Don't forget that Groklaw is quite slanted in Google's favor just like FOSS Patents is slanted against Google. To get a balance you need to read both (well actually even more sources).
You don't get truth by merely reading opposing viewpoints and taking the average, you get it from synthesis. In this case synthesis might involve discounting the opposing viewpoint in the end, on the merits.
Yes, Groklaw is a vociferous advocate of FOSS in this sphere. Learn to tease apart the fact from the opinion. But that's just ad hominem until you catch a flaw in their fabulous coverage.
Having read both regularly I don't find this to be accurate. Groklaw makes actual predictions rarely and consequently has a cleaner track record. FM makes a lot of predictions and is, as you would expect, both wrong and right more because of it. He also covers a lot more cases.
As regards this case the big ticket item has been the Lindholm email and FM seems to have been right that it would stay in. And while I don't recall Groklaw definitively saying it wouldn't, their coverage certainly skewed heavily towards "remember that email from SCO that was just like this".
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/04/oracle-and-google-comment...
So Groklaw makes predictions when they think they're right and keeps their mouth shut otherwise whereas Mueller just shoots his mouth off and is wrong much of the time. You make a good case here why people should read Groklaw and ignore FOSS patents.
But really, unless you have a major investment in the outcome, it doesn't matter where you get your news. For me, and I suspect for many, following the day-to-day updates in a case like this is sort of like watching a professional sports game. We'll find out the definite, official, outcome at some later time, but for now we're just watching (more or less) for the entertainment value.
It's quite common in professional sports for an announcer or analyst to have well-known loyalties or preferences. Many are even employed by the teams themselves. The partisanship of the announcer or analyst (provided the commentary isn't completely crazy) really doesn't impact most of us because, unless we're placing bets (legally or otherwise), we're just there to have a good time and enjoy an impressive spectacle.
PJ could easily be just a pseudonym used by a panel IBM/Google lawyers to astroturf for all we know, but even talking about her identity is considered off base and taboo and whoever does that is viciously attacked and vilified.
That's been tried. Nobody has ever offered any evidence that any such thing is the case. Several public figures have stated that they've met a singular female PJ. IBM has denied in open court being behind PJ.
For you to bring this up here is pathetically disengenuous.
Furthermore, most Groklaw articles these days are authored by Mark Webbink, a lawyer and law professor with a well-documented past. He's been in general agreement with PJ on this case, though he's offered less in the way of commentary.
Perusing the comments at Groklaw where everyone is so confident this is the smoking gun that will end Oracle's case reminds me of this bit from Jonathan Chait about people who get their news from hyperpartisan sources:
"It must be like being following the state-controlled media in a totalitarian country. First you read that our brave troops are marching toward the enemy capital and will soon complete a glorious victory. Then, after a while, there's no glorious victory, but you start reading about how our brave troops are inflicting heavy losses on the enemy as they courageously defend the motherland."
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/fred-barnes-again-see...
So they're going to be in a difficult position trying to salvage their copyright claims. They might manage to do something, but they've got a pretty weak hand here. They wanted to rush this trial and all they did was to trip themselves up.
Did you read Oracle's reply[1] or just the caricature at the original link?
"Google argues that the entire Java platform is necessarily the “work as a whole” because that is what was registered with the Copyright Office. Courts have soundly rejected that argument.. As explained in Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic, supra:
Defendants contend that plaintiffs' “work” is the entire daily newspaper because their copyright registration covers the paper as a whole rather than any particular article. Thus, they assert, copying an individual article constitutes reproduction of only a small portion of the entire work. This proposition is not supported by the case law. See Texaco, supra, 60 F.3d at 925-26 (copying an entire article from a journal where the copyright registration covered the journal as a whole constituted a copying of the entire work); Hustler Magazine, supra, 796 F.2d at 1155 (finding that “[a] creative work does not deserve less copyright protection just because it is part of a composite work” and holding that the copying of a one-page parody from a 154-page magazine constituted a copying of the entire work); Netcom On-Line II, supra, 923 F.Supp. at 1247 (“although many of Hubbard's lectures, policy statements, and course packets are collected into larger volumes, and registered as a whole, they may still constitute separate works for the purposes of this factor”); Lerma, supra, 1996 WL 633131 at *9 (“we find that the Works at issue in this case are combined in ‘collections' and that each subpart must be considered a ‘single work’ for the purposes of fair use analysis”)."
Like so.And that precedent probably won't do them much good, because the copying here isn't the same as copying whole articles, however much Oracle's lawyers have tried to say otherwise.
So yeah, Oracle's case might be salvageable, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Like someone else mentioned, Groklaw has had strong track record when it comes to predicting the outcome of these types of lawsuits.
After all, if they have not only a generally strong track record in predicting these kinds of cases but also a very good record related to this particular case, I'm inclined to put a lot of stock in what they have to say.
