decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook


Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Two Nice Things for Groklaw
Monday, October 10 2005 @ 10:54 PM EDT

A couple of nice things have happened. First, CNET has a new feature, a section highlighting the top 100 blogs, and Groklaw is one of the ones chosen in the legal category. Groklaw and Larry Lessig's blog. They explain their purpose in doing this:
With more than 14 million blogs in existence and another 80,000 being created each day, how is a person supposed to find the ones worth reading?

That is the question CNET is attempting to answer with our first Blog 100 list. . . . Blogs have become an important source of information, but the signal-to-noise ratio makes it hard to find the gems. In our pursuit, we spent weeks checking out technology-oriented blogs based on the recommendations from our reporters and readers.

I'd like to say welcome to any new readers just discovering Groklaw.

The second nice thing is an article on about Groklaw, "Lawyers Flock to Mystery Web Site's Coverage of SCO v. IBM Suit," where Groklaw is praised by lawyers on *both* sides of the SCO litigation. Yes, Boies Schiller. Praising Groklaw.

Here are some highlights from the article:

Jones . . . is the definitive source for information on the SCO litigation. . . .

"I challenge my colleagues in the bar to find a case that is watched at this level of detail," said Morrison & Foerster partner Michael Jacobs, who is representing Novell Corp. in related litigation. . . .

MoFo's Jacobs has even used Jones' analysis of one of his reply briefs as a training tool for associates.

"When she parses our briefs, it's extraordinary," Jacobs says. . . .

Lawyers involved in the litigation have also used her site to find legal documents and track the history of the case.

"I've never seen anything like it myself," said Michelle Miller, one of the vice chairs of the litigation department at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr who represents DaimlerChrysler and Red Hat in separate SCO suits. She said her firm would find things on the site before the court sent out a notice.

Of course, I had to know what article Jacobs uses for training, so I contacted the reporter, Brenda Sandburg, and asked her. This is the one, she said, and to tell you the truth, I worked so, so hard on that article that when I read that it is being used that way, it was a wonderful reward.

The reporter contacted Boies Schiller too, and they said they read Groklaw and according to the article, respect my "attention to detail". Ted Normand said this:

"What I admire about [the Web site] is the effort and intensity and constancy," said SCO lawyer Edward Normand, a partner at Boies, Schiller & Flexner.

Of course, they feel I don't praise them sufficiently and am slanted toward IBM.

I think they could have been more effusive in their praise and are slanted against Groklaw, and that's why they accuse it of bias, to undermine Groklaw's credibility.

: )

Normand expressed his feelings this way:

Normand does say Groklaw's pro-IBM slant can be misleading. "In the past 10 or 12 months of litigation there have been some pretty bad rulings for IBM, but it would be hard to tell from reading Groklaw that they are bad," Normand said. For example, he said, the court denied IBM's motion for summary judgment and ordered the company to produce information in discovery.

So SCO imagined. They got a dose of reality regarding that discovery fantasy on October 7th at the hearing. And IBM's summary judgment motions were not denied, period, stop. They were denied without prejudice to renew or refile after the close of discovery. It was more like a postponement. SCO's motion was denied with prejudice, in that same order. Just clarifying so you are not misled.

I'm not biased in my coverage of the legal matters. I try hard not to be, anyway, despite having a personal preference as to the outcome. But by now, I can see which way the wind is blowing, barring anything new, and so I point thataway. It'd be a crying shame if I didn't have a viewpoint by now, covering the case every day since May of 2003. I didn't start with one, though, not on the contract or the copyright issues, as you can verify in the first interview I ever did. When I was asked to predict the outcome, back then I said I really didn't know. Back then, I didn't.

I did know the GPL, and I always knew it was SCO's Waterloo, and my understanding made it possible to stand on solid ground as to the outcome of certain issues with certainty. I hoped SCO's allegations of owning the copyrights and copyright infringement against Linux were false, but I wasn't positive they were 100% doomed at the very beginning. But from early on I was pretty sure the latter were, because I understood the tech, I knew the development process pretty well, and I knew no one in his right mind would copy proprietary code and try to slip it into the Linux kernel, because the kernel development is all done in public. How stupid would he have to be? And I knew Linus' character and the FOSS culture made that incredibly unlikely. On the contract disputes, I kept a totally open mind until we got to see the contracts. After that, it wasn't hard to figure out who was who in this picture. But my point is, I didn't start where I am now, not on the legal issues. I always hoped to help prove SCO wrong, but with evidence and research and provable facts, not with bias.

