decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

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

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
What is this, kindergarten? | 361 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
What is this, kindergarten?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 11:30 AM EDT
Up until coverage of this trial, I held Groklaw in very high
regard. I am part of the software industry, and pj had truly
broadened my horizons to the fascinating legal battles
taking place in the industry. However, Groklaw's coverage of
the Google-Oracle trial has done its readers a disservice,
IMO. Not only the biased reporting and commentary, but
mixing FUD as well, such as how an Oracle victory would ruin
software development forever (I can see why people could
think that, but it really wouldn't even make a dent). This
kind of opinion is best left for other outlets.

Strongly held beliefs are wonderful, but if they interfere
with professional reporting, then why bother? And this post
is another case in point. Sun's paper explicitly says that
they would like to see protection from software patents
harming interoperability. Interoperability has never been
part of this case, and even if compatibility is somehow
twisted to be a form of interoperability, Oracle's patents
are not required to build a compatible Java implementation.
There is no way any honest reader could read it to mean
anything else. If Groklaw is blind not to minute legal
nuances but to huge glaring distinctions such as in this
matter, then I just can't call pj's reporting honest.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )