
Bittersweet news from Groklaw: mission accomplished, signing off - grellas
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110409161444432
======
rayiner
Groklaw filled a huge void. Done by someone who is a proponent of free
software but also knowledgable about the law. As similar debates rage on in
copyright and patent spaces, I think the need for that perspective will
remain. We don't need more commentary from folks who don't know what the
patent act §101 bars are. We need folks who understand the legal framework and
can advocate for consumer rights within that framework. Hopefully someone
steps in to fill PJ's shoes.

~~~
cooldeal
I know the following sentiment will not be popular here, but here I go
anyway(bye bye karma).

I really liked Groklaw in the SCO days but after that it seems to have
degenerated into a place for Microsoft haters. I do not know if her
investigations led her to seeing a Microsoft shadow everywhere but it felt
like too much of a witch hunt to me, along with related sites like
boycottnovell.com (now techrights.org). And Apple almost always gets a free
pass even if they attack 'open'. Even her last post is a microcosm of this.

>But the world has moved from computers and desktops to mobile and the cloud.
Now it's Microsoft and all its venal little helpers and proxies attacking
Google and Android....No matter what tricks Microsoft may pull going forward,
the world knows now that when there was free choice in the marketplace, people
chose Android, which runs on Linux, over Microsoft's phone. Nothing they do
can change that. All they can prove perhaps is that dirty tricks and misuse of
the courts and regulatory bodies can distort the marketplace. But without the
benefits of a monopoly, people don't actually choose Microsoft phones, at
least not in comparison to Android. All they can do about that now is try to
force you to use their products.That's in a way what a monopoly is.

People did not choose Android because it was open or because it was Linux.
They choose it because the devices had multitouch capacitative screens(same as
the iPhone) and ran on non AT&T carriers while Windows Mobile devices had
resistive screens forcing use of a stylus and were not touch friendly, didn't
have proper GPUs, suffered fragmentation etc. Windows Phone 7 is a total
ditching of the old paradigm and a fresh start, but it came quite late and is
facing an uphill battle against the network effects(yes, the same network
effects that a monopoly or duopoly entail). If it was around when Android
started, it could've been a very different market now, regardless of PJ's
ramblings about monopolies. The new Windows phones are actually not bad
compared to Androi but are missing many features. How can she declare victory
for Android when WP7 has been barely out 5 months yet?

Interesting to see that she sweeps under the carpet things like Apple filing
patent lawsuits against Android phones, and Jobs insinuating that Android is
for porn. I sometimes feel that she plays to her primarily anti-MS audience,
especially to keep things interesting to them after the SCO case ran out of
gas but at the same time cannot criticize Apple too much even if deserved
since that would anger the pro-Apple portion of the crowd.

In short, while the legal analysis was great, the bias, witch hunts and
paranoia got too overwhelming once the SCO case stopped being interesting and
it was the time that I stopped reading it regularly and I've seen some people
who share this sentiment so I am not alone on this. Microsoft is definitely
not an angel, but to obessively see it as a devil behind everything is a bit
too much.

~~~
FlorianMueller
During all those years Groklie never once criticized IBM for any of its
wrongdoings. In connection with IBM's software patent threat letter to
TurboHercules, Groklie even said in a headline that IBM was "free to sue the
pants off TurboHercules". Seriously, which free software advocate would ever
cheer a patent aggressor on?

~~~
wtallis
In the article you refer to[1], it is shown that IBM was not the aggressor, as
TurboHercules filed the first complaint, and the "threat letter" was merely
IBM calling their bluff: "Your suggestion that TurboHercules was unaware that
IBM has intellectual property rights in this area is surprising." Furthermore,
the letter was a response to a request that IBM identify any intellectual
property TurboHercules infringed.

Your refusal to take those facts into account is far more damning than PJ's
belief that IBM's patent pledge did not cover TurboHercules.

[1][[http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20100408153953...](http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20100408153953613)]

~~~
FlorianMueller
You are wrong about IBM not having been the aggressor. Here's a documentation
of the entire correspondence:
[http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/04/turbohercules-
entire...](http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/04/turbohercules-entire-
correspondence.html)

TurboHercules didn't make a "request" to IBM as a "bluff". Instead, IBM
threatened TurboHercules with a previous letter.

