Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > And So The Merry Circus Goes Round Again...

Reply
Thread Tools

And So The Merry Circus Goes Round Again...

 
 
Another Me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2010
On 16/10/10 11:32 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<i9bs1i$4nb$(E-Mail Removed)>, Another Me wrote:
>
>> On 16/10/10 2:18 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Allow me to draw your attention to this dubious claim you made:
>>>
>>> Well you seem ignorant to the fact, that without patents, a lot of
>>> businesses wouldn't risk developing technologies in the first place.
>>>
>>> which you have yet to back up.
>>>

>>
>> You didn't answer my question, you starting complaining about semantics.

>
> Where did I complain about “semantics”?


Maybe you should go back and read the thread.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2010
In message <i9dkth$5vd$(E-Mail Removed)>, Another Me wrote:

> Maybe you should go back and read the thread.


Maybe you should go and find some justification for this dubious claim you
made:

Well you seem ignorant to the fact, that without patents, a lot
of businesses wouldn't risk developing technologies in the first
place.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Another Me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2010
On 17/10/10 2:57 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<i9dkth$5vd$(E-Mail Removed)>, Another Me wrote:
>
>> Maybe you should go back and read the thread.

>
> Maybe you should go and find some justification for this dubious claim you
> made:
>
> Well you seem ignorant to the fact, that without patents, a lot
> of businesses wouldn't risk developing technologies in the first
> place.
>


Maybe you should go back to your original statement and come up with
backup your claim?

"Somebody please explain to me how this demonstrates that patents are
essential to an innovative, vibrant economy, again?"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Sinclair
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2010
In article <i8j6hc$p47$(E-Mail Removed)>, Another Me <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On 7/10/10 12:53 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> Somebody please explain to me how this demonstrates that patents are
>> essential to an innovative, vibrant economy, again?

>
>Well if it is true, then Apple has profited off someone else's
>innovation, are you saying that is ok?


Everyone does it. Some get caught.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2010
In message <i9e9tm$hqq$(E-Mail Removed)>, Another Me wrote:

> On 17/10/10 2:57 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message<i9dkth$5vd$(E-Mail Removed)>, Another Me wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe you should go back and read the thread.

>>
>> Maybe you should go and find some justification for this dubious claim
>> you made:
>>
>> Well you seem ignorant to the fact, that without patents, a lot
>> of businesses wouldn't risk developing technologies in the first
>> place.
>>

>
> Maybe you should go back to your original statement and come up with
> backup your claim?
>
> "Somebody please explain to me how this demonstrates that patents are
> essential to an innovative, vibrant economy, again?"


Not a claim, but a question which nobody has yet answered. Certainly you
haven’t done.

(Hint: that “?” punctuation mark at the end is a dead giveaway that this is
a question, not a claim.)

You, on the other hand, made a claim of fact (above), that you have
completely failed so far to back up.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Another Me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2010
On 18/10/10 1:12 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

>
> You, on the other hand, made a claim of fact (above), that you have
> completely failed so far to back up.


Like I said, I responded to your question, and asked you a follow up
question, all you did is start arguing about semantics
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-19-2010
In message <i9ieaa$ur6$(E-Mail Removed)>, Another Me wrote:

> On 18/10/10 1:12 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> You, on the other hand, made a claim of fact (above), that you have
>> completely failed so far to back up.

>
> Like I said, I responded to your question, and asked you a follow up
> question, all you did is start arguing about semantics


Where did I argue about “semantics”?

All I want you to do is back up this dubious claim you made:

Well you seem ignorant to the fact, that without patents, a lot
of businesses wouldn't risk developing technologies in the first
place.

Because the longer you go on like this, the more apparent it becomes to
everybody reading this thread what a load of bullshit you’re spouting.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Another Me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2010
On 19/10/10 1:02 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

>
> Because the longer you go on like this, the more apparent it becomes to
> everybody reading this thread what a load of bullshit you’re spouting.


You know you are a waste of space. You starting arguing about using the
words invention or innovation, and then you can't even remember it.
99.99999% of people don't care about them, they don't care about open
source this, open source that, they care about buying the product they
want to buy. Get over your little tie ups, no one cares.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2010
In message <i9lh5a$nek$(E-Mail Removed)>, Another Me wrote:

> You starting arguing about using the words invention or innovation, and
> then you can't even remember it.


I do remember it. You call that arguing over “semantics”? Perhaps you should
look in the dictionary to find out what “semantics” means. (Hint: it means
“meaning”.) Because the “semantics” of “invention” versus “innovation” are
very different, which is the whole point.

And just to reinforce it, go look at the patent laws, and see if there is
any mention of “innovation” in them. You’ll find none. Patents are all about
“invention” (which is the word you’ll find in the patent laws), while
business development and growth is all about “innovation” (as any business
school will teach you at some point within the very first lecture). Two
entirely different words, with entirely different meanings. They sound
similar, but that’s as far as it goes. Please don’t be so obviously fooled
by that, will you?

> > 99.99999% of people don't care about them, they don't care about open

> source this, open source that, they care about buying the product they
> want to buy. Get over your little tie ups, no one cares.


It’s always comical to see people post something saying “no one cares”, when
it’s pretty clear they damn well cared enough to post to make sure everyone
knew about it. Cry me a river.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Another Me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2010
On 20/10/10 7:08 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> I do remember it. You call that arguing over “semantics”? Perhaps you should
> look in the dictionary to find out what “semantics” means. (Hint: it means
> “meaning”.) Because the “semantics” of “invention” versus “innovation” are
> very different, which is the whole point.


I do know the meaning of the word, I used a word, a perfectly valid
word, I asked you a question, all you did is bitch, and have constantly
bitched about a word I used.

Show me know patents are bad, you still haven't done so.

One of the companies that is getting sued just sold US$20 billion worth
of products in the last quarter, they have a tonne of patents, they must
be doing something the market wants, so in this case how are patents
bad? You still haven't answered me, like most of the threads you start,
you never respond when someone questions you.

> It’s always comical to see people post something saying “no one cares”, when
> it’s pretty clear they damn well cared enough to post to make sure everyone
> knew about it. Cry me a river.


The issue is you were the one that posted initially, so maybe I am wrong
in saying no one cares, maybe it is just you that cares, because I don't
see a lot of opposition about it.

You must have a pretty sad life if all you can do is bitch about patents
and open source on all these sites and news groups.

Do you actually live how you try and preach? Do you only use open
source products and services? Do you refuse to use products that have
any patents associated with them? Stop being such a hypocrite.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Circus in town! (pics and story!) Focus Digital Photography 14 03-27-2008 12:22 AM
FA: J&SB STRIKE BACK dvd, VAMPIRE CIRCUS ld, DTS FRIGHTENERS ld, and more! J Rusnak DVD Video 0 10-18-2006 11:45 PM
VS2005 - Going round and round in circles again :) postings@alexshirley.com ASP .Net 0 06-22-2006 11:26 AM
Glastonbury Circus and performer acts prep@prep.synonet.com Digital Photography 0 07-10-2005 04:42 PM
Computer Goes Round and Round Checking Alan Computer Support 6 10-08-2004 08:24 AM



Advertisments