Groklaw

Honestly, Groklaw was one of the most awesome outcomes for good to come out of the whole SCO fiasco, and it was almost entirely down to PJ. Good on her for focusing on principles rather than personalities. She seems to have maintained her personal privacy, which is entirely fitting. For me, Groklaw was one of the last bastions of the "old" internet. The site is still there for anyone who wants a fantastic understanding of the legal issues and discussions around FOSS licensed software. She made a difference. Thanks PJ! http://groklaw.net/

Wow, I followed this so closely back in the day[0]. It was a fascinating thing to unpack in real-time as it was happening. I burned hours per week on Groklaw, partly out of fascination around all of the parties, especially outside of SCO and IBM, and the moves they were making to take advantage of the situation. But I think I simply enjoyed reading the deep analysis the community around that site, and it's author, maintained. One can sue for any reason, no matter how ridiculous. Hopefully this just gets tossed out early on this time around. [0] http://www.groklaw.net (kind of surprised at the lack of "s", but most of my reading pre-dated LetsEncrypt)

And if it will, we'll be able to follow the proceedings along with excellent comments, on http://www.groklaw.net/

http://www.phoronix.com/ http://www.groklaw.net/ http://arstechnica.com/ Phoronix can be a good source of updates on a wide variety of software and hardware, and is the source of the biggest Linux benchmark suite, but can sometimes be shallow and dull. Groklaw is always insightful and informative. Ars is usually good, particularly Nobel Intent, but it is starting to drift into the realm of sensationalism.

Not really? For general tech? Sure. For open source? It's hard to beat the in-depth coverage of http://lwn.net and http://www.groklaw.net I have become increasingly disappointed with Wired over the last few years, it has gotten to the point where I deliberately avoid them even though they have soem great writers. I'm from Ireland but not living there at the moment so my go to source for quality reportage of all things Oirish is http://www.irishtimes.com I like to dip into The Economist for geopolitical stuff but it's surprising how many of the stories that would interest me from The Economist hit the main page of HN anyway. I have been on /. for many many years - I have a 5 digit UID :) - but I stopped going there religiously a number of years ago. Having said that, I have returned there more and more often recently as I have noticed an unusual amount of group-think on HN when it comes to certain matters and that kind of irks me. I go to to http://counterpunch.org/ to counterbalance the establishment reporting of the traditional mass media. This because I find that my political, social and economic views (which I know to be held by most of my peers) are underreported and underrepresented by the corporate media. There are other niche sites that I visit but these are particular to my tastes. There are a couple of blogs I follow on RSS because I like the author's style and voice, these are all political, philosophical or literary in nature.

> For what it's worth, docx is technically standard. Not sure how that pans out in practice. It doesn’t, basically,—the spec isn’t enough to render it, and Microsoft has stopped engaging with ISO in favour of publishing what is now nineteen major versions[1] of their own spec in step with Office updates. There also was a huge shitstorm[2] around the ratification of the original, unsurprisingly given how useless and patent-infested it was. [1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/office_standards/ms-docx/b… [2] http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2007011720521698

To a point where your program won't understand/be able to edit a simple document created by Microsoft tools. In some cases, you'll see an embedded binary blob that's actually an ActiveX executable in an OLE container. Here's some classic rants: https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2008/03/02/On-OOXML https://ooxmlisdefectivebydesign.blogspot.com/ http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070123071154671#Ecma_376_re… (especially in combination with: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070123071154671#End-User_Li… )

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-835-Exhibit_224.pdf follows a good explaination of sco's tactics at the time. During the lawsuit a dedicated server company rackshack (later ev1 servers) bought a license for all their users between. According to the owner Robert Marsh later in the trial, he felt in the end SCO was misleading and provided false information.

MSFT tried very hard to sue Linux into oblivion. Buying SCO, then claiming they owned all of Linux. http://www.groklaw.net/ I trust MSFT to screw everyone over.

The website [1] is actually still up, so you can read and make your own mind up. Alternatively there's a quite comprehensive Wikipedia entry [2]. What do you think happened? [1] http://groklaw.net/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groklaw

Who else misses groklaw, BTW? That was my favorite tech law site for many years. [1] http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20031016162215566

There's actually a well preserved blog from the time that covers the entirety of that era, http://www.groklaw.net/

> Wait, you have access to the oral arguments? Don't need oral arguments for the results of the first trial and the arguments filed in the appeal of that first trial. Here's the final judgement from the first trial: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1211.pdf Note on the second page: > With respect to Oracle’s claim for relief for copyright infringement, judgment is entered in favor of Google and against Oracle except as follows: the rangeCheck code in TimSort.java and ComparableTimSort.java, and the eight decompiled files (seven “Impl.java” files and one “ACL” file), And here's Oracle’s reply brief in the appeal; the relevant part on this issue is under the heading THERE IS NO “DE MINIMIS” DEFENSE TO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/OraGoogleAppeal-134.pdf

Any mention of "unix" and "war" needs to include a reference to www.groklaw.net, a website set up as a focal point for a community defense of unix and linux. A must read. It is in reverse order, with newest articles at the front so I recommend starting with this link: http://www.groklaw.net/index.php?page=482 It is also a remarkable example of a website that provides value to the community, a service and a piece of history. If you are interested in the idea of what different social platforms provide/afford (Zeynep Tufecki's Twitter and Tear Gas) this is great example of what could be done. [edit for typo]

TimSort—more specifically, Bloch's 9 line "rangecheck" function from his reimplementation—figured into Oracle's claims that Google copied Java code into Android: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120419221941261 As best as I can remember, those 9 lines are the only literal copying Oracle was able to find; the rest of their suit centers around whether the design of an API (e.g. parameter names) can be copyrighted. (And unless the Supreme Court steps in, the answer is "maybe.")

