About Those 882 Novell Patents: This is Where OIN Comes In (Groklaw)

given the high level of regard that Groklaw and PJ are generally held in.

Sounds a little bit like the logic of "a million flies can't be wrong." ;-))

My blog, although pretty new, is also held in high regard, particularly in the US legal community. Law.com recently pointed to "a really smart post at FOSS Patents" and the leading US patent law blog, PatentlyO, links to my "nice diagram" of Apple's patent fights with HTC and Motorola. So "high regard" can't serve as a defense for GroklXX.

I have perviouly found Groklaw articles to be very accurate and informative, e.g re SCO etc..

I didn't follow the SCO case in enough detail to be able to tell whether GroklXX's reporting was accurate. I kept my fingers crossed for the defendants all the time, and so did GroklXX, and I understand GroklXX predicted SCO's defeat early on, but I don't know whether it got all the facts right (one can arrive at the right prediction for all the wrong reasons).

For instance recently you and PJ seemed to have opposite interpretations re TurboHercules.
Given the latest news from the The Financial Times: "Microsoft buys stake in IBM accuser", I think we can safely say that you were mistaken and that PJ called it correctly from day one.

Sorry, but this is a non sequitur.

The IBM threat letters I published went back to March 2010 and November 2009 -- long before that Microsoft investment in TurboHercules apparently happened.

I never cared about whether Microsoft was or might be or would be involved with that case. I cared about the issue. I can't see that PJ would be right, particularly with her lie about IBM's pledge (with that speech that had nothing to do with the pledge and predated it by a number of months), just because of what now appears to be some kind of strategic partnership between that company and Microsoft.

Also, PJ believed that there was no antitrust issue there, but the European Commission launched formal investigations in July. So concerning the merits of the competition issues, time has proven me right. The Commission doesn't launch formal investigations (after taking a close look before doing so) without serious issues. The launch of an investigation doesn't mean that a company is guilty, but it does mean that rational people have good reasons to be profoundly concerned, just like I was.

So I would again call on you to stop the divisive attacks on Groklaw and concentrate on the real enemy.

It depends on what enemy you mean. The enemy I focus on primarily is disinformation because it prevents people from taking the right decisions and finding the best solutions.

I have perviouly found Groklaw articles to be very accurate and informative, e.g re SCO etc..

That may well be the case, but Groklaw also appears to operate a tricky mechanism that can hide the contributions of unwelcome (to the site managers) commenters from every visitor except the commenter in question, without pointing this out to anyone concerned – neither the commenter nor the rest of the readership.

Personally, I find that any site that prefers this sort of tactics to addressing criticism openly and constructively is not a site that I want to frequent.