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 $6 billion. Like so many other times, PJ's hunch was right."
Huh? Doesn't this news actually *confirm* what these 'paranoid FOSS fanatics' have been saying all along?
You're right, Florian is a paragon of unbiased reporting. He exemplifies everything a truly neutral journalist should be.
Agreed. They were off on the details (works for Oracle, not MS), but they were right that something smelled rotten.
His employment is paid for by Oracle... the net effect is the same. Money flows from Oracle to his pockets, so its in his interests that Oracle comes out on top.
"paid by" versus "employed by" is a pretty irrelevant semantic distinction in this case.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
What? I seem to read a summary/article that proves that FOSS fanatics have been vindicated in their paranoia in this case. How do you figure the opposite?
RTFA, he works for both MS & Oracle.
... and he is now analyzing FRAND issues for both Microsoft and Oracle.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Actually, he's taking money from both. It was disclosed a while ago that he's taking money from M$.
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.
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?
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.
Anyone can have an opinion. Muellers problem is he was getting paid for his opinions and didnt disclose that to his readers.
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.
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.
How do you now that when she doesn't disclose who she works for?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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."
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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?
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
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.
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.
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