Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 12th Oct 2009 18:25 UTC
Legal Now that all the nastiness of the discovery phase is behind us in the Apple vs. Psystar case, both parties are trying to get the case settled before it goes to court, much like the recent Vernor vs. Autodesk case. Both Apple and Psystar have filed motions asking for a summary judgement.
Thread beginning with comment 388851
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: OSNews legal analysis
by strcpy on Mon 12th Oct 2009 19:43 UTC in reply to "OSNews legal analysis"
strcpy
Member since:
2009-05-20

[...] look at groklaw's analysis.


You just lost all your credibility.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: OSNews legal analysis
by shotsman on Mon 12th Oct 2009 19:50 in reply to "RE: OSNews legal analysis"
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

Why have they lost all credibilty?
I'm sure there are quite a few OSNews readers who also read Groklaw.
The level of informed opinion & debate about this and other issues such as Software Patents is very high.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: OSNews legal analysis
by rhavyn on Mon 12th Oct 2009 19:55 in reply to "RE[2]: OSNews legal analysis"
rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

Why have they lost all credibilty?
I'm sure there are quite a few OSNews readers who also read Groklaw.
The level of informed opinion & debate about this and other issues such as Software Patents is very high.


Because groklaw thinks Psystar is in the wrong and provides actual real legal reasons. This infuriates the people on OSNews who believe that they are correct and anything that disputes that is bad. How else could Thom's "analysis" be taken seriously by anyone who can actually think.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

PJ has started writing drivel like this:

"This is what I saw from the beginning, that this is an attack on the GPL and on FOSS, using Apple as a smokescreen [...] I have believed from day one that Psystar's real goal is to undermine or destroy Open Source licenses, particularly the GPL. That was SCO's goal too."

The black helicopters are strong in that one. I'm sorry, but if you write unsubstantiated nonsense like that, then you lose credibility, no matter the good work she's done (and does).

She equates licenses like the GPL to EULAs, and as anyone with a sane mind will tell you, that's utter bullshit. I find it very, very odd that someone like PJ is writing such nonsense - in fact, I first thought her site had been hacked or something.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: OSNews legal analysis
by sbergman27 on Mon 12th Oct 2009 19:57 in reply to "RE: OSNews legal analysis"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

You just lost all your credibility.

imnotalawyerbutanunbelievablybiasedparalegalwholovestograndstand.com was unavailable back when groklaw went live.

Edited 2009-10-12 19:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: OSNews legal analysis
by lemur2 on Tue 13th Oct 2009 09:39 in reply to "RE: OSNews legal analysis"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"[...] look at groklaw's analysis.


You just lost all your credibility.
"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_belief

Reply Parent Score: 2