6 ms·

Who supports Groklaw? What are the goals of the financial backers? I hate Oracle as much as anyone else here, but I refuse to support Groklaw. Patents and copy

Who supports Groklaw? What are the goals of the financial backers? I hate Oracle as much as anyone else here, but I refuse to support Groklaw. Patents and copyrights are very important for the fate of mankind, and I will not start trusting anonymous reporting and support of Groklaw just because Oracle is getting called out as an asshole atm.

magicalist 14y ago
1) PJ hasn't been anonymous for years now. 2) There are anonymous blog posts submitted to HN every day, which you appear to never have had a problem with. Why this one? 3) If you have an argument why "patents and copyrights are very important for the fate of mankind", and somehow this particular copyright case is a bellwether for that fate, make it. Otherwise there is no substance to your post, just blind assertions (and anonymous ones, at that :).
- batgaijin 14y ago
  1). But is PJ actually writing these articles? Or is PJ just publishing them? Is that a stupid allegation to make, or are people scared of mentioning that? Are other corporations actively supporting her? To what degree? Financially, for hosting the site? Sources? Evidence? Opinions? 2). None are held with the same esteem as Groklaw, which I know most people default to for current news about patents and copyrights. What isn't being covered by Groklaw? I'm not smart enough to answer that, and I doubt few here are. Is that something to be worried about? We are all trusting an expert which few people here can call out. 3). You are right, there is nothing special about this copyright case in particular. However, I do have a problem with the level of trust that Groklaw receives from the rest of the community. I have supported everything Groklaw has done to this point; however, I am severely worried about the lack of competition when it comes to giving the same level of reporting. One perspective is always bad.
  - logjam 14y ago
    > ...I refuse to support Groklaw... will not start trusting anonymous reporting and support of Groklaw > I have supported everything Groklaw has done to this point. Kindly do two things for us: stop talking out of both sides of your mouth, and, instead of ineffectually waving your hands, point to specifically what Groklaw got wrong on this issue.
    - batgaijin 14y ago
      We are both in the room, I'm claiming there's a monster and you say there's nothing. The point is, neither of us really has a coherent argument with facts until the lights are turned on. This blog needs a high level of transparency. If you can't imagine how Groklaw might be abused you are a fool.
      - saraid216 14y ago
        > We are both in the room, I'm claiming there's a monster and you say there's nothing. The point is, neither of us really has a coherent argument with facts until the lights are turned on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
      - thaumaturgy 14y ago
        OK. Your comment history up to this point hasn't been very trollish, so I'll assume you're actually trying to be straightforward here. You seem to be making the claim that Groklaw is somehow worthy of scrutiny (which implies that they are somehow dangerous, or at least influential, but I'll get to that in a moment). You're also implying that Groklaw does not have a competitor. In general, you're right that demanding transparency from politically influential organizations shouldn't require a burden of proof. However, I've seen no evidence that Groklaw is either politically influential or influential in matters of law. The principals behind Groklaw may be influential in their own professional rights, but Groklaw itself is not: Groklaw does not have a horse in this race. Do you think that the judge is reading Groklaw and thinking, "Hmm, good point"? Or that the attorneys for either side are doing