Groklaw does more than one thing. Covering SCO is just one of those things. Groklaw does have a point of view about Linux, and the GPL, and GNU/Linux software, and when we do antiFUD articles, it's obvious what that is:

Groklaw's bias is, Groklaw prefers truth to FUD.

That is a bias I am glad to own up to. That is why Groklaw always gives you facts and links to proof, so you can verify everything. I do love using GNU/Linux software, and I value the freedoms the GPL guarantees. But when it comes to analyzing the legal events, I call it like I see it. If I picked up a rock and found something damaging to IBM's case, I'd report it fairly, just like any other journalist. Well, maybe more fairly than some.

I try always to be honest with my readers. I wrote that I wasn't happy with Wells' discovery order, that I thought she didn't understand the tech, but then she reconsidered it, and from then on, it's been pretty much the way I anticipated. I do always try to show respect to the court. Maybe some think I am biased for not ripping judges to shreds, but I'll never do that here. Even if I don't agree with a decision, I'll always show respect, because of my personal beliefs. I am biased toward being respectful, if you will.

I viewed the discovery order as a mistake, though, and I said so, but I had confidence in Wells that she would figure it out and correct it in time, and she did. There is a difference between being biased and being astute. I was right, as it turned out, about the interpretation of the discovery order. That isn't bias. It's just being right.

Anyway, I wanted to say thank you to all the attorneys who praised Groklaw, on both sides of the aisle. I appreciate it very much, and I am very glad you find Groklaw useful. I want Boies Schiller to know that Groklaw is open to any of their lawyers who wish to write articles for us, and if that isn't possible now, contact me after you lose. I will admit that the skill set you guys manifest is impressive, as far as keeping the ball in the air as long as you did, and when this is over, we'd seriously love to hear you tell about how you do it. Even now, if you wish to explain some non-SCO related legal topic, you are welcome to.

The same offer is extended to all the participants. Naturally, I don't expect to hear from anyone willing to write about the SCO litigation until all appeals are exhausted.

I'm sure that is the correct adjective too. Exhausted.

This case is history in the making. I believe classes in law school will be taught about the case. We've seen some spectacular law practiced. So I hope you will all help us to complete our history project here on Groklaw, when it's all said and done, and there are no more appeals.

The media always tries to slant articles by writing about me, no matter what I say, which is a bit annoying. [Hint to media: if you want to interview me more than once, don't do that, please.]

Groklaw is a group project, which is why it doesn't matter who I am. That is why Groklaw can do all the things that the lawyers are so amazed by. It's Open Source principles applied to legal research, just one of many projects made possible by the Internet and by thinking in new ways. Thank you, guys, for inventing the Internet and not patenting it or padlocking it with proprietary standards. It makes Groklaw possible. It gave birth to Linux. And thank you to Linus, for figuring out that what the Internet is particularly good for isn't just ads or selling toasters. Frankly, if I were advising a spy agency, I'd tell them to do it like this. If I were a CEO of a business, I'd do something like this to tap into this power.

People all over the world can cooperate on work without having to be in the same room. I hate to break it to the airline industry, but no one actually has to fly anywhere now. It's that simple, and it's the secret to Groklaw's capabilities. If you imagine I could do Groklaw single-handedly, you are very much mistaken.

So, I want to say thank you to all the thousands of volunteers, now more than 9,000 in number, who contribute information, links, suggestions, articles, research, corrections, eyewitness court accounts, documents from Pacer and courthouses, plain text transcripts of PDFs, translations, static page maintenance, and technical support to make Groklaw a resource the world finds useful and, some say, amazing. When it's all over, and the bully is no longer threatening everyone in the playground, we'll put up a credits list.

And to the attorneys out there, Groklaw's readership is huge now, and they are deeply interested in the law. Groklaw has proven that the law interests millions of people outside the legal field, if you explain it so they can understand it. So if you wish to explain some aspect of the law in an article for us, we are very glad to have it. It doesn't have to be about the SCO litigation. Here are some topics I'd like to have covered:

  • Gotchas in legal research
  • How copyright works as compared to patent law, and the difference between the two
  • Copyright law as applied to software as opposed to literature
  • Anything at all about patent law, to explain why it's so costly and uncertain as to outcome, with examples
  • How standards get adopted
  • Reverse engineering - where can you safely do it and where can't you?
  • How a litigator plans a case from the beginning
  • How discovery works
  • Ethics and and law - how bad does it have to be before an attorney is sanctioned and how does that process work?
  • If you are nonUSA based, can you explain a bit about the law in your area, as it applies to copyright, patents, or the GPL?

