decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Judge Alsup is very thorough and wants no successful appeal of his decision | 697 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Judge Alsup is very thorough and wants no successful appeal of his decision
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 08:32 PM EDT
Your reply is a slightly sophisticated form of Straw Man argument, although not
sophisticated enough to escape detection as such. I hope that you didn't do
this on purpose. ;-)

The parent did not say that "structure", "sequence" and
"organization" are words that are not recognized by the software
industry, individually. It is the combination of the three in the way that was
used by both legal teams and by the judge that is completely outside of any
current frame of reference in computing today. This is true in all of its
domains, which includes theoretical Computer Science, professional Software
Engineering, and simple enthusiast or hobby programming.

The lawyers have pulled this concept of SSO as a unit of discourse (not the
individual words) out of thin air, and in so doing have manufactured a frame of
reference for their legal discussions which has no accepted basis in the
industry at all.

I'm strongly reminded of Richard Feynman's "cargo cult science" by
analogy here. The lawyers in this case are like the natives lighting the
airstrip beacons and thinking that this summons the aircraft. Just because you
put three good computing words together does not create a valid composite
concept in the subject.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )