Can they Stop referring to Mueller as a patent expert?!?!
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| JaseP Aug 10, 2011 4:21 PM EDT |
Can they Stop referring to Florian Mueller as a patent expert?!?! Considering he doesn't even have a law degree, he is less of a patent expert than I am. His "expert" status is self appointed. |
| r_a_trip Aug 10, 2011 4:51 PM EDT |
Maybe Florian is the Self Appointed Patent Expert For Life. :-) Some people see self appointed as a legitimate title... |
| Koriel Aug 10, 2011 5:06 PM EDT |
Can we shorten that to Can they Stop referring to Florian Mueller. That would suit me much better. |
| JaseP Aug 10, 2011 5:14 PM EDT |
Hey, journalists need something to write about,... and Mueller stirs up contoversy,... But they should be accurate and call him "patent groupie," "IP horn-blower," "Intellectual Property scare-monger," etc... |
| helios Aug 10, 2011 7:25 PM EDT |
Referring to Mueller as a patent expert is like referring to Rob Enderle as a technology expert. Actually, I like Rob, at least the one time I met him. He seems to be a pretty decent guy and has a great sense of humor. Unfortunately, It's hard to take the MS cheerleading at times...then again, one has to pay the bills. |
| Koriel Aug 11, 2011 2:14 AM EDT |
".....at least the one time I met him. He seems to be a pretty decent guy and has a great sense of humor." I think Neville Chamberlain said something along similar lines regarding Hitler :) Godwin is that you peering over my shoulder! |
| gus3 Aug 11, 2011 6:47 AM EDT |
Peas in our thyme! /me ducks and covers |
| hkwint Aug 11, 2011 7:28 AM EDT |
JaseP: I don't agree. If I have an engineering degree for machinery, it doesn't mean I can design a bridge, or I make technical drawings which adhere to the pertaining standards. Moreover, I saw people with a university degree make rubbish drawings, full with errors someone without a degree like me wouldn't make. If one has a law-degree, it says nothing about if one knows heck about patents or not. Mueller has lobbied against software patents since 2005, I think his track records says more about him than _ any_ university degree about anyone. Just as spending one's free-time on developing free software usually says more about a person then a "MCSE" degree. In other words: People shouldn't hide behind the company they work for or their so called 'experience', but also not behind their title. And moreover, Florian probably knows more about German patent law and the situation in Europe than any US lawyer with a degree. Also, nowhere does Florian says he's a "patent expert", so your accusation of "self appointed" is pure rubbish. |
| helios Aug 11, 2011 8:06 AM EDT |
That's right Gus...we need whirled peas now... |
| JaseP Aug 11, 2011 12:03 PM EDT |
@ hkwint: Respectfully disagree... Education and training most certainly speaks to expert status. You couldn't get someone without a medical degree to testify to a medical condition, could you?!?! It even appears that Mueller doesn't even have a college or university degree. As for "self-appointed" status, you don't see him e-mailing corrections to these articles,... And, despite past involvement with OSS, he is most certainly hostile to OSS now. It is beleived (by others, not only me) that he is at least indirectly on M$'s dole. He's no Open Source activist. |
| patrokov Aug 11, 2011 5:11 PM EDT |
@JaseP "You couldn't get someone without a medical degree to testify to a medical condition, could you?!?! " Only because of government licensing enforcement. There are many fields where where recognized experts have little or no formal education/training in the field. Even where necessary, the government sanctioned license/degree itself simply indicates that someone may begin a career, but very few will ever be considered expert in the field or even a small part of it. |
| JaseP Aug 11, 2011 6:37 PM EDT |
Patents aren't one of those fields... They're both highly technical and regulated by law... And "many" fields... Really?!?! I can only think of artistry related fields, as being ones where,... MAYBE,... you can get away with no formal education. But training is needed even in those (e.g.: electricians, carpentry, plumbers, animal husbandry, etc.). Anything else really requires both education and training. |
| patrokov Aug 11, 2011 9:06 PM EDT |
Education and training yes, but not necessarily state sanctioned, *formal* education and training. You'll note that the word formal is in my original post. |
| kenholmz Aug 12, 2011 12:08 AM EDT |
@Helios, I agree with you that Rob Enderle does seem a pretty decent guy. He got caught up in some neurotic battling with folks over Linux. He sided with SCO, yet later when he wrote that he had been wrong the Linux in-breds continued as if nothing had changed. Rob pulled back from the psychotic warrings some time ago. The Apple in-breds took over hurling the epithets. He and I found enough to agree to disagree about. I expect we could still find enough. Yet, I took the time to think about what he was saying and what I was saying. And mind, I have not said Rob is a technology expert. I am no respecter of persons. It isn't how much passion and pathos you bring to the table, it is how much objective evidence you bring. I read Helios because you manage to write something that I find objective; your passion is notable but would be pointless without the objective meat to chew on. As far as patents, trademarks, intellectual property go I'm still ticked at a government that could allow anyone to claim ownership of words like windows, word, access, excel. That fairly well informs me technical and well regulated things are. The farther we get from 1984 the closer we get to 1984. |
| tuxchick Aug 12, 2011 1:41 AM EDT |
Nice guys don't crank out steady streams of blatant anti-Linux propaganda, or blame nasty Linux fans and SCO for making him say all that stuff. http://www.tgdaily.com/software-opinion/34004-sco-linux-and-... |
| mortenalver Aug 12, 2011 2:30 AM EDT |
Quoting:He sided with SCO, yet later when he wrote that he had been wrong the Linux in-breds continued as if nothing had changed. They probably didn't hear that he had changed his mind because they had stopped reading his drivel. |
| Jose_X Aug 12, 2011 2:50 AM EDT |
@JaseP, are you saying that a person can't write excellent open source software without a degree? Are you saying that if a person doesn't take 1 elective course, 2 required courses in weak non-relevant areas, or perhaps fail to officially enroll or pass 4 required courses in the relevant area, that somehow they can't or didn't already acquire that knowledge and perhaps even then much more through all of their experiences? Are you saying that the few years in a university (or maybe just the last 1 or 2 terms) is more important (or at least mandatory) to the many years spent focused on some (perhaps paying) "hobby" thereafter. There are enough young people yearly who can skip out on their high school degree to get early into a top notch college (or, for example, to attend in another country) and excel there. So because they didn't get the high school degree, they can't become an expert? Many of these likely had already taken many university classes before their high school diploma was awarded. Can they not become expert in years following if they had skipped out on the high school degree formalism? Aren't honorary degrees awarded from many respectable institutions of higher learning? In other words, don't some universities recognize that, despite a formality not having been achieved, the recipient had acquired sufficient skill and then some to have merited the exception? If someone drops out of a prestigious program, they really *cannot* become an expert no matter what, while someone graduating from a "community" four year program certainly can if they work hard enough afterwards? Perhaps you simply meant to say that the odds were against Mueller being an expert given how he doesn't have a university degree in law. My personal views on Mueller are that he has significant insight, but is favoring positions that are not good for small firms or for open source and which favor certain players and perhaps lawyers as a profession. [I also experienced him removing a thread on his website shortly after I pointed out various ways that Microsoft gained competitive leverage and enhanced monopoly support by having closed source Windows (their platform) be a de facto standard (to the point it would be worthwhile for them to give it away as much as necessary to keep competing platforms at bay).] In fact, I feel similarly about many practicing patent lawyers with degrees (as I do about Mueller): their positions don't help tech markets, progress, or open source, no matter how much they might personally understand the law as it is written and plays out in court rooms and in negotiation rooms. So as concerns Mueller, being "expert" has little to do with it from my pov. |
| BernardSwiss Aug 12, 2011 2:58 AM EDT |
Well, Enderle sort of admitted that he'd been wrong, after all -- but only when it was over and Darl was about the only one left who said otherwise, -- AND Enderle still maintained that his position had been entirely reasonable, based on the information available, that he'd been lied to and couldn't have known better, etc, etc... I don't think that, in the circumstances, that really counts as admitting he was wrong. |
