| Well, I'm not a robot. I do respect the legal
system and I normally do respect
jury decisions,
whether I agree with the result or not. I do
Groklaw with one
express goal being that I
want to show you how the system works so you
can value
it.
But
you can't respect a failed result, and based on
all I know and see,
that's what we are looking
at here. I'd be delinquent not to write what
I
know.
It has nothing to do with fandom. I
don't own any Samsung products. I
do own
a lot of Apple products.
And this case
wasn't a bit about Android,
just UI stuff and
designs, hardware too, none of which is vital
to Android or
even related in some cases.
This doesn't really
touch Android, in my view, so
no emotions are
stirred on that account. In fact, I didn't
even cover this
trial because I didn't care
about the outcome on the deep level you need
to care
to write about complex litigation. Samsung
puts out Windows devices too, after
all. It
wasn't until I saw unfairness happening in the
media and in the
court that I started to
write, and frankly the end result very much
confirms
that my instinct was right. It
often is, and if you look at Groklaw's
record,
you'll have to agree that we call things right
time after time. I
wasn't sure here, because I
jumped in late, but I should have trusted
my
instincts, because they proved true.
Even lawyers, with no agenda, are
now predicting
this case will go to the US Supreme Court,
because it got so
much wrong. It's not about
fandom. It's about expertise.
So don't assume
that I don't know what I'm
writing about. If I write about something, it
means I
do know something about it. If I
don't, I never pretend, and I won't
write
about it. I'll ask a lawyer or someone else
to write about it, if I can
find one, but
I don't. And just so you know, I never
analyze cases based on
who I like. It's the
primary advantage of never taking shill
analyst money.
So don't be so quick to hurl attack words. It's
rude, and
my record stands for the proposition
that I am always trying to be fair, even to
companies
like SCO whose conduct I absolutely despise. You know what's
funny? Every single case I've written about, someone
accuses me of some bias.
For an ironic example, when I
wrote about the Apple v. Psystar case, comment
after
comment accused me of being an Apple fan. I write what I understand
about the law, and I analyze cases on the facts of the legal dispute, not who I
like or don't like. I can promise you that if I'd found out from research that
SCO was right, you'd have read about it right here. On one issue, what I wrote
did benefit SCO, actually, now that I'm remembering. But I wrote it anyway,
because it was true, and that is what Groklaw is for. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