This is trolling by people who do not understand the GPLv2, and has happened before. Someone had the "brilliant idea" of "retroactively revoking" the GPLv2 a decade ago (2008): http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2006062204552163 You cannot do it. The only way the right to distribute GPLv2 software gets revoked is for a specific party that distributes a GPLv2 licensed work in violation of the GPLv2 distribution terms.

Groklaw's coverage over the course of the initial trials were excellent. http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120726121512518

One of my favorite is anti-trust exhibits is http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/0000/P… Notice that it is about "PM vs. Windows" as it was about API calls only, which was the wrong way to make the decision.

This case is one that Groklaw used to cover, and... I have no idea what's going on there anymore, and don't know where else to look for anything of similar depth and trustworthiness. Groklaw was a news site which covered tech company litigation, which shut down in 2013 because the primary author, Pamela Jones, felt threatened by bulk email collection. (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130818120421175) Finding out that the old cases it covered are still going through appeals and maneuverings, its absence is deeply felt.

True, no hard evidence either way. But real hard evidence is rather hard to come by. I'm more worried about the people who shy away from online conversations when anonymity is stripped away. Anonymity is my _only_ protection from harassing trolls like Weev. If I didn't feel secure in my thoughts, I wouldn't be able to talk frankly to you, and I'd leave. http://www.groklaw.net/

They're totally exploiting the fact that the legal system is so huge, no one organization can keep track of all of these conceptual inconsistencies. Where's http://groklaw.net when you need it?

Google is a mighty monster that is eating the Internet. That concentration of power makes me a little nervous, and it might be best for everyone in the long run if they get taken down a peg or two. But I suggest reading the judge's ruling [1], which is actually rather entertaining, to get a sense of the actual circumstances of this case before you try to swim against the tide without making any cogent arguments or citing any facts. [1] http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1202.pdf

I hardly say he did his best. From a previous groklaw article [1]: "The foreman told a court representative that the jurors had reached a decision without needing the instructions." The jury then doesn't follow all of the instructions. Sounds to me like a jury that just wants to get out as quick as possible, not do their best. [1] http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390&repost=1

The 100+ pages of jury instructions were only provided on the 21st. Aside from their own comments that they "didn't need the jury instructions", there is this follow-up that shows a lot of inconsistencies in the verdict. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390 edited

Samsung's own words: The verdict form in this complex case necessarily spans 20 pages and requires unanimous answers to more than 500 discrete questions across 5 different legal disciplines. (Dtk. No. 1890.) The likelihood of an inconsistent verdict is a possibility despite the jury’s best efforts. "DESPITE THE JURY'S BEST EFFORTS" Groklaw even linked to the source of the above quote: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/ApplevSamsung-1927.pdf Seems like a classic case of confirmation bias, by both Groklaw as well as a bunch of people here.

For what it's worth, PJ directly says[0] Groklaw has "no financial ties to anybody". [0] http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120807180515808

They did http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120726121512518 Search in page for "the following designs Samsung was considering"

There are a whole heap of 'un-released' samsung prototypes as part of this legal case too (here just a few versions of one phone from 2006: http://www.groklaw.net/images/Samsung-1.jpg ) - many more variations of other phones where produced the in the same style. Don't be tricked by the Apple produced image showing the phones that Samsung released before the iPhone - that is not all they (and many other manufacturers) were working on. Motorola A1000 (http://www.heise.de/altcms_bilder/62452/3_hires.jpg ) came out long before the iPhone - and followed many of the same conventions.

From kalleboo's link, here's the particular image from Samsung's brief to look at: http://www.groklaw.net/images/Samsung-3.jpg If it's true, it seems pretty persuasive. (The document is pretty amusing in general: "Design was not the only thing Apple took from other companies in developing the iPhone. While Apple touts itself in the popular press as a company of 'firsts,' it recognizes the opposite internally. As Apple admitted in internal emails, Apple was not the first [redacted] [Redacted] Ex. 4 (DX 578). Nor was it [redacted] Id. Indeed, as one Apple employee explained to an overly enthusiastic marketer, [redacted] Id." I love the idea that Apple's internal emails actually make frequent use of the word [redacted]. Like, "Hey, has anyone seen my [redacted]? I think I might have left it at a [redacted]. Hopefully that [redacted] reporter doesn't get his hands on it.")

Wired's article certainly presents Apple's side of the story. Although, the Samsung take is pretty interesting: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120726121512518 Apparently, Apple argues that FRAND patents should be effectively free, estimating that Samsung's standards patents are worth less than 1¢ per device. Whereas, Apple thinks its design patents are worth $24 per device, and their utility patents are another $3 on top of that. Were that to hold, it would eliminate Samsung's profit margin. So, it's hard not to read this as Apple trying to cage viable competitors entirely out of the market through legal maneuvering.