Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Groklaw Declares Victory, No More Articles

Roblimo posted more than 3 years ago | from the mission-accomplished dept.

Caldera 265

tomhudson writes "Pamela Jones announced that as of May 16th, she will no longer be updating groklaw: 'I have decided that Groklaw will stop publishing new articles on our anniversary, May 16. I know a lot of you will be unhappy to hear it, so let me briefly explain, because my decision is made and it's firm. In a simple sentence, the reason is this: the crisis SCO initiated over Linux is over, and Linux won. SCO as we knew it is no more."

cancel ×

265 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Noes (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770730)

Buggah

Either way (0)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771396)

Send PJ a red dress for the closing party!

Good riddance to bad rubbish (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35770734)

n/t

Re:Good riddance to bad rubbish (3, Funny)

DrJimbo (594231) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770778)

Darl? Is that you?

Re:Good riddance to bad rubbish (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35770894)

It's every guy that's ever fingered her pussy.

Re:Good riddance to bad rubbish (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35771146)

It's every guy....her....

Yuck!!

gosh... at least we could... (1)

bball99 (232214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770750)

have a bit of cake and cookies!

i'll raise a toast to Groklaw and the demise of SCO...

where are the prime ruffians nowadays, anyway?

paid for by sony! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35770756)

paid for by sony!

PJ doesn't exist. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35770766)

Their are zero pictures of PJ on the Net. She didn't even show up to to collect the award the EFF gave her. This is because she doesn't exist. She is a product of the IBM legal department.

Re:PJ doesn't exist. (1)

merrickm (1192625) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770818)

. . . why? How does making people think Groklaw is run by someone named PJ help IBM?

Re:PJ doesn't exist. (4, Insightful)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770844)

Their are zero pictures of PJ on the Net. She didn't even show up to to collect the award the EFF gave her.

I don't have a picture of you. Therefore you are also a IBM manifestation.

Re:PJ doesn't exist. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35771030)

I don't delete posts that ask for proof that PJ actually exists. The standards that GL holds everyone else do aren't the same standards they hold themselves up to. Strange.

Re:PJ doesn't exist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35771392)

Are you also a 'birther' too? Your behavior is similar.

Re:PJ doesn't exist. (-1, Troll)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771092)

And even if this is true, so what? Better than being a fucking retard like you, doubtless wiping you

Re:PJ doesn't exist. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35771216)

Their are zero pictures of PJ on the Net. She didn't even show up to to collect the award the EFF gave her.

This is because she doesn't exist. She is a product of the IBM legal department.

That fails to explain her positions on other cases, such as her obvious pro-Google stance in Oracle v. Google, where Sun's Java guru and now-Google employee James Gosling was quoted as saying that Google definitely violated Sun's and now Oracle's patents.

IBM's lawyers would stay far away from taking sides in an Oracle-vs-Google pissing match over money.

Re:PJ doesn't exist. (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771230)

No, she's Obama's twin sister, born in Kenya.. She's actually a triple agent created by Apple. Nobody else has the resources..

"Google doesn't need our help" (-1, Flamebait)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770774)

Linux back in 2003 had nobody to stand up for it. But Google doesn't need our help.

So what is IBM? Chopped liver?

An odd comment, and one that reinforces the idea that Groklaw was an IBM astroturfing effort (albeit a good and necessary one) from the outset.

Re:"Google doesn't need our help" (3, Informative)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770898)

Really? Astroturfing? Could you troll any more?

Showing facts when people show misinformation is only called astroturfing by people who don't like facts.

Re:"Google doesn't need our help" (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35770946)

,,, like Democrats!

Re:"Google doesn't need our help" (2)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771040)

Yeah, and Republicans too!

Re:"Google doesn't need our help" (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771176)

Let's not forget those Libertarians!

Re:"Google doesn't need our help" (0, Troll)

makomk (752139) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771162)

Except that what Groklaw counted as facts and what it counted as misinformation seemed to depend on what benefited IBM too much. Most egregariously, when IBM launched a lawsuit against a company providing support for the open source TurboHercules software - using patents they'd promised not to use against open source software no less - PJ insisted that suing a company providing commercial support an open source project, using the argument that said project is illegal, is in no way an attack on the open source project, and that anyone claiming otherwise was spreading FUD. This is the exact opposite of how she viewed similar lawsuits against companies providing support for open source software when the lawsuits harmed IBM.

Of course, it doesn't help that Groklaw systematically deletes comments with facts or opinions in contradiction to Groklaw's point of view, deletes any reference to comments having been deleted, bans users who write either kind of comment, and conceals from the comment author the fact that their comment has been deleted and only they can see it.

Re:"Google doesn't need our help" (1)

ridgecritter (934252) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771332)

"egregariously" - wonderful! In the same league as "misunderestimate" and "refudiate"! Thanks for the chuckle!

Re:"Google doesn't need our help" (2)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771372)

Egregariously? No, you mean egregiously, sir.

Anyone could have reported what she did by just simply reading the filings from each side of the fight and doing a bit of analysis. There are some of us who have been using Unix since the mid '80s. SCO attempted to rewrite history.

Re:"Google doesn't need our help" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35771164)

Showing facts when people show misinformation is only called astroturfing by people who don't like facts.

No, it's called astroturfing by all those who know one person's "facts" are another person's opinions.

Shills are lying lowlifes. And that's being polite compared to what they should called.

If a reader will interpret a message differently when they think it's been written by an unbiased third party and if that difference has material financial consequences and the message was written to appear to be by an unbiased third party when it isn't then the writer was engaged in fraud.

Re:"Google doesn't need our help" (3, Informative)

wellwellwelloh (2037802) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770968)

SCO later down the line chose to pick on IBM, Groklaw pre-dated that particular decision. Whilst I don't wholeheartedly agree with what PJ said about Google not needing the communities help, in so much as I think it would be valueable for the community to help itself, Linux of 2003 was a world away from Android of 2011.

Re:"Google doesn't need our help" (4, Interesting)

belgianguy (1954708) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771024)

The battle may be over, but the war is far from won. Increases in popularity of open source projects will probably also cause an increase in litigation about open source projects. A central hub of anything law-related (w.r.t. Open Source) would be something very valuable in my opinion, both for developers and consumers. Not just for updates on current events, but also as a reference source. Android may have sufficient financial backing to survive an onslaught of lawsuits, but many others might not be so lucky. I'm thinking software patent debacles, Sony's crusade against homebrewers, draconian DRM, frivolous DCMA etc...

I saw it as a magnifying glass that hovered over cases, which could propel relatively unknown lawsuits from the dusty desk of a clerk to the eyes of the mainstream media, causing a discussion in the worst case, and a reaction/correction in the best case scenario.

For the short time I knew it, I was quite fond of it, and it had earned a good reputation. Sad to see it go.

Re:"Google doesn't need our help" (1)

burne (686114) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771150)

So what is IBM? Chopped liver?

Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles.

Re:"Google doesn't need our help" (3, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771284)

Incontinent Bald Men

Shouldn't they focus on other threats? (-1, Troll)

browntulip (2037764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770780)

I mean they attack Linux from various angles? Like the FAT patent? [c2.com] Or various attacks against Google and android (yeah google is evil cause they didn't release the source, but yet?

Re:Shouldn't they focus on other threats? (0)

GoatseWarning! (2037768) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770788)

Goatse Alert! Parent link is goatse!

Re:Shouldn't they focus on other threats? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35770822)

The amusing thing is that I refused to believe that a user named GoatseWarning! would truly be pointing out Goatse links, and so I clicked out of curiosity and.. :(

Re:Shouldn't they focus on other threats? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770902)

but you trust a link from a guy named "brown tulip"?

Re:Shouldn't they focus on other threats? (1)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770910)

I conducted an interesting experiment a few years ago with lemonparty. 100% of the people I told NOT to click the link did. Only 10% of those I suggested the link to actually went there. Some of those I told not to click it, I actually forewarned them of the content, and STILL they clicked it.

Re:Shouldn't they focus on other threats? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35771052)

dude, really? Not even copy paste the link and view-source: it or some other way to check out the url without actually displaying it?

Re:Shouldn't they focus on other threats? (1)

arielCo (995647) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770906)

Goats? where? I like goats.

Re:Shouldn't they focus on other threats? (3, Interesting)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770978)

Karma farmer alert! Parent replies to his own fake accounts to garner positive karma! Check Goatse links in parents and UIDs of both!

Groklaw still could have a mission... (5, Insightful)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770798)

If PJ or someone else so chose, Groklaw could have a mission. I found the dissection of the legal ramifications of the moves by the various parties in the suit to be education and valuable information. There are many high profile suits for which this sort of information would be quite helpful. The suit by Sony, for instance, is one of these. Some sort of knowledgeable coverage of the various patent lawsuits going on in the smart phone arena would be interesting too.

Good coverage of legal stuff and quality analysis is very hard to find. If a tip jar was put up, some of my money would likely find my way into it.

Re:Groklaw still could have a mission... (-1, Troll)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770826)

Depends on who was paying the salary. Perhaps there was a more sinister mission, and its been completed.

Re:Groklaw still could have a mission... (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770908)

and what is your imaginary sinister mission?

Re:Groklaw still could have a mission... (2)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770936)

Well you don't expect me to reveal that to just anyone. "They" would come looking for me.

Re:Groklaw still could have a mission... (4, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771096)

Or more likely, you've just run out of SCO stock to use as ass paper.

Re:Groklaw still could have a mission... (3, Insightful)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770880)

If PJ or someone else so chose, Groklaw could have a mission.

I agree. However, I suspect that the job PJ volunteered for would be taxing after awhile; community wonks, ignorant "journalists" with an axe to grind, opposition trying to detract from the issue by making personal attacks from the shadows, etc. Groklaw could be more than just the SCO threat. But now that SCO seems to be well and finally done, it strikes me as a good time to slip away from the menacing limelight.

Re:Groklaw still could have a mission... (4, Insightful)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770956)

Yeah, I read the article, and it makes more sense. I still think PJ should hand it to someone else she trusts to carry on. I can understand being personally exhausted by the effort, and I applaud the job she's done and think she is greatly deserving of the rest and obscurity she desires (because she wants them, not because I personally want her to go away or be obscure :-).

Re:Groklaw still could have a mission... (2, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771088)

I still think PJ should hand it to someone else she trusts to carry on

Or sell the site. I never understood why Bruce shut Technocrat down. Why take your bat and ball and go home if you can get a few bucks for them?

Re:Groklaw still could have a mission... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35771258)

This is an absurd example, if you got a few bucks for your bat and then the person who bought it went and beat some old lady to death with it, you'd feel bad because it used to be your bat. I'm sure these folks who shut their site down consider it part of their personal legacy, something they built from the ground up, and would rather not see it sold off and then used some way or another that doesn't jive with their original mission.

Re:Groklaw still could have a mission... (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771390)

I still think PJ should hand it to someone else she trusts to carry on

Or sell the site. I never understood why Bruce shut Technocrat down. Why take your bat and ball and go home if you can get a few bucks for them?

I bet Darl McBride would be interested...

Re:Groklaw still could have a mission... (4, Insightful)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770942)

Law is a never ending battle. If Groklaw expanded it's mission it would never end. PJ would have to be like the Phantom, passing the ring and title down, generation to generation. Every time we hear about a patent lawsuit ending, we've heard of a good two dozen start up at the same time. Groklaw will be a valuable resource, and should be archived, but let her rest, or she'll be writing until they nail her pine box shut.

