Slashdot Mirror


Florian Mueller Outs Himself As Oracle Employee

eldavojohn writes "So you're commenting on your highly visible blog about patent case after patent case that deal with corporations battling over open source stuff, what does it matter if you're taking money from one and not the other? If you don't see any ethical problems with that, you might be Florian Mueller. Groklaw's PJ (who has been suspicious of Florian's ties to other giants like Microsoft for quite sometime) has noticed that Florian Mueller has decided to go full disclosure and admit that all his commentary on the Oracle v Google case might be tainted by his employment by Oracle. It seems he's got a bunch of consulting money coming his way from Oracle but I'm sure that won't undermine any of his assessments like Android licenses violate the GPL or that Oracle will win $6 billion from Google and Google was "at risk" of not settling despite the outcome that the charges later dropped to a small fraction of the $6 billion. Like so many other times, PJ's hunch was right."

285 comments

  1. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Huh? Doesn't this news actually *confirm* what these 'paranoid FOSS fanatics' have been saying all along?

  2. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    You're right, Florian is a paragon of unbiased reporting. He exemplifies everything a truly neutral journalist should be.

  3. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by gwking · · Score: 3, Informative

    Agreed. They were off on the details (works for Oracle, not MS), but they were right that something smelled rotten.

  4. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by SJHillman · · Score: 2

    His employment is paid for by Oracle... the net effect is the same. Money flows from Oracle to his pockets, so its in his interests that Oracle comes out on top.

  5. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "paid by" versus "employed by" is a pretty irrelevant semantic distinction in this case.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  6. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    What? I seem to read a summary/article that proves that FOSS fanatics have been vindicated in their paranoia in this case. How do you figure the opposite?

  7. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by gstrickler · · Score: 4, Interesting

    RTFA, he works for both MS & Oracle.

    ... and he is now analyzing FRAND issues for both Microsoft and Oracle.

    --
    make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
  8. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, he's taking money from both. It was disclosed a while ago that he's taking money from M$.

  9. Great. Just Great. by Petersko · · Score: 1, Funny

    All those people accusing half the internet of being paid shills have finally actually caught one. Even if it's a "stopped clock" moment, it fuels the fire.

    1. Re:Great. Just Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All those people accusing half the internet of being paid shills have finally actually caught one. Even if it's a "stopped clock" moment, it fuels the fire.

      "Petersko" was paid by Slashdot for this post to help stir up controversy but he forgot that the "score" attached to his comment would give the game away - as a relatively low grade shill he took payment in Slashdot Karma points.

    2. Re:Great. Just Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Did they prove he was employed as a shill?

    3. Re:Great. Just Great. by Elbereth · · Score: 2

      I've noticed this, too. As soon as you take what might be considered a controversial stance on some issue, you get hounded by people calling you a shill, because they can't conceive of how anyone could disagree with them without having been paid. I think this happens most often in highly insular communities with a strong degree of conformism (ie, groupthink). Unsurprisingly, Slashdot is quite prone to angry (and sometimes paranoid) howls of, "Shill! Shill!" I hate when conversations get derailed like that. For one thing, it's a logical fallacy. For another, it's an incredibly lazy way to silence dissent.

      I originally scoffed at the idea of armies of shills invading Slashdot. I think one or two of my older posts were like that, after I noticed a marked increase in accusations of shilling. Eventually, I had to admit that there were some controversial posters (InterestingFella, DCTech, or whatever he calls himself now) that even I suspected of being shills. I've since softened my stance to that of skepticism, rather than outright rejection. I still think it's unlikely that shills are hiding under every rock, waiting to spout their paid-for opinions in every story posted to Slashdot. I think most of the people that get accused of being a shill are merely enthusiastic fanboys, who don't even need to be paid! When you've got legions of zombie-like fanboys, why do you need shills? If they seem to all be reading from scripts, I'm still not convinced that they're shills. Apple fanboys, in particular, are known for repetitious use of Apple's marketing. It's like they have their brains scooped out and replaced by a marketing script that they read from. It's like a cult.

    4. Re:Great. Just Great. by warrax_666 · · Score: 1

      For one thing, it's a logical fallacy. For another, it's an incredibly lazy way to silence dissent.

      The problem is that these shills are often doing the Slashdot equivalent of the Gish Gallop. Sometimes it's best to just shut them down by outing them as shills.

      (Not that I'm particularly fond of this either, but sometimes it's necessary as a matter of pragmatism.)

      --
      HAND.
    5. Re:Great. Just Great. by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      That's not always true. I've played devil's advocate many times without ever been called a shill, at least that I remember. A big part of avoiding the accusation is being able to justify controversial positions in a thoughtful manner. Good: "Microsoft might have a point this time, because of [such and such legal case] and [the other party did something notably stupid]." Bad: "For the eleventieth time today: Liinux owes teh SCO some serious cash."

      In my experience, Slashdot is remarkably tolerant of unpopular positions as long as you can give a plausible reason why you're espousing them, or why you can understand someone else holding them. But as Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". You better be able to back them up, or you will get called out.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    6. Re:Great. Just Great. by Elbereth · · Score: 2

      It depends. If you're a persuasive writer, you can probably get modded up by saying anything. I've done quite a few experiments, to see how my comments would get modded. In most cases, I found that repeating the Slashdot groupthink will get you modded up, regardless of content. Simply being disagreeable tends to get you modded down quickly. Using reverse psychology works so well, that it's almost like cheating. All you need to do is preface your comment with, "I know I'll get modded down for this, but..." Some freethinking rebel will take the challenge and prove that he's open-minded by modding you up. It almost never fails. It's gotten to the point where I roll my eyes whenever I see that phrase in a post, because I know it's going to shoot up to (score: 5, interesting) in minutes.

      It's true, you can get modded up, if you take the time to support your beliefs and assertions, but it's also true that simply repeating Slashdot groupthink will get you modded up even more easily and rapidly. Often, the most trite comments possible ("Fuck the RIAA!") get the most attention, while thoughtful and insightful posts often languish in obscurity, because they took too long to write, they were posted anonymously, and/or they forgot to use reverse psychology.

      In the end, it's not really all that important, because karma is meaningless and few people on the internet (or real life, for that matter, I suppose) are even interested in thoughtful debate; they'd rather angrily repeat slogans and prepared "factoids" at each other in endless arguments. Once you realize that, it's difficult to resist becoming a troll and adding to the noise, though one could charitably call it "playing devil's advocate". Shades of gray, really.

    7. Re:Great. Just Great. by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      I agree with almost everything you say, but I "play devil's advocate" in good faith. I try to get others to see the opposite argument, even (perhaps especially!) if they don't want to. On the plus side, /.'s finely honed my debating skills in that I've gotten in the habit of identifying and countering arguments against my position before anyone else can. That's actually proven a handy skill to have.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    8. Re:Great. Just Great. by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      All you need to do is preface your comment with, "I know I'll get modded down for this, but..."

      That's not all you need to do, but such a preface at least indicates that you are trying to actually post something of value.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    9. Re:Great. Just Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're trying to actually post something of value - you just post something of value.

      Prefacing it with emotionally loaded statements just to evoke more polarised reaction indicates only that you're attention- and/or karma-whoring.

    10. Re:Great. Just Great. by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      No, indicating that you know it might be controversial indicates that you are aware of that, and that you might still try to be rational about it. That's a good thing.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    11. Re:Great. Just Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err, no. To indicate that you know it might be controversial, you say "I know this might be controversial, but ..."

      Saying "I know I'll get modded down" doesn't indicate that "might still try to be rational about it", it plainly says "I know unthinking masses won't be rational about it". That's a bad thing.

    12. Re:Great. Just Great. by Elbereth · · Score: 1

      Same here. Wikipedia calls that a gadfly, which I think fits better than "troll". In my mind, there's a difference what the GNAA does (as amusing as they are, they have no higher purpose, and they exist merely to annoy others) and that of good faith devil's advocate. Still, trolling for a higher social cause is still trolling, so I usually just skip the rationalizations and fancy words. A troll's a troll.

      Perhaps 15 year old trolls eventually turn into 40 year old gadflies... and then 60 year old cranky old men.

    13. Re:Great. Just Great. by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Didn't this arise a while back when it was discovered that MS was actually paying people to astroturf for its latest OS? All of a sudden everyone who said something pro-MS was an "astroturfer!" I recall it getting fairly out of hand.

      (PS- I use a Mac, and my brains where replaced with double chocolate ice cream, thank you very much! :D )

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    14. Re:Great. Just Great. by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Here's a challenge for you- Try something pro-Mac. It's one of the subjects that come up often, has valid pro and con views, but pro views are whacked mercilessly. Or pro-religion, good luck on that one (double bonus since it can't be proved either way, but anti-religion people will claim proof).

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    15. Re:Great. Just Great. by Elbereth · · Score: 1

      There's always some scandal that's got Slashdot frothing at the mouth. We do so love our Two Minutes Hate.

      To be fair, I suppose any community of rabid fanboys has the potential to devolve into a cult-like atmosphere. God knows the Amiga was pretty close to that, for a while, and I loved the Amiga. Anyways, I've owned a Mac or two in the past, and I'm not morally opposed to owning another one; the community was a bit freaky, however.

  10. why would anybody trust this guy??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Have you all so quickly forgotten when he got caught out in the bald-faced lies about secret requests to the EU competition commission to force Oracle to allow him & friends to take a fork of MySQL proprietary? He is not an honest person, and has demonstrated this clearly.

    1. Re:why would anybody trust this guy??? by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The reason why people might trust him is because he provided ammunition to those who believe that computer software should be proprietary products created by major corporations. Some people really think that, so they'd believe him because he confirmed their own biases which helped them prove to themselves how smart they are.

      It would be sort of like believing somebody who claims (with no proof whatsoever) that Microsoft is using GPL'd code in its proprietary products and should be sued into oblivion - If I think that already, somebody else saying it gives me the feeling of "Hey, I'm right, and I'm smart!" (even though really I'm not necessarily right, and not smart about believing that person)

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:why would anybody trust this guy??? by Xest · · Score: 1

      I suspect the real reason people might trust him is because media outlets like The Register, and the BBC have been repeatedly posting in their news stories shit like "Trusted open source patent expert Florian Mueller".

      If it was just from The Register it'd be fair enough, because you'd have to be quite a fool to not know that 99% of stuff The Register posts is agenda based FUD coming from grossly biased sources, but the BBC is supposed to be impartial. Clearly on this issue it's outright failed to fulfil it's charter.

    3. Re:why would anybody trust this guy??? by chrb · · Score: 1

      The BBC have various feedback mechanisms in place to complain about the reporting of stories. If enough people complain about "Oracle consultant Florian Mueller being quoted as an independent analyst" then they might stop quoting him...

    4. Re:why would anybody trust this guy??? by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1

      Have you all so quickly forgotten when he got caught out in the bald-faced lies about secret requests to the EU competition commission to force Oracle to allow him & friends to take a fork of MySQL proprietary? He is not an honest person, and has demonstrated this clearly.

      RMS made a similar argument.

    5. Re:why would anybody trust this guy??? by Xest · · Score: 1

      I think they did and all the BBC did was to add a note about how he's done some consulting for Microsoft, rather than just stop using him as a source full stop.

  11. If he worked for a magazine writing this stuff by voss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He would be fired and escorted out of the building right about now. Since he's a "consultant" he will probably survive although I suspect his value as a shill for oracle has plummeted. Im wondering if the Cigarette industry needs a new spokesman or maybe OJ simpson?

    1. Re:If he worked for a magazine writing this stuff by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      OJ probably is too low on cabbage and the cigarette industry even had the balls to advertise on Ferrari. The bar-code was the same on both that car and Marlboro cigarettes. Subliminal, no?

  12. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by sosume · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Along the same line of reasoning then, since the NSA is a customer of Oracle ...
    Besides, the question is if Oracle paid him for consulting services, or for marketing services. A true professional should be able to distinguish 'best interests for the client' based on what he is paid for.

