Groklaw vs. the cookie jar

Groklaw vs. the cookie jar

Summary: If Groklaw turns out to have been IBM funded from the gitgo, so what? - the site stands on its own as our premier example of how the internet can be used to sanctify a proprietary position through majority endorsement.

Arrrrg! April 1st is on a Sunday - and April fools jokes just aren't funny if read first on April 2nd, so I'm forced to put off the first annual chutzpah in IT advertising awards until Hanukkah.

Meanwhile InformationWeek released a howler last Wednesday: under the headline: "IBM Helps Fund Web Hosting For Anti-SCO Site Groklaw


Groklaw, a widely read Web site that has sided with IBM in its legal battle with The SCO Group, receives free hosting from an academic research project that is in part funded by IBM, according to the project's director.

Paul Jones, director of the University of North Carolina's ibiblio project, confirmed in an interview that ibiblio provides free Web hosting services to Groklaw and that ibiblio is funded in part by grants from IBM as well as several other tech companies with a strong interest in the promotion of the Linux operating system.

Oops! -that's right up there with Maureen O'Gara's apparent claim: (which I have from a February 17/07 blog by Barbara Darrow) that the ODSL has been helping fund Groklaw:


Maureen O'Gara's latest Client-Server News contains a bombshell. In a story headlined 'Pam on the Lam' (sic), O'Gara cites an unnamed OSDL board member saying that the group sent IBM money to Groklaw.

That's a very big charge, given P.J. and Groklaw's campaign to discredit SCO and its lawsuits vs. IBM and Novell and et al. Many, including SCO, suspected that P.J.'s Groklaw has been funded by IBM. Secretly funded, since IBM and P.J. have both denied these charges.

In reality I don't think anyone should be surprised if it turns out that these charges are true (after all, what's academic about Groklaw?) but -and I say this despite having had my own innings with the fabulous Ms. Jones - Groklaw is kind of the Glen Beck of the tech set: passionately one sided, but reasonably intelligent and up front about it. I mean, it's not like Groklaw pretends to be objective in either its reporting, its historical revisionism, or its refusal to countenance contrary opinion - although, come to think of it, Beck does give air time to democrats, but then he's a republican and subject to higher standards.

You'd think Groklaw might be too, but it isn't: it is what it is; and if it turns out to have been IBM funded from the gitgo, so what? - the site stands on its own as our premier example of how the internet can be used to sanctify a proprietary position through majority endorsement - and its ultimate influence as a model for political campaigns will, I think, greatly outweigh its transitory impact with respect to the SCO mess.


Topic: IBM

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Funny...but meaningless (NT)

    Erik Engbrecht
    • meaningless, not at all

      This clearly shows that the company that is the master FUDster is IBM.

      Most of their past actions have been political right from preveting OOXML from being ratified by the ISO as a standard.

      Wonder what Paul Jones, director of the University of North Carolina's ibiblio project has to hide. Whats he afraid to disclose.

      I'm begining to wonder -- there's on Paula Jones reporting at Groklaw, its Paul Jones writing as Paula Jones.
      • The value of the web hosting is very minimal, compared to all of the other

        costs of producing the content, and IBM is one of many contributing to the project and has no direct control. So, the money involved here is not enough to say that IBM is funding Groklaw.
        • then what are they hiding

          They can come out and state how much money was involved.
          Reveal the identity of Pamela Jones.

          There is way too fishy things going on for this to amount to nothing. If one does an investigation, you'll see all the deamons hiding behind closets.
      • meaningless, not at all

        Her name is Pamela Jones, and your opinions have lost all credibility.
  • Who's Glen Beck?

    No idea. But truly no surprise that groklaw would get funding from ibm and/or OSDL and/or both.

    It probably should be disclosed though.
    • It was never hidden who was hosting the site, and the list of contributers

      to the site. And, the value of the hosting is very minimal.

      Really nothing interesting here, given the amount of money is so insignificant.
  • Groklaw is trash, much like Slashdot (NT)

    • Well, it is understandable that people hate them documenting all of the

      dirty things that MS (and others) do. But, the only sin they commit (if you can call it that) is not publishing contrary points of view. All of the material they put up is of very high quality, otherwise, people would lose interest very quickly.
      • You'll often find....

        ... that both individuals and large corporations do not like being caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

        So with Groklaw advertising the indiscretions and outright evasions of SCO and their supporters, it is hardly surprising that they get a lot of adverse comments directed at them.

        Groklaw may publish opinions which you can agree or disagree with, but the court transcripts stand in their own right.
      • sounds like FUD to me <--- what Groklaw does

        The only sin they commit.
        dirty things that MS and others do.
        All materials put up is of very high quality.

        Dont you think you are being way to kind to them.
  • Groklaw Hosted on Ibiblio

    Groklaw is hosted on Ibiblio, which is partly funded by IBM. Ibiblio was initially funded by Sun, and currently receives funding from IBM, Red Hat, and others and is maintained by the University of North Carolina. It is the oldes library on the web. Many times when I want software I download it from Ibiblio.

    Any tech or web savvy person, who has been on the web for a while, recognizes that being hosted at Ibiblio means nothing about who is supporting you. The funding comes from many places and can change from year to year. If IBM quits funding Ibiblio tomorrow, the University will find other funding, and Groklaw will remain at the discretion of UNC, not IBM.

