Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Open Source Patents News

Groklaw — Don't Go Home, Go Big 230

Posted by Soulskill
from the if-you-strike-me-down dept.
jfruhlinger writes "You may have caught PJ's Christmas Day post on Groklaw, expressing her anger and frustration that, after she helped save Novell's Unix patents from SCO's clutches, Novell turned around and sold many of those patents to an open source-unfriendly coalition. She's feeling at a crossroads and wondering what Groklaw should become. Brian Proffitt has a suggestion: a bigger, more community-oriented site."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Groklaw — Don't Go Home, Go Big

Comments Filter:
  • A patent consortium (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dgatwood (11270) on Monday January 03, 2011 @03:05PM (#34746124) Journal

    No, seriously. Groklaw should become a patent consortium run by open source software folks. It should use its resources to fund patent applications by open source projects and should hold those patents collectively so that they can be used defensively if any of the member projects are attacked by software patents.

    • by Simon80 (874052)
      I like this idea. I have no idea if it would gain momentum, but it would be pretty nice if it did.
    • by Jahava (946858)

      No, seriously. Groklaw should become a patent consortium run by open source software folks. It should use its resources to fund patent applications by open source projects and should hold those patents collectively so that they can be used defensively if any of the member projects are attacked by software patents.

      There are a lot of important questions that would have to be answered in order for this idea to actually work. Off the top of my head:

      • Who will fund this? It costs money to review and file patents, maintain and defend a portfolio, and actually litigate.
      • Who gets protected? Patent lawsuits occur against companies as a whole, not specific projects. To what degree of open-source friendliness / compliance does an entity have to operate in order to not be on the receiving side of this?
      • Who will manage it? Obvio
      • by h4rr4r (612664)

        What's to stop unfriendly companies from sneaking into the coalition?

        That is easy enough.

        Any lawsuit over patents against any FREE software project members or users will result in removal from the coalition and said member will have 30 days to cease using any and all patents from the pool or face infringement suits.

      • by dgatwood (11270)

        I'll give my thoughts on this.

        Who will fund this? It costs money to review and file patents, maintain and defend a portfolio, and actually litigate.

        Well, the idea was that the site would raise money through donations and advertising while covering legal issues that pertain to open source, and that some portion of those donations would cover that. You could also solicit open-source-friendly corporations to pledge money in the event of an actual legal defense.

        Who gets protected? Patent lawsuits occur against

    • by just_another_sean (919159) on Monday January 03, 2011 @04:06PM (#34746832) Homepage Journal

      Isn't that what the OIN [openinventionnetwork.com] is for?
      PJ wrote about that [groklaw.net] a few weeks ago as well.

    • by Nerdfest (867930)
      Playing the ridiculous software patent game is not going to help ... getting rid of software patents is. They will effectively end when the Western software industry crashes anyway.
      • by iplayfast (166447)

        The problem is, you can't take your ball and go home. You are playing the ridiculous patent game whether you want to or not.
        It seems to me that Software people and companies are against patents on software, as it effectively creates an unlevel playing field for all involved.
        On the otherhand, lawyers and patent companies love them and make a huge amount of money from them.

        The only reason software companies have patents is to defend against other companies that have patents. It's a defensive tactic.

    • Patent consortium? Not a big enough idea, I think. The root of the problem is that software is still patentable in the US. If not for that, Novell could not have sold out. And SCO would not have had even a veneer of credibility, and might not have tried suing anyone. Get rid of software patents [swpat.org].

      I would like to go even further, and eliminate the government enforced monopoly protections for all patents. Don't create barriers and artificial scarcities for the sake of the starving inventors, reward them

  • Sure, the SCO thing was great and interesting and ran a long time, but I think that something like groklaw for other laws or fields or items would be great.

  • Censorship (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Ganty (1223066)

    So long as PJ continues to censor posts she doesn't like the site has limited value.

    Ganty

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      So long as PJ continues to censor posts she doesn't like the site has limited value.

      Ganty

      Er, wait a minute... it's PJ's site right? Then PJ can do what she wants with it - including editing any posts she feels she needs or wants to. PJ's entitled to that freedom because it's her site.

      So much *waaaaaing* around here anymore.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by HBI (604924)

        Sure, it's her site, and she can do what she wants. In response, those of us who dislike censorship in any form - whether performed by ChiComs or PJ - can point it out when the subject comes up. I'm entitled to that freedom and I intend to avail myself of it.

        Fanboi worship is nice for the recipient but your position is mindless, simpering and without merit. She deserves appropriate criticism.

        • You're entitled to your own freedom. You're not entitled to the freedom to post whatever you want on someone else's site.

          See how that works?

          The difference is that China doesn't allow people the freedom to decide what is and isn't on their own site. The difference between censoring your own venue and censoring everyone's venue is profound.

      • by Duradin (1261418)

        Considering the amount of posts here that boil down to "we must force X to do Y, for Freedom!" I can see why you posted AC.

      • Re:Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MontyApollo (849862) on Monday January 03, 2011 @03:46PM (#34746594)

        What does PJ's rights and personal freedom have anything to do with the judgment that the "site has limited value"? Maybe some people value sites more that don't censor comments.

      • Re:Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)

        by walterbyrd (182728) on Monday January 03, 2011 @04:02PM (#34746776)

        I think you misunderstand the argument. Yes, PJ has the legal right to censor her own blog - nobody is arguing otherwise. But, she loses a lot of credibility by doing so. You have to wonder, why can't PJ's argument hold up to opposition? Everybody has to know: when you are reading groklaw forums, you are reading a one-sided debate.

        • Re:Censorship (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Idarubicin (579475) <allsquiet@hotmail3.14.com minus pi> on Monday January 03, 2011 @05:06PM (#34747460) Journal

          You have to wonder, why can't PJ's argument hold up to opposition? Everybody has to know: when you are reading groklaw forums, you are reading a one-sided debate.

          I don't think that PJ has ever tried to present herself as being an impartial observer; she openly advocates for the side she feels is in the right. Why should she provide a soapbox for her opposition, who already were rather well funded and perfectly capable of providing their own platforms? I note that PJ was never invited to offer commentary on SCO's website, and no other legal expert seemed interested in presenting his own blog covering the case from poor downtrodden SCO's side.

          In any event, having watched oh-so-many basement-dwelling wannabe lawyers trot out their weighty opinions on questions of law here on Slashdot, I can certainly understand why PJ - a trained legal professional - might get tired of matching wits with the unarmed. For that matter, she may just not want to let troll/countertroll flaming and bickering distract from constructive discussions and drag down the level of conversation. The sensible hostess knows when to send the belligerent, uninvited guests home.

        • by Bigjeff5 (1143585)

          I don't think you understand the purpose of Groklaw. It's not about discussion, it's about preparing legal exhibits for use in court in defense of FOSS and Linux.

          How in the hell could censoring posts on her blog possibly discredit her? It has nothing to do with what she is doing! The blog is just for personal info and legal news she finds interesting/important.

          I don't see how anything on there could discredit the legal exhibits Groklaw volunteers prepare.

  • No thanks (Score:3, Insightful)

    by etymxris (121288) on Monday January 03, 2011 @03:08PM (#34746148)

    Last I checked, there were several complaints of post deletions on groklaw, to which her response was she was not really interested in "open" debate. I agree with many of her opinions and analysis of the SCO debacle, but I wouldn't want to be part of any community she's running.

    I'm sure she could be valuable as a writer on various IP issues surrounding free software.

    • by DrJimbo (594231) on Monday January 03, 2011 @05:07PM (#34747478)
      The people PJ exposes fight dirty. They try all sorts of tricks to discredit Groklaw, chief among them is posting awful things anonymously. The idea being they can then smear Groklaw by pointing to these abusive posts as indicative of the Groklaw community. I've seen a bunch of these posts over the years and I've reported them to PJ so she can delete them.

      So on one side we have a bunch of lying cheating dastardly bastards who will do anything they can (legal or not) to destroy FOSS. On the other side we have PJ who insists on allowing people to post anonymously on her site which entails the extra burden of throwing out the trash people post that is designed to discredit Groklaw.

      And for this she is criticized. Give me a break. PJ is human and like all humans she is both opinionated and imperfect. Like the rest of us, she has flaws and is not always right. I imagine that while throwing out the trash she has probably deleted some posts that may not have deserved it. But by criticizing her for protecting her reputation and the reputation of Groklaw (while at the same time allowing anonymous posts) you are aiding and abetting the enemies of FOSS.

      You sir/madam are implying that PJ lacks integrity because she has been forced to delete terrible posts that make Groklaw look awful. The truth is she has more integrity than almost anyone else I know (of). It is her integrity that makes the Groklaw site shine despite the fact that it is run by imperfect human beings. IMO PJ is a true hero because she maintains her integrity even though her site is constantly bombarded by posts from people who completely lack it.

      • by etymxris (121288) on Monday January 03, 2011 @05:55PM (#34748020)

        Slashdot has managed to get by fine for more than a decade without a similar deletion policy. I would prefer the distinction between troll and serious debater be left up to the reader, and not the admin. I don't want to be a part of any site that can only deal with trolls through heavy handed moderation. I think many here feel the same way. If she's been deleting posts, where is the exact line? Are we even able to see what posts were deleted to see if they deserved deletion? I doubt it. It's this lack of transparency and seeming lack of interest in open discussion that turns me off of any community she may head.

        Now, PJ is hardly alone in running her site this way. But I'm a free software supporter with strong ideals and high expectations. Slashdot, for all its flaws, manages to meet these ideals. Groklaw has fallen short.

        • by quintesse (654840)

          Preferring Slashdot over Groklaw because of its posting policy?

          I don't know, but to me it sounds a bit like praising a prostitute for the ease with which she opens her legs.

          • by etymxris (121288)

            Running an open discussion site while keeping trolls at bay without deleting posts is not easy. You should try it sometime. I did, and failed.

            • by quintesse (654840)

              I don't doubt you, but I just think you think too higly of Slashdot, in the end it's nothing more than an IT-gossip site, basically. Hugely popular, of course, but that doesn't really translate into quality.

              Many of my (IT) friends and co-workers never "set foot" on slashdot exactly because it's so difficult to find the informative gems among the rubbish, the rants and the flames.

              So I imagine there are many who prefer a site where most posts are informative or at least well-mannered knowing all the while tha

              • by Raenex (947668)

                I find plenty of value discussion on Slashdot all the time. It would be much worse off if dissenting opinions were simply deleted, especially at the whim of a site owner.

        • Slashdot has managed to get by fine for more than a decade without a similar deletion policy.

          Slashdot covers lots of issues without any particular focus ("news for nerds" is about as vague as you can get, since people can be nerdy about nearly any subject) so it doesn't make enemies the way Groklaw does. There are anti-Slashdot cranks, of course, but there's no reason for major industry players to fund them.

        • Slashdot has managed to get by fine for more than a decade without a similar deletion policy. I would prefer the distinction between troll and serious debater be left up to the reader, and not the admin. I don't want to be a part of any site that can only deal with trolls through heavy handed moderation. I think many here feel the same way. If she's been deleting posts, where is the exact line? Are we even able to see what posts were deleted to see if they deserved deletion? I doubt it. It's this lack of transparency and seeming lack of interest in open discussion that turns me off of any community she may head.

          Now, PJ is hardly alone in running her site this way. But I'm a free software supporter with strong ideals and high expectations. Slashdot, for all its flaws, manages to meet these ideals. Groklaw has fallen short.

          "Managed to get by fine"? "Managed to meet these ideals"? One must also consider what the intended purpose of each site is. If you think Slashdot is taken as seriously as Groklaw in the respective community of each, you're way off. And that's not meant as a criticism of /., btw; Taco and Hemos decided early on what the point of this place was, and there's nothing wrong with the choice that was made. But the S/N here is very, very low; and there's a place in the world for fora with more restrictive poli

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by etymxris (121288)

            If PJ regularly featured tough challenges to her worldview and responded to them with reason and nuance, then she might be credited with merely trying to create a high S/N discussion site. The impression I get from many posters to this discussion is that she simply removes the side of the debate she doesn't agree with. I'm not capable of proving that's the case. Any evidence of that would be deleted from her site. Lacking any transparency in moderation it's difficult to just take her word that nothing she d

        • by DrJimbo (594231) on Monday January 03, 2011 @06:51PM (#34748600)
          You've got to be kidding me, but I'm afraid you may not be. Slashdot gets by because of the moderation and meta-moderation system. Its goals and challenges differ greatly from those of Groklaw. I'm sorry for explaining the obvious but it seems to have thus far eluded your grasp.

          Slashdot, for the most part, posts summaries and links to stories along with comments by readers, moderated and meta-moderated by readers. It doesn't do any investigative journalism, which is what Groklaw does day and and day out. The people who are investigated don't like it and will do anything they can to shut up or discredit Groklaw. Slashdot does not have significant content other than links and readers' comments which is why it can get by with the moderation system.

          The idea that this reflects "strong ideals" is absurd in the extreme. If most people had similar "ideals" then content-less Slashdot would cease to function because there would be no content-ful sites to link to. If anything, it is PJ and Groklaw who are showing integrity and ideals by taking a stand for what is right and what is true. The irony is that it is because Groklaw takes a stand that people are actively trying to destroy it which in turn leads to the policy of deleting nasty posts.

          It is also important to note that there has always been open invitations at Groklaw for Darl McBride, and other targets of investigation to post their side of things. These are rejected and instead Groklaw gets a flood of posts by people who are pretending to be members of the FOSS community who are trying to discredit Growlaw.

          I'm not saying Groklaw is without flaws but I am saying that the deletion of posts that are designed to discredit the site is not one of them. This has nothing to do with a "lack of transparency" because the posts that are deleted do not reflect PJ or the Groklaw community. The deleted posts lack transparency because they are almost always anonymous and they are almost always by someone pretending to be a member of the community who is not.

          As you may be aware, almost all content-ful sites have this problem. Do you also say "no thanks" to Google, Youtube, WaPo, the NYT, etc? Funny thing is that when you say "But I'm a free software supporter with strong ideals and high expectations" and then condemn Groklaw for doing what what is required of all sites that do investigative journalism then you start to sound very much like either a stupid friend of FOSS or a sly enemy.

      • You sir/madam are implying that PJ lacks integrity because she has been forced to delete terrible posts that make Groklaw look awful.

        If somebody posts something to make groklaw "look awful," then PJ, or somebody else on groklaw, can dispute that particular post.

        When somebody starts deleting posts, just because those posts don't conform to her point of view, then onlookers can never be sure if the opposition has made a relevant point. I'm sorry, but that does put her integrity in question.

        • by DrJimbo (594231)

          If somebody posts something to make groklaw "look awful," then PJ, or somebody else on groklaw, can dispute that particular post.

          Sure, if it just one or two posts, it is really not much of a problem. The problem is that there can be an avalanche of posts, many of them phony, people pretending to be representing the FOSS community but saying nasty things. If these are not nipped in the bud then confederates link to them and quote them on other sites as typical examples of Groklaw and FOSS supporters.

          If such posts weren't deleted, Groklaw would die in weeks.

          When somebody starts deleting posts, just because those posts don't conform to her point of view, then onlookers can never be sure if the opposition has made a relevant point. I'm sorry, but that does put her integrity in question.

          I agree with you. Certainly it is possible to abuse the authority to dele

      • by lbbros (900904)

        The people PJ exposes fight dirty.

        Perhaps not relevant to the discussion, but I have to point out that when PJ dealt with GPL v3 (many articles on Groklaw when it was being drafted), she did not say anything about her involvement in the process(and so, potential conflict of interest) until *after* the license was approved.

        PJ was targeted with a very aggressive smear campaign (O' Gara and co.) that IMO went far beyond the limits of decency, but it doesn't mean she's perfect. That point I mentioned was a maj

  • by digitaldc (879047) * on Monday January 03, 2011 @03:11PM (#34746186)
    In effect, it would become a meta-blog, like Huffington Post...

    Well, that's not necessarily a good thing judging by the number of ads and crap you find on that site. In comparison, its current version is much cleaner and nicer.
  • that your only obligation is to make a profit. That being said, GO BIG PJ !!!! If anything you have gained massive respect from the open source community.
  • by Archangel Michael (180766) on Monday January 03, 2011 @03:34PM (#34746438) Journal

    How about a place where the common man can get good defensive law advice and sharing of defense related material against big corporation mega tort scare tactics, like the one SCO tried on Novell, IBM et. al.?

  • Why not? Add authors/news on every niche. Want a news section dedicated to ICANN/Internic, stuff on that scale? Web hosting? Security? Even if you just quote/selectively guide folks back to the other generalist locations like Ars or more specific niche places like discussions on NANOG, it could be a constantly updated field of info on all manner of stuff. Most people don't give a crap what the top 10-20 news stories of the day about botnets or DNS are, perhaps, but I bet you there are a lot of people who do

  • by MarkvW (1037596) on Monday January 03, 2011 @03:44PM (#34746570)

    The scorpion needs to get across the river, but he can't swim. He asks the frog to ferry him across. The frog refuses; he tells the scorpion that the scorpion will sting him and he will drown. The scorpion tells the frog that he won't sting the frog, because if he did, they both would drown. The frog ferries the scorpion. Midriver, the scorpion stings the frog. Before they both drown, the frog asks the scorpion, Why? The frog states: It's my nature.

    Expecting gratitude from Novell is like expecting gratitude from a scorpion. The scorpion will sting, and Novell will seek to maximize profit.

    I don't think Novell realized the huge bad will it has generated.

    • by smallfries (601545) on Monday January 03, 2011 @03:54PM (#34746690) Homepage

      That would have worked better as an analogy if you hadn't fucked up the most relevant part.

      • by Joehonkie (665142)
        The frog mind controlled the scorpion to set him up for murder, is that what I'm getting here?
        • Maybe I was a little hasty. Now that you've explained it I'm seeing a certain similarity to Novell...

      • Before they both drown, the frog asks the scorpion, Why? The frog states: It's my nature.

        Even with the mistake, this. The scorpion's nature is to sting and the frog's is to trust. (OK maybe not in nature, but in storyland.) The scorpion is a corporation whose only requirement is making money for shareholders and executives, anything else is an externality. One of the frog's purposes is to help others have a fair life.

        The relevant part is that this has been going on for 1000s of years. From kings to feudal lords to international corporations, the scorpion barely evolves and always destroys. The

    • I don't think Attachmate realized the huge bad will it has generated.

      Fixed that for you.

      Or did you not realize that Novell was acquired by another company a few months ago?

    • by ralphart (70342)

      To quote a former co-worker:

      Business is business and fair is fair and never the twain shall meet.

  • Patents aren't much of a problem for open source any more. Most of the technology in open source is old. Anything in use by 1990 is out of patent now. (The "submarine patent" problem used to be an issue, but for applications filed after June 8, 1995, it doesn't work any more. The patent term counts from the original date of application, regardless of continuation applications.) UNIX, after all, dates from the 1970s, and by 1990, UNIX-type operating systems were a mature technology.

    This is a mature in

    • by Microlith (54737) on Monday January 03, 2011 @03:51PM (#34746646)

      Patents aren't much of a problem for open source any more.

      False. They're a HUGE problem for anything recent. Most of the concepts and technologies in open source span decades, including very new concepts as well as old ones that are covered (wrongly) by new, vague patents.

      As with other industries, patents are a big issue in the early years, and cease to be a major concern as the technology matures.

      No, the goal with software patents is to make them a perpetual hazard. Vague, ill defined, and useless for actually implementing the concept in question but always useful for beating down on your enemies and keeping out potential competitors.

    • by Sloppy (14984)

      Most of the technology in open source is old.

      Aha, so that's why we all use FAT file system on our Linux computers, none of which, of course, have multi-core CPUs, use X for anything more complicated than an xterm, fit in your pocket, or do anything more complicated on a network than talk gopher and NFS.

      This is a mature industry now.

      Wait, did you write that, or are you (mis)quoting Charles H. Duell?

  • The lesson is... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Lumpy (12016) on Monday January 03, 2011 @04:05PM (#34746812) Homepage

    DO NOT TRUST A CORPORATION!

    Honestly, why would anyone? They are out for the profit line and nothing else. They are nothing like a real company that is ran by the guy or gal that started it and is chasing a dream... We need to stop thinking they are in any way benevolent. Walmart gives away basic medications because it PROFITS THEM. Companies donate to causes because it Gains them more profit in advertising. There is no soul to these things, they don't care about anything but profits.

    • by Motard (1553251)

      DO NOT TRUST A CORPORATION!

      A corollary would be DO NOT TRUST A STRANGER!. It would be just as apt.

      Honestly, why would anyone?

      Because we know more about Walmart than we do about 'Bob's Used Cars'.

      They are out for the profit line and nothing else.

      And Bob is not?

      They are nothing like a real company that is ran by the guy or gal that started it and is chasing a dream...

      Bob is chasing money.

      We need to stop thinking they are in any way benevolent.

      It appears you already have.

      Walmart gives away basic medications because it PROFITS THEM. Companies donate to causes because it Gains them more profit in advertising.

      And people get free meds for ads. Like we get free web searches from Google for ads.

  • by markdavis (642305) on Monday January 03, 2011 @04:18PM (#34746952)

    Quote: "I also needed to take some time to think about the recent discovery about Novell taking money from Microsoft and contractually agreeing to show up at Open XML standards meetings and events. Yes, I'm furious. Or I was. I always tell you the truth. And the truth is I felt used and abused. How could Novell enter into such a deal? Then top it off with selling 882 patents to a Microsoft-organized consortium?"

    This is the same Novell in 2006 that essentially sold itself into a pseudo-bondage/partnership arrangement with Microsoft, one of the most FOSS-hostile organizations that had ever existed. How can she possibly be surprised? Most leopards do not change their spots. Novell never was and never will be a real Linux/FOSS champion.

  • Since when did Groklaw do anything to save any patents? I thought it was a news reporting site that basically explained the SCO litigation to techies.

    • by Xtifr (1323)

      Moreover, the SCO litigation had nothing to do with patents! Well, IBM, in their counterclaims, cited some of their patents that they claimed SCO was infringing early on, but they dropped their patent claims (w/o prejudice, IIRC) quickly in order to simplify the litigation. But the SCO v Novell case never had anything to do with any patents by any participant. Unlike copyrights, there was no question that the Novell->OldSCO purchase agreement excluded patents. Groklaw never helped anybody save any

      • That's what I thought. I mean, I didn't think you'd have to lie about PJ's work to recognize her contributions to geekdom or whatever.

        I think I should fish around on /. and use my legal contacts to find some people who'd be willing to co-blog with me in a (relatively) unbiased and informative manner about IP/cyberlaw issues. Maybe Slashdot would post an article about me giving mouth-to-mouth to save the last dodo on earth a century ago.

  • PJ should start up an underground vigilante group, administering justice wherever she see's fit. She has the followers to do it.

    There's no justice like angry mob justice!

  • From the slashdotted site:

    $db_url = 'mysql://itworld:bec-cit-bi-wets@10.10.10.230/itw';

    Your config file is being served up. Change your password right away - better yet, revert to a backup after first changing your password.

  • I mean that in the nicest possible way, she's a shy nerd spazz. Lovely voice, but a total paranoid shut-in. Probably got lots of cats and a glass menagerie.

    People like PJ don't readily trust other people, because they don't really know any other people. If this "Brian Proffitt" character wants a bigger Groklaw, he'd better get on with creating it himself.

    • by rubycodez (864176)

      well Maureen O., long time no see, you stalker cunt, where you been?

    • Problem being that PJ is a basket case.... I mean that in the nicest possible way, she's a shy nerd spazz. Lovely voice, but a total paranoid shut-in. Probably got lots of cats and a glass menagerie.... People like PJ don't readily trust other people, because they don't really know any other people.

      This pop psychological pseudo-diagnosis brought to you by someone posting to Slashdot. Seriously?

      I mean this in the nicest possible way, of course, but Rogerborg is a total paranoid shut-in who thinks attacking nice people he's never met makes him looker smarter and 'cooler' to his basement-dwelling nerd peers.

      Even if the parent poster's insulting and appalling stereotyping is spot on, his breathtakingly casual approach to openly attacking another human being would seem to confirm every 'paranoid' sus

  • She missed the point (Score:3, Informative)

    by DerekLyons (302214) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (retawriaf)> on Monday January 03, 2011 @05:27PM (#34747696) Homepage

    "You may have caught PJ's Christmas Day post on Groklaw, expressing her anger and frustration that, after she helped save Novell's Unix patents from SCO's clutches, Novell turned around and sold many of those patents to an open source-unfriendly coalition."

    PJ seems to have missed that the patents belong(ed) to Novell and they are free to do whatever they wish to do without consulting or appeasing her.

    • by rubycodez (864176)

      but if they want to continue to do business in the open source world? I dropped using or recommending SuSE after Novell sold out to Microsoft a few years ago

  • by VGPowerlord (621254) on Monday January 03, 2011 @05:32PM (#34747754) Homepage

    The funny thing about corporations is that they can be bought or sold by other corporations.

    In this case, Attachmate bought Novell. Once it purchased Novell, it split Novell into two units, and sold off a bunch of Novell's patent assets.

    It's funny how quickly PJ is to point out how Old SCO and New SCO were different companies [groklaw.net], but doesn't appear to recognize that old Novell and new Novell are different companies...

  • by rumblin'rabbit (711865) on Monday January 03, 2011 @05:46PM (#34747922) Journal
    .Pamela Jones said the following:

    Calvin Coolidge. Lordy. If there is a top ten list of worst presidents in the history of the nation, might he win the top spot? He is definitely in the top ten.

    I've never understood why Coolidge was considered a poor president. His tenure seems exceptional and he remained popular even up to his resignation. His actions on civil rights were particularly enlightened, even though thwarted by Democrats in the legislature. Perhaps people don't like him cause he was a Republican. Who knows?

Whenever people agree with me, I always think I must be wrong. - Oscar Wilde

Working...