yummysalad

5 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by yummysalad 14y ago

   doesn't mean he's wrong. jury's partial verdict means Mueller > you
2. 2.▲
   by yummysalad 14y ago

   >also a personal insult, such as calling someone a complete and utter muppet, can be a perfectly reasonable point to make in argument as long as it is particularly relevant. I think that comment applies more to you. the jury's partial v
3. 3.▲
   by yummysalad 14y ago

   >He's basically a huge anti-google marketing campaign. >his garbage blog ad hominem attacks against Mueller. not me.
4. 4.▲
   by yummysalad 14y ago

   in this case imo Mueller has more credibility than parfe (no offense). Why? because Mueller's opinions were backed by facts. parfe's opinions were supported by ad hominem attacks.
5. 5.▲
   by yummysalad 14y ago

   parfe's judgement is clouded by his hatred of Mueller. that's the point.
6. 6.▲
   by yummysalad 14y ago

   anti-google or not he correctly predicted that the jury would find that Android infringed on Oracle's copyright and that is my point. whether I agree with the jury or not or if I hate or Mueller is not the issue.
7. 7.▲
   by yummysalad 14y ago

   I'm not a big fan of Mueller myself but so far he's been correct. The jury returned a partial verdict favoring Oracle. Judge Alsup specifically told Google's counsel to address the Johnson Controls decision. Judge Alsup told Google's couns
8. 8.▲
   by yummysalad 14y ago

   EDIT: why am I being down voted? Oracle has a pretty strong case against Google. To address the issue of fair use and if APIs can be copyrightable: 1. Judge Alsup told Google's counsel that Google had to address the Johnson Controls decisi