    Mr. Murphy's problem is simple; last week he wrote that SCO had a very good case and he still expected SCO to come out of the lawsuits OK. A few days later it is revealed that SCO has only a few hundred lines in contention and most of that is not code. Rather than admit that his opinions are starting to look bad, Mr. Murphy chooses to use misdirection. "Oh, look" he says, "IBM helps fund Groklaw by funding Ibiblio!" I despise SCO, but for all I know, my ISP is using SCO servers for hosting my site and email. Does that mean I support SCO? No, in point of fact, I can't wait to dance on the metaphorical grave of this parisitic company.

    Give it up, Mr. Murphy. SCO's claims have been shown to be worthless, and your attemps, like Maureen O'Gara's, to turn this fight into something other than what it is, have failed. Be a man, admit you were wrong, so that we can trust reading you again. Continue down the path of defending your unreasonable conclusions, and you will just continue to destroy your reputation in the IT Community.
    • Nice rant - too bad it's off topic

      If you actually read what I said.. you probably wouldn't have written this - so be a mensch, go back and read it, and I'll await your opology. And hurry it up.. I'm turning blue... ;-)
      • Troll Bait

        You knew what type of non-readers this blog would attract when you wrote it!
        Erik Engbrecht
        • LOL - ahh, but you should see

          some of the stuff I get directly. For example:
          Subject: groklaw as a study...
          Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 08:52:34 -0700 (PDT)

          It is wholly apparent to anyone with a middling of intelligence that Groklaw is a corruption of the truth and will ultimately fail in its mission because of this.

          Aspects of this corruption:

          Control of dissenting voices
          Inaccurate coloring of events
          Opaque infrastructure and funding disclosure
          Editorial license to brainwash instead of report

          It is a pretty relevant aspect of the value of that you ascribe to Groklaw as a study that the faithful are currently absolving IBM of any culpability in destroying evidence after litigation had started (IBM internal emails indicate this fact unequivocally).

          The following SCO assertation sums up the significance:

          "14. If I had known which Dynix/ptx and AIX code IBM-A???(Bs Linux programmers had retained on their programming environments or sandboxes, I would have compared the programmers-A???(B Linux disclosures to that code -A???(B which would have been easier than trying to compare the final Linux disclosures to the entire body of AIX and Dynix/ptx code available. This would have enabled more specific identification of the AIX or Dynix/ptx code on which the programmers-A???(B Linux disclosures was based"

          I am not an SCO supporter and think they were wrong for extorting Linux users.

          I think SCO has made a tactical error in not explaining well enough how the Dynix code on the developer drives would not be findable in the CMVS systems before the initial spoliation rulings.

          They may have lost this chance for explanation because the judges clearly did not get it (judges thought all information could be divined from the CMVS systems).

          I try to look at the truth and what I see is how flawed the human mind is as far as the effects of bias in ascertaining objective reality.

          Oh yeah guy, me too ...
          • SCO's tactical errors started much sooner

            SCO didn't make a tactical error when they didn't explain how they couldn't find what they were looking for on the CMVS system. SCO made a tactical error when they publicly announced, way back at the beginning of the trial, that they had millions of lines of code that were copied from the code SCO claims to have owned into Linux. Why haven't they shown those millions of lines of code to the judges that have asked them SEVERAL TIMES to specify what they're accusing IBM of misusing?

            As quoted on this page:

            " is astonishing that SCO has not offered any competent evidence to create a disputed fact regarding whether IBM has infringed SCO's alleged copyrights through IBM's Linux activities."

            This quote is from US District Court Judge Kimball -- if the judge in your case is astonished that you haven't offered up evidence, you've got more trouble than whether or not you can figure out how to use a source code repository.
          • Oh please!

            I'm sure if you searched a bit you could find people who state that the Earth is flat, JFK was assassinated by the CIA and that Elvis is flipping burgers in Alabama.

            So you've found someone who shares your distorted point of view about Groklaw - well I'm sorry Murph but it doesn't change the facts. Groklaw seems to be honest and upfront and even if it was a completely covert IBM "black-op" it still cannot pervert or change the judgements, order and transcripts of the case.

            Every time I've looked SCO's case gets smaller and less credible.
      • Sorry if you were offended...

        But I stand by what I topic for this article, maybe, but what I wrote is in reply to the spirit of a number of articles that you have written on this subject.

        You have seemed to be a passionate supporter of SCO through all of this, though granted, I have not read all of your articles.

        If I take this current article on its own, it seems somewhat positive on Groklaw, but putting this article in context with all the other articles skews that perspective, hence my post.

        I will grant you this, you are good at getting discussions started!

    • BOO-Freaking-YA!!!

      Way to post!
      Hrothgar - PCLinuxOS User
  • To Address your actual point

    For those that can't read all the way to the bottom...

    "the site stands on its own as our premier example of how the internet can be used to sanctify a proprietary position through majority endorsement - and its ultimate influence as a model for political campaigns will, I think, greatly outweigh its transitory impact with respect to the SCO mess"

    I don't think there's anything new here. It doesn't even require majority endorsement. It pays to organize loud mouths who spew things that support your cause, especially when they actually believe it.

    This has been true for as long as people have structured themselves into groups large enough to have multiple opinionated factions within them.

    And I doubt the internet has had a tenth the impact that TV or the printing press had on conveying these opinions to the masses.

    Just because 90% of "our" information intake comes off of the internet does not mean the same is true for everyone.
    Erik Engbrecht