Those are just suggestions, and if you think of something that you think is more interesting, just let me know. If you click on the little yellow envelope on the left, you can email me. The only restrictions are essentially the same as in our comments guidelines. Stay on topic, please, remembering our audience is international.

The same offer is extended to CEOs and other executives out there. If there is something you'd like to say, we'd like to hear from you. If, for example, you are considering switching to Linux, what holds you back? What are the specific things you look for and need from software? What would you like the FOSS community to focus on? If you have made a switch, partially even, how did it work out? Have a license horror story? We're interested. Keep in mind that Groklaw has an international reader base, so if your story is about New Zealand or Finland or Hong Kong, we're still interested. We have volunteer translators who can help, if there is a need.

I started Groklaw in part because when I read Slashdot, I saw a hunger to understand the law but a lot of ignorance about it. One result of the Internet is that laws about copyright, for example, impact individuals, not just companies, as was the case in the past. And yet, many don't understand the process or the law. I believed that if someone explained how it works, people would appreciate the information, that they would care.

It's so easy and pleasant to explain something you love to people who want to learn about it. Try it. You'll see.

As for my alleged mystery, I just don't like the focus to be on me, that's all, and that's been true from the beginning. And now, it's obvious there's an added factor. I'm also trying to stay safe. No mystery there. Anyone trying to "out" me now could end up responsible for any untoward results. I am confident Boies Schiller will advise its client to avoid, whether directly or by surrogates, any illegal actions against me or my family. Tell them to avoid the merely smarmy, too, while you are at it, will you? And just so you know, the litigation mentioned in the article the lawyers were all laughing about was dropped.


Two Nice Things for Groklaw | 239 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Off-Topic Here, please
Authored by: overshoot on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 10:59 PM EDT
The usual previewed clicky html, instructions at the bottom of the comments
page, etc.

Thanks in advance.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Two Nice Things for Groklaw
Authored by: inode_buddha on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 10:59 PM EDT

Well, PJ. I was wondering how long it would take.


Copyright info in bio

"When we speak of free software,
we are referring to freedom, not price"
-- Richard M. Stallman

[ Reply to This | # ]

906 on netcraft - n/t
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 11:07 PM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

Two Nice Things for Groklaw - Well Done, PJ
Authored by: webster on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 11:10 PM EDT
Congratulations. Though you don't want it, you deserve the recognition.

>>>>>>> LN 3.0 >>>>>>>>>

[ Reply to This | # ]

" I believe classes in law school will be taught about the case."
Authored by: Mecha on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 11:31 PM EDT
What... I thought Groklaw was law school.

p.s. Congrats PJ for enlightening the FOSS community, and for that matter the
rest of the world.


I am not clever enough to write a good signature. So this will have to do.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Subject- Software compared to music
Authored by: chaz_paw on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 11:33 PM EDT
Being a musician in my college days, I have been thinking about how the world of
music could have been changed if the "copyright mindset", patent
pending, of today had been applied in earlier times. Would we now have Bach,
Beethoven, and Brahams to enjoy?

I do think music is similar to programming in certain respects. I have seen here
written many times that there are just so many different ways to do certain
things. In music there are so many notes to use, but there is almost an infinite
variety of ways to use them. What would ever have happened to the many
"Variations on a Theme" compositions? Isn't that a little bit like

Copyright- ok; patents- I don't think so.

Perhaps one of you may expound on this a little better than I. But I think that
through the example of music, a case could be made for the repeal of software

Proud SuSE user since 07/26/04


[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: chrisbrown on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 11:33 PM EDT
You stated the article examined was this one:
Novell's Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss
but all your work related to that was posted two days later in this story:
Novell's Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss - Annotated
And a fine piece of work it was. :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Two Nice Things for Groklaw
Authored by: kjb on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 11:55 PM EDT
Kudos, PJ.
It's great being part of this blog.
Thanks for letting us play in your sandbox.

keith.burt at gmail dot com
Copyright info in bio

"No! Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try."
- Yoda

[ Reply to This | # ]

Two Nice Things for Groklaw
Authored by: rp$eeley on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 12:15 AM EDT
Y E S ! !
Nice to see the rest of the world learning what we've known all along.
Congrats PJ!
You know we love you and will always support you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Two Nice Things for Groklaw
Authored by: dmarker on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 01:13 AM EDT
I started Groklaw in part because when I read Slashdot, I saw a hunger to
understand the law but a lot of ignorance about it. One result of the Internet
is that laws about copyright, for example, impact individuals, not just
companies, as was the case in the past. And yet, many don't understand the
process or the law. I believed that if someone explained how it works, people
would appreciate the information, that they would care.

