Groklaw Turns One 181
JuliusRV writes "Today is Groklaw's one-year anniversary! As PJ writes, 'What a difference a year makes. When we started, all the headlines were saying that SCO was going to destroy Linux or at least make it cry. Now, looking around today, I see almost everyone predicting SCO's imminent doom instead. I think the truth, as usual, isn't in the headlines, and that it's somewhere in between those two extremes.' Thanks, PJ and all other Groklawyers, keep up the good work!"
Remember... (Score:4, Insightful)
You must remember that back in the days of the OJ trial many thought he would be convicted, but he wasn't. And people have said so often how Apple will die soon / tomorrow / whatever. So I would hesitate to predicate SCO's doom just yet... but a man can dream!
Re:Remember... (Score:3, Insightful)
As bad as SCO's case is, never say never.
OJ/PJ difference (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I am really glad that PJ's work has become pivotal in illuminating the real facts behind SCO's "case". It's an excellent central point of information against SCo's disinformation campaign. Excellent work PJ. Congrats on 1 year
-B
effects (Score:3, Insightful)
i think the linux people are more unified, but idk how much it has cut in to dev time...
If only... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OJ/PJ difference (Score:3, Insightful)
It is normal for a story to turn this way (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because I like nitpicking ... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's Groklaw's first anniversary. The "year" is baked in.
Re:SCO's Imminent Doom (Score:3, Insightful)
(And yes I practice what I say and I do have a family to support)
post-SCO (Score:0, Insightful)
What, say, if Microsoft were to buy them all, as they seem to be in the habit of doing? I think they would be a SCO worse than SCO.
Re:Remember... (Score:2, Insightful)
Attempted English Lesson (Score:1, Insightful)
Someone who posts on Fark is a Farker.
Someone who posts on Groklaw is a Groklawer.
Try pronouncing 'Groklawer', or just 'lawer' for that matter. Doesn't work. That's why we say 'lawyer' in English, and that's what makes them a Groklawyer. Nothing to do with lawyers, AFAIK.
Re:SCOX at $5.15 - Where's the bottom (Score:5, Insightful)
Wouldn't it make a nice picture with IBM and other claimants around the table carving the turkey on Thanksgiving? (Too bad it won't happen that soon unless SCO runs out of legal money.)
Re:Remember... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think this concept can be applied so broadly. The lesson I take from the OJ trial is not that millions of dollars can buy acquital, but that millions of dollars can uncover enough potentially exculpatory evidence that might not be seen otherwise. Which is depressing not because OJ went free (although I do think, based on almost zero knoweldge of the case, that he's guilty), but because hundreds of poorer, dumber people are convicted and even sentenced to death based on far worse evidence, because they had no effective legal representation. (Texas being the worst example, which is why I lost all respect for Bush a long time ago, back when compassionate conservatism seemed like it might be the real thing.)
As for the parallel to SCO, bear in mind that they went up against one of the largest computer companies and a huge user and developer community that were obviously going to take it personally. This means that there is tons of money (or manpower - all of the anti-SCO research would have cost a boatload if a real law firm was doing it) being spent fighting SCO, and they're getting slowly bludgeoned to death as a result. The fact that it's a distributed and largely non-profit effort shouldn't obscure that. SCO really sees itself as the underdog in this fight, and they're correct. (A snarling, vicious little dog, that's trying to gnaw your trousers whenever it isn't copulating with your shoe.)
Re:Remember... (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure it has. It used to be that Microsoft just strong-armed OEMs and used their size to crush competitors.
Now Microsoft is fair to OEMs and is using Patents and their size to crush compeititors.
Re:If only... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure how any of these compare. SCO is claiming something that can be largely refuted based on information that's already publically available, albeit in disperse form, across many versions, and fairly large in size. In all of the other cases except King's, the events in question occured relatively in secret. More like if SCO just sued IBM over AIX (but then the Linux community wouldn't give a shit, so what'd be the point of this whole community discovery process?)