  13. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody is denying it, Microsoft do indeed do some good things. Hell, this websites current design would be impossible without Microsofts push for "global dominance" since it is built on their proprietary extensions.
    Well, I take that back, everybody just loves those iFrames, amiright?
    I hate them, but not nearly as much as most people do, improvement to iFrames would be better than stagnation and likely deprecation, they are very useful where scripts embedding fails horribly, period. Things such as disabling popups from them, or reading the parent container, many others. (as attributes that can be toggled!)

    But half the time you really just spout some completely inane bullshit.
    This post certainly ain't helping you in that regard.
    Tone it down a little, bub.

  14. Re:PJ has her own biases by Spad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Everyone has biases, as long as we know what they are and why they are we're able to make informed decisions about the information they provide us. The problem comes when people don't disclose things like employment by somebody they're biased in favour of because then we lack the information we need to make our decisions.

  15. Bias is not a problem,ethics is by voss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anyone can have an opinion. Muellers problem is he was getting paid for his opinions and didnt disclose that to his readers.

    1. Re:Bias is not a problem,ethics is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ok, but PJ never disclosed anything about her employment either. But that's okay cause she says things we like, right?

    2. Re:Bias is not a problem,ethics is by inode_buddha · · Score: 2

      She has stated several times over the last 10 years that she works for a divorce attorney. Groklaw was just a side project that went viral. I'm pretty sure there are legal ways to find out *which* firm she works for.

      --
      C|N>K
    3. Re:Bias is not a problem,ethics is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC, didn't SCO hire a P.I. to spy on her? I definitely remember that sorry excuse for a reporter, Maureen O'Gara, trying to out PJ. Neither found any links between IBM and PJ. In fact, IBM submitted court documents denying any connection (direct, or indirect) whatsoever between her and the company.

    4. Re:Bias is not a problem,ethics is by jmkaza · · Score: 1

      What didn't he disclose? When Microsoft was his client, he let his readers know. Now he's started working with Oracle, while he's providing public opinions about an Oracle case, and again, he let his readers know.

    5. Re:Bias is not a problem,ethics is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only after he'd already been trolling on their behalf for some time. In both cases.

  16. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got to the truth and facts rather easily by reading beyond the headline and Slashdot's summary. I have a hard time taking you seriously if you suggest that "Oracle has hired him [Florian Mueller], for his analysis of FRAND issues" is only supposed to be a concern for what you label 'FOSS lunatics' when Mueller positions himself as some sort of patent expert supposedly giving objective analysis of the Oracle vs Google case, and isn't willing to be up-front about one of the parties *actually having hired him*. Also, I believe 'being hired by Oracle' means he does work for Oracle in return for pay. How does that make him being employed by Oracle an outright lie?

  17. Re:PJ has her own biases by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Interesting

    PJ might have her own agenda but it is not motivated by one side paying her. I've always questioned Florian's stance as well as his logic. Read his posts in lwn where he tried to frame it that Google violated the Linux GPL and copyright by using creating new header files in Android. When told repeatedly by others (including some who have code in Linux) that Google creating new headers does not violate anything because (1) the header files in question were created for compatibility which is allowed, (2) header files unless they contain some sort of unique logic (which they did not) are not copyrightable, and (3) for there to be violation, the Linus et al must object (which they did not).

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  18. Completely misleading headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Mueller is _not_ an employee of Oracle. His post says "...Oracle has very recently become a consulting client of mine." He has many clients, of which Oracle is one. And saying that one consulting client amongst many is equivalent to employment is completely bogus.

    I disagree with lots of the stuff he writes. But this headline is just intellectually dishonest slander. And for the record his writings are certainly no more slanted - or frankly bogus - than PJs.

    1. Re:Completely misleading headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True that. Make this a freaking +5.

    2. Re:Completely misleading headline by david+mitchell · · Score: 1

      Always fun to see an AC commenting "for the record."

      --
      Don't ask.

    3. Re:Completely misleading headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually he describes himself as an analyst Here's PJ says about them:

      Analysts? Well, they get paid and then analyze stuff. For clients. I'll remind you of the frank comments of Microsoft's employee James Plamondon in his evangelism how-to back confidential memo [PDF] back in the day that surfaced in the exhibits from the Comes v. Microsoft antitrust litgation:

      Analysts: Analysts are people who are paid to take a stand, while always trying to appear to be disinterested observers (since the appearance of independence maximizes the price they can charge for selling out). Treat them as you would treat nuclear weapons – as an important part of your arsenal, which you want to keep out of the hands of the enemy. Bribe Hire them to produce "studies" that "prove" that your technology is superior to the enemy's, and that it is gaining momentum faster.

    4. Re:Completely misleading headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PJ may be... No, screw that. PJ _is_ biased, she favors one of the sides often. But she admits it openly, almost explicitly. The question is not one of bias, but of honesty. Florian Mueller has been _pretending_ to be an unbiased party, even when it was painfully obvious that he was not.

    5. Re:Completely misleading headline by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You think the headline is slandering him because it says he's 'an employee' instead of a 'contractor?' I think the real negative thing there is that he gets paid by Oracle. And Microsoft, according to the article.

      In either case, he is certainly employed by Oracle. Is that intellectually dishonest slander as well?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Completely misleading headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nitpicking. The point is that Muller is paid by Oracle on a consulting contract, which creates a conflict of interest which needs to be revealed in any of his published opinions. Whether or not he meets the IRS's legal definition of "employee" is a distraction from the principle of conflict of interest to the specific of employment status, and it is the former which is relevant, not the latter.

    7. Re:Completely misleading headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Honestly, his editorializing is slanted against Android, but he's also one of the only sources that actually publishes meaningful facts about many of these cases. If I actually want to know which patents are being used in any of the lawsuits, the best place to find information about them is Mueller's blog. If someone else wants to spin everything in a different direction that's fine as well, but no one else even bothers to actually collect the facts. However, I think Slashdot is far more interested in crucifying someone who disagrees with their philosophy than anything else, so I don't expect the commentary here to be terribly accurate.

      Hell, it's probably more likely that Oracle hired him because of his opinions rather than his business relationship with Oracle dictating his spin. Of course, moving forward, there's probably going to be more pressure for him to take Oracle's side, but if his own opinions and interpretations of the available facts lead him to take that stance already, things probably won't change all that much.

    8. Re:Completely misleading headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the record: you can't say "for the record" when you're an Anonymous Coward.

    9. Re:Completely misleading headline by multi+io · · Score: 1

      Mueller is _not_ an employee of Oracle. His post says "...Oracle has very recently become a consulting client of mine." He has many clients, of which Oracle is one.

      ...and of which Google is none. No surprise there. It's not as if the fact that he has some more clients besides Oracle means that he couldn't be biased in favor of anyone. And MS, the other client FM has admitted he is working for, is on Oracle's side in the Oracle-Google legal dispute. Go figure.

    10. Re:Completely misleading headline by makomk · · Score: 1

      Not only that, the /. summary is written to imply that he'd been concealing the fact that he was being paid by Oracle when he made previous comments on the case, which is an incredibly dishonest misrepresentation of his actual statement that a lot of commenters seem to have bought into.

    11. Re:Completely misleading headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct. He is not compromised unlike the fanbois on /. who shill for crApple

    12. Re:Completely misleading headline by sjames · · Score: 1

      The key point is that a conflict of interest exists. He gets money from Oracle. We can infer that he would like to KEEP getting money from Oracle (else he would have terminated the agreement by now).

    13. Re:Completely misleading headline by Xest · · Score: 1

      emÂployÂment/emËploimÉ(TM)nt/
      Noun:

              The condition of having paid work.

      What exactly is the problem? Clearly he is employed by Oracle. Temporary or permanent it doesn't matter, he's still employed by them.

      Is that you Florian? Trying to alter the definition of employment to suit your circumstance?

  19. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Why is this news? Florian openly admits that he is a consultant on patent issues. I'm sure he'd consult for Ubuntu if they would pay him. As always, Slashdot considers earning money to be the equivalent of being evil.

    Meanwhile, PJ is considered an unbiased source even though PJ is very, very clearly biased towards defending Linux and attacking certain companies. The double-standards abound at Slashdot. That's why year ago I stopped considering this site to be a place of intellectual discussion and instead realized that it was a place of mindless fanboyism.

  20. All reporters are biased. by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

    I don't know why this surprises anybody. And that bias leaks into their news reports, even if the bias is as simple as not covering a candidate (showing images of Gingrich, Santorum, Romney, but not Ron Paul (who?)) or not covering an issue (repeal of right to trial under the NDAA if you are suspected terrorist*). FOX, NBC, CNN, radio news, online blogs... all have bias. It's just a matter of uncovering that bias. FOX=republican; NBC/CNN/CBS/ABC/PBS/NPR=democrat; talk radio=conservative; blogs reflect the views of the owner.

    *
    * suspected terrorist - As defined by the FBI is almost anyone. Pay with cash? Hide your phone from view when texting? Have a liberty/freedom-oriented bumper sticker? Own a gun, stunner, or can of mace? Et cetera.

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    1. Re:All reporters are biased. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh....all those networks are Republican except maybe NPR which is truthful more often than not.

    2. Re:All reporters are biased. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FOX=republican; NBC/CNN/CBS/ABC/PBS/NPR=democrat; talk radio=conservative; blogs reflect the views of the owner.

      I hate lists like that because it makes it look like there is some equivalency between NPR's liberal "slant" versus Fox's conservative activism. Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly fit more bias into one half hour segment than you can find in NPR in a week. There is a difference between reporters who have personal opinions that seep into their reporting despite efforts to remain primarily neutral versus those where bias is their whole agenda. This is just more proof that Florian falls into the latter category rather than the former.

    3. Re:All reporters are biased. by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      FOX=republican; NBC/CNN/CBS/ABC/PBS/NPR=democrat; talk radio=conservative; blogs reflect the views of the owner.

      Actually, those don't seem to be quite right. Here are the biases I generally find in mainstream media:
      Fox - Republicans
      NBC, particularly MSNBC - Democrats
      CNN - Horse race: "Romney is polling at 48% and Obama is polling at 43%" "Romney has raised $X, Obama has raised $Y", etc without ever actually saying anything about why this might be true
      CBS, ABC - the Please Pay Attention To Us bias
      PBS, NPR - the Please Give us Money bias
      talk radio - conservative / libertarian
      Comedy Central - Somewhat liberal, but mostly funny bias

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    4. Re:All reporters are biased. by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      Congratulations! You are the first person, ever, to consider Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly to be reporters.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    5. Re:All reporters are biased. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fox's commentators are part and parcel to Fox's reporting slant whether you want to classify them as reporters or not. Fox's hard news segments still display significant slant, and Fox goes out of its way to blur the line between the news and editorial portions of their content so much that it is difficult to put a finger on where one starts and the other ends.

      I'd also note that OP listed "talk radio", so certainly I am well within his definition of a reporter.

    6. Re:All reporters are biased. by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      Bias means to have a specific world view, and then consciously or consciously interpreting what you see according to that world view. That can make you miss certain things, it can make you overemphasize something which might not actually as important as you think etc. While nobody can be completely free of bias, we can strive to report things as objectively as we can and minimize the effect. That might not be perfect but it's honest and ethical.

      Being paid to write something is not bias. If you are honest about it, then you basically represent your client and give them the opportunity to present their view to the public - that can still be ethical depending on the methods you use. If you hide the fact that you are paid to represent something on behalf of your client, then there is no way you are acting ethically anymore.

    7. Re:All reporters are biased. by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>NPR's liberal "slant" versus Fox's conservative activism.

      I can not speak to NPR, but during 2008, 09, 10 the TV version of NPR, PBS, aired 70% positive stories during it's 6 o'clock news program for Obama/democrats and only 38% positive for McCain/republicans. An obvious "activism" to borrow your word.