Do you know how PJ makes money or how Groklaw gets funding to run? If questioning FM's money sources is fair game, why not do the same for PJ? Just because "she"'s batting for your team?
If Florian did the same thing as PJ and hid behind an anonymous blog, we wouldn't even know any sources of his funding.
I'm sure her personal finances have been put under heavy scrutiny (SCO certainly did), feel free to do so yourself.
> Interestingly, the judge was able to come to this easy conclusion despite the insistence of self-described patent expert, Florian Mueller, that the court would certainly allow Oracle to break its word.
Many bloggers are paid for by large companies without necessarily 'shilling' for them. It seems to be de rigeur in fact.
That's the immature part. You can report facts and do fantastic analysis without trying to take shots at your competition.
There are few or no organizations that have better trial room journalism chops when it comes to the IT scene than groklaw.
This bred a mentality that it's ok to be an open source cheerleader in all future cases but frankly that hasn't worked out as well.
In the case of this article we get a one sided headline, some interesting and good analysis, a straw man caricature of Oracle's argument that amounts to "Derp! I guess we lose" and at the very end an offhanded link to Oracle's actual response (which reads pretty strongly) but no analysis.
I'd love for Groklaw to live up to the "expert legal analysis of the IT scene" side of it's heritage as opposed to being another "legal propaganda arm of the FSF" but that's up to them.
There is no such thing. I don't know what your beef is with groklaw but you're now to the point of fabricating sophistry to say...something. I don't even know what your point is here other than to bash groklaw.
"legal propaganda arm of the FSF"
Really? Groklaw is a part of the FSF now? Are they also based in Roswell or was that area 51?
Let's be absolutely clear: I love Groklaw and have valued them and visited regularly for just about a decade now. That doesn't mean Groklaw is above criticism or without faults, a jump emotionally invested commenters seem to want to take. Please take the time to read through things before you jump to hurl invective.
I'm hardly the only one here expressing the same sentiments about Groklaw's pro-open source bias, which again PJ freely admits.
Did you even read what I wrote? I never said they were above criticism. There is a difference between criticism and bashing. And your comments in the aggregate amount to the latter. Claiming they are "breeding a mentality of cheer leading" anything is just ridiculous sophistry and that is what I was pointing out so why the attempted misdirection?
"I'm hardly the only one here expressing the same sentiments about Groklaw"
And there are more people saying the opposite. For any point you can bring up, you can find as many lay people as you have time to look for to agree with it which proves absolutely nothing.
Florian bleating on about how he's concerned as a Samsung phone owner(!?) and strong opponent of overreaching IP but gosh I think Google's really in trouble here is the very definition of disingenuous.
Or neither. However if you had to mix one of them in your daily feed mix, Groklaw actually seems to be based in the here and now, while FOSS Patents is just generally horseshit (we could go through the history of both that would quite amply prove this out. FOSS Patents is the worst sort of garbage the net produces)
If you stay away from his cheerleading there's a lot of good analysis and useful information.
I read both Groklaw and FOSS if not daily every other day and I wouldn't say one is significantly less biased or useful then the other. As I've said recently[1] I wish there were a good daily source that isn't overrun with bias but I haven't seen one yet.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/03/googles-android-faces-ser...
How'd that story turn out for you? Still read the guy's complete horseshit?
He's literally paid by Oracle which he disingenuously hid while commenting on the Oracle v Google case up until a last week. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120419070127103
That's ok, "both" sides of a story are important, right? Even when one is from someone who is a habitual disingenuous exaggerator.
And don't pretend Groklaw's never been wrong in their cheerleading either. They've been expecting the judge to issue summary judgment and tar and feather Oracle's council for the last year.
"He's literally paid by Oracle"
If you'd clicked on my link above you'd see I pointed this out last week.
"That's ok, "both" sides of a story are important, right? "
Quit arguing with straw men. Like I said, I'd prefer an unbiased source.
Very well.
How about if Mueller references his own 13 month old horseshit this very day? http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/04/former-sun-chief-about-go... as though it is still a valid theory?
Does it count as an up to date impeachment of your favorite bullshit peddler? Especially because he knows nothing came of his the-sky-is-falling claims regarding the Linux, GPL and Android? And that Linus himself said the claims were crap?
His current article also references another year old prediction he made which turned out to come to nothing as well
http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/03/more-evidence-of-googles-...
It's almost like he spews forth shitty predictions with a specific agenda in mind and doesn't care when his bullshit doesn't pan out because he makes good money by running his mouth.
Then there's this snipe at Jonathan Schwartz: "In yesterday's testimony, Jonathan Schwartz tried to do as much damage to Oracle's case as he could."
that or Schwartz told the truth which just happens to not be in Mueller's employer's favor.
It's not a straw man. The guy you so plainly think is a legit source for information is literally paid by one of the litigants. May as well be recommending people read Oracle's press releases for some good information.