Apple’s Paid Shill/Consultant Caught Out

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.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Apple’s Paid Shill/Consultant Caught Out

  1. Ivan, denying that The Balance of Nature works, wrote, “No, you can’t.”

    Any ecosystem, consisting of all the consumers and producers doing their thing, does not rely on air from an outside source. The carbon dioxide produced by consumers is recycled by plants to produce oxygen. The nitrogen and argon are just along for the ride. Any surplus or deficiency in oxygen is made up by an increase or decrease in the ratio of consumers to producers.
    e.g. Movile Cave uses chemosynthesis instead of photosynthesis to do the producing.

    If such weird and wonderful mechanisms can find a balance, how much easier is it to do so using plants and animals?

    and Slimes in igneous rock.

    See also Eco-Sphere

  2. Ivan says:

    I can create a vibrant ecosystem where productive plants live in equilibrium with animals without air from outside.

    No, you can’t. The Biosphere tried this and failed miserably. Much like your unpaid shilling for Debian.

  3. oldman says:

    “Yes. Foolish isn’t it, to pay a company for use of one’s own hardware? ”

    Yes indeed, why pay for something when you can depend of the free gift of a community to make your hardware actually do something.

    Of course that free gift may or may not meet your needs, and indeed may or may not support your hardware, And you may even get to expend time and effort.

    Just to avoid your definition of foolishness.

    IMHO The foolishness here is yours Pog.

  4. Chris Weig says:

    The many millions now running GNU/Linux are saving $billions…

    And you do know that how?

    The license costs for Windows (or any other proprietary software) are, compared to everything else, a tiny speck on everyone’s balance sheet — be it company or educational institution or private individual. It just doesn’t work the way you want it to, Mr. Pogson.

    Your poster child Munich is a prime example for “savings” with Linux. They lumped together switching from Windows to Linux and reorganizing their whole IT landscape. Yet their claim of immense savings thanks to Linux is unverifiable. Apart from some wax-weak statements from Munich’s mayor there’s no hard evidence at all. And given that the initial pre-study concluded that going with Microsoft would be economically more viable, it is highly doubtful that Munich saves money with Linux.

    Good thing the NASA didn’t want to “save” money and chose VxWorks for Curiosity.

    … by not paying M$ every time they buy new hardware or upgrade their software.

    And what do you mean by that? Unless by new hardware you mean a new computer, I don’t pay Microsoft. And even then I’m free to not pay Microsoft by getting a computer without an OS. But the truth is that for most people it simply won’t matter. They view the computer as an integrated package to which an OS is integral.

  5. Chris Weig wrote, “Constantly? As in: every four or five or 10”.

    Yes. Foolish isn’t it, to pay a company for use of one’s own hardware? Who do you keep paying so you can own a can opener other than the manufacturer? Why pay M$ “the tax”? It’s particularly foolish when you consider that it’s unnecessary… The many millions now running GNU/Linux are saving $billions by not paying M$ every time they buy new hardware or upgrade their software.

    “2. Not liable, or given, to change; permanent; regular;
    continuous; continually recurring; steadfast; faithful;
    not fickle. Opposite of changeable and variable.
    [1913 Webster]

  6. Chris Weig says:

    Paying M$ constantly for they use of hardware people own is an infinite sum of pain and cost.

    Constantly? As in: every four or five or 10 (in the case of XP) years? A weird use of the word “constantly”. Is there a Pogson-to-English dictionary somewhere?

  7. oldman wrote, ““That other OS is not essential.”

    To whom Pog?”

    Me, my wife, 80% of Munich’s employees, all of Extremadura’s employees, etc. An OS is a system for managing the resources of a computer. After you have a system that does that, you don’t need another although you can change from on OS to another with some effort. The effort is a single incident. Paying M$ constantly for they use of hardware people own is an infinite sum of pain and cost.

  8. oldman says:

    “That other OS is not essential.”

    To whom Pog?

  9. Brillo wrote, “One man, closing all the windows and suffocate.”

    I can create a vibrant ecosystem where productive plants live in equilibrium with animals without air from outside. Windows should let in light not block competition. This is the problem with choosing a generic term for a trademark. It’s not supposed to be allowed and breeds confusion/misinformation. That other OS is not essential. Neither are vinyl/glass assemblies to regulate air/light exchanges.

  10. Brillo says:

    Robert Pogson, living in a black-and-white world ever since.

    One man, closing all the windows and suffocate.

    A Shakespearean tragedy.

  11. Chris Weig says:

    Oh, it’s the old “everyone who doesn’t agree with me is a shill” number. Very exciting. Takes my breath away.

    Robert Pogson, living in a black-and-white world ever since.

  12. kurkosdr says:

    we would be paid = he would be paid

  13. kurkosdr says:

    You didn’t really expect that a man sane enough to operate a computer would start a blog covering the software patent nonsense that’s taking place in the US for fun, for free? There is not fun in it. Of course he is a sell out. If he was a real analyst, we would be paid to allow access to his articles.

    FM is particularly funny for implying software is somehow globally encumbered by soft patents, something that makes people from outside the US, UK and Germany like me laugh.

  14. dougman says:

    “Analysts sell out – that’s their business model […] But they are very concerned that they never look like they are selling out, so that makes them very prickly to work with. […] “Independent” consultants should write columns and articles, give conference presentations and moderate stacked panels, all on our behalf and setting them up as experts in the new technology, available for just $200/hour”

Leave a Reply