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 257603
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

sappyvcv Member since:

I guess it depends on what your definition of "legal analysis" is. I wouldn't consider any analysis of a legal document/letter/covenant to be a legal analysis. It should strictly examine the legal aspects, citing past cases that may be of relevance and codes that may come into play.

Reply Parent Score: 1

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

sappyvcv Member since:

Dude, what is wrong with you? I wasn't trying to discredit her at all. She never claimed it was a legal analysis. The guy I replied to did, and I was questioning him in this case. Christ.

Reply Parent Score: 1