And looking at his post with a sceptical mind would have you learn his only third party source is a magazine whose tag-line is "Maximising IP value for business".
Even if correct his post is blatant propaganda. In fact, I'd go so far as to question why he chose today to register an account on hacker news. This isn't the first patent related news we've seen.
He has actually commented here with a different account in the past: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=FlorianMueller
Your personal attacks really don't have any relevance to the legal questions at hand. Trying to muddy the discussion with irrelevant speculation about people's motives is totally unnecessary when the legislation is there for any of us to read.
In an ideal world, where we all had an infinite amount of time to research any and all items of controversy in their entirity, I would agree with you.
In this hyper-specialized world, where we basically look to others to do the research and summarize for us, motives are extremely relevant and it is the height of naivety to pretend otherwise.
We should discuss ideas on their merits rather than trying to psychoanalyze or dig up dirt on the commenter.
No-one has time to become an expert on absolutely everything. To some extent, we have to choose who to listen to, and then trust that they are speaking true. Anything else is completely unmanageable. So your argument, while logically correct, is not applicable. In the real world, we don't take the sex offender's word that our child is safe on its pure merits.
When someone with a long and vivid history of acting against the interests of the community speaks, it is on them to overcome the prejudice against them, not on us.
Disclosure: I'm a Microsoft employee, so I probably have some devious motives, too.
No, I do not know why someone would consider it worth their while to pay for this. But someone apparently does, as is evidenced by his series of extremely confident, widely covered, and provably inaccurate articles on how the Oracle lawsuit against Google was going.
You are right that there is an appeal - there always is. But consider that the judge the first time around ruled nothing like you claimed would happen. On anything. Why should we expect the appeal to be different?
I should note that it was written at a time when you were still claiming to be independent. You know, before you faced the fact that your name was going to be on Oracle's list of paid lobbyists and so you admitted to it up front in the way that made it look as good as possible.
Also note that Oracle had that one name on its list. Google had a much longer list. Further, I think the judge erred by not requiring both sides to disclose relevant PR ties, because really, it's the PR companies that oversee the shilling [4, 5]
1. http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/04/oracle-v-google-trial-evi...
2. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/name-your-shills-...
3. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/with-anti-shill-o...
4. http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
5. http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Facebook-busted-fo...
Basically, being an Oracle puppet is an extremely negative heuristic for being a useful voice on anything related to software IP. Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, I am inclined to ignore any and all opinions of said puppet.
And FWIW, being a Microsoft employee defending an Oracle stooge doesn't play all that well either.
Isn't this all common sense?
Also, I'm not "defending" him. I don't know if he is or is not a shill, and I don't care. But he made verifiable statements about the content of the bill. All I want to know is, are his statements wrong?
Another point I could make is that analogies don't have to be perfect to be useful.
Another point might be that the people making ad hominem attacks on FM aren't actually adding anything constructive to the discussion while he did. In fact his contribution to the thread added more than everyone elses' combined.
And while I don't really care for FM himself, there are many people who spin and editorialize heavily that are still very much worth reading. If you're interested at all in tech patents, he's one of them along with whatever ends up replacing Groklaw.
I wasn't questioning that. I have no doubt the information he is articulating is valuable, but who is benefiting more, us, himself or his client? Regardless of how pedantic I'm being, your point is slightly flawed and should be called out. I don't feel it's worth attributing merit to people's efforts without understanding their behavior first.
There financial interests are very different and thus the information they create can lean one way or another. One is a paid consultant and another is a full time salaried employee. The one makes more money directly by benefiting the client (Mueller) and the other one makes more by equity and control (Cutts).
When it comes to money, people are largely motivated by 3 things: control, equity, and cash (which all subsequently translate quite nicely into money/wealth) however, each one can manifest itself very differently. Someone who makes their living by advising clients has a very direct interest in cash, so it's more obvious that his/her behavior is in line with ensuring that cash goes into the bank first and foremost.
Who has a "long and vivid history of acting against the interests of the community"? It's clearly not Müller: [1].