It is always clear what groklaw's preference is in any given case. But I've never noticed a bad bias in the facts reported.
Admittedly the SCO reporting may have sounded one-sided, but in that case the facts were legitimately also rather one-sided.
Admittedly the SCO reporting may have sounded one-sided, but in that case the facts were legitimately also rather one-sided.
But were the facts as one-sided as groklaw suggested? The judge's opinions were nowhere near as one-sided as groklaw's opinions; given a choice between believing that groklaw is biased and believing that a US district court judge is biased, I know where I stand.
As far as I can tell, they were. SCO made a lot of strong claims, and not one panned out.
I personally try to go out of my way to see the other point of view. And usually I can see things the other side says that leave me thinking, "OK, I can understand their point of view." I might not agree with it, but I can understand where they are coming from. But somehow I never saw Darl McBride say anything with that result.
For instance take a look at http://www.sco.com/copyright/ for SCO's position that the GPL is unconstitutional. I've read that many times, and every time I come away wondering what planet the author was on. The laws on copyright are very clear, have been ruled constitutional, and creates a notion of property that is the foundation of the GPL. If you don't like the license, don't use it. If you don't want to encumber your software with that license, don't use it. If other people wish to use that license, that is their prerogative.
Now possibly I'm missing something. Because a similar argument was advanced in Jacobsen v Katzer that you can't sue for a copyright interest which you weren't commercializing. So obviously a trained lawyer thought that claim was worth advancing. Yet the judge came down heavily against Katzer on that one, which suggests that I'm not missing too much there.
The judge's opinions were nowhere near as one-sided as groklaw's opinions; given a choice between believing that groklaw is biased and believing that a US district court judge is biased, I know where I stand.
Your theory is that the judge's opinions were not one-sided because he thought SCO had a good case. My theory is that he bent over backwards to be fair because he expected it to wind up being appealed, and he wanted there to be as few grounds for appeal as possible.
If you look at the decisions, the judge gave SCO every procedural technicality, and every opportunity to present their case in full. Yet in the end he came down against them on every single fact of consequence. And the case went to appeal, and most of his decision stood. Which fits perfectly with my understanding.