Hacker News Reader

Comment by parfe | Hacker News Reader

Kudos to the jury. They put a lot of effort into understanding the issue at hand. Based on courtroom reporting, the jury paid attention and they asked clarifying questions while deliberating to make sure they understood. Software patents are a mess. Oracle's arguments were terrible from a CS standpoint (and their expert should be embarrassed).

I believe the only issue still on the table is API copyrightability which Judge Aslup will rule on as a matter of law. The jury found for Oracle in that instance because the jury instructions essentially mandated it. I expect Aslup will rule for Google on that claim as well.

Oracle's current claim for money is literally for 9 lines of code called rangeCheck (which anyone in a high school intro to java class could write), and 8 test files copied by a subcontractor and never distributed to end users.

A certain Oracle paid blogger will still manage to post how Oracle basically got everything it wanted.

View on HN

The judge is a programmer by the way: http://www.i-programmer.info/news/193-android/4224-oracle-v-...

Judge, not jury.

That is incredible!

It's easy to knock the courts, but I think it's worth remembering that becoming a federal judge is very difficult and most of these guys have impressive backgrounds.

Who's the paid blogger?

Florian Mueller. http://www.dailytech.com/Top+AntiAndroid+Blogger+Florian+Mue...

Florian Mueller?

Florian al-Sahaf

Most likely a reference to Florian Mueller, of http://www.fosspatents.com/

Detail: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/04/19/1357207/florian-muell...

Is there any evidence that PJ is not a paid blogger herself? At least Florian was honest to declare on his blog that he was paid by Oracle to do some work and his blog might be tainted by that.

Florian pretended to be a FOSS advocate for a very long time and refused to disclose his clients, when it was clear for all that he was being paid by Microsoft.

And you can't be both ?

Or does that mean that I should ignore anyone who is being paid by a company. Because that would be almost everyone, right ?

"And you can't be both ?"

His "FOSS advocacy" for the last few years has consistently been solely cheering for every patent and copyright suit against open source software.

"Or does that mean that I should ignore anyone who is being paid by a company."

Being paid for PR that borders astroturfing and refusing to disclose that is over the line for me.

I did think that he also campaigned against software patents in Europe, though I think there was controversy there, too, concerning his methods.

At that time he campaigned against Software Patents because he was being paid to do so by Red Hat and MySQL. Now he's funded by Microsoft and Oracle.

You should possibly recognise that being paid to hold an opinion is very different from being paid for an opinion.

Your ad hominem is rather disgusting. Put up evidence or shut up.

I called Florian as a corporate shill here more than a year ago based on publicly available information. I believe him "outing himself" is more recent.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2128882

Edit: Also pj called it. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120419070127103

>I called Florian as a corporate shill here more than a year ago based on publicly available information. I believe him "outing himself" is more recent.

So if Florian made up a pseudonym like PJ did, and posted articles only with it, he would have avoided your scrutiny of publicly available info and "outing" and all that, right?

>Put up evidence or shut up.

There is no way for the common person do that,

So the moral of the story is there is that Florian should made sure that there was no public information about him like PJ very successfully did and he would've been shielded from all the shill accusations like PJ is now? It's funny to to see Groklaw lob the accusations while not revealing anything about PJ that will allow someone to do some research like you did.

Why, exactly is it OK for you to make up a pseudonym and libel Ms. Jones?

I demand disclosure. Your full name, your address, your phone, bank, and tax records for the past year, social security statement, and a sworn affidavit that you have never been paid by, had any financial interest in, or were related to anyone with an interest in, IBM, SCO, Oracle, Google, Novell, and any media outlet that has ever given critical or favorable coverage to any of these companies.

If you don't comply within 24 hours, I'll assume you're simply a troll and paid shill.

Edit: Downvoters may want to consult "cooldeal"'s other comments on this very page for context. I'm simply demanding of him what he demands of others.

>libel Ms. Jones?

