Groklaw — Don't Go Home, Go Big

jfruhlinger writes "You may have caught PJ's Christmas Day post on Groklaw, expressing her anger and frustration that, after she helped save Novell's Unix patents from SCO's clutches, Novell turned around and sold many of those patents to an open source-unfriendly coalition. She's feeling at a crossroads and wondering what Groklaw should become. Brian Proffitt has a suggestion: a bigger, more community-oriented site."

Comments

She's feeling abused?

[Anonymous Coward]

So she was asked by Novell to help with the SCO case?

I was under the impression that she was just reporting and analyzing for her blog - I didn't realize that she had some sort of deal with Novell.

Re:She's feeling abused?

[kiwimate]

The whole rant reads like, well, some kind of emotional rant from an angst-ridden teenager. She's "furious", and feels "used and abused. How could Novell enter into such a deal?...Why do I bother...".

The seventh paragraph alone sounds like a 13 year old's diary entry.

Is it intentional? Or does the heart find ways to justify what people want to do because they personally benefit? I leave that part to God. I can't read hearts. I analyze behavior only. But I see results. It's depressing to find out that community members are so easy to buy off, which is how I view it.

PJ has always struck me as being disingenous at best. She seems to have lost all perspective. The mission statement includes all these lofty goals and statements about legal research, being a resource, etc., etc. But if you read her own interview on how it started, she states right at the beginning that she used to hand out Knoppix CDs to Microsoft users, started Groklaw so she could learn how to blog, and then along came SCO and "it made me so angry". But she always wants to appear disengaged and "legal" and able to see both sides. What a load of self-serving rubbish.

Re:She's feeling abused?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, I dunno, she put a lot of hard work into covering the case, so she might react a bit emotional when countless hours of tireless work were almost for nothing.

Re:She's feeling abused?

[bberens]

I think she fails to see the differences between people and corporations. People can be idealists, corporations exist to make money.

Re:She's feeling abused?

[vadim_t]

Amazing discovery: PJ is actually human! Stop the presses!

Well, duh. Of course she had to have some motivation. Do you think people 100% coldly and rationally decide to dedicate so much of their time to a purpose they are completely disengaged from?

I don't really care about her motivation. She either provides a good service to the community or doesn't, regardless of whether she's doing it out of anger, love for the cause, or some robotic need to analyze things in a 100% logical manner.

Re:She's feeling abused?

[markdavis]

+1 Had I not already been compelled to post a comment, I would mod you up (and I have the points, too).

Re:She's feeling abused?

[Locke2005]

How could Novell enter into such a deal?

"Ever since the Phoenicians invented money, there has only been one answer to that question." -- Clarence Darrow

Re:She's feeling abused?

[drakaan]

PJ has always struck me as being disingenous at best. She seems to have lost all perspective. The mission statement includes all these lofty goals and statements about legal research, being a resource, etc., etc. But if you read her own interview on how it started, she states right at the beginning that she used to hand out Knoppix CDs to Microsoft users, started Groklaw so she could learn how to blog, and then along came SCO and "it made me so angry". But she always wants to appear disengaged and "legal" and able to see both sides. What a load of self-serving rubbish.

*sigh*

If she has always struck you at being disingenuous at best (really, at *best*?), then of course it would appear to you that she's lost all perspective.

As someone who earns a living writing code on Microsoft's application stack, I'm not your total idealist when it comes to open source or free software. I do understand that there are reasons that people choose to use proprietary stuff. That said, I have a personal understanding of why free software is important, and why software patents are bad, period, that's not far removed from hers.

You're saying that because she thinks free software is better than proprietary software for her stated reasons, then she's not worth listening to. If that means that you think that the legal research she has done is not fairly representing the issues at hand, then I'd ask you to point out where we can see some evidence of that. SCO making someone angry is grounds for whatever they do afterwards to be self-serving rubbish?

That's an *awful* lot of protest over a person expressing disappointment...

I get what you're going for, it just doesn't sound likely...or impartial, for that matter.

Re:She's feeling abused?

[quintesse]

I have always found this a very American point of view. It always reads as if there is a big [PERIOD] behind it, meaning "to the exclusion of everything else". If that's true than it's just ridiculous. Corporations exist only to make money? If that would be true than we've gone seriously wrong somewhere in history. It should be all about *us*, people, living and breathing beings of flesh and blood. Corporations should exist for the benefit of society and society should exist for the benefit of the people that live in it. Our capitalist system might work best if corporations *focus* on making money, but definitely *not* to the exclusion of everything else. I think it's not too strange to demand that they do so within a certain moral and ethical framework, not passively following the boundries drwan by laws and regulations but actively seeking to be an asset to society and to its people.

I can almost hear you say "dream on", but I think it starts with chaning this way of thinking where nothing else is expected of a corporation than money, money and ever more money.

Re:She's feeling abused?

[darthdavid]

Exactly. If you never expect/demand that they start behaving better why would they start?

Re:She's feeling abused?

[openfrog]

I think she fails to see the differences between people and corporations. People can be idealists, corporations exist to make money.

I am tired of hearing this argument. Corporations have a reputation to maintain and this has a real value on the balance sheet. Microsoft's bad reputation costs them everyday in the fact of other corps not wanting to do business with them and in influential consumers not recommending their products. Managers who ignore the fundamentals of serving their customers do so at their peril. We may live in cynical times, but reality will ultimately knock at the door.

Re:She's feeling abused?

[Tikkun]

If the goal of your company isn't to make money, it's a non-profit. If your company is a for-profit, the goal of the company is to make money.

In the case of the latter, how do you know you're making what people want? People tell you with money.

If you want different behavior from a for-profit company either convince other people to stop paying them or change the legal framework so that they need to do what you and the rest of your interest group want them to do. We have seatbelts, clean water, clean air, etc. because concerned people stood up and demanded them.

Re:She's feeling abused?

[kaizokuace]

Why do you think the corporation system is putting a strain on the people? The lack of the humanity factor in a corporations goals puts a general strain on society. We need a better for of organization to get things done now that society has reached this size and complexity.

Re:She's feeling abused?

[quintesse]

In my message I explicitely said "to the exclusion of everything else". Of course a company has to make money, it has to survive somehow, which is good for its employees, which is good for society.

Like you said people vote with their money and most of the time that works fine, but there are situations where it just breaks down. I doubt many people stopped fillinig their tanks at BP petrol stations for example.

Companies asking themselves "can I do this?" (or even "can I get away with this?") should maybe say a little bit more often "is it right to do this?".

But if the legal framework on one hand and the general way of thinking of the people on the other almost "forces" a company only to take into account any and all ways to wring the last cent from any situation we shouldn't be surprised that some of them turn into regular disasters.

I only ask for more "social responsibility" from companies. They are part of the latticework of society (not only of the financial market) and should behave accordingly.

The way it seems now in the US (and probably many other places as well) is that a company can expect to get away with any behaviour as long as it is not illegal, passively waiting for government to tell them when society thinks they're behaving badly and they should change their ways.

A good example that the contrary seems not only possible but even compatible with being profitable is Google.

Re:She's feeling abused?

[williamhb]

I have always found this a very American point of view. It always reads as if there is a big [PERIOD] behind it, meaning "to the exclusion of everything else". If that's true than it's just ridiculous. Corporations exist only to make money? If that would be true than we've gone seriously wrong somewhere in history. It should be all about *us*, people, living and breathing beings of flesh and blood. Corporations should exist for the benefit of society and society should exist for the benefit of the people that live in it. Our capitalist system might work best if corporations *focus* on making money, but definitely *not* to the exclusion of everything else. I think it's not too strange to demand that they do so within a certain moral and ethical framework, not passively following the boundries drwan by laws and regulations but actively seeking to be an asset to society and to its people.

I can almost hear you say "dream on", but I think it starts with chaning this way of thinking where nothing else is expected of a corporation than money, money and ever more money.

It's not a "way of thinking", it's a genuine structural problem with sharemarkets and corporate governance. Take Cadbury for example. The company did have motives other than profit -- it was founded with a particular emphasis on supporting its employees. Last year, Kraft wanted to buy Cadbury. The management wasn't keen on this, and fought it, until Kraft increased their offer very slightly. At this point, a problem with modern corporate governance kicked in. The chairman could not demonstrate that the share price would rise above Kraft's offer in the short term; that meant that strictly he could not recommend to shareholders that they should reject the offer -- he had to say that the offer was in shareholders' best interests. Many of the shareholders were pension funds. While some fund managers personally did not like Kraft taking Cadbury over much either, as managers in charge of other people's investments they didn't feel they could act against the recommendation of Cadbury's board, and so felt they had to accept the offer. So, even though nobody personally liked the deal, the requirements of everyone's role mean that they had to choose to approve the deal. This was compounded by a large number of funds that bought shares and immediately voted for the deal, because of their requirement to make money for their investors (in this case through the differential between the share price and the deal price).

Re:She's feeling abused?

[Yvanhoe]

Actually, I don't know in US, but in France when you found a company, you have to declare its intended goal. Develop software, create leather jewelry, build a railroad across the country...
Making money is the mean a company uses toward that goal. We live in a capitalistic society, so that means that we only consider useful endeavor the ones that will enrich some people/the society. That is an acceptable metric, but let's not confuse this imperfect metric for what it tries to measure.

Re:She's feeling abused?

[Bigjeff5]

If the goal of your company isn't to make money, it's a non-profit. If your company is a for-profit, the goal [wikipedia.org] of the company is to make money.

That's the dumbest thing I've heard all day, and I can refute it with one simple example: http://www.virgance.com/

Seriously, what an idiotic notion. Because I want to make money I can't possibly want to do anything else? What narrow minded nonsense is that? What if all I care about with regard to money is having enough to live comfortably? In that case my business does not have to be focused on profit at all. In fact it would be pretty dumb for me to focus on profit if I don't care about profit that much. Instead I would focus on whatever it is I want to focus on.

I would say most privately owned businesses are more or less this way. Sure some people sat down and tried to figure out how to make the most money, but most people don't. It's pretty hard to be passionate about whatever it is your business is all about if the only thing you care about is the almighty dollar.

Your point is much more valid for public corporations, which are generally controlled by a board of directors who report to shareholders. These companies are often about profit and profit only. The more shortsighted ones are about profit this quarter only. A notable exception to this, even still, is Google. They have a clear ideology that hasn't changed since its inception in two guys' dorm room, and it's certainly not about profit. Their ideology happens to produce massive profits as a happy side effect, though, which acts as a strong incentive to not change their ideology.

There is no reason profit cannot be combined with an overall boon to society, both directly and indirectly. Going back to Google, just look at what they have done for the open hardware and software communities. For heaven's sake it's almost accepted practice to wipe your phone's OS and install your own thanks to Google. That was unheard of four years ago. You know, back when Apple was bricking jailbroken phones with mandatory updates. ;)

Re:She's feeling abused?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is required in the US as well. Not only does the charter generally describe the industry it also includes a statement about benefiting society. Corporations generally just pay lip service to that last part.

Re:She's feeling abused?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aha...it is very true that a corporation has a specific product/service that it creates through the organization of many skilled people, but what it comes down to today is the investors. The shareholders rarely care about the long-term effects a company may have of society and are only the to see dividends. The people on top who make these type of decisions usually don't care about the long-term effects because THEY are there to make money not tractors or microchips.

Re:She's feeling abused?

[Anonymous Coward]

In general, corporations in the USA are required by law to "maximize shareholder value" as their first priority.

Re:She's feeling abused?

[Tikkun]

Because I want to make money I can't possibly want to do anything else?

I'm not talking about individuals, but rather groups of people (queue Agent K quote).

Groups are more likely to be influenced by incentives (bad or good) than individuals. For example, I didn't start walking and riding the bus because I wanted future generations to be better off, I did it because I moved to the city and it's cheaper and easier. Many people living around me have been riding busses all their lives, even when they lived in the burbs. Most people in the US make the opposite call for the same reason I did.

What if all I care about with regard to money is having enough to live comfortably?

There are billions of people on Earth and they all have to figure out what to do every day. Given the vast amount of information contained in the market, better allocation of resources will generally occur when the market is influenced by what people really want (pay for) instead of what they say they want (free X). (note: as awesome as single payer healthcare may be, it isn't free)

You as an individual can make a choice to work part time, or work as a volunteer, or any number of different worthy goals. Non-profit companies are able to do great things (at least in the eyes of the people funding them), but given that they aren't working with a profit motive they cannot figure out how many widgets need to be made.

Re:She's feeling abused?

[Jojie_T]

You must be new here. Corporations don't care what people want. They tell the people what to want.

Re:She's feeling abused?

[emok]

If you believe a company is "socially responsible", you've been duped
by its PR firm. Companies are responsible to society only insofar as
it increases their profits.

For a public corporation like Novell every decision is simply a matter
of short-term financial accounting. Impacts to public welfare,
environmental damage, working conditions, patriotism, human safety,
morality, etc. are relevant only if there is an anticipated financial
impact on the business. Corporations are legally obligated to
_maximize_ profits. Profit is the only motive. They can't just earn a
decent return, they must maximize.

If a single executive doesn't pursue maximum profit, his boss fires
him. If the top executives don't, the shareholders sue.

The classic example is the founding of the Dodge automotive company.
Essentially the Dodge Brothers collected the capital to expand their
business by suing Henry Ford for paying his workers well. The court
decided that Ford set wages too high and therefore had denied profits
that rightfully belonged to the shareholders. Since Ford was
notoriously fickle, there is some debate if he was actually
overpaying, but nonetheless the precedent was set that profits always
come first. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company

Re:She's feeling abused?

[capnkr]

In general, corporations in the USA are required by law to "maximize shareholder value" as their first priority.

Have a cite for that assertation? No?

Here's why: "Maximizing shareholder value" is a management principle, not a precondition of incorporation. It is something that a company may choose to do in a legally binding contract with shareholders, but our government does not, and has never, required it under law as the 'first priority' for any type of business.

Someone with an anti-US/anti-corporate belief system has been lying to you, and you've believed them. Next time they try to do so, instead of just drinking their KoolAid, I suggest you ask them to cite exactly which US law it is they are referring to. When they can't, maybe you'll see them for what they really are.

Re:She's feeling abused?

[Yvanhoe]

Actually, the incentive to maximise shareholders' value is maybe the biggest bug in the capitalistic society...
Investors should have incentive to invest in profitable companies, but companies should have no incentive in maximizing shareholder value. It should just happen.

A patent consortium

[dgatwood]

No, seriously. Groklaw should become a patent consortium run by open source software folks. It should use its resources to fund patent applications by open source projects and should hold those patents collectively so that they can be used defensively if any of the member projects are attacked by software patents.

Re:A patent consortium

[Anonymous Coward]

and what is going to stop them from being used offensively? a sweet promise made?

