7 ms·

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 a

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...
    - belltaco 5y ago
      Ironically, this was the reason they gave the reason for hiding their identity under PJ and then later expanding it to a generic Pamela Jones since there are a lot of people under that name: >In other words, I was hoping people could assume whatever they wanted and just focus on what I said, rather than on who was saying it. For that reason, I chose PJ, because it could be anyone, either sex, any nationality, anyone and no one in particular. Maybe we should follow PJ's advice while reading the posted article. Anyway, we are rehashing a discussion from the past. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7090812 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7090812
    - gpm 5y ago
      In the interst of continuing to provide actual facts to this conversation: Here is an article by Pamela Jones (ironically not on groklaw) discussing the lack of compensation for running groklaw: https://www.zdnet.com/article/letter-to-the-editor-no-ibm-groklaw-connection/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/letter-to-the-editor-no-ibm-gr... Here is the court filing by IBM in which they deny that they paid groklaw (page 10): http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-621-E19.pdf http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-621-E19.pdf
      - belltaco 5y ago
        Not like IBM would ever lie in court. https://www.theregister.com/2019/01/18/ibm_government_lying_claims/ https://www.theregister.com/2019/01/18/ibm_government_lying_... And the other link is an assertion by an anonymous person that they're totally on the up and up. What would you expect if they were not, a confession? Would Florian Muller make a confession if he were anonymously posting as FM (Frank Matthew) while getting paid as a consultant? No one would ever know he was getting paid if we didn't know his real identity.
- belltaco 5y ago
  >and it was shown in court that the author of groklaw was not a paid shill.. The court didn't determine who paid for hosting and dev. They didn't examine her tax returns. They don't know her employer(s). Didn't examine her bank accounts. She could be the daughter or wife of an IBM lawyer and IBMs assertion in court would still be true.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jjcon 5y ago
Florian Mueller has a long history of paid lying and clearly has skin in this game. I think that is important information to have presented. Importantly I also think his analysis is hardly convincing and one only needs to look to NYTimes, The Verge, NPR, CNN and the AP to see the exact opposite case presented.
- belltaco 5y ago
  Reported by journalists, not lawyers like the article. And why is Tim Sweeney tweeting that he lost the court case?
  - caslon 5y ago
    He did lose the court case. He got none of his desires met, none of the goals he set out with met, and wasted a lot of money. I'm not particularly sympathetic to his views, here, nor Apple, but if there was a "loser" here it would definitely be Epic.
    - rvz 5y ago
      Exactly. I'm not sure why it is so difficult for the rest of the commenters to understand that Apple winning 9/10 counts vs Epic winning 1/10 means that this is a huge win for Apple and a huge loss for Epic. Apple is still entitled to some form of commission even if Epic or anyone else doesn't directly use IAP in their apps. Given that Epic admitted to violating the App Store guidelines, Apple is still barring them from the App Store.
      - OldTimeCoffee 5y ago
        Because it's really not a huge win for Apple, it's more of a huge loss because of what they lost on, and it's not really a huge loss for Epic, because iOS market revenue is meaningless in their operations. Devs could, for example, charge a higher price if you buy it via the AppStore and a lower price if you complete the purchase on their website. It potentially removes a significant portion of Apple's cut for IAP. Apple also has to figure our how to collect the "commission", which could lead to devs not working with Apple in the future. Apple will have a hard time appealing because the appeals court could rule against them on the counts they already won on. That's why it's not seen as a huge win for Apple. Epic has to pay a meaningless amount of money (a few million dollars they'll make back up in a few days) and is barred from a platform they didn't care about in the first place. Non-US regulators are also looking into Apple's handling of the AppStore, which means Apple could still be forced to make changes in line with what Epic was arguing. This is why it isn't a huge loss for Epic.

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...
  - belltaco 5y ago
    Ironically, this was the reason they gave the reason for hiding their identity under PJ and then later expanding it to a generic Pamela Jones since there are a lot of people under that name: >In other words, I was hoping people could assume whatever they wanted and just focus on what I said, rather than on who was saying it. For that reason, I chose PJ, because it could be anyone, either sex, any nationality, anyone and no one in particular. Maybe we should follow PJ's advice while reading the posted article. Anyway, we are rehashing a discussion from the past. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7090812 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7090812
  - gpm 5y ago
    In the interst of continuing to provide actual facts to this conversation: Here is an article by Pamela Jones (ironically not on groklaw) discussing the lack of compensation for running groklaw: https://www.zdnet.com/article/letter-to-the-editor-no-ibm-groklaw-connection/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/letter-to-the-editor-no-ibm-gr... Here is the court filing by IBM in which they deny that they paid groklaw (page 10): http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-621-E19.pdf http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-621-E19.pdf
    - belltaco 5y ago
      Not like IBM would ever lie in court. https://www.theregister.com/2019/01/18/ibm_government_lying_claims/ https://www.theregister.com/2019/01/18/ibm_government_lying_... And the other link is an assertion by an anonymous person that they're totally on the up and up. What would you expect if they were not, a confession? Would Florian Muller make a confession if he were anonymously posting as FM (Frank Matthew) while getting paid as a consultant? No one would ever know he was getting paid if we didn't know his real identity.
belltaco 5y ago
>and it was shown in court that the author of groklaw was not a paid shill.. The court didn't determine who paid for hosting and dev. They didn't examine her tax returns. They don't know her employer(s). Didn't examine her bank accounts. She could be the daughter or wife of an IBM lawyer and IBMs assertion in court would still be true.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

jjcon 5y ago

Florian Mueller has a long history of paid lying and clearly has skin in this game. I think that is important information to have presented. Importantly I also think his analysis is hardly convincing and one only needs to look to NYTimes, The Verge, NPR, CNN and the AP to see the exact opposite case presented.

belltaco 5y ago
Reported by journalists, not lawyers like the article. And why is Tim Sweeney tweeting that he lost the court case?
- caslon 5y ago
  He did lose the court case. He got none of his desires met, none of the goals he set out with met, and wasted a lot of money. I'm not particularly sympathetic to his views, here, nor Apple, but if there was a "loser" here it would definitely be Epic.
  - rvz 5y ago
    Exactly. I'm not sure why it is so difficult for the rest of the commenters to understand that Apple winning 9/10 counts vs Epic winning 1/10 means that this is a huge win for Apple and a huge loss for Epic. Apple is still entitled to some form of commission even if Epic or anyone else doesn't directly use IAP in their apps. Given that Epic admitted to violating the App Store guidelines, Apple is still barring them from the App Store.
    - OldTimeCoffee 5y ago
      Because it's really not a huge win for Apple, it's more of a huge loss because of what they lost on, and it's not really a huge loss for Epic, because iOS market revenue is meaningless in their operations. Devs could, for example, charge a higher price if you buy it via the AppStore and a lower price if you complete the purchase on their website. It potentially removes a significant portion of Apple's cut for IAP. Apple also has to figure our how to collect the "commission", which could lead to devs not working with Apple in the future. Apple will have a hard time appealing because the appeals court could rule against them on the counts they already won on. That's why it's not seen as a huge win for Apple. Epic has to pay a meaningless amount of money (a few million dollars they'll make back up in a few days) and is barred from a platform they didn't care about in the first place. Non-US regulators are also looking into Apple's handling of the AppStore, which means Apple could still be forced to make changes in line with what Epic was arguing. This is why it isn't a huge loss for Epic.