5 ms·

I wouldn't trust FOSS patents and the author Florian Mueller as far as I could throw him. He has a long history of being a paid shill, lying about it, and being

by gpm 5y ago

I wouldn't trust FOSS patents and the author Florian Mueller as far as I could throw him. He has a long history of being a paid shill, lying about it, and being flat out wrong. (Paid by oracle) http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120419070127103 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120419070127103 (Paid by microsoft) http://techrights.org/2012/08/18/vile-lobbyist/ http://techrights.org/2012/08/18/vile-lobbyist/ (Paid by apple? I can't find other/primary sources to back up this claim though it does seem likely.) https://mrpogson.com/2012/08/21/apples-paid-shillconsultant- https://mrpogson.com/2012/08/21/apples-paid-shillconsultant-... (More examples of him being wrong) http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120820111527257 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120820111527257 I think there's a chance he's happens to be on the right side of the law this time (a stopped clock is right twice a day). At the same time he's good at his job at making believable bullshit. I put no faith whatsoever in his analysis and would suggest that reading his posts is more likely to deceive you than inform you.

GeekyBear 5y ago
> Paid by apple? I can't find other/primary sources to back up this claim though it does seem likely. He states that he's been rooting for Epic to win in the third paragraph. >I've been rooting for Epic, and I wish everyone were as honest as Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney after losing a court battle.
- gpm 5y ago
  Note that 1. It's entirely possible he is lying, it wouldn't be the first time. 2. The date of that accusation is back in 2012, it's entirely possible that his loyalties have shifted in the meantime. 3. The accusation could be false...
belltaco 5y ago
And Techrights/BoycottNovell and Groklaw are the epitome of unbiased coverage and analysis? How about we read everything with a grain of salt rather than just ad hominem? Why not just cite what is wrong with the analysis in the article, if anything? I see numerous citations, maybe submit analysis that differs from a different lawyer?
- gpm 5y ago
  The reality is that when you're trying to consume the firehose of information that is the internet, reading reliable sources that won't lie to you is very useful. Especially on subjects like law where there are a lot of subtleties and things that are outright wrong can sound very plausible. I have no real opinion on the journalistic integrity of techrights, I do have opinions on groklaw being pretty close to the epitome of unbiased coverage (and it was shown in court that the author of groklaw was not a paid shill...). Even if your vague insinuations about techrights and groklaw did have foundation, it would still just be a "whataboutism" argument. Someone intentionally producing misinformation is wrong no matter how reliable other people are. The fact that foss patents was paid was literally in court, and is an admitted fact (I'm loathe to links to fosspatents blog directly, so here's a link to a news article reporting on it with direct quotes: https://web.archive.org/web/20160825043319/http://www.dailytech.com/Top+AntiAndroid+Blogger+Florian+Mueller+is+Being+Paid+by+Oracle/article24633.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20160825043319/http://www.dailyt...)
  - belltaco 5y ago
    If you think Techrights/BoycottNovell and Groklaw are not very slanted coverage then you're within the bubble and cannot see outside it. Also, one can be very slanted and biased without getting paid (rather no one can prove or disprove they got paid no one even knows the identify of the person(s) behind Groklaw).
    - gpm 5y ago