See, this is the exact attitude I am talking about. Anyone even questioning PJ's funding sources is immediately vilified, hated on and modded down to death. While the same about Florian are modded up to the sky and it's totally okay to do that since he's not batting on your side, even if he's the one that has disclosed his interests.

Since you've attempted to deflect instead of disclose, I now assume you are a hypocrite in Oracle's employ.

That would be an unfair assumption, you should be careful in putting down to deceit, that which can also be explained by incompetence.

"There is no way for the common person do that"

Perhaps not, but I'm pretty sure that the firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner should have been able to find some evidence by now, since this is the second trial where PJ has documented their loss in exquisite detail.

Not really.

The thing about the Internet and anonymity is that an anonymous web of trust really can tell you who someone is better than some single professional achievement. Both Florian and pj have a "trail" because if you work with people you can't avoid a trail. Pj's trail will tell you basically who she is just as Florian's will. Florian may have a blog titled "open source patents" but his trail of activity as corporate consultant tells a different story. Further, Mueller's efforts to spin information using his supposed open source credentials required that his identity be known and touted. As far as I know pj has always let her research speak for itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Jones

> but his trail of activity as corporate consultant tells a different story.

So.. as I said, if he hadn't associated his blog with his corporate consultant activity, he would be doing just fine right? The pseudonym's trail would've simply not have his original identity in it.

>As far as I know pj has always let her research speak for itself.

Mueller could also have just let his research speak for itself while hiding behind a pseudonym.

If an anonymous blogger posts what Florian does, his named would be dragged through the mud by the same people who are commenting here who would be asking him to disclose who he is and who pays him. Yes or no?

If it weren't for you meddling kids...

PJ isn't a pseudonym, it is her initials. Also, we have known that Pamela Jones was PJ since 2005, long before Oracle even bought Sun, let alone sued Google.

So basically, and please excuse the language, you appear to be talking complete and utter shit.

Slight;y off topic, but I'm confused. I thought PJ was retiring from Groklaw and yet most of the postings in this case have been signed PJ. Is "PJ" now just a moniker for an admin account on the site or is Pamela Jones active again?

Well, the postings have been signed 'anonymous', but the title has been signed PJ, so I doubt that it is an admin account unless their servers are setup really weirdly and wrong and back to front and stuff.

But yes, Pamela was reactivated specially for this case. It took a little over three days to warm the reanimation capsule back to room temperature after retrieving it from the catacombs beneath Geneva Airport. Apparently Pamela was extremely annoyed. She had been hoping to stay dormant until at least 2063, so that she could make a killing on some SpaceX investments. Or so I am told.

For this case, it looks like things were split roughly half and half - PJ commenting on the transcripts from the court room, and Mark commenting on the filings on the docket. This is more activity from PJ that I would have expected given her semi-retirement, but it was always clear that she would be maintaining at least some level of activity with the sit.

"There is no way for the common person do that"

Eh? Of course there is. It is called investigatory journalism and it is a lot of work.

Also, I think you may have the moral of the story wrong.

PJ called it alright. No offense but Groklaw's behaviour against Florian has been nothing short of disgraceful and extremely immature.

Who cares if Florian is being paid by Microsoft et al ? It happens all the time amongst bloggers and doesn't mean jack to me. EVERYONE is biassed in some way. Whether through money, previous experiences or external pressures. As a reader you should always consult multiple sources.

It's been really disappointing watching the great work that Groklaw do be sullied by all these personal attacks.

Florian wasn't just an anonymous blogger before he was outed.

His "bully pulpit" was the blog once named "Free and Open Source Patents" (FOSS) and he leveraged some earlier open source advocacy to lend credibility to his shilling in the present case.

http://www.fosspatents.com/

(Notice that the name is now seems to be changed at the site). One can however, easily find references on the web billing Mueller as an expert on "Free and Open Source Patents".