| Jose_X Aug 12, 2011 3:30 AM EDT |
Concerning groklaw, Enderle would help his case if he pointed out specifics about groklaw. He doesn't appear to have ever undertaken an objective coverage of groklaw, and I doubt the material interests him that much. This is reasonable on his part (not to be too interested in undertaken that task.. life is short and he doesn't claim to be a "groklaw analyst"), but it means he is simply saying in this article that a blog out there has flaws, without giving specific example. We know all human made things have flaws, yet the article does seem to suggest that groklaw had essential flaws then. In his defense, he does a few times sort of state that this generally was his view at the time more so than it is any view he has now (ie, in 2007 when the article was written). [Later I may read the groklaw coverage and his transcript since I skipped those steps.] |
| hkwint Aug 12, 2011 5:58 AM EDT |
Quoting:Education and training most certainly speaks to expert status. Wow, you're not afraid, aren't you? Because here on LXer, by most 'regular commenters', MCSE's are deemed even 'lower' than Justin Bieber; their 'education' and so called 'training' is not taken very seriously over here. Of course education and training is important, but it doesn't say a lot. Even before I took LPI 1 exam, I think I knew lots of things because of my experience with Gentoo, many MCSE's might not know. At the same time, here in NL, there are many people with a university / bachelor degree which don't know heck about the things they're working with. So it's wrong to only judge a person by the title before their name. After all, I live in calvinistic NL, not in DE (there it's a bit different). But back to Florian Mueller: I'm not sure if you're familiar with FFII and the 'NoSoftwarePatents' campaign, started by Florian Mueller; http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/en/m/about/manager.html I have been (a small) part of this campaign, and have been covering this subject since 2005 (on LXer mostly). I fail to see how somebody who lobbied with European Parliament members against software patents can be seen as part of the Microsoft campaign. How can you fail to see FFII was the most important _opponent_ of Microsoft in the EU software patent saga? Did you follow the news the last six years? |
| Jose_X Aug 12, 2011 7:04 AM EDT |
Since a victory the nosoftwarepatents campaign had some years back (leading up to Florian's 50 most influential people recognition), I think FM has taken the position that software patents are here to stay and that Microsoft's approach of doing mass licensing deals was acceptable especially in contrast to say when IBM sued Turbo Hercules. The nosoftwarepatents campaign at that time (iirc) publicly went against Mueller's position on TH and other things. We know that IBM was suing because TH was bundling and integrating their FOSS with Microsoft Windows and other proprietary software and with HP hardware (TH changed their website around after these details started coming out). Their tight bundle (obviously a threat to IBM) is not open source. I'm not sure FM understood that clearly, or he did and was intentionally or not creating FUD (as I think he has on other occasions) that benefited Microsoft. Since then, Microsoft has continued to get more aggressive with patents, and their backroom licensing is and has always been abusive and damaging to FOSS and Linux. It is anti-competitive, and is not right no matter that IBM and many others play that game as well (except not against Linux/FOSS for the most part). |
| KernelShepard Aug 12, 2011 8:30 AM EDT |
Jose_X: IMHO, whether Turbo Hurcules was pure Free Software or not makes little difference. Patent attacks are patent attacks and if you feel it is wrong to use patents offensively (and I think most people here do), then IBM deserved criticism and Groklaw (who seems to be all about being anti-patents) taking IBM's side is really *really* odd to me. |
| JaseP Aug 12, 2011 9:37 AM EDT |
