The Register vs Groklaw: Who Gets It Right? 224
microbee writes "Over the past weeks Groklaw has been running a series of articles on new discoveries about SCO and Project Monterey. Surprisingly (to me, as I love both sites), The Register published another article to counter the argument of Groklaw's serials, claiming "it's difficult to envisage Groklaw's conjecture swaying a court case, but it provides SCO with valuable public relations ammunition."" There's also a rebuttal on groklaw as well.
Re:Give up and Die, SCO (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess they hope it's a case of any publicity is good publicity
Groklaw got it right (Score:5, Insightful)
I found it difficult to see the point of the Register article. There was very little in it that was actually inconsistent with what has appeared on Groklaw. The main theme seemed to be that Groklwas was wrong to think that it had made a big discovery about Project Monterey, but Groklaw has never claimed to have made such a discovery, just to have assembled lots of evidence that counters SCO's claims. The Register article's claims about PJ retracting statements are not backed up by any evidence.
As for Groklaw's alleged errors helping SCO, I don't see it. At worst, Groklaw has exaggerated the significance of the history of Project Monterey. SCO has made no hay out of this, and I don't see how it could, even if the Register's claims were true.
My money is on The Register (Score:2, Insightful)
"The saga illustrates one of the perils of online forums, the "echo chamber" effect. Many participants join a forum to have beliefs re-affirmed, and context is often a casualty. It's also a characteristic of the "information age" that facts are often applauded regardless of whether they make sense in a particular context."
A brilliant explanation of how something becomes "fact" on the Internet. I wouldn't say The Register's article is really an indictment of Groklaw, but perhaps it would be better if Groklaw let the courts decide this particular case.
Register seems to be missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
In any case, the big problem the register has is PJ's summary of how Monterey was a "stopgap" on IBM's way to Linux.
That seems to be much ado about nothing (then we ARE talking about the register
Whether Monterey was a "stopgap" or not doesn't matter to the case, but rather whether SCO was aware of IBM's intent to run the code on the power PC. THAT is why the "evidence" that has been recorded on Groklaw is important.
Echo chamber (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Give up and Die, SCO (Score:5, Insightful)
They've been left in the dust by Linux and they're really not relevent anymore. If anything, they're the posterchild for why you should abandon propriatary OSs. I hope Bill Gate$ is paying attention.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Conjecture, sure. Valuable to SCO? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it is difficult to envisage this, since Groklaw isn't about trying to sway any court case. The lawyers for IBM and SCOX are the ones to make that kind of impact, and they have to rely on whatever are the facts. Groklaw is merely reporting the various twists and turns of this case, and in this process it is helping the lawyers and the technical people understand what the other say and how they think. As far as any conjecture being presented there, this appears mostly based on available material, such as court filings and technical documentation generally available. There may seem to be a bias against SCO, but if the realities of the case had been different, there could just as well have been an apparent bias against IBM.
As for being valuable to SCO PR, I'd beg to differ! Groklaw has been able to neutralize much of the FUD that Darl McBride would have us believe about SCO owning and controlling this and that... if anything can be compared to ammunition, it would be the torpedoes that are about to sink SCO. Even without Groklaw, SCO would eventually have foundered, it would have taken longer, and resulted in a slower growth of Linux.
Andrew Orlowski (Score:5, Insightful)
I've stopped reading El Reg because they don't have a block Andrew Orlowski option. I could tell within a sentence (without reading the byline) that an article was by Andrew.
Previously his articles have dripped with vitriolic envy of Google. I'm guessing that the new ones have the same acidic content agains Groklaw. While I've doubts about the objectivity (ho ho) of Groklaw, life is too short to read Andrew's rantings on the subject.
Re:My money is on The Register (Score:5, Insightful)
One of Groklaw's missions is to provide access to the available information so that the reader can form his own opinion. We feel we are quite successfull with that; even SCO uses our archive of legal documents. [slashdot.org]
PJ's polite but devastating putdown - ouch! (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks PJ for the most polite but devastating putdown I have seen in years :)
PJ: "I see I should have explained all that more clearly, and I'll surely be more alert in the future,
to make sure those with no legal background or training can follow along."