PJ, A lot of people could have wanted to do the same. But you have not only
done, it, you have done it very very well. Not that many people could garner
the support that you have *and keep it*.

I also believe that not many people will readily be able to eclipse what you
have achieved with Groklaw.


Doug Marker

[ Reply to This | # ]

You have honesty and integrity
Authored by: kawabago on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 01:25 AM EDT
That seems to be somewhat lacking at Boies Shifty if the press is correct!


[ Reply to This | # ]

Litigation Confirmation
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 01:32 AM EDT

Confirmation please P.J. You make reference to litigation that was dropped. Was that the one that was initiated by Merkey?



[ Reply to This | # ]

Why don't you do like RIAA?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 01:45 AM EDT
You should behave like RIAA and charge them for consuming your material.
Since it'a apprently illegal to sing copyrighted songs in the shower, you should

charge them for using your precious IP in the training.

How about one dollar per word? No, per character!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Two Nice Things for Groklaw
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 01:49 AM EDT
Congratulations to PJ and all of the "magic elves" that contribute to
this fine piece of work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

lawyers were all laughing about what?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 01:53 AM EDT
PJ wrote: "And just so you know, the litigation
mentioned in the article the lawyers were all laughing about was
which portion of the article does this sentence reference to?
There is no match for 'laugh' in the article. Was the article modified perhaps,
if yes, what portion was removed/changed?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Other needed articles
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 02:00 AM EDT
I can think of some other articles that's needed:

An article describing the EU, and in particular EU copyright/patent law (what is

decided on an EU vs. national level) compared to US law, which most people here

seems knowledgeable about.

What about Japanese law? Wasn't there an anti-trust suit filed against Microsoft

in Japan? What happened to it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: belzecue on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 02:10 AM EDT
"I want Boies Schiller to know that Groklaw is open to any of their lawyers
who wish to write articles for us, and if that isn't possible now, contact me
after you lose"

I had a mouth full of jelly (lunchtime at work), and I was within a millisecond
of blurping it all over my monitor as soon as I read this. Hilarious. Now
THAT, folks, is viewpoint! :-) Onya, PJ.

And, being a group effort as PJ would readily attest, good onya to all the
Groklaw regulars who add the mojo that makes this blog a fun learning

[ Reply to This | # ]

Except for the leaked IBM emails?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 04:06 AM EDT
That's a truth we prefer not to acknowledge, right?

[ Reply to This | # ]

A second for standards
Authored by: capt.Hij on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 05:30 AM EDT
How standards get adopted

This is one thing that I would like to see more of. I think that this is something that has only grown in relevance over the years. This is probably more along the lines of corporate law. It is interesting because it is vital to the industry, but corporations that take part in standards discussions have distinct conflicts of interest.

This is something that we used to do as a matter of course, but now involves legions of corporate lawyers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Methods For Reverse Engineering
Authored by: elhaard on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 06:39 AM EDT
While we are waiting for a lawyer to write an extensive article on legal issues in reverse engineering, some of you might find it interesting to read about the concept of clean room design.

One example of projects using this is The Linux Broadcom 4301 Driver Project. They are trying to reverse engineer a binary driver for a WiFi chip.

Jørgen Elgaard Larsen

This comment is licensed under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 2.0). Share & enjoy!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Two Nice Things for Groklaw
Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 06:54 AM EDT
I couldn't care less for the SCOG's lawyers respect for groklaw: I genuinely
value the respect of those who behave honorably and ethically. I just don't
think that the respect of a bunch of miscreants is worth garbage or anything
more than hot air. Groklaw has done extremely well without the respect of those
of the SCOG side of the litigation, and groklaw will continue to do very well
without their respect. Period.

As for PJ's invitation to those on the SCOG side of the litigation, I believe
that PJ's good will toward these shills is getting the better of her. If anyone
of those avails themselves of PJ's invitation to author material that assaults
facts, logic and good sense, I will tear into that person without regret or

The fact that we open as in Open Source does not mean that we are fools or
anybody's fools. And SCOG will find that out in a very painful way if and when
the Open Source community's UNIX code experts and historians get to analyze the
allegedly infringing code and testify in court.

As a member of the Open Source community, my message to SCOG and its lawyers is:
"Mess with the best, and die like the rest."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Felix_the_Mac on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 08:03 AM EDT

PJ, I hope you got a really good feeling inside from this which you will be able
to hold on to for a long time.