Quoting: @JaseP, are you saying that a person can't write excellent open source software without a degree? Nothing of the kind,... many great pieces of software have even been written by high school students (DeCSS comes to mind). But on the other hand, just because someone writes great software does not make them an expert. To be an expert you need credibility. Education (and Yes, Formal education when it is available and the exepted norm in a particular field), training, experience, study, engaging in rhetorical dialogues like publishing in journals, writing "white papers," etc. are all VERY important in establishing credibility. Remember that in Patents, most jurisdictions have requirements above the ordinary bar admission to be admitted to the patent bar and practice patent law. Not even bar admitted lawyers are necessarily "experts" in patent law (and by the way, I am not admitted to the patent bar,... but in hindsight, I wish I'd pursued it). And MSCE,... I don't consider that the kind of certification one that would qualify one as an expert. That kind of stuff is just minimal job requirement stuff. Neither does simply a bachelor's degree. You need MORE than JUST education. And don't think for a second that I am saying non-experts cannnot be excellent practitioners within their fields... they certainly can be. But an EXPERT is, by their very nature, a cut above the ordinary guy. They need to be the kind of person that the ordinary guy and even a "guru" turn to for guidance. I myself am not an EXPERT in patents and copyright law. Despite having a law degree and bar admission/licensure, I do not practice law as a vocation any longer (for many years now). In fact, the only thing I would consider myself an expert of is martial arts. And if I am not willing to have myself considered an expert in "IP" law despite my legal eduction and my interest and long experience with computers, how much less so is Mueller??? He's an armchair quarterback, nothing more. |
| Fettoosh Aug 12, 2011 10:45 AM EDT |
Quoting: Said the old professor. |
| BernardSwiss Aug 12, 2011 10:47 AM EDT |
Question: Does "expert" refer to an objective fact, or a subjective judgment/evaluation? |
| JaseP Aug 12, 2011 10:50 AM EDT |
Quoting: Said the old professor. Yes,... said the old professor,... Who incidentally possessed a PhD, wrote 10-12 journal articles, lectured at other universities, and wrote a textbook on the subject... |
| JaseP Aug 12, 2011 11:20 AM EDT |
Quoting: Does "expert" refer to an objective fact, or a subjective judgment/evaluation? That's a good question,... In law, the generally accepted standard is usually that an "expert's" opinion be rendered such that it must be properly grounded, well-reasoned, and not speculative, be grounded in an accepted body of learning or experience in the expert's field. The expert applies the facts of the case against that standard. So, there's a lot less "opinion" in an expert's opinion in legal proceedings than one might think. That doesn't mean experts cannot disagree, particularly as to the standards in their field. The expert also has to have the necessary qualifications in that field. So, there's an objective standard,... subject to a bit of subjective interpretation,... if that makes sense. |
| kenholmz Aug 12, 2011 11:36 AM EDT |
Re: Rob Enderle, you are all correct. Rob wrote things that were meatless and at times I thought he was experiencing psychosis or dementia, things that made no sense. But I never threatened Rob or any of the others who have been by anonymous persons I want no association with. Last time I referred to the in-breds. I find it all too easy to do that. I was, of course, referring to persons whose written expressions I find pathetic. We gain nothing by behaving like Windows' rabid defenders. Regarding Groklaw, there was never much Rob or anyone else could do except sway those who never bothered to check Groklaw out. But then, that was the point and Rob was in the wrong. When I think I really know anyone here by what they have written I err. There is much more to each of you than I can possibly know. Lastly, everyone gets criticized by someone and often for good reason. Yet the one criticized and the one criticizing remain human. c'est la vie! |
| Fettoosh Aug 12, 2011 11:50 AM EDT |
An expert is someone who has strong schooling supplemented by long experience in a specific field or subject. Experience teaches a lot of things, but what it doesn't teach that schooling does is analysis and methodology to solve unfamiliar problems. |
| JaseP Aug 12, 2011 11:56 AM EDT |
Very well put, Fettoosh. |
| hkwint Aug 12, 2011 12:30 PM EDT |