You seem to be making the point that a distributed, non-profit, internet based investigation system would be useful more generally for all sorts of civil and criminal cases, but there are almost no cases where there's such a wealth of evidence already available. And keep in mind that our various three-letter agencies are trying to do something similar to uncover terrorist plots, and Slashdotters generally hate some of the methods (i.e. Carnivore, encryption laws) they've applied.
If all of us were doing this collectively out in the open, the potential for invasion of privacy wouldn't be any less and might actually be greater. Take a look at the Powerbook scam article for an example of this; the guy got what he deserved, but isn't it frightening how much the anti-scammers were able to do?
Re:Remember... (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at OJ. The system cannot convict when done crappily. Did you ever look at the key points in the trial? The prosecutors SUCKED. It didn't matter that OJ spent a lot of money, his team screwed up tons of times, the prosecutors just screwed up tens times as often. The entire trial was botched in every way, and the result was that he wasn't convicted. In lots of past systems, horrible police-work resulted in people going to prison.
As far as Microsoft, consider whether they truly will last through everything. They've been in the system for eight years or so. Consider that this is a trial dealing with the largest software company in the world, by a fairly long shot. So, the government is careful and slow. Inside of another ten years, it will be resolved.
Yeah, it sucks that Microsoft is around for twenty years too long and OJ got off without prison time, but at least the government can't just walk in and toss someone in jail on shoddy police work or rip apart an organization at a whim.
These are examples of flaws inherent in the system, but not examples of things that should be removed from the system.
That's the trade-off in this sort of a legal system: You have a fair shot in trial and the government cannot just jump all over you, but people get away with things and it is hard to reverse abusive groups.
A better example of something that needs to be fixed and can be fixed is the way the RIAA is acting.
Re:LNUX at $1.94 - Where's the bottom? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SCOX at $5.15 - Where's the bottom (Score:5, Insightful)
I need to at least try to correct this misconception a lot of people seem to have that a company's stock price is directly tied to its very existence. It isn't. In fact, as far as the company is concerned, it doesn't even really matter. If a company is dipping into its market cap to finance anything, it's in serious trouble to begin with - which SCO is, but not because its stock price is going down. SCO is in serious trouble because its business is failing, and its stock price is reflecting that. The cause/effect is reversed, you see.
If SCO's stock reaches penny-stock levels, they'll be de-listed. It happens occasionally, and a lot of companies are not even big enough to be listed to begin with. But they're still in business. And it won't affect their legal strategy, because they've got cash set aside for that.
I'm just saying, quit harping on the stock price. It doesn't matter except as a reflection of what a very small pool of not-very-influential people (ie. mostly small investors) think about SCO's future business prospects. It's no secret that their Unix business isn't doing well, they gave up on Linux and their legal strategy is working about as well as their FUD. Plus, BayStar and RBC want out. Add it up and obviously investors want out. But this has no direct effect on SCO's business.
SCO doesn't automatically go away if their stock drops to penny levels. They've got their cash, and if they burn through it, they'll just need to find some other sucke... er, VC firm to prop them up like BayStar and RBC did. You know MS is not going to let this die; they'll find some other proxy with which to funnel SCO whatever cash they need.
American justice is based on many things (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a gross oversimplification. Trial by jury is prone to the influence of money in that better lawyers can be hired by one side or the other, but in the end it's even more prone to the social context in which the case takes place.
For example, jury trials in the American South before the enacting of federal Civil Rights legislation were absurdly biased in favor of whites and against blacks. This had nothing to do with money and everything to do with racism.
Big companies in the age of Rockafeller and Carnegie were left relatively unfettered until Americans began to resent the range and depth of the Robber Barons' influence. Then in trial after trial, the monopolies were hit hard by plaintiffs seeking damages from large companies. When Americans perceive a powerful entity as being generally useful, they tend not to press it too hard, but when they see it as having overstepped its bounds, juries tend to come down against Big Business.
