Do you trust Red Hat: Yes/No/RedHat is not always correct?

I pick Option 3. Red Hat could have misinterpreted their intention; Red Hat could be playing a PR game; Red Hat might have sources that they trust, but which are either lying to them or incorrect themselves; Red Hat rushed to a conclusion, and finds it difficult to retract now; [insert any number of other options here].

What we do know is that neither Red Hat, nor the OIN, have released any evidence whatsoever. Your choices are just as false as C.S. Lewis’ “Lord, Liar, or Lunatic” choices: the fact is that there are many other options, most of which don’t end up either trusting Red Hat without question or calling them outright liars. Me, I side with the innocent-until-proven-guilty, and await some proof of guilt.

If yes, then you have your evidence. If no, then Red Hat are liars, and there is no evidence. You have picked your option, I am just outlining the consequences.

I apologize, but the quality of the response is directly related to the quality of your argument. You will not get far by denying the aggressive patent move by Microsoft which was covered in press (and serious sources like Red Hat and OIN). Even the most far fetched pro Microsoft argument has to have some roots in reality.

If you aren’t open to changing your mind, then don’t bother with entering the discussion. Or, at a minimum, restrain yourself from posting twisted versions of other people’s perspectives — it just annoys people, and makes them less willing to constructively engage with you in future.

Microsoft is a kind and gentle company and we should love and respect it.

As for their marketing material: well, who would ever believe that a seller wants to point out how wonderful their goods are to the prospective buyers — whether the goods are or are not as depicted?

Let me know if you ever manage to dig up some actual evidence.

With respect, that’s not quite what I was asking for. You consider Miguel de Icaza’s statements to be insulting. Fair enough; I can understand that view. However, a bunch of insults don’t make for a false argument, or a logical fallacy (this is not a fallacy, but this is).

It (Microsoft) also used marketing materials that highlighted offensive uses of the patents against open source software, including a number of the most popular open source packages.

Well, damn the Red Hat for “pointing fingers and creating conspiracies”!

Microsoft has clearly done nothing wrong. They do not make enough money by selling Windows anymore, so they were just trying to make a quick buck by selling some Linux-hostile patents. That is their right, can you blame them.
They could have caused patent problems for some open source projects, but it was unintentional. And since OIN has acquired the patents, it’s no longer a problem.

This makes perfect sense to a sane unbiased observer.

Do you have specific examples in mind?

Sure, I’ll play (once):

Richard Stallman does not seem to have anything better to do than launch personal attacks against me.

Ad hominem and a lie, because rms was not “launching a personal attack”.

In his last piece he has decided to call me a Microsoft apologist because I do not participate in his witch hunt.

A lie. rms did not call Mr de Icaza an apologist because of a “witch hunt”. He called Mr de Icaza an apologist because Mr de Icaza IS an apologist

Furthermore he is implying – incorrectly – that people that criticize him are “dominated by fear”.

I rather work on constructive solutions to problems than moan and complain.

Again, his implication is that only he and his team are working on constructive solutions, where critics aren’t doing anything but “moaning and complaining”.

Fear mongering is a vibrant industry, it is the easy way out for those that can not lead with the example. Create a bogeyman, make things up, lie, or tell half-truths, and demonize and you got a recipe to energize your base.

Ad hominem non-specifically from start to finish, attacking the “leader” and the “base” of his critics.

Richard’s fear mongering is no different.

You can guess the fallacy here.

Richard Stallman frequently conjures bogeymen to rally his base. Sometimes it is Microsoft, sometimes he makes up facts and sometimes he even attacks his own community [2]. His language is filled with simple, George W Bush-eque terms like Good vs Evil, Us vs Them.

More of the same, with a little demonization by association political attack as well, having the nice side effect of directly comparing rms to a man who he probably doesn’t agree with on very much.

But to Richard, this simply does not compute.

A lie, because it computes just fine to rms and anyone. It’s not like no one understands the situation. The debate is over how things will turn out, meaning all sides are speculating – that is the nature of discussion.

To Richard, the state of the world is hopeless.

Just smearing now – the entire“state of the world is hopeless”?
Mr de Icaza is no longer even trying at this point.

If you go through Mr. de Icaza’s statements in similar veins, you will always see the same thing. A long list of thinly veiled personal attacks, character smears and distortions of opponents’ positions.

Calling people scared or implying they are too stupid to see the truth are two long-time favorites.

As for the “patent trolls” thing, OIN and Red Hat both have good statements on how they think the thing went down. You can choose to dismiss them along with us wacky zealot conspiratists if you like – I don’t think that is the right thing to do, but it is your perogative of course.

Finally my apologies for the haste and errors in this post, I am incredibly pressed for time, but I didn’t want you to think I was ignoring you!

Is there some definition of “white-washing” that means “asking for any evidence of X, and in the absence of such evidence believing the simplest explanation”? No?

Well, then, it seems to me that the symptoms that Mr de Icaza is displaying are those of sanity. I’m rather glad that I share those symptoms.