Re:A patent consortium

[justdrew]

yep. no alternative. but - patents are 20 years. shouldn't these old unix patents be expired by now or nearly so?

Re:A patent consortium

[Anonymous Coward]

Just make the mantra of the consortium "Don't be Evil", obviously!

Re:A patent consortium

[Anonymous Coward]

If it means adding more patents to the "open source software folks", then I say yes, go for it. Let's show these huge corporations how it feels to be on the other side of the fence for a change.

The perfect ending would be for the open source group to own ALL the damn patents or to get (software) patents abolished altogether. It's getting ridiculous.

Re:A patent consortium

[Simon80]

I like this idea. I have no idea if it would gain momentum, but it would be pretty nice if it did.

Re:A patent consortium

[dgatwood]

and what is going to stop them from being used offensively? a sweet promise made?

The principle of mutually assured destruction, basically. Same reason that such a patent pool would make companies less likely to sue random open source projects that are members of the consortium.

That and it should ideally be constructed in such a way that any offensive use would require a vote by its members, and most members would probably not choose to do so except in very limited circumstances.

Re:A patent consortium

[Jahava]

No, seriously. Groklaw should become a patent consortium run by open source software folks. It should use its resources to fund patent applications by open source projects and should hold those patents collectively so that they can be used defensively if any of the member projects are attacked by software patents.

There are a lot of important questions that would have to be answered in order for this idea to actually work. Off the top of my head:

• Who will fund this? It costs money to review and file patents, maintain and defend a portfolio, and actually litigate.
• Who gets protected? Patent lawsuits occur against companies as a whole, not specific projects. To what degree of open-source friendliness / compliance does an entity have to operate in order to not be on the receiving side of this?
• Who will manage it? Obviously, some coalition of trustworthy individuals is needed both to ensure internal integrity as well as to entice developers to sign over their intellectual property.
• What's to stop unfriendly companies from sneaking into the coalition? Because this is exactly what I'd try to do if this project ever gained momentum.
• What would provoke such a consortium into attacking an entity? Seems like defensively, any company that patent-trolls, especially against open-source, is candidate, but there's the question of whether or no to be proactive, and how proactive to be.
• Would licenses to use the patents be GPL-style or BSD-style? Specifically, would these patents be granted to the public domain, or would some form of patent compliance on behalf of an organization be required to license them?

Personally, I think a diverse group of people from (but not limited to) the EFF and Groklaw would make great board members. There would have to be a soliciting arm that identifies potential patentable material in a given open-source project and raises the possibility of patenting it to the developer(s) of that project. There would also have to be a very powerful license backing them, else nobody would trust them. Conditions on governing the board of trustees and options to prevent its corruption would be critical.

All-in-all this would be an excellent idea. Protect open-source and independent development and provide some teeth to the open-source side of the craziness that is patent law. As it gains power and grows large enough to stand next to major corporations, the consortium could get proactive and start making a case for serious patent reform or the abolishment of software patents altogether.

Re:A patent consortium

[SanityInAnarchy]

A sweet, legally-binding promise.

Re:A patent consortium

[just_another_sean]

Isn't that what the OIN is for?
PJ wrote about that a few weeks ago as well.

Re:A patent consortium

[h4rr4r]

What's to stop unfriendly companies from sneaking into the coalition?

That is easy enough.

Any lawsuit over patents against any FREE software project members or users will result in removal from the coalition and said member will have 30 days to cease using any and all patents from the pool or face infringement suits.

Re:A patent consortium

[Nerdfest]

Playing the ridiculous software patent game is not going to help ... getting rid of software patents is. They will effectively end when the Western software industry crashes anyway.

Re:A patent consortium

[dgatwood]

I'll give my thoughts on this.

Who will fund this? It costs money to review and file patents, maintain and defend a portfolio, and actually litigate.

Well, the idea was that the site would raise money through donations and advertising while covering legal issues that pertain to open source, and that some portion of those donations would cover that. You could also solicit open-source-friendly corporations to pledge money in the event of an actual legal defense.

Who gets protected? Patent lawsuits occur against companies as a whole, not specific projects. To what degree of open-source friendliness / compliance does an entity have to operate in order to not be on the receiving side of this?

When you're talking about open source, it's usually individuals acting rather than companies, which makes things even more complicated. However, the answer would have to be that any open source developer who is either a member of the consortium or is a member of a project that is a member of the consortium would be defended against lawsuits, and the full weight of the consortium's patent portfolio would be used in a countersuit. I would also say that companies should be on the receiving end of lawsuits only in retaliation for actions by those companies against any individual or group member of the consortium.

Who will manage it? Obviously, some coalition of trustworthy individuals is needed both to ensure internal integrity as well as to entice developers to sign over their intellectual property.

I would probably start with the creation of an appropriate constitution/set of bylaws that govern how the executive board operates, that govern how those bylaws can be changed, general policies, voting procedures, etc. Then, I would probably have a democratic election of an executive board consisting of... say nine members to handle much of the day-to-day operations.

What's to stop unfriendly companies from sneaking into the coalition? Because this is exactly what I'd try to do if this project ever gained momentum.

Nothing. They would, however, have to follow the same rules as everyone else. They would have to agree not to sue any coalition member in order to gain access to the coalition's patents, and they would have to cross-license all patents that they own to any member of the coalition.

What would provoke such a consortium into attacking an entity? Seems like defensively, any company that patent-trolls, especially against open-source, is candidate, but there's the question of whether or no to be proactive, and how proactive to be.

I would argue that proactive enforcement is probably not in the best interests of the organization, and particularly not a good idea in the short term. Defensive use (counter-suits in the event of a third party suing a member, saber rattling in the case of a third party threatening to sue a member, etc.) should be the sole purpose of such an organization. As soon as you cross the line into suing companies that aren't suing you, you lose the moral high ground. :-)

Would licenses to use the patents be GPL-style or BSD-style?

That's tricky. I would start with a standard patent grant wherein any member of the consortium is granted the right to exploit the patent, and wherein anyone who obtains a copy of covered software is granted the right to use and redistribute the software so long as it remains open source. Beyond that, the board should be allowed to negotiate cross-licensing deals, and all patent agreements should contain a mutually assured destruction clause wherein if a company or individual sues any member of the consortium, that company or individual loses any rights to continue distributing the patented technology.

Also, as a policy, the consortium should disclaim outright any claims of in

Re:A patent consortium

[iplayfast]

The problem is, you can't take your ball and go home. You are playing the ridiculous patent game whether you want to or not.
It seems to me that Software people and companies are against patents on software, as it effectively creates an unlevel playing field for all involved.
On the otherhand, lawyers and patent companies love them and make a huge amount of money from them.

The only reason software companies have patents is to defend against other companies that have patents. It's a defensive tactic.

Re:A patent consortium

[peragrin]

Mutually assured Destruction only works if both sides actually care about living afterwards.

With patent pools it doesn't matter the companies can't die, they can sell everything off when things look bad, leave a shell corp to handle the litigation and shunt everything and everyone else to saftey under a different corporate umbrella. Or a patent troll that is nothing but a meeting room for lawyers really doesn't care if they lose that meeting room.

right now we are in the middle of the mobile patent wars. in the next 6-9 months we find out if android will stick around or be killed by Oracle. whether Apple can fight nokia and HTC and win, Whether Motorola or MSFT has more patents related mobile phones(remember Motorola just got stripped down to a meeting room and brand name)

If your betting on M.A.D. for patent protection your going to lose. As there is always someone crazy and scared enough to fire off something stupid.

Re:A patent consortium

[dgatwood]

True, that patent trolls aren't thwarted by mutually assured destruction. That wasn't the question. The question was what would keep this patent pool from devolving into that, and the answer is that the pool would be managed by its members, who would have no interest in losing their patents due to frivolous action against someone else.

Re:A patent consortium

[dgatwood]

Sort of, but that seems to be a lot more narrowly focused on Linux.

Re:A patent consortium

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason software companies have patents is to defend against other companies that have patents. It's a defensive tactic

So is having public development repositories. And frankly, the latter is much less expensive.

Re:A patent consortium

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for putting yourself out there for the rest of us to critique. You have presented some nice ideas, but your very first point is backward. Solicit the cohesive entities for baseline operating funds - if Russia delivers on their National Repository our government will take care of this to ensure U.S. competitive ability (remember, we must know our competitors to ensure N.Security).

Then don't tap the users for donations unless the users are unable to locate Prior Art for a given claim. The real donation is the information that is stored in the millions of minds that have been attracted to the project. If Canonical alone put together a portal for educating and notifying users when an Art search is required, then followed up by asking for max $10 donation if the thing has to go to trial you would end up with more than just money... You would get hearts, minds, eyeballs, and follow-up.

Assuming anchor distros will have reasonable on-demand donations from the companies invested upstream, Canonical and derived communities should be able to both close the financial gap and finally get out from under the stigma that comes with catering to an audience less likely to generate contributions back upstream.

The donation becomes a badge that many different entities from many different communities can wear with equity and honor... but it really won't have to be worn all that often. The real threat is not that the money can be raised, but that the process of raising it will spread across the entire world, jump cultures, languages, distro ideologies, and politics. Even a successful IP suit against us would carry the threat of a good old fashion drawing and quartering for the opponent.

This system will need absolutely open books to work. Scale is our power, and you cannot have doubt in the minds of participants that are out on the edge of the happenings... so completely open books, please. Thanks.

Re:A patent consortium

[protektor]

It's easy to make that happen. Just write into the by laws of the company/organization that the company is not allowed to start/file a lawsuit with anyone or any company over the enforcement of patents that the company holds, and that this company by-law can never be changed even by a vote of the shareholders. It would be perfectly legal and perfectly binding and no one would be able to over-ride it because it is part of the unchangeable company charter. You could even add something so they could protect the patents from profit companies, but not any company project or project that uses an OSI approved open source license or whatever. There are many ways to do this legally, the only question is exactly what you want and what your trying to prevent.

There is a reason that companies have charters and by-laws. They are to make sure that no matter what happens that a company is run a certain way as the creators/founders of the company wants. This is the whole idea behind a poison pill clause in a company's by-laws, a legal structure to prevent by-outs or hostile takeovers of the company. If you can poison pill a company, you could do what you are talking about.

Re:A patent consortium

[protektor]

Actually they can only do this if a majority of the shareholders agree to it. Companies with shareholders can't do whatever they want. They legally are charged with at a bare minimum maintaining the value of the company. They can not do anything that would significantly reduce the value of the company or they risk lawsuits from the shareholders. Companies are 100% responsible to their shareholders. If a majority of shareholders decide and vote to drop a lawsuit, then the company by law must drop the lawsuit.

If a company were to try and sell off a majority of their assets to another holding company making the original company worthless the shareholders could sue and would without a doubt win and block such a move. While the trial was going on the judge would halt all sales/decisions until he ruled in the case. This has been done several times in the past by shareholders who have blocked a company being sold to another because they didn't feel the price was right and they (shareholders) were getting ripped off.

If a family run business has private shares and 500 or even 10 people own various numbers of shares, they have the same issues. If the majority of the shareholders don't want the company sold or some other issue, then legally the company can't do it. Even though it isn't a publicly traded company, and the number shareholders is small. It doesn't legally matter. This is why start-ups always try and have the founders keep 51% of the shares, so they still control the company, rather than the investors or anyone else who owns shares.

So no, companies with shareholders (private or public) can not just do whatever they want. They have to do what is best for the shareholders.

Re:A patent consortium

[protektor]

You would still want shareholders of some kind and some bylaws to keep things sane. They shareholders would have the ability to reign in the company/organization when it got out of control. The bylaws would keep other companies from buying up all the shares and changing how things operate. By having shareholders you don't have to think of every possible thing that might happen in the future. You just let the shareholders decide when major issues come up that weren't foreseen. This is how corporations actually work. If there is a major corporate changing decision/event then the shareholders are contacted, they meet to talk about it, and then vote on the action to take.

You could do exactly the same thing here. A good corporate attorney could set this up easily once you explained exactly what you wanted to do, and exactly what type of things you want to prevent from happening. It isn't hard, it just takes time to think about all the issues and then time for the lawyers to figure out how to legally make what you want happen.

Re:A patent consortium

[im_thatoneguy]

Yeah getting exclusive rights for inventing new tools. That's been a DISASTER for society for the last... few hundred years.

I get it. People who want everything for free are annoyed by software patents. I also get it. Software patents are overzealous (as are all patents). But the solution isn't to destroy intellectual property because that's all we're going to have in the future. When everything is made in China for cheaper--the only thing American Companies have to offer from their highly educated work forces is creativity and inventiveness.

If we aren't getting manufacturing back--we have to earn money some how. That somehow is through the use of our most valuable asset: our creativity and intelligence. I'm sorry you don't think that thinking is a valid use of time but it is when it produces new and advanced concepts. Inventors should be able to market their ideas without having to build a factory themselves to manufacture it. Manufacturers shouldn't have to hold on staff inventors to create new products.

If you come up with something new and unique you should be able to protect that effort from some bozo with a DVD burner from selling it in volume without giving you a penny.

I'm an artist, many people in my family are artists. Just recently my cousin found his work on Ebay from a chinese printer who was making illegal prints for $400 a copy--he wasn't even getting credit "Unknown Artist". He put an enormous amount of effort, talent and training into his work. Just because someone bought a $3k poster printer doesn't mean they should be able to take his intellectual property and sell it as their own.

There is value in thought and ideas. We shouldn't protect obvious ideas--which some software patents are, but those patents are often overturned when someone actually tries to enforce them. All laws are abused. That doesn't mean we should live in anarchy--and we certainly shouldn't abandon all intellectual property because you're frustrated you can't use H.264 in firefox. Next time, Mozilla can create and market their own invention.

Re:A patent consortium

[rastoboy29]

Mod parent up.  As sad as it is, it does appear to be necessary.

Re:A patent consortium

[silentcoder]

Why act as a corporation at all ? Corporations have many very clear deficiencies and are simply not ideal for all things (not even all forms of profitable business). Remember when Virgin went public - and Branson found those same deficiencies so extreme he bought back every single share and made it private again ?

If it is to operate as a business structure at all then it should be a private company -NOT a public company, and that means all sales of shares have to be approved by the auditors and can only be made shareholder to shareholder. Any sale to a third-party requires authorization from the board of directors - so you can be selective about who gets shares at all.