      Groklaw certainly had a variety of sincerely held opinions (so does everyone), and advocated for them. That's different from being paid to take a position that you don't believe in or making bad faith arguments. The identity of who wrote Groklaw is known (Pamela Jones), and the accusations that they were a paid was disproven in court in the Oracle case. Edit: And when I said advocated for them, I mean it in the legal sense as well as blogging about them: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/patents/law/comments/sw-e_groklaw_topic2corrected_20130315.pdf https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/patents/law/commen...
invalidname 5y ago
I'm not sure I remember this correctly but wasn't he paid by SCO?
- gpm 5y ago
  I believe the payment by microsoft was partially over the SCO case. I don't recall seeing any evidence that he was paid directly by SCO (but I could have missed it) You can read the document in which microsoft discusses paying shills in this form (directly on page 53) and make up your own mind... http://techrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/comes-3096.pdf http://techrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/comes-3096....
sandofsky 5y ago
Earlier this year he accused my cofounder and I of conspiring with Apple to make fun of Epic on Twitter. This was entirely based on my cofounder tweeting a photo of Apple Park. http://www.fosspatents.com/2021/05/did-epic-games-ceo-tim-sweeney-get.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2021/05/did-epic-games-ceo-tim-sw... "The photo, taken from the lawn inside Apple Park, was posted at 4:55 PM Pacific Time, and the color of the sky as well as the length of the shadows cast by the trees suggest that the picture had been taken at just about that time of day." My cofounder tweeted the photo because Twitter had just launched new photo sizes, and the photo looked good with the changes. Just for the record, it was taken at 11:25 AM.
- Terretta 5y ago
  Wow, that article is unfortunate.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
otterley 5y ago
Instead of defaming the person, can you explain why his analysis is incorrect?
- gpm 5y ago
  Neither truthful statements, nor opinion based on disclosed fact are defamation. I believe my statements here qualify as both. I am pretty careful when I'm intentionally attacking a person instead of an opinion. I'm criticizing the person and not the analysis for several reasons. The primary one is that the purpose of my post is to caution people about reading fosspatents as a reliable law blog, not to discuss this case. An equally important reason is that I think there's a chance that he happens to be right this time (as I indicate in my original post) so there's probably not much in his analysis for me to criticize (though I did not read it in detail). Finally it takes substantially more time and expertise to disprove disinformation (especially in a fashion convincing to lay people in a comment short enough to post on hn) than it does to make it. Debating misinformation every time it comes up is not something I have the time or expertise to do. Warning people about a known bad actor however is something I do have the time to do, and is in my opinion more likely to improve the world.
  - otterley 5y ago
    (Retracted due to error)
    - gpm 5y ago
      I firmly believe you are mistaken as to the meaning of the word defamation, to quote a dictionary (emphasis added) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defamation https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defamation > the act of communicating false statements about a person that injure the reputation of that person True statements are not defamatory as a matter of the meaning of the word in common language. Calling out bad actors is not a "cheap shot", it's a useful social service. On HN we should demand better sources that do not come from known bad actors. A cheap shot would be some sort of unfair attack on his character, e.g. calling out random cases where he called the outcome wrong (which inevitably happens if you comment on enough cases). If you want to read well written and thorough criticisms of some of his older posts, you can, for example, pull up old groklaw posts about them (which did take the time to disassemble the arguments step by step and criticize them).