Also, TurboHercules never attacked IBM with patents (I guess TurboHercules
doesn't even own any patents). All that TurboHercules did _later_ was to lodge
an antitrust complaint with the European Commission. However, lodging a
complaint with a regulator is not an act of aggression. Regulatory agencies
will only take action if a company's conduct is suspected of being
anticompetitive and unlawful. The European Commission launched an
investigation in July: [http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/07/european-
commission-...](http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/07/european-commission-
launches-antitrust.html)

That would not have happened if there weren't serious concerns over what IBM
is doing. The outcome of the in-depth investigation remains to be seen, but
the European Commission doesn't launch such investigations unless there's at
least a strong indication of possible wrongdoing.

~~~
nl
_lodging a complaint with a regulator is not an act of aggression. Regulatory
agencies will only take action if a company's conduct is suspected of being
anticompetitive and unlawful._

Wow.. that's an interesting spin.

The cynic in me wants to say "lodging a lawsuit is not an act of aggression.
Courts will only take action if a company's conduct is proved to be unlawful."

~~~
FlorianMueller
Contrary to my statement being "an interesting spin", your statement displays
a total lack of understanding for antitrust law and patent law.

Worse than that, you don't even seem to understand that antitrust regulators
aren't courts of law.

If you sue someone over patent infringement allegations, and as long as you
satisfy some basic criteria (such as "Rule 11"), there will be a lawsuit. It's
a given that the court will hear your case. Period. And it's only because you
as the patent holder want to assert your rights, regardless of whether that
particular case is good or bad for the economy at large, and for society.

By contrast, an antitrust complaint like the one TurboHercules brought against
IBM (many months after the initial - even if then not yet totally specific -
patent infringement threat) is lodged with a regulatory agency that doesn't
have an obligation to follow up. They can always say there's no public
interest in what you complain about. In that case, you could try to bring an
antitrust lawsuit, and then you just satisfy some basic criteria and a court
will hear the case. But if you ask an antitrust regulator to act, the
regulatory agency will look at your complaint and its merits, and will compare
it to other complaints and their merits, and will then decide to pursue only
the most important issues, i.e., the ones that the economy at large, and
society, have the greatest benefit from.

Depending on the jurisdiction, the antitrust regulator will either have to go
to court at some point (unless a case is settled before) or, such as in the
EU's case, the regulator may be in a position to impose remedies and fines,
but all of that will be subject to review by a court of law if the affected
company appeals.

~~~
nl
I understand perfectly well.

Complaining to an antitrust regulator is analogous to making a police
complaint. The police may or may not do anything, in which case you can always
file a civil lawsuit.

Trying to present making a complaint as some kind of innocent move is
misleading at best.

------
frossie
Big shame. While in the SCO case groklaw was useful as an information source
_and_ an advocacy conduit, I feel there is a need for detailed coverage on
court cases that revolve around technical issues or major technical players,
even if there is no obvious position to advocate for.

I hope somebody else can take up the torch.

