PJ can not be faulted for commending OIN’s intentions, much less be called someone who thinks software patents are acceptable because of OIN’s intention to fight them.

It ought to be noted that Eben Moglen too has endorsed what the OIN had done. Sheer hatred towards Moglen (whom Florian calls Fidel Castro) shows his attitude to be truly problematic to Microsoft et al.

We should not propagate that false impression even as IBM uses software patents to crush Microsoft’s expendable proxy. Claiming that IBM endorses software patents is the harmful providence of Microsoft boosters like Business Week and Microsoft Florian.

Yes, that’s the spin I still saw him spreading and popularising last week.

The Red Hat deal you mention is not an endorsement of software patents, or an exception to opposition to the concept, it is an example of how GPL3 is successful in preserving software freedom in a way that defangs the most harmful effects.

Th problematic deal of Red Hat is the secret settlement with Acacia, which even Bruce Perens criticised in an article.

I should note, three of the above comments from “twitter” were erroneously lodged in the moderation queue, which is why 3 of them are identical when it comes to the arguments made.

It’s like the idealism versus pragmatism debate.I think we should strive to eliminate all software patents. Money which is spent on “defensive” software patents should instead be spent abolishing them.

If we followed your line of reasoning, we’d have to conclude that the authors of GPL3 thought software patents were acceptable. That’s obviously a gross over simplification, but it is that only way to interpret PJ’s opinion of those three cases. Software patents are a stupid and and unjust fact of law. Their purpose is to create business method monopolies and to crush software freedom.

In the first place, it is not at all clear that IBM is a software patent advocate, much less PJ for cheering the crushing of Turbo Hercules. Microsoft invented the case specifically to harm IBM and free software while creating a false impression of support and utility for software patents. We should not promote that false impression, as you notice BusinessWeek and Microsoft Florian do here. As FFII puts it,

is not sure that unlimited patentability is in the best interest even of IBM. Patent managment generates costs that were not considered in the above calculations. Specialised litigation companies acquire patents in order to go after giants. IBM could perhaps be even more profitable if it didn’t dedicate so much of its ressources to this type of warfare. Building the business strategy on patents is increasingly appearing incoherent with IBM’s strong support for opensource software and the significant business it has generated therefrom.

IBM filed against software patents in Biski. We should encourage them in this rather than waste time censoring them for crushing Microsoft’s expendable proxy. PJ’s recognition of this fact is not an endorsement of software patents.

It is likewise wrong to say PJ accepts software patents for praising OIN’s purchase of patents. This particular purchase may have been a waste of money but OIN’s intentions are clearly to mitigate the harm done by unjust laws. How can that be twisted into a case of the efficacy of software patents rather than their injustice and waste?

The final oversimplification is probably the most telling. PJ celebrated Red Hat’s patent deal as proof of the protections offered by GPL 2 and 3 in the face of unjust laws. The deal mostly shows the cost and danger of software patents, Red Hat might have been shaken down. We can’t tell because someone demanded a secret settlement. Only a Microsoft Mobbiest could turn that into some kind of acceptance or endorsement of software patents.

I appreciate your contributions and concerns, saulgood, but I can’t reach the same conclusions you do about PJ, Red Hat, IBM or OIN. It is not clear that any of these accept software patents but it is very clear that PJ is 100% against them.

In the first place, it is not at all clear that IBM is a software patent advocate, much less PJ for cheering the crushing of Turbo Hercules. Microsoft invented the case specifically to harm IBM and free software while creating a false impression of support and utility for software patents. We should not promote that false impression, as you notice BusinessWeek and Microsoft Florian do here. As FFII puts it,

is not sure that unlimited patentability is in the best interest even of IBM. Patent managment generates costs that were not considered in the above calculations. Specialised litigation companies acquire patents in order to go after giants. IBM could perhaps be even more profitable if it didn’t dedicate so much of its ressources to this type of warfare. Building the business strategy on patents is increasingly appearing incoherent with IBM’s strong support for opensource software and the significant business it has generated therefrom.

IBM filed against software patents in Biski. We should encourage them in this rather than waste time censoring them for crushing Microsoft’s expendable proxy. PJ’s recognition of this fact is not an endorsement of software patents.

It is likewise wrong to say PJ accepts software patents for praising OIN’s purchase of patents. This particular purchase may have been a waste of money but OIN’s intentions are clearly to mitigate the harm done by unjust laws. How can that be twisted into a case of the efficacy of software patents rather than their injustice and waste?

