> 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 arg

> 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. Groklaw and PJ are very opinionated, but it is not her or the site's fault if the people who read it choose to consume everything published there without using their own judgement. To be honest, they don't make any bones about how opinionated they are about the issues they cover. > 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. They are one of the few sources that cover IP litigation in software in detail. They are biased and far from perfect, but I am glad they are there doing what they do. Over my years of reading them I have learned what to filter out and what to retain while reading the site. But that is my responsibility (as it is of others who read the site). The site's mission statement makes for interesting reading, especially point number three: http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20040923045054130 http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2004092304... "Third, it's an antiFUD site. We strive to present solid facts in rebuttal to attempts to smear FOSS with fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD), as well as to correct well-meaning but inaccurate portrayals of Linux, GNU/Linux and the FOSS community." They are honest and upfront about this agenda. If people choose to ignore that and take everything published there as the golden standard, it is certainly the fault of the reader.