|
Microsoft-EU Options and Struggling FUD |
|
Monday, October 04 2004 @ 03:04 AM EDT
|
Trying to figure out EU law is a daunting task for a non-European like myself. So I appreciated an AP article carried in The Mercury News [reg. req'd], explaining the various options the judge has in the EU v. Microsoft case. Hearings on Microsoft's request for a stay of execution, so to speak, until the appeals process is over have just concluded. The article also set forth what Microsoft had to prove to prevail, and it seems to be a pretty high bar to reach. The judge said he'll rule "as soon as possible" and the article interprets that to mean that there should be a ruling in about a month or two.
Here is what the article says:
"The judge has the power to suspend the EU order in total or in part, but cannot rewrite it himself. However, legal experts say he could suspend it for a limited period to encourage the parties to work things out, reporting back to him on their progress, as he did in a recent case involving the European Commission and French beef producers. . . .
"To win its stay, Microsoft had to prove it had a good chance of winning the overall appeal, that it would suffer 'irreparable harm' if the order went into effect now, and that its interests were not outweighed by those of consumers or competitors in the market."
This particular judge, they say, seemed to be trying to get the parties to negotiate some kind of a compromise, even making specific suggestions, but the EU wants a ruling. The judge also seemed to be hardest on the EU lawyers, judging by the questions he put to each side, but those in the know told the AP reporter it doesn't foreshadow anything with regard to his eventual ruling. The article also says that he has granted a stay in fewer than 20% of cases he has handled over the past three years. Microsoft's attorney, Brad Smith, was quoted as saying, "There must be a better way to address these issues." Whatever the judge decides, it can be appealed to the president of the highest EU court.
Struggling FUD
Someone sent me a link yesterday to an article by Maureen O'Gara, this time about PubPat and another one about Sun. I was going to answer them, viewing them as FUD, but then I noticed her statistics. I did some math, and I realized that Groklaw got more page views in an hour than she got all day on both those stories. Specifically, I compared the one story Groklaw ran Sunday, as of 7ish in the morning, with the two that she had put up Sunday morning on LinuxWorld. We had, as of around 2 AM Monday morning, 23,776 page reads on that one story, and 474 comments. It's more now, of course, but that is when I did the comparison. Maureen's stats at Linuxworld, and they get crawled by Google, so the stories can be listed on Google News and at least one of them was, as of 2 AM were: she
had 159 page reads and no comments on one story and 1,172 page reads and 2 comments on the other. That is a grand total of 1,331 page reads and 2 comments for the day on those two stories. (At 2 AM, I notice a third story, but I didn't see it on the list in the morning, so I can't do a comparison now, not knowing when it was posted.)
I realize if she is syndicated, there may be other viewers elsewhere, but it's still a remarkable difference, particularly when you consider that Groklaw is also picked up all over the internet and run word for word in many, many places, so our stats are actually much higher than just what we get here. Sunday is also traditionally our slowest day, for that matter. The Creative Commons license means anyone can reproduce the content for noncommercial purposes, and they do. I don't permit bots to crawl Groklaw, so Google can't spread it, but it spreads remarkably anyway. We also have an XML feed and a newsletter.
So, after giving it some thought, I decided not to write anything, even though I see today some more proSCO junk, because I would surely only give her publicity and thus spread her views. I'll watch her stats and if anyone much starts to read something she writes, then I'll maybe respond and clear up some facts, as appropriate. This doesn't mean I won't write about the same topic here and there. I just won't link or do a direct answer. I found those statistics very encouraging, and I hope this report from the FUD battlefront encourages you,
too. You might find this article of interest too. It's a study about business, and on the dangers of ignoring Generation Tech. They mention blogs, and one senior exec is quoted as saying, "Blogging has proven the vitality of participatory journalism. Now there are people like me coming along and trying to figure out how to package it." Heh heh. Package it. Right. Back to class for him, I'd say.
Of course, we actually had 1,474 comments, but I deleted all the pro-SCO ones.
: D
Joke. Joke. Sunday's story wasn't even about SCO. I haven't ever removed any pro-SCO comments that I am aware of. I just couldn't resist horsing around, after reading all the lying astroturfing that goes on about Groklaw elsewhere, which someone else was nice enough to tell me about. I wonder, whoever could be behind such a campaign?