But even a private company is a stupid way to do it. Companies are for profit seeking purposes, a protective coalition designed to provide a defensive patent-stock for free and open-source software projects should not be profitable at all. Even a trust is probably too much. It should simply be registered as a standard run-of-the-mill not-for-profit charity. I believe in the US they are called section-21 enterprises ?
Thus: no tax burden, no need to worry about profits. Funding from donation and reasonable membership fees - any cardholding member (which can be a company, individual etc. so membership for individuals have to be cheap enough so hobbyists can afford to join) automatically gains access to the patent pool, and as a condition of membership has to contribute their own patent pool as free-of-charge licensed to other members (possibly limiting this license to only allow FOSS projects to use it - so if a member wants to create a proprietary program using one of your patents they'll have to negotiate a separate license to do that).
Structurally it's not very hard to set up and makes perfect sense for the task at hand - and we have lots of successful projects operating this way that we can learn from: the FSF, OSI, EFF and LinuxFoundation all operate in this manner.

Is there any reason why a non-profit cannot own patents and use them for defensive counter-suing to protect members from patent abuse ? I may even go further though and say that you should register the non-profit OUTSIDE the USA in a country where software patents are not legally recognized (South Africa would be a great place to start). Nothing stops a non-US citizen or organisation from owning patents in the USA - which is what the organisation will do - but since it's not a US organisation it is itself not subject to US laws.
Right now - I could get a patent in the US on an algorythm and sue IBM quite secure in the knowledge that they cannot sue me back because none o their patents are recognized under the law in my country - but mine is recognized in theirs. RMS has stated that this commercial advantage currently given to developers in countries where software patents are illegal is one that those countries should strive to protect (and not be fooled by the propaganda that changing their laws will be good for their software industries). So why not scale it up ? It's advantages to me as an individual are quite big, but to an organisation owning hundreds or even thousands of patents - all registered in the USA and other countries where they are legal - but itself registered and situated in a country where one cannot be sued for violation of software patents would be a very powerful force for good in the marketplace.
It's unlikely the coalition itself will ever be sued- since it won't develop software itself, merely act as a friendly ally to others who do, but that immunity will nonetheless give it some serious teeth.

Either way - I stand by my original statement - this idea requires a non-profit, not a company of any kind, shape or form.

Re:A patent consortium

[LBU.Zorro]

Er, ignoring the fact that your cousin wouldn't be protected by patents anyway (as that's copyright), and ignoring the difference in perceived value this isn't the best idea.

Patents aren't copyright, they aren't protecting you (or your cousin) they are harming you, they cost a lot to create and even more to enforce. Example US costs here http://ipwatchdog.com/patent/patent-cost/ but it ranges from $5k to $15k+.

The fun thing about patents is that they harm you, even if you never apply for one. Take your cousin for an example, there's nothing hugely different in what he does compared to a computer programmer, he uses tools to achieve an end, be that programming techniques / product features or the type of hill to put in a painting. The difference between the two is that (currently) you can't patent a type of hill to put in your painting, however you can patent (in certain countries) features in your product.

It doesn't matter if you created those types of hills yourself, or if you looked through a list of hill types people have created before (although in the software patents example - it can triple the damages) if someone else has patented them, then you're not allowed to use it - at least without paying them. Imagine the world your cousin would live in if he had 20 patent infringement suits for a single picture he'd created, that he "put an enormous amount of effort, talent and training into his work" but it turns out people had done it before. His worry wouldn't be some chinese printer ripping him off, no, it would be the american company who has sued him for willful infringement.

But lets say you've spent $15k on your complex patent, and a large company infringes it, how much money do you have to enforce the patent? I mean you've got to take them to court, they probably won't just admit fault and give you the money, that can take years, years of lawyers, costs etc, you could spend millions trying to enforce a patent, and even if you win there's no guarantee of breaking even.

Your fear of anarchy is blinding you to the reality, you're afraid of big companies just stealing ideas - which is what they're already doing! It costs too much to try and take them down, about your only hope is to go to one of their competitors and licence it to them and make them pay to defend it. Which is basically trying to play school yard bullies off against each other - it's stupid, immature and frankly most clearly highlights the issues with the current system. But what is the definition of anarchy? "A state of lawlessness and disorder" - I mean if large company X takes your idea, that's contrary to law, and yet they get away with it because you don't have the financial resources to fight, ergo we're in anarchy and you're blindly defending it.

There are around 7 billion people on this planet, a lot of them have brains, and use them. A lot of them have problems similar to you (and if you look through history you'll see my point - numerous discoveries and inventions happened nigh on simultaneously around the world) and a lot of them find similar solutions. I'm sorry, you're not unique, your thought? You're not the first to have that idea and you definitely won't be the last. Why do you think that you should have ownership of something you came up with if someone else comes up with it without your help?

The most I could agree with is that if you come up with an idea and tell the world immediately, and clearly that you might deserve some recompense, after all you just saved someone time. But patents? Have you ever read a patent? They aren't designed to be clear, they're designed to be vague (yes I have several - and I was disappointed with how an idea could be mutilated) because vague covers more related inventions. Patents are legal tools to bludgeon people/companies, not to protect.

Pay attention, think - you believe it's a valid use of time, so do it! But don't blind yourself to thinking that the status quo is a perfect solution, and

Re:A patent consortium

[cdrguru]

Western software industry is going to go down with the rest of Western civilization, so I wouldn't be cheering for that any time soon.

Unfortunately, with 20-30% real unemployment and bankrupt governments I don't think we will have to wait for 2012 to put an end to things.

I'd be thinking real serious about what sort of crop you might grow if you and your family survive the riots next year.

Re:A patent consortium

[iplayfast]

Agreed.

Take up another cause?

[i.r.id10t]

Sure, the SCO thing was great and interesting and ran a long time, but I think that something like groklaw for other laws or fields or items would be great.

Censorship

[Ganty]

So long as PJ continues to censor posts she doesn't like the site has limited value.

Ganty

Re:Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

So long as PJ continues to censor posts she doesn't like the site has limited value.

Ganty

Er, wait a minute... it's PJ's site right? Then PJ can do what she wants with it - including editing any posts she feels she needs or wants to. PJ's entitled to that freedom because it's her site.

So much *waaaaaing* around here anymore.

Re:Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

It is still censorship no matter if it is her site or not.

Re:Censorship

[HBI]

Sure, it's her site, and she can do what she wants. In response, those of us who dislike censorship in any form - whether performed by ChiComs or PJ - can point it out when the subject comes up. I'm entitled to that freedom and I intend to avail myself of it.

Fanboi worship is nice for the recipient but your position is mindless, simpering and without merit. She deserves appropriate criticism.

Re:Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

based on your comment history you have nothing of value to add to her site anyway. that's fine, neither do I, but I'm not the one complaining about it.

think about providing some cited examples of civil, well-reasoned & on-topic discussion snippets being censored, and you might sway a few more minds.

Re:Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

In response, those of us who dislike censorship in any form - whether performed by ChiComs or PJ - can point it out when the subject comes up.

I had a response originally typed here. Then I erased it. Odd I must have censored myself.

One must be careful how one uses that word, "censorship". It's not a catch-all for things we disagree with or dislike.

Ok, you've changed my mind - she shouldn't delete any comments ever posted to her site including spam from spam bots hocking watches or pills. After all, removal of spam from forums or blog comments would also be considered censorship. It would be hypocritical to disagree.

I'm entitled to that freedom and I intend to avail myself of it.

Indeed, that is your freedom to be entitled to your opinion.

Fanboi worship is nice for the recipient but your position is mindless, simpering and without merit.

Please. I've only been to Groklaw once in it's whole existance. I could care less if it exists or not. Certainly not a fanboi(sic).

She deserves appropriate criticism.

I never stated she should never be criticized.

Re:Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Fanboi worship is nice for the recipient but your position is mindless, simpering and without merit. She deserves appropriate criticism.

Yes, a private individual can censor posts on their own website. That doesn't necessarily merit criticism. It sometimes merits praise. I suspect (because of the obnoxious quality of your above post) the quality of her site was raised by the deletion of your posts. You're free to complain about it, also; just don't assume that your complaints enrich whatever site you select to vent at.

I have only briefly ever visited groklaw, and don't have a particular opinion about it.

Re:Censorship

[Duradin]

Considering the amount of posts here that boil down to "we must force X to do Y, for Freedom!" I can see why you posted AC.

Re:Censorship

[MontyApollo]

What does PJ's rights and personal freedom have anything to do with the judgment that the "site has limited value"? Maybe some people value sites more that don't censor comments.

Re:Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

...think about providing some cited examples of civil, well-reasoned & on-topic discussion snippets being censored, and you might sway a few more minds.

Yeah, but since she doesn't remove any post that remotely resembles what you described, such examples do not exist.

Re:Censorship

[Dishevel]

Censorship in and of itself is not evil. I like that childrens books censor sexual content. I like that Google "censors" search results. I like that I can "Censor" who comes into my house, who eats at my restaurant, who I do business with, who I am friends with. It is when the Government forces censorship on us all that it becomes bad.

Re:Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Start a blog about it and see if anyone cares.

Re:Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

So long as PJ continues to censor posts she doesn't like the site has limited value.

Ganty

Er, wait a minute... it's PJ's site right? Then PJ can do what she wants with it - including editing any posts she feels she needs or wants to. PJ's entitled to that freedom because it's her site.

So much *waaaaaing* around here anymore.

Lemme guess, your're an American Conservative, right?

"Being a doucebag is my God-give right, protected by the Consitution. Anyone who suggests that being a douchebag is not a good idea is a communist socialist terrorist facist and should be taken out in a preemptive strike and left to burn in the fires of Hell evermore, praise Jeebus. Now go out there and be a douchebag for America!"

Re:Censorship

[walterbyrd]

I think you misunderstand the argument. Yes, PJ has the legal right to censor her own blog - nobody is arguing otherwise. But, she loses a lot of credibility by doing so. You have to wonder, why can't PJ's argument hold up to opposition? Everybody has to know: when you are reading groklaw forums, you are reading a one-sided debate.

Re:Censorship

[SanityInAnarchy]

You're entitled to your own freedom. You're not entitled to the freedom to post whatever you want on someone else's site.

See how that works?

The difference is that China doesn't allow people the freedom to decide what is and isn't on their own site. The difference between censoring your own venue and censoring everyone's venue is profound.

Re:Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

So long as PJ continues to censor posts she doesn't like the site has limited value.

Ganty

Er, wait a minute... it's PJ's site right? Then PJ can do what she wants with it - including editing any posts she feels she needs or wants to. PJ's entitled to that freedom because it's her site.

So much *waaaaaing* around here anymore.

Lemme guess, your're an American Conservative, right?

"Being a doucebag is my God-give right, protected by the Consitution. Anyone who suggests that being a douchebag is not a good idea is a communist socialist terrorist facist and should be taken out in a preemptive strike and left to burn in the fires of Hell evermore, praise Jeebus. Now go out there and be a douchebag for America!"

I don't know whether to be offended by this or not if I wasn't laughing my ass off at you in another part of the world then where you believe me to be. Ahahaha. Lol. Guess again!

Re:Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

I call troll. The site has performed a huge community service.

Re:Censorship

[Idarubicin]

You have to wonder, why can't PJ's argument hold up to opposition? Everybody has to know: when you are reading groklaw forums, you are reading a one-sided debate.

I don't think that PJ has ever tried to present herself as being an impartial observer; she openly advocates for the side she feels is in the right. Why should she provide a soapbox for her opposition, who already were rather well funded and perfectly capable of providing their own platforms? I note that PJ was never invited to offer commentary on SCO's website, and no other legal expert seemed interested in presenting his own blog covering the case from poor downtrodden SCO's side.

In any event, having watched oh-so-many basement-dwelling wannabe lawyers trot out their weighty opinions on questions of law here on Slashdot, I can certainly understand why PJ - a trained legal professional - might get tired of matching wits with the unarmed. For that matter, she may just not want to let troll/countertroll flaming and bickering distract from constructive discussions and drag down the level of conversation. The sensible hostess knows when to send the belligerent, uninvited guests home.

Re:Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the point: the criticism isn't about "freedom" (whatever that is, anyway). It's about the utility of the site: her censoring of posts makes the website less useful. A clearinghouse of rational discussion about the patent and copyright issues surrounding Linux should be uncensored. She is being criticized for exactly this reason.

Re:Censorship

[Schnoodledorfer]

I can't read Brian Proffitt's article (I get an "Unsupported database type" error), but I can't hold out much hope for a "a bigger, more community-oriented site" given PJ's desire to limit and control what can be said. Already there isn't enough time for her to adequately review and consider whether or not comments actually deserve to be censored, nor even to explain her decisions afterward. It seems that she would prefer to have a small, pure, community rather than a large and potentially messy one. That limits its value to me.

Re:Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

I like that I can "Censor" who comes into my house, who eats at my restaurant, who I do business with, who I am friends with.

I don't think you know the difference between the two words: censor, and discriminate. If you cared to post the address to your business located in the USA, I will be sure to make arrangements with the proper authorities to ensure that you are prohibited from discriminating in the future. You may find that your business suffers from the publicity drawn to it for being owned by and operated under discriminatory practices.

Re:Censorship

[Dishevel]

I think that you do not understand the what censorship actually is. Other than a bad word that liberals use to yell at people with. Many things in life are "Censored". Without the ability to censor most information would be useless. I also do not give a fuck about what the US government has to say about what I do in y business. I do discriminate, and always will. My discrimination is not based on race, gender or sexual orientation. So the government can fuck right off.

Although I do discriminate against idiots that can not wear pants of the correct size and vegans can get the fuck out as well. I doubt though they would frequent my little place. I am not about to change shit to make people who are not my customers happy.

Re:Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Censorship in and of itself is not evil

Whether it is or is not depends on the particular definition at hand. The broadest definition of censorship is "government impendiment of the free flow of private sentiments between individuals", but you seem to be of the opinion that censorship also includes any self-imposed limiting of the senses, right? Well, you couldn't be more wrong.

I like that childrens books censor sexual content

That's not censorship, that's sensibility. How many a parent would buy his toddler a sexually explicit book ("look ma, it has pictures in it!")? And actually, I can remember a quite explicit (cartoon) movie from when I was about ten based on Peter Mayle's work.

I like that Google "censors" search results.

I don't. It is a third party to the communication between me and the supplier of the information I'm looking for, and "censorship" amounts to misrepresentation in this case. And before you play the think-of-the-children card again, "safe search" is not censorship just like "with a condom" is not abstinence.

I like that I can "Censor" who comes into my house

WTF? Would you still like it if the government decided that for you? Do you also decide who comes into your house to visit your wife/roommates/children?

who eats at my restaurant

I take it you don't own a restaurant?

who I do business with

I take it you are not a retailer?

who I am friends with

Do your "friends" have a say in that as well?

It is when the Government forces censorship on us all that it becomes bad

Incidentally, that also happens to be the only time when your definition of censorship matches the dictionary, with one single exception: a post-censorship society no longer has a need for government censorhip. They have been conditioned by their government in such a way that everyone applies preemptive censorship on their own thoughts. So thank you, but I do not wish to believe that Western society has gotten so bad that everyone limits their own senses out of a false sense of propriety.