The final oversimplification is probably the most telling. PJ celebrated Red Hat’s patent deal as proof of the protections offered by GPL 2 and 3 in the face of unjust laws. The deal mostly shows the cost and danger of software patents, Red Hat might have been shaken down. We can’t tell because someone demanded a secret settlement. Only a Microsoft Mobbiest could turn that into some kind of acceptance or endorsement of software patents.

I appreciate your contributions and concerns, saulgood, but I can’t reach the same conclusions you do about PJ, Red Hat, IBM or OIN. It is not clear that any of these accept software patents but it is very clear that PJ is 100% against them.

I can agree with you that the OIN should not purchase more software patents. I don’t agree that their purchase demonstrates approval of software patents, though it might have rewarded a corrupt system and be a waste of money. That’s not an exception to the belief that software patents are stupid and immoral, it’s a strategic blunder that can be misinterpreted and misrepresented by the malicious. Misrepresenting the act is harmful. OIN should be commended, for example, on their purchasing another pile of software patents that were being auctioned to Microsoft proxies, this interception both avoiding some harm and for exposing Microsoft’s misconduct. PJ can not be faulted for commending OIN’s intentions, much less be called someone who thinks software patents are acceptable because of OIN’s intention to fight them.

PJ’s endorsement of IBM’s self defense against Turbo Hercules is not an endorsement of software patents either, even though IBM’s lawyers who did the work might believe in software patents. Microsoft carefully crafted the entire case to harm IBM, software freedom and create a false impression that software patents are useful. We should not propagate that false impression even as IBM uses software patents to crush Microsoft’s expendable proxy. Claiming that IBM endorses software patents is the harmful providence of Microsoft boosters like Business Week and Microsoft Florian. IBM may have used software patents in the past but filed briefs in Biski against them. As FFII puts it,

Although IBM may be earning substantial revenues from its large collection of trivial software patents, it is not sure that unlimited patentability is in the best interest even of IBM. Patent managment generates costs that were not considered in the above calculations. Specialised litigation companies acquire patents in order to go after giants. IBM could perhaps be even more profitable if it didn’t dedicate so much of its ressources to this type of warfare. Building the business strategy on patents is increasingly appearing incoherent with IBM’s strong support for opensource software and the significant business it has generated therefrom.

We should encourage IBM in this realization instead of censoring them for crushing Turbo Hercules as Florian did. We should also avoid confusing IBM’s software patent portfolio and their perhaps more legitimate patent portfolio of real inventions. Roy did some good research on IBM two years ago.

If free software patents did not infringe on my software freedom, I would not care about software patents but this is impossible. Part of software freedom is being able to use my computer for any purpose, something that includes providing a service for for money.

The Red Hat deal you mention is not an endorsement of software patents, or an exception to opposition to the concept, it is an example of how GPL3 is successful in preserving software freedom in a way that defangs the most harmful effects. Red Hat may have had to pay off patent trolls, this is an injustice and not what PJ celebrates. She celebrates the practicality of GPL 2 and 3 in the face of bad laws and she celebrates Red Hat’s expansion of protection beyond the terms of GPL3. Only people like Microsoft Florian would claim this kind of agreement violates the GPL or is some soft of endorsement of software patents and they can only do so by oversimplifying and misrepresenting the case or PJ’s opinion of it. The rest of us look at the case as highlighting the dangers of unjust laws which require careful planning and continuous opposition.

He then links back to Groklaw, where PJ cheers the dismantling of various Microsoft machinations, as evidence of some kind of support of software patents where it is to the free software’s advantage.

She cheered the employment of a software patent threat of one company against another — it does not matter to the assessment of being “100% against software patents” what companies or products are involved.

She has praised the OIN for purchasing software patents and Red Hat for settling a patent lawsuit, in both cases thereby rewarding so-called “inventors” who sought software patents, and the USPTO for granting them. It does not matter to the assessment of being “100% against software patents” that those patents are intended as protection of “the Linux ecosystem” or that Red Hat obtained licensing for all Free Software implementations of the patented technology.

Being “100% against software patents” means that under no circumstances do you support the efficacy of software patents. If all the software in the world were proprietary, you’d still be against software patents; if all software were uncopyrighted, you’d still be against software patents. If all Free Software were excluded and only proprietary software could infringe, you’d still be against software patents.

You may feel there are worthy reasons for allowing some exceptions in your opposition to software patents; particularly if they can be designed towards the benefit of Free Software. That’s fine. Defend your case; explain your reasoning, even if only to yourself. Examine what factors should justify allowing such an exception. But start by recognizing that you are not the same person as described in the preceding paragraph. That is not to say you are worse. Or better. Merely that you are not the same.