|
|
Authored by: overshoot on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 10:10 AM EDT |
Please use the <a href=""> tags [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 10:15 AM EDT |
Please reply to this message with information
regarding errors or typos in the
story.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Corrections here please - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 10:37 AM EDT
- "myself" - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 11:15 AM EDT
- "the internet" - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 01:08 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 10:17 AM EDT |
I'm curious. Whats the thinking behind disallowing bots to crawl Groklaw? Is it
bad thing(tm) somehow?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- No bots PJ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 10:20 AM EDT
- No bots PJ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 10:29 AM EDT
- No bots PJ? - Authored by: seanlynch on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 10:32 AM EDT
- No bots PJ? - Authored by: PJ on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 10:40 AM EDT
- No bots PJ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 01:07 PM EDT
- No bots PJ? - Authored by: Mike Capp on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 01:31 PM EDT
- No bots PJ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 02:59 PM EDT
- No bots PJ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 07:43 PM EDT
- No bots PJ? - Authored by: PJ on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 08:41 PM EDT
- No bots PJ? - Authored by: hairless-dog on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 10:38 AM EDT
- No bots PJ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 06:24 PM EDT
- No bots PJ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 12:38 PM EDT
- and google does index Groklaw - Authored by: valerio on Tuesday, October 05 2004 @ 12:19 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 10:27 AM EDT |
...since there does not yet seem to be a place for trolls. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: RealProgrammer on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 10:55 AM EDT |
"...a grand total of 1,331 page reads and 2 comments for the day on those
two stories."
Aren't there that many search engines out there? I wonder if they ignore bot
hits? The number of actual reads by humans could be closer to zero.
---
(I'm not a lawyer, but I know right from wrong)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BigTex on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 10:58 AM EDT |
More FUD here.
Can't Lawyers and MS ever tell the whole truth?
Read this
http://news.com.com/Microsoft+brings+XP+starter+software+to+India/2100-1016_3-53
88606.html
Then read this
http://news.com.com/Microsoft+tells+judge+of+harm+in+changing+Windows/2100-1014_
3-5391715.html?tag=nefd.top[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 11:09 AM EDT |
This are great, it means i know quickly when a new story becomes available (i
actually use 14 different feeds, GrokLaw i use more than most of them...if not
all)
Keep up the good work PJ and i look forward to your next piece :)
---
IANAL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: IrisScan on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 11:17 AM EDT |
Don't worry PJ , EU law is very difficult for ANYONE to understand , let alone
non-Europeans .
If you look very carefully , though mountains of evidence , you'll find that M$
were up before the beak before . I'll see if I can hunt down the info .[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Brian S. on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 11:26 AM EDT |
I followed a page link from Groklaw to Maureen Ogara (her site I believe).
I happened to notice it had over 7000 reads but all other articles above and
below were lucky to make the low hundreds.
Brian S.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 11:37 AM EDT |
"...I wonder, whoever could be behind such a campaign?..."
I Wonder indeed.
Unfortunately I couldn't read Groklaw this weekend until I could replace my
failed Wi-Fi access point. I feverishly toiled until the new D-Link was up and
running so I could check Groklaw before going fishing. It is now a habit that I
contemplate the SCO versus IBM case, intellectual property issues in general and
other topics of interest while the line is in the water and I didn't want my
meditative time to be spoiled by having nothing new from Groklaw to consider.
So no, I'm not surprised at the hit discrepancy between Groklaw and Maureen
O'Gara's stories. It arises from the one, PJ in this case, advocating for the
common interest and greater good of the community and the other advocating for
special interests profiteering from the contributed efforts of many thousands of
volunteers. Is it any wonder?
GL
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 11:50 AM EDT |
Shouldn't that be:
"we actually had 475 comments, but I deleted all the proSCO ones!"
?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 11:54 AM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 12:30 PM EDT
- It isn't FUD that gets deleted... - Authored by: brian on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 12:38 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: belzecue on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 02:28 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: belzecue on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 03:52 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: PJ on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 09:20 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 10:34 PM EDT
- Above post mine - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 10:35 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, October 05 2004 @ 06:07 AM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: belzecue on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 10:37 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: aussiedave on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 11:08 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: subdude on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 11:13 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, October 05 2004 @ 12:57 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 05 2004 @ 05:29 AM EDT
- Nobody's business? - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, October 05 2004 @ 05:54 AM EDT
- Nobody's business? - Authored by: jumpman on Tuesday, October 05 2004 @ 10:40 AM EDT
- In from the cold - Authored by: Tim Ransom on Tuesday, October 05 2004 @ 12:54 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 01:36 PM EDT
- Nope - Authored by: Nick on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 04:11 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Latesigner on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 12:16 PM EDT |
* Sunday's story wasn't even about SCO. I haven't ever removed any pro-SCO
comments that I am aware of. I just couldn't resist horsing around, after
reading all the lying astroturfing that goes on about Groklaw elsewhere, which
someone else was nice enough to tell me about. I wonder, whoever could be behind
such a campaign?*
Those "forever new" posters on Yahoo's SCOX board ?
Judging by the replies they get it's not working there either.
It seems they still haven't twigged to the fact that astroturfing doesn't work
when everyone can spot it for what it is.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 12:18 PM EDT |
"Groklaw admits that thousands, over two-thirds, of deleted comments are
proSCO!" HA HA HA!!!