      FOX was a little more balanced during it's 6 o'clock news: 38% for Obama/democrats and 36% for McCain/republicans. Basically neutral.

      FOX's downfall is having too many conservative talk show hosts. They should try to find more balance, like maybe fire Hannity and hire somebody from progressive talk radio.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    8. Re:All reporters are biased. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to see the actual source on that. I believe it for portions of the Obama/McCain race, but not for that extended a period. Usually you see statistics cited around that time period because when you start counting up stories like that, you start counting up stories about how Palin gaffed horribly on an easy question in an interview as "negative" for the McCain campaign and stories about Obama leading in polls as "positive" for the Obama campaign, even if neither story had any bias at all. If you kick on back to Kerry/Bush or Gore/Bush, you can see extended periods in both election cycles where the news was negative about the Democratic candidate, and Fox was incredibly biased in that direction. The whole Swift Boat story for Kerry is a good place to look for that sort of thing.

      I tend to be a pretty empirical person, but in the particular case I can't imagine statistics speaking louder than just turning on Fox News and NPR each for a couple of hours in the evening and seeing what you get. On Fox News, I get O'Reilly shouting down any guests that disagree with him and cutting their mics if they don't let him talk over them. I put on NPR, and I get a calm, reasoned question and answer session where the guest gets to finish speaking before being calmly asked a follow up question. I put Fox back on just in time to see a panel of guests that are all conservative except for the token liberal that is there just to either get overwhelmed by all of the other opinions or to hem and haw and sound like an idiot. I flip back to NPR and get an interview with guests from both sides that get equal time and treatment and all speak fairly congenially because that's the format of the show.

    9. Re:All reporters are biased. by ChatHuant · · Score: 1

      I can not speak to NPR, but during 2008, 09, 10 the TV version of NPR, PBS, aired 70% positive stories during it's 6 o'clock news program for Obama/democrats and only 38% positive for McCain/republicans. An obvious "activism" to borrow your word.

      You posted this fallacy before and were corrected then too. Unfortunately I see it didn't take, so here it is again: you don't understand what neutral means. Neutrality doesn't mean applying a quota to make sure both sides are presented "equally positively". Neutrality means the presentation is consistent with reality. If one of the two sides really is in the wrong, or has more negative events happening, then neutrality would be showing them as they are, not suppressing information or making things up in order to hit the percentages. Things are very seldom balanced in real life, and insisting on fifty-fifty distribution of "positive events" (whatever that means) when reporting is distorting reality.

      As a media consumer, the big problem when judging the neutrality of some source is that you seldom get to directly experience the events reported on. In some cases you can get the facts - for example, instead of listening to the Fox report of some Obama speech you're better off actually getting the text and judging by yourself. In other cases that's not really possible, but what helps is expanding your sources of information - that "averages out" the biases of individual outlets. It's often very informative to check non-American news sources, for example the BBC. While the BBC itself isn't 100% neutral either, you can sometimes find stories that were either completely ignored by American media, or maybe presented very differently.

    10. Re:All reporters are biased. by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      Blah, blah...... blah, blah, blah. The bottom line is I was quoting a scientific study that examined the issue of bias (how many positive stories did each channel air). You provided nothing but your OPINION that Fox news sucks. Science trumps opinion... every time.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    11. Re:All reporters are biased. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know if you know this, but the scientific process involves determining the applicability of the findings of a study and not just assuming that any data that you can find is applicable and meaningful. It is also a study that relies on subjective determinations by the researcher of positive versus negative as its core metric, which makes it more of a framework for putting a number on the researcher's opinion and less of a system of measurement. I doubt that it was even done double-blind such that the person/people making the determination couldn't have their opinion of the tone of a story swayed by their opinion of the source.

  21. Anybody surprised? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    There really is not much difference in ethics or morals of McNealy, Ellison, Gates, Balmer, etc.. They are all scum.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Anybody surprised? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      There really is not much difference in ethics or morals of McNealy, Ellison, Gates, Balmer, etc.. They are all scum.

      You left "Steve Jobs" out of that list. Oh wait, maybe I know why.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    2. Re:Anybody surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's dust?

    3. Re:Anybody surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would take a scum who has given away half of his few billions to help the world over some megalomaniac who stole other's work.

    4. Re:Anybody surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, if you think he should be included, maybe you should include a bit of justification in your post.

      Or you can just mouth off without presenting evidence. Oh wait, maybe I know why.

    5. Re:Anybody surprised? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      There really is not much difference in ethics or morals of McNealy, Ellison, Gates, Balmer, etc.. They are all scum.

      You left "Steve Jobs" out of that list. Oh wait, maybe I know why.

      Yeah, it could not possibly be because it is just plain wrong to speak ill of the dead?
      I take it that you were not brought up with manners.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  22. Re:PJ has her own biases by HarrySquatter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How do you now that when she doesn't disclose who she works for?

  23. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by poetmatt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There's nothing wrong with commenting and working in the industry.

    there's plenty wrong with 100% of your comments having a clear bias (as your does) and quoting misleading or incomplete information, while at the same time denying that you have any connection to them. This is like when the counter to "google doesn't lose in court" is mentioning a case where google only lost before an appeal happened in which case they consequently won. That is the same sort of misleading FUD that you among others are known for - aka lawyering around providing a false answer.

    Which, again, you have done here. Why can't you just get the cancer you act like (not unlike Florian) and pass away?

    Florian basically admitted he's on the payroll for microsoft and oracle, the two parties of which he magically has posted explicitly positive comments about and explicitly negative comments about their competitors. We've always known this.

  24. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by poetmatt · · Score: 1

    There's an enormous difference between NSA being a customer of oracle's and looking the other way in regards to oracle.

    The latter being what's been happening with Florian and is expected to happen with the NSA in such an example (as we know they're corrupt/abuse NSL's, etc).

  25. All Consultants Are Employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful
    All consultants are employees by definition of employee:

    An individual who provides labor to a company or another person.

    FFS, people, just because you're a "consultant" in title doesn't make you above the definition of words.

    1. Re:All Consultants Are Employees by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      All consultants are employees by definition of employee [wiktionary.org]

      The IRS would beg to differ, and a Wiktionary entry won't hold up too well in court against them.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    2. Re:All Consultants Are Employees by Eil · · Score: 1

      You're definitely not reading the right dictionary... Only in the most general possible sense does "employee" == "consultant". In the same way that the segway is a motorcycle because it has two wheels and a motor.

      In the U.S. at least, the term "employee" is legally (and casually) reserved for someone on an organization's payroll at the non-executive level. Being on a payroll means that the organization pays you regularly and deducts taxes from your paycheck. Consultants (or their employers) must manage their own taxes. One may be both a consultant and an employee, but not generally of the same company.

      Florian Mueller is not an employee of Oracle, he is a consultant. He is self-employed and is on the payroll of his own company.

    3. Re:All Consultants Are Employees by idontgno · · Score: 1

      You're right. "Employee" isn't the best literal world to describe this relationship, although de facto it is often appropriate. However, in this case, a "contractual consultant" role is more of a subcontractor.

      And we know that a subcontractor always has the freedom to oppose his contracting customer's position on matters in which he's being paid to consult.

      No, wait...what?

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    4. Re:All Consultants Are Employees by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      All consultants are employees by definition of employee [wiktionary.org]

      The IRS would beg to differ...

      "Tax purposes".

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    5. Re:All Consultants Are Employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What an absurdly general definition. My children are not my employees when they do the washing up for me, and my neighbour isn't my employee when he helps fix the road. The roadside assistance guy isn't my employee, even though I pay his company to put him at my disposal. It would be a stretch for me to consider my plumber as an employee, or the builders who rebuilt my garage. They're, well, contractors. It's different.

      Fundamental aspects of employment involve "payment" (as this definition observes), and any modern useful definition should include the employee's contracted agreement to operate generally for the benefit and under the direction (and code of discipline) of the employer. Without that, all you have is a contract, like my I had with my builders and my plumber.

      FFS, people, just because you can use an online dictionary doesn't make you smart.

    6. Re:All Consultants Are Employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More than that - modern employment is a legal contract with legal obligations and responsibilities on both parties. The tax office sees one aspect of that, but there are many others which all come to play in the various tribunals and courts that worry about for example, discrimination, negligence, etc.

    7. Re:All Consultants Are Employees by Xest · · Score: 1

      As the other guy pointed out, how things are defined for tax purposes in a specific nation do not in any way whatsoever alter the actual definition of the term in English language.

  26. vp8 by bigmo · · Score: 1

    FM has also been extremely vocal about vp8/webm. While I'm the format certainly has its problems, both technical and legal, I can't help but believe the slow advance of the project is at least partly because a supposed expert on open source spent a lot of his time ranting about it.

    I am far from unbiased on the situation since the I feel an unencumbered video codec would make the world a better place. Even knowing my bias, I can't help but be really upset at this revelation. On the other hand all's fair in love & war, so Oracle has a right to hire a shill to promote their agenda.

    Maybe the real culprit in this is the wider web's need to have an expert, even a self proclaimed one, tell people what to do so they don't have to do all the work to find the truth themselves.

    1. Re:vp8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the real culprit in this is the wider web's need to have an expert, even a self proclaimed one, tell people what to do so they don't have to do all the work to find the truth themselves.

      Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

    2. Re:vp8 by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      On the other hand all's fair in love & war

      Why do people believe shit just because it's and old saying? If everything is fair in love then why would you go to prison for murdering your object of affection's lover? If all's fair in war why are there such things as war crimes?

      BTW, there is such a thing as a free lunch and silence isn't golden, too. Don't take stuff for granted, give it some thought.

    3. Re:vp8 by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      I can't help but believe the slow advance of the project is at least partly because a supposed expert on open source spent a lot of his time ranting about it.

      What slow advance? For a major technology project like that, reaching a usable state was practically instantaneous. One thing you can be sure of: Forian Mueller had zero effect on it. Strengthened people's resolve, if anything.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    4. Re:vp8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is "don't be an idiot" modern enough for you?

  27. Re:PJ has her own biases by Zerth · · Score: 1

    It is a well known fact that reality has a lib^H^H^H^Hn anti-MS/Oracle bias.

  28. What a piece of crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe if people stop paying attention to him, he'll go away? LET'S FIND OUT!

    1. Re:What a piece of crap. by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      Maybe if people stop paying attention to him, he'll go away? LET'S FIND OUT!

      Sadly other news outlets, such as the BBC, will still probably quote him.

  29. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by voss · · Score: 1

    Its not irrelevant. An example of this. Someone who works for Publix may be pro Publix but noone at Publix has asked for him write his stuff and hes not being paid to do so.

  30. Lets use a counter example by voss · · Score: 1

    Rob Enderle, he may be a weenie but someone can be a weenie without being a shill. Enderle was never paid by SCO for his opinions he was given bogus information and based his flawed opinions on that infomation, and he admits that some of his opinions about open source were wrong. He actually likes BSD...who knew?

    http://www.tgdaily.com/software-opinion/34004-sco-linux-and-rob-enderle-a-conclusion

    1. Re:Lets use a counter example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was shown 'evidence' by a litigant in the case & chose to accept it at face value, when he's supposedly an "IT insider" of many years experience and should have been able to follow up on what he'd been shown to determine the veracity of SCO's claim of ownership in the code he was shown. Hell, I don't market myself as any kind of 'insider' but I'm old enough to have had my 'bullshit meter' go off immediately when SCO claimed ownership of Unix which was one bizarre claim, but even a bigger problem was claiming that Linux violated Unix copyrights...that doesn't mean I didn't consider they may have had a valid claim, but I wouldn't have taken anything they showed me at 'face value'...Enderle did...and THAT was his mistake.

      The article you link is him still 'not wanting to lose'. Now no one should be threatened for what they write, but at no time in that article does he ever demonstrate that he understands the major 'wrong' he did...it wasn't posting a story about 'being shown copied code', it was that he spent no time investigating the claim that the code in question was actually owned by SCO...in other words he didn't do his job! And he fails to this day to recognize his real mistake.

