en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt
2 corrections found
before software patent law precedents were even established.
This is chronologically wrong: Microsoft's "235 patents" claim was reported in 2007, long after major U.S. software-patent precedents such as State Street Bank (1998) and earlier Supreme Court cases.
Full reasoning
The sentence says the "235 Microsoft patents" statements came before software patent law precedents were even established. But the public reporting on that Microsoft claim is from May 15, 2007. By then, software-patent precedent had existed for years.
For example, the Federal Circuit's State Street Bank & Trust v. Signature Financial Group decision was issued on July 23, 1998 and, as BitLaw summarizes, it determined that software programs that transform data are patentable subject matter under §101. BitLaw also notes that State Street discussed still-earlier Supreme Court software-patent cases, including Diamond v. Diehr.
So the timeline in the article is backwards: the Microsoft "235 patents" allegation was made after, not before, software-patent precedents had been established.
2 sources
- Microsoft Claims Open-Source Software Infringes on 235 Patents | Fox News (Associated Press)
Published May 15, 2007 ... "Open-source programs step on 235 Microsoft patents, the company said."
- State Street Bank Federal Circuit Decision (BitLaw)
"July 23, 1998" ... "the Federal Circuit determined that software programs that transform data are patentable subject matter under Section 101 of the Patent Act" and discusses earlier Supreme Court cases including "Diamond v. Diehr."
A 1969 [R. J. Reynolds](/wiki/R._J._Reynolds_Tobacco_Company "R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company") internal memorandum noted, "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public."
The famous 1969 "Doubt is our product" memo is generally attributed to Brown & Williamson, not R. J. Reynolds.
Full reasoning
The attribution here appears to be wrong. Multiple credible sources identify the 1969 "Doubt is our product" memo as a Brown & Williamson tobacco document, not an R. J. Reynolds memorandum.
For example, a PubMed Central article states that "a candid Brown & Williamson document" put it this way: "Doubt is our product." A WHO-cited U.S. filing likewise describes an internal B&W document entitled Smoking and Health Proposal that says: "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact'..."
Because the quote is attributed in reliable sources to Brown & Williamson, identifying it here as an R. J. Reynolds memo is incorrect.
2 sources
- Putting truth into action: using the evidence for justice - PMC
"Doubt is our product," as a candid Brown & Williamson document puts it.
- Post-Trial Brief of the United States of America
"an internal B&W document entitled 'Smoking and Health Proposal' explained: 'Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’...'"