I love it!!!! A good joke - really made me laugh!
Rick
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: NemesisNL on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 12:43 PM EDT |
The new commisioner is dutch (smit kroes) and from the same party as Frits
Bolkenstein. Guess getting tough with buisiness will take a back seat for the
duration.
I think we will see something like when bush took over and the anti trust case
against MS suddenly took a dive.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 12:44 PM EDT |
Just thought i'd mention that page hit stats are a pretty bad metric for
assesing these things. Theres an old joke in the Perl community that one Perl
guru relates regularly in answer to questions about how to implement a hit
counter properly. He answers:
$hits=rnd(100000);
and argues thats its probably more accurate than most real hit counters. :-)
Anyway, I reckon Groklaw material has a high hit count, but i wouldnt put any
reliance on the actual figures you have at hand.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: chribo on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 01:03 PM EDT |
First of all IANAL!
European Law is known as extremly complicated
indeed. It is supernational law based on numberous treaties forming the "acquis
communautaire", the base of law common in the entire EU.
Cases based on
European law are normaly treated by national courts, which are entiteled to
delegate specific questions to the European Court of Justice for preleminary
decision (strange system indeed). The Eurpean Court of Justice acts as court
between Member States, Member States and European Institutions as well as
appelation court for individuals (usualy after a decision made by a national
court).
Thus the European Court of Justice is formed of top experts in
European Law.
In some cases there is a dispute between a Community
institution and an individual. To reduce the workload of the European Court of
Justice, which has the nature of an appelation court mainly, this disputes can
be brought to the European Court of First Instance. This chamber is also formed
by judges known as experts in European law, there is no jury or other layperson
involvement at all.
The Court of First Instance is a kind of
adminstrative court.
That means that it decides if an action taken by an
European institution fullfills the requirments of the law. In other words the
constitutional role of the court is to protect people and institutions from
arbitrary decisions. It is not task of this court to decide if an action taken
by an institution is to hard, unless the action violates the European law or a
necessary legal consideration has not been taken in by the acting
institution.
The MS case will be decided by this chamber first. An
appelation to the Court of Justice is possible.
A good link to Eurpean Law
can be found here:
Eur-Lex.
And for the
Instution:
European
Institutions: Courts
Homepage of the court:
European
Court
Corrections are welcome (remember IANAL and my first language
is not English) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 01:12 PM EDT |
I heartily agree. It never made sense to me that LinuxWorld and LinuxInsider
would run these anti-Linux articles unless they wanted to generate controversy
in order to farm page hits. Thus, it makes sense not to feed these trolls and
maybe they will find a new line of work.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 02:12 PM EDT |
Congrats on the high page hits. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Larry West on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 03:07 PM EDT |
Your criticism of the US media lapdogs is dead-on, but, the situation at Groklaw
is quite different.
Maureen and suchlike get mentioned frequently, usually with enough specificity
to find the article in about 15 seconds.
Not providing the links just means Groklaw doesn't feed the habit many of us
have of automatically clicking on links.
And since Maureen is of the ilk of journalists that I would assume you don't
admire (those who say preposterous things solely to get attention -- because
real information and insightful analysis is hard work), I would have expected
you to applaud the "mention but don't direct traffic to" policy.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: IharFilipau on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 03:40 PM EDT |
> The judge also seemed to be hardest on the EU lawyers
That kind of things are always double sided.
Hint to EU lawyers, what in opinion of judge will not stand further appeals.
So if they want true final decision from this appeal court - they have to work
out all details now, to give M$ no case in upper appeal court.
This is truly judge discretion AND representations given by lawyer which will
make up final decision. And in best interest of judge is to make sure that
decision will be final - to make sure that all holes in case are secured. So
being hard on EU lawyers means to me that judge found some things he sees
as possibilities for M$ to win appeal.
But again, it will depend on who of lawyers will manage to use this hint
better - M$ or EU ones.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: marbux on Monday, October 04 2004 @ 03:55 PM EDT |
This particular judge, they say, seemed to be trying to get the
parties to negotiate some kind of a compromise, even making specific
suggestions, but the EU wants a ruling.
I'd like to suggest an
additional motive for the judge pushing settlement. As I recall, the findings
he's reviewing comprise over 300 pages, and I suspect that Microsoft's appeal
briefs are necessarily of comparable length. In short, the judge may have a goal
of ruling on other cases before he retires from his judicial career. :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 05 2004 @ 01:16 AM EDT |
This is so cool.
You type in 'SCO' in google and the first two results are...
1. SCO.com
2. GROKLAW
:)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 05 2004 @ 10:42 AM EDT |
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/46384.htm?DE=1
http://www.linuxworld.com/lbw.cfm
I don't understand. It looks like Maureen's last SCO story was read by 23,396
people on a Saturday morning even before the next business day.
If we are talking about stats let's talk straight IMHO.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|