Book Pad Edition
But to do so, they have to sell LOOOOOOOOOTS of "Windows 7 iPad Knockoff Editions" to LOOOOOOOOOTS of iPad Knockoff Marketplaces.
Exclusivity to eBooks which were held pretty much exclusively to Kindle and Amazon is no longer. Next thing you'll see is the "Windows 7 iPad Knockoff Server" being hawked to Bookstores and Newspapers across the country.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Steve Ballmer wants to sell Windows 7 Book Pad Edition
The vision is 100% wholly non-existent. They do seem to copy what others are doing, inside and out. But this, they don't seem to accomplish well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore
we already had this discussion and you backed out last time. you cited an article about a case, and while doing so said "this" (meaning burying terms 4732843 steps away) "is all very legal". the judge never said that. otoole never said that. if the case doesn't say what you concluded, there's no reason to cite the case at all. _THIS_ is why you're wrong.
even techcrunch calls out shitty journalists for acting like they can cite something and be immune from presenting the other side. if you cite something, you have 3 choices:
1) present the other side's position (you clearly did not do this). this is done in fact reporting, and your post is clearly meant as persuasive opinion.
2) disagree with the source (you're clearly not doing this).
3) agree with the source, and warrant that the source says what you're claiming it says. (this is where you messed up).
other lawyers know you're full of shit regularly. as multiple people have pointed out both here and on ben's blog, every time someone calls you out on these massive errors, you act like everyone else is twisting your words and claiming you're saying something you didn't. maybe it's because you don't know the basic rules of inferences and persuasive writing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore
I didn't "back out." I proved you wrong. And yet you keep repeating that you are right.
You're amazing.
By the way, when's that admission coming that you were wrong about saying I claimed units when it was revenue?
even techcrunch calls out shitty journalists for acting like they can cite something and be immune from presenting the other side.
I don't even know what this means. First why "even techcrunch." You say that as if Techcrunch is some low standard. You keep citing random sources as if they're the final word on how *I* must act. Techcrunch? Some guy named Ben? Something named maddox?
You may think you "actually know something," but this remains my site. Until you are my boss, I write what I want. And, when I get stuff wrong, I make a correction and admit the mistake, as I did above. But you seem unable to do the same. Instead, you keep claiming I got stuff wrong when I did not. Amazing.
But if I link to another story because it provides additional detail, it does not mean I am limited by the three choices you put forth. I was writing about a particular situation. You keep insisting I must have been writing about something else. I really don't know what to tell you.
other lawyers know you're full of shit regularly.
You say this as if "all" lawyers think I'm full of shit. Thankfully, I know for a fact that's not true. Lots of well known, well respected lawyers speak to me on a regular basis and don't believe that I'm full of shit. And they put their names behind their words.
as multiple people have pointed out both here and on ben's blog, every time someone calls you out on these massive errors, you act like everyone else is twisting your words and claiming you're saying something you didn't. maybe it's because you don't know the basic rules of inferences and persuasive writing.
Who's Ben? And why should I care what he has to say? What I do know is that real, well-known, well-respected lawyers agree with my position and regularly say so. That someone who can't even stand behind his own words with a name can't comprehend a basic English sentence and then can't admit when he's been proven wrong, really isn't a concern to me. I just find it fascinating.
Look, I proved to you above that when I make a mistake, I'm more than willing to admit it and correct it. I don't "act like everyone else is twisting [my] words." I only do that when folks like yourself make such a claim. And, in my experience, it's been a very small group of people who make those claims -- and they're almost always paid by certain industries who *don't like* what I have to say. Thankfully, the people who really do understand this stuff have no problem letting me know when I'm right and when I'm wrong, which is why I quite often run posts by them first.
You act as if my posts are entirely wrong, and no lawyer could ever agree with me. Yet that, like your claim that I confused units and revenue, is demonstrably false. Yet, somehow, I get the feeling you won't admit you are wrong.
Finally, if my writing weren't persuasive, I imagine there wouldn't be many people reading and agreeing with me. But, given that we've got a pretty decent sized audience, most of whom do agree, and we get regular thank you emails from folks putting what we write and talk about into practice, it seems that what I have to say is persuasive enough to the folks who actually matter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore
maddox = george ouzounian writing pure opinion that is intended to offend lots of people all the time (maddox is his pen name on bestpageintheuniverse.com). in his prime, his site was getting millions of hits a week easily when those numbers were unheard of on blogs. now he has book deals and a movie deal and he's doing well. he wrote the modern textbook on putting out strong opinions.
as for techcrunch, they've been labeled a tech tabloid because of some of the non-fact things they've reported on (like how google was going to buy twitter... or how last.fm gave out usage data to the recording industry). but some of their newer (and trained) writers have railed on crappy web writing which tries to pass off as intelligent discourse -- whenever you cite something in persuasive writing, it's because of one of the 3 reasons above. there are no other options... otherwise you're citing something to fill space. a citation means that either you state both sides, you disagree, or you agree. you can disgree/agree in part, but it's still for those 3 reasons. always. everything else is just bad writing. it's a simple inference, and you clearly don't understand it.