      Anyway, that's beyond the point you were making, you are correct in that someone can be a 'weenie' and still not be a 'shill'. The article you linked to still demonstrates that Enderle is a weenie.

    2. Re:Lets use a counter example by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Enderle was never paid by SCO for his opinions...

      You don't know that.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  31. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Chrisq · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I am constantly being accused of shilling for Microsoft on Slashdot just because I write that they do some good things. Seems like Mueller was accused for that too. Well, turns out that not true and these FOSS lunatics just make out some huge conspiracy theories how the whole world is against them. And by the way, who should comment on these issues then? Someone who doesn't work in the industry and doesn't know anything about it? Yeah right. But of course it's bad when the comments contain something you don't agree with. For the free speech and freedom, yeah right!

    Does that mean that you are being paid by Microsoft in the same way that Mueller is being paid by Oracle, but you also think it is OK?

  32. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

    Publix is the FOSS advocate group equivalent in France?

    --
    I drank what? -- Socrates
  33. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    You're right, Florian is a paragon of unbiased reporting. He exemplifies everything a truly neutral journalist should be.

    Yes ... he is totally neutral about who pays him to publish their opinion ... Oracle, Microsoft, or anyone else with deep pockets

  34. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by voss · · Score: 1

    Publix is a grocery store.

  35. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by hot+soldering+iron · · Score: 0, Troll

    So you're just here to engage in "mindless fanboyism"? I think they have a spot reserved for you over at 4chan.

    --
    When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
  36. Classic logical fallacy by davide+marney · · Score: 1

    The fact that he works for Oracle doesn't prove his arguments are wrong. Attacking the person, not the logic, is a well-known logical fallacy: argumentum ad hominem. All his employment provides us is some additional perspective on where he's coming from. We still need to listen to what he actually has to say.

    And, by the way, EVERYBODY who works "gets paid", that doesn't make us all "biased".

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
    1. Re:Classic logical fallacy by horza · · Score: 1

      *Your* logic is faulty. Florian paints himself out to be an independent expert on patents. It is his character he is pimping out to all the news outlets as credible. The fact is that whilst blogging posing as an independent expert, he reveals in his latest post that behinds the scenes he has been negotiating with Oracle for cash. Now take a look at that post to see if it is strongly in favour of Oracle in its current case against Google. Coincidence? No.

      I'm guessing outlets like the BBC must be feeling pretty stupid about now for having been duped.

      Phillip.

    2. Re:Classic logical fallacy by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      No but his pro Oracle and pro MS opinions are put in a different light. Also were reporters who solicited his opinions aware that he was paid by certain companies? If not, wasn't that a failure to disclose on his part?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:Classic logical fallacy by CowTipperGore · · Score: 1

      The fact that he works for Oracle doesn't prove his arguments are wrong. Attacking the person, not the logic, is a well-known logical fallacy: argumentum ad hominem. All his employment provides us is some additional perspective on where he's coming from. We still need to listen to what he actually has to say.

      I'll assume you haven't been paying attention to this for the past few years and didn't bother to catch up before posting to this article. Florian has long been accused of being a mole of sorts - a paid shill on the inside, claiming to be for OSS and presenting himself a patent expert while writing everything with a pro-Microsoft and anti-Google slant. His comments on the countless Apple v. World lawsuits have been consistently against Google and anyone using Android. Same for the Google/Oracle spat. He was able to get himself quoted as an expert for articles dealing with these topics enough times that he became the go-to guy for any tech rag or news service. This despite the fact that his analysis was shoddy on the surface and regularly proved very wrong in hindsight. However, as his influence spread from a crappy blog to being quoted by the AP in every tech patent story, his ability to hide the truth shrank. He recently had to disclose that he is paid by Microsoft (something long claimed by those who distrusted him) and now we see that he is also paid by Oracle.

      He had an under-the-radar career as a marketing consultant with some bigger players in the industry, then suddenly in 2005 blew up as an OSS advocate and opponent of software patents. He won countless industry awards that year for his work and used that to launch a new career as a tech patents blogger and media expert, despite no formal training or career experience in the areas. And despite his claims to support OSS and oppose software patents, his analysis consistently failed to match up to his persona. No matter the issue, he consistently sided against Google, Linux, and OSS in general. To anyone reading his blog for any length of time, it was obvious that something was amiss.

      No, this absolutely is not an ad hominem attack - it is some hard proof for the suppositions that have been made for years.

    4. Re:Classic logical fallacy by forkfail · · Score: 1

      That might be true if one were arguing, say, the existance of God.

      However, in the case where there is a dispute between two parties, when the person arguing has a vested interest in one side, that absolutely impacts the validity of the argument, and colors its interpretation.

      --
      Check your premises.
    5. Re:Classic logical fallacy by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      He recently had to disclose that he is paid by Microsoft (something long claimed by those who distrusted him) and now we see that he is also paid by Oracle.

      Larry Ellison and Steve Ballmer as bedfellows, what a thought.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    6. Re:Classic logical fallacy by davide+marney · · Score: 1

      " He won countless industry awards that year for his work and used that to launch a new career as a tech patents blogger and media expert, despite no formal training or career experience in the areas"
      [emphasis added]

      I feel the heat of your argument, and all of them are certainly relevant in judging whether or not one should care to listen to this guy. However, you are still engaging in an ad hominem argument. Whether or not he has "formal training or career experience" is really irrelevant, as he can lack those and still be right. In fact, as a winner of "countless industry awards", perhaps he actually does have something valid to say.

      --
      "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
    7. Re:Classic logical fallacy by davide+marney · · Score: 1

      The thing about logic is it's no respecter of the content of an argument, it is concerned with form only. It can be reliably used in any conversation, whether God is the topic or not. Like an algorithm in code, one's logic either works, or it doesn't.

      --
      "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
    8. Re:Classic logical fallacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great job there mistaking formal logic with informal logic and argumentation theory!

      Yes, formal logic doesn't consider content of argument, that's why "All cows are green; my left nipple is a cow; Therefore, my left nipple is green" and "Villains eat babies for breakfast; Florian Mueller eats babies for breakfast; therefore Florian Mueller is a villain" are valid inferences via modus ponens.

      Sadly, argumentation is not that simple and it does indeed respect the content of the argument.

      So, nope, but thanks for playing. Do come back for a discussion on reasoning and argumentation after you stop doing things like countering presumed ad hominems with appeals to authority. Hint (a): having "EU Campaigner of the Year" award lends no more insight and credibility to an argument about patent lawsuit than having a gold metal in swimming or Ph. D. in biology. Having Ph.D. in law - does. Hint (b): being employed by one side of the argument casts doubt on unbiased selection and presentation of evidence.

    9. Re:Classic logical fallacy by grcumb · · Score: 1

      The fact that he works for Oracle doesn't prove his arguments are wrong.

      No, it demonstrates that he might have been wrong to make the arguments in the first place.

      One of the first rules of journalism is that if you're going to be a commentator[*], you do not derive benefit from the people you write about. It's not wrong to take sides. It is very wrong indeed to take a side and then accept any kind of recompense from those you sided with for any reason, and in any way whatsoever. That goes all the way down to returning the fruit basket a company sends you following a positive product review, or even letting an interviewee buy you lunch[+].

      This is important in the same way that, in the courts, justice not only has to be done, it has to be seen to be done.

      ------------
      [*] A commentator, not a participant. If you want to advocate for a given side, and that side happens to employ you or pay you in some way, fine. Just say that at the outset, and have at it.

      [+] There are exceptions, such as being allowed to visit a military camp, in which you've got to rely on your hosts for transport, food and lodging because there's no alternative. But even then, you're expected to make it clear that your perspective might have been limited or influenced by these factors.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    10. Re:Classic logical fallacy by CowTipperGore · · Score: 1

      An ad hominem attack would be if I said we can disregard his arguments because he has no formal training, which I did not. You either don't understand this or you're trolling. In case it is the former, I'll give it one more try for you.

      Florian provides consistently shoddy analysis and is decidedly one-sided in his coverage of the issues. Despite no background or training in patent issues or legal proceedings, he managed to set himself up as an expert and quickly became the go-to guy for a handful of industry rags. His former career was as a marketing consultant for large software companies. Now we see that, as suggested by his work, he is indeed employed by the very companies that he claimed to oppose and for which he has written favorably.

  37. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Rakishi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It doesn't matter, if he says bad stuff about Oracle then likely Oracle won't keep paying him. It doesn't matter what they were paying him for. It could have been to walk the company dogs. You don't pay people who are hurting you unless you really need them.

    In that same vein, you're more likely to get paid even more if you report favorably on Oracle even if you're not paid to do so.

    All of this is basic human nature and companies are in the end run by humans.

    So the very fact that Oracle was giving him money means he now has a monetary incentive to report favorably for Oracle.

  38. He's outing himself as a contractor, isn't he? by MarkvW · · Score: 1

    There is some difference between a contractor and an employee. I don't think it makes any difference ethically, but it makes a bit of a difference in the quality of a slashdot story.

    1. Re:He's outing himself as a contractor, isn't he? by aiken_d · · Score: 1

      Also, the implication is that he *has been* an Oracle "employee", when in fact he *just became* a contractor. The story impugns his motives for stuff long before he became a contractor.

      It is a pretty good example of how to take a few literally true facts, add a few distortions ("employee" versus "contractor"), and imply a false history... and end up with character assassination that's more or less sort of true, but wildly misleading. Submitter should go into politics.

      --
      If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
  39. The disturbing thing is not this revelation by dell623 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The disturbing thing is not this revelation itself, which would not surprise anyone who regularly reads his blog. It is the most logical thing that a paid consultant/analyst is being paid by the two companies he just happens to favour enormously in his posts.
    The disturbing thing is how his comments are reproduced verbatim by the big shots of the tech-news industry like ZDNet, PC Magazine etc, but also mainstream sources which are normally known as the last bastions of real journalism like the BBC, LA Times, Reuters etc.

    Thankfully now sites like Ars Technica and The Verge have stepped up their coverage of patent disputes, so he is not the only voice.

    At first it may seem that Florian Mueller doesn't pretend to be a journalist or unbiased and it's everyone else's fault for assuming he is. However, not only does he make repeated claims of being unbiased and neutral in his writing, he routinely emails his blog articles to all news sources he can think of (which is why he is so widely quoted and Groklaw is not).

    Don't believe me? Just search for Florian+Oracle or Florian+Google on Google News and see the who's who of journalism pop up with his quotes.

    1. Re:The disturbing thing is not this revelation by mounthood · · Score: 1

      The disturbing thing is how his comments are reproduced verbatim by the big shots of the tech-news industry like ZDNet, PC Magazine etc, but also mainstream sources which are normally known as the last bastions of real journalism like the BBC, LA Times, Reuters etc.

      This is business-as-usual for manipulating the media ^H^H^H uhm... marketing, PR and advocacy. Money makes people available to the media, along with quotes, theories, photos, videos, statistics, etc... The media love this system because it's a ready-made source of material, easy to access, and the people are (or pretend to be) experts who are dispassionately explaining an issue.

      If you're really disturbed by Florian Muellers success, I've got some bad news for you about "Think Tanks" and lot's of other organizations.

      --
      tomorrow who's gonna fuss
    2. Re:The disturbing thing is not this revelation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "+" operator no longer works in Google, they got rid of it months ago.

    3. Re:The disturbing thing is not this revelation by Mana+Mana · · Score: 1

      > his comments are reproduced verbatim by the big shots
      > of the tech-news industry like ... [snipped BS tech
      > sites*] .. the BBC, LA Times, Reuters

      And the New York Times, too! I have seen him quoted as recently as the past twelve months in Deal Book, and the Business Section. *sigh*

      He was rendered as a patents' sage. Authoritative insight was the implication of the reporter. WAFU

  40. Re:PJ has her own biases by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    The biggest problem with Florian isn't that he's employed by someone, it's that his opinions are idiotic, and often demonstrably wrong. The fact that he's employed by Oracle is just icing on the cake, and should make you smile, because now you know why he's so dumb.

