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





Member since:
2005-07-06
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.