Comment by thaumaturgy | Hacker News Reader

Comment by thaumaturgy | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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-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?

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.

Well, that's a pretty reasonable position. HN is pretty overwhelmingly opposed to software (and algorithmic) patents in general -- anything that any given professional in the field could be reasonably expected to develop on their own shouldn't be patented. This opinion of patents seems to extend beyond HN, throughout most of the programmer community. So I'm not sure that your concern that, "I like company A's usage of patents/I dislike company B's usage of patents" is valid.

Patent nullification is one of my favorite things, too, and I've heard quite a few other people argue either for that or for massive overhauls of the US PTO. But, that's all very expensive and somewhat politically suicidal, so at the moment going and having dinner seems to be about the best thing that anyone can do. That, and cheer on companies like Mojang when they choose to double down and destroy an offensive patent troll rather than settling (https://twitter.com/notch/status/226604081932812288).

As far as Groklaw goes ... I sympathize, but I think the organization you're looking for is the EFF. Groklaw was never really intended to be an activist organization; they just wanted to help the Linux community understand what was going on in the SCO case (and stomp them a bit publicly too). Groklaw doesn't seem to have been biased in favor of one particular company, to the extent that they cheer on that company for offensive use of patents against a competitor.

Groklaw is however providing a very valuable service in helping programmers better understand the law where it applies to patents, and I think we should appreciate that instead of criticizing them for not doing more. (Especially since nobody else does what they do as well as they do -- except maybe Grellas here on HN sometimes.)

> 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=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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com