Re:Groklaw still could have a mission... (1)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770998)

I think she should pass on the mantle to someone she trusts. That person would not be PJ, and the sites flavor would change, but if the person were any good the coverage would still be there and valuable.

Re:Groklaw still could have a mission... (1)

Bieeanda (961632) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771300)

Somehow, I don't think a tip jar on the Internet would be particularly enticing. Good on PJ for getting out while the getting is good. With the SCO thing out of the way, everyone with a cause would be battering down her door and then, knowing people, launching into character assassination when she chose to champion someone else's project.

Re:Groklaw still could have a mission... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35771460)

Fully agreed and it is true.

There is so much more to groklaw than SCO (1)

ALeader71 (687693) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770804)

What a shame. Groklaw is one of the few places you could go for unbiased news on our industry, and the patent trolls that plague it.

So Groklaw is dead. Long live a new groklaw anyone?

Re:There is so much more to groklaw than SCO (-1, Troll)

picotuxx (2037790) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770838)

There are rumours [c2.com] that Apple will sue Android vendors for few of their patents in the Linux EXT4 filesystem that is going to be used in Android.

The link above goes to Goatse (n/t) (1, Informative)

arielCo (995647) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770886)

you've been warned

Re:There is so much more to groklaw than SCO (-1, Redundant)

GoatseWarning! (2037768) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770892)

Goaste Alert! Parent link is g-g-goatse!

nuuuuuuuu! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35770806)

Quick, somebody buy up SCO and continue the suit!

Re:nuuuuuuuu! (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770816)

I'm game, I think I've got a couple dollars left from my last pay check.

And what about recent threats against HTC? (-1, Troll)

binary1larry (2037788) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770810)

Yeah, HTC was sued recently [c2.com] for patents in the kernel by a patent troll

Re:And what about recent threats against HTC? (-1)

GoatseWarning! (2037768) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770840)

Goatse Alert! Another goatse posting account!

Re:And what about recent threats against HTC? (1)

longhairedgnome (610579) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770872)

So is this some sort of puppet account? Your UID is fairly close to the numbers of users you're fingerpointing at...

Re:And what about recent threats against HTC? (-1)

GoatseWarning! (2037768) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770954)

I'm not a sock puppet, I'm a new account serving the purpose of 'Slashdot Anti-Sphincter Superhero'. I can't mod and post warnings in the same thread.

Re:And what about recent threats against HTC? (1)

msauve (701917) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771132)

The account you're replying to is karma-whoring (and setting themselves up to do so).

Twitch (5, Funny)

msobkow (48369) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770820)

"But I'm not dead yet!" -- Darl McBride

Re:Twitch (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35771050)

Oh nonsense; you'll be stone dead in a moment.

Re:Twitch (3, Funny)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771186)

Well, I can't take him like that. It's against regulations.

Dead Person: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35771222)

I don't want to go in the cart!

It was more than just SCO though (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35770832)

Groklaw started with the fiasco over SCO, but there was a lot more than just the Linux fight with SCO. It demonstrated to the entire Linux community the minefield that had been lurking: patents, copyrights, and the fiasco that is the American Intellectual Property Industry. Its far more destructive to innovation and advances in science, progress and technology now than at any previous period in history (although the early middle ages and alchemy come close). But with Alchemy, you could claim that what you created in your castle cellar is yours (and no one would try to stop you). Where we are now, if you create something new that you've never seen before, and isn't yet on the market, someone somewhere will claim that all your research, design and development belongs to them, and will insist that you turn over all your work to them (stuff they don't have) because they were granted a broad, general patent, claiming everything you have (so hand it over, and if you don't a judge will make you). People don't even want to do R&D because some company will claim everything. Groklaw showed us this (and I learned what 'with prejudice' means, what 'pink sheets' are, and what the abbreviation NASDAQ (N.A.S.D.A.Q.) stands for, among other things). Thanks P.J.

Re:It was more than just SCO though (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35771370)

Of course, and the flip side of the coin is, it was more than just SCO. Who FUNDED SCO? They stopped being the Santa Cruz Operation a looong time ago. The gutted corpse was resurrected as a shambling zombie. And who was the puppet master? We've heard the names. The Canopy Group. Microsoft.

SCO and it's merry band of idiots with stupid names (Darl? Seriously?) were put in place as a cock-sure weapon against Linux. Too cock-sure, as they tripped up, and the community refused to put up with their bullshit. Remember the counter-protest? With the signs that had Linus Torvalds as a puppet of IBM? Those signs weren't drawn up at lunch break.

SCO may be no more but the puppet masters are still out there. Throwing in the towel now and declaring "victory" is stupid. We have won absolutely nothing.

I expect a long magazine article by PJ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35770850)

retelling the story of Groklaw in The New Yorker, the Atlantic, or similar upscale book, for a general audience, later this year or early next year. Hopefully, she won't sell her story to a business or computer mag.

Then she can hire an agent and talk about expanding that into a book, with additional background material about software IP, etc.

I'll pick up the magazine. Not sure about the book, that might take too long to read.

Re:I expect a long magazine article by PJ (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35771118)

more like penthouse forum.

Re:I expect a long magazine article by PJ (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771192)

Perhaps you shouldn't have suggested it, then? I mean, you kinda created your own problem here.

Re:I expect a long magazine article by PJ (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35771402)

I also expect a complete rewrite of the history, with PJ claiming credit for other people's work, and proclaiming herself the #1 influence in the "downfall" of SCO.

Thanks from all of us! (5, Informative)

pr0f3550r (553601) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770866)

Thanks for all your hard work Pamela. The open source community has benefited greatly from your efforts. Good luck in you future endeavors!

I think thats OK (-1, Troll)

thissone (2037794) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770868)

And thanks for all the fish. I will always the day I saw the article [c2.com] about legal threats to Linux Men I feel old now...

Re:I think thats OK (-1)

GoatseWarning! (2037768) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770876)

Goatse Alert! We have another goatse link!

who cares? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35770912)

what's SCO? or Linux for that matter?

Re:who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35771000)

Is that you Darl? :-)

badly needed (4, Insightful)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770914)

Although Groklaw was founded because of SCO's actions, it, or a site like it, is badly needed. We all need to grok law. I hope the site will be spun off to other writers, or another site will take its place.

Don't diminish, expand! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35770938)

Dang. I was hoping it would expand into a general-purpose US (and later global) law resource and central site for dissection of and commentary on ongoing legal issues.

What has risen from the ashes of the phoenix (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770988)

is much more menacing..

That was just a tease of what's to come...

Go leave a comment on groklaw people (4, Insightful)

phayes (202222) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770992)

PJ deserves a thank you for everything she has done for us all. Show her that her efforts have been appreciated before it is too late!

Re:Go leave a comment on groklaw people (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771108)

Except by the disgruntled retards around here who bought SCO stock. They'll bitch and whine and claim PJ was a front for IBM's legal team until the end of time.

Re:Go leave a comment on groklaw people (0)

rahvin112 (446269) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771188)

because my decision is made and it's firm.

Maybe you should respect her wishes and leave her alone. It's people like you that are very likely the reason she's quiting.

Re:Go leave a comment on groklaw people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35771250)

"before it is too late"

In other words, before the site closes and there is no longer an outlet to thank them, not 'maybe she won't quit!'.

Ok then, use your newfound service and direction (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771090)

to render more services to public in the same subject - copyrights, patents, i.p., trolls, and all those stuff hampering our civilization's development.

Ding Dong the Witch (SCO) is dead (1)

AbrasiveCat (999190) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771102)

Wow, I didn't think this day would ever come. (And thanks PJ for the work.)

Celebration in Chicago (4, Interesting)

hackus (159037) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771158)

I have an idea.

Why don't we have a party in Chicago to celebrate?

We could have Pam come and all of us who work in Open Source could buy pizza, drink way too many sugary caffinated drinks!

We could even have a pizza in the shape of SCO and slice the baby up and eat it!

-Hack

Re:Celebration in Chicago (2)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771200)

I think eating pieces of SCO is likely to cause indigestion.

G'bye and thanks for everything! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35771210)

"All the fish" doesn't apply here, because I'm not disappointed at her. She has been awesome and we really owe her. But then, as any other human being, she must sail to other seas, to face new adventures. May you be as succesful as you've been till now, PJ! Really, "thanks" does not even start to do justice to you.

Since SCO was your fight, it makes sense to close shop and go; sorry if I cannot yet party with you -- I'll wait for the day two things happen:

a) M$ market share gets down to 10%... IOW, they will be just another player, not the bully they current are and
b) they start to behave like a true capitalistic corporation, not like a soviet government-granted monopoly.

I'm not even asking for Linux to rule the world; I just a fair chance at competing, with the bully removed and -- hopefully -- with all parties involved in FOSS agreeing on interoperability standards. It will be a great day when every Linux user can freely choose Gnome, KDE or whatever.

Today we are bound by what distros care to offer...

The mission is far from acoomplished (-1, Flamebait)

Dainsanefh (2009638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771242)

SCO is dead. But the forces behind its tyranny is still pretty much alive. The patents, copyrights, Jewish lawyers and bankers etc.

Re:The mission is far from acoomplished (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35771260)

and then you also have to target the Constitution behind it which gives protections to these mutants.

Might still need them (1)

perotbot (632237) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771282)

with Novell selling the Patent portfolio off, we might need groklaw again......

Re:Might still need them (1)

ub3r n3u7r4l1st (1388939) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771288)

That's Nortel selling its patent to Google, not Novell.

Louis Vuitton Outlet (0)

helenbetty (2011096) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771304)

Every nobby woman all hope to have a world famous brand goods.Louis Vuitton items of Louis Vuitton Outlet Online [lvlouisvuitton.org] is one best choice for you. These new design Louis Vuitton that come in unique styles. It is easy to see that Louis Vuitton Online store [louisvuitt...online.com] listed in our Louis Vuitton online [louisvuitt...online.com] that you can find the luxury Louis Vuitton products.

The most stylish and high quality Louis Vuitton is the best seller now. If you want to buy Louis Vuitton [buylouisvu...outlet.org] ,just come to our Louis Vuitton Outlet Store [lvlouisvuitton.org] , the best Louis Vuitton and the good service we would supply you. Cheap Louis Vuitton for sale now! Back to Louis Vuitton Outlet [buylouisvu...outlet.org] and choose the Louis Vuitton you prefer.

RIP (4, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771322)

RIP Groklaw. You changed the world for the better.

Groklaw has been important and it should continue (1)

salesgeek (263995) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771330)

I realize that PJ wants to move on. It is her life and she is free to do so. At the same time, I believe that Groklaw has a very solid place in technology media, and effort should be made to create an organization that can continue PJ's work. Incidentally, PJ's work has been helping technology people understand the law, and helping lawyers and judges understand technology and industry history.

Sic semper tyrannis (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35771384)

Groklaw is a classic example of somebody letting the power go to her head. There were purges of dissenting opinion early on, when PJ realised she enjoyed the adulation more than anything else. Not much unlike Slashdot (e.g. watch this dissenting opinion moderated into oblivion; groupthink in action).

Good riddance.

Re:Sic semper tyrannis (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771412)

Another disgruntled SCO stockholder. What's it like to be among the most useless, retarded human beings on Earth?

You know, it's too bad (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771420)

It's too bad Microsoft didn't make this same decision after it won the desktop and browser wars.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?