So, please, stop diluting the issue by hand-waving and using your own twisted definitions: censorship is bad. Period.

Re:Censorship

[Dishevel]

I understand as previously posted that Government censorship is a bad thing. Not only did I point out that government doing it is bad what I responded to in the first place was some fucking idiot bitching about censorship of a PRIVATE blog.

Restaurant: No shirt. No shoes. No service.
Retailer: I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.
Friends: Not if I censor first.

Go away now I am done with you.

Re:Censorship

[walterbyrd]

PJ is not just censoring pornography, spam, profanity, or anything like. She is censoring opinions that she does not want others to read. That is not a fair discussion, and everybody knows it.

Re:Censorship

[Dishevel]

What needs to be fair? It is PJs site. What happens and dose not happen on PJs site is up to PJ and no one else. Don't like don't participate.

I am not saying you have to like the site. I am just saying that people who scream about their rights when it comes to censorship usually know very little about what censorship is or what their rights are.

Re:Censorship

[SanityInAnarchy]

That's a fair, but entirely different criticism from the one I was responding to. HBI was criticizing it for being censorship at all, suggesting all censorship is inherently evil -- while also making a point about freedom.

In her defense, I'd suggest that it's entirely up to her whether it should be a "clearinghouse of rational discussion" or just her blog.

Re:Censorship

[Bigjeff5]

Worse, he doesn't understand what discrimination is, either.

Same problem. A nice, descriptive word has be politicized such that people are afraid to use correctly.

Re:Censorship

[Bigjeff5]

A clearinghouse of rational discussion about the patent and copyright issues surrounding Linux

I don't recall Groklaw ever being portrayed as such by anyone involved with Groklaw.

Their purpose is to prepare legal documents for use in court in order to support FOSS and specifically Linux.

Where is there a clearing house of rational discussion about the patent and copyright issues surrounding Linux implied there? There isn't one.

It's PJ's blog and volunteer legal document preparation service, in a nutshell. No clearinghouse of anything (though lots of legal discussions certainly occur on the site, due to the nature of the blog and work).

The reason PJ is upset is because Groklaw volunteers put a lot of work into the documents used in the Novell case. Then Novell turns around and sells an assload of patents to Microsoft of all companies.

Re:Censorship

[Bigjeff5]

I don't think you understand the purpose of Groklaw. It's not about discussion, it's about preparing legal exhibits for use in court in defense of FOSS and Linux.

How in the hell could censoring posts on her blog possibly discredit her? It has nothing to do with what she is doing! The blog is just for personal info and legal news she finds interesting/important.

I don't see how anything on there could discredit the legal exhibits Groklaw volunteers prepare.

Re:Censorship

[protektor]

Actually you would be 100% legally wrong about the authorities doing anything about it. A business is not required by law to do business with anyone. I can as a business owner refuse to do business with anyone who is left handed, and there is nothing anyone can do about it legally. I can refuse to serve people who don't live in my town if I own a restaurant. Things like this are done all the time. If you don't think so let me give you a few examples.

How about anyone joining the AFLCIO union?
How about anyone joining a teachers union?
How about anyone joining a teachers credit union?
How about anyone joining a specific local town only credit union?
How about anyone joining the VFW halls?
How about churches who make rules about who can rent the church to get married in?
How about companies who make rules about who can rent their heavy equipment machines?
Privately held companies control who stock of the company can be sold to, and can require you to get approval of the sale.

There are tons of examples of groups who discriminate against just anyone being part of their group. There tons of companies/organizations who discriminate against who they do business with.

You can't do employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disabilities, age, or genetic information for employment. Also men and women must be paid the same amount for the same work/job. That is the only area legally where you can't discriminate and only for those listed things. It isn't smart, but you can discriminate based on weight, how good/bad looking a person is, if the person fits the company culture and sexual preference for hiring. Those things are not currently protected by law.

Here are some examples of job discrimination. You think Hooters restaurants hire ugly women with flat chests? You think airlines hire overweight people to be stewardesses? I'm not sure how they get away with it, but strip joints don't hire men to strip or ugly women. I have never seen a male server in Hooters or similar restaurants, not sure how they get away with that. That is just a short list of things off the top of my head. I am sure there are even more examples out there.

Re:Censorship

[NickFortune]

So long as PJ continues to censor posts she doesn't like the site has limited value

As long as PJ continues to delete flamebait, vulgarity and personal attacks, the site has limited value, to you. And you know what? That's all right. Not everything has to be organised for your convenience.

After all, it's not as though posts get deleted purely for offering a dissenting viewpoint. You'll find a few such attached to any Groklaw topic. So I find myself curious: in what way does PJ's editorial policy limit Groklaw's value to you, personally?

Re:Censorship

[protektor]

A restaurant is not required by law to serve anyone. No private business is required by law to do business with anyone. They can pick and choose who they want to serve legally and there is nothing anyone can do about it. A restaurant can say only those over 21 can eat here, or a family can't bring anyone under 10 to eat here. A movie theater can absolutely say no kids under 10 after 8pm, and many already do. A movie theater could say we won't admit anyone under 21, and I have seen a few that did that and served beer. Night clubs all the time say no one under 21, even though they only have to make sure no one under-age is served alcohol. There are teen night clubs that say no one over 21 is allowed. I have seen businesses that will only sell to locals. Any private business has the legal right to say who they do and don't want to do business with.

Re:Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

PJ blocks others from seeing dissenting opinions, while leaving original poster thinking the world can see and comment.

Re:Censorship

[im_thatoneguy]

Personally I find her site of value if she has valuable things to say. She could censor *EVERY* comment and it would still have value. It's not a social media site. That's slashdot. If you want to discuss her thoughts, go to Slashdot. If you want a curated presentation of a singular idea, that also has value; after all we need things to discuss on Slashdot from time to time.

I often find Blog comments useless except for the author to address parts readers found confusing or want more elaboration on. For actual discussion Slashdot etc are a better forum for discussion.

Similarly if I go to a movie I watch the movie and then.. LEAVE. Often rallying at a restaurant or bar to discuss. I don't expect the theater to provide an open mic for people to give their opinion about what they just saw. If however the director or writer wants to field selected questions that adds value to the experience as well--but I don't mind if the questions are screened so that the author of the material can guide the conversation in a manner of their choosing.

Re:Censorship

[Confusador]

It is indeed a profound difference, which might be why OP did not say, "PJ is evil because she does this," but rather, "Because she does this, the site loses value for me."

See the difference?

No thanks

[etymxris]

Last I checked, there were several complaints of post deletions on groklaw, to which her response was she was not really interested in "open" debate. I agree with many of her opinions and analysis of the SCO debacle, but I wouldn't want to be part of any community she's running.

I'm sure she could be valuable as a writer on various IP issues surrounding free software.

Re:No thanks

[popsicle67]

Not all sides of a debate are equal. I have no problem with her deleting posts, I imagine most are just trolls looking for food and nobody needs to read that. The rest are probably idiots who just plain don't know what the hell they're talking about and need to be silenced so that we don't catch the stupid.

Re:No thanks

[BoogieChile]

I'm glad you put the Open in Open Debate in "quotation fingers", because that's the sort of "debate" she's not interested in but gets far too much of.

If she wanted to read people making shit up, hurling insults and doing their best to shit on anything says*, she'd go into politics.

* Not because there's anything wrong in what she's saying, but because she's right and this is the only kind of attack they can mount because everything she says is true. Actually, you get that in a lot of places, I guess, so just fill in your own blanks there.

Perfect website for lawyers?

[whiteboy86]

This could grow big. It needs stories presented in a manner similar to /., push the law abstract to the side menu or somewhere accessible, write introduction to the stories, add icons or images for better orientation, add comments, messageboards, wiki?

patently false

[digitaldc]

In effect, it would become a meta-blog, like Huffington Post...

Well, that's not necessarily a good thing judging by the number of ads and crap you find on that site. In comparison, its current version is much cleaner and nicer.

Lawyers have real work to do.

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have time to be dicking around on some shitty web site.

Re:Lawyers have real work to do.

[Bigjeff5]

You do realize Groklaw is in the Library of Congress because of its historical importance, right?

Lawyers on both sides of the SCO lawsuits have used and are using research performed by Groklaw contributors, because it's high quality shit.

Applause to Groklaw

[Anonymous Coward]

Groklaw is part of the good guy community and deserves to feel pride and be respected.. The ultimate effects of every battle fought can not always be anticipated.

hopefully with better discussion than HuffPo

[Anonymous Coward]

The level of discourse on that site makes me ashamed to be associated (most of the time) with liberals.

Now I know how George F. Will feels when he reads FoxNews.com.

Re:hopefully with better discussion than HuffPo

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon, admit it, you only read HuffPost to keep up on Megan Fox bikini pix and Lindsay Lohan gossip.

Which, coincidentally, is exactly why George Will reads FoxNews.com

Sadly it's a reality of business....

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

that your only obligation is to make a profit. That being said, GO BIG PJ !!!! If anything you have gained massive respect from the open source community.

Groklaw is pure FUD and BS, PJ bans disagreements

[Anonymous Coward]

Groklaw posts pure FUD and BS.

PJ will ban ANYONE who disagrees with her BS agenda.

If you find factual information that totally flies in the face of the lies she posts, she bans you for that too.

Groklaw stopped being useful about 3 months after it started.

seriously.

"move along, nothing to see here"

PJ needs some perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

She's assuming that the patents being sold to CPTN Holdings are related to Unix - despite any confirmation of any sort that they are. In fact, there was a statement made that said that the Unix IP wasn't part of what was being sold to CPTN.

Re:PJ needs some perspective

[Eunuchswear]

In fact, there was a statement made that said that the Unix IP wasn't part of what was being sold to CPTN.

Because the so called "Unix IP" consists of copyrights and trade secrets (hahha), Novell own no Unix patents.

Re:PJ needs some perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation?

Seriously, Novell bought Unix Systems Laboratories (I know people who worked there at the time). *ALL* of the Unix IP owned by USL was transferred to Novell. It was an acquisition, not a technology transfer.

But what's even more amazing in this is that after all the talk about how there's no Unix code in Linux (which I believe to be true based on everything I've seen/read about it), somehow these 882 patents "threaten" linux? They only would if there's Unix code in Linux. And if they're even related to Unix technologies, which there's no public information about yet. The only public information is that Attachmate intends to operate Novell and SUSE as separate business units under the Attachmate holding company, and that they intend to invest in product development.

Selling IP that's necessary for that investment to someone who could use it against them (or against the open source community) is something that's not in their business interests. It seems logical that the patents have to do with older technologies (no longer sold by Novell) that aren't a part of their bottom line.

But of course, that kind of logic isn't permitted to be disclosed on Groklaw because it goes against PJ's narrative that Novell is the new SCO (or whatever) and that they burned her for all the hard work she voluntarily did (without their asking her to do so). It goes against her "I've been betrayed!" story.

Open Source Lawyering

[Archangel Michael]

How about a place where the common man can get good defensive law advice and sharing of defense related material against big corporation mega tort scare tactics, like the one SCO tried on Novell, IBM et. al.?

Re:Open Source Lawyering

[Bigjeff5]

Honestly, you should get an actual lawyer for that.

Nobody is going to give you legal advice without being your lawyer (even temporarily) because there are a whole host of liabilities that come with it. In other words, they can get into serious deep shit even though they were just trying to help you out.

Imagine you are asking a random doctor what he thinks you should do about this serious pain in your side. Know what he's going to tell you? Go see a doctor!

Now think of lawyers as "doctors" of law. If they give you bad advice without diagnosing your situation, and you hurt yourself legally, you get to sue and they can lose their license. It's even called malpractice, just like it is in the medical profession.

Re:Open Source Lawyering

[Archangel Michael]

In the case of the rare disease where I have access to all the medical material I need to help my doctor treat me, because I am not allowed to treat myself, nor prescribe drugs and other medical treatments and otherwise cannot afford the specialist who knows about as much as I do now, because I've become specialized in knowledge of my disease, equal to or even possibly exceeding the capabilities of the Dr, with the sole exception that I cannot practice medicine in my or any other state (ie Piece of paper).

Mind you, in law, I don't have access to the same sort of clearing house of information that medical journals and research have, per reviewed and rated for my use, for the cost of doing my own research.

Law being much less precise than the medical information is such a "fuzzy" practice that is based not on procedures that can be replicated, but rather on the BS that is currently being manufactured by the top law schools.

Yes, I find helping my doctor so much easier than trying to help my lawyer. One treats me like a human with a brain, the other like a payment on his BMW.

Trying to equate the two is not really fair. While both have moments of exercising a god complex, one is in it because he is human, the other because it makes him shitloads of money.

Re:Groklaw is pure FUD and BS, PJ bans disagreemen

[Anonymous Coward]

Damned straight. I used to post on Groklaw, but after being banned a few times as an "astroturfer" because I disagreed with her conclusions, I got fed up and stopped following the site.

She's managed to drive lots of useful contributors away because they don't agree with her. She's not a journalist, she's an editorialist. She's certainly entitled to her opinions, but to call herself a journalist does a disservice to real journalists. (Unfortunately these days, most people who think they're journalists aren't because they editorialize - so there are very few actual journalists left).

It bothers me greatly that her site is hosted by a journalism school, yet they seem to have no idea that she's got a long history of suppressing any and all dissent and those who disagree with her.

The Huffington Post of the tech world

[joeszilagyi]

Why not? Add authors/news on every niche. Want a news section dedicated to ICANN/Internic, stuff on that scale? Web hosting? Security? Even if you just quote/selectively guide folks back to the other generalist locations like Ars or more specific niche places like discussions on NANOG, it could be a constantly updated field of info on all manner of stuff. Most people don't give a crap what the top 10-20 news stories of the day about botnets or DNS are, perhaps, but I bet you there are a lot of people who do, and that you'd be able to get at least a small team of maintainers/authors for various niches.

The Scorpion and the Frog

[MarkvW]

The scorpion needs to get across the river, but he can't swim. He asks the frog to ferry him across. The frog refuses; he tells the scorpion that the scorpion will sting him and he will drown. The scorpion tells the frog that he won't sting the frog, because if he did, they both would drown. The frog ferries the scorpion. Midriver, the scorpion stings the frog. Before they both drown, the frog asks the scorpion, Why? The frog states: It's my nature.

Expecting gratitude from Novell is like expecting gratitude from a scorpion. The scorpion will sting, and Novell will seek to maximize profit.

I don't think Novell realized the huge bad will it has generated.

Re:The Scorpion and the Frog

[smallfries]

That would have worked better as an analogy if you hadn't fucked up the most relevant part.

Re:The Scorpion and the Frog

[VGPowerlord]

I don't think Attachmate realized the huge bad will it has generated.

Fixed that for you.

Or did you not realize that Novell was acquired by another company a few months ago?

Re:The Scorpion and the Frog

[Joehonkie]

The frog mind controlled the scorpion to set him up for murder, is that what I'm getting here?

Re:The Scorpion and the Frog

[smallfries]

Maybe I was a little hasty. Now that you've explained it I'm seeing a certain similarity to Novell...

Re:The Scorpion and the Frog

[ralphart]

To quote a former co-worker:

Business is business and fair is fair and never the twain shall meet.

Re:The Scorpion and the Frog

[Anonymous Coward]

Midriver, the scorpion stings the frog. Before they both drown, the frog asks the scorpion, Why? The frog states: It's my nature.

George W. Bush, is that you?

Re:The Scorpion and the Frog

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen, brother. Where's the *fucking* *car*, eh?!! (hey, the captcha is "hostile"!, when did Slashcode became sentient?)

Re:The Scorpion and the Frog

[Anonymous Coward]

My brains filtered the story the correct way, as if the fuck up didn't exist. Thanks for letting me know I am a gullible fool, looking the world through my frog slimy lenses.

Re:The Scorpion and the Frog

[Bigjeff5]

You have more than one?

Freaky.

Re:The Scorpion and the Frog

[smallfries]

Nice. The circle is now complete. We can all be satisfied with what we have wrought.

Re:The Scorpion and the Frog

[amentajo]

Sting me once, shame on... ...you...

Sting me twice... ... ...sting me once, can't get stung again!

Re:The Scorpion and the Frog

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think Attachmate realized the huge bad will it has generated.

Fixed that for you.

Or did you not realize that it was annnounced that Novell is being acquired by another company a few months ago?

Fixed that for *you*. The acquisition isn't complete, and hasn't been through all the regulatory steps necessary before it can move forward.

Fact is, though, that Novell will be operated as an independent business unit (according to the public information available), the Novell and SUSE names will stay. Just as people working for NetIQ continue to carry NetIQ business cards, those working for Novell or SUSE will continue to carry business cards for those companies.

Bet you didn't even know NetIQ was acquired by Attachmate back in 2005.

Patents aren't a problem any more

[Animats]

Patents aren't much of a problem for open source any more. Most of the technology in open source is old. Anything in use by 1990 is out of patent now. (The "submarine patent" problem used to be an issue, but for applications filed after June 8, 1995, it doesn't work any more. The patent term counts from the original date of application, regardless of continuation applications.) UNIX, after all, dates from the 1970s, and by 1990, UNIX-type operating systems were a mature technology.

This is a mature industry now. As with other industries, patents are a big issue in the early years, and cease to be a major concern as the technology matures.

Re:Patents aren't a problem any more

[Microlith]

Patents aren't much of a problem for open source any more.

False. They're a HUGE problem for anything recent. Most of the concepts and technologies in open source span decades, including very new concepts as well as old ones that are covered (wrongly) by new, vague patents.

As with other industries, patents are a big issue in the early years, and cease to be a major concern as the technology matures.

No, the goal with software patents is to make them a perpetual hazard. Vague, ill defined, and useless for actually implementing the concept in question but always useful for beating down on your enemies and keeping out potential competitors.

Re:Patents aren't a problem any more

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a mature industry now

Are you aware that "open source" is not an industry? It's just SW development and licensing method that can be used in a huge amount of industries.

_Your_ industry may be mature and finished, but most of us probably work in areas where a lot of innovation happened in the last ten years and lots more will happen in the next ten. Don't keep your eyes closed.

Re:Patents aren't a problem any more

[Sloppy]

Most of the technology in open source is old.

Aha, so that's why we all use FAT file system on our Linux computers, none of which, of course, have multi-core CPUs, use X for anything more complicated than an xterm, fit in your pocket, or do anything more complicated on a network than talk gopher and NFS.

This is a mature industry now.

Wait, did you write that, or are you (mis)quoting Charles H. Duell?

The lesson is...

[Lumpy]

DO NOT TRUST A CORPORATION!

Honestly, why would anyone? They are out for the profit line and nothing else. They are nothing like a real company that is ran by the guy or gal that started it and is chasing a dream... We need to stop thinking they are in any way benevolent. Walmart gives away basic medications because it PROFITS THEM. Companies donate to causes because it Gains them more profit in advertising. There is no soul to these things, they don't care about anything but profits.

Re:The lesson is...

[Motard]

DO NOT TRUST A CORPORATION!

A corollary would be DO NOT TRUST A STRANGER!. It would be just as apt.

Honestly, why would anyone?

Because we know more about Walmart than we do about 'Bob's Used Cars'.

They are out for the profit line and nothing else.

And Bob is not?

They are nothing like a real company that is ran by the guy or gal that started it and is chasing a dream...

Bob is chasing money.

We need to stop thinking they are in any way benevolent.

It appears you already have.

Walmart gives away basic medications because it PROFITS THEM. Companies donate to causes because it Gains them more profit in advertising.

And people get free meds for ads. Like we get free web searches from Google for ads.

Re:The lesson is...

[uid7306m]

Oh, don't exaggerate. Corporations have no soul, but profits are not evil.

You can trust a corporation to do things that people are willing to pay for. Most of those things are useful, though some are ethically dubious.

Re:The lesson is...

[Z34107]

Walmart gives away basic medications because it PROFITS THEM

I don't care if Sam Walton thought it would get him 72 virgins. I'm pretty sure he's given away more medication than you have.

Re:The lesson is...

[Bigjeff5]

but profits are not evil.

Well you just guaranteed no dirty hippie is ever going to read the rest of your post. Way to go man.

Re:The lesson is...

[protektor]

Corporations do exactly what their shareholders tell them they want. If the shareholders say we want as much money as you can get for us, then that is what the company does. Shareholders can and do control the company. There are many many real world examples of this. Shareholders who sue the company for creating products that get the company sued for millions of dollars and forcing the firing of everyone involved. Shareholders suing for significantly devaluing the company. Shareholders who sue to stop the sale of the company. You want to change how a company operates, then get shares and start talking with the other shareholders at the shareholders meetings. Anyone with shares can go to them, and make their voice heard.

Re:Groklaw is pure FUD and BS, PJ bans disagreemen

[MightyMartian]

Ah look, another sore SCO shareholder blaming PJ. You guys are pathetic.

Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, I dunno, she put a lot of hard work into covering the case, so she might react a bit emotional when countless hours of tireless work were almost for nothing.

Nonsense. Her purpose was to report and analyze and enlighten the FOSS community which she did. If she was intending to have Novell give everything away, she was obviously mistaken and horribly naive.

Re:Nonsense

[Yvanhoe]

And, well, I think we should show a little more love...
Lots of congratulations and thanks PJ. You have been quoted, your advices were shared, the technical details of the law you dug for all of us helped us all fight the FUD that SCO was building with this case.
Don't be down, the battle you helped fight was won, but the struggle is ongoing.
You can continue it or leave this to others.
Whatever your decision may be, I, for one, salute you.


Yves, FOSS enthusiast from France, where a lawyer nicknamed Maitre Eolas took a position similar to yours. I don't know how we would do without him.

Same Novell, Different Year

[markdavis]

Quote: "I also needed to take some time to think about the recent discovery about Novell taking money from Microsoft and contractually agreeing to show up at Open XML standards meetings and events. Yes, I'm furious. Or I was. I always tell you the truth. And the truth is I felt used and abused. How could Novell enter into such a deal? Then top it off with selling 882 patents to a Microsoft-organized consortium?"

This is the same Novell in 2006 that essentially sold itself into a pseudo-bondage/partnership arrangement with Microsoft, one of the most FOSS-hostile organizations that had ever existed. How can she possibly be surprised? Most leopards do not change their spots. Novell never was and never will be a real Linux/FOSS champion.

PJ helped save Novell's patents?!

[TheoMurpse]

Since when did Groklaw do anything to save any patents? I thought it was a news reporting site that basically explained the SCO litigation to techies.

Re:PJ helped save Novell's patents?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you must not have visited the site in the last 3-4 years. It's been a long time since SCO-related news made up the majority of the posts there.

Re:PJ helped save Novell's patents?!

[Xtifr]

Moreover, the SCO litigation had nothing to do with patents! Well, IBM, in their counterclaims, cited some of their patents that they claimed SCO was infringing early on, but they dropped their patent claims (w/o prejudice, IIRC) quickly in order to simplify the litigation. But the SCO v Novell case never had anything to do with any patents by any participant. Unlike copyrights, there was no question that the Novell->OldSCO purchase agreement excluded patents. Groklaw never helped anybody save any patents; the summary is completely misleading on this point.

Just to clarify--Groklaw predates the SCO litigation entirely (though not by much). SCO quickly became its primary focus, but the original intent was always something more broad.

Re:PJ helped save Novell's patents?!

[TheoMurpse]

That's what I thought. I mean, I didn't think you'd have to lie about PJ's work to recognize her contributions to geekdom or whatever.

I think I should fish around on /. and use my legal contacts to find some people who'd be willing to co-blog with me in a (relatively) unbiased and informative manner about IP/cyberlaw issues. Maybe Slashdot would post an article about me giving mouth-to-mouth to save the last dodo on earth a century ago.

Underground vigilante group

[jamesh]

PJ should start up an underground vigilante group, administering justice wherever she see's fit. She has the followers to do it.

There's no justice like angry mob justice!

Re:Underground vigilante group

[Anonymous Coward]

They already do that sort of thing. eg.the things that went on at ip-wars.net, the Yahoo boards where
  her actions were discussed, and the Groklaw entry at Wikipedia.

She has some loyal supporters.......shame she has no intelligent ones.

Re:Underground vigilante group

[Bigjeff5]

She could call it "Groklaw"!

Oh wait...

Slashdot is also Censored

[ed]

In effect by modding down then, unless you have your settings turned that way, modded down posts disappeared

Re:Slashdot is also Censored

[_Sprocket_]

Not really the same thing.

Re:Slashdot is also Censored

[Bigjeff5]

Except for the fact that it is exactly the same thing. Posts below a certain threshold (it usually isn't even 0) generally don't get seen. Modding down is a common method used here of censoring an opinion you don't like.

Censorship by the group is still censorship.

Re:Slashdot is also Censored

[Anonymous Coward]

Browse at -1 threshold. Problem solved.

But not on Groklaw.

So it's not the same at all.

Re:Slashdot is also Censored

[coolmadsi]

Would it be better or worse if a comment that was removed was replaced with a link saying "Comment removed, click here to view it"?

Re:Slashdot is also Censored

[_Sprocket_]

Except for the fact that it is exactly the same thing. Posts below a certain threshold (it usually isn't even 0) generally don't get seen.

"Generally don't get seen" is not the same as being removed.

Modding down is a common method used here of censoring an opinion you don't like.

Censorship by the group is still censorship.

True. But then, trolling is a method often used here to induce noise and interrupt conversation. Having been on both sides of the fence ("that guy is an idiot and should be down-modded" vs. "I have given these swine perls of wisdom and been down-modded for my effort"), I understand full well how opinion can come in to play. However, the big difference is that I have never, ever had a post completely removed and unviewable (or available for up-modding).

eliminate software patents

[bzipitidoo]

Patent consortium? Not a big enough idea, I think. The root of the problem is that software is still patentable in the US. If not for that, Novell could not have sold out. And SCO would not have had even a veneer of credibility, and might not have tried suing anyone. Get rid of software patents.

I would like to go even further, and eliminate the government enforced monopoly protections for all patents. Don't create barriers and artificial scarcities for the sake of the starving inventors, reward them in some other way. But I can't see anything as revolutionary as that happening, certainly not anytime soon, no matter how much sense it makes. Or how terrible the current system is.

But how to achieve the more modest goal, the elimination of patents on software, and business methods? I have read there are a few crucial court cases from the 1970's where it all started. Would getting those reversed or struck down do the job? Is the Bilski case enough?

Re:eliminate software patents

[protektor]

The Bilski case could in theory get rid of all software patents, but I somehow doubt that. I can see the case if it goes against the company, limiting software patents more than anything. I somehow don't see the Supreme Court making that wide of a ruling to destroy all software patents. It seem to me to be a very broad and sweeping reform, that usually they don't do. It might face Constitutional issues if they ruled that way. The Supreme Court might be seen by some as creating law, which only the Congress is allowed to do by the Constitution. This could be an issue faced, and the Supreme Court might not want to open that can of worms. If they did it could set up the Supreme Court to be attacked for a whole host of rulings in the past, at least in theory. The more the Supreme Court comes closer to making law, the higher the risk becomes to the court to have many different rulings of the past undone.

If you really wanted to destroy software patents, you could use a two prong attack. First would be getting more and more cases bumped up to the Supreme Court to chip away at software patents. The second would be a hard core grassroots campaign by the public to Representatives and Senators to pass some kind of a law that changed the rules of patents or the patent office, to not allow any software patents, basically to revoke that whole class of patents and ban them from the future.

Both would be a serious uphill battle against, I would bet, a number of very large companies who don't mind things staying the way they are. It is possible, in theory, though to effect the kind of change you want, but would take time and a lot of very hard work.

Fix your password!

[kimvette]

From the slashdotted site:

$db_url = 'mysql://itworld:bec-cit-bi-wets@10.10.10.230/itw';

Your config file is being served up. Change your password right away - better yet, revert to a backup after first changing your password.

Problem being that PJ is a basket case

[Rogerborg]

I mean that in the nicest possible way, she's a shy nerd spazz. Lovely voice, but a total paranoid shut-in. Probably got lots of cats and a glass menagerie.

People like PJ don't readily trust other people, because they don't really know any other people. If this "Brian Proffitt" character wants a bigger Groklaw, he'd better get on with creating it himself.

Re:Problem being that PJ is a basket case

[rubycodez]

well Maureen O., long time no see, you stalker cunt, where you been?

Re:Problem being that PJ is a basket case

[Idarubicin]

Problem being that PJ is a basket case.... I mean that in the nicest possible way, she's a shy nerd spazz. Lovely voice, but a total paranoid shut-in. Probably got lots of cats and a glass menagerie.... People like PJ don't readily trust other people, because they don't really know any other people.

This pop psychological pseudo-diagnosis brought to you by someone posting to Slashdot. Seriously?

I mean this in the nicest possible way, of course, but Rogerborg is a total paranoid shut-in who thinks attacking nice people he's never met makes him looker smarter and 'cooler' to his basement-dwelling nerd peers.

Even if the parent poster's insulting and appalling stereotyping is spot on, his breathtakingly casual approach to openly attacking another human being would seem to confirm every 'paranoid' suspicion about humanity he accuses PJ of harboring.

Re:Problem being that PJ is a basket case

[Bigjeff5]

I believe the word you are looking for is "projection".