you really just don't understand it. first you laid out some fact pattern. you cited to a court opinion. then you said "this is all very legal." if the court opinion you just cited is not your basis for your conclusion of the facts being legal, you're just making shit up (so you're wrong). and if the case you cited IS the basis for your opinion, you're wrong because the court never said that your fact pattern was "all very legal."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore
ben = ben sheffner... the well respected attorney who is paid more per minute for his opinion than you probably make in a month. you have called him out multiple times, and he's done the same to you. then you spill over the tabloid patrol onto his blog, and everyone says you have no idea what you're talking about.
Ah, sure. Ben is "well respected" in a very small circle of industry supporters. He's paid by the industry to push a certain position, and his views are discounted accordingly by many much more well respected attorneys who point out how often he is wrong.
Anyway, you are wrong about your claim that I have "called him out many times." I have mentioned Ben a few times. You can look through all of those posts. I have disagreed with his opinion a couple times, but I don't see how any of those are really "calling out."
He does have a history of blatantly making false statements about me and Techdirt on his blog. I used to respond and point out the errors, but he told me he was blocking me from commenting after I proved him wrong, so I won't comment on his site any more.
Also, not sure what you mean by my "tabloid patrol." Must you throw an insult into every sentence? I thought we were having an adult conversation here.
I tend not to point to his blog because it's so unreliable and is often blatantly misleading, and I've never suggested anyone comment there. So really, once again you are caught making stuff up.
maddox = george ouzounian writing pure opinion that is intended to offend lots of people all the time (maddox is his pen name on bestpageintheuniverse.com). in his prime, his site was getting millions of hits a week easily when those numbers were unheard of on blogs. now he has book deals and a movie deal and he's doing well. he wrote the modern textbook on putting out strong opinions.
Huh? Who cares?
as for techcrunch, they've been labeled a tech tabloid because of some of the non-fact things they've reported on (like how google was going to buy twitter... or how last.fm gave out usage data to the recording industry). but some of their newer (and trained) writers have railed on crappy web writing which tries to pass off as intelligent discourse -- whenever you cite something in persuasive writing, it's because of one of the 3 reasons above. there are no other options... otherwise you're citing something to fill space. a citation means that either you state both sides, you disagree, or you agree. you can disgree/agree in part, but it's still for those 3 reasons. always. everything else is just bad writing. it's a simple inference, and you clearly don't understand it.
Um. Wow. Ok. You really just throw out insults repeatedly without bothering to understand. I link to lots of sites to provide more details so that people can explore the issues for themselves. I'm sorry that you believe there are certain rules on how you link to websites.
Above you were oddly claiming that you can't link to another site if that author has a typo. That just makes no sense.
you really just don't understand it.
The thing is, it's pretty clear that I do. Quite well, in fact. And it upsets you to no end. I understand that I've shown you to be wrong over and over and over again, and you can't even man up and admit it. I mean.. really. It's one thing not to stand behind your words by putting your name on it, but it's another thing entirely to be caught being dead wrong -- with numerical evidence -- and still insist you're right (and insult those who proved you wrong).
It's almost pathological at this point.
first you laid out some fact pattern. you cited to a court opinion.
No. I laid out a fact pattern, and then I linked to a story about a variety of cases with similar fact patterns. That the story was initiated due to one recent case doesn't mean I was talking about that particular ruling, no matter how many times you claim I did.
if the court opinion you just cited is not your basis for your conclusion of the facts being legal, you're just making shit up (so you're wrong).
Let's try this again, slowly: I pointed out a *series* of lawsuits that supported that the fact pattern was, in fact, legal. I did not "make shit up" like you did when you pretended I claimed something the judge had said when I said no such thing.
and if the case you cited IS the basis for your opinion, you're wrong because the court never said that your fact pattern was "all very legal."
Again, I was not "citing" that particular lawsuit.
I was talking about a series of lawsuits, mentioned in the linked article.
Lots of others read the story and recognized exactly what I was saying.
The fact that you are still clinging to this factually incorrect statement after so long suggests a weird pathological need to be right.
I mean, seriously. Dude. We proved you wrong. Totally and completely wrong on multiple occasions and asked for a simple admission that you were wrong. And you can't do it.
Do you recognize how pathological you are appearing in this thread?
I have backed up my position with facts and clear statements backed up by basic logic. You, on the other hand, stick to insults, bald assertions ("you just don't get it") backed up with no facts, and a blatant refusal to admit basic errors.
Honestly, I can't believe this conversation is still going on. Just go ahead and admit you were wrong already.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even going to call the waaaambulance?