~~~
FlorianMueller
The big battles are now about software patents, not copyright, and
particularly take place in connection with mobile devices:
<http://www.scribd.com/my_document_collections/2770688>

I never intended for my FOSS Patents blog to be a discussion community like
Groklaw, but I do cover those issues and try to help a broader audience
understand the strategic battlelines, such as with the visualizations
available in the above folder.

~~~
wtallis
Is the Sony mess not important? It's all about copyrights and license
agreements, and it seems like it could have major repercussions for the right
to run the software of your choosing on hardware that you own. (Not to mention
the horrible privacy precedents Sony is trying to set with their subpoenas.)

I'm not saying that the software patent issues aren't big, but they're battles
between corporate giants, and will have limited effect on developers until
most of them are settled. The Sony cases, on the other hand, could mean that
you would need the manufacturer's permission before putting free software on
the hardware they sold you. Most companies selling hardware would love for
that to be the case, but it would make it nearly impossible for open-source
communities to form around consumer hardware.

------
tzs
Groklaw was very useful for getting documents out, and explaining procedural
things. Basically, the practical aspects of law. Even when a legal document is
public domain, it often requires someone with access to a for-pay system to
find it, grab it, and put it up on free site.

The analysis side of Groklaw, on the other hand, was so-so, especially the
farther it got away from actual legal issues.

I'd like to see a site that gathers legal documents related to the same kinds
of issues Groklaw covered (and more, perhaps) and makes them available for
free, but that either does not do analysis and editorializing the way Groklaw
does, or that has several independent people providing analysis from a wide
variety of perspectives.

~~~
unfasten
>I'd like to see a site that gathers legal documents related to the same kinds
of issues Groklaw covered (and more, perhaps) and makes them available for
free,

This is the goal of RECAP. It's a Firefox extension that will automatically
upload documents you view from PACER (the for-pay system to access documents)
to a public internet archive. It will also let you know if free versions of
the files for a case you're looking up are already available.

You can also search the already available documents, without the extension,
here: <http://archive.recapthelaw.org/>

Firefox extension: <https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/recap-195534/>

Their 'About' page also has a FAQ if you're interested in more about how it
works: <https://www.recapthelaw.org/about/>

------
jdp23
There's an art to knowing when to move on. Congrats to PJ and kudos to
groklaw!

------
ErrantX
Sad.

Kudos.

I've only ever come across Groklaw on HN, it's not a blog I've ever kept up
with regularly (my loss). But every memory I have of Grok' content is of
competent, sensible and inciteful commentary.

The SCO stuff kinda passed me by, mostly because I ''assumed'' it was purely
frivolous and would be beaten. It is only on the prompting of this post that I
dug into the archives and saw the work that was done.

But, kudos for sticking to the idea of switching off once done. I have the
perennial XKCD cartoon above my desk about someone being wrong on the internet
(see: <http://xkcd.com/386/>), too often I ignore it. Anyone that can do so
has my respect.

''In short, we dood it, y'all.''

Amen :)

~~~
gvb
I really think you meant "insightful" rather than "inciteful". Usually it was
the former, only occasionally the latter. ;-)

~~~
ErrantX
Oh crap. Typing too late again :s

------
sambeau
I wish a few more campaign groups would have the decency shut-up-shop when
they achieve their stated mission.

(but not before, obviously)

It shows a genuine integrity which enhances their legacy.

------
malkia
Never been there much (groklaw), but remember how sad I was the day
flipcode.com closed :(

Still the archives are there, and I keep reusing things from the code
sections...

------
Valour
I'm really, really glad. Fuck Groklaw.

Groklaw was like a big, angry shark gobbling up all of the material that a
half-dozen journalists in open source and technology journalism would have
loved to cover, had they not been emasculated by editors who were in love with
PJ. It was a big ego game for her, not to achieve fame, but to achieve some
level of personal satisfaction. It was always my hunch that she was filling
some empty void in her life with Groklaw -- mommy and daddy made her feel
useless, so Groklaw was her way of fighting back. Or she had an abusive
husband and Groklaw was her only power in the world. Whatever. It doesn't
matter now.

Apparently all the PJ lovers missed the posts where she promoted religion, and
called for the censorship of OSTG/OSDN journalists because NewsForge published
an editorial about being okay with using proprietary software, and told people
that it wasn't okay for kids to believe in Santa Claus. PJ executed hit jobs
on anyone who publicly disagreed with her or her ideology.

