|
|
|
|
|
|
by icarus_drowning
5416 days ago
|
|
|
Look, this is Gruber's bottom line, all of his caveats aside. At the end of the day, that's how he views this story, and I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that this is going to be a fairly succinct example of his thinking and arguments going forward. That strategy is going to conveniently rely on his readers forgetting his near-obsession with Google's supposed doom at the hands of Apple and Microsoft's patent portfolios. That's why it is a reversal-- because patents, once so important, probably aren't going to factor into his incessant Google criticism in the future, despite the fact that he has made them the cornerstone of many of his arguments until now. |
|
|
On the one hand, you're complaining about his supposed "near-obsession" (as opposed to every other person writing on the subject? what's the measurement here?) but on the other you're saying that one sentence is proof that it was all some kind of ruse and he'll never speak of it again. As if patents not figuring into one sentence means he can never say anything about them again. What a great leap that is! He's trying to make a point about something, but you're treating it as if it's a total retraction of every other point he's ever tried to make--even in the same post--because...why? Because it's not just a restatement of what he said last week, in a different context? I don't understand that at all, even under the banner of HN's predictably frothing meme of disdain for the man.
Not only do I not understand that, I don't understand how on earth one man gets such scrutiny about precisely how much he talks about something, down to the sentence, when dozens of sites have been publishing on the same subjects. This is news. When new things happen, people write about them. Google bought Motorola. That's news. But must Gruber (or anyone) interpret or discuss that solely in terms of patents (or any one angle)? Why is commenting on any other aspect of the deal forbidden? Makes no sense.