Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 20:57 UTC (Tue) by foom (subscriber, #14868)
In reply to: Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android by FlorianMueller
Parent article: Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Florian: Care to disclose any conflicts of interest you may have? So far you have not disputed that you are being paid to sow FUD against Android and/or Google.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 20:59 UTC (Tue) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]

I just answered that question yesterday in the Bionic discussion; the one who asked appreciated the answer; so I fail to see why you bring this up here other than trying to troll me, perhaps.

I have no conflicts of interest to disclose, period.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 21:17 UTC (Tue) by martinfick (guest, #4455) [Link] (1 responses)

Who cares? This sort of attack is getting boring. It is happening more and more here at LWN, by a variety of people. Please be aware that, due to the distributed nature of the attacks, unlike the person you are attacking, it is very hard to filter, and may become unpleasant for others.

If someone is making bogus points because of their affiliations, then the bogus points should speak for themselves, no? Pointing out their supposed affiliations does nothing for those of us who use logic in evaluating comments. Please recognize that this type of attack is itself appealing to fear.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 23, 2011 15:19 UTC (Wed) by michel (subscriber, #10186) [Link]

It matters.

Ask yourself that if you were a medical professional and you go to a conference where another professional in the field talks about a new treatment option which seems to provide great benefits for a disease, with much factual data to support it's efficacy, wouldn't you like to know if that person was paid by the manufacturer of that treatment? It won't change the facts and it all maybe very much above reproach, but having that information will make you wonder if there may not be other facts that are *not* being disclosed.

Mr. Mueller certainly knows a lot more about patents than I do, but so far I've seen just two statements from him about this:
> On my blog and in discussions like I express exclusively my own beliefs, and that's all I have to say about that.
and
>I have no conflicts of interest to disclose, period.
Neither of those (in my opinion) are really a clear statement. I would probably want to know 'does Mr. Mueller receive any compensation from a company that has a substantial patent portfolio'? To me that is important to know because it will shape how I read and interpret his arguments. And not having seen that statement, will make me assume that he has and shape my interpretation accordingly. But that's clearly my choice. As far as I'm concerned Mr. Mueller does not have any obligation to disclose anything.

That does not mean his arguments are invalid, his analysis of the *presented* facts are faulty, or that he's lying.

Having said all that, I do find myself caring less and less about his posts and the ensuing spam fest that seems to follow. But I do like freedom of expression, and I can *choose* to listen, or not.