If you read the story carefully and completely, you'll note that he agrees that this very well may have been the right move, but right relative to the weak position that he has been arguing Google was in. He's by no means being inconsistent to say that their improved position is still weak.
I appreciate the advice, but I did read the article carefully and completely. My original comment, read carefully, has far more to do with the nuances of Gruber beginning to turn his arguments now that he can't bray night and day about how very threatened Google is by the combined patent portfolios of it's enemies.
Wich has zero to do with whether this post of his is insightful, correct, or worth reading. That's the trouble with ad hominems, they aren't adding value. What I as a fellow reader want to know is whether this postnis wrth reading, and if so, what to watch out for good or bad.
I don't care if the previous 99 post by the same author are lumps of coal, I want to know whether this one is a diamond.
Well...yeah. As the facts change, do you not expect the outlook to change as well? This widespread tendency to hold others with whom one might disagree to an impossible standard is getting tiresome.
