4 ms·

> but I'm not above thinking that groklaw is controlled/funded by a much larger power. Proof? Anything? This line has been used since the early days of SCO.

> but I'm not above thinking that groklaw is controlled/funded by a much larger power. Proof? Anything? This line has been used since the early days of SCO. I've never seen anything resembling proof. Indeed, Groklaw has earned the trust I give them. Do not mistake ignorance for insightfulness.

ssmall 14y ago
I really like the blog and its my go to site for legal software news and I don't think there is some kind of higher power backing it but I'm still very careful with everything I read there. I haven't seen any evidence of corporate backing, but there is no attempt to hide bias. Its definitely far from an objective news source.
- nknight 14y ago
  > Its definitely far from an objective news source. Let me know when you find one.
- wtallis 14y ago
  What bias? You may be confusing bias with opinion. "Equal time" is not unbiased reporting, and having a clear opinion is not bias, unless your opinion turns out to be consistently wrong.
  - lmm 14y ago
    The editorializing gets tiresome when I just want to find out what happened during the trial. It feels like reading the Daily Mail; you can get actual news from there, but you have to be constantly on your guard against osmosing their opinions.
tzs 14y ago
PJ is suspiciously silent when it is IBM using patents to threaten open source projects, or when it is IBM writing in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court that: Patent protection has promoted the free sharing of source code on a patentee’s terms---which has fueled the explosive growth of open source software development
- raverbashing 14y ago
  [citation needed]
  - tzs 14y ago
    The IBM quote is from their Bilski brief.
- nknight 14y ago
  By "suspiciously silent" you mean "Groklaw covered it", right? http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20090926131450794 http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20090926131450...

ssmall 14y ago

I really like the blog and its my go to site for legal software news and I don't think there is some kind of higher power backing it but I'm still very careful with everything I read there. I haven't seen any evidence of corporate backing, but there is no attempt to hide bias. Its definitely far from an objective news source.

nknight 14y ago
> Its definitely far from an objective news source. Let me know when you find one.
wtallis 14y ago
What bias? You may be confusing bias with opinion. "Equal time" is not unbiased reporting, and having a clear opinion is not bias, unless your opinion turns out to be consistently wrong.
- lmm 14y ago
  The editorializing gets tiresome when I just want to find out what happened during the trial. It feels like reading the Daily Mail; you can get actual news from there, but you have to be constantly on your guard against osmosing their opinions.

tzs 14y ago

PJ is suspiciously silent when it is IBM using patents to threaten open source projects, or when it is IBM writing in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court that: Patent protection has promoted the free sharing of source code on a patentee’s terms---which has fueled the explosive growth of open source software development

raverbashing 14y ago
[citation needed]
- tzs 14y ago
  The IBM quote is from their Bilski brief.
nknight 14y ago
By "suspiciously silent" you mean "Groklaw covered it", right? http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20090926131450794 http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20090926131450...