Author
|
Topic: My take on Stardock (Read 191995 times)
|
Frogboy
*Many bubbles*
 Offline
Posts: 231
|
If the moderators have a problem with me pointing out how obnoxious your pretend lawyer posts are then I’d just leave.
I don’t necessarily agree with the tone of svs’s posts but I agree with the substance. When I said you were obtuse, I used that word not as an insult but as a carefully picked descriptor.
When you post high level opinions, that’s fine. What gets you into trouble is that you make legal conclusions.
To use a programming analogy, you write a bunch of C-like gobblygook and insist it will compile and when someone who knows how to program tells you it’s gobblygook you start demanding that they walk you through your various lines of pseudo-code. It’s impossible because you don’t even have the basics down.What makes your posts damaging is that to a lay person, they can come across as credible because hey, you seem to be using a C-like syntax.
It’s kind of like when you watch a movie that covers your area of expertise and they completely botch it but people walk out thinking “oh yea, they could totally hack that computer that way...” simply because they used jargon that sounded right.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frogboy
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 231
|
It's not about an appeal to authority. It is most definitely not in my best interest to walk him through all the ways he is wrong.
Having spent most of my adult life having to be involved in some type of IP related litigation (and this is the first time we initiated a suit) I've gotten more than my fair share of first hand experience on how this works.
So what would I point out to him? Everything. Every legal conclusion I've seem him post is wrong. Even ones that favor us. When this is all over in a few years, I will try to make a point of explaining the multiple flaws in every argument he's made and why they make no sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frogboy
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 231
|
Opinions are fine. Legal conclusions are less fine.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lakstoties
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 66
|
To use a programming analogy, you write a bunch of C-like gobblygook and insist it will compile and when someone who knows how to program tells you it’s gobblygook you start demanding that they walk you through your various lines of pseudo-code. It’s impossible because you don’t even have the basics down.What makes your posts damaging is that to a lay person, they can come across as credible because hey, you seem to be using a C-like syntax.
The sign of a true expert is someone willing to educate one about the basics and explain the issues accurately with their expert knowledge, hence demonstrating their proficiency and showing what was wrong in one's assumptions. When you refuse to do so because someone "cannot understand due to their lack of knowledge", then you do a disservice to everyone by purposefully leaving them in ignorance and you do a disservice to yourself by not exercising your knowledge when it could highlight the purpose of your knowledge and value of such in society. The sharing of this knowledge by an expert can help aid the expert in keeping their knowledge relevant and up to date via discovery of contradictions or changes that have happened since the knowledge was last exercised.
I am a computer scientist by training and I have never withheld my knowledge from anyone because I thought they wouldn't understand. I have spent hours educating those who are willing about the concepts I have learned and took considerable effort to relate them in different manners, examples, and methods to remedy their ignorance. Through that process both parties have always been enriched.
So, I do not understand this hording of knowledge over others to demean their honest quest to understand the situation. There are people who are trying comprehend this situation to the best of their abilities and in the face of their honest struggle... Supposed experts sit by and do nothing. A situation has arisen to justify past efforts to acquire the experience and knowledge... and such is just being withheld, seemingly, contemptuously.
This is a great opportunity to garner goodwill and understanding of a position, but instead there is standoff and dismissal.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Krulle
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 1115
*Hurghi*! Krulle is *spitting* again!
|
And pick one single line of the code, and tell them how a Ccode line would look like.
e.g. variable dfinition and initial value setting:
byte z; z=25;
should be
byte z=25;
Again, the 1988 agreement. The interpretation does not require much knowledge of law, as the agreement is self-sufficient.
How is Elestan's conclusion that the licensing agreement regarding selling/distribution of the games has ended wrong?
Since I came to the same conclusion (independently), I would love to know which assumption I did wrong, which illogical step I thought was logical,...
Well, Frogboy should not answer that, as this might publish Stardocks intended reasoning, but svs is free to comment on it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
tingkagol
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 50
|
e]...and at this point, you've stepped over the line into ad hominem, and violated the posting rules of this forum. Straw man argument, sir. I'm glad to see you are acquainted with argumentative fallacies such as the Straw Man. Let me point you to another, The Courtier's Reply: ...in which a respondent to criticism dismisses the arguments of the critic by claiming that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to credibly comment on the subject matter.. Frogboy has twice tried to use this tactic against me here, and I asked the moderators not to take action against him for it, because I genuinely want to hear his perspectives. But it's getting a little old, and having more people launching baseless attacks does not help the conversation. If you want to provide constructive criticism or an entirely different well-reasoned perspective, I would welcome it, but otherwise, it would be best if you were not here.
* just found out about the "courtier" fallacy. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Frogboy
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 231
|
I am withholding my knowledge for what should be self-evident reasons. This isn't an academic exercise for us.
Over the next 2 or 3 years you will be able to read documents on this on Pacer and look at how things got ruled on and the actual arguments made by actual lawyers.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frogboy
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 231
|
I am withholding my knowledge for what should be self-evident reasons. This isn't an academic exercise for us.
Over the next 2 or 3 years you will be able to read documents on this on Pacer and look at how things got ruled on and the actual arguments made by actual lawyers.
Okay, but why are you here at all then? It doesn't seem to serve much purpose to come here to tell others about how wrong they are without actually telling them how they are wrong.
Then why are you here?
Edit: I think I have contributed a lot to a discussion that most lawyers would tell you that I shouldn't be contributing at all. But I value communicating with the community more than an optimal legal strategy. But naturally, there are limitations.
There is a big difference between someone having an opinion and someone making a legal conclusion. I haven't had a problem with anything Krulle's writing whereas Elestan tends to write as if he's some sort of arbiter waiting for others to make legal arguments to him in order to post his legal conclusion when he's no more qualified to discuss it than my daughter.
In a deposition, it is actually a no-no to ask a witness to make a legal conclusion.
Ok to ask: "Did he hit you?"
Not ok to ask: "Do he commit assault?"
This particular dispute has a complicated part and a not complicated part. The 1988 agreement is complicated. The trademark part is not.
The follow-up question would be: Why is one complicated and the other is not? It's because each contract is unique and there are laws upon laws that govern the myriad of little bits. By contrast, there are very clear, thoroughly litigated rules in place on trademarks. The 1988 contract has never been litigated on. Trademark infringement cases, by contrast, have been thousands upon thousands of times.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 08, 2018, 11:10:40 pm by Frogboy »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