Re:My money is on The Register (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, perhaps we should stop reporting on what goes on in the courts, and even better corporate boardrooms. Why bother, what could the public possibly gain from a though scrutiny of these public entities? The courts can decide for themselves what is right and wrong with out the help of Groklaw. I would really hate for the data that has been compiled on Groklaw to get into the wrong layers hands, it could thorw the whole case off for SCO. How dare PJ attempt to refute each and every accusation put forth by SCO. I mean SCO would _never_ use the media like this, would they?
How about blinders for the public too, no need for all these messy details to make it outside of the court room. We simple folk cannot possibly comprehend the subtiles of SCO trying to bludgeon linux by suing IBM, we should just quietly wait while the fate of open and free software is tested in the courts.
Gimme a break...
I never understood the fascination with the Reg... (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's an example of their crapola: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/11/torvalds_
Can you imagine a newspaper printing, "Here's a quote from president Bush. Haha... just kidding!" I have a sense of humor, but there are times when stuff like that is appropriate and times when it's not. It's like an entire site of editorials and wannabe pundits.
Re:Conjecture, sure. Valuable to SCO? (Score:4, Insightful)
"difficult to envisage Groklaw's conjecture" (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not what Groklaw is doing. Groklaw makes as many court documents as possible public. Convincing a court of anything is the lawyers' job. What Groklaw is doing here is clarifying arguments already made by IBM's legal team.
What Groklaw does is fight FUD. It has done a very good job of fighting FUD. The result is (imho) that the mainstream press has figured out the truth much sooner that it would otherwise have done.
Re:Andrew Orlowski (Score:4, Insightful)
There's no absolute requirement of objectivity in order to recognize facts. It can help, but it's not a requirement.
Re:Groklaw got it right (Score:4, Insightful)
She does that all the time. That's why there is a "Corrections go here" post in every story.
Maybe it is just me but... (Score:3, Insightful)
"it's difficult to envisage Groklaw's conjecture swaying a court case, but it provides SCO with valuable public relations ammunition.""
I really want news services to inform me about what is going on in a court case not have any real effect on a court case. In theory anyway court cases should not be effected by public opinion or news coverage.
Re:PJ's polite but devastating putdown - ouch! (Score:1, Insightful)
the Register article is mush (Score:3, Insightful)
Case in point... (Score:4, Insightful)
As Orlowski says, "commenters who pointed out the shortcomings of the argument were lost in the Groklaw noise [...] They're lost amidst comments such as "Absolutely fascinating", and "Doesn't this just about blow the whole of SCOG's case out of the water?"
The same is perfectly true here - I'm sure there are far more of the latter on Slashdot, and being a "democratic" mod system the latter wield the greater "power".
Thus, those who post comments such as "This article is wrong", "Groklaw is right", "PJ is right" etc. etc. will in general be moderated far higher than those posting "...perhaps Andrew Orlowski has a point".
Now, the big question is whether that's a bad thing. The point of the Slashdot mod system is that only after repeated moderation by severak different people does a comment become noticed. The system is, in it's own idiosyncratic way, a democracy. But as a result of this, some opinions that may actually have some merit but are disagreed with by the majority are left behind.
The echo chamber exists right here - when this article was at around 75 comments posted, I'd say I saw many more pro-Groklaw posts modded up to 5 than criticisms...there were critical posts there, but they had yet to be moderated up.
You're missing the point... (Score:3, Insightful)
The article is trying to put across the point that on single-sided sites such as Groklaw (and that's really what it is), context is lost completely.
Re:Groklaw got it right (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:My money is on The Register (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither do I think you are correct attempting to tie "facts" as the reg puts it as an indictment to Groklaw. Again please show me one link of PJ's that are not facts or a matter of public record.
Don't you dare backpedal on this (Score:1, Insightful)
Explain the discrepancy you weasel.
Re:You're missing the point... (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that TSCOG is a soft target.
Their public statements conflict with their court filings. Their earlier court filings contained grammatical as well as spelling errors. Their latest filings are pompous and repetitive. Their alleged evidence is so insubtantial as to be almost ludicrous. It's almost a textbook case of how not to conduct a lawsuit. Groklaw may appear one-sided, but it's hard not to laugh and make fun of TSCOG.
Re:Groklaw IS an open forum... (Score:3, Insightful)
Groklaw is an open forum, because anyone is free to post there. If it were a closed forum, only a certain select few individuals would be allowed to post there.
The "open-ness" of a forum has nothing to do with the general opinions of its members, and whether or not they agree or disagree with your opinions.
A similar analogy is open source software vs. closed-source software:
1. Open source: anyone can see the source code
2. Closed source: only those with special privileges can see the source code
Notice that what makes open source software open is not the opinions of the people who use or develop it (like open source forums).
Re:I never understood the fascination with the Reg (Score:2, Insightful)
It was saying that Linus' attacks on Tridge might-as-well-have-been attacks on OpenOffice, or other compatibility based projects.
~Dave
It's Orlowski (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Actually, they have been mostly smart (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, there are other lawyers working behind the scenes, but the major work is being handled by the firms of Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, and Snell & Wilmer LLP, plus IBM in-house legal staff, and likely hundreds of paralegals.
And they are all deserving of their compensation in this mess.
Re:It's funny. Laugh. (Learn to spot a joke...) (Score:3, Insightful)
What I want to know is this: How highly does the register value its journalistic integrity? If highly, then why print a tariff at all, since it can be used to call any article into question. On the other hand, if they place little value on the that integrity, then why would they not "sell their soul" for 15k? I mean it's not like it's a one off deal -- they get to sell out again and again at 15 grand a time.
I find your faith in the Reg touching. But on this issue, I think I shall have to remain agnostic.
Re:...but it's the facts that are distorted by use (Score:3, Insightful)
The point of the Groklaw interest in Monterey was to gather information on SCO's claim that IBM broke their contract with SCO by developing Monterey on POWER. This was always the main focus for the fact gathering. Thus the majority of the statements and "revelations" made were regarding this position taken by SCO. That Monterey on POWER isn't much of a revelation for Orlowski is not really surprising given the mountain of "evidence" gathered by Groklaw. But maybe he should be contacting SCO to ask them why SCO thinks otherwise rather than quibbling with Groklaw over a speculation by PJ on a minor point eg. "Monterey being a stopgap towards Linux".
So Orlowski takes a speculation and blows it up in to a 4 "page" story, that basically comes down to that PJ's speculation was 2 years too early, e.g. Monterey wasn't a "stopgap" from the beginning but it certainly seemed abandoned by the beginning of 2000 and certainly by Aug. 2000, and thus could be characterised as being possibly a "stopgap".
Now that is all that Orlowski's article is about, an attempt to deride Groklaw based on a speculation by PJ in the midst of an article used to gather information not really connected to the speculation.
It is obvious to me that Orlowski did not take the time to understand what the whole point of Groklaw's Monterey fact gathering mission was about. It seems to me he came in part way through, didn't read the previous discussion and took issue with a minor speculation. If that isn't taking something out of context I don't know what is. The worst part is that it is Orlowski who is supposed to be the "Journalist", but than maybe this isn't surprising because that is what I have come to expect from mainstream journalists anyway.
Re:Groklaw got it right (Score:2, Insightful)
IIRC, RMS actually said, "I don't believe he's doing that," when answering some specific question about de Icaza's work, in the, "I think that's incorrect," sense. Orlokowski got it secondhand from someone who attended, misinterpreted the out-of-context quote, and chucked a story onto the Reg's front page before doing any journalistic stuff like contacting the primary sources and checking his facts.
RMS wrote a response (link) [theregister.co.uk] which begins: "Your article about me, GNOME and
The Reg has a habit of blurring the boundaries between 'reporting' and 'editorializing', which is part of its charm. Sometimes that means not letting the facts get in the way of a that will draw page views, but at least they don't do it too often.
This particular case happens to be pretty silly, though. For some reason Orlokowski, a general pundit who's never claimed any kind of in-depth legal knowledge, decided it would be a good idea to trade legal opinions with PJ, a paralegal who's read, discussed, archived, and cross-referenced every public document relating to this case that she can get her hands on.. not just the complaints, briefs, motions, responses, etc actually filed in court, but also a whole ton of external contextual information.
By and large, I think it's pretty safe to bet that PJ knows what she's doing.