Edit: Added "seems" at bottom

Really? Who cares who's paying your news source? Isn't possible bias one of the most important issues when it comes to trusting a source?

There are degrees of bias and as a reader why would you want to waste your time reading from a source known to have a massive conflict of interest?

I definitely appreciate knowing about a source's bias.

It's certainly fine to know about it, IMO, but all of the internet taunting seems immature and unnecessary.

I can agree with that. Good point.

Part of the taunting now is in response to his past behavior.

Florian repeatedly refused to talk about his funding and insisted it was irrelevant (he has a history at lwn.net among other places). Now that we know the full context, people on the other side of that argument naturally want to underline it.

The problem with Florian Mueller is that he positioned himself for a long time as an independent analyst and has continued posing as such with many various media outlets and continues to be quoted that way. We all expect Oracle and Microsoft's lawyers and PR team to argue their case and nobody blames them for it. But somebody who deliberately tries to distort and influence a public issue through misinformation and deception - they absolutely deserve to be called out for it and criticized.

(And for what it is worth, Mueller actually provided genuinely informative coverage of many of the issues - which made him all the more effective).

> Who cares if Florian is being paid by Microsoft et al ?

Are you out of your mind? I do, for one. A lot of people think this is a significant issue.

If nobody cared about Florian's funding, why did he consistently refuse to talk about it until recently?

I don't know if PJ is paid by any of the parties involved, but I do know that PJ has actual legal experience as a paralegal, which is the main reason I think that her analysis carries weight when compared to those with no professional legal experience.

Also with no evidence of PJ being paid by Google, it would seem to be an unfair assumption to make.

Thank you HN for making me bleed karma for my posts in this story and turning them light gray.

Meanwhile, not a single downmod(and probably many upvotes) on someone calling Florian a dick and a bastard(so much for HN etiquette).

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4014970

I give, Florian Mueller is a bastard, can I too get some karma?

I give, Florian Mueller is a bastard, can I too get some karma?

Sorry, you have to mean it.

FWIIW, I downvoted that comment. It used inappropriate language, it was tasteless, uninformative, and clearly against HN etiquette.

I downvoted your post (above) as well for the same reasons.

I was referring Florian Mueller, I think.

Unless they stipulated to something I missed, there's actually another very important issue on the table: Fair use.

The jury decided Google "infringed", but couldn't agree whether the fair use defense applied.

If Alsup rules APIs are not copyrightable, the fair use defense is moot and we're done (barring appeal, which will surely happen), but if he were to go the other way, fair use may have to be re-litigated in front of a new jury.

Just saw this tweet from a journalist:

Dan Levine ‏@FedcourtJunkie:

We all just interviewed juror, who said jury was split 9-3 for google on copyright fair use. Um, wow.

https://twitter.com/FedcourtJunkie/status/205370887078285313

"Wow" is right. There's also this interesting gem right after: https://twitter.com/FedcourtJunkie/status/205371711233851392

> Juror said it was his opinion that more tech savvy jurors were less likely to go for limits on openness. Ie they were pro google

This really says it all. Ultimately Oracle can only win if the jury is borderline luddite.

Being non tech savvy does not make you a luddite.

No, but it's getting pretty hard to argue that a randomly selected jury of Northern California citizens should be completely devoid of smartphone owners.

Why is a 9-3 split particularly surprising?

Frankly, I didn't have much confidence in this jury. It was stacked to avoid techies, its findings on other copyright issues (e.g. rangecheck) didn't instill much confidence in me, and some of the questions that were emerging made me question their ability to understand complex issues and distinguish between basically being ordered to find infringement, and being asked to determine if it was really infringement.

If you'd asked me what the count was likely to be, I probably would have told you something like 10-2 for Oracle.

It's worse than that. At one point the fair use vote was 11-1 in favor of Google until the holdout persuaded two other jurors [1]. As you might guess, that same juror was the one that had to be persuaded to reach a unanimous patent verdict.

[1] http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202555835757&...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com