She reveled in that power. She had the entire tech journalism establishment by
the balls, and she wasn't afraid to use that to satisfy her personal
vendettas. Anybody who questioned PJ in the least was accused from every angle
of being a Microsoft or SCO shill, or taking money from some front company.
Anyone who asked who PJ was and how she was making her living (perfectly valid
questions -- the same ones she asked of everyone who spoke out against her or
did anything she didn't like) was subjected to an Anonymous-style attack from
her community of blind followers. One person even claimed to have been the
victim of arson at the hands of a Groklaw fan, but nobody could print those
stories because PJ had a stranglehold on the tech news publishers. Nobody was
allowed to publish anything _about_ Groklaw.

Except of course the one rogue publication that did the same thing to PJ that
she did to her enemies. PJ deserved what Maureen O'Gara dished up to her --
and more. There were so few actual journalists in that industry anyway...
everyone was either starfucking Groklaw and promoting Linux and the FSF with
fluff pieces, or they were prevented by editors from chasing stories that
showed those shadow-gods in a negative light. Had Groklaw never existed, open
source and Linux journalism would have been so much better for it... there
would have been real story-chasers, not free software worshippers and fanboys.

~~~
FlorianMueller
You make a lot of good points but overstate Groklie's influence on the
professional press. It came down to a few journalists who wanted to present
themselves to their audiences as open source activists. Serious media didn't
care.

A few days ago, I was quoted on Google's $900M bid for Nortel's patents by the
Financial Times, Los Angeles Times, BBC News, law.com, and on Android's patent
problems by Bloomberg. I started my FOSS Patents blog only a year ago. Did
Groklaw ever get quoted by media like that? I can't remember having seen that
ever. That doesn't mean that it hasn't happened, but I'm not aware of any
example.

~~~
roel_v
Sorry for bringing the general level of HN down with this comment, but after
reading all your comments in this thread I just have to let it out - man,
you're the biggest douche I've ever seen online, and that counts for
something.

~~~
RexRollman
It has been that way for years. One day, I hope we will find out who is
pulling his strings.

------
FlorianMueller
On LWN, a user pointed out that text analysis tools show that some Groklaw
articles were definitely written by male authors and others definitely by
female authors: <http://lwn.net/Articles/437741/>

This is yet another clear indication that "PJ" was just an avatar.

~~~
daeken
I have run text analysis tools against nearly everything I've written. Well
over 75% of my writing is identified as likely to be female. Last I checked,
I'm male. Don't put so much stock in this stuff.

------
FlorianMueller
Don't forget the dark side of Groklaw -- censorship:
[http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/groklaw-accused-of-
cen...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/groklaw-accused-of-
censorship/7826)

~~~
wtallis
Please, when you link to an editorial titled "Groklaw accused of censorship",
have the integrity to note that _you're_ the accuser.

And don't use childish epithets like "GroklXX" and "Groklie" and still expect
to be taken seriously on a forum like this.

~~~
FlorianMueller
The ZDNet article concerning Groklaw's censorship quoted a plurality of
persons, not just me. I was one of them, but there were several others.

~~~
albedoa
"I will have no such integrity."

------
FlorianMueller
It remains to be seen whether this is true, or just a scheme to provoke an
outpouring of support ("support" in various ways, shapes and forms).

~~~
T-R
For those not familiar with the above poster's relation to Groklaw:

<http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091021164738392>

[http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20100408153953...](http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20100408153953613)

<http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110122054409107>

Edit, for a little more context: <http://twitter.com/FOSSpatents>

~~~
burgerbrain
"I never drink beer" --FlorianMueller (<http://lwn.net/Articles/402113/>)

Really explains a lot in my humble opinion. (Not necessarily the not drinking
of beer, but the rather unnecessary pointing out that he doesn't drink beer)

~~~
_delirium
A German who doesn't drink beer? Stereotype ruined!

