I think you're being overly harsh. He quotes Apple's legal papers in which they clearly state that the concept of an app store is unprecedented and then he exposes that as inaccurate. You might think of him as a "minor freetard business celebrity" but he took the brilliance of Linux software repositories, made them easier to use and more accessible, and integrated in the ability to pay for software long before Apple did the exact same thing. That makes him extremely qualified to offer some insight on the topic regardless of how big of a celebrity he is. It also explains why he focuses on countering Apple's claim that they invented the concept despite it being less relevant to the trademark dispute.
He was also involved with the Microsoft v. Lindows case in which Microsoft claimed to own the trademark on all words that rhyme with Windows. Remember that one? Where Microsoft couldn't win so they ended up paying $20 million to Lindows for them to change their name to Linspire? He's had direct experience with a frivolous trademark suit from a major software company in the past. Again, that makes him highly qualified to share an opinion on the current situation, which he does. He directly addressed the fact that that app store had been in common usage before Apple started using it. It would've been nice if he could have given more concrete examples but he did still address it.
In conclusion, calling him a freetard is childish and contributes nothing to the discussion of the article. Saying that he fails to distinguish trademarks from patents is flat out wrong and gives people skimming the comments a totally inaccurate impression of the article and its relevance.
> He quotes Apple's legal papers in which they clearly state...
You mean he quotes Apple's attorney's quotation of a New York Times reporter? It's not quite so clear that this is Apple's statement, and reading the quote in context doesn't give the impression that Apple is claiming to have invented the concept.
> Saying that he fails to distinguish trademarks from patents is flat out wrong...
He seems to understand the difference but ignore it. He mostly argues that the concept of an app store pre-dated Apple's trademark filing. This is a patent-type argument in a trademark discussion, hence the confusion.
The only trademark law based argument he makes is that the term "app store" was generic. But without any evidence this conclusion is worthless.
He's anything but a "freetard", he built cnr in order to be able to easily ship proprietary and drm apps. Far from a freetard (whatever that means).
Also I'm saddened to see people here upvoting a comment using a derogatory term (freetard) against a part of our community (free and open source software enthusiasts in that case), it's against the HN guidelines.
I'll consider my tone more in future, but lest anyone mistake me - I am part of the FOSS world, so I am a freetard too and use the term as endearing dark humour :)
The 'us and them' mentality exists across many boundaries and I don't think it's going away any time soon. Most just learn to ignore it because whatever you decide is good, someone, somewhere, disagrees with you.
Really? A play on the politically-incorrect, downright offense word "retard", doesn't sound worse than "fanboy"? Wow, I guess it is all about perspective.
You are entitled to be offended, but the term has never really been more than a darkly affectionate moniker - Dan Lyons (fake Steve jobs) is a big fan of FOSS, as am I :)
The link didn't seem to work - did you mean the one where he talks about the trademark being invalid? It's an interesting suggestion, and if true then Google/Microsoft should have no problems in appealing the trademark and having it revoked :)
Until then, the trademark is granted and apple are required to defend it if they wish to maintain it. Never let such simple facts get in the way of a good bit of grandstanding though ;)