Re:Problem being that PJ is a basket case

[rubycodez]

ah, you're spreading the open sores love. Bet you run Vista.

Re:Problem being that PJ is a basket case

[Rogerborg]

We're talking about a broad who won't go and accept an award in person because They Might Get Her. Another sign that she's a spazz is the high concentration of White Knight Syndrome displayed by the dateless wonders who worship her.

Re:Problem being that PJ is a basket case

[Rogerborg]

well Maureen O., long time no see, you stalker cunt, where you been?

I'm not Maureen, I'm Darl. And so's my wife.

Re:Groklaw is pure FUD and BS, PJ bans disagreemen

[Chyeld]

Perhaps she banned you as an astroturfer because you post anonymous replies in support of the anonymous rants you make, in an effort make it appear as if more than just you hold that opinion.

Bad attorney? Don't blame Novell.

[mschaffer]

How is this any different than giving a vagrant your spare change for food---which is then later spent on liquor?
I don't know if PJ is a good attorney (or one at all), but she seriously needs one. If she want's to ensure that what she does is for a good cause, get a binding agreement or contract to enforce her wishes or profit by it.

Re:Bad attorney? Don't blame Novell.

[sconeu]

PJ isn't an attorney, she's a paralegal.

Re:No thanks -- oh for goodness sake

[DrJimbo]

The people PJ exposes fight dirty. They try all sorts of tricks to discredit Groklaw, chief among them is posting awful things anonymously. The idea being they can then smear Groklaw by pointing to these abusive posts as indicative of the Groklaw community. I've seen a bunch of these posts over the years and I've reported them to PJ so she can delete them.

So on one side we have a bunch of lying cheating dastardly bastards who will do anything they can (legal or not) to destroy FOSS. On the other side we have PJ who insists on allowing people to post anonymously on her site which entails the extra burden of throwing out the trash people post that is designed to discredit Groklaw.

And for this she is criticized. Give me a break. PJ is human and like all humans she is both opinionated and imperfect. Like the rest of us, she has flaws and is not always right. I imagine that while throwing out the trash she has probably deleted some posts that may not have deserved it. But by criticizing her for protecting her reputation and the reputation of Groklaw (while at the same time allowing anonymous posts) you are aiding and abetting the enemies of FOSS.

You sir/madam are implying that PJ lacks integrity because she has been forced to delete terrible posts that make Groklaw look awful. The truth is she has more integrity than almost anyone else I know (of). It is her integrity that makes the Groklaw site shine despite the fact that it is run by imperfect human beings. IMO PJ is a true hero because she maintains her integrity even though her site is constantly bombarded by posts from people who completely lack it.

Awards, and now part of case law

[ChapterS]

From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groklaw#Awards

Awards
Groklaw has been cited by the attorneys for several firms in law journal articles. It has also won awards:

        * 2010 - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) 2010 Pioneer Awards[7]

        * 2009 - Top 200 Tech Blogs: The Datamation 2009 List "The famed Groklaw is still going strong, far past the SCO case that first brought the blog to prominence." [8]

        * 2008 - The Award for Projects of Social Benefit - The Free Software Foundation (FSF)[9]
        * 2007 - Knowledge Masters Award for Innovation - Knowledge Trust and the Louis Round Wilson Academy [10]
        * 2007 - Best FUD Fighter - Google-O'Reilly Open Source Awards[11]
        * 2005 - Best News Site - ConsortiumInfo*.org - Pamela Jones/Groklaw: Best Community Site or Blog (Non-Profit)
        * 2005 - Best Blogger of the Year - Dana Blankenhorn, Corante[12]
        * 2004 - Best Website of 2004 - The Inquirer[13]
        * 2004 - Best Independent Tech Blog - TechWeb Network: Readers Choice Award
        * 2004 - Best Nontechnical or Community Website - Linux Journal: Editors' Choice Award
        * 2003 - Best News Site - OSDir.com: Editor's Choice Winner

Standard corporate behavior...

[Anonymous Coward]

> She seems to have lost all perspective.

I would argue that she never really had it. I mean, few others could stomach the thought of covering SCO every day for... how many years has it been now? 7? 8? I don't even remember any more. So in a sense, the lack of perspective was necessary for her to be able to slog through all of this.

But yeah, I do understand how she can be upset that companies don't act human. They have no loyalty to anyone. It's sad, particularly because she doesn't appear to realize that the same thing can happen to, say, IBM or Google with a management change. Sure, they're our friends now, but if our interests cross? Well... I think you'll find that profit wins out in the end.

Re:Standard corporate behavior...

[cinderellamanson]

this is what PJ needs to do, start a legal defense resource that actually gives a fucking shit, so when a C.E.O. decides to give a shit she has protections against shitbag shareholders who will burn her at the stake for not offering her first born (more likely everyone else's) to the almighty dollar. I think the why of this situation is way more interesting than the what.

Re:Standard corporate behavior...

[protektor]

Companies have loyalty, but not just anyone. They have loyalty to their shareholders and are required to try and not completely crater the company or give away the store to the detriment of the shareholders. How many of you out there own Novell shares? If you owned shares then you could tell Novell that you don't want them to do this. You could try and get other shareholders to say that they shouldn't do this. Instead people just post on message boards online, which is basically screaming in the dark. It doesn't add anything useful to the conversation and won't change a thing. You want to change things, buy Novell stock shares.

Buying shares in a company and banding like minded shareholders together will change how a company operates. The shareholders control the company and can make changes to the direction of the company. The great thing is anyone can buy shares and if you go to the shareholders meetings, anyone with shares can get up and speak to be heard.

Re:Standard corporate behavior...

[protektor]

You want companies to care about what you have to say, buy stocks, and organize stockholders. Get more people who think like you to buy stocks. Then you will be able to make real changes to a company. Until then you actually don't care to be bothered since there is a method to make companies listen, but you can't be bothered to use those channels. It only takes one share and attending shareholder meetings to make your voice heard to the other shareholders. By law companies must do what the majority of the shareholders want.

Re:Standard corporate behavior...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thing is, the majority of the other stockholders will not be humans, but institutions that must vote for whatever produces maximum profit for themselves. So any argument you make for ethical behaviour over profits is going to get ignored. For that matter, they are likely to go with any scheme that destroys the company over longer term if it makes a fast profit and they can dump their stock before the consequences show up.

She missed the point

[DerekLyons]

"You may have caught PJ's Christmas Day post on Groklaw, expressing her anger and frustration that, after she helped save Novell's Unix patents from SCO's clutches, Novell turned around and sold many of those patents to an open source-unfriendly coalition."

PJ seems to have missed that the patents belong(ed) to Novell and they are free to do whatever they wish to do without consulting or appeasing her.

Re:She missed the point

[rubycodez]

but if they want to continue to do business in the open source world? I dropped using or recommending SuSE after Novell sold out to Microsoft a few years ago

Re:She missed the point

[Bigjeff5]

I believe she mistakenly felt she had made FOSS allies of Novell thanks to Groklaw's support in the SCO case.

I'm sure Novell appreciated the help, but it's clear now that if they were ever FOSS allies, it was nothing more than an alliance of convenience. The Christmas post was her "getting over it" moment.

Groklaw continues as usual.

Re:She missed the point

[Anonymous Coward]

This is another reason why we need Mark Shuttleworth's widely-hated "corporate" distro

Her disillusionment has been growing for years

[Anonymous Coward]

Originally I think PJ tried and others that helped her would try to be impartial and for the most part succeeded or apologized when they realized they were slanting things. The apologies got more and more sarcastic as SCO and other associated groups got worse and worse. I know from personal experience that posts pointing out slant or proposing more reasoned interpretations would be pulled from their site. Initially it was people obviously from known IPs (or so PJ said), then I got censored a few times asking her to de-rant some comments a few years ago. I got pretty jaded with her community and stopped logging in or posting, though I usually still read it for the 'news' content as much as there is. I hope she keeps going and maybe does realize their aren't really heroes and villians in corporations (though most individual FOSS developers are heroes even if they do it because they have a huge ego).

I think this disillusionment of PJ's happens with many people within FOSS as it is a worthy cause for the self-righteous as much as the anti-MSFT, but things are always murky and get increasingly disappointing as you get older and other people turn your dreams and work into their money. All companies are out for themselves, if you are lucky they may give a shit about their customers and employees (but few do). Hell, I was a significant contributor to a Linux distro for years, and now I work for MSFT. I honestly want MSFT to succeed for many reasons besides self-interest - MSFT gives a real crap about customer privacy unlike its major competitors, cares 100% about ISVs as they make its market (developers dev...), will eventually produce standardized software which can be 'cloned' and made portable, it has to compete more honestly than most big companies (which is why it attacks through other groups and politics and also usually easily exposed). And sadly, I looked at the future Google wants, the one that Apple wants, the one Oracle will stumble into, and the one MSFT wants. The MSFT one is the most open with the most changes for other people to succeed. (This assumes IBM and Red Hat continue to keep selling Oracle's Java and so will merge with it eventually).

Re:Her disillusionment has been growing for years

[vadim_t]

And sadly, I looked at the future Google wants, the one that Apple wants, the one Oracle will stumble into, and the one MSFT wants. The MSFT one is the most open with the most changes for other people to succeed. (This assumes IBM and Red Hat continue to keep selling Oracle's Java and so will merge with it eventually).

The way I read it: MS crap stinks less than Apple, Google and Oracle crap. But crap is still crap, and I'd rather not have any kind of it.

Goodbye Old Novell, meet New Novell

[VGPowerlord]

The funny thing about corporations is that they can be bought or sold by other corporations.

In this case, Attachmate bought Novell. Once it purchased Novell, it split Novell into two units, and sold off a bunch of Novell's patent assets.

It's funny how quickly PJ is to point out how Old SCO and New SCO were different companies, but doesn't appear to recognize that old Novell and new Novell are different companies...

Re:Goodbye Old Novell, meet New Novell

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny thing about corporations is that they can be bought or sold by other corporations.

In this case, Attachmate is buying Novell. Once the purchase is complete, it will split Novell into two units.

Fixed that again for you. And Attachmate isn't selling off the patents, Novell is, the patents are due to be sold when the acquisition by Attachmate is sold.

You need to read the sale agreement document before you write more. You don't seem to understand the state that things are currently in. Currently it's undergoing regulatory review (and not just in the US). The sale is not yet a done deal, nor has it been completed.

Re:Goodbye Old Novell, meet New Novell

[Anonymous Coward]

Old SCO and New SCO really are two different companies. Old SCO was renamed Tarentella and is now part of Oracle. New SCO was Caldera which renamed itself The SCO Group to help trolls mislead the unwary..

Coolidge is underrated

[rumblin'rabbit]

.Pamela Jones said the following:

Calvin Coolidge. Lordy. If there is a top ten list of worst presidents in the history of the nation, might he win the top spot? He is definitely in the top ten.

I've never understood why Coolidge was considered a poor president. His tenure seems exceptional and he remained popular even up to his resignation. His actions on civil rights were particularly enlightened, even though thwarted by Democrats in the legislature. Perhaps people don't like him cause he was a Republican. Who knows?

Re:Coolidge is underrated

[Bigjeff5]

People today don't like him because he refused to spend assloads of taxpayer money to give temporary assistance to those hardest hit by the Great Depression.

While such measures are undeniably helpful in the short term, there is great debate about whether or not they were helpful or harmful in the long term.

Re:Coolidge is underrated

[Eunuchswear]

While such measures are undeniably helpful in the short term, there is great debate about whether or not they were helpful or harmful in the long term.In the long term we're all dead.

Re:Coolidge is underrated

[rumblin'rabbit]

Coolidge predated the Great Depression. His term ended in early 1929, a time of prosperity.

Calvin Coolidge? Maybe she meant Herbert Hoover

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe SCO was teaching US history and not just Unix History.

Re:No thanks -- oh for goodness sake

[etymxris]

Slashdot has managed to get by fine for more than a decade without a similar deletion policy. I would prefer the distinction between troll and serious debater be left up to the reader, and not the admin. I don't want to be a part of any site that can only deal with trolls through heavy handed moderation. I think many here feel the same way. If she's been deleting posts, where is the exact line? Are we even able to see what posts were deleted to see if they deserved deletion? I doubt it. It's this lack of transparency and seeming lack of interest in open discussion that turns me off of any community she may head.

Now, PJ is hardly alone in running her site this way. But I'm a free software supporter with strong ideals and high expectations. Slashdot, for all its flaws, manages to meet these ideals. Groklaw has fallen short.

Re:Groklaw is pure FUD and BS, PJ bans disagreemen

[Anonymous Coward]

There are plenty of reasons to post anonymously, but on GL, I actually had an account and she deleted it - I disclosed my affiliations and all pertinent information, and she decided that in spite of that, I deserved to be banned - and it was entirely because I didn't agree with The Gospel According to PJ.

Grateful for frogs

[manaway]

Before they both drown, the frog asks the scorpion, Why? The frog states: It's my nature.

Even with the mistake, this. The scorpion's nature is to sting and the frog's is to trust. (OK maybe not in nature, but in storyland.) The scorpion is a corporation whose only requirement is making money for shareholders and executives, anything else is an externality. One of the frog's purposes is to help others have a fair life.

The relevant part is that this has been going on for 1000s of years. From kings to feudal lords to international corporations, the scorpion barely evolves and always destroys. The frog's evolution is slow too, but its purposes are better. Thank you PJ, for being a public frog.

Re:No thanks -- oh for goodness sake

[quintesse]

Preferring Slashdot over Groklaw because of its posting policy?

I don't know, but to me it sounds a bit like praising a prostitute for the ease with which she opens her legs.

Re:No thanks -- oh for goodness sake

[Anonymous Coward]

No, she doesn't delete just posts that make Groklaw look awful. She deletes posts that contradict her view of events. I saw it so many times (and was one of the people who had many completely factual posts that she deleted because they didn't jive with her version of events or "facts").

Is Groklaw valuable? Absolutely. It's a fantastic record of the SCO v. Novell litigation and rightfully won awards for it. But her community management strategy just plain sucks and suppresses any and all dissent with what PJ has written. Corrections get posted when someone points out a misspelling in an article or transcription, but very rarely does she ever correct factual errors *she* has made; she rather bans those who contradict her, no matter how politely.

SCO people fought dirty, yes. Look at what she says about Mono and Miguel de Icaza and tell me that it's reasonable and balanced and that PJ also doesn't fight dirty. Reasonable people can disagree, and can agree to disagree; PJ suppresses dissenting comments so it looks like everyone agrees with her.

There will be those who say "but, hey, you're posting AC, so you must be full of shit" - consider that as someone who has been banned from GL multiple times for doing nothing more than try to shine a light on an alternative point of view regarding the MS/Novell deal and for disagreeing with PJ on several occasions, I'd much rather she not know who I *really* am. Just as she would prefer that SCO's lawyers/staff know who she *really* is or where she's based out of - or what she even looks like. I prefer to preserve some of my privacy as well, and admitting that I've been banned on GL multiple times means that if I post with my real login here, she'll know who I am.