So, no. I will not be retracting my statements, and I disagree that doing so would at all easy — because I did mean what I said and I did say what I meant.

The viewpoint that sometimes software patents are acceptable — so long as they’re exploited to the benefit of IBM, the OIN, or the Free Software community — compromises the qualification of being “100% against software patents”.

He then links back to Groklaw, where PJ cheers the dismantling of various Microsoft machinations, as evidence of some kind of support of software patents where it is to the free software’s advantage. It would be easy enough for him to say that he does not mean what he said.

Please explain how “chatting with Florian in Twitter” and your implied guilt by association is any different than what you do to other people.

Please explain how criticism of what you do is by definition an attack, while your attacks are “criticism of people’s biases”.

Please provide evidence that I am a “.NET booster”. I know the low entrance fee you’ve established to get into that club, so please be very specific, as you say when someone makes a negative offhand remark about your activities.

Finally, please explain how criticisms you receive are attacks and intimidation and a source of pride (apparently), yet what you do to everyone else is righteous justice. IOW, please explain why Miguel de Icaza (for example) shouldn’t take pride on your vapid 4-year slog by adopting your own metrics.

Simple, yes? Get to it, please.

Oh, and you might want to man up and tell your friend Mr. Hill here to shut up for once. You might avoid alienating people who might otherwise be squarely on your side. You’re not dumb, so you understand saulgoode’s argument quite well, and it has nothing to do with what Florian or anyone else says.

We take pride in the presence of mobbyists. They help indicate we’re on the right subject.

I don’t think anyone but Florian and the follow mobbyists have made such a claim, which is a distortion that is unfair to attribute to saulgoode or PJ. I don’t think we contradict one another, it’s more like Balkanisation. Our adversaries try to divide us.

He sure uses E-mail to issue threats. This was not the first veiled threat from Florian — a threat which generally tried to use the chilling effect if not to threaten with litigation then with risk to one’s job. Some people have their reputation tarnished and some have the employer contacted.

You mean it’s similar to what you’ve been trying to do for years to Miguel de Icaza and quite a few other people? I could list them: Nat Friedman, Bruce Byfield, Matt Asay, Ted Haeger, Jeff Waugh (and his wife), Thom Holwerda, Shane O’Neill, Tim O’Reilly, Jo Shields, Bryan Lunduke, Greg Kroah-Hartman, Matt Zimmerman, Window Snyder, Albert Zonneveld, random Wikipedia users you’ve smeared, etc. I could go on.

By the way, is this a threat? Sure sounds a lot more threatening than Florian’s “snide” comment. You “exchange words” with these people on twitter and identi.ca, do you not? Haven’t you created entire conspiracy theories based on a single twitter exchange? Do you feel it would be unfair to apply the same logic to you?

I’d be happy if you would just say you did not mean what you said.

… a desire of basic justice and elimination of software patents.

It is not a matter of justice or popularity (or ethics, or “goodness”). It is a matter of logic.

If someone is adamantly opposed to cannibalism, yet would consider it acceptable in the case of a plane crash in the Andes and it being the only way to stave off starvation, then that person is not “100% against cannibalism”. This is not a value judgment on that person’s opinion, nor is there any evaluation of the popularity of either viewpoint; it is a simple assertion of the situation.

That kind of mental energy is called spin. When the truth is spun to attribute a non existent and unpopular opinion to someone, it’s called smear.

Likewise, when the truth is spun to attribute non-existent yet popular opinion to someone, it’s called propaganda. And asserting that someone has not “ever been anything but 100% against software patents” when they, even if only under some few circumstances, consider them acceptable might be labelled as such.

But I did not label Roy’s statement to which I originally responded as being either propaganda for Groklaw or a smear against those who are 100% against software patents — to do so would be both unproductive and insulting. I merely corrected what I consider to be an inaccurate statement.

I’ve given you links to PJ’s well researched opinion of the matter, why do you ignore that?

I ignored them because showing instances where Groklaw opposed software patents does not address my point. That Groklaw may be largely opposed to software patents I have never disputed. I’ve only disputed that Groklaw has always been “100%” against software patents.

He’s wrong, of course. You are not alone at Techrights and Techrights is not alone in the fight for software freedom. The only thing he can promise is that he will concentrate his efforts on you. He might say that these are Microsoft’s marching orders but I doubt he’d publish emails to prove it.