    And hopefully it will get the press to stop listening to him, because they're a gullible lot.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  41. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

    To be quite fair, no, its not the same. As an IT consultant, our company is paid by a number of firms. Over the years Ive done work for far right organizations, as well as for far-left groups. That doesnt mean my opinion on those matters is invalid necessarily; it would depend on the level of involvement with them.

    But a consultant isnt necessarily the same as an employee, thats just overly broad and inaccurate; theres a reason they are two distinct terms.

  42. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe, but I think you are missing some fundamental concepts like bias and conflict of interest. It doesn't mean it always applies, but it should always arouse suspicion. And if someone does not immediately disclose some of those potential conflicts of interest, that is an immediate and glaring red flag. i.e. "paid by" versus "employed by" is completely irrelevant.

  43. Re:PJ has her own biases by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    How do I know you didn't rape and murder a young girl in 1990? I see that you're not denying it.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  44. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by SJHillman · · Score: 2

    It's not a question as to whether the opinion is invalid, just that it may be tainted and that should be disclosed. You could hate the company you work for or be truly objective, but Average Joe will avoid biting the hand that feeds him. The disclosure is necessary for readers to decide whether or not you're unbiased.

  45. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Informative

    You're constantly being accused of shilling? You've only had an active account since yesterday. How many accusations can there be??

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  46. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just now when he'll admit to taking money from Apple as well...

    What a shill.

  47. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  48. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by davydagger · · Score: 1
    I knew some people in real life who's job it was to hype products online and socially engineer things "going viral" for anyone with enough cash to pay them.

    What I presume but cannot confirm, and no one speaks of, is attack campaigns run by similar groups, again, for anyone with enough money to pay them. We DO know that many of these corporations collect intelligence on critics.

    I've ran into other people who have huge botnets set up to fake a mass apeal in order to get other people to buy products out of need for conformity.

  49. Re:PJ has her own biases by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

    Show me where it has been "exposed". Also show me where she BS'd you.

    --
    C|N>K
  50. Re:PJ has her own biases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's been exposed in the past that she receives services from IBM

    You're gonna need to back that statement up, Sparky.

  51. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by inode_buddha · · Score: 3, Informative

    Uh, she works for a divorce attorney, and has stated this several times over the ast 10 years, groklaw was her own side project.

    --
    C|N>K
  52. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    I've just got to ask, are you mentally handicapped, because the article demonstrates that Mueller's pro-Oracle articles have an explanation. He's in their employ.

    As to you, well, it's clear you're just a moron.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  53. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    By giving Mueller a free pass and attacking PJ instead. PJ's done a helluva lot of good, and what the fuck has Mueller ever done other than be an apologist for companies that should taken out back and beaten for their conduct.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  54. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by MightyMartian · · Score: 0

    Ah look, another disgruntled SCO investor shooting the messenger.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  55. Screw Your United States IRS Legalese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By ENGLISH definition of the word, a consultant is a member of a set of all employees. It was never said that "employee" == "consultant" but it was said that "all consultants are employees." The piece that is missing is that the reverse is not true: "all employees are consultants." In the English definition of those words, a consultant is a special kind of employee. If you drew a Venn diagram, consultants would be a small circle inside the bigger circle of employees.

    This "I'm special, I'm a consultant, I'm self employed, I have my own small business, I'm good for the economy" bullshit needs to stop.

    1. Re:Screw Your United States IRS Legalese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And by normal definitions you're being an idiot.

  56. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    And generally where there is a conflict, a journalist should say so right from the outset. But we've seen this time and time again, mainly because guys like Mueller are not actually journalists at all. They're shills.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  57. Re:PJ has her own biases by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

    By noticing that she has backed up her statements with proof 100% of the time, even if it took years to find out. And I don't mean "some website" proof, I mean legal filings proof.

    --
    C|N>K
  58. Re:PJ has her own biases by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And PJ has never hid her bias towards open source. That's why Groklaw was founded, for goodness sake. Sadly, she is also the favorite whipping boy (girl, sorry PJ) of every shill and astroturfer, particularly when they're outed. She's been honest from the beginning, but these guys, well, they're paid liars.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  59. Re:PJ has her own biases by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Bullshit, you liar. Time and time again this accusation has been made, but not once has anyone ever proven it.

    Go back to using your SCO stock to wipe your ass, mouth, and anywhere else the excrement leaks out.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  60. Re:LOL by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    And when you can prove that PJ is an IBM employee...

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  61. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bias and having an undisclosed conflict of interest are not remotely the same thing. All journalists have bias; hell all people have bias on all subjects, it's simply unavoidable. Good journalists try to minimize the effect of their personal bias on their reporting, and I think most people would freely admit that PJ is often lacking in this area. Although you could also make the case that most Groklaw articles are mix of commentary and reporting, and that it's not that hard to distinguish one from the other. However, having a blatant conflict of interest and not disclosing it is a massive breach of journalistic ethics that frankly completely destroys all credibility of the journalist. Conflicts of interest happen, and they don't necessarily preclude one from reporting and commenting on a given issue, but failure to disclose sends the message that the conflict did in fact taint his view, and he was deliberately trying to hide it. It is literally one of the worst things a journalist can do.

  62. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Whoops! I think he logged in with the wrong sockpuppet account. He really should get a better persona management app.

  63. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by mister_playboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He's just openly admitting what many have claimed all along, that these shill accounts are all run by the same small group of people.

    --
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
  64. Re:PJ has her own biases by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure Florian is the only LWN user I've ever marked as "hidden by default", simply because any branch of a thread that starts with one of his comments almost invariably turns into a trainwreck. It becomes a game of Immovable Object vs. the Irresistible Force.

  65. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As always, Slashdot considers earning money to be the equivalent of being evil.

    The fact that Mueller is earning money is not the issue.

    The fact that Mueller is taking money from Oracle is also not the issue. It's also not the sole reason he's being accused of bias. It's just the latest nail in the coffin.

    The issue is that Mueller has been called on his "impartial analysis" several times already. Not by random people off the street, by his fellow techies. What started as suspicions was later proven right as the facts unfolded. And might just be shown once more as Oracle v Google progresses.

    He's being called biased because he is, demonstrably. His front as an "impartial analyst" among techies is shot. I hope Oracle is getting their moneys worth peddling him to the non-techie crowd, because from this point on that's the best he's good for.

  66. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    Ah look, another disgruntled SCO investor shooting the messenger.

    I hope you realize you're basically proving his point.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  67. Re:PJ has her own biases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's from the smear campaign that SCO used against PJ way back when, at the start of their 15 minutes of glory. AFAIK it's never been proven... but that doesn't stop some people from trying.

  68. Prior acheivements by pavon · · Score: 1

    Back in 2004 Florian Muller was very active in protesting against the proposed EU directive to require all member states to recognize software patents. There are some people that gained a positive impression of him based on that, and continue to quote him despite the fact that his recent "patent analysis" is heavily biased and legally unfounded more often than not. As an example, Ryan Paul, the writer and editor of the Open Source section of Arstechnica, continues to cite of Muller, and refuses to accept arguments that he is now a shrill.

    1. Re:Prior acheivements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your assumption is that arsetechnica is above any bias or something. They are just as heavily biased in favor of apple, so it works for them to quote this asshole to show android in bad light.

      I am surprised arsetechnica has some good following among slashdot crowd, seriously. probably because arse sconfirm to their own bias.

  69. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, it's like shadowrun, only without the cool future-tech or fantasy elements, just the corporate bastards taking over the world and the "free lances" raking in the dough by doing their bidding, while smugly considering themselves superior because they're on a contract instead of payroll.

    Why does only the dystopian sci-fi come true?

  70. Re:PJ has her own biases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, let's not be so quick to judge. There's probably a good reason that HarrySquatter may have raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. The real question is why HarrySquatter's not saying why HarrySquatter may have raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. If HarrySquatter raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, he probably had his reasons. I just want to know what the reasons could be for HarrySquatter to have raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.
     
    (To anyone who doesn't get it: We're just making the point that insinuating something nefarious over and over, as has been done to PJ in this thread, doesn't actually make it in any way factual or worthwhile.)

  71. Re:PJ has her own biases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Silly, it's Glen Beck who hasn't denied that. This guy could have raped and murdered a young girl in 1989 or 1991 (and you notice these allegations are out there, but he still hasn't denied it, but as long as Glen Beck isn't denying having done it in 1990, I don't see how HarrySquatter could have. Unless they tag-teamed it or something...

  72. Money makes the world go round by etresoft · · Score: 1

    We shouldn't read Florian Mueller because he takes money from Oracle. OK. Does that mean that we shouldn't listen to the FSF and Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society because they take money from Google?

    1. Re:Money makes the world go round by forkfail · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, while the same grease that makes it go 'round also makes it a filthy place at times.

      --
      Check your premises.
    2. Re:Money makes the world go round by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We shouldn't trust Florian Mueller because he takes money from Oracle, while previously claiming to be impartial analyst

      Here, FTFY.

      "Shouldn't read"? Why? His posts are still useful - he provides links to actual patents and court documents, gives some useful explanations and so on.

      What we shouldn't do is take his analysis of situation as attempt at unbiased assessment - while bias is basically built into human nature and he could be excused before as unconsciously favouring one side or other, now we have a solid reason to believe that giving preference to anti-Google and anti-FOSS sentiments is motivated by conflict of interest.

      IOW, read dry factual parts, but don't take his conclusions at face value.

    3. Re:Money makes the world go round by grcumb · · Score: 1

      We shouldn't read Florian Mueller because he takes money from Oracle. OK. Does that mean that we shouldn't listen to the FSF...?

      The FSF? No it doesn't mean that at all. First of all, the FSF do not portray themselves as objective, neutral observers. They are advocates for a very specific viewpoint, and they unapologetically follow that viewpoint wherever it takes them. A quick Google (heh) search of the FSF's site for references to Google shows that they are not only willing to criticise the search company and advocate for alternatives to their software, they're also willing to go to court to oppose them.

      So no, your example doesn't seem to have anything at all in common with Florian Mueller's.

      (It's parenthetically notable that Google doesn't attempt to hide search results that are critical of them, either. So I think the only way you could realistically make the insinuation that the FSF and Google are in bed together is to put them in a ménage à trois with The Truth.)

      (I'll leave the Berkman Centre as an exercise for the reader....)

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
  73. Astroturfing and posting under false premises? by forkfail · · Score: 1

    What do you mean, the big boys shell out a lot of bucks for astroturfing and posting under false premises? Tell me it ain't so!

    --
    Check your premises.
  74. Re:PJ has her own biases by idontgno · · Score: 1

    You don't know HarrySquatter isn't actually Glen Beck. You've never seen them together at the same time, right?

    I contend, and I note that Glen Beck has never denied, that HarrySquatter is actually Glen Beck's slightly more psychopathic alter ego. Perhaps one of those cases of Multiple Personality Disorder. I leave it as an exercise to the reader whether Glen Beck is the shadow personality or the primary.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  75. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by cHiphead · · Score: 1

    I shop at Winn Dixie.

    --

    This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  76. Re:PJ has her own biases by idontgno · · Score: 1

    The fact that Mueller has arguably wrong opinions is not a problem. Anyone who matters can dismiss those out of hand.

    The problem is that (A) he has some credibility among those who don't know enough to dismiss his POV out of hand, and (B) he ceased to have personal opinions and instead has his corporate masters' opinions, without disclosing his financially-motivated interests.

    Bias isn't a problem; bias is inevitable, and can be adjusted for. Undisclosed financial relationships and a hidden mercenary motivation is a problem, and a serious lapse of professional ethics in someone purporting to fulfill a journalistic and editorial role in the electronic Fourth Estate.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  77. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    Agreed. They were off on the details (works for Oracle, not MS), but they were right that something smelled rotten.

