4 ms·

For those not familiar with the above poster's relation to Groklaw: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091021164738392 http://www.groklaw.net/article.p

• burgerbrain 15y ago
  "I never drink beer" --FlorianMueller (http://lwn.net/Articles/402113/ http://lwn.net/Articles/402113/) Really explains a lot in my humble opinion. (Not necessarily the not drinking of beer, but the rather unnecessary pointing out that he doesn't drink beer)
  • _delirium 15y ago
    A German who doesn't drink beer? Stereotype ruined!
• VMG 15y ago
  I have to admit I need a tldr here
  • T-R 15y ago
    His wikipedia article is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florian_Mueller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florian_Mueller In short, he and the author of Groklaw have opposing viewpoints regarding various software patent cases, including the Google v. Oracle case, and have been very directly criticizing each other. Groklaw has accused him of spreading FUD, and its readers have accused him of being sponsored to do this (see orangecat's link below), while Mr.Mueller has accused Groklaw of lying and attacking him to get attention.
    • jedsmith 15y ago
      > Mr.Mueller has accused Groklaw lying and attacking him to get attention. There is no shortage of irony in that statement.
• tzs 15y ago
  Your first link is to an article that cites no real sources that actually back up what the article claims. The external sources it cites either do not say what it claims they say, or they are opinion pieces with no cites to their sources. Most of the cites, however, are just links to early articles on the same site that similarly lack any basis. The standard MO of that site is to make up something, occasionally even actually labeling at as speculation. Then in later articles they mention it in passing, just saying they have written about it before, and citing back. Then in still later articles, they mention it as fact, and cite one of their secondary articles.
  • T-R 15y ago
    I don't want to assert that anything in the above links is unbiased fact, I just want to provide context for the comment, i.e. Groklaw makes direct and critical reference to the above poster, and that relates to his comment. The first link (to techrights.org) was added later, because it provides some summary, but admittedly it's very biased, so I'll remove it in the interest of fairness.
• kprobst 15y ago
  > techrights.org rofl. You know that's boycottnovell, right? They just changed the branding.
  • T-R 15y ago
    I was not aware of that, actually, and I've now removed the link.
    • T-R 15y ago
      For reference, the link is here: http://techrights.org/2010/04/11/florian-mueller-and-erika-mann/ http://techrights.org/2010/04/11/florian-mueller-and-erika-m... Apparently Mr.Mueller thinks my removal of the link was significant enough to make note of on Twitter. I want to make it clear that my removal of the link was not in any way indicative of my opinion of him or BoycottNovell/TechRights, and I don't appreciate his attempt to imply that it is.
      • burgerbrain 15y ago
        http://twitter.com/FOSSpatents http://twitter.com/FOSSpatents (His twitter feed, for reference.) Yesh, what a scuzball.
      • FlorianMueller 15y ago
        I didn't make note of it on Twitter for the general public -- I just informed a TechRights skeptic (@verofakto) of it. Concerning the article you linked to, here's an additional link: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/04/id-rather-discuss-patent-issues-than.html http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/04/id-rather-discuss-pa...
        • burgerbrain 15y ago
          Anything posted on twitter is for the general public.
          • 15y ago