You must be quiet or else I will shaftnerize you!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Someone who actually has a broken caps lock
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You need to dig deeper
Correction: a crappy filesystem from way back that should have not be patentable in the first place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore
i've explained multiple times that incorporation by reference (especially in florida) is a much higher standard than what your fact pattern described. the fact that you continue to ignore this, not respond to this at all, and now you're getting belligerent, is actually hilarious.
think about it this way.
1) you're not a lawyer
2) you don't know what incorporation by reference is
3) you don't know a citation even means
4) i called you out for all this ridiculousness
5) you're calling me pathological
maybe you should look in the mirror. i'm absolutely not wrong. i've even argued this in court before... and won. twice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore
And, you are totally wrong that I don't admit when I am wrong. I did exactly that in *this* thread. When you actually catch me being wrong, I admit it.
You still can't say the simple words: "I was wrong. You did not confuse units and revenue."
Try it. It's not hard.
Come on. You were wrong. You can admit it, just like I did when I was wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore
you are so incompetent that you can't realize that those examples from the article are legally and distinctively different than the fact pattern that you proposed. there are fundamental elements in contract formation that you clearly do not understand, and there are basic rules in persuasive writing, and you clearly don't understand either one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore
But clearly we're never going to agree, so let's agree to disagree on this.
But I'm still asking you about why you can't admit you were also wrong about insisting I said units in that other post when I never did. I've now asked you half a dozen times in this thread alone to admit you were wrong, and you have IGNORED everyone. That's really stunning. Talk about amazing cognitive dissonance. I mean, my last comment was totally in reference to that and not to the MetroPCS story, and yet you still go back to that.
Again, the one time (this thread) where you did actually catch a mistake of mine, I had no trouble admitting it. The MetroPCS story is one where reasonable people can disagree (even if you falsely claimed I said a judge said something when I said no such thing). But on the units and revenue question there is no difference of opinion. You got it flat out wrong -- just as I did in the post above about money changing hands.
Yet, when you pointed out the mistake, I was quick to admit error and fix it.
What I'm amazed at is that you seem unable to have the basic human decency to do the same when it was clear that you were wrong.
That's what I'm saying is pathological. I've directly questioned you about that very issue multiple times in this thread alone, and you totally ignore it. As if not admitting you were wrong makes it go away.
Amazing. Totally amazing.
And, to top it all off, you seem unable to make a single argument without an insult, calling me "incompetent" "dense" and "retarded" when every other person who reads these threads seems to understand. And all of the lawyers who I have discussed these posts with have agreed with me.
And you are claiming that I am unable to follow the rules of basic persuasive writing? Just this morning I got a call from one of the largest companies on the planet, asking me to come by and help them because they found my writing on new business models so persuasive that they want to figure out how to implement them with their new line of products. Our readership continues to grow, and I hear from people nearly every day who say they used to think differently about these issues but now agree with me after reading my writing. I don't need you to tell me what the rules of persuasive writing are.
In the meantime, if you were the master of persuasive writing that you claim, somehow I doubt you would be sitting here insulting me, rather than actually responding to the direct question:
Why can't you admit that you falsely claimed I messed up units and revenue when I proved I had not? And, while you're at it, why can't you admit that you falsely said I said a judge had said something when I did not?
I eagerly await your answer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore
NO. NONE OF THE CITED CASES HELD THAT. THAT'S WHY WHAT YOU SAID IS WRONG. THE FACT THAT YOU CANNOT SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR EXAMPLE AND ALL THOSE CASES SHOWS YOUR INCOMPETENCE. PLEASE LEAVE THE LAW TO THE LAWYERS.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore
I asked you to just admit you were wrong, and you can't do it.
And then you resort to screaming again.
As for your claim that "NONE OF THE CITED CASES HELD THAT." You might want to take it up with O'Toole, who made the same point I did when he said: "there are quite a few court decisions upholding contracts in similar situations." It appears he agrees with me. As have the 3 lawyers (all well known, well respected internet lawyers I asked to look that story over). Again, let's admit that reasonable people can disagree on this and move on.
But, again, that's not the point. I was asking you to admit that you were wrong on those *other* points. I've now asked you a whole bunch of times and you simply ignore it.
You're like a 3 year old. You won't admit you're wrong and when asked directly you start screaming.
Seriously. For someone who complains about *my* persuasive writing skills, do you honestly think you're being persuasive? You scream, you insult, you're too stubborn to admit you were wrong, and you completely ignore direct questions and requests to admit you made a mistake.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's time to pay
It's actually better just to leave legacy Linux and move on to Windows.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "I don't want to start yet another flamewar here"
Look peeps i,m a bit stressed about this trolling/lying too but please stop. There is NO excuse for trying to claim something is yours when it is not, Microsoft don't have claims on Linux they are just desperate for attention and Apple have better things to do, as should we.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SCO Linux patent infringement suit
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Microsoft
Linux will hopefully always be open source code.
If i had to depend on Microsoft i would burn my laptop.
Microsoft means "rip off, stealing merchants". end of story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]