    The possibility is not ruled out that he has also received money from Microsoft. Microsoft can be devious about how it channels money to its proxies.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  78. Re:PJ has her own biases by CowTipperGore · · Score: 1

    As an independent analyst, he is terrible. His explanations of legal proceedings are crap and his predictions are often very wrong. Yet, he'll keep beating the same drum and presenting fantasy as fact. Why? Having to reveal that he is paid by both Microsoft and Oracle explains it. His "opinions" are carefully crafted propaganda. He is a paid shill and likely has no personal attachment to the idiotic opinions he shares. Don't forget, his former career was a marketing consultant for large software companies; he may have changed his title but the work is the same.

  79. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Tough+Love · · Score: 3, Informative

    Because he typically does not disclose his alignment when he provides interviews to the press.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  80. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

    Uh, she works for a divorce attorney, and has stated this several times over the ast 10 years, groklaw was her own side project.

    A side project that has made a large mark in legal history, introducing the concept of "open source" law and demonstrating its effectiveness.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  81. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    Ah look, another disgruntled SCO investor shooting the messenger.

    Shooting at the messenger. Those SCO guys don't seem to have very good aim.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  82. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

    It's not a question as to whether the opinion is invalid, just that it may be tainted and that should be disclosed.

    In Florian's case, it is not a question of "may be tainted", but rather "is blatantly biased". And then there are the personal attacks on PJ, which are in a word, reprehensible. And of course, very much in line with the standard tactics of ethically challenged organizations like Microsoft and Oracle.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  83. Surprise by Spykk · · Score: 1

    Confirmation makes the comments in this thread from January of last year a lot more entertaining.

  84. PJ has a pro apple one, though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What Apple did to Pystar was the same as what SCO did to IBM. But for Pystar, it was "Well, you just have to fight it in court". For SCO, it was "a scumbag move".

    1. Re:PJ has a pro apple one, though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly you have no ideal what you are talking about . . . Pystar was trying to sidestep the Apple licensing requirements. PJ said they were wrong and explained why they should lose their argument in court and why it was important for FOSS that they not be allowed to sidestep Apple's licensing terms.

      So you think what SCO was trying to do wasn't "a scumbag move?" Considering they were trying to extort money from everyone from big businesses to individual I think they earned the scumbag title.

  85. Re:PJ has her own biases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And IBM responded to that a LONG time ago... stating I call BULL SHIT !!

    http://www.informationweek.com/news/198500094

  86. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    I got to the truth and facts rather easily by reading beyond the headline and Slashdot's summary. I have a hard time taking you seriously if you suggest that "Oracle has hired him [Florian Mueller], for his analysis of FRAND issues" is only supposed to be a concern for what you label 'FOSS lunatics' when Mueller positions himself as some sort of patent expert supposedly giving objective analysis of the Oracle vs Google case, and isn't willing to be up-front about one of the parties *actually having hired him*. Also, I believe 'being hired by Oracle' means he does work for Oracle in return for pay. How does that make him being employed by Oracle an outright lie?

    Indeed. It is common to say "hire a consultant" or "employ a consultant".

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  87. Re:PJ has her own biases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since you'll be too lazy to go read it... here it is...

    "IBM has no connection to the editorial content posted on Groklaw. Groklaw's website, and hundreds of others, are hosted on a website at the University of North Carolina (UNC), called ibliblio. This site is described by UNC as a public library. ibiblio runs on IBM System x servers which were funded through an IBM Shared University Award Grant awarded to UNC -- a grant that predates Groklaw ever being hosted on ibiblio. Anyone can host a site there and IBM does not sponsor, nor endorse, the content of those sites.
    IBM is proud to sponsor many universities around the world in various ways, including helping them host websites like the one at UNC."

  88. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey Philip Glass, go find a new note. SCO is dead and buried and has no more stockholders. You're like the fossilized congressmen who still engage in red-baiting. Open your atrophied little minds to the shocking and disgusting possibility that someone might actually have an honest disagreement with you.

    Jesus F Christ, every time there's a Groklaw story on slashdot, her brigade of screeching sychophants comes in with their insinuations and character attacks. And you wonder why there's such a personal animus in return against PJ?

  89. Re:PJ has her own biases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "IBM has no connection to the editorial content posted on Groklaw. Groklaw's website, and hundreds of others, are hosted on a website at the University of North Carolina (UNC), called ibliblio. This site is described by UNC as a public library. ibiblio runs on IBM System x servers which were funded through an IBM Shared University Award Grant awarded to UNC -- a grant that predates Groklaw ever being hosted on ibiblio. Anyone can host a site there and IBM does not sponsor, nor endorse, the content of those sites.
    IBM is proud to sponsor many universities around the world in various ways, including helping them host websites like the one at UNC."

  90. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    You can bank on it: anyone who uses rhetoric like "foss lunatic" has an paid agenda And tactic one from the Standard Shill Manual is "deny you are a shill".

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  91. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey if you are going to spread FUD get the FUD right! PJ is really a TEAM of IBM lawyers, not just your average IBM employee! ROFL! Hey PJ we still want a picture of you in that red dress :-)

  92. Re:PJ has her own biases by mounthood · · Score: 1

    Everyone has biases, as long as we know what they are and why they are we're able to make informed decisions ...

    Sorry but 'knowing' biases doesn't work like that. Biases aren't binary on-or-off, they're not well defined or all consuming. People are blind or misunderstand their own biases and and poorly communicate them even when trying to open and honest. Moreover, people are able to compensate for different biases in different situations better or worse.

    Florian Mueller doesn't think his biases influenced his 'reporting' (em. mine):

    My long-standing views on this matter are well-documented. As an independent analyst and blogger, I will express only my own opinions, which cannot be attributed to any one of my diversity of clients. I often say things none of them would agree with.

    --
    tomorrow who's gonna fuss
  93. Re:PJ has her own biases by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    Groklaw's coverage of the case has been massively one-sided as well....

    Oh yes indeed, Groklaw is very biased. Groklaw is in favor of freedom and decency, and against evil.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  94. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Even Mueller's sockpuppets can't get the basic facts right.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  95. Re:PJ has her own biases by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    This is way beyond the pot calling the kettle black here, this is the pot complaining that the kettle boils water.

    Hi Florian.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  96. Until there was proof by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    PJ's hunch about Mueller carried as much weight as SCO's hunch about PJ. Now that there's proof, it sounds a little less like smearing.

  97. Re:PJ has her own biases by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

    All you're doing is proving it's true.

    The statement does nothing to change the fact that it's conflict of interest.

  98. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First post? Reasonably well typed out? Someone who hates Google and Open Source? Smells like a bonch.

  99. Re:PJ has her own biases by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

    Please. I've been on slashdot since long before he has.

    For the record, I have no conflict of interest here. My problem with PJ is that she holds those she disagrees with to a different standard than she holds herself or those she agrees with.

    She frequently accuses those she disagrees with of the very same things her side of things does.

    This is a prime example. If she wants to accuse others of conflicts of interest, she should start with herself and disclose any she has. She should also look closely at the folks she defends, who clearly have their own conflicts.

    There's nothing wrong with having a conflict of interest, there is something wrong with accusing others of it while having your own that you refuse to acknowledge.

  100. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

    Me too. Because there isn't a Publix in my town.

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  101. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can't say as I have had that problem specifically, but... its definitely an odd issue. Some of us are damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

    I tend to not say (or at least dance around saying) exactly who I work for because, well, I tend to say things that they might find offensive and I figure the least I can do is try to keep my online persona from reflecting on them.

    That said... if you read many of my comments, you might be surprized at who I work for... I certainly don't shill.... but there is a fine line to walk between disclosure of interests and inviting problems.

    If I say "Well i work for X" then... I have to be extra careful because I am not authorized to speak for them in public. In fact, I believe I would then be required to add disclaimers and then...it all just adds to the visibility and draws more attention on me... meaning...I can't comment as freely as I would like.

    Sometimes its a hard balance to strike between speaking your mind, and inviting trouble, especially since I tend to complain rather than shill, and I do feel its a bit of a violation (not just to the explicit agreements but, even without them) to wantonly air dirty laundry even when I am a less than satisfied employee.

    So I prefer to err on the side of speaking in general terms and leaving the who, what, and where specifics out. Though, thats easier when the specific topic is things like "boneheaded management" than when its about the actions of specific companies. In cases like this... I can see why it gets a lot murkier and credibility requires disclosure.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  102. Re:PJ has her own biases by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    There's nothing wrong with having a conflict of interest, there is something wrong with accusing others of it while having your own that you refuse to acknowledge.

    What's yours?

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  103. But I avoid conflict of interest.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But Florian says he is squeaky clean. In his "about me" section on the blog he has the following statement....
    "(In order to avoid conflicts of interest, Florian does not hold or initiate transactions in any technology stocks or derivatives thereof.)" So, owning stocks in companies he covers (either directly or through something like a mutual fund) might lead to a "conflict of interest" but being paid directly by them doesn't - Interesting....

  104. Re:PJ has her own biases by WillDraven · · Score: 1

    That makes about as much sense as saying you have an undisclosed conflict of interest with the local rock quarry owner, because they donated their unwanted rubble to be used to pave the parking lot of the park you like to sit in while you write blog posts on your laptop.

    Seriously, take the tin foil hat off and let your brain get some air. I think it's smothering.

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  105. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just now

    Me too!

  106. Re:PJ has her own biases by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

    You'd know if you read the thread, moron. Stop pretending you're smarter than anyone else.

  107. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

    So then the only logical thing to do would be to have some FOSS organization pay him an equal amount to balance it out...

  108. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

    He probably meant to log in as "Dr. Bob,DC"

  109. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Penguinisto · · Score: 2

    True indeed... but sometimes, the biggest things come from the least likely people.

    After all, look at what some random student in Finland managed to do with a bit of code back in 1991...

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  110. Re:PJ has her own biases by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    You'd know if you read the thread, moron. Stop pretending you're smarter than anyone else.

    I know two things: 1) you are rude and 2) you did not disclose your agenda.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  111. Re:PJ has her own biases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're an unfailing logician and a master debater.

    "She doesn't disclose any involvement, that means she hides it!'
    "It doesn't matter that it's not IBM providing her with servers, but UNC providing her with hosting on their IBM donated servers, it's still a conflict of interest!"

    So, will IBM take away servers from UNC if she posts something that displeases them, or do you mean she's a shill for UNC, or what?

  112. Re:PJ has her own biases by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 0

    So, you're taking an imaginary situation and trying to compare it to a real one. Show me an actual park where a rock quary donated rubble to the pavement of a park that someone writes blog posts praising rock quaries and condemning something that is against rock quaries.

    Yeah, right. We're talking about the fact that PJ public supports IBM in her blog posts, and it just so happens that IBM also donates the servers her site runs under.

    If she had a shred of decency, she would have moved her site to a server that was not associated with IBM. But she didn't.

  113. Re:PJ has her own biases by oldhack · · Score: 1

    Yeah, and we all wanna know if she's hot or not. Or is she on those "internet girls" (50-year old fat slob or FBI on pedo hunting)?

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  114. Re:PJ has her own biases by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

    No. If she stated that she had no conflicts of interest in any of the things she reports on, that would be one thing. She doesn't do that. She doesn't disclose whether or NOT she has conflicts. That means she's hiding it one way or the other. So yes, she's hiding it. We just don't know whether she's hiding that she has no conflict or whether she does have conflicts.

    Could IBM put pressure on UNC to dump Groklaw if she posts something they disapprove of? Yes, that could certainly happen. But, more importantly, she's *APPRECIATIVE* of the fact IBM has donated her hardware.

