Florian Muller seems to have a much better track record of accurate predictions about what will actually happen in patent cases than Groklaw. And he seems to be better at reporting the facts dispassionately. Groklaw seems to focus more on cheerleading for entities they favor (Linux, IBM, Google) and against ones they hate (Sun, Microsoft).
I really don't understand why so many people seem to think they are better than Muller, other than perhaps because they enjoy being told what they wanted to hear regardless of truth.
I don't read Mueller or Groklaw that much, and never did until recently, but when I do, it comes off to me as Mueller trying to sound dispassionate and hide his biases against certain parties, while contributing mostly FUD. Whereas Groklaw wears its biases openly.
Again, that's just the impression I got. I'd be interested in seeing a data-based comparison of predictions, though.
Groklaw's biases are definitely obvious, but I would want to see documentation of Florian's accurate track record. I think what most people object to is his sensationalism, particularly the seeming crises he uncovers that turn out to be nothing much (with considerable indication that he knew that they were nothing much).
I pick where I get my news to avoid that sort of source, so it's annoying when they start quoting him.
For one thing, he correctly predicted that in the Nokia vs Apple case, Apple would end up paying Nokia a royalty, which seems to be what actually happened.
For another, his predictions of the judge's likely reactions to damages requests and requests to suppress evidence in Google vs Oracle seem to be largely playing out as predicted.
I do get the feeling sometimes from reading his stuff that he may have anti-Google biases, but his facts and predictions are generally accurate and his analysis seems informed.
He's predicted that it's likely that Apple will be admitted as an intervenor in the Lodsys case, let's see if that one comes true. Likewise he predicts that Motorola Mobility will likely suffer an ITC import ban due to the Microsoft case (if not settled before then). Let's see what happens on that one.
So, the one definitive prediction he had so far is that a patent case would end in a royalty? Forgive me if I don't take that as a sign of an insightful commenter.
I gave two examples, you picked out one, and you appear to assume that this is the only time Muller has been right about anything. Somehow, it does not seem to me like you are on a dispassionate quest for truth here.
However, just in case you are: Apple and Nokia were both suing each other over various patents, and had various defenses. Often such cases end in a cross-licensing deal with little or no money changing hands. He correctly assessed that in this case Nokia had the upper hand and that Apple would end up paying. That conclusion was not obvious to casual observers at the time.
I've noticed that Florian Muller is more skilled at covering his own behind, rather than predicting patent litigation outcomes.
Every prediction he makes is hedged with a statement about how the alternate outcome is possible "even though many don't believe it's likely". Whatever his preferred outcome, he will make the stronger case for that.
Yeah, I really don't like how Groklaw tries to play the principled moral leader. I generally don't read Groklaw (including this article). You can just tell me who the principals in the case are and I can tell you what Groklaw's opinion on the "merits" are. The fact that I can pretty consistently do that tells me all I need to know.
You're missing one of the more interesting parts of groklaw -- they pull together the relevant legal documents so you can look at them yourself, if you like.
I really don't understand why so many people seem to think they are better than Muller, other than perhaps because they enjoy being told what they wanted to hear regardless of truth.