the same? Or that the jurors are, which is strictly forbidden? I seriously doubt that Groklaw's analyses are having any impact on the case. You're also wrong that Groklaw doesn't have a competitor, at least where this case is concerned. Groklaw has been publicly at odds with Ars Technica's Joe Mullin, even (in at least one instance that I remember) poking a little fun at him for getting the outcome of this case so wrong. And, just last year, Groklaw came quite close to voluntarily shutting down (http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/Off-the-Beat-Bruce-Byfield-s-Blog/Eulogy-for-Groklaw http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/Off-the-Beat-Bruc...) entirely because the SCO vs. Linux (et al) cases, which Groklaw was created to discuss, were pretty much all settled. Any suspicions of nefarious purposes on Groklaw's part would have to explain why Groklaw was so willing to just shut down at that point. I don't disagree that it would be nice if there were more sites doing in-depth legal analyses of technical cases targeted for a layman audience. But, the demand for that is pretty small, and so is the supply: I expect that there aren't very many legal professionals that are at the top of the game at law and technology, and possess the ability and desire to publish in-depth analyses of cases where they aren't making any money. So now the ball's in your court. Why, specifically, should we be questioning Groklaw's motives?
beagle3 14y ago
> I will not start trusting anonymous reporting and support of Groklaw just because Oracle is getting called out as an asshole atm. And indeed, you shouldn't. You should read Groklaw, though, because for almost a decade now, it has been providing coverage, analysis and explanations which are clear, to the point, mostly objective (in the sense that they apply the law, rather than a wishful thinking version of it), and that their predictions were mostly the ones later decided by courts. And then decide if you trust specific arguments based on their merit, rather than their source.
- batgaijin 14y ago
  Yes, but when Groklaw is held as THE site to go to, what happens? I don't have a problem with what Groklaw is doing, I have a problem with the fact that every single piece of substantial reporting on copyrights and patents from a certain perspective seems to come from Groklaw. This site has a monopoly on a perspective that a lot of hackers hold, I don't think that should be ignored.
  - beagle3 14y ago
    You have causality reversed. People use groklaw as reference because it agrees with their perspective. People do not have that perspective just because it's on groklaw.
SeanDav 14y ago
It is times like this that I wish I had down voting rights. Groklaw is an amazing site and 30 seconds of research would have shown your whole argument as invalid.
- batgaijin 14y ago
  What else is there besides Groklaw? Where do you go for a secondary opinion? Let's say, hypothetically, Company A started using patents/copyrights in a certain way and also happened to back Groklaw. Would you want to know? How would you check that? Also, you do not mention any sources. You do not seem to try to connect with my opinion. You claim that the evidence is obvious and that any perceived flaws are simply of my imagination. That isn't exactly an intelligent response, and it's one you shouldn't be proud to share.
  - SeanDav 14y ago
    Type "groklaw " in Google, the first search match coming up is "groklaw pamela jones". Click on wiki link. So your premise about Groklaw being anonymous is likely false. I lied, it wasn't 30 seconds research, more like 10 seconds. If you don't like Groklaw then do your own research. PJ links to the sources in general, allowing you to read the articles and make up your own mind. Or bypass Groklaw and do your own research on the internet. It is easy to diss a site - where is your proof to back up your concerns?