  115. Re:PJ has her own biases by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

    You're rude as well, you just think you're smart by using inuendo. "What's yours?" is a subtle way of trying to claim i have conflicts of interest, yet i specifically stated in this thread what my conflict of intersts are. Yet, you lie here and say I have not.

    I'm not rude, i'm just saying things as they are and not being passive aggressive.

  116. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by IRWolfie- · · Score: 1

    He already admitted to being paid by Microsoft.

  117. Re:PJ has her own biases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What part is a conflict of interest? What gain or loss will happen to PJ if she writes in favor or against IBM?

    That would be NOTHING. Therefore there is not conflict of interest.

  118. Re:PJ has her own biases by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    You come across as conflicted, my friend. And I will leave it as completely apparent which one of us is rude.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  119. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He must be the dude behind bonch, shark laser and other shill accounts. Sometimes he appears to create new sock puppet accounts on a daily basis.

  120. Re:PJ has her own biases by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 0

    Conflict of interest does not mean someone gains or loses from something they do. It means, they are INFLUENCED by the conflict.

    For instance, a judge that may have earned a tidy profit from a brokerage company is ruling on whether that brokerage company broke the law. Either way the judge rules will not affect their current financial situation (the gains happened in the past). But, because they have previously gained, they are unduly influenced in favor of the brokerage and would have a conflict of interest.

    PJ benefited from IBM's benevolence, and continues to do so. That's a conflict of interest.

  121. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

    Really, there is a difference between the two terms.

  122. Re:PJ has her own biases by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

    No, I come across as having a strong opinion. That opinion is based on hating hypocrites.

  123. Re:PJ has her own biases by folderol · · Score: 1
    IBM provides a small amount of funding to ibiblio. ibiblio has many other sources of funding. It is also host to a mind-bogglingly huge array of free archive material as well as projects and blogs. Groklaw is a tiny, almost invisible part of that. On several occasions PJ has described this situation in detail, and pointed out that it is likely that there is no alternative hosting that wouldn't have supposedly controversial funding.

    Unlike FM, Groklaw has always made it clear when they are giving an opinion, and where they are stating facts they give copious references to support these facts - usually direct court transcripts.

    Yes, there is a bias there. It is towards truth and freedom. I rather like that.

  124. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I guess I was wrong then. I always defended Florian against accusations of being a shill, thinking that he was just an idiot and that no company would knowingly pay someone as stupid as him. It seems Microsoft and Oracle have lower standards than I though...

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  125. FYI IBM Lawyer==Nazgul by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Common shorthand. Also descriptive.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  126. Re:PJ has her own biases by WillDraven · · Score: 2

    So, you're taking an imaginary situation and trying to compare it to a real one.

    Shock and horror! Somebody used an analogy to explain something on Slashdot!

    Show me an actual park where a rock quary donated rubble to the pavement of a park that someone writes blog posts praising rock quaries and condemning something that is against rock quaries.

    Yeah, right.

    Exactly "Yeah, right" It is an absurd situation and was meant as such. The point being, most people using a FREE SERVICE neither know, NOR CARE where the components that went into it came from. There are thousands of web sites and multimedia services hosted on ibiblio. Are we to assume that they are all sucking IBM's giant corporate cock?

    We're talking about the fact that PJ public supports IBM in her blog posts, and it just so happens that IBM also donates the servers her site runs under.

    IBM has not donated servers to GROKLAW. IBM donated servers to THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, who allows the public to use it's IT infrastructure for non-profit use. The servers donated by IBM are only part of that. She has the same amount of conflict of interest with IBM as she does with UNC's ISP, electric company, IT employees, and anybody who ever donated to the project, the university, or paid taxes in North Carolina. You could argue she has a conflict of interest with UNC, but she has disclosed this with a "hosted by ibiblio" on her page, and, after all this "oh IBM paid her off with teh serverz!" nonsense started up, she decided to put below it who donated the specific server that her site was hosted on, and guess what, IT WAS DONATED BY AMD. My bet is she had not have even known who donated the server she was using until she was accused of being influenced by it.

    If she had a shred of decency, she would have moved her site to a server that was not associated with IBM. But she didn't.

    Oh, the irony...

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  127. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

    Just google "SCO's not dead yet" and you'll see why, in spite of the fact that SCO is not a functioning company anymore, that doesn't stop its lawyers (with leftover Microsoft money) from still popping up and clogging the court system.

    I figure the only way to truly end SCO is to bury it at a crossroads.

    As for Florian, what was considered "FOSS trolling" turned out to be true. Yet, when the "screeching sycophants" are right, it's still about PJ. Go figure.

    Full disclosure: I am anti software patent, anti corporation, and anti government. Am I still a shill?

    --
    It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
  128. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by formfeed · · Score: 1

    Publix is the FOSS advocate group equivalent in France?

    Publix is a grocery store.

    They have grocery stores in France?

  129. Re:PJ has her own biases by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

    I think you're missing the point of conflict of interest. A conflict of interest is something that will keep you from being impartial, like a judge getting money from the RIAA ruling on the DeCSS case. Since PJ just puts up an editorial blog and shows the SCO case against Linux is bullshit, she is not influencing anything or tainting the impartiality of a proceeding by doing so. She is not involved in the case with Oracle v. Google. She was not involved in the SCO case either. The fact that the courts agreed SCO was full of shit had nothing to do with groklaw or PJ.

    Now, if by some reasoning we can say "well PJ has bias because she gets her hosting from IBM"... okay, then that's fine and dandy, but unlike Florian who would argue the sky was orange if someone from FOSS said it was blue, PJ keeps her bias up front. Knowing this, her facts are correct. They are facts colored with the language of someone who hates SCO/Oracle, but they are facts nonetheless.

    So in short, a conflict of interest would need to be disclosed if there was something to gain or lose by that interest from either party involved in the proceeding. Since PJ was just an observer, there was no conflict of interest. SCO didn't lose the case because of groklaw... it lost the case because it was full of shit and trolling. It got caught doing so and was spanked out of existence, in SPITE of cash from Microsoft...

    Bias != conflict of interest. and Florian has only a bias because even though he's paid by Oracle and Microsoft, his comments on groklaw do not influence proceedings.

    --
    It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
  130. Re:PJ has her own biases by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

    You haven't been reading and studying GL since day one.
    I have.
    Your strongly held opinion is incorrect. Deal with it.

    --
    C|N>K
  131. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is not an explanation. That is a theory...a conspiracy theory.

    You have not provided that he purposefully has lied about his opinions because Oracle told him to or that he felt obligated to.

    "But cmon.. it must be.. he gets paid" - is a pathetic reason, a rather child like response, devoid of facts, reason, or actual evidence for a very serious accusation. Its rather hilarious that YOU called him a moron.

  132. Re:PJ has her own biases by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

    Wave your hands all you want, it doesn't change the facts. Any conflict of interest, no matter how "tiny" you claim it is, is still a conflict of interest. But IBM's involvement isn't really even that important to the point. The fact that they are involved is just evidence that such conflicts of interest exist, and the fact that PJ refuses to disclose whether or not there are any (and we know there's at least one) is the problem.

    The fact she refuses to say one way or the other, then rails against others for conflicts of interest is called being a hypocrite.

  133. Re:PJ has her own biases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Therefore we are in perfect agreement that Florian Mueller is in direct conflict of interest in reporting about Oracle as he is receiving money from Oracle. We are also in perfect agreement that PJ is not in conflict of interest because she is not.

    Glad we got that sorted out.

  134. Re:PJ has her own biases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blasting others for bias while hiding behind a internet pseudonym and not disclosing her own real identity. What a
    bloody hypocrite.

    Oh.. but all the baddies will go after poor PJ. awwww.. they might even try to find out who pays her. that would suck ! right?

    Atleast Mueller has the balls to write under his real name and here again.. he himself has disclosed the conflict of interest.

  135. Re:PJ has her own biases by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

    I couldn't care less about whether Florian Mueller is fornicating with goats, much less having a bias or conflict of interest.

    I just don't care.

    But, I do hate when people who obviously have their own biases accuse others of things they themselves are perpetrating.

  136. Re:PJ has her own biases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reading failure. He doesn't claim it's "tiny", he claims it doesn't exist, and he's right.

    You're not "hating hypocrisy", you're hating PJ and Groklaw. You're making demands on PJ's integrity tighter and tighter - you've already backtracked from "it's known she receives services from IBM" to "it doesn't matter how tiny IBM's involvement is, because she didn't say directly she's not involved with them" (except she did, and the server that hosts Groklaw is provided by AMD. She's anti-Intel shill!)

    Oh, and does PJ claim she doesn't have biases? Florian Mueller kinda does. Even his "About me" states: "(In order to avoid conflicts of interest, Florian does not hold or initiate transactions in any technology stocks or derivatives thereof.)" - seems like getting employed doesn't count as conflict of interest for him.

    But do go on, your consistent logic flaws only make your opponents look brighter. Great job at being a foil there!

  137. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by miltonw · · Score: 1

    A true professional should be able to ...

    Well, that certainly leaves out Florian Mueller then.

  138. Re:PJ has her own biases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maximum ownage has been applied directly to your forehead via my sibling poster, MoFo. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

  139. Re:PJ has her own biases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It says right on Groklaw that she doesn't take money from any of the parties Groklaw writes about.

  140. Re:PJ has her own biases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have already been pwned by http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2797695&cid=39736453, please shut up and go away or respond to the linked comment.

  141. Re:PJ has her own biases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But it doesn't say she doesn't receive free meals, hardware, cars, villas, yachts or sexual favours from them. Why didn't she deny it directly? What does she hide? What does she hide?

  142. Re:PJ has her own biases by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

    No, it doesn't. It says "Groklaw is not affiliated with IBM, Red Hat, Novell, Google, or any other party to the litigation it covers." which is vaguely worded, because they don't define what "affiliated" is. The most common usage would mean "officially associated", that doesn't mean they don't receive products, services, information, or anything else of value from those companies.

    That's all that groklaw says on the matter.

  143. Re:PJ has her own biases by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

    Yes, your situation was absurd, and you admit it was meant as such. The difference is that your situation was fictional and absurd, while this situation is real and is in fact the case. Your argument that it was an "analogy" is pointless because you're trying to compare a real thing to a fictional absurd thing.

    She is not commenting on UNC's ISP, electric company, or IT employees. Why do you not see why that's the issue?

  144. Re:PJ has her own biases by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

    Stop misrepresenting what I said. I did not "backtrack", and I did not say "It doesn't matter how tiny IBM's involvement is." I said "It doesn't matter how tiny you claim IBM's involvement is"

  145. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

    Well, if its any comfort... you need to remember that some organizations are about winning at all costs. Regardless of integrity. Since integrity doesn't have a dollar sign attached to in in the immediate future, it is meaningless to them. Hence the ability to be two-faced without so much as blinking.

    --
    C|N>K
  146. Re:PJ has her own biases by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

    Pamela Jones isn't her real name? Prove it.
    She doesn't work for a divorce attorney? Prove it.
    They already *have* gone after her (private investigators... turned up nothing) back during the SCO case.

    STFU troll.

    --
    C|N>K
  147. Re:PJ has her own biases by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

    In the interest of full disclosure and not being a hypocrite, why not tell up all about yourself then? Show and lead by example, and all that...

    BTW, I do this for free, and I don't even work in the IT industry. Never have. I've been blue-collar my whole life.

    --
    C|N>K
  148. Re:PJ has her own biases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're so predictable, it's almost cute.

    "Groklaw got their servers from IBM" -- "No, they didn't, UNC did" -- "IBM's still involved in hosting Groklaw" -- "No, in fact they aren't, there are many donors to UNC, Groklaw's server is donated by AMD and Groklaw is only one of many sites hosted by ibiblio" -- "That doesn't matter, what matters is that she doesn't directly confirm or deny that" -- "In fact, she does" -- "It's not direct enough!"

    Dude, just spit it out already, "I hate PJ's tiny little guts and you won't persuade me otherwise", so we can agree and go home. You're shifting goalposts like crazy, it's not even funny anymore, just sad.

