3 ms·

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

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?
    - batgaijin 14y ago
      Hmm, I guess I can't dissuade the appearance of being a troll. You are saying Groklaw is not influential politically or in matters of law. I agree. However, I think you are severly downplaying the influence Groklaw has on the people who read it. My main fear is that Groklaw becomes the site that programmers go to not to find out the state of a case but to find out what opinion they should have about it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm afraid that people will say "I like company A's usage of patents/I dislike company B's usage of patents." I'm a big proponent of patent nullification, especially in the area of algorithmic/cosmetic areas. Of course that's a vague definition, but I think most people will know what I mean. However, at this point, that is a very scary opinion to certain influential people. Page rank is a patented aglorithmm. Intellectual Ventures is a huge known patent troll. I think bgC3, the new company of Bill Gates, is going to spearhead some very advanced patent trolling tactics (I have no evidence for this). But right now the blogosphere is more or less just passively angry. People read what's going on in the news, argue for a bit and go have dinner. Almost no one is protesting because of patents. It's a big deal. Over 50% of our Medicare obligated spending for the future (I think 38.6 trillion by the last count) is due to patents. I guess I can't help being a troll when it comes to this subject, and I fucking despise the idea that Groklaw has the ear of so many programmers when they argue only in the short-term and in a reactive manner. I support what they do, but the factual tone limits them to being short-term and prevents them from making the vaguer strong claims that they should be making. Groklaw is in the position to influence people on the most important subject of the 21st century, and I think they are doing a poor job of it as well as making whatever motives/resources might exist transparent.

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?
  - batgaijin 14y ago
    Hmm, I guess I can't dissuade the appearance of being a troll. You are saying Groklaw is not influential politically or in matters of law. I agree. However, I think you are severly downplaying the influence Groklaw has on the people who read it. My main fear is that Groklaw becomes the site that programmers go to not to find out the state of a case but to find out what opinion they should have about it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm afraid that people will say "I like company A's usage of patents/I dislike company B's usage of patents." I'm a big proponent of patent nullification, especially in the area of algorithmic/cosmetic areas. Of course that's a vague definition, but I think most people will know what I mean. However, at this point, that is a very scary opinion to certain influential people. Page rank is a patented aglorithmm. Intellectual Ventures is a huge known patent troll. I think bgC3, the new company of Bill Gates, is going to spearhead some very advanced patent trolling tactics (I have no evidence for this). But right now the blogosphere is more or less just passively angry. People read what's going on in the news, argue for a bit and go have dinner. Almost no one is protesting because of patents. It's a big deal. Over 50% of our Medicare obligated spending for the future (I think 38.6 trillion by the last count) is due to patents. I guess I can't help being a troll when it comes to this subject, and I fucking despise the idea that Groklaw has the ear of so many programmers when they argue only in the short-term and in a reactive manner. I support what they do, but the factual tone limits them to being short-term and prevents them from making the vaguer strong claims that they should be making. Groklaw is in the position to influence people on the most important subject of the 21st century, and I think they are doing a poor job of it as well as making whatever motives/resources might exist transparent.