×

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!

The Register vs Groklaw: Who Gets It Right?

Hemos posted more than 8 years ago | from the well-probably-both dept.

The Courts 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.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

224 comments

PJ's Rebuttal (5, Informative)

vmcto (833771) | more than 8 years ago | (#12406522)

As others are reporting, postings to daddypants@slashdot.org are ignored...

Why not present both sides fully? PJ has already posted a rebuttal to this on Groklaw.

And for the record: Groklaw gets it right

PJ's Rebuttal [groklaw.net]

Stop kissing her ass. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12406608)

Yeah, maybe, just maybe, like the rest of us, she gets it wrong. Whoop te fucking doo. Enough of the fucking heroworship already.

Re:Stop kissing her ass. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12406838)

Stop kissing her ass.

It depends. Is she hot?

Re:PJ's Rebuttal (4, Interesting)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 8 years ago | (#12406708)

Perhaps I didn't read El Reg's article properly, but I was under the impression the most damning charges it makes are about the assertion that Project Monteray was worked on by an SCO fully aware that it was part of a migration to "Linux":
At least five articles published this month suggest that Project Monterey, the joint Unix that was being co-developed by IBM, the Santa Cruz Operation and Sequent beginning in 1998 was only a "stop-gap" measure. The participants, she asserts, had from the start bet that Linux would supplant their proprietary Unix offerings. And more damningly, she claims that SCO knew this at the time, and has declined to reveal this secret strategy.

"Project Monterey was the stopgap, in a way, I gather. It worked for the enterprise right away, and it was a path to smoothly move to Linux as it matured," wrote Jones.

There is a serious problem with this hypothesis: it isn't true.

PJ seems only concerned, as I read her response, about whether PM was intended to run on the POWER architecture. I'm not sure how much the latter matters as much as the former. The former implies an allegation of SCO seeing the Linux kernel as the future, which would make SCO's later decision to come back and attack it legally interesting.

Re:PJ's Rebuttal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12406906)

Caldera/SCO's CEO at the time has acknowledged [eweek.com] that Monterey would involve both UNIX and Linux, which were strategic to both companies at the time. To say that SCO's motivation for entering Project Monterey was either to counter the threat of Linux, as Orlowski does, or a stopgap measure on the road to full migration to Linux, per Jones, is a bit of a reach.

Re:PJ's Rebuttal (0)

Eunuchswear (210685) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407790)

And why whould anybody care what Caldera's CEO thouht about Project Monterey, a joint project between SCO and IBM?

Monterey was started BEFORE Caldera bought UnixWare from SCO.

Re:PJ's Rebuttal (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12407860)

I find it difficult to believe that Linux played any role in the *original* strategy behind Monterey -- it was positioned as an attack on the Unix market leader at the time, Sun Solaris, and to a lesser extent, "WinTel".

What you see is IBM and OldSCO and Caldera rationalizing Monterey after it had become clear that Linux was taking over but before Monterey had officially been put into the coffin. Keep in mind at this point, everyone knew a contract lawsuit was coming, so no doubt public statements were spun accordingly.

Re:PJ's Rebuttal (4, Informative)

swillden (191260) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407374)

PJ seems only concerned, as I read her response, about whether PM was intended to run on the POWER architecture. I'm not sure how much the latter matters as much as the former.

You have the importance backwards. SCO's third amended complaint alleges that IBM's port of UNIX to POWER was not authorized by SCO. IOW, SCO is suing IBM for porting UNIX to POWER. Therefore, it is very important to prove that SCO did know, and approve, of IBM's efforts to port UNIX to POWER.

This is what PJ's spate of Monterey articles have primarily been about.

Re:PJ's Rebuttal (0)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407658)

That concerned me too... PJ seemed to completely miss the point, which was that Linux and Project Monterray were different and it's incorrect to link them in that manner.

She instead started going on about Power architecture???

Re:PJ's Rebuttal (2, Informative)

TrappedByMyself (861094) | more than 8 years ago | (#12406753)

Groklaw gets it right

Of course. The Register is nothing but a tech tabloid.

Re:PJ's Rebuttal (1)

drakaan (688386) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407340)

Definitely...and I'm sure that's the reasoning the OP used when deciding to state who they thought got it right.

Of course, you *could* actually go to Groklaw, and read the rebuttal (more of an article correcting some incorrect aspersions from the Reg article, really). The thread at Groklaw is about Linux on POWER, which is something that SCO is trying to say that they knew nothing about, in their third amended complaint.

Groklaw digging up things that say "SCO knew all about Linux on POWER" is on-point, and correct, as far as the litigation goes.

In the context of this Reg article, yes, The Register is nothing but a tech tabloid...or, at least, they didn't really understand what those Linux on POWER articles were about.

fssst port (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12406540)

frosty poster

Re:fssst port (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12406562)

Hahaha! You FAIL it numbnut!

Give up and Die, SCO (-1, Troll)

TFGeditor (737839) | more than 8 years ago | (#12406546)

I dearly wish SCO would realize their ill-thought strategy of propping up their failing business with a lawsuit win is not working. Do the honorable thing, SCO: Die quietly without trying to take as many as you can with you.

Re:Give up and Die, SCO (3, Insightful)

Sv-Manowar (772313) | more than 8 years ago | (#12406587)

It would not be in their best interests to do so, by suing a big name, SCO keep their name in the limelight, hoping they will be bought or something similar

I guess they hope it's a case of any publicity is good publicity

Re:Give up and Die, SCO (5, Insightful)

eyegor (148503) | more than 8 years ago | (#12406702)

Given how weak their case appears, I can't imagine that anyone wants their IP. Nor can I imagine that any self-respecting Unix SA would want to support their product.

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.

Actually, they have been mostly smart (3, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 8 years ago | (#12406709)

When this all started, SCO was worth .5 / share. In addition, they had no money in the company. Then they meet with MS and Sun. Suddenly, they had money in the bank from MS, Sun, and a few other investors, a law suit was announced, and their share price was driven to +20. In addition, the Norda's owned a huge chunk of it and simply gave it away to dump the contriversy (sadly, not before the lose of their daughter). While I have no respect for the people involved, and certainly for their lack of morals or ethics, it has made lots of money for them. In fact, other than the Norda's, the biggest loser out of all this was probably MS/Sun, as it appears that Linux is only getting lots of press, and a number of legal questions are disappearing at a quick rate.

Re:Actually, they have been mostly smart (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12407578)

And of coarse, the only ones that are truly making out in this case are the lawyers (on both sides).

Re:Actually, they have been mostly smart (0)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407709)

I think that the lawyers for Linux have been doing it pro-bono, so no, they have not made much (other than a major name).

Re:Give up and Die, SCO (1)

AngryScot (795131) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407230)

The MPAA seem to be copying SCO, shame they seem to be winning with their implementation :)

El Reg == crap (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12406596)

The Register has nothing to contribute to this or any other discussion apart from vacuous bloviation and trolling.

Psst. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12406637)

PJ fanbois are as irritating as any other kind of fanboi. HTH.

Re:Psst. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12406820)

Psst. Calling a Democrat an idiot doesn't make you a Republican. By the way, you're an idiot.

Re:El Reg == crap (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 8 years ago | (#12406666)

Come on, I'm sure the reg's BOfH will have something extremely relevant to say about this latest episode of Microsoft trolling ...

Groklaw got it right (5, Insightful)

belmolis (702863) | more than 8 years ago | (#12406613)

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.

Re:Groklaw got it right (4, Informative)

k98sven (324383) | more than 8 years ago | (#12406842)

The Register article's claims about PJ retracting statements are not backed up by any evidence.

Strange, since PJ concedes [groklaw.net] that she changed a statement after the article.

Re:Groklaw got it right (2, Informative)

HiThere (15173) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407131)

Yes, she corrected an error in the article. (Concedes?) The point appears to have been a minor quibble about phrasing...though if I wanted to defend this position I should probably check it again. It didn't appear to be major to me at the time that I read it. (And you don't explain why you consider it significant, so I don't know what evidence I should be looking for.)

Re:Groklaw got it right (0, Troll)

k98sven (324383) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407378)

Yes. PJ says she corrected a statement. The Register said she retracted the same statement. The poster here said there was no evidence of any 'retraction'.

I don't really care whether it qualifies as a 'retraction' or not, but it's an undisputed fact that PJ did change some of her previous statements after The Register published their article, which means that stating there's 'no evidence' is false.

That's all I mean. Personally I don't care much, because I don't really consider either Groklaw or The Register to hold very high journalistic standards. Although Groklaw is far better than The Register in that respect.
(Groklaw seems to at least try to use primary sources as much as possible. The Register almost never. Both are blatantly biased in their commentary. Groklaw somewhat less so, but at least it's clear that it *is* personal commentary, and not reporting.)

Re:Groklaw got it right (4, Informative)

strider44 (650833) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407634)

she didn't actually change her point of view, but she just clarified a statement as she thought the Register writer misinterpreted it.

Re:Groklaw got it right (4, Informative)

dhall (1252) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407228)

Considering PJ's main focus was to point out that both old SCO (now Tarantella) and new SCO (previously Caldera) were fully aware that IBM was using Unix based technology on the POWER architecture, which appears to be in contradiction to new SCO's current claims.

Re:Groklaw got it right (3, Insightful)

Quila (201335) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407304)

Strange, since PJ concedes that she changed a statement after the article.



She does that all the time. That's why there is a "Corrections go here" post in every story.

Re:Groklaw got it right (5, Interesting)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407884)

Is this not done in the effort to be even righter? Did not Newton himself point out evidence that his theory could not explain and thus that it was incomplete, and have not others made extenstions to the theory that have it very much "righter"? Is not one of the possible advantages of Free Software that it can easily be examined and changed to make it better?

Isn't this how we want things to work?

I don't hang out at Groklaw much, but in the few hours I've spent there I get the impression that PJ is very open to corrections, even soliciting them, and takes them to heart.

This is the side I'm likely to bet on. Nobody ever gets everything right, but the people who cling to their wrongs remain wrong, the people who admit their wrongs correct them and become "righter."

And then get critized for admiting they were wrong and retracting/correcting. On the other hand if you "correct" your view to a wrong one to gain popularity you are often cheered as a hero, and elected President. Is a puzzlement.

Henry Clay said, "I'd rather be right than President." I'll got with that, and PJ, not because she's infallible, but because she clearly, and publicly, knows that she isn't.

KFG

Re:Groklaw got it right (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12407969)

To be honest, I would much rather have her correcting small mistakes in articles than just leaving them there. Or does the register choose to leave all mistakes in their articles even if someone else points them out?

Re:Groklaw got it right (4, Informative)

belmolis (702863) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407987)

Sorry but this is not a rebuttal of what I said. I said that the Register article's claims:

are not backed up by any evidence
That remains true: the Register article doesn't specify what statements PJ retracted, with quotes and/or links. So even if the Register's claim were right, it is true that it gave no EVIDENCE for it, which is what I said.

As to the correctness of the Register's claims, what PJ "admits" is that she made a small modification to ONE statement. Contrast that with the Register article's claim that:

some of the phrases we quote have already disappeared
As far as I can tell, NO phrases have "disappeared", and only one statement has been modified, in a rather minor way. This is hardly vindication for the Register article's overblown claims.

You're missing the point... (2, Insightful)

lxt (724570) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407856)

...I thought the major point was pretty easy to see - that forums such as Groklaw (and Slashdot) exist so that many users can have their beliefs confirmed or backed up by the majority, the "echo chamber" described...

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.

The article was more M$ trolling (0, Troll)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 8 years ago | (#12406631)

Look at the timeing - it was posted on a Friday so it would sit there all weekend without rebuttal.

Groklaw has already given a good debunking of it - including that the author of the article doesn't exist - its a nym for a M$ astroturfer.

Microsof tis scared, because features that were pulled from longhorn, which is delayed now until Christnas 2006, are already out in linux and tiger.

Re:The article was more M$ trolling (4, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 8 years ago | (#12406756)

It's not troll tuesday yet Tom!

Andrew Orlowski wrote the best coverage I saw of the Microsoft monopoly trial, and pretty much changed my mind from one of "Well, if Microsoft wants to include a browser, then so be it, you can't stop progress" to "Hang the bastards!" (obviously I mean as past tense being "hung" not "hanged", I'm an opponent of the Death Penalty. Ooer, little bit of politics, little bit of politics.)

He's anything but a Microsoft astroturfer.

Re:The article was more M$ trolling (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12406788)

the author of the article doesn't exist

Where id PJ say that?

I quote below the second paragraph of the groklaw article:
Andrew Orlowski is a fine journalist, whose skills I have long admired. However, in this case, he didn't understand why legally the evidence Groklaw found of Project Monterey being intended from the beginning to be used on POWER matters. It matters because SCO's proposed 3rd amended complaint apparently is claiming that IBM had no right to use the Project Monterey product on POWER and only did so after Project Monterey was killed.

Re:The article was more M$ trolling (1)

mmusson (753678) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407700)

The parent poster is confusing two completely different stories. The author who is not using his real name is Paul Murphy [groklaw.net] who wrote the story about how SCO has IBM on the ropes.

Re:The article was more M$ trolling (1)

DjReagan (143826) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407031)

Not only would it sit there all weekend, but today (Monday) is a bank holiday here in the UK, so there won't be any rebuttal until at least Tuesday

Re:The article was more M$ trolling (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407731)

I read the rebuttal on the same day as the article.. The subtext seems to be that PJ knew about it before publication (hence her retraction of certain parts of evidence, before the article was published).

Re:The article was more M$ trolling (1)

Specter (11099) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407167)

Be careful of claims the author was discredited. The groklaw following is getting quite cultish and divergent opinions are not suffered lightly.

The knee-jerk reaction to any post that might contradict the conventional wisdom is to scream that the poster is an M$ astroturfer, whether or not that accusation is well founded.

Corrections go here (5, Informative)

dtfinch (661405) | more than 8 years ago | (#12406648)

Every GrokLaw article has a thread under it entitled "Corrections go here: So PJ can find them" or something of that nature.

Re:Corrections go here (2, Funny)

strider44 (650833) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407127)

One of the better ideas passed through Groklaw, however I think that it wouldn't work on Slashdot since a single Slashdot paragraph would have more errors than an entire 10 000 word essay from PJ.

My money is on The Register (2, Insightful)

goldspider (445116) | more than 8 years ago | (#12406661)

And here's why:

"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.

Mod parent up. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12406793)

This is especially true of slashdot.

Re:My money is on The Register (5, Insightful)

MathFox (686808) | more than 8 years ago | (#12406959)

"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.

We will let the courts decide; but there needed to be a place to rectify the FUD SCO spouted about Linux. The best way to fight FUD is to provide the facts, even if they are not 100% in your favour. If Groklaw seems biassed in the SCO-IBM case, that is because the facts support IBM's view of the case.

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]

Re:My money is on The Register (5, Interesting)

hhghghghh (871641) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407571)

If Groklaw seems biassed in the SCO-IBM case, that is because the facts support IBM's view of the case. This is not entirely true. Groklaw is biased in a way, but not to the extent of misreporting facts, rather they do sympathize with IBM. So if a fact is posted that's not in favor of IBM (and this does happen) they're reported as "a problem for IBM's case, how should this be solved?" whereas if a problematic fact arises that hurts SCOX, it's quickly pointed out that this is the latest in a long string of facts exposing their lies and misrepresentations. While the latter is also factually true, the emphasis is on pointing this out. Of course, some of the comments go either way in being totally biased for or against. Of course, groklaw being biased at least in its attitude is not a bad thing in itself. In fact, if it wasn't, it would be a lot less interesting to read. Rather like The Register itself.

...but it's the facts that are distorted by users (1)

lxt (724570) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407897)

Perhaps I didn't understand the article entirely, but the point Orlowski seems to be making is that sites like Groklaw can take the facts and place them entirely out of context. In an effort to undermine the "FUD", even minor facts become revalations.

Re:My money is on The Register (4, Insightful)

warpSpeed (67927) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407007)

but perhaps it would be better if Groklaw let the courts decide this particular case.

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...

Re:My money is on The Register (1)

goldspider (445116) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407439)

Of course, that's not what I or The Register is saying.

Only that the Truth often gets lost when the Facts are repeated by people who don't know what they're talking about (forum posters, not the Groklaw folks).

Don't you dare backpedal on this (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12408125)

You said:
perhaps it would be better if Groklaw let the courts decide

Of course, that's not what I or The Register is saying.

Only that the Truth often gets lost when the Facts are repeated by people who don't know what they're talking about (forum posters, not the Groklaw folks).

Explain the discrepancy you weasel.

Re:My money is on The Register (1)

YellowElf (445681) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407144)

The Register author says "Many participants join... and context is often a casualty" yet he fails to explain whether or how this has supposedly happened on Groklaw. So suspicion equals truth? Why can't those who refute Groklaw ever actually point to an instance where what has been posted is factually wrong? Even those most interested in the case (e.g, Darl McBride) have completely failed on this point. PJ on Groklaw points out that Andrew Orlowski merely *missed* the point.

Maybe goldspider is just reaffirming his beliefs here on Slashdot, with his own context a casualty. Perhaps it would be better if he allows those who want to do the research and watch the case closely to do so, while he ignores it as is his choice.

--dv

Re:My money is on The Register (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12407216)

"but perhaps it would be better if Groklaw let the courts decide this particular case."

But the courts are going to decide the case. (Don't they decide them all? Except those that are settled, etc.) Anyone can talk about it and write about it though. Or did I miss some gag order?

all the best,

drew

( zotz )

Re:My money is on The Register (3, Insightful)

Stumbles (602007) | more than 8 years ago | (#12408105)

Please show me where you think Groklaw is attempting to decide this case instead of the courts, cause I think your way off there.

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.

Register seems to be missing the point (5, Insightful)

stevew (4845) | more than 8 years ago | (#12406673)

In looking at the "response" by the register, it looks more like the original article than a response.

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 (4, Insightful)

grahamlee (522375) | more than 8 years ago | (#12406675)

One part of the reg's article was certainly correct - that a number of these sites act as echo chambers for people who want their own beliefs reaffirmed. So far in this Slashdot thread I've seen "well it's obvious, Groklaw gets it right" or similar sentiment displayed in multiple comments, without one statement of factual evidence used to corroborate the claim. Me, I don't know anything about Monterey, but I'd be happy to consider any evidence that people are willing to post :-)

Re:Echo chamber (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12406993)

Most of this centered around SCO's Third Amendment Complaint. SCO's Third Amendment Complaint claimed that under the Project Monterey Contract IBM had no right to port UNIX to the POWERPC platform, by doing so IBM had broken the contract and misappropriated SCO's intellectual property.

It takes time to research an assertion like this, and only recently have people been able to dig up and post documents relating to the above assertion by SCO.

The problem seems to be that where GORKLAW readers were fully aware of the Third Amendment Complaint, reference to that document was not made in the recent GROKLAW articles (it was evidently assumed).

It is almost certain that Andrew (writing for TheRegister) was not aware of the Third Amendment claim and did not dig deeply enough into GORKLAW's archive to find a copy of the original court document (I am too lazy to do it for you but it is easly accessable on GORKLAW).

It appears that this lacking piece of information has resulted in substantial misunderstanding.

Tom

Re:Echo chamber (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12408179)

We don't need evidence, Groklaw gets it right.

Serials (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12406677)

A Serials of articles?

Re:Serials (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12406774)

Apparently /. "editors" don't edit anything at all. What really sucks is that they choose this submission, when there HAD to be others which were at a minimum grammatically correct.

Summary / PJ's response (4, Interesting)

jhdevos (56359) | more than 8 years ago | (#12406713)

Strange the link to PJ's response [groklaw.net] was not linked to in the original artikle.

Summary: the Register saw a flaw in some groklaw articles (about the 'stopgap' claims), wrongly interpreted some other comments (proof that SCO knew about Monterey on Power) in that context, and wrote a very long article about it. PJ's response, unfortunately, only goes into those last claims, not the critique on the stopgap claims, which are justified, IMHO.

Anyway, storm is a glass of water.

Jan

Spell Check (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12406803)

Use your Fucking spellchecker, DUMBASS!

More PJ response (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12407448)

"PJ's response, unfortunately, only goes into those last claims, not the critique on the stopgap claims, which are justified, IMHO. "

Look further down in the comments section of that article by PJ. She points out that she did make a minor adjustment in her phrasing of the stopgap phrase in order to be clearer about what she meant. Orlowski misinterpreted her intention, and she promises to try to be clearer in the future.

Another Perspective = Daily Wrap and Flow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12406792)

Under the gise of "it takes two to tango and three to tell the truth" I read the "Daily Wrap and Flow", located at http://lamlaw.com/ [lamlaw.com] , for this type of reporting. ;-) It helps me understand big words. ~@~

Conjecture, sure. Valuable to SCO? (5, Insightful)

Ashtead (654610) | more than 8 years ago | (#12406804)

...claiming "it's difficult to envisage Groklaw's conjecture swaying a court case, but it provides SCO with valuable public relations ammunition."

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.

Re:Conjecture, sure. Valuable to SCO? (3, Insightful)

HiThere (15173) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407182)

I really doubt that Groklaw would have been as useful to SCO no matter what the facts were. A reasonable (large?) part of Groklaw has been the contribution of volunteers, and SCO had so studiously antagonized people that if the facts looked to be supporting them, there would probably have been few volunteers digging.

Andrew Orlowski (4, Insightful)

MythMoth (73648) | more than 8 years ago | (#12406910)

Do you remember Jon Katz? I don't know if he still posts on Slashdot, because (hallelujah) they provided the block-Jon-Katz option in user preferences.

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:Andrew Orlowski (3, Insightful)

HiThere (15173) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407296)

Groklaw doesn't claim to be objective. PJ comes out of the legal tradition, not the scientific one, and believes in adversarial debate. But Groklaw is used to discover and report on facts. Not entirely facts that necessarily support one side or the other, but facts that will be the background against which and around which the case will be prosecuted.

There's no absolute requirement of objectivity in order to recognize facts. It can help, but it's not a requirement.

Re:Andrew Orlowski (1)

MythMoth (73648) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407605)

Then you shouldn't have any trouble with Orlowski's subjective approach. As far as I know he doesn't claim to be objective either.

Personally I find Groklaw's very obviously partisan commentary on the facts to be unhelpful. I particularly dislike it when they stray away from the SCO discussion onto other subjects where their real strength (the presentation of raw evidence) is not exhibited, or less so.

Re:Andrew Orlowski (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12407623)

> PJ comes out of the legal tradition, not the
> scientific one, and believes in adversarial
> debate

Provided, of course, that that adversarial debate
doesn't happen to be about her or Groklaw.

That'll get you banned in a wink.

What is a serials? (1)

Cardbox (165383) | more than 8 years ago | (#12406911)

The original posting doesn't seem to make much sense. Is a serials the same as a series, or what?

PJ's polite but devastating putdown - ouch! (3, Insightful)

Silve (880687) | more than 8 years ago | (#12406969)

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."

Nah, that's not a putdown (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12407480)

Most people do not have legal training, so it's hardly a slam to point that out. It would be like saying, "I will try to explain music theory more clearly to make sure those with no piano training can follow along." A slam? Nope, just an acknowledgement that most people do not have that specialized knowledge.

The problme is that with law, everyone thinks they know enough to comment on legal matters. But without that training, you usually don't know enough to follow the nuances of a given case from the strict legal perspective (you know, the one perspective that actually gets used in the court itself). I mean, hands up everyone who knew what estoppel meant and how it affects a legal case. Before reading it on Groklaw, that is.

Re:PJ's polite but devastating putdown - ouch! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12407516)

Because the lord knows geeks slighting people who don't know what they do is novel and unexpected behavior.

Re:PJ's polite but devastating putdown - ouch! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12407616)

Just one problem, she didn't respond to the key point of the Register's article:

"Project Monterey was the stopgap, in a way, I gather. It worked for the enterprise right away, and it was a path to smoothly move to Linux as it matured," wrote Jones.

There is a serious problem with this hypothesis: it isn't true.

Ms. Jone's response only covers the POWER issue, which is peripheral.

So not quite such a powerful putdown after all. However I have to wonder if I'll be heard in this particular echo chamber

Re:PJ's polite but devastating putdown - ouch! (2, Informative)

dipipanone (570849) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407859)

PJ's response covers the POWER issue, because that
was the subject of her stories. The reason it is the
subject of her stories is due to SCO's proposed 4th
amended complaint, which seeks to argue that IBM
released AIX on Power without their permission.

Of course, you can be forgiven for thinking this is
peripheral, because Orlofsky's story doesn't mention
it at all. Like PJ, I'm not at all clear what he
thinks he's rebutting in his rebuttal.

However, I agree that it isn't a very good putdown.

Hardly a putdown at all, in fact.

The only way to the truth is via open discussion (4, Interesting)

btarval (874919) | more than 8 years ago | (#12406970)

The only way to discover the truth of the situation is via presenting all of the facts in an open forum. That's how our Court system works. Alas, it's not how the Register works (much as I generally like reading the Registers' articles).

So, thanks for the article, guys. As others have pointed out, P.J. has already put up a response, with her usual discussion forum there.

Being open about things requires getting at the truth. And I think people generally agree that the real truth, presented in Court, will make Linux stronger, not weaker.

I also note this falsehood in the Register article:
"SCO made friendly with Linux as best it could,"

Pure, utter bull. SCO was never, ever a nice company. They pulled EVERY dirty trick in the book that they could. This case is, in fact, the SECOND time they have partnered with Microsoft to bring down a UNIX competitor via the Courts. The first time was a legal threat to a small company called Microport, when Microport publically announced Xenix binary compatibility in stock AT&T UNIX.

Microport, by the way, was the company which provided Richard Stallman's foks with a complete development system for free, just so that he could put gcc on the 386.

Also, there was a quote from Doug Michaels (head of SCO at the time) stating in an interview that SCO would "steal everything it could" from Linux. Michaels later retracted that statement; but it was clear that his original words were what SCO had on its mind.

So noo, SCO never, ever made friendly with Linux. It was always trying to stab Linux in the back at every opportunity it could. To state otherwise is an outright lie, and is to the Registers' general discredit.

Groklaw is NOT an open forum... (1)

lxt (724570) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407963)

"The only way to discover the truth of the situation is via presenting all of the facts in an open forum. That's how our Court system works."

I'm pretty sure the implication there is that Groklaw is an open forum.

Except it's not.

It's a heavily biased forum - I don't think anyone would try to refute the claim that the majority of Groklaw contributers are anti-SCO. A court is, in theory, unbiased. The judge should weigh the case up on a fact by fact, argument by argument basis.

Groklaw doesn't quite work like that, and that's what The Register is trying to say. New facts produced on Groklaw are jumped upon by the majority, and elevated above the level of relevance they actually have.

So, whereas a small piece of information that could be used against SCO may have a negligable effect in court, on Groklaw the majority of users are already very anti-SCO, and so leap on to it.

Groklaw is simply not an open forum, and that's the point The Register tries to make.

Slow news day (-1, Offtopic)

Yankel (770174) | more than 8 years ago | (#12406995)

Brand new info:

- Groklaw has the dirt on SCO
- The Register has a controversial opinion

Our next Slashdot story will be posted soon. Topic: lack of oxygen found to kill brain cells.

paralegal (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12406997)

At least the paralegal aspect of Groklaw explains the context of the case. The Register is a place for some fools to hang out between soccer matches.

You would have to be American to really understand why we think soccer is a worthless game.

Yawn (0, Redundant)

EpsCylonB (307640) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407068)

SCO vs IBM ?, is that still going on ?.

Still not as bad as when the SCO story first started, 45 or 5 articles a day about SCO on \.

Take away my \. id if you like but I am staying out of this until its finished (in what 3 or 4 years time ?).

Somebody wake me when its all over.

I never understood the fascination with the Reg... (5, Insightful)

Evro (18923) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407140)

After seeing how many people relied on the Register as a news source I figured I should check it out. After a few days I gave up; I was really put off by their lack of professionalism in reporting (I know lightning will strike me for writing that on Slashdot...) and the blatant bias in everything they write. I have come to view it as a cross between the Weekly World News and People Magazine of technology reporting. It's more like entertainment than news.

Here's an example of their crapola: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/11/torvalds_a ttack/ [theregister.co.uk] .

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.

"difficult to envisage Groklaw's conjecture" (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12407254)

"it's difficult to envisage Groklaw's conjecture swaying a court case, ..."

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.

mod UGp (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12407275)

the deal with you SSufering *BSD

Is this the same Register .. (2)

valisk (622262) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407344)

which often gets its facts wrong?
I emailed them on a couple of occasions to advise them of factual innacuracies in their stories, only to be ignored.

On one occasion when discussing a new database used by casinos in Vegas, they stated that blackjack players, who are card counters, were cheats and criminals who could be arrested.
Card counting is perfectly legal in Nevada, even if casinos dont like counters, and the Register could have checked that and then corrected it, but chose not to.

So I choose not to read their often inaccurate garbage anymore.

Interesting to compare (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12407512)

An integral part of every Groklaw discussion is the "Corrections here" thread. PJ (whose blog it is) bends over backwards to make sure the facts are correct. I can't think of another web site where fairness is upheld so strictly.

This is not to say that PJ and the others posting on the site don't have opinions of course.

They publish a tariff (4, Informative)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407392)

The reg publishes a tariff [theregister.co.uk]. A quick article casting aspersions upon PJ and Groklaw would only cost SCO 15k - cheap compared to the dosh they've blown on lawyers fees lately.

Of course, this being el Reg, I'm never entirely sure whether or not to take said tariff with a pinch of salt. Overall, I think I'm tending toward not.

It doesn't diminish my my affection for the rag, I just don't take them too seriously when they pull sudden a volte-face in favour of someone with deep pockets.

Re:They publish a tariff (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407928)

Wow, I wish I had a mod point or three. Your link came as a total surprise. I have to give El Reg credit, tho. All press is for sale, they are just open about it and post a menu for you to choose from. That DOES clarify alot of stuff, however. One has to wonder if the original article WAS a paid one...

Both sides need to be heard (1)

PenguinBoyDave (806137) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407467)

I think it is important for both sides to be heard. SCO is, by all accounts, dead wrong here, and is on the slow boat to implosion because of this rediculous lawsuit. Let both sides have tiehr say in court, and when it comes out that SCO is full of shit and they wasted millions of dollars of their own and IBM's, then the backlash will wipe them off the face of the IT map. Let it all come out...this is getting good :)

Maybe it is just me but... (2, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407483)

Isn't it a good thing that a news site can not sway a court case?
"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:Maybe it is just me but... (1)

Stumbles (602007) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407919)

I still cannot figure out how he arrives at the conclusion what Groklaw has posted on the matter is valuable to SCO, especially in the area of public relations.

If anything it shows quite clear, at least to me. The current management of TSG are lying about the intent of Monterey. Hell, every top dog of management prior to McBride says the opposite of McBride.

At the very least he needs to take off Zephod's sunglasses.

the Register article is mush (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12407656)

It's barely coherent- if the author has a point, it's well-concealed. He cites nothing to back up his assertions, whatever they are. Groklaw always includes source material- you don't have to take PJ's word for it, anyone can see for themselves.

Perspective Vortex (2)

Stumbles (602007) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407735)

To understand what Mr. Orlowski is croaking about you would do will to read PJ's analysis along with his. I've read both and seems to me her analysis is the more reasonable, correct and more encompassing as a whole.

Mr. Orlowski glosses over or ignores to many things for his piece to be taken as anything but a clickity magnet.

Case in point... (3, Insightful)

lxt (724570) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407804)

...this Slashdot story is a case in point, particularly with the mod point system used.

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.

Re:Case in point... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12408023)

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.
except that editors can (and are expected to) go through all of the commentsand "bump or dump" as they wish.

National Inquirer (1)

theendlessnow (516149) | more than 8 years ago | (#12407848)

The Register is similar to the National Inquirer. That's not necessarily bad, but you do need to be very careful with the in "information" presented there. It's great for rumors and such though.... factual content? Maybe not.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...