Apple, like M$, likes to manage the news with some level of reasonable deniability. Apple has retained Florian Mueller as a consultant. He blogged about how Oracle would kick butt in Oracle v Google (Google won, big-time) and how Apple would kick butt in Apple v Samsung (Samsung is giving as good as it gets).
Recently FM pronounced that both Apple and Samsung would be pronounced in instructions to the jury by the judge for not preserving e-mail/evidence soon enough in the case.
“this is another failed prediction for FOSSPatents. Actually, three of them. First Florian Mueller wrote, when the magistrate issued the sanction against Samsung alone, that as a result Samsung now would have a credibility problem with the jury, which could be serious for Samsung. I corrected his misunderstanding of what was happening in this article, where you will find many more details. Mueller also called Samsung’s subsequent motion for an equal adverse inference instruction "ridiculous", a motion "without merit", and one he predicted the judge would deny.
Today he wrote that there would be equal adverse inference instructions against both Apple and Samsung, calling it a "surprising" development, but opined that Apple "may very well" win on appeal on this point. He wrote too soon, probably thinking that the judge’s proposed order was final, missing the detail that the judge’s proposed jury instruction was subject to a conference today. You can’t appeal what you agreed to, as Apple did today.
Why keep pointing out his errors, you ask? Not for fun. Because it’s not fun. It is, however, part of journalistic ethics to correct misinformation that get published. It’s what journalism is for, to present the most accurate account that you can. And that sometimes means you have to correct what others have written. It’s also part of Groklaw’s mission to do antiFUD, and we have done that from day one.”
So GROKLAW keeps catching FM showing bias while publicly holding himself up to be an expert on FLOSS patent violations and the like, and a blogger/journalist.
see GROKLAW – There Will Be No Adverse Inference Jury Instructions in Apple v. Samsung After All ~pj.
The guy really is in “Technology Evangelism Mode”. He even sent me an e-mail about Oracle v Google, unsolicited. I reported it to PJ at GROKLAW as did others so she has been on FM’s case for a while.
On EU v IBM about Hercules:
“Hi Robert,
Through TechRights, which quoted you, I became aware of your comments on my drawing attention to the OpenForum Europe thing.
If you consider me a “M$ fudster” and believe that any enemy of Microsoft is a friend, it will be difficult under the combination of those two premises to have a factual discussion. But the way you phrased it on the blog may come across more biased than you actually are…”
On Open Standards:
“Hi Robert,
I saw some blog postings of yours on the EU’s Digital Agenda and Neelie Kroes’s speech last month. The debate over the European Interoperability Framework (EIF) is heating up.
On Monday, the New York Times reported on OpenForum Europe (IBM, Oracle, Google, Red Hat) and their lobbying related to the EIF. That story was a bit too much for my taste because I’ve been watching the activities of those organizations for a long time and “open” is not what they are, no matter how often they claim so.
I’d like to send you my comments on the questionable credibility of those proponents of “open standards” — attached below. I gave some examples on my blog of how those who demand “open standards” — IBM, Oracle, Google, Red Hat — clearly have double standards.”
So, the guy is clearly not an expert on FLOSS patents and is an advocate for those who pay him, not just a “consultant”. Apple clearly did not want the judge digging too deeply into that relationship and for sure telling the jury about it. I find it particularly interesting that FM used e-mail to contact me and to comment on the blog rather than commenting using WordPress. What’s with that? Clearly, he went to some trouble to dig up the e-mail address (It’s not as if I stick it on the front page.) rather than just clicking. Was he trying to influence me, going for a larger goal than just providing feedback? I “bit him on the hand” and I hope he does not return.
17474
12770
206
3
2
23917 
11868 
11720 
4643 
4263 
1641 
198 
14 
2 
0 
0 
0 
Recent Comments