    Oh, and by the way, courtesy merriam-webster.com:

    affiliated adj closely associated with another typically in a dependent or subordinate position

    "Official" is there only in your mind. Of course, they may not be _closely_ associated, but, hey, they might be in a _distant_ relationship! Now to uncover the truth about all the shell companies feeding into Groklaw on behalf of IBM...

  149. Re:PJ has her own biases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know because I am pj. I am retired
    from the legal world now. But I
    never worked for IBM. That was a
    SCO lie, one spread by people like
    Florian, IIRC.

    Why are *you* spreading it, by the way?
    : )

    And in my article about this revelation,
    I clearly state that I've never gotten a
    dime from Oracle or Google. So that
    makes a clear distinction.

    At least my views are not paid for. Any
    biases you think you see are my own.
    I earned them honestly, by thinking and
    learning and working in the field.

    By the way, did my so-called "biases"
    about SCO prove right or wrong? If
    right, then were they "biases" or just
    expertise?

  150. Re:PJ has her own biases by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

    Nice FUD attempt there. You are trying to mislead people by omitting the fact that IBM doesn't really have anything to do with it. Groklaw is on servers run by someone else, not IBM. That they happen to be IBM computers is irrelevant because Groklaw is not involved in what kind of hardware the site is running on since it's being hosted by someone else (again, not IBM).

    --
    Clever signature text goes here.
  151. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PJ's done a helluva lot of good

    Apparently that's because she bans anyone from her site who might do a similar amount of good, then bans all discussion of this and of the fact that she banned them so no-one knows that they exist.

  152. Re:PJ has her own biases by makomk · · Score: 1

    That's not exactly PJ's bias. She sided with IBM when they used some of their arsenal of incredibly broad patents to sue a company providing commercial support for open-source software that competed with them, because being anti-Microsoft and pro-IBM comes before being pro-open source.

  153. Re:PJ has her own biases by celle · · Score: 1

    "Fourth Estate"

        You mean we actually still have one in this corporatation-owned-media country.

  154. Dump Java, dump JVM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The JVM is designed to abstract the hardware and it was neither the first nor the best VM.

    It is trivial to replace it.

    Google can even translate JVM 'binaries' automatically - developers won't even have to recompile.

    While we're at it, Java is a terribly wasteful language with endless boilerplate code wasting developers time and crazy, crazy RAM consumption. Often using 100s of times the RAM as C implimentations.

  155. GTA4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remind me: Florian is the lifestyle coach having a secret affair with the deputy mayor, right?

    I thought Niko already outed him.

  156. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

    you make the wrong point, but a valid argument.

    I've been accused of shilling when I said something vaguely anti-GPL; or when I said something vaguely pro-MS. It's not true; but unfortunately folks like Mueller (who I've consistently maintained to be nothing more than a vocal blogger with no qualifications - never suspected he was a shill) fuel the thinking that gets me called a shill when I say something that folks don't want to hear.

  157. Exactly who is he? by chowdahhead · · Score: 1

    Does anyone actually know what his training or education background is? I don't think there was never any doubt that he was paid to slander open source software, but I've always wondered if he was one person or an outfit of people, and why he was so often quoted as an "expert" and "consultant" in software patent disputes. Is he a licensed attorney or software engineer, or just a journalist with an interest in this stuff?

  158. Re:PJ has her own biases by philip.paradis · · Score: 1

    I don't care about biases at all. I do care about making informed decisions based on all the information provided by interested parties. Attempting to use bias as any kind of meaningful metric for evaluating the truthfulness of information is foolish at best, and the correct approach is to seek out as many information sources as possible when making a decision.

    People may try to argue that ignoring bias yields a higher probability of operating on incomplete information, but that's also a fallacy. Everyone has biases, no matter how independent they may claim to be. The only sane solution is to start by understanding that, and work carefully toward evaluating as many data points as possible. Unfortunately, people seem to play the "bias card" at every possible turn in an attempt to invalidate an opponent's position, instead of actually addressing and refuting or reinforcing the available information.

    Sadly, it's a tactic that tends to work well, as external observers frequently seem all too content to take the easy way out and simply nod their heads on logical fallacies based on observations of bias. It's much easier than taking the time to analyze things on their own, and thus the talking heads keep raking in the big bucks while their loyal followers feel content in their ignorance.

    --
    Write failed: Broken pipe
  159. Re:PJ has her own biases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What situation? IBM donated servers to UNC before groklaw started. Groklaw isn't hosted on one of those servers (as stated above it is hosted on an AMD donated server) so there is no direct OR indirect connection between groklaw and the IBM servers, and AMD was not part of the IBM v SCO suit. So what conflict is she not revealing exactly? She couldn't move to a non-IBM donated server, because she wasn't on an IBM donated server. So once again, please clearly state exactly what conflict or bias you feel has not been adequately disclosed?

  160. Re:PJ has her own biases by philip.paradis · · Score: 1

    If you're pj, please update the recent Groklaw story with a little note to the effect that comment 39738733 was authored by you. That should just take a few seconds. Thanks.

    --
    Write failed: Broken pipe
  161. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

    Thank you for the laugh, I needed one today.

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  162. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

    Are you a journalist? If not, then you have no obligation to tell anyone who you work for. If you're just posting thoughts here or on a blog, you're writing your opinion. If you're being paid to write, then you'd better be up front about who is paying the bills. It doesn't make that opinion necessarily any less, but then everyone knows that you may have a financial bias (as opposed to just an ideological one).

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  163. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by PuZZleDucK · · Score: 2

    I figure the only way to truly end SCO is to bury it at a crossroads.

    Don't forget to drive a stake through the heart before you bury it :p

    --
    Can a person program a new solution to a problem? Why should anyone be able to stop such a thing? -Richard Stallman
  164. Re:PJ has her own biases by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

    Thank you Mr. AC for saving me a bunch of typing.

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  165. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by mug+funky · · Score: 1

    the 4chan oldfags all came here, don't you know?

  166. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Lillebo · · Score: 1

    This discussion reeks of Oracle damage control.

  167. Re:PJ has her own biases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She doesn't work for a divorce attorney? Prove it.

    Anybody can say anything on the internet. I have a unicorn in my garage. Oh you doubt it? Well.. prove it ! Hah !

    http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20050414214437589

    PJ continues to hide.

    "I chose PJ, because it could be anyone, either sex, any nationality, anyone and no one in particular. "

    " I don't do interviews about me as an individual, I decline all invitations to speak at conferences and seminars, and I've turned down all invitations to be interviewed on camera."

    How convenient. No way to verify that its a real person. Unless PJ is going to be killed (and nobody believes that) if she outs herself, there is very little reason not to. Especially because other than Linux cheeerleaders like you nobody is going to take anything she says seriously given that THERE ISNT ANY WAY to verify that she is not funded by IBM. She denies it, IBM denies it (LOL.. duh) but nobody can even be sure its a real person.

    They already *have* gone after her (private investigators... turned up nothing) back during the SCO case.

    Nobody has "gone" after her. If some anonymous blogger was continuously twisting facts about my company and possibly affecting the outcome of an important legal case, I'd want to make damn sure that its not a fake account funded by the opposition.

    Besides which.. Maureen O'Gara *NEVER GOT TO MEET HER*. They mistook another woman for her. Jesus.. are you this stupid that you don't know these basic facts?

    Anyway you've convinced me that all you want to do is drag out a pointless argument about which you have zero facts other than what some random person on the internet told you and you took it as gospel. Goodbye.

  168. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    Oh, I don't expect these organisations to act with integrity, I just thought that having someone with a reputation for being wrong 90% of the time and who talks such obvious nonsense on their side would be more of a liability. It would make as much sense as Obama paying for an endorsement form Kim Jong Il in the 2008 elections.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  169. Re:PJ has her own biases by grcumb · · Score: 1

    It is a well known fact that reality has a lib^H^H^H^Hn anti-MS/Oracle bias.

    I'm tempted to mod you up just for your typographically correct use of '^H'.

    --
    Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
  170. Re:PJ has her own biases by Rysc · · Score: 1

    Is he really? That explains why he suddenly disappeared from related threads! Perhaps I'll go unhide him just to see what he's been up to.

    --
    I want my Cowboyneal
  171. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah, as long as his bias confirms to yours, why bother checking his integrity and judgements?

    you are as big an asshole as him.

  172. Google should sue Florian Mueller for Damages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google should sue Florian Mueller for Damages, since he and his owner Larry were at the center of a disingformation campaign.

    And we as consumers and FOSS users too.

    R

  173. Google please SUE Florian Mueller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ditto.

  174. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

    Sadly, no. You saw what happened in the SCO case. Same thing here - they get some shill who has zero credibility on their own. But then the mainstream press starts quoting the shill as if authoritative. And without actually doing any research or investigative journalism of their own. Next thing you know, everybody is quoting everybody as if the word becomes gospel truth, when in fact its completely backwards. When the actors and companies involved lose their legal cases, you never hear a peep about it.

    Its called FUD writ large.

    --
    C|N>K
  175. Re:PJ has her own biases by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

    You realize that my settings have nothing to do with yours. I'm not Jonathan Corbet or anyone else associated with the site. I'm just another LWN subscriber.

    But, since LWN added the comment filtering feature (that's what it's called in "My Account", at least -- go check it out), I imagine I'm not the only person who added Florian to the "filtered" list. (And I double checked, Florian is the only person in my filter set.) Enough people add Florian, and *poof*! No more oxygen for the flames.

    Filtering doesn't completely hide the person. It just "folds" the threads that start at the filtered user's comment, so that they don't take up all the screen. You can still click to expand, not too much differently than here on Slashdot.

  176. Re:PJ has her own biases by Rysc · · Score: 1

    Sorry, I thought you were saying corbet had enabled a "hide by default, show only if the individual user chooses to" setting that applied to Florien's account. I see that I was mistaken.

    --
    I want my Cowboyneal
  177. Re:This just shows paranoid FOSS fanatics are by TheCarp · · Score: 1

    I hadn't considered that aspect, yes an excellent point.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  178. Obvious revelation is obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So a blogger has revealed that he has business interests with people that he writes about? OMFG! Burn him!

    And while you're at it, throw in half of the tech blogging community.

    PJ noticed that Mueller "outed himself" in a disclosure statement he made. That's some crack investigative work there.

  179. Try reading the disclosure on his landing page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "His consulting services are available directly (contact form, LinkedIn profile) as well as through two primary research firms (Gerson Lehrman Group, Coleman Research Group) serving the financial community. (In order to avoid conflicts of interest, Florian does not hold or initiate transactions in any technology stocks or derivatives thereof.)"

    So the fact that he's doing consulting work for Oracle is shocking...how?

  180. Re:PJ has her own biases by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1

    Groklaw's coverage of the case has been massively one-sided as well....

    Oh yes indeed, Groklaw is very biased. Groklaw is in favor of freedom and decency, and against evil.

    ...except when it is IBM attacking freedom, then Groklaw makes excuses for them.

  181. Re:PJ has her own biases by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    And I've been on Slashdot one hell of a lot longer than you have, and it's the considered opinion of this Old One you're at least one (and possibly more) of: (a) ignorant of basic logic; (b) trolling; (c) brain-damaged.

    Yes, PJ can be biased and is at times unreasonable as hell. (I've had posts removed by her because she apparently could not understand that I was *agreeing* with her, for crying out loud.) But she does NOT have any conflict of interest.

    Personally, I think you're pretending not to understand what "conflict of interest" means, so that you can oh-so-cleverly shift its *apparent* definition until you trick people into agreeing with you that it applies to PJ. Whereas at least some of us *do* know what it means (and at one point I wrote ad copy for a living, so I know all about how your little game is played), and so you're being called out on it, as well you should be.

    I just hope you're actually getting paid. It would really be tragic, otherwise.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  182. Re:PJ has her own biases by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    *highfive*

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.