But somehow for people who defend PJ, it's OK for her to remain pseudo-anonymous, but not for those who criticize her to do so. That's par for the course when it comes to Groklaw and its hardcore fans.

If you want to get along with PJ or her hardcore fans, you have to absolutely be blind with hate about anything related to Microsoft. You have to think Microsoft is the scourge of the earth, eats children and puppies, and is Satan incarnate. Otherwise, you're not welcome there. Heaven help you if you suggest that there *might* just be some good reasons for the MS/Novell deal or that the patents that were sold might just not have anything to do with Unix or Linux. Suggesting the latter upsets PJ's narrative, so of course you couldn't possibly suggest that - even though it will very likely prove to be the actual truth.

Re:No thanks -- oh for goodness sake

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Slashdot has managed to get by fine for more than a decade without a similar deletion policy.

Slashdot covers lots of issues without any particular focus ("news for nerds" is about as vague as you can get, since people can be nerdy about nearly any subject) so it doesn't make enemies the way Groklaw does. There are anti-Slashdot cranks, of course, but there's no reason for major industry players to fund them.

Re:No thanks -- oh for goodness sake

[etymxris]

Running an open discussion site while keeping trolls at bay without deleting posts is not easy. You should try it sometime. I did, and failed.

Re:No thanks -- oh for goodness sake

[Bootsy Collins]

Slashdot has managed to get by fine for more than a decade without a similar deletion policy. I would prefer the distinction between troll and serious debater be left up to the reader, and not the admin. I don't want to be a part of any site that can only deal with trolls through heavy handed moderation. I think many here feel the same way. If she's been deleting posts, where is the exact line? Are we even able to see what posts were deleted to see if they deserved deletion? I doubt it. It's this lack of transparency and seeming lack of interest in open discussion that turns me off of any community she may head.

Now, PJ is hardly alone in running her site this way. But I'm a free software supporter with strong ideals and high expectations. Slashdot, for all its flaws, manages to meet these ideals. Groklaw has fallen short.

"Managed to get by fine"? "Managed to meet these ideals"? One must also consider what the intended purpose of each site is. If you think Slashdot is taken as seriously as Groklaw in the respective community of each, you're way off. And that's not meant as a criticism of /., btw; Taco and Hemos decided early on what the point of this place was, and there's nothing wrong with the choice that was made. But the S/N here is very, very low; and there's a place in the world for fora with more restrictive policies meant to achieve a high S/N and to facilitate actual work. Not everything needs to be a free-for-all, especially when free-for-all fora already exist elsewhere.

Re:No thanks -- oh for goodness sake

[DrJimbo]

You've got to be kidding me, but I'm afraid you may not be. Slashdot gets by because of the moderation and meta-moderation system. Its goals and challenges differ greatly from those of Groklaw. I'm sorry for explaining the obvious but it seems to have thus far eluded your grasp.

Slashdot, for the most part, posts summaries and links to stories along with comments by readers, moderated and meta-moderated by readers. It doesn't do any investigative journalism, which is what Groklaw does day and and day out. The people who are investigated don't like it and will do anything they can to shut up or discredit Groklaw. Slashdot does not have significant content other than links and readers' comments which is why it can get by with the moderation system.

The idea that this reflects "strong ideals" is absurd in the extreme. If most people had similar "ideals" then content-less Slashdot would cease to function because there would be no content-ful sites to link to. If anything, it is PJ and Groklaw who are showing integrity and ideals by taking a stand for what is right and what is true. The irony is that it is because Groklaw takes a stand that people are actively trying to destroy it which in turn leads to the policy of deleting nasty posts.

It is also important to note that there has always been open invitations at Groklaw for Darl McBride, and other targets of investigation to post their side of things. These are rejected and instead Groklaw gets a flood of posts by people who are pretending to be members of the FOSS community who are trying to discredit Growlaw.

I'm not saying Groklaw is without flaws but I am saying that the deletion of posts that are designed to discredit the site is not one of them. This has nothing to do with a "lack of transparency" because the posts that are deleted do not reflect PJ or the Groklaw community. The deleted posts lack transparency because they are almost always anonymous and they are almost always by someone pretending to be a member of the community who is not.

As you may be aware, almost all content-ful sites have this problem. Do you also say "no thanks" to Google, Youtube, WaPo, the NYT, etc? Funny thing is that when you say "But I'm a free software supporter with strong ideals and high expectations" and then condemn Groklaw for doing what what is required of all sites that do investigative journalism then you start to sound very much like either a stupid friend of FOSS or a sly enemy.

Re:No thanks -- oh for goodness sake

[etymxris]

If PJ regularly featured tough challenges to her worldview and responded to them with reason and nuance, then she might be credited with merely trying to create a high S/N discussion site. The impression I get from many posters to this discussion is that she simply removes the side of the debate she doesn't agree with. I'm not capable of proving that's the case. Any evidence of that would be deleted from her site. Lacking any transparency in moderation it's difficult to just take her word that nothing she deleted had any value to begin with. Those charging her with tyrannical moderation seem to be disaffected supporters more than sockpuppet trolls. There could be a conspiracy there, but we'd need evidence to believe that. Maybe if all the post IP addresses came from Darl McBride's house that would be believable. Otherwise I regard it as fanciful.

Re:Does she have a job?

[icebike]

She did a better analysis than most of the SCO lawyers.

Re:No thanks -- oh for goodness sake

[quintesse]

I don't doubt you, but I just think you think too higly of Slashdot, in the end it's nothing more than an IT-gossip site, basically. Hugely popular, of course, but that doesn't really translate into quality.

Many of my (IT) friends and co-workers never "set foot" on slashdot exactly because it's so difficult to find the informative gems among the rubbish, the rants and the flames.

So I imagine there are many who prefer a site where most posts are informative or at least well-mannered knowing all the while that moderators are actively deleting anything vile, rude or off-topic (although Groklaw always has a special thread for that allows for that). To me at least Groklaw's comment policy seems reasonable.

I think that rules of conduct (with or without moderation) is almost always necessary in one way or another when you want to build and nourish a community that actively tries to "build" or accomplish something (look at the discussions within the Ubuntu/Debian/Fedora communities about this subject). Slashdot does not fit that bill IMHO.

Re:No thanks -- oh for goodness sake

[walterbyrd]

You sir/madam are implying that PJ lacks integrity because she has been forced to delete terrible posts that make Groklaw look awful.

If somebody posts something to make groklaw "look awful," then PJ, or somebody else on groklaw, can dispute that particular post.

When somebody starts deleting posts, just because those posts don't conform to her point of view, then onlookers can never be sure if the opposition has made a relevant point. I'm sorry, but that does put her integrity in question.

Re:No thanks -- oh for goodness sake

[lbbros]

The people PJ exposes fight dirty.

Perhaps not relevant to the discussion, but I have to point out that when PJ dealt with GPL v3 (many articles on Groklaw when it was being drafted), she did not say anything about her involvement in the process(and so, potential conflict of interest) until *after* the license was approved.

PJ was targeted with a very aggressive smear campaign (O' Gara and co.) that IMO went far beyond the limits of decency, but it doesn't mean she's perfect. That point I mentioned was a major letdown for me.

I like a lot the investigative side of Groklaw, but I like a lot less paranoia-induced articles like this one.

Re:No thanks -- oh for goodness sake

[Raenex]

I find plenty of value discussion on Slashdot all the time. It would be much worse off if dissenting opinions were simply deleted, especially at the whim of a site owner.

No, that's not what shows she lacks integrity

[Schnoodledorfer]

What shows she lacks integrity is deleting and sandboxing comments that aren't even close to being "terrible", than falsely claiming that she doesn't do that after she has the evidence hidden. Your claims of what the "truth" is are worthless. All you know about are the parts of the truth that you can see. You can't see what is missing.

How your comment gained the score for "5, Insightful" is beyond me. You paint everything in simplistic black and white terms and make broad claims as if what you can't see must not exist.

Re:No thanks -- oh for goodness sake

[DrJimbo]

If somebody posts something to make groklaw "look awful," then PJ, or somebody else on groklaw, can dispute that particular post.

Sure, if it just one or two posts, it is really not much of a problem. The problem is that there can be an avalanche of posts, many of them phony, people pretending to be representing the FOSS community but saying nasty things. If these are not nipped in the bud then confederates link to them and quote them on other sites as typical examples of Groklaw and FOSS supporters.

If such posts weren't deleted, Groklaw would die in weeks.

When somebody starts deleting posts, just because those posts don't conform to her point of view, then onlookers can never be sure if the opposition has made a relevant point. I'm sorry, but that does put her integrity in question.

I agree with you. Certainly it is possible to abuse the authority to delete posts. But this doesn't make all deletions bad. The posts I've seen that I've flagged as abusive were posts where someone says they are an avid FOSS and Groklaw supporter and then they say nasty, abusive things that make the poster look like an awful person. If these are not removed then they are used as evidence that FOSS and Groklaw supporters are awful people.

You are not helping FOSS by spreading false, derogatory rumors about PJ. If you have first hand experience, speak up. My first hand experience is that I've been appalled by some of the nasty posts I've seen on Groklaw and I've immediately informed PJ about them so they could be deleted.

Furthermore, "the opposition" has had reporters in their pocket printing false stories all over the web for years. Why does Groklaw lose credibility of they print the truth instead of the lies? No other site is held to the ridiculous standard you reserve for Groklaw. It is often impossible to get a site to issue a retraction when they have been caught telling outright lies. The idea that Groklaw loses credibility by not spreading the lies they are trying to debunk is absurd.

Re:No thanks -- oh for goodness sake

[shutdown -p now]

you are aiding and abetting the enemies of FOSS.

Is it just me, or parent's post reads a lot like Chinese propaganda piece against enemies of the state and such? The quoted phrase caught my eye, but really it's full with accusations of some vague but obviously horrible crimes which absolutely require censorship to set things right.

Re:Groklaw is pure FUD and BS, PJ bans disagreemen

[shutdown -p now]

GP may well be an SCO shareholder, but anyone who had read Groklaw for any significant amount of time knows that PJ does ideological censorship there, removing any comments that criticize her POV (regardless of politeness, correctness etc); and also removing any comments pointing out facts that she didn't mention, or obvious alternative interpretations that do not agree with her conclusions, or factual mistakes in her own posts.

Re:No thanks -- oh for goodness sake

[DrJimbo]

The people PJ exposes fight dirty.

Perhaps not relevant to the discussion, ...

It is relevant because the one of the dirty tactics is to post nasty comments that are then quoted or linked to if not immediately removed.

but I have to point out that when PJ dealt with GPL v3 (many articles on Groklaw when it was being drafted), she did not say anything about her involvement in the process(and so, potential conflict of interest) until *after* the license was approved.

That is so utterly not true. The entire GPL3 process was open to the public. There was no way for her participation to be secret. Everyone was invited to participate. PJ did her best to get as many people to participate as possible. She would be a hypocrite of she didn't participate. How is that a conflict of interest? She participated, she tried to get others to participate and she posted articles about the process on Groklaw. It's not like she gets a kickback every time someone uses the GPL3. Furthermore she talked about her involvement as early as 2005.

PJ was targeted with a very aggressive smear campaign (O' Gara and co.) that IMO went far beyond the limits of decency, but it doesn't mean she's perfect.

I fully agree. Like all humans, PJ is not perfect. That is exactly what I said in my first post. Twice. I think she does sometimes think something is an attack when it is not but I don't think that is paranoia. It is because she is attacked so vigorously and so regularly, it's normal that her number of false positives would increase. Something would be wrong with her if it didn't.

That point I mentioned was a major letdown for me.

You really need to explain how that was a conflict of interest. Participating in the drafting of the GPL3 and encouraging others to participate as well are perfectly compatible. If she has acted otherwise then you would have been able to complain about that instead. PJ did everything in her power to get you to participate. If you (or anyone else) didn't get your say then it is no one's fault but your own.

I like a lot the investigative side of Groklaw, but I like a lot less paranoia-induced articles like this one.

My tastes align with yours on this. I prefer the investigative articles. I disagree with your assessment that this one was induced by paranoia. If anything, I think PJ was a little naïve about how the world works and the article reflects part of her (perhaps rude) awakening. She is realizing that much of the world, especially the business world, acts without a shred of integrity. It is to her credit that she was surprised and shocked by this.

Re:The lesson is... do not trust PEOPLE

[Anonymous Coward]

Because, as we all know, a corporation is a person and people cannot be trusted because they will always seek to maximize their own position.

Re:No thanks -- oh for goodness sake

[Bigjeff5]

The impression I get from many posters to this discussion is that she simply removes the side of the debate she doesn't agree with. I'm not capable of proving that's the case. Any evidence of that would be deleted from her site.

You could always go look for yourself. If such claims are false they would be easy to disprove. If you find posts that seriously disagree with PJ then the claim that she removes the side of the debate she doesn't agree with is clearly false.

If the claim is true it would be impossible to prove, of course. Finding no posts that disagree with PJ isn't proof. However, it would certainly imply that she is removing them, as rarely in this world to large groups of people whole-heartedly agree.

Last but certainly not least, from what I can tell debate isn't the purpose of Groklaw. Preparing legal documents for the purpose of defending FOSS and specifically Linux is the purpose of Groklaw. Debate may happen, but that doesn't seem to be the intent, so even removing whole sides of an argument she disagrees with doesn't really damage PJ's purpose or credibility regarding her purpose.

You have to choose your way

[jeanph01]

No one know the end to this story. PJ did her part when it what her time. She's asking what can she do now... Maybe it's time to do something else... or not. I think PJ has to choose what in her heart she feel is right even if that mean nobody will follow her there.

Re:No thanks -- oh for goodness sake

[Bigjeff5]

Perhaps not relevant to the discussion, but I have to point out that when PJ dealt with GPL v3 (many articles on Groklaw when it was being drafted), she did not say anything about her involvement in the process(and so, potential conflict of interest) until *after* the license was approved.

What conflict of interest for what? She was posting on her blog for Christ's sake!

I like a lot the investigative side of Groklaw, but I like a lot less paranoia-induced articles like this one.

Did you even read the blog? She was upset that after all the work she and the Groklaw community put in to help Novell win against SCO, the ended up selling a whole pile of Unix patents to Microsoft.

That caused her to question the purpose of Groklaw. Considering Groklaw was founded in an effort to protect Linux, that's very understandable.

Ultimately, she decided that Groklaw wasn't about helping this company or that company, but about defending FOSS and Linux each time it is threatened. So, despite the fact that she feels Novell betrayed Groklaw, the site will continue as usual, and if they end up being foes of Novell next time instead of allies, then so be it.