Many thanks to you and all your helpers for your years of hard work.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"I've never seen anything like it myself,"
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 08:03 AM EDT
Because there never has been anything like it before.

Great Job PJ keep it up.

Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

More than hunger for the law
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 08:55 AM EDT

It's because, so far anyway, lobbyists can't reach the courts. Legislators and
chief executives can be bought and paid for. Judges are generally the only
people who can save us from the crooks. (Your local situation may vary.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

If I can see farther
Authored by: meshuggeneh on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 10:25 AM EDT
It's because PJ and the Groklawrians have given me better vision.

Thanks to all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Fair warning
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 11:14 AM EDT
What in the world were you thinking when you posted the mysql piece without
giving us fair warning?

I was planning on going on my fall camping trip at the end of this week.
Already this morning two clients have called asking about switching their sites
away from mysql. They are wary about getting caught in the SCO firestorm. I’ve
used mysql exclusively for several years in all of the site that I have built.
Now I have to figure out a new database and write drivers for it.

Please, in the future, consider giving us developers fair warning before putting
extra work on our plates. I was intending to enjoy a few days outside. Now it
looks like I’ll be spending my vacation in my office learning postgress.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Teaching Geeks about the Law
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 11:25 AM EDT
Groklaw has proven that the law interests millions of people outside the legal field, if you explain it so they can understand it.

Absolutely! This is still the thing about Groklaw that I love the best. I had no idea litigation could be so interesting, and I have learned so much. I appreciate the people who take the time to write comments and articles explaining how the parts of the process work, strategy, etc. Keep 'em coming, and thanks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Kudos earned
Authored by: AllParadox on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 12:27 PM EDT
PJ and Groklaw are the best, and are head and shoulders above almost all the
other competition.

It usually is not this good, not for judges to whom legal briefs are directed,
nor even for appellate and State Supreme Court judges, to whom the best
arguments are crafted and delivered.

I am happy to repeat this ad nauseum: I never had a paralegal capable of the
quality that PJ routinely produces. I rarely had any associates capable of any
of the work that PJ routinely produces.

Please, Dear Reader, feast on Groklaw articles and comments. Savor the fine
analysis, and concise, legible explanations.

PJ deletes insult posts, not differences of opinion.

AllParadox; retired lawyer and chief Groklaw iconoclast. No legal opinions,
just my opinion.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Kudos earned - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, October 12 2005 @ 02:06 AM EDT
Two Nice Things for Groklaw
Authored by: seanlynch on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 01:38 PM EDT
Congratulations to the entire Groklaw team.

You deserve the prasie and recognition.

Thank you for all of your hard work.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Two Nice Things for Groklaw
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 04:38 PM EDT
    This case is history in the making. I believe classes in law school will be taught about the case. We've seen some spectacular law practiced. ...
PJ: You and the Groklaw community have every right to be proud. You've done a wonderful job of engaging a community who are directly affected by the outcome of this case, and you've done it by providing access (literally and through education) to the facts.

But in the larger sense, Groklaw has just as clearly shown how corruptable and inaccessible our legal system really is. This “spectacular law” has happened in the context of a brazen scheme to subvert the law to perpetrate a protection racket. SCO's scheme was made possible by betting a huge wad of cash; the success (so far) in resisting the scheme has required another huge wad of cash, over two years time, and the fat lady hasn't started to warm up yet.

I'm enough of a realist to appreciate that “in court, you don't get justice, you get law”, but let's not celebrate too highly our “spectacular law” — it looks like a birthday candle on a pile of &*$#@.


[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's lawyers' performance
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 12 2005 @ 02:01 PM EDT
Reading Normand's statement, it sounds to me like you're possibly not giving
them enough credit for keeping SCO afloat. He sounds to me like he's saying that
a lesser legal team would have lost IBM's motion to dismiss outright, and that
having to got through the rest of the process is worse than IBM should expect.
Obviously, SCO's case isn't going very well, but if you judge the lawyers'
performance by subtracting the merits of their cases from their success, Boies
Schiller's contributing a lot. Of course, Normand can't really say,
"Groklaw doesn't give us the credit we deserve for lasting this long with
no case to speak of", but I think that that sentiment is consistent with
his statement.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Two Nice Things for Groklaw
Authored by: patsbpatsb on Thursday, October 13 2005 @ 10:08 AM EDT
Has anyone noticed that, just in the past few days, when you do a search on
Google of "Groklaw" you do not get back what you used now get
an ancient 2003 link and a page of other odd stuff. You used to get back a
direct link right on the top of the list (I know, this is how I've gotten to
Groklaw nearly everyday for the past two years).
Something up?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )