4 ms·
Groklaw's main work wasn't revealing how broken tech IP law was, it was revealing how stupid one company was for trying to manipulate the system. In the SCO vs.
by mbreese 13y ago
Groklaw's main work wasn't revealing how broken tech IP law was, it was revealing how stupid one company was for trying to manipulate the system. In the SCO vs. IBM case, I'd say that the system worked pretty well. Coverage of which didn't really include much (any?) help from confidential sources.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> Groklaw's main work wasn't revealing how broken tech IP law was, it was revealing how stupid one company was for trying to manipulate the system. That was its founding purpose, to be sure, but its main work had moved on from the "how stupid one company was" thing for quite some time. > Coverage of which didn't really include much (any?) help from confidential sources. I'm not sure why this is in your response to my comment, since it is completely irrelevant to it.
- mbreese 13y agoI haven't visited Groklaw in a long time, and I suspect that many other have the same habits. After SCO, I wonder what their readership numbers have been. They will always be associated with that trial. The reason why their lack of confidential sources is relevant is that closing up Groklaw because of the NSA doesn't make sense. Their sources were largely from law filings and (very good) analysis. Closing up shop because their email could be snooped just doesn't make sense. There could be other, valid, reasons, but this just doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps PJ wants to get off the Internet because of the NSA, and I'd buy that. But it just didn't seem like protecting the email of confidential sources was that central to their operation. Also, it doesn't seem like the NYT or other major newspapers are closing up shop. There are other ways to get confidential information other than email, if you are truly concerned by the NSA.