Witness the recent spate of Wall Street trials. While there was certainly widespread malfeasance during the Dot-Com era, the Tyco execs, Martha Stewart, et. al. are in some ways being convicted not because of what they specifically did, but because the American public, as represented by jurors, is tired of this sort of rampant greed and wants to send a message to the executive class.
Lawrence Friedman's Law in America [randomhouse.com] is a great primer (only 200 pages) on how the American legal system evolved, and how it has shaped and been shaped by American society.
Re:Remember... (Score:2, Insightful)
Everyone can do this and everyone does. It's called jury selection and is a normal part of a criminal trial. It doesn't matter how much money you have either. All you need is an attorney who will eliminate the people from the jury who will vote guilty no matter what evidence is presented before them. The prosecution also gets to kick people off the jury so why does this bother you? The whole point of jury selection is to get as fair and impartial a jury as possible and it achieves that. Or would you prefer to have had known racists on the OJ jury? Then we could just skip the trial and string him up from a tree.
Re:not accessible from China? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Remember... (Score:1, Insightful)
You're assuming you *get* to the trial phase. Bush / Cheney / Ashcroft / Rumsfield would rather label you as a terrorist so they can keep your ass locked up in Guantanamo for 2+ years without pressing charges. If you want to find flaws in the system, you don't have to look much further than the current presidential administration.
P.S. Sorry for sounding partisan, but this is a civil liberties rant, not a Republican / Democrat rant. If Bush happened to be a Democrat, I'd still be jumping on his case.
Re:Who will own Unix? (Score:4, Insightful)
But Novell didn't sell UNIX to SCO so there's no way for Microsoft or BayStar to own it unless either one offers Novell a metric buttload of money for assignment of the copyrights.
To be correct, you should ask, "Who will own the ability to collect UNIX SysV license fees for Novell and take 5% as a service charge?"
Regards,
Ross
Re:SCOX at $5.15 - Where's the bottom (Score:5, Insightful)
Think positive. There are more ways of killing a cat...
The failure of the SCO vs IBM case and/or the total collapse of SCO must lead to the market looking brighter for some other companies. Look, for example, at this [yahoo.com]. What would you predict will happen to RedHat's business when the SCO case collapses? What will happen to Novell [yahoo.com]'s? What about other companies with a strategic cmmittment to Linux?
I would think any moderately intelligent people around here could easily put together a portfolio [yahoo.com] of [yahoo.com] companies [yahoo.com] whose stock is likely to rise when SCO goes down. And you can bask in the happy knowledge that you're supporting your friends, not gnawing the bones of your enemies.
Re:15 Minutes Over in 3...2...1 (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see the problem you do with the "FUD insurance" (though the conflict of interest is obvious) because PJ has done an admirable job of tamping down fear of legal violations. She is clearly in an abusable position; I have not seen anything that I would call abuse, though.
I agree that Groklaw could use a bit less of the anti-SCO humor and Darl-namecalling from posters -- that's really better placed on Slashdot, with it's stronger moderation system.
I also am interested as to whether PJ will begin to wind down Groklaw (as was my original impression) as SCO sputters down, or (as I'm starting to think) she will keep it alive as a forum to discuss Linux legal issues. It is clearly valuable to her employer, as she speaks with some authority on Linux legal issues.
Re:not accessible from China? (Score:4, Insightful)
Suing freedom of speech (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem SCO is going to have is that they underestimated "free software", because they didn't really know ENOUGH about "free software". The people bringing the suit aren't computer scientists, and the analysts claiming that SCO "might have something" aren't computer scientists either. The only chance that they have of winning is if the justice system fails; it's not Linux that's being questioned; it's the US justice system that's being questioned; it's the US justice system that's being sued.
Furthemore, I think many of us now realize that you can't really sue Linux, because "free software" is everyone, because "free software" is freedom of speech; it's not a company like Microsoft that you can sue. All over the world, people aren't going to stop using Linux, and if SCO is going to get anywhere, they are going to have to win many court cases, and they are going to have to show the same evidence in each case, evidence that, with almost complete certainty, it can be said, does not exist.