by gpm 5y ago

GeekyBear 5y ago

> Paid by apple? I can't find other/primary sources to back up this claim though it does seem likely. He states that he's been rooting for Epic to win in the third paragraph. >I've been rooting for Epic, and I wish everyone were as honest as Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney after losing a court battle.

gpm 5y ago
Note that 1. It's entirely possible he is lying, it wouldn't be the first time. 2. The date of that accusation is back in 2012, it's entirely possible that his loyalties have shifted in the meantime. 3. The accusation could be false...

belltaco 5y ago

And Techrights/BoycottNovell and Groklaw are the epitome of unbiased coverage and analysis? How about we read everything with a grain of salt rather than just ad hominem? Why not just cite what is wrong with the analysis in the article, if anything? I see numerous citations, maybe submit analysis that differs from a different lawyer?

gpm 5y ago
The reality is that when you're trying to consume the firehose of information that is the internet, reading reliable sources that won't lie to you is very useful. Especially on subjects like law where there are a lot of subtleties and things that are outright wrong can sound very plausible. I have no real opinion on the journalistic integrity of techrights, I do have opinions on groklaw being pretty close to the epitome of unbiased coverage (and it was shown in court that the author of groklaw was not a paid shill...). Even if your vague insinuations about techrights and groklaw did have foundation, it would still just be a "whataboutism" argument. Someone intentionally producing misinformation is wrong no matter how reliable other people are. The fact that foss patents was paid was literally in court, and is an admitted fact (I'm loathe to links to fosspatents blog directly, so here's a link to a news article reporting on it with direct quotes: https://web.archive.org/web/20160825043319/http://www.dailytech.com/Top+AntiAndroid+Blogger+Florian+Mueller+is+Being+Paid+by+Oracle/article24633.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20160825043319/http://www.dailyt...)
- belltaco 5y ago
  If you think Techrights/BoycottNovell and Groklaw are not very slanted coverage then you're within the bubble and cannot see outside it. Also, one can be very slanted and biased without getting paid (rather no one can prove or disprove they got paid no one even knows the identify of the person(s) behind Groklaw).
  - gpm 5y ago
    Groklaw certainly had a variety of sincerely held opinions (so does everyone), and advocated for them. That's different from being paid to take a position that you don't believe in or making bad faith arguments. The identity of who wrote Groklaw is known (Pamela Jones), and the accusations that they were a paid was disproven in court in the Oracle case. Edit: And when I said advocated for them, I mean it in the legal sense as well as blogging about them: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/patents/law/comments/sw-e_groklaw_topic2corrected_20130315.pdf https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/patents/law/commen...

invalidname 5y ago

I'm not sure I remember this correctly but wasn't he paid by SCO?

gpm 5y ago
I believe the payment by microsoft was partially over the SCO case. I don't recall seeing any evidence that he was paid directly by SCO (but I could have missed it) You can read the document in which microsoft discusses paying shills in this form (directly on page 53) and make up your own mind... http://techrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/comes-3096.pdf http://techrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/comes-3096....

sandofsky 5y ago

Earlier this year he accused my cofounder and I of conspiring with Apple to make fun of Epic on Twitter. This was entirely based on my cofounder tweeting a photo of Apple Park. http://www.fosspatents.com/2021/05/did-epic-games-ceo-tim-sweeney-get.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2021/05/did-epic-games-ceo-tim-sw... "The photo, taken from the lawn inside Apple Park, was posted at 4:55 PM Pacific Time, and the color of the sky as well as the length of the shadows cast by the trees suggest that the picture had been taken at just about that time of day." My cofounder tweeted the photo because Twitter had just launched new photo sizes, and the photo looked good with the changes. Just for the record, it was taken at 11:25 AM.

Terretta 5y ago
Wow, that article is unfortunate.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

otterley 5y ago

Instead of defaming the person, can you explain why his analysis is incorrect?

gpm 5y ago
Neither truthful statements, nor opinion based on disclosed fact are defamation. I believe my statements here qualify as both. I am pretty careful when I'm intentionally attacking a person instead of an opinion. I'm criticizing the person and not the analysis for several reasons. The primary one is that the purpose of my post is to caution people about reading fosspatents as a reliable law blog, not to discuss this case. An equally important reason is that I think there's a chance that he happens to be right this time (as I indicate in my original post) so there's probably not much in his analysis for me to criticize (though I did not read it in detail). Finally it takes substantially more time and expertise to disprove disinformation (especially in a fashion convincing to lay people in a comment short enough to post on hn) than it does to make it. Debating misinformation every time it comes up is not something I have the time or expertise to do. Warning people about a known bad actor however is something I do have the time to do, and is in my opinion more likely to improve the world.
- otterley 5y ago
  (Retracted due to error)
  - gpm 5y ago
    I firmly believe you are mistaken as to the meaning of the word defamation, to quote a dictionary (emphasis added) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defamation https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defamation > the act of communicating false statements about a person that injure the reputation of that person True statements are not defamatory as a matter of the meaning of the word in common language. Calling out bad actors is not a "cheap shot", it's a useful social service. On HN we should demand better sources that do not come from known bad actors. A cheap shot would be some sort of unfair attack on his character, e.g. calling out random cases where he called the outcome wrong (which inevitably happens if you comment on enough cases). If you want to read well written and thorough criticisms of some of his older posts, you can, for example, pull up old groklaw posts about them (which did take the time to disassemble the arguments step by step and criticize them).