3 ms·

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 usefu

by 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.
      - gpm 5y ago
        What's more likely? IBM lied to the court for no good reason (paying for shills is not illegal, just strange), the author of groklaw made up a name and later in life violated federal law by filing comments to UPTSO under it, other named lawyers worked with her on that. Or she really is named what she claims to be named? You're inventing wild conspiracies that don't even have a good reason to exist.
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.

by gpm 5y ago

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.
    - gpm 5y ago
      What's more likely? IBM lied to the court for no good reason (paying for shills is not illegal, just strange), the author of groklaw made up a name and later in life violated federal law by filing comments to UPTSO under it, other named lawyers worked with her on that. Or she really is named what she claims to be named? You're inventing wild conspiracies that don't even have a good reason to exist.

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.