JaseP: Afraid you're confusing "expert" and "credibility". Lots of experts are not credible at all, exactly because they are an expert. Klaus Heine Lehner (that's the EP working for Taylor+Wessing I wrote about a few years ago) is probably the best example of an expert who is not credible at all, and in my opinion Florian Mueller maybe is not an expert like Klaus Heine Lehner, but at least tons more trustworthy. Moreover, if patent experts did exist at all, we wouldn't have all the EPO/USPTO garbage we have today. The problem is, those people working at those offices are not experts when it comes to information theory nor programming, and therefore grant stupid software patents which are mere mathematical transformations. Which is not allowed 'as such' as per the Munich 1973 convention. So probably those people didn't have formal education; at least not formal maths. If you read the actual complaint Apple filed in D'dorf, you might have seen the judge who decided about this case probably isn't an expert as well, as it really, really stinks. Probably the ones who decided about this case don't know heck about molding plastics, just as the examiners who proved a patent which introduces 'rounded' corners. So if all those legal people who don't understand the topics they're dealing with qualify as experts and people like Florian Mueller not, then certainly there's something wrong. And that's the whole point: You don't need a BSc / MSc in plastic molding or information theory to understand this whole Apple claim is garbage; any experience with those topics will do. The so called 'legal experts' however, clearly show they don't know about this topics and moreover are too lazy to deal with the topics. So I'd rather call somebody an expert if they know about information theoretics, plastic molding and the decision process of the European Union when it comes to software patents, than any patent examiner / patent lawyer with any title or 'credibility', because the lawyers / examiners are only lobbying for their wallets. If those people would have _any_ credibility in first place, EPO would be a European Institution with democratic control, and not the dictatorial office it is right now. |
| Jose_X Aug 12, 2011 2:16 PM EDT |
@JaseP, I'm guessing (in part from what you stated) that the legal definition of expert (for court purposes) does not require a degree. I used the example of honorary degrees to show that there are several paths to a point, even if some of the paths are not well traveled. If you have acquired a position of responsibility and have achieved merit-based accolades, then you might very well be an expert under almost any microscope. In some areas, it is almost a requirement for someone to have a degree in order to receive this wide recognition within their field, but not all areas of expertise work this way. In the current case, the level of "expert" considered is a bit less formal. If you can argue at important government levels against well-funded competing interests and win, for example, you likely have a clue about what you are talking about. Expert in what? Not necessarily expert in patent law but perhaps in various aspects of the patent landscape. I never made a judgement on FM, btw. .. and we know that the criteria for being recognized as an expert by the media, by courts, or by some other group are rather different. @KernelShepard, I wasn't defending IBM's total patent strategy. I was defending that the accusations leveled in this case were that IBM went back on its word not to use a certain 2 patents against FOSS but did include those 2 in the long list of patents it named in replying to TH. My response was that the TH product was not an open source product. It was a bundled product, essentially a FOSS shell integrated with proprietary software -- which makes it proprietary for intents of behavior. Also, it's a different act to use a patent against closed source monopoly-supported platform pushed by a very large and aggressive firm (Microsoft) vs. attacking a small assumed open source outfit. So while I don't back IBM's total patent position, I did not see this play as being particularly grievous in contrast to the realm of possibilities: it was an attack against Microsoft since TH could have easily unbundled and TH did have cooperation from Microsoft .. or so this appeared to be the case if you read their website for that product at the time (which as I said, was changed shortly after the back and forth allegations began). In case you want to argue that ANY patent attack is bad, well, breaking the law by wielding a gun is bad very possibly, but not all such cases are considered equal in the eyes of most people, clergy, or courts. In this case, the patents were used to help protect a monopoly (perhaps) but by attacking another monopolist and their proprietary software. [And that is rather different than the claims that IBM was attacking a small FOSS firm.] |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!