This, I think, is a mature position to take.

Re:Groklaw is pure FUD and BS, PJ bans disagreemen

[Anonymous Coward]

There's really no point. PJ's fan club will follow you onto slashdot and shout you down here.

Actually my problem was never even with PJ, because hey, I'd probably censor my own blog too. The real problem was her legion of sycophants who enabled her, and never *ever* gave her boundaries or anything like a reality check.

Mentioned in the past tense, because I very quickly stopped wasting my time reading comments or leaving them.

The things we're complaining about are not "awful"

[Xenographic]

> The people PJ exposes fight dirty. They try all sorts of tricks to discredit Groklaw, chief among them is posting awful things anonymously.

First off, there are posts elsewhere showing exactly what sort of comments get deleted. They were comments like "Red Hat is a CCIA member." That was the whole post. It linked to the CCIA membership page. It was removed with no comment, presumably because it ran counter to the story presented.

Is that "awful"? If that post was wrong, and I'm not sure how the CCIA could get its own members wrong, wouldn't the better approach be to fight incorrect information with correct information?

> The idea being they can then smear Groklaw by pointing to these abusive posts as indicative of the Groklaw community. I've seen a bunch of these posts over the years and I've reported them to PJ so she can delete them.

Yes, there are also actual trolls online. I have *no* problem with PJ deleting those posts. Ever. But they're not part of some conspiracy, they're everywhere.

You're changing the topic, though. We're talking about censoring people who disagree. You're talking about people who post "awful" things. These are NOT the same thing, unless you use a strange definition of "awful" that might also reasonably cover many posts to the "corrections here" threads.

I, myself, have covered Groklaw extensively on Slashdot and supporting them. I wrote plenty of stories about how bad OOXML was, too, for that matter. I've been posting stories since the very early days, long before SCO filed suit against IBM. I'm very much in favor of FOSS. I hate software patents and have also advocated for their abolition. I can give you a long diatribe on the Curry-Howard correspondence and how the IEEE-USA president's statement in support of them was factually incorrect about mathematics if you want. In short, I'm not a "troll" and I can prove it.

It's only the censoring of disagreement I'm against. I have no problem with censoring abuse and profanity. Bringing them up is creating a straw man.

Re:No thanks -- oh for goodness sake

[Xenographic]

> Slashdot gets by because of the moderation and meta-moderation system.

But Slashdot still only needed to delete, what? Two posts? Ever. One from Microsoft and one from the CoS, as I recall. And then wrote stories about the deletion.

> The people who are investigated don't like it and will do anything they can to shut up or discredit Groklaw.

So she has every reason to be as transparent as possible, so that they have no material to discredit Groklaw. We'll know their lies are not true because of that transparency.

> It is also important to note that there has always been open invitations at Groklaw for Darl McBride, and other targets of investigation to post their side of things.

We saw how that worked when Jay Maynard came over. He put his side of the story on http://ibmvshercules.com/

For the record, I'm of the opinion that TurboHercules has sold out to Microsoft, but that doesn't implicate Jay. He was just stuck in the middle of all this, trying to defend his friends who helped him write the Hercules emulator when they formed the TurboHercules company.

> I'm not saying Groklaw is without flaws but I am saying that the deletion of posts that are designed to discredit the site is not one of them.

It's better to fix one's faults than to delete them.

> The deleted posts lack transparency because they are almost always anonymous and they are almost always by someone pretending to be a member of the community who is not.

You lump all the anons together. Some were people who had their accounts deleted for ridiculous reasons. And then came back to help transcribe PDFs and whatnot, anyhow, after the abuse. Thing is, you don't know who they are, so you're treating them like they're all one person.

For the record, I never made an account, even though PJ asked me to once, because she thought I had good insight. But, frankly, you have no idea who the anons are, so I don't know how you can claim that they were "pretending to be a member of the community" when you have no idea who they are.

I note that you never actually consider the fact that they might be or have been members. Did you ever read AllParadox's rationale for leaving Groklaw? Or did you think he was the only such person?

> you start to sound very much like either a stupid friend of FOSS or a sly enemy.

And you start to sound like a conspiracy theorist. Not everyone is either friend or foe. I'm in favor of FOSS and against OOXML, Microsoft, software patents and deleting the posts of people who debate you instead of responding to them. I have submitted many stories to Slashdot over the years; you should be able to verify all of those statements by reading Googling those stories. I've also covered Groklaw. Before Groklaw was well-known, most of the Slashdot stories on Groklaw were written by me, personally.

Where does that leave me with respect to Groklaw? (Stupid?) friend or foe?

Irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand what the fuss is about. This crap got nowhere in the US before when the zombies were in full swing and won't get anywhere now. Also, they could cause some stir in the US, Land of The Free Corporation, but I don't see this getting any legal traction in the EU.

The analogy only operates in a "limited sense"

[Xenographic]

> You're entitled to your own freedom. You're not entitled to the freedom to post whatever you want on someone else's site.

Right. Nobody is claiming otherwise. They *are* saying that they're going to continue to complain about it until the people doing it stop.

They're free to do it. They're even free to delete it on their own site. But we're going to keep pestering you forever and ever and ever unless you stop.

> The difference between censoring your own venue and censoring everyone's venue is profound.

True, but we don't like either one. There's a big difference in how much I would hate eating tripe and how much I would hate eating dog poop. But I should expect people to complain about anyone serving either one to their guests. You can say, "I'm the host. It's my house/website/country and I can feed you tripe or dog crap if I want to," but that kind of misses the point. Nobody where they are, they don't want someone trying to feed them crap.

She didn't miss the point: OS *gave* Novell life..

[Anonymous Coward]

and Novell backstabbed it/us.

You are misrepresenting what is happening

[Schnoodledorfer]

I'm not saying Groklaw is without flaws but I am saying that the deletion of posts that are designed to discredit the site is not one of them. This has nothing to do with a "lack of transparency" because the posts that are deleted do not reflect PJ or the Groklaw community. The deleted posts lack transparency because they are almost always anonymous and they are almost always by someone pretending to be a member of the community who is not.

The problem is the deletion and sandboxing of comments that don't discredit Groklaw and that are perfectly consistent with her rules. They are often not anonymous and often by members of the community. Another problem is PJ and some of her supporters who keep hiding and misrepresenting what is going on.

If you continue to insist that what you said is true, please explain why so many of comments in the first corrections thread to this article were hidden, causing nsomos to start a second corrections thread because no one could see the first corrections thread. How were they posted anonymously? How did they discredit Groklaw? Doesn't it look like they were posted by a members of the community in order to be helpful?

For that matter, how is the unannounced sandboxing of comments ever consistent with transparency? The intent is clearly to mislead members of the Groklaw community into thinking that their comments are visible to others when they are not.

Re:No thanks -- oh for goodness sake

[Bootsy Collins]

If PJ regularly featured tough challenges to her worldview and responded to them with reason and nuance, then she might be credited with merely trying to create a high S/N discussion site. The impression I get from many posters to this discussion is that she simply removes the side of the debate she doesn't agree with. I'm not capable of proving that's the case. Any evidence of that would be deleted from her site. Lacking any transparency in moderation it's difficult to just take her word that nothing she deleted had any value to begin with. Those charging her with tyrannical moderation seem to be disaffected supporters more than sockpuppet trolls. There could be a conspiracy there, but we'd need evidence to believe that. Maybe if all the post IP addresses came from Darl McBride's house that would be believable. Otherwise I regard it as fanciful.

Sorry for the time it's taken me to reply reply.

Anyway, I ask you to look more carefully at your response. You are criticizing her for something for which you admit you have no evidence; in fact, by explaining this away with "Any evidence of that would be deleted from her site," you're effectively using that lack of evidence as evidence. Your comment later dismissing claims of sockpuppetry as a conspiracy theory lacking evidence is thus ironic, because your own assertion lacks evidence, and the throwing of suspicion on missing evidence is a standard argument technique of people who push conspiracy theories.

PJ bans disagreement

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, same here. In the Groklaw world, PJ is there to protect freedom, not to practice it. (Or to allow others to, that is).

That seems mightily hypocritical of her. Instead of a moderation/meta-moderation system like Slashdot, she decided to be judge, jury, and executioner, silencing the voices of those who dared to disagree with her.

And she doesn't make that moderation publicly known. When I had an account on there (before I, too, was banned), she actually hid posts so she could continue to argue with me, but nobody else could actually see them. She actively hid the fact that my posts weren't visible to everyone else.

So when the uninitiated goes up there, they see a lot of pro- messages but not one single contrary opinion that would give any new visitor the opportunity to take in ALL the information available and make their own decision. No, PJ wants to make the decision *for* the visitor about what's right and wrong.

The fact that her site is there to promote open source software and doesn't allow open debate and discussion is at the very least ironic, and at the very most makes her a hypocrite.

At the same time, though, the site brings a lot of good *documentation* to light about various legal cases. For the uninitiated, though, the two cross over and make it difficult to separate the facts from her opinions. Her ability to explain complex legal concepts clearly is outstanding, but to be more effective, she needs to let the facts speak for themselves - interpret but don't editorialize.

Of course, that'll never happen, because she loves the celebrity status she gets from being who she is. The fact that she decided to post the article this story is about on Christmas Day is pretty low, making it look like anyone who disagrees with her is trying to ruin her holiday. That is pathetic and manipulative.

Re:No thanks -- oh for goodness sake

[Anonymous Coward]

You lump all the anons together.

As did/does PJ. For example, I posted anonymously for a long time because I'm a Novell employee, and as an employee, I couldn't talk publicly about pending (or ongoing) litigation. But I'm also a member of the OSS community (as hard as it may be for some of PJ's fanbois to believe that a Novell employee could possibly be a member of the OSS community) and I have my own personal opinions about things too.

Many, many times, though, PJ would address my anonymous posts by stating "Oh, you're back. I was wondering when you'd start astroturfing again." - and then leave her reply and the post there long enough for me to see it again (a day, perhaps) before deleting it.

She'd accuse me of astroturfing because I would suggest alternative theories to her conspiracy theories about the MS/Novell deal. Because I effectively said (at one point) "You don't know what's in the deal - nobody does yet outside of those who were parties to it. Yet you've already formed an opinion without any facts - maybe you should wait to see what the deal includes before drawing conclusions?"

Another point of debate that PJ and I engaged in a couple of times (when I actually did have an account there - before she outright deleted it) was her persistent insistence that when Novell said they were a "mixed source" company (which I thought was a stupid, stupid way of explaining it), that they meant they were mixing open and closed source. That absolutely has NOT been the case, and every time I tried to correct her, she deleted the posts because they went against her narrative that Novell is evil because they're taking open source code and illegally using it in closed-source products. Novell, in fact, took many items that were previously closed source and opened them up. You can find them on forge.novell.com.

She drew (and draws) many of her conclusions out of a blind hate for Microsoft. I used to be like that myself - before working for Novell, I was a customer for something like 15 years. I would have open, loud arguments with colleagues who preferred Microsoft technologies over Novell's technologies. If it said "Microsoft" on it, I wanted nothing to do with it.

Then I grew up and realised that in the modern IT environment, even if you don't like Microsoft technologies, you'll probably have to deal with them at some point.

But the "best" technology doesn't always win. It should. But it doesn't. And so we have environments that have a mix of technologies and almost certainly there is going to be something with a Microsoft name on it.

So a deal with Microsoft (even with things in it that I personally don't like) to increase Linux adoption in Microsoft shops makes sense. Having Microsoft actively promote Linux and work on interoperability with Novell for the benefit of both companies' joint customers was a smart move. So smart, in fact, that RedHat followed suit. Of course, RedHat didn't do the IP scheme, largely I suspect because Microsoft didn't perceive RedHat as having any licensable IP that they needed. Does anyone really think that if RedHat had IP that Microsoft wanted to license, that wouldn't have been part of that deal?

Re:No thanks -- oh for goodness sake

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you even read the blog? She was upset that after all the work she and the Groklaw community put in to help Novell win against SCO, the ended up selling a whole pile of Unix patents to Microsoft.

You (and PJ) have absolutely no evidence to support this assertion. That statement is nothing but absolutely pure FUD.

If I'm wrong, then present something that isn't conjecture. Something filed with the SEC or some other governmental body that proves that Novell sold "a whole pile of Unix patents to Microsoft". Not some conjecture reported by some reporter somewhere who thinks they might know what could possibly be in that bundle of 882 patents - rather, something like an actual fact.

All that's currently publicly known is that there are 882 patents involved, and Novell and/or Attachmate have asserted that Unix copyrights are not part of what's being sold to CPTN.

It's fairly immature to assume that it MUST be Unix IP (because, you know, Novell doesn't have any other IP, obviously, right? Uh, WRONG! Novell has been involved in the software industry since the mid-80's, predating their purchase of USL by a decade or so and their involvement in Linux by nearly 20 years.) and then to take that as a personal affront and slap in the face. Because you know that the lawyers involved got together and said "hey, you know what would really piss PJ off?" and made a decision based on a desire to make PJ feel like she was duped into helping them beat SCO. Or maybe - far more likely, I think - the lawyers involved don't know of PJ at all since they deal in M&A and not in IP law, and made a decision based on actual business reasons. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's the more likely scenario now that I think rationally about it.

And by the way - Didn't Darl fail to produce any proof that there was UNIX IP in Linux - or rather, what "proof" he said they had was categorically proven to be false? So if there's no Unix IP in Linux, so what if Unix IP *is* part of that patent sale? That doesn't affect Linux or OSS. Or rather, if it does, then it seems those who believe there is no Unix in Linux really don't believe that after all. Throughout the entire SCO v. Novell case, there were stories and comments on Groklaw about how wrong Darl was about there being UNIX IP in Linux, and boy, can we prove it. Oh, and guess what - they did actually prove it. Repeatedly. Groklaw FTW! But now they're scared that Novell sold a boatload of UNIX IP to Microsoft (not proven) so that Microsoft could threaten Linux with UNIX patents? Come again?

But hey, since I'm disagreeing with PJ, I shouldn't really be allowed to say this. I certainly wouldn't be able to take this and even say it politely on GL and expect it to stick around. Doesn't agree with PJ's point of view, so on GL, it'd be deleted, no matter how nicely I said it or pointed out these facts. It simply doesn't fit PJ's narrative.

Re:No thanks -- oh for goodness sake

[Xenographic]

Yeah, on Groklaw, all "anons" are lumped together and frequently used as part of conspiracy theories because, hey, nobody knows who they are.

It's weird, because she appears to invent people to argue with instead of addressing their ideas.

No wonder she doesn't want a community site: she only wants silent partners. All the ones that became too well-known have had differences with her and been forced to move on. She's definitely not the type who can run a community, I will say that.