magicalist 14y ago

1) PJ hasn't been anonymous for years now. 2) There are anonymous blog posts submitted to HN every day, which you appear to never have had a problem with. Why this one? 3) If you have an argument why "patents and copyrights are very important for the fate of mankind", and somehow this particular copyright case is a bellwether for that fate, make it. Otherwise there is no substance to your post, just blind assertions (and anonymous ones, at that :).

batgaijin 14y ago
1). But is PJ actually writing these articles? Or is PJ just publishing them? Is that a stupid allegation to make, or are people scared of mentioning that? Are other corporations actively supporting her? To what degree? Financially, for hosting the site? Sources? Evidence? Opinions? 2). None are held with the same esteem as Groklaw, which I know most people default to for current news about patents and copyrights. What isn't being covered by Groklaw? I'm not smart enough to answer that, and I doubt few here are. Is that something to be worried about? We are all trusting an expert which few people here can call out. 3). You are right, there is nothing special about this copyright case in particular. However, I do have a problem with the level of trust that Groklaw receives from the rest of the community. I have supported everything Groklaw has done to this point; however, I am severely worried about the lack of competition when it comes to giving the same level of reporting. One perspective is always bad.
- logjam 14y ago
  > ...I refuse to support Groklaw... will not start trusting anonymous reporting and support of Groklaw > I have supported everything Groklaw has done to this point. Kindly do two things for us: stop talking out of both sides of your mouth, and, instead of ineffectually waving your hands, point to specifically what Groklaw got wrong on this issue.
  - batgaijin 14y ago
    We are both in the room, I'm claiming there's a monster and you say there's nothing. The point is, neither of us really has a coherent argument with facts until the lights are turned on. This blog needs a high level of transparency. If you can't imagine how Groklaw might be abused you are a fool.
    - saraid216 14y ago
      > We are both in the room, I'm claiming there's a monster and you say there's nothing. The point is, neither of us really has a coherent argument with facts until the lights are turned on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
    - thaumaturgy 14y ago
      OK. Your comment history up to this point hasn't been very trollish, so I'll assume you're actually trying to be straightforward here. You seem to be making the claim that Groklaw is somehow worthy of scrutiny (which implies that they are somehow dangerous, or at least influential, but I'll get to that in a moment). You're also implying that Groklaw does not have a competitor. In general, you're right that demanding transparency from politically influential organizations shouldn't require a burden of proof. However, I've seen no evidence that Groklaw is either politically influential or influential in matters of law. The principals behind Groklaw may be influential in their own professional rights, but Groklaw itself is not: Groklaw does not have a horse in this race. Do you think that the judge is reading Groklaw and thinking, "Hmm, good point"? Or that the attorneys for either side are doing the same? Or that the jurors are, which is strictly forbidden? I seriously doubt that Groklaw's analyses are having any impact on the case. You're also wrong that Groklaw doesn't have a competitor, at least where this case is concerned. Groklaw has been publicly at odds with Ars Technica's Joe Mullin, even (in at least one instance that I remember) poking a little fun at him for getting the outcome of this case so wrong. And, just last year, Groklaw came quite close to voluntarily shutting down (http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/Off-the-Beat-Bruce-Byfield-s-Blog/Eulogy-for-Groklaw http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/Off-the-Beat-Bruc...) entirely because the SCO vs. Linux (et al) cases, which Groklaw was created to discuss, were pretty much all settled. Any suspicions of nefarious purposes on Groklaw's part would have to explain why Groklaw was so willing to just shut down at that point. I don't disagree that it would be nice if there were more sites doing in-depth legal analyses of technical cases targeted for a layman audience. But, the demand for that is pretty small, and so is the supply: I expect that there aren't very many legal professionals that are at the top of the game at law and technology, and possess the ability and desire to publish in-depth analyses of cases where they aren't making any money. So now the ball's in your court. Why, specifically, should we be questioning Groklaw's motives?

beagle3 14y ago

> I will not start trusting anonymous reporting and support of Groklaw just because Oracle is getting called out as an asshole atm. And indeed, you shouldn't. You should read Groklaw, though, because for almost a decade now, it has been providing coverage, analysis and explanations which are clear, to the point, mostly objective (in the sense that they apply the law, rather than a wishful thinking version of it), and that their predictions were mostly the ones later decided by courts. And then decide if you trust specific arguments based on their merit, rather than their source.

batgaijin 14y ago
Yes, but when Groklaw is held as THE site to go to, what happens? I don't have a problem with what Groklaw is doing, I have a problem with the fact that every single piece of substantial reporting on copyrights and patents from a certain perspective seems to come from Groklaw. This site has a monopoly on a perspective that a lot of hackers hold, I don't think that should be ignored.
- beagle3 14y ago
  You have causality reversed. People use groklaw as reference because it agrees with their perspective. People do not have that perspective just because it's on groklaw.

SeanDav 14y ago

It is times like this that I wish I had down voting rights. Groklaw is an amazing site and 30 seconds of research would have shown your whole argument as invalid.

batgaijin 14y ago
What else is there besides Groklaw? Where do you go for a secondary opinion? Let's say, hypothetically, Company A started using patents/copyrights in a certain way and also happened to back Groklaw. Would you want to know? How would you check that? Also, you do not mention any sources. You do not seem to try to connect with my opinion. You claim that the evidence is obvious and that any perceived flaws are simply of my imagination. That isn't exactly an intelligent response, and it's one you shouldn't be proud to share.
- SeanDav 14y ago
  Type "groklaw " in Google, the first search match coming up is "groklaw pamela jones". Click on wiki link. So your premise about Groklaw being anonymous is likely false. I lied, it wasn't 30 seconds research, more like 10 seconds. If you don't like Groklaw then do your own research. PJ links to the sources in general, allowing you to read the articles and make up your own mind. Or bypass Groklaw and do your own research on the internet. It is easy to diss a site - where is your proof to back up your concerns?