Now... to be fair, I imagine that it would be possible to turn SCO around; look at what Lee Iacocca did with Chrysler - it's possible, but with four patent lawsuits from IBM hanging over your head, a Red Hat lawsuit, and numerous GPL violations to boot, this is going to be difficult, so in their case, there is, let's say, a grave danger of "Live by the sword, die by the sword", happening. Unlike some people, I don't really wish any harm to SCO, because it's not SCO's fault - SCO is a business, and I would never wish financial disaster on any business. That's unethical. It's PEOPLE who work at that business that have encountered misinformation. Misinformation about Linux, misinformation about Unix, misinformation about "free software". It's basically, if I were to boil it down to a simple statement, it's that these lawsuits against Linux are being brought by individuals who aren't computer scientists.
I remember that there was a case in the US where a man sued "the devil". He claimed the devil had caused him to commit all these sins and hurt his loved ones and that he was taking the devil to court because he wanted to bring him to justice. The reason that the case was thrown out was because the court did not know where to send the devil's subpeona to. So similarly, with Linux, the question is how do you subpeona free speech? Where does free speech live? What is free speech's address? Many would say America. See? But basically, it's freedom of speech that is giving all of these proprietary software companies headaches. And suing freedom of speech is, in a strange but opposite way, like suing the devil.
If VA Software goes out of business... (Score:5, Insightful)
VA Software owns OSDN, the collection of Slashdot, Newsforge, Freshmeat, Geocrawler, and Sourceforge and some other major OSS sites (I consider the above five to be the most critical). In most cases, if VA Software goes under, it's probable that VA will have to do what it can to sell off assets and data (rather than freely releasing them) to either return to profitability or pay off creditors.
Let's look at a couple of these:
* Newsforge. Without doing research, I'm guessing that Newsforge is not self-sustaining, and would probably have difficulty being very profitable, thus it probably could not be spun off. I don't think Newsforge has significant assets in the form of IP. On the other hand, Newsforge is a fairly biased, propagandaish news source that doesn't attract a lot of mainstream attention. The loss of Newsforge probably wouldn't do too much damage to the OSS world.
* Slashdot. Slashdot can probably (perhaps given some tweaks) be self-sustaining. There are a lot of things that can be done (like ad banners and subsucriptions, as is now the case) that would probably let Slashdot keep itself afloat without drastically changing the way Slashdot works or damaging userbase size, and a number of somewhat more intrusive things that could be done that would allow Slashdot to still remain a major tech forum. Slashdot is somewhat replaceable (especially since Slashcode is open) but it would take a long time to produce such a valuable database and user base -- and given the value of these, Slashdot could probably be sold to a number of organizations. Slashdot's comment database is enormously valuable, and may rival USENET for data on a number of tech issues. Its loss would be damaging.
Slashdot is frequently biased and sometimes inaccurate, but it has a significant degree of clout. Mainstream news sources definitely go over Slashdot to identify interesting tech topics. Slashdot is an important place to get people upset about or make them aware of things relevant to the open source world -- it is probably currently the single most important such forum. It helps produce rapid community response to issues -- there have been a number of times that (major) changes have been made (vendors making statements on Linux support, people finding alternative hosting to keep important resources alive, etc) after Slashdot highlights points. It is a significant political mobilizer, and assists other mobilizers -- it is unlikely that nearly so many people would frequent Groklaw without the attention Slashdot gave it. In general, Slashdot significantly improves communication, open source visibility, reduces response time, and facilitates the spread of memes in the open source community. I would consider it to be extremely important, and the loss of it a major setback.
