|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 10:01 AM EDT |
Groklaw is a big place where anyone can post so emotional side-tracks/views
are always going to be allowed. Mark and PJ do a good job of steering the main
purpose of Groklaw back to the straight and narrow of "backup what you say
with proof".
Just my thoughts.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 11:57 AM EDT |
I find it significant that you are in a bad mood on
this day of all days.
: )
As to this comment of yours:
"As to prescience for outcomes, it seemed to me over the past couple of
weeks, every question from the jury was read as a sign that they were getting it
wrong, things were too complicated for them, and Google was going to get
robbed."
It turned out that our feeling was correct, except what we didn't know was that
the person sending all those questions was the single juror who was fighting
hard for Oracle throughout the deliberations. He was getting it wrong and in
the end, even he decided to stop.
So our reaction to the questions was right on target.
As for this part of your comment:
"While a lot of energy has been expended both in posts and comments that
the patents are invalid because of obviousness or prior art, the two left
standing were successfully defended on the basis of "We didn't it that
way." Exactly a point that has to be decided by a jury (or the Judge in a
trial) and not via motion practice."
I think you were not fully paying attention. Invalidity was never in this
trial. But it is happening at the USPTO, so all the comments could be useful in
that venue. Here,
Google stipulated prior to the patent phase trial that it would not argue
invalidity, only that it didn't use the patents. No one hear missed that. Their
comments were directed to the USPTO ongoing reexaminations and for the benefit
of any future victims of Oracle's Java strategy, should there be any.
As for this part of your comment:
"Nonetheless, it is a perspective, and a site that is about the law and
facts should celebrate until the cows come home and then at some point, after
the confetti has been swept up, be contemplative and ask the question, did our
affinity for Google cause us to, at any time, stop being crowd sourced
journalists and become partisans, with our attentions focused on disproving and
ridiculing Oracle's claims while accepting Google's claims at full, unchallenged
value."
Groklaw has a purpose, to defend Free and Open Source. It has unwaveringly done
so. But it has always been fair to everyone. Novell would have won more money
from SCO had it not been for stuff I found and published, for example. No, we
look for what is really true. I'll tell you something: the real pleasure of
doing Groklaw is being able to tell it true, with nobody to tell us what we have
to say or think.
That's the joy of it, to me. And so after we analyze a case, once we are sure,
that's where we stand. And personally, I didn't much care about the case until
Oracle came up with the API SSO's are copyrightable argument, and then I was
galvanized, because that threatens software development, and FOSS more than
anybody. That's "bias" if you will, but really you should care about
that too, in my opinion, and so should everyone who is not a large, proprietary
software company. Because they have a "bias" if you will. They want
to keep you from being successful, but if you are successful anyway, they want
you to have to pay them a toll or they will seek an injunction against you. That
was Oracle's stated goal.
Now, what *should* Groklaw do about something like that? Pretend it isn't awful
for FOSS?
Now. Tell us. Why are you in a bad mood?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
