Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 12:49 UTC, submitted by Captain Pirate
Legal "We can read the Linspire-Microsoft patent agreement now, or more precisely Microsoft's 'Covenant to Customers', and I thought it would be worthwhile to give it a close, line-by-line reading. I'll explain it as best I can, but ask your lawyer if it matters to you in a real-world sense. For our purposes here, let's just have fun with the worst deal I've seen yet in this category."
Thread beginning with comment 257573
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Groklaw should be linked to more often
by b3timmons on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 21:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Groklaw?"
Member since:

You and Almafeta are wrong. Let's look at the facts:

1. Linspire and Microsoft are on topic for this website.
2. Linspire's agreement with Microsoft is an important example of how Microsoft is trying to interact with its competition.
3. Groklaw offers a legal analysis of the agreement.
4. Thus, linking to the Groklaw article is appropriate for OS News.

The analysis may contain errors, but apparently no one on OS News can find any, so instead the best critics can do is attack the messenger instead of the message.

Not only is the link appropriate, but OS News would be much better off linking more often to Groklaw when Groklaw comments on the major issues of software that matter to a significant part of the OS News readership. Indeed, free software use is growing in the OS market, Groklaw has played a unique role over the years in explaining some of the issues affecting much of free software, and so it is foolish not to make use of Groklaw.

Reply Parent Score: 5

sappyvcv Member since:

Legal analysis? What makes it a legal analysis? She makes no reference to any laws or cases whatsoever. It's purely an opinion piece with a line-by-line rebuttal of the covenant.

Just because it happens to be written by a paralegal on a site called groklaw, does not make it a legal analysis.

Reply Parent Score: 1

ubit Member since:

The analysis seems to be of the convenant itself. Is Microsoft's covenant not a legal document? Groklaw is just a blog, I agree with you there, and PJ herself always says that if you want legal advice you go to an attorney, no ifs-and-or-buts.

Perhaps if Google offered a lawyerese -> English translater, Groklaw would be deprecated, but I think Google employs too many lawyers these days to let something like that out in the wild ;)

Edited 2007-07-23 22:57

Reply Parent Score: 3

b3timmons Member since:

"Legal analysis" is no kind of legal term or even any kind of defined phrase that implies anything about qualifications of the analyst. It's just a casual phrase, there is plenty of precedent of such use, and there is no danger that anyone thinks it's anything but casual given the many disclaimers about PJ's lowly paralegal status. Your fishing expedition would be more interesting with showing an error in, you know, the "legal analysis" itself, as opposed to nitpicking phrases used to describe it or the (rather predictable) style of the analysis itself.

Edited 2007-07-23 23:20

Reply Parent Score: 4

archiesteel Member since:

Again, please point out where her analysis is wrong.

Please stop trying to discredit the messenger, and actually point out mistakes in her analysis.

Reply Parent Score: 5