* Freshmeat. Freshmeat is a major resource for *IX software. There is no other database that is nearly as comprehensive or helps get the word out about important updates. Google can replace some of Freshmeat's features (the ability to locate a project homepage is somewhat less useful that it used to be). However, while Freshmeat does not provide updated competitive reviews of software projects, it is *the* single place to go when one wants to find a list of potential *IX applications to solve a problem. This has significant trickedown effect to even end users -- if one works at Red Hat and is trying to find a good CLI FTP client to bundle with Red Hat, Freshmeat is where to start looking for one. Freshmeat can probably maintain itself, especially as it may have lower resource usage than Slashdot. Freshmeat is probably the primary location to spread warnings about an intentionally malicious application (such as one that adds backdoors to a system) since many people will see Freshmeat comments when doing initial-evaluation of soft
Re:15 Minutes Over in 3...2...1 (Score:3, Insightful)
* I think that the idea of tags is a Good Thing on Slashdot. This allows people to tag things as being under a particular variety, and people to score based on tags however they desire. It does make the default values assigned to tags extremely powerful, though -- many people will moderate things that are not true "offtopic" in lieu of "troll" or "flamebait" or whatever, since they just think "I've knocked it down by a point".
* I think that the idea of point-oriented moderation tags (underrated/overrated) is a poor idea. On Slashdot, such moderations are immune to metamoderation (why?) and it means that people must "choose the point value" of something. I may not care about "offtopic", and want to see it, but if a comment is tagged "overrated" I have zero information to make a decision based on -- how do I know why the comment is overrated and whether I might want to read it?
* I'd like to see a wider point spread than the -1 to +5 of Slashdot. That made sense back when there were fewer users, and +5s were rare and exceptional. Now, I post +5s every day or so, and frequently see +5s that aren't that great. Clearly, the moderation data has become saturated.
* I think that the idea of no negative moderation (kuro5hin) is a good idea. Here's the problem. It is very easy to post lots of negative posts. Slashdot makes some attempt to avoid negative moderation -- limiting the number of posts/IP/day, and tempbanning people that post too many things that are modded down -- but ultimately, when you allow anonymous users, it's hard to do anything about this. Usually, there are a relatively small number of useful posts. It's better to mod those up than to let trolls force one to blow an arbitrary amount of points on negative mods. (An alternative would be to have a number of points reserved for "positive mods")
* Slashdot sorts posts forward chronologically by default for new users and for unregistered users. This is a terrible default. It means that the ever-abusable First Posts have value, it means that the least informed posts are generally the first thing that new users see (rather than the later posts from people that have both read the story and considered many other posts as well), and it means that the comments that are read on a story are unevenly read.
* One idea might be the loss of moderator anonymity. Clearly, wars could be started by people starting to regularly mod each others' posts down, so there is a serious potential for problems. However, there are major advantages. First, I suddenly have the option to weight moderation of my friends more highly (and my enemies less highly). Second, it's possible for the forum to suggest friends/enemies from people that moderate very similarly or differently from my own moderations -- in general, if I mod down flamebait, I'd like people who mod it up to have less influence on what I see.
It's the FIRST anniversary (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:If only... (Score:3, Insightful)
Then a more technical site as Groklaw would have tried to find out, what parts of the code are actually tainted and should be replaced as soon as possible. Thus we may have a slightly different kernel now, probably with some parts of code reviewed and better coded than before, which otherwise no one would ever have looked into because they just worked (UNIX has 30 years of development and bugfixing behind, so some of the code may be quite bugfree, even though somewhat dated and not fully profiled for today's use.)
Groklaw is just one line of defense in the case Intellectual Property claims vs. Free Software/Open Source. There are others. Stacked behind or defending other places. It is important to have them even though they may not be attacked in the current case. With Groklaw's help Linux (and together with Linux) the Free Software movement looks more clean than one year before, when the suspicion of inadvertedly added code was not easily to rebuff because of still unsorted information.
Now you can even quote the case to the FUD affected C(E/T/I)Os and tell them: Look: A company in possession of the full source code of UNIX, AIX, Dynix and Linux and with a clear dedication to find infringement had had more than one year's time, and it still can't come up with a single line of code in Linux that was tainted. How many cases of IP theft have been decided in the closed source world in the same time against the infringer, even though the plaintiff didn't even had access to the source code? If you really want to avoid legal hassles about infringment, go with open source and free software, because in the other world you never know.